Sahrdayaloka Part 03

Author(s): Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006910/1

Page #1

SAHRDAYĀLOKA
[Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism]
[Vol. I, Part 3]
L. D. Series : 143
General Editor Jitendra B. Shah
TAPASVI NANDI
भारतीय
विधामति
L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD - 380 009

Page #2

SAHRDAYĀLOKA [ Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism ]
[Vol. I, Part-3]
L. D. Series : 143
General Editor Jitendra B. Shah
TAPASVI NANDI
L.D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD - 380 009

Page #3

L. D. Series : 143
SAHRDAYĀLOKA [Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism ]
[Vol. I, Part-3]
TAPASVI NANDI
Published by Jitendra B. Shah
Director L.D.Institute of Indology
Ahmedabad
First Edition : 2005
ISBN 81 - 85857-25-3
Price: 700/
Typesetting Swaminarayan Mudranalaya Press
Shahibaug, Ahmedabad
Printer Navprabhat Printing Press Gheekanta Road, Ahmedabad
Tel. 25508631

Page #4

Publisher's Note
We feel pleasure to place before the learned “SAHRDAYĀLOKA” OR "Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism” - (Vol. I) by Prof. Tapasvi Nandi. The author hardly requires any introduction to the learned working in the area of Sanskrit Alamkārarśāstra or Literary Aesthetics. The work attempts to cover the basic thought - currents prevalent in Sanskrit Literary criticism, trying to unearth the origin and development of each topic beginning with the "Definition and scope of poetry, Sanskrit semantics, the theories of Dhvani, Rasa etc.” The author has taken care to record and accept the views of his predecessors in his area of research and has very gratefully acknowledged the honourable acceptance of their views and has also tried to discuss modestly differences of opinion if any, at various places. The whole work presents the material in an historical, critical and comparative perspective. We feel sure that the learned will appreciate his efforts in an unbiased way. Prof. Nandi's observations on Dhvani and Rasa deserve special mention as he has made a special effort to explain how these thought currents which form a special contribution of Indian Literary Aesthetics are relevant even to-day and how they can be applied to the most modern patterns of literature world over, including absurd poetry and absurd theatre as well.
The author also proposes to bring out Vol. II covering the area of literary criticism that is not discussed in the present volume, of course, god willing.
We are thankful to Prof. Nandi for agreeing with us to publish the present work. We are also thankful to the Swaminarayan press, and all our colleagues in seeing this work through. Hope this work will stand the test of the learned and will fulfil a gap left out by earlier experts. It may be noted that for the sake of convenience, this work is presented in three parts such as, Part I - chs. I-VII (pp. 1-575); Part II - chs. VIII-XIII (pp. 576-1195) and Part III - chs. XIV - XVIII (pp. 1196-1843), with select Bibliography (pp. 1844-1850) appearing at the end of Part III. The Publisher's note, the author's preface - Namaskaromi, contents, detailed contents and abbriviations appear in all the three parts.
Jitendra Shah
L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.

Page #5

Page #6

"Namaskaromi...."
Salutations to the Divine !
Salutations to my three Maha-gurus;
Salutations to my parents,
Salutations to all the sources
consulted by me
And, Salutations to all of you, who are all all sparks of the Divine !
"Aum pūrṇam adaḥ, pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evā'va śisyate."
"That [Source, which has been drawn upon by me is respectable and] is perfect,
This [Work, which is presented before you in this respectable shape] is perfect.
Perfect (material-; ideas, inspiration) has been drawn from perfect (respectable, reliable source). After drawing upon perfect (material) from perfect (and respectable source), only the perfect is left behind (before you)."
This, in short, is the story of my spiritual endeavour that started on 7th Aug. 2000 A.D. and reached its completion on 20th July, 2003 A.D.

The great yogin said, "In the stillness of the night, the eternal speaks." And yes; I do not know when, in the stillness of the night, my eyes kept wide open staring in the darkness around me, and when these thought-currents sneaked into my inner consciousness from various sources-first like light ripples of the quiet and dignified flow of the sacred Ganga, and then like the mighty billows of the stormy Atlantic, dashing against the shores, washing them clean. They settled into my mind and then sank deep into it. I do not know when my eyes were closed and

Page #7

I was overpowered by sleep, as if embraced by the Divine Grace ! I feel floating in the wide stream, rich in currents and cross-currents, whirls and pulls; deep, full fathom five; quiet and dignified. I feel dragged and dragged, up and down, and then I slip towards the bottom, like in the womb of the mother earth, with a hundred thousand daffodils, red and pink, green, blue, white, violet and goldenon top of the surface !
So, as suggested in the beginning, I have accepted, with gratitude, of course after verifying with the original, the material, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, at times, from the works of my predecessors, who I thought are most reliable, and for whom I have tremendous respect and love in my heart, from their works, dealing with the topics of word and meaning as discussed by the ancients the Mīmāmsakas, the Naiyayikas and above all the great Vaiyakaraṇas, - the "prathame hi vidvāmsaḥ" as Anandavardhana would call them. I take these works as starting points, and as absolutely relaible sources and they are authored by great scholars such as Dr. P. C. Chakrawarty, Prof. Devasthali and Prof. Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, Dr. Sri P. Ramchandrudu and some others. At every step, wherever I have sought inspiration and help from these master works, I have clearly indicated my indebtedness.
-
My work has grown both in size and dignity due to this, like the sacred flow of the Ganga growing vaster and vaster with the waters from the innumerable springs, rivulets and rivers mixing with the main stream; and shooting out from the bosom of the great Nagádhiraja Himalaya. Those who have undertaken the "caturdhāma yatra" are a witness to this. By accepting everything from various springs the Ganga has carved out its own identity, sanctity and dignity. Same is the case with this work. owe a lot to the great modern ṛṣi-trayi-i.e. Dr. P. V. Kane, Dr. S. K. De and Dr. V. Raghavan, in particular, who has shaped my views on Bhoja. But it may also be noted that, without showing disrespect, I have ventured to dispute their results, and this happens quite often with Dr. Raghavan, when I feel, on verifying with the original words of Bhoja, that I am on firmer ground. This, the discreet will find out for himself, and there is no doubt about it. But this does not minimize their greatness and my adoration for their lotus-feet. They are the great thinkers spreading light and bearing the torch of Indian Literary Aestetics for the modern scholars, both in east and west alike.

Over and above this, I owe everything, i.e. beginning from my initiation into this ancient lore of Sahitya-sastra to whatever I have done till day, in serving its
-
-

Page #8

(xi) cause, to my great gurus - the three of them, the 'guru-sikhi-trayi' of professors R. C. Parikh, R. B. Athavale, and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni and especially Dr. Kulkarni; for it is he who even to-day, at the age of 85+ yrs., inspires me, guides me and blesses me and in my moments of personal despondency fills me with warmth, love, guidance and inspiration.
I am also indebted to the works of some of my senior contemporaries and to most of them personally also when I have met them, such as Dr. Rama Ranjan Mukherjee, Dr. Mukund Madhava Sharma, Dr. Pratap Bandopadhyāya, Prof. Dr. Satyavrata Shastri, Prof. Rasik Vihari Joshi and my most respected and learned friends such as Prof. Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi, Prof. Dr. Kamalesh Dutta Tripathi, the late Prof. Ramcandra Dwivedi (Jaipur), the late Prof. Biswanath Bhattacharya (Shantiniketan), the late Prof. K. Krishnamoorty, Prof. N. P. Unni, Prof. Dr. K. K. Chaturvedi, and prof. Dr. S. D. Joshi, and some very brilliant young friends such as Prof. Dr. Sarojaben Bhate, Dr. C. Ramchandran, Prof. Dr. V. N. Jha, Dr. G. C. Tripathi, Dr. Radhavallabh Tripathi, Prof. M. M. Agrawal Dr. Goparaju, Rama, Dr. Jagannatha Pathak, and the rest. I have met all these dignitaries personally and I stand benifitted. I also will show my respect for Prof. Sri. Ramchandrudu for his great work on Jagannātha. True, my Guru Prof. Athavale taught me some portion of the great R. G., and his work on Pundit Jagannātha is monumental.
So, I am made of all these stalwarts. But kindly note that with all this I remain myself, i.e. I have carefully carved out and preserved my identity. If at all I have accepted their ideas and views as sacred mantra, it is because I feel convinced about the same. I feel convinced first about their reliability and integrity, and then their output; their great reputation apart. Believe me, and I am honest, that I have practically verified every source in the original, before putting the stamp of my humble acceptance of their thoughts and writing. It is never a blind acceptance. In the words of Rājasekhara - "tad etad svīkaraṇam, na tu haraṇam.” I have accepted them, for I have found them acceptable, like the great Vāgdevatávatāra Mammaţa or the great Kalikāla-Sarvajña ācārya Hemacandra accepting the dictates of Abhinavaguptapadācārya, or like the latter himself accepting the ruling of his seniors when he says :
"ürdhvo'rdhvam āruhya yad artha-tattvam dhīh paśyati, śrāntim avedayantī, phalam tad adyaiḥ parikalpitānām viveka-sopāna-paramparāņām."

Page #9

However, the discreet will find out that my acceptance ends with the field covering the ancient literature laying down the thoughts of the Mimāmsakas, the Naiyāyikas and the Vaiyākaranas. With our entry into the wide and open field of Alamkāraśāstra proper, i.e. with the works of Bharata, Bhāmaha and down to Jagannātha, of course including Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata, I have tried to project some original line of thinking that may prove to be of great value to the adhikārins. This is a modest claim but a sure one. I have accepted ideas and also drafting from Gnoli, Masson, Patwardhan, K. Krishnamoothy, and the rest, but with a touch of my own original contribution. I feel I am on absolutely sure and safe ground when I travel through this area of alamkāra-Šāstra proper, convering nearly two thousand years of creative thinking. My work will surely guide the adhikari aspirant who wants to have a glimpse of the greatness of the Indian ācāryas, who have left behind their foot-prints on the sands of literary aesthetics. It may be noted that I have presented the rasa theory in a new perspective, and believe me, this is what I claim for sure, - a perspective which acknowledges the catholicity of rasa theory as it seems to serve the cause even of what they term 'absurd theatre' or 'absurd poetry'. I am sure the discerning will take note of all this and try to evaluate this work in an unbiased way. At the same time may I remind the learned of the words of Jayanta who said, "kutósti nútanam vastu ?", or of the words quoted as above of Abhinavagupta suggesting that all fresh results follow the achievements of the earlier masters, i.e. after climbing the 'viveka-sopāna-paramparā' one gets into something fresh. So, I invite the sensitive and thoughtful adhikārins to have a soft corner for me and extend their helping hand. The great Mahimā observes : (Vyakti-viveka) -
“yuktóyam atmasadņśān prati me prayatno nā'sty eva taj jagati, sarva-manoharam yat, kecij jvalanti, vikasanty, apare nimilanty
'anye yad abhyudayabhāji jagat-pradīpe.” The discerning are requested to read every line, before pronouncing a judgement.... I wish that only those, through whose arteries and veins alamkāraśāstra flows, should venture to review this work. No lesser soul should attempt it. So, we humbly say -
“adya pratanyate'smābhiḥ vidusām prītaye mudā astādaśā'dhikariņi mīmāmsā kāvya-vartmani.”
miks that only those through water beceries and relia arambira

Page #10

This forms only the first volume of my “Sahrdayā"loka" or "Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism." The proposed second volume will try to study the concepts of guna, dosa, alamkāra, laksana, aucitya, rīti, vịtti, kaviśikṣā and some modern writers on Sanskrit poetics, such as Dr. Rewaprasadjee etc.
I sincerely thank the publishers and Shri. Dr. Jitendra Shah the Director, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, for seeing this work through. I also thank his collegues, and also Principal Kanjibhai Patel for kindly co-operating with us. The press - Shri Swaminārāyana Mudrana Mandir, of course deserves full praise and thanks for doing its job so carefully.
I also thank, Smt. Harsha Nandi, my wife, Smt. Chinmayee M. Rali, my beloved daughter, M. Pharm., Dr. Mayur S. Rali, M.D., D.G.O., my son-in-law, and our two grandsons - Parth who studies medicine, and Mit, doing physiotherapy bearing with me through all the inconveniences caused due to my sādhanā, and providing love and inspiration through out the course of these three years when this work was carried out. I also thank the Divine, and our Sadguru Raja-yogi Shri Narendrajee for his blessings and who has also suggested that even after this polite achievement, I have to travel further, through the woods, dark, deep and lovely, before I rest and lay down my pen. Aum mā Aum. iti Sivam...
TAPASVI NANDI
19 Aug. 2004 Asopālava, 4, Professors' Colony, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 (Gujarat State) India.

Page #11

Ch. No.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
or
"Definition and scope of poetry." (Introduction p. 1-12) Śabda-vyāpāra-vicara; Śabdavṛttis; recognised in the
works of earlier ālamkarika-s such as Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana Udbhata and Rudrata
[i.e. Anandavardhana's purvā"cārya-s] 'Pratīyamāna artha'
Title
Implicit sense, as seen in
the earlier alamkarika-s such
as Bhamaha, Dandin, etc.
Śabda-vṛttis, the nature of; "Abhidhā”
Tätparya
Lakṣaṇā
Vyañjanā
Vyañjana-virodha
or
Contents

Opposition to suggestive power
Classification of Poetry (form - oriented) Classification of Poetry (contd.) (criticism oriented;) dhvani, guṇībhūta-vyangya,
citra; or uttama, madhyama, avara, etc.
Page No.
1-125
126-203
204-229
230-248
249-368
369-453
454-575
576-709
710-778
779-967
968-1041

Page #12

Ch. No.
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI.
XVII
XVIII
Title
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja
and others and
Gunībhūta-vyangya-kāvya
and citra-kavya
Dhvani and other thought
currents such as guna, alamkara, samghatanā,
rīti, vṛtti, etc.
and also
Dhvani-Virodha.
The Concept of 'Rasa', as
seen in veda and ancient
literature and then in Bharata and earlier
alamkarikas from Bhamaha
to Rudrata
Concept of 'Rasa' as seen in Anandavardhana and others posterior to him. Rasa-nispatti-vicara
in
Abhinavagupta Rasa-nispatti-vicāra
in
Mammața, some others
and
Jagannatha.
Daśa-rupaka-vicāra
Detailed Contents

Page No. 1042-1152
1153-1195
1196-1277
1278-1490
1491-1593
1594-1629
1630-1843

Page #13

Detailed Contents Ch. I Introduction, p. 1-12; Definition and scope of poetry, p. 12-14;
Bhāmaha, p. 14; Dandin, p. 24; Vāmana, p. 30; Udbhata, p. 36; Rudrata, p. 37; Anandavardhana and his followers, p. 39; Rājasekhara, p. 42; Kuntaka, p. 42; Kșemendra, p. 60; Bhoja, p. 60; Agnipurāņa, p. 63; Mahimabhatta, p. 64; From Mammața to Viśvanātha, p. 81; Mammata, p. 81; Hemacandra, p. 86; Vāgbhata I, p. 86; Vägbhata II, p. 87; Jayadeva, p. 87; Viśvanātha, p. 91; Vidyadhara, p. 88; Vidyānātha, p. 89; Keśava Miśra, p. 97; Jagannātha, p. 101; J.'s criticism of Mammata's definition of poetry, p. 109; J.on Visvanatha's definition of poetry, p. 114, later challanges to J.'s definition of poet
ry, p. 115; Kāvya-hetu and Kāvya-prayojana, p. 119; Ch. II Śabda-vyāpāra-vicāra or Powers of a word; general introduction, p.
126; ancient background, p. 129; word meaning relationship, p. 132; the vākya padiya, p. 134; Mimāņsakas, p. 137; artha-jñāna or determination of sabdārtha, p. 142; pravṛtti-nimitta of sabda, p. 146; Naiyāyikas, p. 148; how is sanketa apprehended, p. 148; Bhartrhari, p. 150; word and its import, p. 153; the vaiyākaranas * patañjali *; mīmāmsakas; p. 157 different views as mentioned in the V.P., p. 164 Naiyāyikas; p. 164 Bharthari's V.P.; p. 165 Ālamkārikas; p. 171 Etimologists; p. 175; Short Summary of total heritage; p. 175 Śabda-vrttis as seen in different schools of thought such as the vaivākaranas, mīmāmsakas etc. p. 181; mimamsakas; p. 192
naiyāyikas; p. 198 Navya-Naīyāyikas, p. 200 Ch. III. Bhāmaha; p. 205 Dandin p. 217 Vāmana; p. 220 Udbhata; p. 225
Rudrata p. 226 Ch. IV p. 230; Bhāmaha; p. 232 Dandin; p. 242 Vāmana, p. 247; Udbhata,
p. 247; Rudrața; p. 247 Ch. V General Introduction; p. 250 Abhidhā; p. 252 classification p. 252;
Jagannātha, Maha-siddhantin; p. 253; Bhoja p. 276; Mukula and others p. 285; Kuntaka; p. 300; Mahimā; p. 306, rethinking p. 332 Mammata p. 333 Mammata's definition of abhidh. p. 345;

Page #14

Hemacandra; p. 347; Jayadeva p. 349; Vidyadhara, p. 358, Vidyānātha, p. 358; Viśvanātha p. 359; Keśava, p. 359; Appayya
Dixit p. 360. Ch. VI General Introduction, p. 369; Vākya, its import; p. 370; Vākya;
definition p. 371; Patañjali, p. 371; naiyāyikas p. 371; The grammarians p. 372; what is vākyártha ? p. 374; Mimāmsakas p. 377; constitution of a sentence, different views; p. 378; Naiyāyikas p. 381; nimitta of vākyártha p. 385; Prabhākara p. 391; ālamkārikas; p. 396 the nature and scope of tātparya-vrtti; p. 398 tātparyajñāna p. 409; anvitā'bhidhānavāda and abhihitā'nvayavāda p. 414; anvitābhidhānavāda p. 415; abhihitānvayavāda p. 421; tātparya p. 426; dhananjaya/dhanika p. 427; tātparya in Bhoja p.
433; Mammata and his followers p. 444; Ch. VII three conditions p. 454; grammarians p. 455; Patañjali, Gautama
p. 458; mukhya, gauņa, mīmāmsakas, p. 459; alamkārikas 482; Mukula 482; Kuntaka 484; Kumārila 485; types of laksaņā 489; Mukula 492; Mammata 492; gauni, compound words, sentence
laksana, Bhartrhari p. 503; Hemacandra p. 521; Bhoja p. 521; I Jayadeva p. 526; Vidyadhara p. 531; Vidyānātha p. 534; Viśvanātha
p. 534; Keśava 539; Appayya p. 540; Jagannātha p. 550; Ch. VIII vedic sages p. 576; grammarians, mīmāmsakas, naiyāyikas, yāska
p. 577; dr. Saroja Bhate p. 578; Pāṇini, patañjali p. 589, Bhartphari, p. 591; Sphotavada and vyanjana p. 599; vyanjana as accepted by Anandavardhana and his followers p. 601; sources; veda p. 602; The Nirukta p. 618; Rk Prātiśākhya p. 620; Astādhyāyi p. 620; Mahābhāsya p. 621; germs of vyañjanā in Bhāsa, Aśvaghosa, Kālidāsa etc. p. 622; Anandavardhana; (with Locana); p. 630; Mahimā p. 654; Anandavardhana p. 656; Mammata p. 658; abhidhāmülā-vyañjanā, 659; Abhinavagupta; p. 680; Mammata p. 685; Hemacandra p. 687; Jayadeva p. 688; Vidyādhara p. 689; Keśava, p. 690; Vidyānātha p. 690; Viśvanātha p. 691; Appayya
p. 693; Jagannātha p. 694; Ch. IX. Abhinavagupta p. 711; Mammata p. 726; Mukula p. 748, Kuntaka
p. 752, Bhoja p. 752; Mahimā p. 752; Dhanika p. 753; Hemacandra p. 772; Vidyadhara p. 773; Vidyānātha p. 773; Viśvanātha p. 773;

Page #15

Detailed Contents Ch. X. Bhāmaha p. 780; Dandin p. 785; Vamana p. 795; Rudrata p. 799;
Anandavardhana p. 811; Abhinavagupta p. 814; Bhoja p. 816; Bhoja nataka etc., p. 818; nidarśanam p. 820; manthulli p. 821; manikulyā p. 822, kathā, khanda-kathā, upakathā, p. 822; bịhatkathā, campū, p. 824; parva-bandha, kāņdabandha, p. 825; sargabandha, āśvāśaka-bandha, p. 826; sandhibandha, avaskandhakabandha, kavya-śāstra, p. 827; kośa, p. 829; samhitā, sāhitya-prakāśa, p. 830; Abhinavabhārati p. 836; uparūpakas nātikā p. 834; Hemacandra p. 851, Nātyadarpana 852; Sāradātanaya, NLRK. 852, Vāgbhata II, “ingabhūpāla, Vidyādhara, Vidyānāthạ Viśvanātha
p. 852; individually considered from Bhoja onwards 853. Ch. XI p. 968; dhvani, dvanyaloka; locanakära p. 975; dhvani-prabheda p.
984; table showing varieties of dhvani p. 988; vyañjaka-mukhena bhedāh, p. 999; alamkāras, rasavat etc. p. 1006; vyañjaka-mukhena bhedāḥ, 1009; prabandha as rasavyañjaka p. 1012; suggestivity of vịtti, rīti, p. 1014; varnas as suggestive of rasa p. 1015; padas - rasavyañjaka, p. 1015; rasa-virodhi, its parihāra p. 1016; virodhisamāveśa p. 1020; supremacy of rasa in poetry p. 1029; Mammața p. 1030; Hemacandra and Jayadeva p. 1031; Vidyadhara, Vidyānātha Viśvanātha, p. 1031; Jagannātha p. 1032; uttamottama,
etc. 1032; further classification of dhvani by J. p. 1032; Ch. XII. Dhvani in earlier alamkārikas, Bhāmaha and others p. 1043;
Kuntaka p. 1045; Bhoja p. 1091; Bhoja-Tātparya, p. 1111; gunībhūtavyangya and citra kāvya p. 1125; citra kavya p. 1127; gunībhūta - vyangya, Anandavardhana 1127; Abhinavagupta's attitude 1133; Mammata madhyama kavya, etc. p. 1133; Hemacandra, p. 1137; Visvanātha p. 1138; Jagannatha, four-fold scheme p. 1139; Jayadeva p. 1141; Vidyadhara; Vidyānātha; Keśava; citra-kavya p. 1143; Anandavardhana and others p. 1144; Mammața p. 1149; Vidyānātha, p. 1149; Viśvanātha p. 1150;
Keśava p. 1151; Appayya Dīkṣita p. 1151; Jagannātha p. 1152 Ch. XIII. dhvani and alamkāra p. 1154; samghatanā p. 1156; rīti, vịtti, p.
1163; Locana, p. 1165; Mammaţa p. 1166; Hemacandra p. 1172; Jayadeva p. 1173; Vidyadhara, p. 1174; Vidyānātha p. 1174; Viśvanātha p. 1175; Jagannātha p. 1176; Opposition to dhvnikāra's

Page #16

supremacy, p. 1178; Vimarsini, opponents of dhvani p. 1178; Locana p. 1180; refutation, dhvani-twofold- p. 1192;
Ch. XIV Rasa in RV. p. 1196; Rasa in Yv. p. 1199; Rasa in Samaveda p. 1199; Rasa in AV p. 1200; Amara, Hemacandra on word 'rasa'; p. 1202; Rasa,various meanings in vedic literature, conclusion p. 1203; NS. I. 7; rasan atharvaṇād p. 1207; Hymns of AV.; love lyrics p. p. 1217; Rasa in the Upanisads p. 1219; Rasa in the Nirukta; 'Rasa' in Bṛhaddevatā p. 1221; Rasa in Panini and Patanjali p. 1221; Rasa in Aśvaghosa, Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, p. 1224; Rasa in Bharata Muni, NS. p. 1240; Bharata on Bhāvas p. 1248; Bhamaha p. 1256; Dandin p. 1262; Vamana p. 1267; Udbhața p. 1268; Rudrața p. 1271;
Ch. XIV *; Rasa in Anandavardhana p. 1278; asam'aksyakrama-vyangya (= rasa"di dhvani) with reference to varna etc. p. 1285; and samghaṭanā; types p. 1285; prabandha-suggestive of rasa; p. 1286; rasa"di-dhvani suggested by case-terminations, etc., p. 1287; obstacles in rasa-vyañjanā; p. 1288; rasa as aesthetic relish for all art-critics p. 1290; virodhi-rasa-vyavasthā; opposite sentiments p. 1291; overcoming opposition between two rasas p. 1293; other concepts, vṛtti, etc. and rasa p. 1294; alamkāra, guna, dosa and rasa 1298; Mukula and rasa p. 1300; Kuntaka p. 1302; Dhananjaya and Dhanika p. 1310; Mahimabhatta p. 1310; Bhoja p. 1317; Agnipurāna p. 1330; Mammața p. 1334; Hemacandra p. 1339; Vägbhața I p. 1340; Vägbhața II, p. 1341; Jayadeva p. 1341; Vidyadhara p. 1342; Vidyanatha p. 1343; Viśvanatha II p. 1348; Bhanudatta p. 1363; Keśava Miśra p. 1364; Jagannatha p. 1367; Rasa in works on dramaturgy; Daśrupaka; p. 1373; Natya darpana; Ramacandra and Gunacandra; 1388; Bhāva-prakāśana, p. 1401; Śāradātanaya; bhāva p. 1402; Śaradātanaya on rasa; p. 1426; Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa ratna koṣa; Sāgaranandin p. 1459; Rasārṇavasudhakara of Singabhūpāla p. 1465; Bhāva and rasa in Rs. 1465.
Ch. XVI. rasa-sutra p. 1492; Lollata 1493; Lollata's view; Locana; refutation of Lollata by Śri. Śankuka; as read in Locana; in Abh. p. 1500; Śṛi. Śankukas views on rasa-niṣpatti, Abh. p. 1502; Tota Abh. on Sankuka's view p. 1507; samkhya view in Abh. p. 1516; sankuka's view in

Page #17

Locana p. 1516; Bhattanāyaka's view in Abh. and then in Locana; p. 1518; Abhinavagupta's view on rasa-nispatti; p. 1527; seven obstacles; rasa-vighnas; Abh.; p. 1542; Explanation of rasa-sutra by Abhinavagupta p. 1554; Locana; rasa-nispatti p. 1563; All rasas, blissgiving p. 1578; Santa rasa p. 1578; catholicity of rasa-theory p. p.
1583; Ch.XVII rasa-nispatti-vicāra; Mammața to Jagannātha. *; Mammața p. 1594;
Jagannātha p. 1601; Ch. XVIII Nāțaka 1632; Dasarūpaka p. 1646; Itivítta p. 1652; artha-praksti
sp. 1654; five avasths p. 1658; Sandhis and Sandhyangs p. 1661; artho'paksepakas p. 1666; sandhis and sandhangas, further discussion p. 1670; Nātya-darpana p. 1676; Bhāvaprakāśana *; NLRK. p. 1682; Sāhityadarpana *; Rasārņava Sudhākara p. 1696; Sandhyantaras p. 1702; Comparative and critical study of sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s p. 1705; Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's view; sixty four sandhyangas p. 1714; conclusions concerning sandhyangas p. 1736; Bhoja p. 1749; A comparative and critical table of sandhyangas p. 1749; Types of drama; nātaka p. 1795; five special types of drama in Bāva prakāśana 1800; Prakarana p. 1807; Samavakāra p. 1811; īhāmțga p. 1821; Dima 1825; Vyāyoga p. 1828; Utsrstikā’nka; p. 1830; prahasana p. 1831; Bhāna p. 1834; Vīthī p. 1836;

Page #18

Abbreviations
AVM. A-bh AG. A-se.
A.
Bhā B.P.
B.
Bho. DR. Da. Dha Dhy. Dhv. L. H. (or. H. C.)
Abhidhāvstta-Mātrkā of Mukula. Abhinavabharati Abhinavagupta Alamkāra-sekhara-Keśava; Anandavardhana Bhāmaha Bhāva Prakāśana Bharata Bhoja Daśa-rūpakaDandin Dhanañjaya - Dhanika Dhvanyāloka. Dhvanyāloka-Locana-Abhinavagupta's. Hemacandra. Jagannātha K. Krishnamoorthy, Prof. Kävyā'lamkāra, Bhāmaha. Kävyā'lamkāra-Sūtra-vrtti-Vāmana's Kavya'nuśāsana, Hemacandra. Kāvyā”darśa-Dandin Kavya Prakāśa. KumārilaKuntaka, Mimamsa-Sutra.
K. Kris. Kā. Kā.Sū.Vs. Kā-śā KD. K. P. Ku. K.
Mi-Sū.

Page #19

Mbh.
M.
M.
NLRK.
N. S.
P.
PR.
RS.
R. G.
śā
Śr.Pra.
Ś.B.
Så
Sā
S-D.
SP.
S.K.Ā.
Väg.
Vātsyä
V. J.
V. Vya.V.

Mahābhāṣya Mahimabhatta;
Mammata.
Nāṭaka-Lakṣaṇa-Ratna-Kosa
Natyaśāstra, Bharata;
Pāņini
Punditarāja-Jagannath.
Rasa'rṇavasudhakara.
Rasa-Gangadhara
Śāradātanaya Śṛngara-Prakāśa; Bhoja
Śingabhūpāla
Sāgaranandin
Să-Sāyaṇa (in vedic context)
Sahityadarpaṇa-Viśvaanātha
Sanskrit Poetics, S. K. De. Sarasvati-Kaṇṭhā”- bharaṇa.
Vägbhata II
Vātsyāyana
Vakrokti Jivita; Kuntaka
Viśvanatha
Vyakti-Viveka

Page #20

SAHRDAYĀLOKA [Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism]
Part-III
: Part II of this work takes care of the topic of vyanjanā', followed by vyañjanā. virodha. Then classification of poetry, both outer-form oriented and what we term as criticism based such as dhvani, gunībhūta-vyangya and citra, is taken care of. It may be noted that dasarūpaka-vicāra is not considered at this juncture but is reserved for part III. The concept of Dhvani was either included in some other concept advanced by some post-Anandavardhana literary critic, or was denounced by some who tried to cut at the root of the very concept of vyañjanā-vrtti. But it has been observed that none of these so-called anti-dhvani theorists could over-rule the fact of an implicit sense and the greater fact of 'rasa' in poetry and drama. It has been suggested that the wider and more liberal and perhaps more catholic scheme of vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa as advanced by Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and their followers down to Jagannātha finally prevailed as the most rational and acceptable doctrine of literary criticism. We do not agree with the vehement attempts by such stalwarts as Dr. Revaprasādjee to denounce vyañjanā-dhvani. In fact Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and their followers look more humble and genuinlly critical in their exposition. Even Mahimā and Dhanañjaya/Dhanika his predeccessors were very polite even while disagreeing with the great Dhavanikāra. We stand by the most catholic scheme of vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa which has the grace and strength to cover in its embrace such attempts as absurd theatre or absurdpoetry.

Page #21

Chapter XIV The concept of “Rasa”
[as seen in the Vedas and Vedic literature. Yāska, Pānini; Patañjali; Rasa in earlier poetic works; Bharatamuni and earlier Alamkārikas from Bhảmaha to Rudrata."]
An attempt is made in this chapter first to examine the semantic history of the word 'rasa' in the earliest available literature of the world, viz. the vedas and then the literature going with the same such as the vedángas, particularly Yāskaś Nirukta and the Astädhyāyi of Pānini, followed by Patañjaliś bhāsya over the same, and then after searching for the speacial connotation of the word 'rasa' in its aesthetic context, to examine Bharataś Nātya-śāstra (N. S.) and also the works of the alamkārikas such as the ancients, Bhāmaha and the rest, who preceded Anandavardhana. This will serve as a background for the theory of 'rasa' as seen in works of Indian literary aesthetics. Of course, with Bharata onwards we find 'rasa' in the aesthetic sense of artexperience in general and Anandavardhana onwards it remains a matter of discussion whether 'rasa', the supreme aesthetic-experience accepted by one and all, is conveyed through the medium of vyañjanā or something else, both in drama and poetry. We will begin with the vedas first. We will also examine the use of the term 'rasa' in actual literatare of earlier Masters beginning with Aśvashosa.
'Rasa' is a word of frequent occurrence in vedic and early classical Sanskrit literature. We have the following observation
'Rasa' occurs in the RV. (=Rig Veda) as below : Rv.I. 23.23, “rasena". According to Sāyana
According to Griffith, jala-sāren
"essence" 37.5 "rasasya” go-kşīra-rūpasya;
‘rain' 71.5 “rasam" prthivyāḥ sārabhūtam haviḥ; 'juice'. 105.2, "rasam" 'purusasya sārabhūtam vīryam; "bliss of love' 187.4 : “rasāḥ” şad rasāḥ, svādv-amlādi; juices 187.5; "rasanām” svādv amlādīnām; sannām savours of juice

Page #22

The concept of "Rasa"
Rv. V, 43.4; 'rasam'- somasya;
44.13; 'rasavat'- säravat (payaḥ) 44.21, 'rasaḥ'- 'rasaniyaḥ praśasyo rasavān rasā"tmako vā (induḥ) (somaḥ) rasāḥ, soma-rasāḥ
63.8
Rv. VII, 104-10 rasam sāram
Rv. VIII 1.26 rasinaḥ
rasinaḥ
rasaḥ
rasam -
3.1
3.20
53.3
Rv. IX. 6.6.
rasam
(somam)
16.1
rasam (somasya) rasam (somasya)
23.5
39.5
rasaḥ
61.17 rasaḥ
61.18 rasaḥ
Rv. IX 67.8 67.15 rasam 67.31 rasam
67.32 rasaḥ
-
74.9 rasaḥ
76.1
rasaḥ
77.5
rasaḥ
79.5 rasam
84.5
rasaḥ
85.1
86.10 rasaḥ

-
-
·
rasa-vat
rasavataḥ
·
62.6 rasam (somasya) 62,13 rasam (,, )
64.24 rasam (,,) 65.15 rasam (,, )
rasā❞tmakómṛtamayaḥ
ātmīyam dravam
According to Sāyaṇa
rasaḥ; (somamayaḥ) (somasya) veda-rasa-bhūtam
(soma-rasāḥ)
sāram
sūkta-samgham,
vedasāram sūkta-samgham
(somasya)
(rasā❞tmakaḥ somaḥ)
(rasā❞tmakaḥ somaḥ)
somam
rasa-rupaḥ somaḥ
rasasya svāmśam pītvā
rasa-rupaḥ (somaḥ)
juice
sweet-flavoured
juice pleasant
libations
essence
savoury
savoury juice
juice
essence
juice
juice
Sap
juice
39
33
در
39
39
According to Griffith
juice
دو
essence
essence
juice
juice
دو
39
در
در
1197
a

Page #23

SAHRDAYĀLOKA
1198
96.21 rasaḥ (somasya) 97.1 rasam ātmīyam rasam
97.12 rasena (ātmiyena) * 97.14 rasāyyah rasena āsvādyah
juice
abounding in sweet flavours essence juice
juices of juicy Sap moisture Sap
Griffith 'rasa'
97.57 rasena · 109.11 rasam 109.20 rasena (gavyena) 113.2 rasam - 113.5 rasāh -
113.5 rasinah rasavataḥ Rv. X 9.2 rasaḥ (sva-bhūtaḥ)
9.9 rasena (sva-rasena)
76.5 rasam (somasya) “Rasā' occurs in the RV. as below :
Sāyana Rv.I. 112.12 rasām rasā, nadi bhavati
rasataḥ, śabda-karmaṇaḥ
(Nir. 11-25) Rv. IV 43.6 rasayā (rasane) Rv. V. 41.45 rasā sārabhūtā bhūmih 53.9 rasa nadi-nāma
etat Rv. VIII. 49.2 rasāh jalāni 72.13 rasā rasa ājam
payasi Rv. IX 41.6 rasănadi rasā Rv. X 75.6 rasayā (nadi) rasā 108.1 rasāyāḥ śabdāyamānāyāḥ rasā
antarikse
nadyah 108.2 rasāyāḥ nadyāḥ rasā 121.4 rasayā raso jalam,
tad-vatī, rasa rasā nadī;
wave rasā river
water-brooks
river

Page #24

1199
The concept of "Rasa" “Rasa' occurs in the śukla Yajurveda as below : Yv. I. 21 rasena pistākhya-rasena
acc-to Uvata and
Mahidhara II. 32 rasāya rasabhūtāya
99
vasantāya
tatratyaḥ sārah
IX. 3 rasaḥ rasaḥ, sāraḥ IX. 3 rasam apām, rasam, sāram, XI. 51 rasaḥ apām sāraḥ; XVIII. 9 rasah XIX, 35 rasinaḥ rasavataḥ somasya XIX. 75 rasam sāram XIX 79 rasam XIX 83 rasam XIX 94 rasena (apām) rasena XX. 22 rasase rasena XX. 27 rasaḥ soma-rasah Yv.XXV. 9 rasena XXV. 12 rasayā XXXI. 17 rasāt XXXIII. 21 rasah XXXVI. 15 rasah XXXIX. 4 rasah
(a-jena)
vīryeņa nadya adbhyaḥ sambhịtaḥ nadi (somaḥ) (annasya) rasaḥ sāraḥ
The Sāmaveda (SV.) has 'Rasa' at,
SV. I. 239
526 558
561 II. 162
240
rasinah rasam rasah rasasya rasāḥ rasā

Page #25

1200
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
371
693
241
rasah 360
rasam
rasena 381
rasah 428
rasam 578
rasaḥ 627
rasah 648
rasam 649
rasam 650
rasah
rasam 743
rasinah 749
rasam 771
rasinah 807
rasāyyaḥ 1188
rasah The Atharvaveda (AV.) has 'rasa' as below : AV. I. 5.2 rasaḥ (sāyana)
sārabhūtah amsah I. 28.3 rasasya asșg ādirūpasya
śarīragatasya AV. II. 4.5 rasebhyaḥ aușadhi-sāra
bhūta-kāşthebhyaḥ 26.4 rasam udakam ca balakaram -
rasam eva 26.5 rasam dhānyam rasam 29.1 rase sārabhūte
manthodake AV.III. 13.5 rasaḥ apām rasaḥ
Whitney savour · Sap
juices
Sap
Sap of grain Sap of what is earthly Whitney (pp. 109) observes that the description in pada (almost)

Page #26

The concept of "Rasa"
makes us fancy some kind of mineral water to be had in view)
AV. III. 28.4 rasaḥ
Sap
31.10 rasena
Sap of herbs
rasām
(The ocean is the atmospheric one and rasa, the heavenly river).
Sap
juices of the waters,
sap (see Av. I. 28.3)
Sap
AV. IV. 2.5
4.5
15.2
27.2
27.3
35.3
124.1
rasaḥ
rasāḥ

rasam
.lakṣaṇam
kṣīrājyādirūpaḥ - auṣadhīnām rasena
nadī - rasā
apām, amṛtā"tmakaḥ
udakānām
rasam dravam (lakṣaṇam)
rasena svakiyena or
auraṇa i.e. anna
rasam
AV. V. 13.2
rasam
13.3 AV. VI. 16.1 rasaḥ
78.1
rasena
ghṛtādinā
rasena udakānaḥ binduḥ - svakiyena rasaḥ
""
""
vṛṣṭāyudaka -
AV. VII. 94.1 rasena (apām)
AV. VIII 4.10 rasam
AV. IX 4.5 rasaḥ 8.2 AV. X. 4.18
5.46
6.2
6.22
8.44
AV. XII. 6.4 A XIV. 5.28
39
rasaḥ rasaḥ
(poison of the serpant)
(,, )
-
rasam
rasaḥ rasena (,,)
(tailātmakaḥ)
dadhi-madhu
(śarira-sāram)
apām auṣadhīnām
apām auṣadhīnām
(poison)
99
""
(some mystic sense)
Sap of herbs
Sap
juice
32
juice
essence
essence
Sap taste
Sap
Sap
Sap
""
""
39
Sap
1201
;

Page #27

1202
SAHRDAYĀLOKA AV. XVIII 1.48 rasavān somaḥ, bahurasópetah
full of Sap XVIII. 2.24 rasasya deha-sambandhinaḥ
Sap rasasya, rudhiradeh 4.23 rasavān -
rich in sap 4.81 rasāya -
sap AV. XIX 31.4 rasāḥ (plural) -
(savours
(connected with food) 31.5 rasam . AV. XX. 51.2 rasāḥ -
sap of herbs We have listed the occurrences of the word 'rasa' in the vedas. Some more perhaps could be added if they are not mentioned here. It is clear that the word 'rasa' is derived from vras which occurs in the pāniniya dhatupātha and is explained as having the senses of 'to make sound', 'to taste', and 'to be oily'; 'rasa śabde' (bhvādi) and 'rasa' āsvādana-snehanayoh' (curādi).
The root vras has thus three different meanings as noted above. In the first sense it is associated with the river 'rasa' according to Yaska (Nirukta 11.25- rasa nadi bhavati, rasteḥ, śabdanakarmaṇaḥ.) The word rasā is used as a name of a particular river or sometimes a river in general. One may say that here too the word may be connected to the sense of being liquid. Rasa in the sense of something liquid is associated with many things like juice or the sap of plants or the milk of the cow or the virile semen of the human body etc. In fact, we find lexicons giving all these various meanings. Amara for example has
“rūpam śabdo gandha-rasa-sparśāc ca viṣayā amī” (line 291,); and also, "śộngārā”dau vise vīrye gune rāge drave rasāḥ.” (line 2789)
and also the six-fold tastes- (line 295)Hemacandra adds the following senses :
"gļhe dhātau (i.e. humours of the body), pārade (i.e. mercury), premņi, bhāve, ātmani, and also in the sense of 'sukha.'
Thus the word 'rasa' has a very interesting semantic history. We are interested here in finding out how the sense in the physical context gets transmuted into the sense of aesthetic experience i.e. the flavour, or a sentiment or emotion.

Page #28

The concept of “Rasa”
1203 In the vedic samhitās, as we will go to observe, we find not only the physical sense of something liquid, but also the liquid (i.e. drava) or sap that flows in the plants, animals etc., and also the juice that can be pressed out or extracted. To the later sense of the word, viz. kävya-rasa or nātya-rasa (equivalent to kalā-rasa), we do not find any clear reference in the vedas. But in one context, we do find it associated with things literary. Let us therefore, take a summary view of the different meanings of 'rasa', first in the vedic samhitās.
In the Rv., the word occurs for about fifty-one times. 'Rasā' occurs for about eleven times. The Yv. has ninteen and two occurrences of the words 'rasa' and 'rasa' respectively. The Av. has about thirty-eight occurrences. In the so-called later samhitās some of the mantras are repeated from the Rv.
The word 'Rasa' is used for a river, or a flow in general. At Rv. (VIII. 49.2 (vālakhilya sūkta) we have 'rasāḥ' explained as 'jalāni' by the commentator. Waters are termed as the "rasas" of the mountains. Here we see, that the waters of the springs that flow from the mountains are regarded as the sap of the mountains which is extracted from them by Indra and which becomes water. The mantra runs as
“satánikeva prá jigāti dhusnuya' hanti vrtráņi dāśuse, girériva prá rása pinvire
dátrāņi purubhojasaḥ”Thus, we have the double sense of the extracted sap and also water.
At Yv. 9.3, we have-apām rasaḥ' and also ‘apām rasasya yo rasah'. There are explained by both Uvața and Mahīdhara as Vāyu' and 'Prajāpati' respectively. We may add that here the word 'rasa' seems to carry the sense of “essence" of soul, and consequently the presiding deity. The mantra reads as below :
“apám rasamúdvayasam súrye sántam samáhitam, apām rásasya yo rasas tám vo gļhņāmyuttamám upayāma gļhītósindrāya tvā jústam gļhņāmyeşá te yoniríndrāya vã justatamam.”

Page #29

1204
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The same sense is repeated at Yv. 19.44, 20.22, and 31.17.
Then, thirdly, we have 'rasa' in the sense of the "rasa of herbs". This may be in form of an extracted juice as in case of some, or be just the sap in some plant.
In the IXth Mandala of the Rv., it is mostly seen in these senses e.g. at Rv. IX. 66,
"tám gobhirvěsanam rásam mádāya devavītaye, sutam bhárāya sám spja." 'Rasa' is extracted juice. And also Rv. IX. 23.5“sómo arsati dharņasír dadhāna indriyám rasám, suvíro abhišastipáh."
'rasa' means 'Sap'. Fourtly, we have 'rasa' in the sense of the tastes. Rv. I. 187, 4, & 5 have 'rasāh' explained by Sāyana as the six tastes such as sweet, sour, etc. Rasah i.e. tastes become in the philosophical darśanas the sense-quality of taste. Rv. I. 187.4 - is
“táva tyé pito rásā rájāmsyánu visthitāḥ,
divi' váta iva śritáh."So also, Yv. 39.4 has 'rasa' in the same sense and is explained by Mahid hara as "svādutvam". Yv. 39.4 is
"mánasaḥ kámamákutim vācáḥ satyám asīya paśúnām rūpámánnasya
raso yáśaḥ śrīḥ śrayatām máyi svāhā." Fifthly, we have 'rasa' with reference to the animals such as a cow, horse etc. With reference to the cow it means milk as at Rv. I. 37.5 :
"prašamsā goșvaghnyam krilam yacchardho mārutam, jambhe rasasya vavřdhe.” 'rasasya goksīra-rūpasya'-Sāyaṇa.

Page #30

The concept of “Rasa”
1205 At Rv. VII. 104.10 , we have 'rasa' with reference to food, horses, cows and body. Now what exactly is the meaning of 'rasa' in all these cases is not made clear by Sāyana, but it may mean “essence". The mantra runs as
yó no rásam dípsati pitvó agne, yó áśvanām, yo gávām, yás tanúnām, ripúḥ stenáḥ steyakýd da bhrámetu ni
şá hīyatām tánvā tánā ca." Rasa of the serpants obviously means poison as at AV. V. 13.2, and 30 Av. V. 13.2 is
"yát te ápodakam visam tát te etāsvagrabham, gļhņámi té madhyamám uttamam
rásam utávamám bhiyásā nesadádu te.” Av. N. 27.3 has 'rasa' of a horse. It is explained as speed of the horse by the commentator. This also may be the sense in Rv. VII. 104. 10, as read above.
Sixthly, we have 'rasa' of the human body as seen in Rv. VII. 104. 10 above. Rv. I. 105,2 has 'rasa' in the sense of virile semen. It runs as
“árthamídváu arthína á jāyáyuvate pátim, tuñjáte vřsnyam payaḥ paridáya
rásam duhe vittám me asya rodasī." We also come across occurrences in which 'rasa' appears as an independent entity e.g. rasāh, used in plural, means tastes as explained by Sāyana (Rv. I. 1874, and 5) (see above). In the Yajurveda also, one occurrence is noteworthy. Yv. 18.9 reads as
úrk ca me, sunţtā ca me, payaśca me, rásaśca me, ghstam ca me, madhu ca me, sagdhiếca me, sápitiśca m, krșiśca me, jai'tram
ca me, aúdbhidyam ca me yajñena kalpantām. (This is from the Ch. VIII of the famous Rudrāstādhyāyī) Mahīdhara explains 'rasa' as "tatratyah sārah”. i.e. 'essence.'

Page #31

1206
SAHRDAYĀLOKA In the above quoted mantra, several things are asked for through sacrifice. The occurrence between ‘payah' and 'ghỉtam' may signify the juice of something edible or drinkable. Here, it may be noted however, that rasa is mentioned by itself and
something'. It may also be noted that it figures along with ‘ürj', 'sunţtā', and ‘payas', wherein ‘ūrj may mean strength or vigour either of speech and 'payas' may mean any fluid or juice or vital spirit, power, etc.
It might also mean taste, charm, pleasure, delight.
Av. X. 8.44 has 'rasena trptah' This is a mystic hymn and 'rasa' may mean the essence of the universe. The mantra runs as :
“akāmó dhíre amŕtaḥ svayambhú rásenā trptó na kútaś canonah, táme vávidván na bibhāya mộtyórātmánam dhīram ajáram
yúvānam.” Here, it may be noted that the sense of satisfaction or fulfilment or even ecstasy is associated with 'rasa'; 'rasa' as causing fulfilment or joy.
The eighth interesting use of 'rasa' is seen at Rv. IX. 67.31 and 32, which run as below :
“yáḥ pāvamāníradhyétyřşibhiḥ sámbhịtam rásam,
sárvam sá- pūtámaśnāti svaditám mātariśvanā.” and also,
“pāvamāníryo adhyétyřsibhiḥ sámbhrtam rásam, tasmai sárasvati duhe
ksīrám sarpímádhūdakám." Sāyaṇa explains 'rasam' as "veda-sāra-bhūtam sāram sūkta-samgham” in the first quotation, and as 'veda-sāram sūkta-samgham' in the next one. This is applied to pāvamānī sūktas which are studied by the rşis. It is possible here to see a meaning similar to the later meaning in kävya-rasa, i.e. "essence causing joy.”

Page #32

The concept of “Rasa”
1207 Lastly, it will be interesting to note which feelings are associated with 'rasa' Usually we come across qualities of exhileration, joy-giving, taste, flavour, etc.
Rv. IX. 6.6. as quoted above speaks of the quality of exhileration caused by rasa; “madāya". Rv. IX. 97.14 has -
“rasā’yyah payasā pinvamānā īrayanneși madhumantam amśum, pávamānaḥ santanimeși krņvánn
i'ndrāya somo parisicyámānah." ‘rasāyyaḥ' is 'āsvādyah', i.e. tasteful, having flavour, etc.
The same context associates 'rasa' as causing joy, exhilaration, esctasy or intoxication. Thus 'rasa' is said to be 'madirah' at Rv. IX. 96.21, as read below :
"pávasvendo pávamāno máhobhiḥ kánikradat pári vārānvarsa, krilañcamvorā visa pūyamāna
i'ndram te raso madiró mamattu.” Thus in the vedas, we get ‘rasa' not only in the physical sense, but we find the qualities of joy-giving, tastefulness, exhileration, being the essence of the vedas, being the essence of the universe, etc. also attached to 'rasa'. Thus 'rasa in the vedas becomes an object of relish, a joy-yielding essence. These senses make it very easy for the aesthetes to utilise the word for the aesthetic flavour of sentiments and emotions as found is literary and dramatic literature.
Here, we may refer to that famous verse of the N.S. (Nātya-śāstra; Bharata, Edn. G.O.S.) Ch. I., vs. 17, whose purpose is to show relationship of the nātyaveda with other vedas and thereby give it vedic prestige. Taken in this light, one may not bother oneself with finding any real basis for the statement. The verse runs as below:
“jagrāha pāțhyam rgvedād sāmabhyo gitam eva ca, yajurvedād abhinayān rasān ātharvaņād api.” (N.S. I. 17)

Page #33

1208
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The verse prior to this (N.S. I. 16) reads as -
"evam samkalpya bhagavān sarva-vedān anusmaran, nātyavedam tataś cakre
catur-vedánga-sambhavam.” (N.S. I. 16) Abhinavagupta (pp. 14, A.bh. on N.S., G.O.S., Edn. Vol. I., 2nd Edn. '56) explains :
evam samkalpya iti - samkalpa-vyāpāra evā’yam buddhyā vedángaikīkāralaksaņo brahmano nātya-vedotpādanam. nanu vedasmaranena tatra katham hetutā labdhā. āha. caturvedánga-sambhavam, iti. catvāro vedāḥ. angānām pāthyā”dīnām sambhavo yasya. sambhavaty asmād iti sambhavaḥ. ata eva vedacatustayam api yatrángāni praty upakaranībhūtam iti (sa tathóktaḥ) (14-16).
On this, read Madhusudani (Sansk. Comm. by Madhusudana Shastri, pp. 57, Edn. B.H.U. Varanasi, '71) - (Madhusudani covers the N.S., as well as the Abhinavathārati on it. We have quoted the A.bh. on N.S. I. 16. read Madhusudani on it as below.) : (pp. 57, ibid)
"nanu ity anena sarvavedān anusmaran nātyavedam cakre" ity uktam smaranam tatra nātya-veda-karane katham hetur iti sammayitum āśankya samā’dhatte - "āha” iti. iha patha dhātau uktam vyaktatvam. višesaprakāreņa vaktuḥ kathanecchā prayuktasya svasya pāțhyasya arthárpane arthabodhane kşamatvam samarthanam.
kākv adhyāye svarāḥ sapta, alamkārāḥ șat. ādigrahaņād dvividhā kākuḥ. sad angāni. tasyā prayojanena tādrśa-kşamatvam bhavati iti hetoh tayā sāmagryā upaskstam śobhitam pāțhyam kathyate.
tac ca pāțhyam ca nāțye prādhānyāt caturbhyo vedebhyo nātya-vedasya nirmāṇasamaye prathamam upāttam.
"caturvedánga-sambhavam" iti. catvāro vedāḥ. angānām sambhava utpattisthānam yasya iti caturvedánga-sambhavaḥtam. ||16|1.
A.bh. on N.S. I. 17 (pp. 14, 15, 16, Edn. G.O.S., ibid) reads as :
kutrā’nge kasya vedasya upayoga iti darśayati - "jagrāha pāthyam rgvedād iti. iha patha vyaktāyām vāci uktam vyaktatvam vivaksā-visistasvārthárpanaksamatvam. tac ca kakva-dhyāy avaksyamānasvarā'lamkārādi-sāmagri-yojanena bhavati iti tayópaskstam pāțhyam ucyate. tac ca prādhānyāt prathamam upāttam.
tathā hi vaksyati -

Page #34

The concept of "Rasa"
1209
"vāci yatnas tu kartavyo nāryasyaisā tanuḥ smộtā, anga-naipathya-sattvāni
vākyártham vyañjayanti hi.” iti. (N.S. XIV. 2) ata eva abhinayántar bhūtarve’pi prthag upāttam, tad rgvedād gļhītam. tasya traisvarya-pradhānasya stotra dvarena yāgópakāritvāt. pathyam api traisvaryopetam.
kākvabhābhābhyām ca svasvādau (caika-svabhāvācca svarā”dau) gitarūpā" patter iti hi vaksyāmah (N.S. 17).
pāthya-gata-svara-prasangāt tad anantaram sāmabhyo gītam jagrāha ity uktam. uparañjakatvena hi paścāt tasya abhidhānam nyāyyam iti kecit. "gītam prāņāḥ prayogasya" iti vaksyamāṇatvāt tad ayattatvād rasa-carvaņāyāḥ samucitam asya atraiva abhidhānam ity asmad upādhyāyāḥ. cakāreņa etat tulya-kaksyatām āha. evakāreņa gītamātram tato grhītam "gītișu samākhyā” (jaimini - 2/1/36) iti nyāyāt. tad adhāra-dhruvāpada-yojanam rgvedad eva iti darśayati. tata eva dhruvā’dhyāye vacanās atraiva samgrhitam (?)
ghanáva-naddha-sāma-gāna-kriyā-prāṇabhūta-kāla-sāmyātmaka-tāla-sāmānyasvīkstam atraiva praviştam (?). adhvaryakarma-pradhāne tu yajurvede angakarmaņām pradaksina-gamanā”di-krama eva prathamam. pathisyati “yā rcaḥ pānikā" (32/2) iryadi. tata susiratmakam ca'pyātodyam svaraprādhānyāt.
atharvana-vede tu śāntika-māraņādi karmasu tasya ftvijaḥ prāstuda
anādy anubhāvānām prajā-śatru-prabhștinā avadhāna-grahaņādinā lohitosnīsāder nepathyasya teşu teşu ca karmasu visista-prayatna-purusasampadyam-manovastambhātmanah sattvasya sambhavāt tatah abhinayānām grahanam. vācikasty abhinayah pūrvam eva uktaḥ. prādhānyād vibhāvānām dhștipramodādi-vyabhicāriņām ca paramárthasatām samaharanam pradhānam iti vibhāvādi-samagri-rūpa-rasātmaka-carvanā-sambhava iti tatas tad-grahanam iti na tatasthā evaite. ata eva rasyante. tatraiva ca rasyanta iti vaksyāmaḥ.
tad evam nāryā"di-rūpakópakramam gītā"todya-prānā'bhinaya-varga-paripusyadrasa-carvaņā"tmakam para-prīti-mayam eva nātyam, tatas tad vyutpatir iti nātyam eva veda iti kramena pradarśitam, tena upakramya yojanā"tmaka-niyogā"tmakaśāsana-prāņa-śāstra-vailaksyeņa svayam upārūdha-jñānábhidhāna-vidaḥ prāņaveda-rūpatā nātyasya eva iti siddham.”
Pundit Madhusundanjee reads slightly differently. His reading is (without, of course revealing his source) : (pp. 66, ibid) - "ātharvana-vede tu śāntika

Page #35

1210
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
māranā"di-karmasu natasya iva tasya rtvijah prāstuda-vaisunädy anubhāvānām prajā-satru-prabhrtisu avadhāna-grahanādinā. pradhāna-vibhāvānām.dhrtipramodā”di-vyabhicāriņām ca paramárthasatām samaharanam pradhānam iti vibhāvādisāmagrirūpa... vaksyāmah.
tad evam krīdanīyaka-upakramam gitātodya-prāņābhinaya-varga-paripusyadrasa-carvaņā"tmakam para-prītimayam eva nātyam... pradarśiam."
We have indicated where Madhusūdanajee differs from the G.O.S. reading. The source of his reading is not known. Perhaps like Kavi of the G.O.S. at places, this is a personal attempt of Madhusudanajee to explain the text but that portion is given as part of the original A.bh.
But (pp. 68, ibid) in his Madhusudani Sanskrit Commentary he observes something which is not the source of his reading but which can be taken as his justification. We will look into this, but one thing is clear that perhaps he was not happy with the original G.O.S. reading which he normally follows, and therefore tried to emend the text in his own imaginary fashion. He reads in his Madhusudani (pp. 68, ibid) : “kridanīyakam iti pāthah. sukhita-duhkhite irsyādi-vaśage loke, yaksa-raksah-prabhṛtibhiḥ jambudvīpe samākrānte sati mahendra-pramukhaih pitāmahaḥ uktaḥ-"krīdaniyakam icchāma iti.” aparam vedam seja, iti. sasmāra caturo vedān, iti. nāryākhyam pañcamam vedam setihāsam karomyaham iti. nätyavedam tatas' cakre iti.
nāryam upakramānam, tasya ādih, prāthamyam ākhyātum isyate atah kridanīyakopakramam nātyam iti siddhantabhūtah pāthah."... etc.
In his Hindi explanatory commentary called 'Balakrida' (pp. 57 Madhusudanjee explains fully the whole portion of the Abh. We will give its summary as follows :
From which veda as a source which portion was accepted is explained as follows - Pāthya portion was received from the Rgveda. Here, Vpath is in the sense of articulated language. This ‘pāțhya' has a sense of conveying something special.' Thus the portion (of nătya) called 'pāthya' is capable of conveying its (own) meaning (clearly). This capacity of 'pāthya' to convey its own meaning clearly is supported by the discussion of the material connected with 'svara' and 'alamkāra' in the chapter on ‘kāku'. Thus pronouncement qualified by that material is said to be "pāthya”. Now this portion called 'pāthya' i.e. 'that which is to be spoken, recited' - is principal and hence it is taken up first for consideration. i.e. it is mentioned first in the verse, viz.“jagrāha păthyam rgvedād...” etc. So, in creating the portions that make for nātya, pāthya was attempted first by Brahman. This will be supported by

Page #36

The concept of “Rasa”
1211 a verse later, such as - "vāci yatnas tu kartavyo...” etc. (N.S. XIV. 2). Thus pāthya is said to be the body or structure of 'nātya' while the rest viz. anga, nepathya and sattva make for the next suggestion of the sentence-sense.
Now 'pathya' is said to be principal in 'nātya' or drama, and a special effort is to be directed towards the same. It is with this in mind, that in the four-fold acting (abhinaya), eventhough 'pathya' was included in vācika-abhinaya, yet it is mentioned specially separately. This is just to underline its importance. This 'pāthya' element was borrowed from Rgveda, which has the three svaras viz. udātta, anudātta and svarita as special characteristic. It is therefore that the rgveda helps the cause of sacrifice through (rks in form of) 'stotra' and 'sastra'. Pāthya is also adorned not with just three but seven svaras.
These seven svaras, which are said to be the qualities of pathya are - şadja, rsabha, gāndhāra, madhyama, pañcama, dhaivata and nisadha and these are associated with rasas in the following way :
"hāsya-śộngārayoḥ kāryau svarau madhyama-pañcamau, şadjarşabhau tathā caiva vīra-raudrádbhutesu tu. gāndhārasca nişādaś ca kartavyau karune rase, dhaivataścaiva kartavyo bībhatse, sa-bhayānake.” evam etat svara-yutam kalā-tāla-layánvitam, daśarūpa-vidhāne tu
pāțhyam yojyam prayokt;bhiḥ. But it may be noted that the udātta etc. svaras of the veda in nātya and they are four such as -
"udāttaś cā’nudāttaś ca svaritaḥ kampitas tathā, varņās' catvāra eva syuḥ pāțhya-yoge tapodhanāḥ."

Page #37

1212
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA "tatra hāsya-srngārayoh svaritódāttaih, vīra-raudrā-'abhutesu udātta-kampitain, karuņa-bībhatsa-bhayānakeșu udātta-svarita-kampitaiḥ varņaiḥ, pāthyam upapādayed iti.”
Thus 'pathya' is of the form of articulated expression and is different in type with reference to children, young people, old men and ladies. It cannot have identity of form or expression in these four types. Following the śāstra (or scripture on it), seven svaras are counted in pāthya and same is the situation with reference to 'gita' i.e. song also. Thus, both 'pāthya' and 'gīta' have an identical nature. So, on account of the absence of 'eka-svarya' i.e. 'ekatva' (virtually) and because of identical nature of svaras both păthya and gita will be taken as identical, because svaras will be said to be of the form of gita later.
So, there is predominance of svaras in gīta, and there is reference to svaras in pāthya. So, on account of these 'svaras' being connected somehow with pathya, Bharata has mentioned 'gīta' after pāthya and said, “gīta is derived from sāmaveda.” Some explain this by suggesting that gita is mentioned after pāthya because gita makes for the colouring i.e. beautifying of pāthya. For later it will be stated that "gīta is the life-breath (prāņa) of abhinaya or acting." It is said - (N.S. XXXII. - 436) -
"gīte prayatnaḥ prathamam tu kāryaḥ śayyā hi nātyasya vadanti gitam, gīte’pi vādyépi ca samprayukte,
nātyaprayogo na vipattim eti.” Our Upādhyāya (says Abhinavagupta) observes that, rasa-experience (rasacarvanā) depends on 'gita' and thus with reference to svara in connection with pāthya, talking about gīta comes next and is proper too.
(Now this importance of gita with reference to rasa-carvanā is challenged but the importance of gīta is proved in a different way as follows.) - This view, viz. that gīta is at the basis of rasa-experience is not accepted by the Upādhyāya and hence after ten lines rasa-pratiti is said to follow the presentation of vibhāvā”di sāmagri. Now this presentation of vibhāvā"di sāmagri is done through the agency of pāthya, gīta placed in several rāgas, abhinaya i.e. acting and (āhārya in form of) citra or painting etc. So, it is not whole truth to say that rasa-realisation depends on 'gita' only. 'Ca' and 'eva' in "sāmabhyo gitam eva ca" are explained as follows. - By 'Ca', it is explained that the sequence of 'pathya' and 'gita' is proper. Both are useful and both are equally important. For the “Krīdanīyaka” is both drśya' (= to be viewed

Page #38

The concept of "Rasa"
1213
or seen) as well as 'śravya' (= to be heard) also. This quality of 'being heard' is common between pathya and gīta. So, both are equal in importance. By 'eva' is meant that only 'gīta' is borrowed from Samaveda. For 'sama' is the name of gīti. "Gītiṣu sāma-ākhyā" is what Jaimini has to say at Mi. Su. II. i. 36. This 'gīti' is dependent on 'dhruva', which again is borrowed from the rgveda. In the dhruvádhyāya which will follow in due course (in the N.S.), here also the same is suggested. Here also 'eva' in 'atraiva' (in the A.bh.) means "api". The term 'samgṛhita' means acceptance in form of 'Sanketa'. Madhusudanjee adds that the reading in the A.bh. here should be (pp. 62, ibid, Bāla-krīḍā): "ghanávanaddharupam tata-suṣirā❞tmakam ca'pi atodyam svara-prādhānyāt sāma-gānaprāṇabhūtam. kriyā-māna-bhūtakāla-rūpa-tāla-tatsāmyā”tmaka-sāmānya-svīkṛtam vastu atraiva pravistham."
'ghana' is the name of tāla which is caused by bronze metal. That which is covered by leather is called 'avanaddha', such as drum etc. 'Tata' is the name of musical instruments such as vīņā or lute etc. 'Susira' is an instrument with holes in it, e.g. 'vamsi-flute etc. These four types of musical instruments are the life of sama-gāna. Hence, they are associated with 'gita'. That they are included in gita suggests that vadya is of the form of some activity i.e. they are 'kriya"tmaka'. It is said, "dṛdha-hastas-tu tatra syād angulīm tatra yojayet." and this is of the form of activity of the body. Singing also is a form of speech where effort is involved.
"yam yam gātā svaram gacchet
tam atodyaiḥ prayojayet." N.S. XXXIV. 34
The musical instruments are thus associated with vocal music. It is also said,

"gītam caturvidhād vādyāj
jāyate cóparajyate,
priyate ca tato'smābhir
vadyam adya nigadyate."
"tat tatam susiram ca'vanaddham
ghanam iti smṛtam, caturdhā tatra pūrvābhyām śrutyādi-dvārato bhavet gītam, tatv avanaddhena
rajyate, miyate ghanat."

Page #39

1214
SAHṚDAYALOKA In the sixth chapter, the Vädyádhyāya of Sangeeta-ratrakara, it is suggested that from the four-fold musical instruments such as "tata, susira, avanaddha and ghana", through the medium of 'tata' and 'sușira' instruments, 'gīta' is born with the help of śṛti, svara, etc. The people are entertained through 'avanaddha-vādya' and 'ghana' helps in measuring the 'gita'. Thus the association of 'vädya' i.e. musical instruments is necessary along with 'gita'.
"Tala' is said to be that in which rest all the three viz. gīta, vadya and nṛtta : "talyate pratisthiyate gītam, nṛttam, vādyam ca, yatra. Tāla is the measure such as the activity which is laghu, guru, pluta and druta, ‘Laya' is similarity between time and activity concerning singing. 'Laya' is the repose or viśranti that follows the said activities. Thus 'kriya' and 'kāla' are rendered similar. The Sangeeta-ratnākara observes:
"tālas tala-pratisthāyām iti dhātor ghan, smṛtaḥ,
gītam vadyam tathā nṛttam yatas tāle pratisthitam."
kālo laghv ādi mitayā kriyaya sammito mitim,
gita"der vidadhat tālaḥ
sa ca dvedha budhaiḥ smṛtah" iti. "kriya'nantara-viśrantir
layaḥ sa trividho mataḥ." iti.
Thus it is that even tāla and laya also enter into the activity of 'gita'.
In the Yv., there is predominance of the activity of the adhvaryu. So in enjoining the activity which is part of a yajña i.e. sacrifice, at times going in to the right 'pradakṣina-gamana' is also enjoined. At times it is with reference to the north. At times only standing is enjoined or at times going east or west is also enjoined. This is suggested by the term 'adi' that is read in both the terms "pradakṣinā"di" and "gamana"di". Thus 'krama' means laying of foot i.e. "pada-vikṣepa".
Thus on account of different activities enjoined the ṛtviks move around either with or without a red turban (= lohitóṣnisa). And mind has to be concentrated with a special effort, with this or that act which is enjoined. Only a concentrated (samāhita) mind makes for the outcome of "sattva". (i.e. manasaḥ sattvam,

Page #40

The concept of "Rasa"
1215
ekāgratā). It is therefore that acting or abhinaya is said to be accepted from the yajurveda. We know that pathya and gīta fall under 'vācika-abhinaya'. Pāṭhya and gīta are explained in the beginning and thus vācika-abhinaya is also taken as explained in the beginning.
The AV. includes such activities that are termed 'santika', 'paustika', 'māraṇa' and 'mohana'. The ṛtvik, like an actor or nata, is carefully engaged in activity concerning the peace and nourishment of people. They exhibit happiness such as "prāṣṭuda" or "prastuca". In acts connected with the annihilation of enemies, they catch hold of the enemies and the enemies get frustrated - i.e. 'viṣaṇna'. Here the reading we get alternatively is "visunna" also, observes Madhusudanjee (pp. 66, ibid). In this reading the dissolution is - "viṣu nānā añcati” and with the help of the vārtika viz. "viṣvag ity uttarapada-lopas' cā-kṛta-sandheḥ”, no sandhi or joining is caused between "şu" and "a" and there is no "yan". Thus prior to sandhi 'añcati' is dropped and we get "na" suffix. Because of "na-tva" we derived "viṣuna" and with 'an'-suffix we arrived at "vaiṣuna". A man whose mind runs about in different directions, i.e. whose mind is not concentrated, is said to be "viṣanna". "Prasāda' and 'viṣāda' are said to be two anubhāvas or consequents-dhṛti, dhairya, pramoda etc. are said to be vyabhicārins or accessories. In poetry the collection of vibhāva, anubhava and vyabhicārins from real world is welcome, for the rasa-carvaṇā resulting from the combination of the vibhāvā❞di material results therefrom only. So, the vibhāvā"dis are mentioned.
Now, if it is asked that in the statement "rasan atharvaṇād api", 'rasa's are mentioned, then why here collection of vibhāvā"dis is recommended? To this the answer is that these vibhāvā"dis do not stand independent of the rasas concerned. The context is of rasa only. Thus for aesthetic tasting they i.e. vibhāvā"dis become instrumental. Ālambana, āśraya is expected to be there for any relish. There is pāṇini-sūtra such as -
"upajñópakramam tad ācikhyāsāyām." - Here following the lexicon - upajñā jñanam ādyam syat' - the beginning (of any activity) is termed "upakrama". When 'prāthamya' i.e. the state of being first is to be recommended with any object or activity, then "upajñānta tatpurușa" compound is placed in neuter gender. This is with 'upajñāyamana-vastu.' In the same way, with the same object in view, "upakramyamāṇa-vastu", then 'upakramānta-tatpurușa' should be placed in neuter gender. The illustrations are, “pāņiny upajñam granthaḥ" for Astádhyāyī, and "nandópakramam dronah" for drona or measure first used by 'Nanda'. Here the upa-kramyamāṇa-viṣaya is nātya and it was projected as a toy for pleasure -

Page #41

1216
SAHRDAYĀLOKA “krīdaniyakam”. So, “krīdanīyakópakramam nātyam” is a grammatically correct usage. Hence this reading is correct, argues Madhusūdanjee. He prefers this reading to "nāryā”dirūpópakramam" of the G.O.S. (pp. 16, ibid)
The gods, such as Indra and others who were tired after killing the demons etc. prayed to Brahmā for a “krīdanaka” which is both 'drśya' and 'śravya’ For their benefit to make for a kridanaka, the Pitamaha derived the first knowledge for nātya from all the four vedas, and made the first beginning. Thus 'nātya' is 'pitāmahópajña' and the meaning of “krīdanīyakópakrana” is also made clear.
Just as it is stated that 'saujanya-vyavahāra' - decent behaviour-started first with you, so it is termed "bhavad upakrama-saujanya-vyavahāra”, in the same way, nātya for first was desired as a play-thing, kridanīyaka and hence was termed "krīdanīyakópakrama”. This nātya is the cause of highest joy, i.e. it is “para-prītimaya” is of the form of highest happiness, and hence 'pāthya' and 'pāthyóparañjaka . gita', and its tools such as instruments - 'ātodya, vādya' etc., are said to be the life "prāņa” of “nātya” and this nātya is nourished by four-fold acting i.e. caturvidhaabhinaya and its soul is rasa-relish. Thus from nātya is derived the knowledge or information concerning pāthya etc. and so nātya is termed "veda” i.e. 'jñāna' itself. This is shown in due sequence in which păthya, gīta, abhinaya and rasa figure respectively. This is the full meaning of the verse viz. “jagrāha pāțhyam rgvedāt...” etc. i.e. N.S. I. 17.
Thus, the substance of this very famous verse can be read as follows in brief, that it is possible to find some connection with the vedas, (of nātya), without streaching the meaning too far, e.g. the mantras of the rgveda are essentially pathya i.e. to be recited or are recitable. This according to Abhinavagupta is due to 'tri-svara' character (i.e. udātta, anudātta and svarita) of rgvedic mantras. This point has been elaborated by Bharata in chapters on vāg-abhinaya (i.e. Ch. XVI. G.O.S. Edn.). The relation of gīta with the sāmans of the samaveda (= S.V.) is obvious. Yajurveda (= Yv.) is, as Abhinavagupta observes, "adhvarya-karmapradhāna”, i.e. in the Yv. the activities of the advaryu, such as the movement towards the right (daksina) etc. are predominant. Essentially, the movements of the different parts of the body have a particular significance in the different ritual activities. So the abhinayas are related to the Yv. As to the relation of rasas with the hymns of the Atharvaveda (Av.), we do not find any obvious relationship. The text of the A.bh. on this point is quoted below and we have attempted to explain the same, perhaps not very satisfactorily, with the help of the Madhusudani and

Page #42

The concept of “Rasa”
1217 Bālakrīdā of Pundit Madhusūdanjee as above. The A.bh. text reads as : (pp. 15, Vol. I.N.S.; G.O.S., ibid): "ātharvane tu śāntika-māraṇā"di-karmasu națasya iva tasyartvijah prāştuda-vaisuņnādy anubhāvānām prajā-satru-prabhịtinā avadhānagrahaņādinā lohitóșnīsā”der nepathyasya teșu teșu ca karmasu viśistaprayatnapuruṣa-sampādya-manóvastambhātmanaḥ sattvasya sambhavāt tataḥ abhinayā nām-a-grahaņam. vācikasty abhinayah pūrvam evóktaḥ. prādhānyāt vibhāvānām dhrti-pramodā"di-vyabhicāriņām ca paramārtha-satām samāharanam pradhānam iti vibhāvā"di-samagri-rūpa-rasa"tmaka-carvanā-sambhava iti tatas tadgrahanam uktam iti, na tatasthā eva ete. ata eva rasyante. tatraiva ca rasyanta iti vaksyāmah."
The idea seems to be that priests in the various rituals of AV. such as those of śāntikarma, māranakarma, etc., put on constumes consisting of red turbans and such other things. Through anubhāvas they express certain feelings. There is a sort of mental avastambha or resoluteness brought about by special efforts, and therefore there is the exhibition of such a "sattva" or mental disposition. According to Abhinavagupta, this seems to be the connection of rasas with AV. One may imagine a scene in which one of such magical ritual is performed when everybody would be tense with emotion pertaining to a particular act. Abhinavagupta seems to have taken some such performance of the atharvana ritual as a source of emotional ecstasy in rasa.
We have seen earlier that though the word rasa occurs at several places in the A.V., we have no clear case of the later meaning of nātya-rasa or kāvya-rasa. From another point of view, however, we may say that several hymns of the AV., taken by themselves are very impressive love lyrics. The number of such hymns is
out thirty-three. They are : AV. I. 34; II. 3; VI. 8; III. 25; VI. 8, 9, 82, 89, 102, 130, 131, 132, 139; VII. 36, (37), 37 (38); 38 (39), etc. etc.
A few lines from these may be quoted as below : e.g. AV. VI. 8.
“yáthā vřkşám líbujā samantam parişasvaje' evā pári svajasva mā’m yathā kāmínyaso yáthā mánnā’pagā ásaḥ
and also,
yáthā suparnáḥ prapatan pakşáu nihánti bhūbhyām evā' nihanmi te, máno yáthā mām kāminyaso yathā mánnā'pagā ásah.
and also,
yáthā mé dyā'vāprthivī sadyah paryéti sūryaḥ, evā pā’ryemi te mano yathā mām kāminyaso yáthā mánnā'pagā ásah."

Page #43

1218
SAHṚDAYALOKA
"As the creeper embraces the tree on all sides, thus do thou embrace me, so that thou, shalt love me, so that thou shalt not be averse to me ?"
"As the eagle when he flies forth presses his wings against the earth, thus do I fasten down thy mind, so that thou, woman, shalt love me, that then shalt not be averse to me." (2)
"As the sun day by day goes about this heaven and earth, thus do I go about thy mind, so that thou, woman shalt love me, so that thou shalt not be averse to me." (3)
(Trans. Maurice Bloomfield - "Hymns of the AV." SBE. Vol. XLII.)
AV. VI. 131 is a charm to arouse the passionate love of a man, e.g. AV. VI. 131.3 reads as -
tatastvám punara'yāsi
"If thou dost run three leagues away (or even) five leagues, the distance coursed by a horseman, from there thou shall again return, shall be the father of our sons." (Trans. Bloomfied).
"yád dhāvasi triyojanám pañcayojánamāśvinam,
putrā❜ṇām na asaḥ pitā."
The same note of a passionate woman's longing is heard also in AV. 132. We quote the first mantra that runs as -
"yám devāḥ smarámásiñcan napsvantaḥ śóśucānam sahā'dhyā, tám te tapāmi váruṇasya dhármaṇā."
"Love's consuming longing, together with yearning, which the Gods have poured into the waters, that do I kindle for thee by the Law of Varuna." (Trans. Bloomfield).
AV. VII. 36 is a love-charm spoken by a bridal couple. It runs as -
"aksyaú nau mádhusamkāśe ánīkam naú samarjanan,
antáḥ kṛnusva mám hrdí mána innau saha'sati."
"The eyes of us two shine like honey; our foreheads gleam like ointment. Place me within thy heard; may one mind be in common to us both." (Trans. Bloomfield).
And also, AV. VII. 37 -
"abhí tvā mánujātena dádhāmi máma va'sasa, yátha'so máma kévalo nányásām kīrtáyäścaná."

Page #44

The concept of “Rasa”
1219
"I envelope thee in my garment that was produced by Manu (the first man), that thou shalt be mine alone, shalt not even discourse of other women." (Trans. Bloomfield).
Instances can be multiplied. It should be noted that scholars are in agreement when they say that these hymns, their ritualistic application apart, should be taken as individual pieces viewed in this light, and away from the ritualistic background; the above quoted instances can serve as beautiful love lyrics. They become the passionate expressions of love, i.e. śộngāra-rasa primarilly in its vipralambha aspect (e.g. Av. VI. 8). There are a few hymns in the RV., such as the dialogues of Purūravas and Urvasī, Yama and Yamī, etc. which contain such passionate expressions. But comparatively, speaking, the AV. has more of them. Other bhāvas or feelings such as those of bhaya, utsäha, śoka etc. also can be found in several other hymns of the AV. One may say, therefore, that the attempt to relate the later rasa-vicāra with reference to kävya and närya, to AV. is not unjustified.
Rasa in the Upanisads - We come across several occurrences of the word rasa or the different forms of the root vras, in the upanisads. Primarily they are to be seen in two or three different senses. The meaning of a liquid seems to be common to all of them. In the objects of five sense-organs, that which is gathered by the tongue is called 'rasa'. We come across this sense in the Praśnopanişad (4,8) which observes : “rasaś ca rasayitavyam" i.e. "when there is taste, it is to be tasted.” So also in the Brhadāranyaka Upanişad, (4.5.13). We read “sa yathā saindhavaghanóntaro bāhyah, krtsno rasaghana eva.” “Just as a piece of saindhava salt has nothing like internal or external, but the whole of it is full of taste.” In the abovementioned occurrences, rasa is seen in the sense of (physical) taste. In the Praśnopanisad (1.4), we read, “esa hi drstā... rasayitā”, the word 'rasayitā' is in the sense of one who tastes. There are many more occurrences to this effect. In the Mundaka Upanisad, "ataś ca sarva osadhayo rasas ca" (2.1.9.), we have 'rasa' in the sense of "sap".
Then still further, rasa is seen in the sense of the juices of the trees out of which honey is formed as in the Chāndogya Upanişad - (6/9/1):
"yathā somya madhu madhuksto nististanti, nānātyayānām vřkṣāņām rasān samavahāram ekatām rasam gamayanti.”

Page #45

1220
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Then we come across more and more references in the sense of "essence of things", e.g. in the Tittiriyopanişad (1/12): “esa bhūtānām prthvi rasaḥ, prthivyā apo rasaḥ, apasām osadhayo rasaḥ, osadhīnām puruso rasah, puruşasya vāg rasah, vācām rg-rasaḥ, scaḥ sāma rasaḥ, sāmno udgītho rasah.”
Now, it may be noted that, along with the sense of “essence”, there seems to be other subtle shades of meanings also with reference to rasa in the above quotation. It should be noted, that here, the number of rasas is eight. This is rend in the sentence that follows: "sa eşa rasānām rasatamaḥ, paramah, parārdhyóstamo yad udgīthah”, i.e. out of these, the Udgitha is the highest and the eighth rasa. Thus the eighth rasa is the 'parama', the highest and it is "udgītha". Very often "aum" in the Upanişads suggests this 'udgitha', the rasa of “sāman". We may also take note of the following from the Taittirīya Upanişad -
"asad vā idam agra āsīt tato vā sad ajāyata, tad ātmānam svayam a-kuruta
tasmāt tat sukstam ucyate.” iti. yad vai sukrtam. raso vai sah rasam hy eváyam labdhvā ānandi bhavati.” (2/7)., i.e. “verily, in the beginning was this ‘asat' (i.e. jagat). From it, verily, was 'sar' born. It made itself the atman. So, it is termed 'su-krta'. Verily, it is suksta, verily, it is 'rasa'. On the attainment of rasa, this, verily, becomes joyous."
In this famous quotation, also read later by Jagannātha in his Rasagangadhara, Sukta is rasa, and that 'rasa' is a joy-giving factor. This becomes quite clear. But with all this one may feel sceptical in saying that 'rasa' occurs in the Upanisads in the same sense of aesthetic rapture as in Bharata. But it is quite close. And to a certain extent, the use of rasa at one place in the Jaiminiva Upanisad seems to come closer to the sense as seen in Bharata.
We will later go to observe that rasa in Bharata has in its meaning the shades of the qualities of taste, essence, etc. as seen in the upanisads. We also see, as in the chāndogya Upanisad, that rasa is the combined taste of several ingredients like honey, which is a “samavahāra", i.e. a combination or a collection of the juices of many trees. Possibly the eight rasas in the Chăndogya might have inspired theorists to imagine eight nātya-rasas also. Finally, it may be observed that the above quoted utterance of the Taittirīya-Upanişad, in which 'rasa' is said to be the soul and by its attainment one is said to attain highest joy, may be taken as an original inspiration for the later theorists.

Page #46

The concept of "Rasa"
1221 “Rasa” in the Nirukta is read as at. rasateh - from Vras (= to make sound), at Nirukta - VI. 21, IX. 11, XI. 25; rasa-dharaṇam = "holding of juices” - at VII. 11; rasam - “juice”, at IX. 53; XI. 29; rasa-haraņāt - "from extracting juice" - at III. 16; XI. 5; ‘rasā’ - name of a river; at XI. 25; ‘rasāḥ' - 'juices', at IV. 27, VI. 19, VII. 23. rasādānam - "drawing of juices”, VII. 11; rasān - juices; II. 14; IV. 27, XI. 23; rasānām - 'of juices'; X, 10; rasāni - 'roaring', at XI. 25; ‘rasánudānam' - "to release the juices', VII. 10; ‘rasānupradānena', “by giving juice' at X. 34; 'rasena', with juice', VI. 15; XII. 1.
Thus in Nirukta of Yāska, (circa 700-500 B.C.), we come across as many as thirteen occurrences in different forms of root vras, or word 'rasa', appearing either independently or in a compound. We also come across 'rasa' in the sense of the name of a particular river or a river in general. In all these occurrences, Vras, or the word 'rasa' seems to carry the same sense, as that of, 'to make sound', or “juice', etc.
'Rasa' in the Brhad devatā occurs as follows: rasa - I. 68; II. 33; VII. 127 rasādāna - II. 6; rasāpāra-nivāşin; VIII. 24. (Here 'rasa' is a river).
Thus in the BỊhad devatā of Saunaka we have 'rasa' occurring either independently, or in a compound. In all these instances, the usual sense of fluid, juice, sap or sense-quality are to be seen. Rasā occurs in the sense of a river.
We will now turn first to Pānini and Patañjali and then the earlier poets such as Ašvaghosa, Bhāsa and Kālidāsa.
Rasa in Panini (Circa 350 B. 6. Keith) and Patañjali (Circa 150 B.C., Keith).
With Nirukta and Brhad devat, we come to the close of discussion concerning the meanings of rasa in the vedic literature. With Pāṇini begins our discussion of the meanings of rasa in what we may now call classical sanskrit. There is one reference to 'rasa' in Pā. V. 2.95 - "rasā"dibhayaś ca." We cannot be sure as to the senses which Panini might have had in mind when he used the term “rasā"di”.

Page #47

1222
SAHRDAYĀLOKA In the dhātupātha also, Vras is explained as having the senses of "(rasa) 'sabde', and, "āsvādana-snehanayoh”, i.e. “to make sound", and "to taste”, “to liquify" or 'to make something oily", respectively.
In Patañjali we have several occurrences of the Vras, and also of the word 'rasa', either occurring independently, or in a compound. We also come across words such as frasa-vācitva', 'rasa-vācin', 'rasāt(d)' and "rasika”. Excepting only one occurrence that we will take up in detail as below, in all other cases the usual senses of, 'to make sound', or 'to taste', etc. are seen and also the one of “sensequality” or “juice' is also seen.
In Patañjali (Edn. Dr. Keilhorn) we have the following occurrences : Vras - Pā. Sū. II. 4.85; line no 16, 17, 17, 17, 20, (pp. 500) Vras - Pā. Sū. I. 3.10; line 8, 8, page 268; 1/4/269; 2.4.85; 17, 18, 19, 22 (p. 499) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18; 24 (p. 500); 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10; pp. 502 'rasa' - I. 4.110; 18/p. 356; 3, 9/p. 357; IV. 3.155; 9, 15/325 ‘rasa' - I. 2.64; 5; p. 246; IV. 1.3.7, p. 198 'rasa' I. 2.64; 3.4; p. 246; IV. 1.3, 4, 6/p. 198; V. 1.9; 24, p. 366; 'rasa-vācirva' IV. 4.24; line 18, p. 330; rasa-vācin - IV. 4.24; 18, 19; p. 330; V. 2.107, 5, 5, 6 p. 397; rasādi - V. 2.95; 19, 21; p. 394; rasika - V. 2.95; 21; (p. 394);
We will try to look into this data. While commenting on Pā. Sū. V. 2.95, as quoted above, Patañjali, referring to the previous sūtra i.e. Pā. V. 2.94; 'tad asyā'ty asminn iti', asks the question as to why this sūtra (i.e. V. 2.95) is added, in as much as complete sense is covered by the previous sūtra. A possible answer is that this sūtra is mentioned in order to exclude the use of other matup suffixes. But this is not accepted by the Bhāsyakāra. According to him, there are examples of the use of other ‘matvarthīya' suffixes in "rasiko natah”, “urvasi vai rūpini apsarasām", "sparsiko vayur iti.” The passage from the M.bh. (= Mahābhasya) reads as follows :
“rasā”dibhayaś ca.” (Pā. Sū. V. 2.95) kim artham idam ucyate, na tad asyā'sty asminn ity eva matup siddhaḥ. rasā"dibhyaḥ punarvacanam anya-nivsttyartham rasā"dibhyaḥ punar vacanam kriyate’nyeșām matvarthīyānām pratiședhártham.
matubena yathā tyādyénye matvarthīyāḥ prāpnuvanti te mā bhūvann iti. maitad asti prayojanam, drsyante hy anye rasādibhyo matvarthīyāh. rasiko natah, urvasi vai rūpiny apsarasām, sparsiko vāyur iti." (M.bh. on Pā. Sū. 2.95; pp. 394; Edn. Geilhorn).

Page #48

The concept of "Rasa"
1223
Kāśikā explains this by saying that the matup suffix is to be used in the qualities grasped by senses. But in the case of rūpiņī, rūpika etc., the idea is to suggest not merely rūpa grasped by the eye, but beauty. Similarly, in ‘rasiko natah', the meaning is not that nata possesses juice tasted by the tongue, but he possesses an emotion or sentiment - "bhāva-yogah". The passage from the Kāśikā runs as below:
"rasa"dibhyas' ca prātipadikebhyo matup pratyayo bhavati, tad asya'styasminn ity etasmin viṣaye. rasavān, rūpavān. kim artham ucyate, na pūrvasūtreņa matup siddhaḥ ? rasā"dibhyaḥ punarvacanam anya-nivṛttyartham; anye matvarthīyā mā bhūvann iti. katham rūpiņī kanyā, rūpiko dārakaḥ ? prāyikam etad vacanam; iti karaṇo vivakṣárthónuvartate. athavā guṇā”di yatra pathyate, tena ye rasanendriyagrāhyā guṇās teṣām atra pāṭhah iha mã bhūt; rūpiṇī, rūpika, iti sobhāyogaḥ gamyate. rasiko nata ity atra bhāvayogaḥ. rasa,-rūpa-gandha-sparśaś śabdā snehaguṇāt ekācaḥ guna-grahanam rasā❞dīnām viseṣaṇam, rasā"diḥ."
-
This point is made more explicit by the Tattvabodhini on the Siddhanta Kaumudi. The author Jñanendra-sarasvati observes: "anya-mattvarthīya iti. katham tarhi rūpiņī kanyā, rasiko naṭaḥ iti. atrā"huḥ rasa"digane gunāt iti pathyate. tena guṇa-vācibhya eva anya-mattvarthīyasya niṣedha-rūpiņī ity atra tu rūpaśabdena saundaryam grahyate, tac ca na gunah; rasikam ity atra tu rasa-śabdena bhāvo grhyate, na tu rasanāgrāhyo guna iti. (pp. 303, Edn. '33, N.S. press).
From the above discussion we cannot say whether Mahābhāṣyakāra wants to confine the use of matup suffix to the sense-quality of taste only. This is however the distinction made by Kāśikā and later commentaries. But this much is certain that the Mahabhāṣyakāra uses the word 'rasa' in 'rasiko naṭaḥ' in the sense of 'bhāva' i.e. emotion or sentiment. So, we may say that it is in the Mahābhāsva that we meet, perhaps for the first time a clear use of the word 'rasa' in the aesthetic context, i.e. in the sense of "nātvarasa" also.
Other references in the M.bh., on Pa. III. 1.26, show familiarity of the Mahābhāṣyakāra with dramatic performance or something akin to that. This would suggest that the word rasa in the aesthetic sense must have become current before Patanjali. How long before, we do not have at present the means to indicate. Sources reveal that Panini wrote a mahākāvya also and if so, Patanjali must surely have known that and this brings both of them closer to aesthetic rasa.

Page #49

1224
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
We will now look into the use of 'rasa' and related words if any, in the works of great literary artists such as Asvaghosa (Cir. 100 A.D. keith), Bhāsa (Circa 200 A.D. Keith; and Kālidāsa (Cir. 400 A.D.; Keith). (We do not have absolute faith in these dates after reading the works of such great scholars as our friend, the late, Prof. Biswanath Bhattacharya of Shantiniketan, (W.Bengal)).
From our search thus far, for the use of the word rasa in the aesthetic sense, we may conclude that in the early vedic literature as such, there is no clear indication of it, though there are certain usages as we noted above, which associate 'rasa' with literary works, where the meaning is of 'flavour' as such and the joy incidental to it. But when we come to Panini and Patanjali, particularly the latter, we have a very clear use of the word 'rasa', in the aesthetic sense. Whether this specific use of the word 'rasa' was known to Pāṇini or not, we cannot say. But if the interpretation given by Patanjali also represents the view of Panini, we can say that Panini also had in his mind the aesthetic sense of "rasa", to be distinguished from the sense of 'sense-quality' of 'rasa', i.e. literary taste as distinguished from physical taste of an eatable. We can therefore assume that this specific aesthetic sense of the word rasa must have become current in the literary world of Patanjali or even Panini and then writers that followed them. To be frank, as was pointed out by us under the discussion on vyañjanā, even here, Panini and Partañjali while dealing with 'sastra' had no business to talk of 'rasa' in the aesthetic sense and even with this, something positive in that direction has crept in. And if Panini himself also was a writer of a mahākāvya, it is not safe to assume that he was totally ignorant of the word 'rasa' taken in its aesthetic context. With this, we will move on to earlier poets and dramatists.
We will try to see now from the works of earlier literary artists like Aśvaghosa, Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, whether there is any material for the formation of rasa-theory in the famous rasa-sutra read in the N.S. (Natyaśāstra) of Bharata. It may be noted that we have no absolute faith in the priority of Asvaghosa to Kālidāsa but we go by the generally accepted sequence and in doing so, we do not stand to lose for both of them were at least prior to Bharata, the author of the present available N.S. Again, we do not have faith, and surely so after the findings of our friend Prof. Dr. N.P. Unni., in the fact that all thirteen plays, known as Trivendram plays were penned by Bhāsa. But if at all something concrete follows, and we do hope that this will be the outcome of our present attempt - we will just go to suggest how works of these great ancient giants might have guided Bharata or his predecessors in the field of literary and dramatic theory to go for i.e. to formulate what we know as "rasa-theory" to-day.
-

Page #50

The concept of “Rasa”
1225 As the normally accepted date of the now available N.S. of Bharata falls between sometime before A.D. to second century A.D., or to still later times after Christ, the authors under consideration can be said to fall in a period of fluidity regarding the formation of the said rasa theory. We cannot say of these authors that they keep before them and follow rasa-theory in the same way or sense as done by Harśa, the author of Ratnāvalī, Priya-darśikā and Nāgānanda. By this study we mean just to indicate how works of great poets lying before Bharata or his predecessor, might have influenced or guided him in the formation of the theory of dramatic art, or art in general, i.e. the rasa-theory. The works before Bharata were necessarily those of Aśvaghosa, Kālidāsa and Bhāsa for sure, and also of many literary masters whose works along with names also, are for the present lost to us.
It is almost an accepted fact that literary theory draws upon literary practice and in turn influences the same as grammar does upon linguistic usages. That the definitions of Mahākavya and other literary forms as found in the works on poetics by Bhāmaha, Dandin and the like, were formulated in view of the master-pieces of Aśvaghosa, Kālidāsa etc., is an accepted fact. On the same analogy we may say that probably the formation of the famous rasa-sūtra in Bharata also might have been
y the same fact as that of the careful observation and study of the actual practice of the literary giants who might have preceded him. In view of this, we may try to study the works of Ašvaghoșa, Bhāsa and Kālidāsa. We will try to find out if there is any mentioning or clear usage of the so called śāstric terms such as 'vibhāva', 'anubhāva', 'sättvika', 'vyabhicărin', or 'sthāyin' etc., which make for actual rasa-realisation in their particular literary work, and which might have thus paved the way in the formation of a theory of rasa, both in nātya and kāvya, or any fine art in general.
Ašvaghosa - .'
In the Buddha-Carita (= Bu. Ca.) of Asvaghosa, at III. 7, We have the description of Suddhodana bidding farewell to his son Sarvártha-siddha who was starting for his first excursion. The verse reads as : (Edn. Cowell, 1893 A.D.)
"atho narendraḥ sutam agatā’śruḥ śirasy upaghrāya ciram nirīksya, gacchéti cā"jñāpayati sma vācā
shehān na cainam manasā mumoca." (Bu. Ca. III. 7) The Sahityadarpana has discussed vatsala rasa with 'Sneha' or 'Vatsalatā' as sthāyin, putra i.e. son and the like, the ālambana vibhāva, the ceștās, vidyā, śaurya of the son etc., as the uddipana-vibhāva, alingana i.e. embrace, anga-sparsa or

Page #51

1226
SAHRDAYĀLOKA touching the limbs, sirasa cumbana, i.e. kissing the head, aśru or tear's, etc. as the anubhāvas, anistā"sankā or imagining the calamity, harsa i.e. joy, etc. as the sañcarins or vyabhicārins. We have practically all this in the stanza quoted as above.
Bu. Ca. III. 13-22 describe the feelings of women eager to see the prince. Particularly the vyabhicărin called 'āvega' or haste or uneasiness i.e. love-torment, is seen prominantly depicted in these verses. Bu. Ca. IV. 25 describes the anubhāvas that accompany the śộngāra-rasa in the following words
"tā bhrubhiḥ prekşitair hāvair hasitair laditair gataiḥ, cakrur aksepikāś cestāḥ
bhīta-bhitā ivánganāḥ.” Bu. Ca. IV. 54-61 describe the state of the prince who did not respond to the gestures of the beautiful ladies. We find therein the delineation of 'sama'-sthāyin and the realisation of śānta-rasa. Bu. Ca. IV. 54 reads as :
"evam āksipyamāņo'pi sa tu dhairyā”vșténdriyaḥ, martavyam iti sódvego
na jaharsa na vivyathe." His friend Udāyī finds him thus lost in contemplation, and in order to deviate him from it, starts addressing the prince -
“iti dhyāna-param drstvā visayebhyo gata-sprham, udāyī nīti-śāstrajñas
tam uvāca suhsttayā.” (Bu. Ca. IV. 62) The feeling of 'nirveda' or despondency finds a beautiful expression in the words of Buddha who says:
"jarā-vyādhiś ca mộtyuś ca yadi na syād idam trayam, mamā’pi hi manojñeșu
vișayeșu ratir bhavet.” (Bu. Ca. IV. 86). Bu. Ca. V. 29, describes the anubhāvas of vatsala-rasa as read below :
"iti tasya vaco nisamya rājā • kariņévā’bhihato drumaś cacāla,

Page #52

The concept of "Rasa"
kamala-pratime❜nalau gṛhitvā
vacanam cédam uvāca bāṣpa-kanthah."
Bu. Ca. V. 45 describes the uddipana and ālambana vibhāvas of śṛngāra-rasa as follows:
"tata uttamam uttamánganās tam niśituryair upatasthur indrakalpam, himavacchirasīva candragaure
draviṇendrā❞tmajam apsaro gaṇaughaḥ.”
Bu. Ca. VII. 1-10, describe the effects on human beings, beasts, etc. when the prince makes an entry into the forest. We come across a beautiful delineation of the sthāyibhāva viz. 'vismaya' giving rise to 'adbhuta rasa'.
Bu. Ca. VII. 7, reads as -
"kaccid vasūnām ayam astamaḥ syāt syad aśvinor anyataraś cyuto vā, uccerur uccair iti tatra vācaḥ
tad darśanad vismayajā munīnām.”
Bu. Ca. VIII. 21, 22, provide all the required factors that make for the Karuna-rasa. "vilambakesyo malinámbarās' ca
niranjanair bāṣpa-hatekṣanair mukhaiḥ, striyo na rejur mṛjayā vinākṛtā divīva tārā rajanīkṣayā'ruṇāḥ. (VIII. 21)
Bu. Ca. VIII. 22 is -

1227
"arakta-tāmrais caraṇair a-nupuraiḥ a-kuṇḍalair ārjava-kandharair mukhaiḥ, svabhāva-pinair jaghanair a-mekhalair
a-hāra-yoktrair mușitair iva stanaiḥ."
'Avega', born of calamity is beautifully illustrated in Bu. Ca. VIII. 20, read as below:
"ati-praharṣād atha śoka-mūrcchitaḥ kumāra-sandarśana-lola-locanāḥ,
gṛhad viniścakramur āśrayā striyaḥ śarat-payodād iva vidyutaś calāḥ."
(Bu. Ca. VIII. 20)

Page #53

SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
The sättvika-bhāvas such as stambha, vaivarnya etc. that go with the karuņa rasa are to be seen in the following verse -
hatatviṣo'nyāḥ śithilāmsa-bāhavaḥ striyo viṣādena vicetana iva,
na cakraśur na'śru jahur na śaśvasur
na celurāsur likhita iva sthitaḥ." (Bu. Ca. VIII. 25)
1228
We are reminded of, "citrarpita"rambha ivavatasthau."
The anubhava of karunarasa, such as daiva-nindā (i.e. censure of fate), bhūpāta (= falling on earth), krandita (= weeping), etc. are seen in yasodharavilāpa in Bu. Ca. VIII. 31-42.
Bu. Ca. VIII. 31 reads as -
"tatas tu roșa-pravirakta-locanā viṣāda-sambandhi-kaṣāya-gadgadam, uvāca niśvāsa-calat-payodharā,
vighāḍha-śokáśrudhara yasodharā."
Bu. Ca. VIII. 70 reads as -

"itiha devi pati-śoka-mūrcchitā rorodha dadhyau vilalāpa ca'sakṛt svabhāva-dhīrā'pi hi sā satī śucā
dhṛtim na sasmāra cakāra no hriyam."
Falling on the earth due to grief is described in the Bu. Ca. VIII. 73, and the wailing on the part of king Suddhodana is described in Bu. Ca. VIII. 75-80. Jaḍatā (= stupour), the sättvika-bhāva finds expression in Bu. Ca. VIII. 81, which reads as -
"iti tanaya-viyogajātaduḥkhaḥ
ksiti-sadṛśam sahajam vihāya dhairyam, daśaratha iva rama-śoka-vasyo
bahu vilalāpa nṛpo visamjña-kalpaḥ."
(Once again we feel that all this is modelled on Kālidāsa).
Krodha, the sthāyibhāva of raudra and the anubhāvas that go with that, are described in Bu. Ca. XIII. 28-30.

Page #54

The concept of “Rasa”
1229 Bu. Ca. XIII. 30 reads as -
“mahībhrto dharma-parāśca nāgā mahāmuner vighnam a-mrsyamāņāḥ, māram prati krodha-vivịtta-netrā
niḥśaśvasuḥ caiva jajțmbhire ca.” The material for bībhatsa-rasa is supplied in the description of hell in Bu. Ca. XIV. Bu. Ca. XIV. 14 reads as -
“kecit tiksņair ayo-damstrair bhaksyante dāruņaiḥ svabhiḥ, kecid dhrstair ayas-tundair
vāyasair āyasair iva." So also in canto V, wherein the charms of ladies are described as being ineffective, bībhatsa is suggested. Bu. Ca. V. 61 -
“vivrtā”syapuță vivęddha-gātrī prapatad-vaktra-jalā, prakāśa guhyā, aparā mada-ghūrņiteva śiśye
na babhāse, vikstam vapuḥ pupoșa.” śrngāra finds beautiful expression in Sau. (= Saundarananda, Edn. Haraprasad Shastri, Bibliotheca Indica, 1910) - IV. 36 -
"athā’pyanāśyāna-viśesakāyām, mayy esyasi tvam tvaritam tatas tvām, nipīdayisyāmi bhuja-dvayena
nirbhişaņenā”rdra-vilepanena.” The vyabhicārin called 'vitarka' finds beautiful expression in Sau. IV. 42 -
"tam gauravam buddha-gatam cakarsa bhāryā’nurāgaḥ punar ācakarsa, sóniścayān nā'pi yayau na tasthau
turam starangeşviva rājahamsaḥ.” (We are reminded of the famous expression from Kalidasa - "sailādhirājatanayā, na yayau na tasthau.")

Page #55

1230
The anubhavas of Karuna are found in Sau. VI. 4 - "sā kheda-samsvinna-lalāṭakena niḥśvāsa-nispīta-viśeṣakena,
cinta-calákṣeņa mukhena tasthau bhartāram anyatra viśankamānā."
And also Sau. VI. 5 reads as -
"tataś cirasthana-pariśrameņa sthitaiva paryankatale papāta, -tiryak ca śiśye pra-vihīrṇahārā sapādukaikárdha-vilambha-pādā.”
Āvega, is seen in the verses that follow. Vilapa or wailings are seen in verses 1219 in Sau. VI. So also the anubhavas such as kṣobha, krandana, etc. are seen in Sau. VI. 24-25.
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
Sau. VI. 35 describes vividly all the anubhavas that go with karuna-rasa, as below -
"ruroda mamlau virurāva jaglau
babhrāma tasthau vilalapa dadhyau cakāra rosam vicakāra māyām
cakarta vaktram vicakarṣa vastram."
Thus, in Asvaghosa we come across the actual description of different vibhāvā"dis that give rise to different rasas, thus providing enough material for the theorists to draw their own conclusions.
Again 'rasa' in various forms is seen in Asvaghosa, as at, Bu. Ca. II. 8; III. 51; V. 52 (sa-rasaḥ) Thus, we have rasa and sa-rasah. V. 5 has 'rasa'.
Sau. has 'rasa', at -
V. 24 - prajñārasaḥ.... rasebhyaḥ,
IX. 48 - 'rasa'; XI. 2 'rasa', XI. 49 rasan (= making sound); XVI. 93 'rasena'.
Now we will turn to the dramatic works of Bhasa and Kalidasa. Before examining the employment of different emotions, we will look into, the various forms in which the words 'rasa' occurs. Thus, the Trivendrum plays ascribed to Bhasa (Edn. Prof. Deodhar, Poona) - have -

rasanā; pra-you, (pratijñā-yaugandharāyaṇa) bhaya-rasam pp. 84; Avi (= Avimāraka), pp. 110; I. 2 adhika-rasaḥ - Avi.; pp. 168 (verse V. 4) guņā rasajñasya; Caru. (carudatta-or daridra-că. I. 2; pp. 197)

Page #56

The concept of “Rasa”
1231 kridā-rasesu-cā. III. 1; pp. 223; etc. In Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattam (= Svapna.), we have the vyabhicărin called smrti illustrated in V. 5, 6; which read as -
"smarāmy avantyadhipateḥ sutāyāḥ prasthānakāle svajanam smarantyāḥ, bāspam pravsttam nayanánta-lagnam
snehān mamaivórasi pātayantyāḥ.” and also,
"bahuśópy upadeśeșu yayā mām īkşamāņayā, hastena srasta-koņena
krtam ākāśa-văditam.” So also, read the following - Rājā -
"śrutisukhaninade katham nu devyāḥ stana-yugale jaghana-sthale ca suptā, vihaga-gana-rajo-vilagna-dandā
pratibhayam abhyușitā’sy aranya-vāsam.” api ca -, asnigdhā'si ghoṣavati, yā tapasvinyā na smarasi,
"śroņisamudvahana-pārsva-nipīļitāni kheda-stanāntara-sukhāny upagūhitāni uddiśya mām ca virahe paridevitāni vādyántareșu kathitāni ca sasmitāni." (Svapna. VI. 1 & 2)
Also read Avi. II. I, which runs as - "adyā’pi hasti-kara-sīkara-śītalángīm bālām bhayā”kula-vilola-vişāda-netrām, svapneșu nityam upalabhya, punarvibodhe, jātismaraḥ prathamajātimiva smarāmi.”
All these instances evoke vipralambha śộngāra.
We may be able to read the material for karuna-rasa in the speech of Dasaratha (in Pratimänātaka, Act. II) for whom Rāma is lost for ever.
Rājā : bhrātaḥ ! sumantra ! "kva me jyeștho rāmaḥ, na hi na hi yuktam abhihitam mayā.... kva me jyesto rāmaḥ priyasuta, sutaḥ sā kva duhitā

Page #57

1232
SAHRDAYĀLOKA videhānām, bhartur niratiśaya-bhaktir gurujane, kva vā saumitrir mām hata-pitskam āsanna-maraṇam, kim apy āhuḥ kim te sakala-jana
śokárnava-karam.” The vibhāva, anubhāva etc. of hāsya are seen in the speech of Vasantaka in Svapna. V, where he starts telling a story to Udayana.
Vidūsakah - bhodu, annam kahaissam atthi naaram bamhadattam nāma. tahim kila rāā kampillo ņāma.
Rājā-kim iti, kim iti ?
Vidūşakaḥ - (punas tad eva pațhati) Rāja - mūrkha, rājā brahmadattah nagaram kāmpilyam ity abhidhīyatām. . Viduşakaḥ - kim rāā bamhadatto naaram kāmpillam ?
Rājā - evam etat. vidūşakaḥ - tenna hi muhuttamam padivelledu bhavam, jāva otthagaam
karissam. rāā bahamadatto naaram kampillam (iti bahuśah tad eva pathitvā) idānim sunodu bhavam... etc.
Raudra, with krodha as its sthāyin and the enemy as its ālambana, the activity of the enemy as its uddīpana etc. is seen in the following passage of the Madhyama Vyāyoga (= Ma. Vyā.) - Bhīmah-atha kóyam bhīmo nāma ?
"viśvakartā śivaḥ krsnaḥ śakraḥ śaktidharo yamaḥ, eteșu kathyatām bhadra
kena te sadrśaḥ pitā ?" Ghatotkacaḥ - sarvaiḥ. Bhīmaḥ - dhig anstam etat. Ghatotkacah-katham katham anstam ity āha ? ksipasi me gurum ? bhavatv imam sthūlam vrksam utpatya praharāmi (utpātya praharati) katham anenā'pi na śakyate hantum ? kim nu khalu kariśye ? bhavatu, drstam, etad girikūtam utpāțya praharāmi.... etc.
Or, as in Dūta-ghatotkaca, wherein we have - Gatotakacah - (sa-rosam) kim dūta iti mām pradharsayasi ? mā tāvad bhoh, na

Page #58

The concept of "Rasa"
1233
dūtóham -
"alam vo vyavasāyena, praharadhvam samāhatäh, jyācchedad durbalo nā'ham abhimanyur iha sthitaḥ. mahān esa kaiśorakóyam me manorathah, api ca,
"daststo mustim uddyamya tişthaty eșa ghatotkalah, uttişthatu pumān kaścid
gantum icched yamā”layam.” etc. etc. Vira-rasa, with 'garva' as its vyabhicărin is beautifully illustrated in Dūta-vākya, I. 24, wherein Duryodhana says -
bho dūta, na jānāti bhavān rājya-vyavahāram. "rājyam nāma nộpātmajaiḥ sahrdayair jātvā ripūn bhujyate, tal loke na tu yācyate, na tu punar dīnāya vā dīyate, kānkṣā cen nịpatitvam āptum acirāt, kurvantu te sāhasam,
svairam vā pravišantu śāntamatibhir justam, śamāyā”śramam.” Or, in the following; read - Duryodhanaḥ - āḥ kasya vijñāpyam ? mad vacanād eva sa vaktavyaḥ -
“kim vyartham bahu bhāsase na khalu te pārusya-sādhyā vayam, kopān nā’rhasi kimcid eva vacanam yuddham yadā dāsyati, niryāmy eșa nirantaram nộpaśatacchatrāvalībhir vịtas tistha tvam saha pāņdavaiḥ prativaco dāsyāmi te sāyakaih.”
(Dūta-ghasotakala I. 15). Dharma-vīra can be read in the following; Salyaḥ - bho angarāja, vañcitaḥ khalu bhavān. Karnah - kena ?
śalyaḥ - sakrena, karṇaḥ - na khalu; sakrah khalu vañcitaḥ mayā aneka-yajñā'huti-tarpito dvijaiḥ kirītimān dānava-samgha-mardanah, sūra-dvipā”sphālana-karkaśāngulir
mayā krtárthah khalu pāka-śāsanah. (Karnabhāra, I. 23) and also, Salyaḥ - angarāja, na dātavyam.

Page #59

1234
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Karṇaḥ - Salyarāja, alam alam vārayitum. paśya -
“śikṣā kșayam gacchati kāla-paryayāt subaddha-mūlā nipatanti pādapāḥ, jalam jalāsthāna-gatam ca śușyati hutam ca dattam ca tathaiva tişthati.”
tasmād gļhyatām. (niskrtya dadāti) (karṇabhāra I. 22) Bhayānaka is illustrated in the following; Dámódaraḥ -
"etā matta-cakora-śāva-nayanāh prodbhinna-kamra-stanāḥ, kāntāḥ prasphuritā-dharosta-rucayaḥ visrasta-keśa-srajah, sambhrāntā galitóttarīya-vasanās trāsākula-vyāhịtāḥ, tusţā mām anuyānti pannagapatim drsțvaiva gopánganāḥ.” -
(Bālacarita, IV. 1) Bibhatsa is evoked in Urubhanga I. 11, as below:
"ghỉdhră madhūka-mūkulónnata-pingaláksā daityendra-kunjara-națánkuśa-tīksna-tundāḥ bhānty ambare vitata-lamba-vikīrṇa-paksā
māmsaiḥ pravāla-racitā iva tāla-vřkşāḥ." Thus, in the Trivendrum plays, we come across illustrations that might have been a source of inspiration to the theorists, of course, in case they are from Bhāsa's pen, a fact in which we have only that much faith as has my friend Dr. N. P. Unni.
In Kālidāsa also we have the same encouragement for the theorists to form their theory. Of course Kālidāsa himself seems to be in the know of the eight-fold rasas and their delineation through dramatic art as we will go to observe below. His reference to Bharata is whether to the present available N.S. of Bharata or some older work of an older Bharata; if kālidāsa is placed before christ, a theory we have greater faith in; is not very clear.
We come across the delineation of different bhāvas, anubhāvas, etc. that are associated in theory with particular rasas. We find them here also, in the same

Page #60

The concept of “Rasa”
1235 context. Thus 'avahitthā', the vyabhicărin going with śộngāra-rasa finds expression in Ku-Sam. (Kumāra-Sambhava) VI. 84 : (References to all the works of Kālidāsa are from the second critical Edn. of Kālidāsa-Granthāvalī, Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi, Varanasi)
“evamvādinī devarsau pārśve pitur adhomukhi, līlā-kamala-patrāņi
ganayāmāsa pārvatī.” (Ku. Sam. VI. 84) ‘Mati' is a vyabhicārin read in Abhi. Śā. I. 21, as -
"a-samsayam khșatra-parigraha-kşamā yad āryam asyām abhilāși me manaḥ, satām hi sandeha-padeșu vastușu
pramāņam autah-karana-pravṛttayaḥ." "Svapna” is a vyabhicārin that is associated with vipralambha-śộngāra and is marked at Megha. (Uttara, 49) :
“mām ākāśa-praņihitabhujam nirdayā”ślşa-hetoh, labdhāyās te katham api mayā svapna-sandarśaneșu, paśyantīnām na khalu bahuśo na sthalī-devatānām
muktā-sthūlās tarukisalayeșy aśruleśāḥ patanti.” All the peraphernelia of vipralambha śộngāra is supplied in the Megha. (Uttara, 47):
"tvām ālikhya pranaya-kupitām dhāturāgaiḥ śilāyām, ātmānam te carana-patitam yāvad icchāmi kartum, asrais tāvan muhur upacitair drsțir ālupyate me,
krūras tasminn api na sahate sangamam nau kệtántāḥ.” The heroine is the alambana-vibhāva here, 'tat-pranaya-kopa' is the uddīpanabhāva, the desire followed by activity in a dream to fall at her feet is the anubhāva, censure of destiny is the vyabhicārin, and rati is the sthāyin. The uddīpana-vibhāva for śānta is met with in the Abhi. Śā. in I. 7:
“nīvārā śuka-garbha-kotara-mukhabhastās tarūnām adhah... etc."

Page #61

SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
Unmādā'tiśaya, a vyabhicārin of vipralambha is seen in the Vikramórvasiyam (= vikramo.) act IV as read in the famous verse, viz. "tisthet kopa-vaśāt prabhāvapihitā." etc.
1236
Instances can be muliplied as we find the vibhāvā"dis of karuņa in ajavilāpa and rati-vilāpa etc. Vira finds expression in Raghu. III. 51.
"tataḥ prahasya'pabhayaḥ purandaram punar babhāśe turagasya rakṣitā, grhāņa sastram yadi sarga esa te na khalv anirjitya raghum krti bhavan." Dharmavīra is seen in Raghu. II. 57 - "kim apy ahimsyah tava cen mato❜ham, yaśaḥ-śarīre bhava me dayāluḥ, ekānta-vidhvamsiṣu madvidhānām
pindeṣv anāsthā khalu bhautikeṣu."
Thus, such clear practices in the works of the ancients could have inspired the theorists to build up a theory in the form we are familiar with. Actual practice of the great poets could have paved the way to formulation of literary principles, and these in turn could have influenced the posterior literary artists.
We will now look into the actual occurrences of the word 'rasa' in Asvaghosa, Bhāsa and Kālidāsa and we will try to see if there is a clear reference to the aesthetic sense in any occurrence.
In the Bu. Ca. of Asvaghosa we come across two occurrences of the word 'rasa' and one of rasă. Rasā at Bu. Ca. V. 5 means "the earth". However, Bu. Ca. V. 62 is noteworthy. It reads as -
"iti sattva-kulánurūpam
vividham sa pramadājanaḥ śayānaḥ, sarasah sadṛśam babhāra rūpam
pavanāvarjita-rugna-puskarasya."
'sarasaḥ' here is obviously in the sense of 'charged with śṛngāra-rasa'. In the Sau. V. 24, we read 'rasebhyaḥ'; and 'rasaḥ' -
śraddha-dhanam śresthatamam dhanebhayaḥ, prajñā-rasaḥ tṛptikaro rasebhyaḥ."

Page #62

The concept of “Rasa”
1237 "Rasa' in prajña-rasa does not carry the technical sense of aesthetic rapture, but 'rasa' in 'rasebhyaḥ' i.e. 'among all rasas' - may refer to the eight or nine nātya/ kāvya rasas, or tastes in general.
Sau. XI. 2 has, "anistanaiskarmya-rasah”, i.e. "one who has no interest in 'naişkarmya' i.e. inaction. The same verse has 'virasaḥ' in the same sense of “having no interest".
Sau. IX. 49 has 'rasan' in the sense of “making noise”. Sau. XVI. 93 has ‘rasān' meaning tastes.
Thus in Asvaghosa, we do not come across 'rasa' in the technical sense of kāvya/nātya-rasa, excepting perhaps at Bu. Ca. V. 62 as seen above.
In the Trivendrum plays that are associated with the name of Bhāsa we have rasanā - pra. yau. III. pp. 84; Edn. ibid bhayarasam-Avi. I. 2 (pp. 110); Edn. ibid adhika-rasaḥ - Avi. V. 4 (pp. 168); Edn. ibid and, krīļā-raseșu-Cā. III. i. (pp. 223). None of these seems to carry the technical sense of kāvya/nātya-rasa.
In Kālidāsa we have several references of the word 'rasa' and some of them are definitely referring to the aesthetic context.
Thus, Kālidāsa has - : rasam Raghu. I. 18; sama-rasā-Raghu. IV. 18; rasān - Raghu. IV. 66 rasavat - Raghu. VIII. 68 rasakhandana-varjitam - Raghu. IX. 36; abalaika-rasāḥ - Raghu. IX. 43 rasāntarāņi-eka-rasam - Raghu. X. 17 krīdārasam - Kum. Sam. I. 29 rasāt - Kum. Sam. III. 37 rasātmakasya - Kum. Sam. V. 22 bhāvaika-rasam-manah - Kum. Sam. V. 82

Page #63

1238
rasántareṣu - Kum. Sam. VII. 91, jātarūpa-rasa - Kum. Sam. VIII. 36 mūla-seka-sarasaiḥ - Kum. Sam. VIII. 38 dhātu-rasa Kum. Sam. VIII. 58 prabhā-rasam - Kum. Sam. VIII. 70; ananga-rasa-prasange Ku. Sam. IX. 1 rasena - Kum. Sam. IX. 41, X. 136 rasan, virasam - Kum. Sam. XVI. 12
sarasam Ritu. SC. I. 2 (grīṣma-varṇana)
The Abhi. śā. has -
-
sadayam sundari gṛhyate raso'sya - Act. III läksārasaḥ - IV. 4; (bhavaneṣu) rasādhikeṣu - VII. 20
The Vikramo. has -
śrȧgāraika-rasaḥ - I. i
asta-rasāśrayah - II. 18
rasad rte II. 22
Mālavikā. has
nānārasam - I. 4
raseṣu - II. 8
rasajñam IV. 1
Megha. has

-
-
rasa"bhyantaraḥ - I. 28 (pūrva.)
sarasa-kadali. - II. 36 (uttara)
The most striking occurrences are as below: Ku. Sam. VII. 91 reads as - "tau sandhiṣu vyañjita-vṛttibhedam rasántareṣu pratibaddha-rāgam, apaśyatām asparasām muhūrtam prayogam adyam lalitángahāram."
SAHṚDAYALOKA

Page #64

The concept of “Rasa”
1239 Here 'sandhi' refers to the five sandhis. 'Vrtti' refers to kaiśiki and the rest. 'rasántareşu' has a clear reference to nātya-rasas. Actually a full-fledged theory of nātya-sastra is referred to, as it were.
Ku. Sam. V. 82 is also especially noteworthy. It has "bhāvaika-rasam manasā” obviously in the sense of śộngāra-rasa.
The Mālavikā. has the following occurrence in a clear technical sense : Mālavikā. I. 4, reads as -
"devānām idam amananti munayah krāntam kratum cākṣuşam, rudrenedam umākṣta-vyatikare svánge vibhaktam dvidhā, traigunyódbhavam atra loka-caritam nānārasam dịśyate, nātyam bhinna-rucer janasya
bahudhā'py ekam samārādhanam.” Malavikā - II. 8 - is
"angair antar-nihita-vacanaiḥ sūcitaḥ samyag arthaḥ, pada-nyāso layam anugatas tanmayatyam rasesu, śākhāyonir mrdur abhinayas tadvikalpā'nu-víttau bhāvo bhāvam nudati visayād
rāga-bandhah sa eva." Mālavikā. IV. is
"tām āśritya śrutipathagatām āśayād-baddha-mūlaḥ, hasta-sparśair anukulita iva vyakta-romodgamatvāt kuryāt kāntam manasija-tarur mām rasa-jñam phalasya."

Page #65

1240
SAHṚDAYALOKA
In all these occurrences 'rasa' carries the technical sense of natya-rasa. In the Vikrama. We have 'rasa' in its technical sense, at I. 8. : asyaḥ sargavidhau prajapatir abhut candro na kanti-pradaḥ, śṛngāraika-rasaḥ svayam nu madanaḥ mäso na puspakaraḥ, vedā❜bhyasa-jadaḥ katham nu viṣaya-vyāvṛtta-kautuhalaḥ nirmātum prabhaven manoharam idam rūpam purāno muniḥ." at III. 118 -
"muninā bharatena yaḥ prayogaḥ bhavatiṣv asta-rasāśrayo niyuktah. lalitábhinayam tam adya bhartā marutām drastumanāḥ sa loka-pālaḥ."
and at act III -
dvitiyaḥ - "tasmin punaḥ sarasvati-kṛtakābandhe lakṣmi-svayamvare, tesu tesu rasantaresu tanmayy āsīt."
Thus, in Kalidasa we have very clear occurrences of the word 'rasa' in the technical aesthetic sense of kavya/nātya-rasa.
"Rasa" in Bharatamuni.
The earliest discussion in the technical sense of aesthetic pleasure or artexperience of the term "rasa" is to be met with in the Nā. Sā. attributed to Bharata (Cir. 200 B.C.- 200 A.C.). In fact, the Nā. Sā. is also our earliest available written document that discusses such topics of Sanskrit alamkāra-śāstra as alamkāra, guṇa, doșa, vṛtti, rīti, etc. It may be noted that the textual criticism of this monumental work is not yet fully carried out. This much however is clear that it contains several strata belonging probably to different ages and probably also to different schools of thought. The major part of this work is in verse. There are however, a few prose passages containing the famous rasa-sutra which may be taken as an early discussion on the subject. However, whatever that may be, we are inclined to take the whole portion, i.e. both prose and verse, as one single harmonious unit, for our discussion here. The anuvamsya āryas and slokas quoted in support of the main text in prose and verse, clarify what is said in the main body of the text.
Having described in the first five adhyāyas of the Nā. Śā., the mythical origin of the science of dramaturgy, its first production, the construction of the different types of theatre buildings, the ceremonial worship of the theatre, the different aspects of pūrva-ranga, the difference between abhinaya, nṛtta and the different

Page #66

The concept of "Rasa"
1241 varieties of nịtta etc., Bharata comes to some of the main themes relevant to the art of dramaturgy.
In the sixth adhyāya the sages ask Bharata five questions. Of these the first and the formost are :
"ye rasā iti pathyante nātye nātya-vicakşanaiḥ
rasatvam kena vai teşām etad ākhyātam arhasi.” (S.VI. 2, Nā. Śa.) and, (VI. 3a) -
"bhāvāś caiva katham proktāḥ
kim vā te bhāvayanty api.” Thus, the understanding of the rasas and the bhāvas occupy prominent place in the Nā. Sā. The eight rasas and the sthāyin, sancārin and sātrvikabhāvas are enumerated in NS. 16-23, of Ch. VI. Lateron, after having enumerated abhinayas, vrttis, pravṛttis, siddhis, four types of musical tones, four types of musical instruments, five types of singing and three types of theatre building, the author proceeds to explain the subject of rasa in prose.
First, we will quote the full passage and its translation (by Dr. G. K. Bhat, Bharata-Nātya-Mañjarī, pub. B.O.R.I., Pune, 1975, pp. 82-93). Then we will try to understand it critically. The text reads as follows: (pp. 266 - etc. 4th Edn. G.O.S., - Vol. II; 1992) (Edn. K.Kris.)
(i) (rasa-vidhānam) · These sub-titles are cited from Bharata-Nātya-mañjarī, Edn. Dr. Bhat)
"tatra rasān eva tāvad ādāv abhivyākhyāsyāmaḥ. na hi rasād rte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate.'
atrā"ha-rasa iti kah padárthah ? ucyate - āsvādyatvāt. katham āsvādyate rasah. yathā hi nānā-vyañjana-samskrtam annam bhuñjānā rasān āsvādayanti sumanasah purusāḥ harsā"dinścā'dhigacchanti tathā nānābhāvábhinayavyañjitān vāgangasattvópetán sthāyibhāvān āsvādayanti sumanasaḥ preksakāḥ harśādīnścádhigacchanti tasmān nātya-rasā ity abhivyākhyātāḥ.
atrā’nuvamśyau ślokau bhavataḥ. (32)
yathā bahu-dravya-yutair vyañjanair bahubhir yutam, āsvādayanti bhuñjānā bhaktam bhakta-vido janāḥ.

Page #67

1242
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (33)
bhāvā bhinaya-sambaddhān sthāyibhāvāns tathā budhāh āsvādayanti manasā
tasmān nātyarasāḥ smộtāḥ.” (rasa-bhāvayoh anyonya-sambandhah) - atrā”ha - kim rasebhyo bhāvānām abhinirvrttirutā"ho bhāvebhyo rasānām iti. kesāñcin matam parasparasambandhād esām abhinirvíttir iti. tan na. kasmāt. drśyate hi bhāvebhyo rasānām abhinirvrttir na tu rasebhyo bhāvanām-abhinirvrttir iti.
bhavanti cā’tra ślokāḥ - (34)
nānā'bhinaya-sambaddhān bhāvayanti rasān iman, yasmāt tasmād ami bhāvāḥ vijñeyā nāțya-yoktỊbhiḥ. nānā-dravyair bahuvidhair vyañjanam bhāvyate yathā, evam bhāvā bhāvayanti rasān abhinayaiḥ saha. na bhāvahīnósti rasaḥ na bhāvo rasa-varjitaḥ, paraspara krtā siddhis tayor abhinaye bhavet. vyañjanausadhi-samyogo . yathā’nnam svādutām nayet, evam bhāvā rasās' caiva bhāvayanti parasparam. yathā bījād bhaved vřkṣaḥ věksāt puspam phalam tathā tathā mūlam rasāḥ sarve
tebhyo bhāvā vyavasthitāḥ tad eşām rasānām utpattir-varna-daivata-nidarśanāny abhivyākhyāsyāmaḥ teşām utpatti-hetavaś catvāro rasāḥ tad yathā sộngāro raudro vīro bībhatsaḥ, iti.
(38)

Page #68

The concept of "Rasa"
(39)
(40)
(41)
atha varṇāḥ -
(42)
(43)
śṛngarād hi bhaved hāsyo
raudrac ca karuno rasaḥ, vīrāc caiva'dbhutótpattir bībhatsāc ca bhayānakaḥ." śṛngārā'nukṛtir yā tu sa hāsyas tu prakīrtitaḥ raudrasyaiva ca yat karma sa jñeyaḥ karuno rasaḥ. vīrasya'pi ca yat karma sódbhutaḥ parikīrtitaḥ bibhatsa-darśanam yac ca jñeyaḥ sa tu bhayānakaḥ.
(45)
atha daivatāni
(44)

śyāmo bhavati śṛngāraḥ sito hasyaḥ prakīrtitaḥ, kapotaḥ karunaś caiva rakto raudraḥ prakīrtitaḥ. gauro vīras tu vijñeyaḥ kṛṣṇaś caiva bhayānakaḥ, nila-varņas tu bībhatsaḥ
zpītaś caivā'dbhutaḥ smṛtah."
-
śṛngāro visnu-devatyo
hasyaḥ pramatha-daivataḥ, raudro rudra'dhi-daivatyaḥ karuno yama-daivataḥ bībhatsasya mahākālaḥ kāladevo bhayānakaḥ, viro mahendra-devaḥ syād adbhuto brahma-daivataḥ."
1243

Page #69

1244
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Trans. Dr. G. K. Bhat pp. 83).
“Now (in connection with the contents of the sūtra-work) we shall first of all explain the rhetorical sentiments. (Rasas)
No (literary) import can ever proceed without rhetorical sentiment and aesthetic relish
Now, Rasa arises from a (proper) combination of the stimulants (vibhāva), the (physical) consequents (anubhāva) and the Transient Emotional states.
What is the illustrative case ? There we say; Just as by a proper combination of different spicy food-stuffs (vyañjana), leafy vegetables (ausadhi), and other articles of food (dravya), there is a flavour and taste (rasa) produced, in the same way when different emotional states come together, aesthetic flavour and relish are produced. Just as again, on account of such articles of food as molasses and spicy and vegetable stuff, the six (food) flavours and tastes are produced, in the same way, when various emotional states reach the abiding mental conditions, the latter attain the quality of rhetorical sentiment (or become aesthetically relishable)
Now, one may ask, : what is this thing that you call 'rasa' ? We way : (it is so called) because it is capable of being tasted (or relished). How is rasa tasted ? Just as people in a contented state of mind (sumanasah), eating the food prepared well (samskrta) with various spicy things taste the (various) flavours (enjoy the various tastes) and obtain delight and satisfaction (harşādīn), in the same manner spectators, in the right (receptive] frame of mind (sumanasah), taste the permanent mental conditions, suggested (vyañjita) by the representation (abhinaya) of various emotional states, (the abhinaya) carried out by speechdelivery (vāc), physical gestures and movements (anga), and by the physical acting of psychical impacts (sattva), and they obtain pleasure and satisfaction. It is for this reason that they have been explained as “nātya-rasa" aesthetic contents and their relish arising from dramatic representation.
In the context there are two traditional couplets :
(32) Just as connoisseurs of cooked rice (or food, bhakta) when they eat it as prepared with many articles of food with many different spicy things enjoy the flavour and taste,
(33) in like manner, the wise (spectators) taste and enjoy in their mind the permanent mental conditions rendered through (lit. well-connected with) the acting of emotional states (bhāvábhinaya),

Page #70

The concept of “Rasa”
1245 (Inter-relation as Bhāva and Rasa.)
One may ask : Are the emotional states turned out from the rhetorical sentiments, or is it that the sentiments are turned out of the emotional states ? Some opine that they arise from mutual contact. But this is not so. Why? Because, it is a matter of actual perception that the rhetorical sentiments are turned out of the emotional states and not the emotional states are turned out of the sentiments.
There are traditional couplets about this.
(34) The emotional states are so known by the designers of dramatic art because they (the bhāvas) bring to the spectators (imān) an emotional awareness (bhāvayanti) of the sentiments as connected with various modes of acting or dramatic representation.
(35) Just as, by many articles of food (dravya) of various kinds, the spicy foodstuff (vyañjana : like vegetables, meat, fish) is brought to a (distinct) flavour (bhāvyate), in the same way, the emotional states bring the sentiments to the level of (actual) experience when helped by different kinds of acting (or histrionic representation : abhinaya).
(36) There can hardly be (the experience of) sentiment without the previous presentation of) an emotional state; nor can there be an emotional state which does not lead to (the experience of a sentiment). During the process of histrionic
he two (bhava and rasa) accomplish (their status and function) by (dual) interection. .
(37) As the combination of spicy food-stuffs and vegetables leads the (main) cooked food to a (distinct) relishable taste (svādutā), in the same way, the emotional states and sentiments lead each other to the distinct) level of an experience.
(38) As from a seed a tree grows, and from the tree flower and fruit, so all the sentiments stand as the root; the emotional states have their settled position for the sake of (tebhyaḥ : i.e. for the purpose of manifesting) the sentiments.
Now we will expound the origin, colours, (presiding) deities and illustrations of these Rhetorical Sentiments. The sources of origin of these (sentiments) are the four (basic) sentiments : these (are) as follows: the Erotic, the Furious, the Heroic and the Odious.
Here (the following verses occur) :
(39) The Comic Sentiment becomes possible from the Erotic, and the Pathetic from the Furious; the origin of the Marvellous (is) from the Heroic, and of the Terrible from the Odious.

Page #71

1246
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (40) A mimicry (or imitation) of the Erotic is fittingly (tu) described as the (sentiment of) Laughter. And the consequence of the Furious should be known as the Pathetic Sentiment.
(41) In the same way the consequence of the Heroic is properly described as the Marvellous. And the presentation of the odious is to be known likewise as the Terrible.
Now the colours :
(42) The Erotic (sentiment) is light-green (śyāma), the comic is described as white (sita), Pathetic is grey (kapota) and the Fearful is described as (rakta).
(43) The Heroic is to be known as yellow red (gaura); the Terrible as black, the Odious on the contrary is blue (nīla) and the Marvellous (is) Yellow.
Now the Deities -
(44) The Erotic (Sentiment) has Visnu as its presiding deity; the deity of the Comic is Pramatha; the deity of the Furious is Rudra; the Pathetic has Yama as its deity.
(45) The deity of the Odious is Mahākāla; the Terrible has Kāla as the God; the Heroic, the god Mahendra; the Marvellous has Brahmā as its deity.” The rest of the Chapter VI. N.S. gives detailed description of the eight
cal sentiments, the emotions and consequents connected with them, their divisions, if any, their provenance and modes of acting them.
It may be noted that in the translation as attempted by Dr. G. K. Bhat, he has used the term "rhetorical sentiments” for sentiments in general. The latter in our opinion is quite proper and generally accepted. For the sake of a comparative view, we also quote the translation of the same passage by our friend Dr. N. P. Unni as is given below. The discerning reader will go for his own preference. We however choose to be closer to Gnoli in translating the technical terms. Dr. Unni has the following: (Trans. pp. 158 onwards, N.S. Edn. Nag Publishers, '98, Delhi) - (Tatra rasān eva. etc.)
"Among these I shall deal with the sentiments at the outset. There could be nothing without the relish of sentiments. The conjunction of Vibhāvas (Determinants), Anubhāvas (consequents) and Vyabhicāribhāvas (Transitory moods) causes the production of Rasas (Sentiments) (in dramatic works and poems).
Where is the instance in this connection ? One may ask. Here one may say, - “Just as a good taste is produced by the mixing together of different spices,

Page #72

ICC.
The concept of “Rasa”
1247 medicinal herbs and other articles; just as a confectionary taste (literally six kinds of tastes) is produced by the processing of molasses and other articles along with spices and herbs; the different sthāyibhāvas (the permanent moods) become rasas (sentiments) when they combine with the different Bhävas (determinants, consequents and transitories).
Here is a question - "What is meant by the word Rasa ? The answer is (given as)” Because it can be relished”, “How does one relish the sentiment ?” Just as the noble-minded people taste the Rasas when they eat the food prepared with different spices and become joyful, similarly the noble-minded spectators enjoy the sthāyibhāvas in combination with the representation of speech, limbs and internal faculty suggesting different emotional moods and find extreme happiness. Hence we call them as Nāryarasas - sentiments pertaining to dance and drama..
Here there are two conformable stanzas : Just as people who have a special liking for the food enjoy the meals prepared using different matierals and spices, the scholars appreciate by their mind the sthāyibhāvas (permanent moods) combined with the gestural representation of the moods. Hence these are called sentiments relating to dramatic performance.
Here is a question - Do the sentiments give rise to the emotions or the emotions produce the sentiments ? The answer is - some hold that both are the cause and effect due to their close relations. But it is not so. Why? We notice that the emotions culminate in the production of sentiments and not the other way, the sentiments generating the emotions.
Here are some stanzas in this regard. The authorities on Nārya call the emotional fervour as Bhāvas since they help to realise the Rasas connected with the various types of representation. As the spices in combination with the different articles help to produce the dish, the Bhāvas help the production of Rasa with proper gesticulations and representations. There is no Rasa without the accompaniment of Bhāva, nor there is any Bhāva devoid of Rasa. In the matter of representation both of them render mutual help to bring about the achievement. As the spices and herbs give rise to good taste for food, Bhāvas and Rasas contribute to their mutual development. As a tree grows out of the seed and as flower and fruits are produced by the tree, Rasas form the basis from which the Bhāvas are originated. Thus these stāyibhāvas are known by the names of Rasas and they should be realised as such."
Hence we shall explain the origin, colour, deities, and examples of the various sentiments. There are four sentiments which are considered as basic. They are :

Page #73

1248
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Srngāra (the Erotic), Raudra (the Furious), Vira (the Heroic) and Bibhatsa (the Disgusting). From Srngāra the sentiment of Hāsya (the comic) is generated and from Raudra is produced the sentiment of Karuna (the Pathetic), Vira gives rise to Adbhuta (the Marvellous) and Bibhatsa generates the the sentiment of Bhayānaka (the terrible).
Hāsya consists in the imitation or Śrngāra and Karuna is the resultant of the sentiment of Raudra. Vira results in the production of Adbhuta and the sight of Bībhatsa transforms into the sentiment of Bhayānaka.
The colours assigned to the sentiments are : śrngāra is green and Hāsya is white. Karuna is dove-coloured while Raudra is red. Vira is distinguished by the wheatish brown colour while Bhayānaka is black. The blue colour is assigned to Bībhatsa while Adbhuta is considered to be yellow in colour.
The presiding deities of the sentiments are : śộngāra has Vişnu as its deity and Hāsya has the attendants of Siva. The deities for the other sentiments are Rudra for - Raudra, Yama for Karuna, Mahākāla for Bībhatsa and Kāladeva for Bhayānaka, Mahendra for Vira and Brahmā for Adbhuta."
Both Dr. Bhat and Dr. Unni have done a nice job in translating the original · passage, however, it is for the experts to choose. We will deal with the topic of Rasa
nispatti i.e. Rasa-realisation in a separate chapter as it also involves a critical study of the views of different interpreters of the famous sūtra. But for the present, we will pick up what Bharata has to say concerning the bhāvas in the Ch. VII. N.S. (G.O.S. Edn.). After that we will look into the approach of post-Bharata and preAnandavardhana ācāryas i.e. Bhāmaha to Rudrata on the topic of Rasa and Bhāva. With this we will end this chapter, picking up the thread in the next chapter with the theory of rasa-realisation, beginning with Abhinavagupta and the ācāryas he quotes, down to Jagannātha, of course catching up with Kuntaka, Dhananjaya/ Dhanika, Mahimā, and Bhoja in the middle.
The Ch. VII N.S. (G.O.S.) deals with the topic of Bhāvas. But before we deal with the topic of Bhāvas, it should be noted that Bharata has mentioned eight rasas and as for the portion or readings concerning the ninth i.e. śānta rasa opinion among scholars is divided with reference to the authenticity of that portion. So, we will consider the topic of śānta-rasa separately at the end of this chapter while dealing with the number of rasas recognised by various authorities. As for rasanispatti also, beyond the rasa-sūtra Bharata does not elaborate over it and it is left to his commentators to deal with the topic of rasa-realisation and rasa-svabhāva in greater details later. We will deal with all this in due course.

Page #74

The concept of “Rasa”
1249 Ch. VII (N.S.) has the following note concerning the bāvas which include eight sthāyi-bhāvas, eight sātrvika-bhāvas and thirty-three vyabhicāribhāvas making a total of 49. Here also later theorists add some more bhāvas. This will be discussed later. For the present let us see what Bharata has to say as read below :
"bhāvān idānīm vyākhyāsyāmah. atra aha-bhāvā iti kasmāt? kim bhavanti iti bhāvāḥ ? kim vă bhāvayanti iti bhāvāḥ ? Ucyate. vāg-anga-sattvópetān kävyárthān bhāvayanti iti bhāvā iti. bhū karane dhātuḥ. tathā ca bhāvitam vāsitam krtam ity anarthāntaram. loke'pi ca prasiddham-aho hy anena gandhena rasena vā sarvam eva bhävitam iti. tac ca vyāptyartham.” (pp. 185, Edn. Unni., ibid)
“Now we shall explain the bhāvas (emotions). Here it is asked : why are they called bhāvas ? Are they called bhāvas since they "happen to exist ?" OR, they are called so since they “cause to exist ?" The answer is : They are bhāvas since they convey (to the audience) the theme of the poem by means of speech, physical action and mental feelings. The root bhữ' means 'to become'. Thus words like 'manifested' 'pervaded', 'performed' etc. are synonymous. It is well known in common parlance that "everything is pervaded by this particular 'smell' or 'taste'. Here the meaning is pervasion.” (Trans. Unni., pp. 185, ibid)
We prefer Dr. Unni's rendering to that by Dr. Bhat (Ref. 'Bharata-NātyaMañjari; B.O.R.I. pub., Poona, '75) Bharata further has - "ślokās'cā’tra -
"vibhāvair āhịto yo’rtho hy anubhāvais tu gamyate
vāg-anga-sattvábhinayaiḥ sa bhāva iti samjñitaḥ.” "vāg-anga-mukha-rāgeṇa sattvenā”bhinayena ca,
kaver antargatam bhāvam bhāvayan bhāva ucyate.” “nānā’bhinaya-sambaddhān bhāvayanti rasān imān,
yasmāt tasmād ami bhāvā vijñeyā nātya-yoktřbhiḥ.” (pp. 186, ibid). (Trans. Unni., pp. 186, ibid) : There are some related stanzas : "The meaning brought about by the Vibhāvas (excitants) is suggested by anubhāvas (ensuants) by means of production of speech, bodily movements and mental feeling and hence it is termed as bhāva (emotion). It is termed as bhāva since the intentior of the poet is conveyed through the representation of speech, facial expression and depiction of mental feelings. The various sentiments related to the vivid represetation are conveyed and hence should be understood by dramatists that they deserve the name of bhāvas.”

Page #75

1250
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
[It may be noted that at times Dr. Bhat's English rendering seems to be richer but by and large we have a gut feeling that Bharata has found a natural abode in Unni's heart who has rendered the whole of N.S. in English along with some notes from A.bh. So we go with Unni. However, for vibhāva. anubhāva and wabhicāribhāva, we prefer Gnoli's rendering such as determinant. 'consequent and 'ancillary feeling'.)
Bharata continues - (pp. 186, Unni, ibid): "atha vibhāva iti kasmāt? ucyate - vibhāvo nāma vijñānárthaḥ, vibhāvaḥ, kāraṇam, nimittam, hetur iti paryāyāḥ. vibhāvyate anena vāg-anga-sattvábhinaya iti vibhāvah yathā vibhāvitam vijñātam ity anarthā'ntaram. (pp. 187) atra ślokaḥ -
“bahavo'rthā vibhāvyante vāg-angā’bhinayā”śrayāḥ, anena yasmāt tenā’yam
vibhāva iti samjñitah.” (Trans. Unni.-ibid pp. 186, 7): “Why is it called vibhāva (exitant) ? The answer is - Vibhāva (knowledge) Kārana (reason), nimitta (instrumental or efficient cause) and hetu (logical reason) are synonyms. Vibhāva is called so since through it the representations of speech, bodily gestures and mental feelings are expatiated (Dr. Bhat renders it as (pp. 97, ibid). Vibhāva, Kāran (cause), nimitta (instrument), hetu (reason) are synonyms. As words, physical gestures and the psycho-physical acting (connected with the representation of stable and transitory mental states] are specifically determined by this (vibhāvyante), it is therefore called vibhāva.) (Unni) - Vibhāvita (conceived) and vijñāta (comprehended) are of the same connotation.
Here is a stanza : This is called Vibhāva since many ideas are represented by the employment of speech and gesticulations of limbs through this.
"atha anubhāva iti kasmāt ? ucyate · anubhāvyate anena vāg-angasattvakrto'bhinaya iti. atra ślokah
"vāgangā’bhinayenéha yatas tv artho’nubhāvyate
śākhāngópānga-samyuktas tv anubhāvas tataḥ smộtaḥ.” (Trans. Unni.) : Why is this termed anubhāva (ensuant) ? The answer is - it helps the representation of speech, bodily gestures, and mental feelings in performances). Here is a stanza - This is called 'anubhāva' since the ideas are

Page #76

The concept of "Rasa"
1251
represented by speech, bodily gestures and other ancillaries (through these ensuants)."
Bharata further suggests that thus the bhāvas along with vibhāvas and anubhavas have been expatiated. Thus their existence is established. He further discusses the characteristics of these bhāvas (= emotions) along with their vibhāvas and anubhāvas providing illustration where required.
Bharata observes that vibhāvas and anubhavas are loka-prasiddha i.e. welknown in the world. He does not define them to avoid prolixity as they follow the human nature : "loka-svabhāvā'nugatatvāc ca tayor lakṣaṇam nócyate'tiprasanga-nivṛttyartham.”
Bharata now comes to discuss 49 bhāvas. Of them eight are basic emotions i.e. permanent moods, thirty three are transitory feelings and eight are internal feelings (or-psycho-physical emotions). Thus 49 feelings and emotions are to be understood as factors that help to suggest poetic sentiment. By these, through proper combination, rasas are caused.
There is a stanza -
"yo'rtho hṛdaya-samvādī tasya bhāvo rasódbhavaḥ, śarīram vyāpyate tena
śuṣkam kāṣṭham ivā'gninā."
That meaning which is endearing i.e. closer to heart gives rise to emotions that result in production of sentiment, which pervades the whole body as fire engulfs the dry wood..
Bharata explains that it is true that through the proper combination of vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicārins as presented through kävyártha i.e. poetic content, make for the production of sentiments, but it is generally stated that the sthāyins or basic emotions attain the status or rasa i.e. poetic relish. This is so, Bharata observes, because this is so observed in normal worldly context also. This is explained by an example. Just as, Bharata observes, among men having common characteristics such as having equal hands, feet, bellies and other limbs only some attain to royal position on account of noble birth, habit, education, cleverness in arts and crafts, while others are rendered to the position of their followers because of meagre intellect, in the same way, vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicārins become subservient to the sthayibhāvas. Sthāyins attain the status of masters as

Page #77

1252
SAHṚDAYALOKA
others are dependent on them, and vyabhicārins are like subordinates. Thus other bhāvas becoming subordinate to respective sthāyins which are principal subserve the latter which attain to the status of rasa. If it is asked if there is any example here, it is stated that, a man having many followers and attendants attains the position and nomenclature of a king, but not others who also possess many servants, however great they may be. Similarly only the sthayin coming in conjunction with vibhāvas, anubhāvas, and vyabhicārins, gets the name of rasa - "atrā"ha-ko dṛṣṭānta iti. yathā narendro bahujana-parivaro'pi san sa eva năma labhate, na'nyaḥ sumahan api purusas tatha vibhāvánubhava-vyabhicari-parivṛtaḥ sthāyī bhāvo rasa-nāma labhate." (pp. 189, ibid)
A sloka is quoted to the effect that like king among men, and teacher among pupils, the sthāyin is always superior among different bhāvas.
Bharata observes that the characteristics of the bhāvas that become rasas have been already stated with illustration. He will now enumerate the general features of the various bhāvas, beginning of course, with the sthāyibhāvas first.
Bharata then considers the eight sthāyibhāvas such as rati and the like, individually with reference to the factors that cause and express them. After this, Bharata takes up the vyabhicārins. He observes: (pp. 196, 197, Unni., ibid):
"vyabhicāriṇaḥ idānīm vyākhyāsyāmaḥ atrā"ha vyabhicāriņa iti kasmāt ? ucyate 'vi' 'abhi' ity etāv upasargau. cara iti gatyartho dhātuḥ. vividham abhimukhyena raseșu caranti iti vyabhicāriṇaḥ. vāg-anga-sattvópetan prayoge rasan nayanti'ti vyabhicāriṇaḥ. atrā”ha-katham nayanti'ti. ucyate-loka-siddhanta eṣaḥ. yathā sūrya idam dinam nakṣatram vā nayatīti. na ca tena bāhubhyām skandhena vā nīyate. kintu loka-prasiddham etat yathédam suryo nakṣatram dinam vā nayatīti. evam ete. prayogam nayanti'ti vyabhicāriņa ity avagantavya nāma. ta eva samgrahábhihitās trayastrimśad vyabhicarino bhāvāḥ. tān varṇayisyāmaḥ."
-
(Trans.) "Now we shall deal with the transitory feelings. Here it may be asked why do we call it as "vyabhicārī"? The answer is - 'vi' and 'abhi' are prefixes. Root 'car' means to 'move'. Hence those which lead different objects or ideas towards rasa or sentiment are called "vyabhicārins". Here it may be asked - How do they lead? The answer is: It is well-known from the world that "the sun leads this 'day' or 'star'. He does not carry by his arms or by his shoulders. Still it is said in this world that the sun leads the star or the day. Thus these carry forward the performance and are to be designated as vyabhicārins. In the synoptic digest these are enumerated as thirty-three (in number). We will explain them in detail."

-
-

Page #78

The concept of “Rasa”
1253 Bharata then deals individually with 33 vyabhicārins such as nirveda and the rest.
Bharata observes : "evam ete trayas trimsad vyabhicārino bhāvā deśa-kālā'vasthā'nurūpyeņa ātmagata-paragata-madhyasthā uttama-madhyama'dhamaih stripumsaiḥ sva-prayogavaśād upapadyā iti.” (Trans. Unni) “These thirty-three vyabhicarins (transitories) should be represented by people of three types such as superior, middle and lower, in accordance with the suitability of place, time and situation in their actions." (pp. 222, ibid)
With this remark Bharata ends his discussion on vyabhicărins and then takes up the consideration of sättvika-bhāvas. It may be noted that our respected guru Dr. V. M. Kulkarni (Ref. "outline of Abhinavagupta's Aesthetics." Pub. 98, Ahmedabad) has considered the problem of the nature of Sättvika-bhāvas in great detail.
Bharata observes (pp. 223, ibid, Unni): atrā"ha - kim anye bhāvāḥ sattvena vinā’bhinīyanta yasmād ucyante ete sāttvikāḥ iti ?
atrocyate-evam etat. kasmat ? iha hi sattvam nāma manah-prabhavam. tac ca, samāhita-manastvād ucyate. manasah samādhau sattva-nispattir bhavati iti. tasya ca yo'sau svabhāvo romāñcā’sru-vaivarnyyā"di-lakṣaṇo yathābhāvópagatah, sa na sakyónyamanasā kartum iti. loka-svabhāvā'nukaranāc ca nātyasya sattvam īpsitam. ko drstāntah ? iha hi nātya-dharma-pravsttāḥ sukha-duḥkha-kstā bhāvās tathā sattva-viśuddhāh kāryā yathā sarūpā bhavanti duhkham nāma rodanā”tmakam. tat katham a-duhkhitena, sukham ca praharsā"tmakam a-sukhitena abhinayet? etad eva asya sāttvikatvam. a-duhkhitena a-prahrstena vā'sru-romancau pradarsitavyāv iti krtvā sātrvikā bhāvā ity abhivyākhyātāḥ."
(Trans. Unni.) - "Here one may ask-Is it so that the other emotions are represented without the presence of mind, that these are called 'sättvika-bhāvas' - the internal feelings that are self-manifested ?
The, answer is : yes; it is so. Why ? 'Sattva' means 'a state of mental disposition', or originating from the mind'. And that is evolved through the concentration of the mind. By the concentration of mind sattva is originated. Its natural characteristics are made evident by romāñca (horripilation), aśru (tears) and vaivarnya (change of colour) (following due emotion), - which could not be evidenced by absentmindedness. Since the nature of the dramatic performance is an imitation of the worldly actions, mental presence is definitely sought for. What is the evidence for this ? Here the emotions like pleasure and pain are to be represented (in dramas) following certain theatrical conventions in such a mentally purified or affected manner so that they may become true to life. Pain or misery calls for crying and

Page #79

1254
SAHRDAYĀLOKA how can it be represented by one who does not feel sorrow ? Pleasure is of the nature of excessive joy and how can it be represented by one who does not feel happiness ? So this is what is stated as its mental or internal status. These are called sātrvika-bhāvas-external manifestations of internal feelings and explained so since feelings like tears and horripilation can be represented (on the stage) by persons who are not at all happy or worried. The eight sāttvikas are :
“stambhaḥ svedótha romāñcah svarabhedótha vepathuḥ vaivarnyam-aśru-pralaya
ity aştau sāttvikāḥ matāḥ." Bharata then individually takes up each sättvika bhāva and explaines how it can be performed. • Bharata also explains which vyabhícārins and sātrvika bhāvas would go with which rasa :
"ekóna-pañcāśad ime yathāvat bhāvās tryavasthā hy uditā mayéha, bhūyaś ca ye yatra rase niyojyās śrotum arhanti tu vipra-mukhyāh.”
(pp. 226, ibid, Trans., Unni) - "Thus I have shown here forty nine emotions divided into three divisions. Oh best of Brahmins, now it is upto you to listen to the explanation as to which of these pertain to the particular sentiments in its delineation."
Bharata then explains and names the vyabhicārins and sāttvikas that go with this or that rasa.
Bharata ends the chapter with some special observations concerning bhāvas and rasas. He observes (pp. 228, 229, Unni. ibid; and also trans) -
na hyeka-rasajam kāvyam kiñcid asti prayogataḥ, “bhāvo vā’pi raso vā’pi pravṛttir vșttir eva vā., bahūnām samavetānām rūpam yasya bhaved bahu, sa mantavyo rasaḥ stāyī, seșāḥ sancāriņo matāḥ, dīpayancaḥ pravartante ye punaḥ sthāyinam rasam. vibhāvā’nubhāva-yukto hyanga-vastu-samāśrayaḥ

Page #80

The concept of "Rasa"
1255 sancāribhis tu samyuktaḥ sthāyyeva tu raso bhavet.” na hyeka-rasajam kāyyam naika-bhāvaika-vrttikam. vimarde rangam āyāti prayuktam hi prayatnataḥ “nānābhāvártha-sampannāḥ sthāyisattva-vicāriņaḥ puspávakīrṇā kartavyāḥ kāvyesu hi rasā budhaiḥ. evam rasānām bhāvānām vyavasthānam iha smstam, ya evam etān jānāti sa gacchet siddhim uttamām."
(Trans. Unni. pp. 228, 229, ibid): “But then there is no such poem which depends on a single sentiment alone.
A bhāva (emotion) or a rasa (sentiment), a pravrtti (dress) or vítti (style) join together to enhance a particular feeling which then attains the position of a sthāyin-permanent mood developing into the status of Rasa, while relegating others to the position of transitories. These enhance the permanent mood to make it a rasa. The permanent mood (sthāyī) alone can in conjunction with vibhāvas (determinants), anubhāvas (ensuants) and vyabhicārins (transitories) transform itself into the state of rasa (sentiment).
The actors should bestow particular case to stress the mental involvement in the delineation of the sthāyin - the permanent mood, whereas in representation of sañcarins-transitories, gestures and posture suffice. There is no poem dealing with a single sentiment, nor dealing a single bhāva (emotion) or a vrtti (style); though all of them combine to produce the desired sentiment; permanent moods, internal feelings and transitories possessing different thematic qualities should be arranged in a poem in such a way that they appear as flowers strewn all over to raise them to the position of sentiments. Thus the relative positions of rasas (sentiments) and bhāvas (emotions) are explained here. He who understands this properly is sure to achieve supreme success (in performances).”
Here ends Bharata's discussion on bhāvas, i.e. vibhāvas, anubhāvas, 33 vyabhicărins and eight sāttvikabhāvas. In the earlier chapter he had dealt with eight rasas. As suggested by us, Abhinavagupta has gone into greater details concerning the problem of rasa-nispatti, a discussion sparked by different interpretations of Bharata's rasa-sūtra by different authorities, and also concerning the subtle nature of sāttvikabhāvas, as discussed ably by Dr. V. M.
will pick up this thread in due course, but for the present we will try to examine what earlier ālamkārikas from Bhāmaha to Rudrata have to say on rasa, bhāva and such related topics.
-

Page #81

1256
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA It may be noted beforehand that the concepts of rasa and bhāva and the theories concerning their relish had a hoary past even prior to Bharata and Bharata talks of "kavya-rasa" at innumerable places suggesting that the theory of rasa, that originated perhaps as a theory of art in general was made applicable to dramatic as well as poetic art much earlier than Bharata. So far as his NS. is concerned we find some concepts of literary criticism such as guna, alamkāra, lakṣaṇa and dosa also being considered in a separate chapter to take care of literary value which any normally good written script of a play should possess. Thus, long before Bhāmaha, we find literary criticism seen flowered in circles of critics that cared for art in general and literary art in particular. We do not know whether Lollata and the rest who discussed the birth of rasa had which predecessors who shaped their thinking; but one thing is clear that all this had a telling effect on alamkarikas such as Bhamaha and other ancients whose works have come down to us. The general theory of art was made applicable to various literary forms as well and no doubt Bhāmaha wanted kavya to be graced by rasa/bhāva etc. The vibhāvādis for sure, as Abhinavagupta is to explain later, were presented in form of words (i.e. sabda-rupa) in poetry and all ālamkarikas even prior to Anandavardhana were aware of it. With this clear understanding we will move to Bhāmaha.
Bhāmaha - As observed earlier, the comparatively simple rasa theory or say arttheory in general presented by Bharata in the NS. becomes the subject matter, later, of fine-analysis and recondite discussion in the hands of writers adept in various darśanas and śāstras. Perhaps different dārśanika views entered into the discussion of art-theory also and rendered some colour of their own and made the matter quite complicated and subject of intellectual exercise. Abhinavagupta has recorded such views and later ālamkarikas and commentators on works on poetics and dramatargy have added to this bulk with Jagannatha perhaps at the end presenting nearly eleven views on rasa-realisation. Abhinavagupta does it both in his A.bh. and also in his Locana on the Dhv. But before we come to study this treatment of rasatheory given by later writers, we will first move to Bhāmaha and other known writers upto Rudrața, who were prior to Anandavardhana and see what they have to say in this regard.
Bhamaha of course had his predecessors, yes, many of them, and we hardly know anything about their works or views except some names such as 'Medhāvin' that he mentions. This perhaps may not be a proper noun. It may be just a reference to some "intelligent" authority. Whatever it may be, Bhāmaha, for sure looked into many works of his predocessors, now lost to us. He observes (Bhamaha, V. 69):

Page #82

The concept of "Rasa"
"iti nigaditās tās tā vācām alamkṛtayo mayā bahuvidha-kṛtair dṛṣṭvā'nyeṣām svayam parikīrtya ca, pariprathita-vacasaḥ santóbhijñāḥ pramāṇam ihā'pare gurutaradhiyām asvārādham manókṛta-buddhibhiḥ." He also observes at VI. 64 -
"vyalokya matāni satkavīnām
avagamya svadhiya ca kavya-lakṣma, sujanávagamāya bhāmahena
grathitam rakrila-gomi-sununédam."
Thus it is clear that Bhamaha inherited admired, accepted and then presented in his own way the rich heritage of literary criticism from his predecessors and surely Bharata must have been one of those. He also mentions by name some 'Rājamitra' (Bhāmaha, II. 45) Kavya, and also of "sakhavardhana", and some 'Rāmaśarman' (Bhāmaha, II. 58). Medhāvī finds mention at "ityevam upamādoṣā sapta medhavinódita", and at "sankhyānam iti medhāvī", etc.

1257
Thus a rich heritage of literary criticism came down to Bhamaha. Now we will try to investigate Bhamaha's attitude towards rasa/bhāva etc. At the outset it may be noted that in the earlier alamkarikas such as Bhāmaha, Dandin etc. we do not come across any theoratical discussion on rasa-realisation. These earlier writers on poetics had their own concept of kavya as word and sense taken together in general. All that rendered charm to poetry was termed "alamkara" in the wider sense of the term. Thus they thought of poetry first, and then 'beauty' in poetry, i.e. 'alamkāra'. Bhāmaha names this as "vakrokti" in general, at II. 85
"saiṣā sarvaiva vakróktir anaya'rtho vibhāvyate, yatnósyām kavinā kāryaḥ kólamkārónayā vinā."
This is in tune with his expression viz. "vakra'bhidheya-sabdoktir iṣṭā vācām alamkṛtih." Thus expression of 'vakra' i.e. beautiful word and 'vakra' i.e. beautiful sense makes for poetry in Bhamaha. This 'vakrókti' or expression of beauty is the same as 'atiśayókti' or expression of 'atisaya' i.e. 'lokóttara' i.e. something special in poetry which distinguishes it from ordinary speech. This is a wider sense given to "alamkara". Later Abhinavagupta in Locana explains 'vibhavyate' as 'that which is turned into a 'vibhāva' i.e. 'determinant', which causes 'rasa'. Dandin also, we will

Page #83

1258
SAHRDAYĀLOKA go to see, refers to this wider sense of the term 'alamkāra' when he says that all factors that make for poetic beauty are called alamkāras - "kavya-sobhākarān dharmān alamkārān pracaksate.” (Kavyādarśa, II. i.). Vāmana also takes the term 'alamkāra' in a wider sense when he observes that 'oetry is to be distinguished by alamkara', and 'beauty is alamkāra' - (Kā. Sū. Vr. I. i. 1, 2) kavyam grāhyam alamkārāt' and 'saundaryam alamkārah.” Thus whatever is a source of charm in poetry is broadly termed 'alamkāra' by the ancients. These writers, as observed earlier, could not have been unaware of the concepts and theory of rasa/bhāva as propounded by Bharata and his predecessors, as can be ascertained by the definition of 'mahākāvya'. It seems they tried to approach this problem of rasa, and its position in poetry, by taking it as 'alamkāra' in the wider sense of the term, i.e. as a source of beauty in poetry. This explains the appearance of the whole group of what we may term - "emotion-based alamkāras", such as rasavat, preyas, ūrjasvi, samāhita etc. Thus it may prove interesting to study the treatment of these
alamkāras by these earlier alamkārikas in order to trace their attitude towards the - concepts of rasa-bhāva etc. in poetry.
Bhāmaha (I. 21b) describes a mahākāvya to be gifted with various rasas : "yuktam loka-svabhāvena, rasaiś ca sakalaiḥ prthak.” Thus not only Bhāmaha knows of rasa, but he knows of many rasas - perhaps eight, nine or even more.
That kāvya should inherently describe 'loka-svabhāva' also seems to take Bhāmaha closer to Bharata who wanted 'nātya' as one that concerned itself primarily with 'loka-svabhāva', i.e. 'worldly context.' in general. Bhāmaha treats the alamkāras such as preyas, rasavat; ürjasvi and samāhita in the third pariccheda of his Kävyálamkāra. His approach to 'rasa/bhāva'-concepts is clearly discernible in this treatment of emotion-based alamkāras.
Rasavat is defined by Bhāmaha at III. 6. In this chapter he treats 23 alamkāras. He mentions these alamkāras in III. 1-5 and begins with 'preyo rasavad ürjasvi, paryāyoktam samāhitam' (III. I. 9). Preyaḥ is taken up at III. 5 but no definition is attempted. Instead, only an illustration is given. Bhāmaha observes (III. 5 a, b, c) -
“preyo-gļhā”gatam krşņam avādīd viduro yathā - adya ya mama govinda jātā tvayi grha"gate, kālenaisā bhavet prītis tavaiv āgamanāt punah.”

Page #84

The concept of "Rasa"
1259
"Preyólamkara (is seen as when). Seeing Krsna reaching his place, Vidura said, "O Govinda, the pleasure or joy that I experience to-day on your arrival (at my residence), will be experienced again at a time of your arrival (again at my place) - This clearly is an illustration of a 'bhāva', i.e. 'ratir devā"di-gatā' i.e. an expression of love towards a divinity or personal god.
Vidura's love for Krsna is the object of description in this poetry. Kṛṣṇa is the ālambana vibhāva, his arrival is the uddīpana vibhāva, the poetic expression is an anubhava and all this is spurred by due vyabhicārins. Thus the whole complex of bhāva-dhvani is narrated in this illustration. Of course no theory is laid down by Bhamaha, but he knows the technical difference between 'rasa' and 'bhava' as explained clearly by later alamkarikas and also by his predecessors such as Bharata and whoever else there might have been. But this 'bhāvokti' is termed to be 'preyólamkara' - i.e. an 'alamkara' i.e. a 'source of poetic beauty' by Bhāmaha. He may call it this or that, but the fact remains that he is aware of and also appreciative of the presence of what is termed 'bhava' in literary criticism.
'Rasavat' follows similarly at III. 6. again only illustrated and not defined. If III. 5 took care of 'bhāva' or 'bhāvas' in poetry, III. 6. refers to the presence and due recognition of 'rasa' or 'rasas' in poetry III. 6, reads as -
"rasavad darsita-spastaśṛngārā"di-rasam, yathā
devi samāgamad dharma - (or, cchadma) maskariny atirohita (or .hite.")."
-
'Rasavat' is an alamkara, not defined by Bhamaha but only explained by pointing out to a context or an incident. The clear reference is to the incident described in Kumāra-Sambhava of Kālidāsa when Parvati was taken over by love, shell-shocked at the revelation of the original form of Lord Siva, whom she wanted to be her husband, who threw aside the artificial covering of a mendicant.
Bhamaha's words are to be understand as below: "Rasavat occurs as when Devi i.e. Pārvati came across (samāgamat) (an expression; āvirbhāvam), graced by clear suggestion of sentiment of love and the like. The 'adi' in 'śṛngārā"di' should refer to the pleasant surprise 'vismaya' leading to 'adbhuta-rasa' as an accompanying or 'gauņa' rasa, with love i.e. śṛngāra for Lord Siva as principal i.e. in centre. This happened when the artificial covering of an ascetic arguing against Lord Siva was suddenly forsaken by the Lord and who appeared in His true form.

Page #85

1260
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Again here Bhāmaha does not define the alamkāra but merely presents the full context and its effect, thereby suggesting that 'rati' the basic emotion and 'śrngāra' the resultant sentiment are but a matter of suggestion through the vibhāvā"dis. Here Lord Siva is the ālambana vibhāva for Pārvati and throwing away of the
the uddīpaka. Lajjā, avahitthā etc. are the accessories and sudden dazed expression and tremour-vepathu are the anubhāvas. As truely explained by Tatacarya (Edn. Tiravadi, '34, pp. 64, ibid) there is a clear reference to the Kumārasambhava incident. Tātācārya reads : "cchadma-maskariny atirohite'iti tv atra pāțhena bhāvyam.
"svarūpam āsthāya ca tām krta-smitaḥ, samālalambe vrsarāja-ketanah.” "tam vīksya vepathumatī sarasánga-yaştir niksepanāya padam uddhstam āvahanti mārgā’cala-vyatikarā” kuliteva sindhuḥ śailādhirājatanayā
na yayau, na tasthau." iti mahākave rasa-syandini sūktir atra granthakārasya hțdaye sthitā.
"Urjasvi? is again (Bhāmaha, III. 7) not defined, but as in case of the earlier appreciation of bhāva and rasa, here also a bhāva - "garva" suggesting a bhāvadhvani or even vīra-rasa later, is only illustrated by citing an incident. The context is that Karna took an aim at Arjuna by placing 'sarpástra' on his bow. The serpent left alive after khāndava-vana-burning also seeking revenge took his position on this arrow without being noticed by Karna. Lord Krisna saw all this and saved Arjuna and the aim with that special arrow failed. The serpant now appeared before Karna and requested him to take the aim with the same type of arrow i.e. 'sarpástra' again. Salya also advised Karņa to repeat the adventure. But Karna dismisses the serpent and the proposal to take a similar aim with the words." Does Karna take an aim, O Salya, for a second time ?' (No; go away!)

Page #86

The concept of “Rasa”
1261 Thus in this verse also Bhāmaha does not attempt any definition but describes the vibhāvā'di complex that suggests the feeling of self-respect or pride on the part
notion here is purely suggested. The speech of Karna displays a lofty emotion of valour or śaurya, perhaps not developed to the capacity of rasa. Thus 'ūrjasvi' like 'preyas' is a bhāva-based alamkāra as against rasavat having a fuller expression concerning the suggestion of a sentiment.
'Samāhita' (Bhāmaha, III. 10) is explained as, “Samāhita is illustrated in Rājamitra (a poetic composition); - when ksatriya ladies were going to appease Paraśurāma, Nārada appeared before them."Here Bhāmaha refers to a situation wherein the ksatriya ladies, being terrorised by the wrath of Paraśurāma, who was out to kill their husbands, were making an effort to appease him. Nārada arrives and helps them in their cause. Thus the whole incident has some reference to the quelling of the emotion of Paraśurāma's anger and also to the quelling of the fear on part or the ladies. Thus it is "bhāva-śānti" or suggestion of the quelling of an emotion. In later ālamkārikas, the element of chance on the part of Nārada's sudden accidental appearance is given greater importance and this makes for the later alamkāra or figure of speech called 'samadhi'. The elements of the quelling of emotion seems to have been ignored. But not so in Bhāmaha, who hereby suggests his aquaintance with what is termed as "bhāva-śānti" in Bharata, and also in later alamkārikas. But this for Bhāmaha, is only an "alamkāra", a source of beauty in poetry.
This observation makes it clear that Bhāmaha is not unfamiliar with the idea of rasa bhāva in general, though, he nowhere indulges in any theoretical treatment of the same. He thus subsumes the fact of rasa, under what may be termed as 'emotion-based' alamkāras. But it may be noted that Bhāmaha's use of the term 'vibhāvyate' at II. 85, is explained later by Abhinavagupta in his 'locana' as "vibhāvana" i.e. 'sādhāraṇīkarana' and 'āsvāda-yogyi-karana' taken together. Thus we see that the fact of rasa is here treated under the general category of alamkāra. We however find that Bhämaha, while describing mahākāvya, as observed earlier, certainly draws upon the N.S., and refers to the five sandhis - "pañcabhis sandhibhir yuktam" and also to all rasas - "rasaiś ca sakalaih prthak” (I. 20, 21), as characterising a mahākāvya. So, eventhough he has not incorporated or adopted discussions on rasa as read in the NS., he is definite in his view that as in the case of a nāțaka, the body of a mahākāvya, a major composition in poetry, also consists of five sandhis and is pervaded by various rasas. As to nāraka (I. 24) he has referred to other works, obviously those on dramaturgy beginning with NS. and any other that may not have come down to us. He observes (I. 24)

Page #87

1262
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
“nātakam dvipadi-samyarāsaka-skandhakā”di yat, uktam, tad abhineyártham
uktónyais tasya vistarah.” He has here taken note of not only nāțaka but other minor art-forms also as discussed by us in an earlier chapter.
Dandin : From the theoretical point of view, Dandin's position seems to be identical with that of Bhāmaha, with reference to the topic of rasa and bhāva. He also incorporates rasa/bhāva etc., under such figures as rasavat, preyas, etc. He speaks of rasa elsewhere also. At I. 51, Kavyādarśa he defines 'madhurya' guna as, "madhuryam rasavat, vāci vastuny api, rasasthitih." i.e. - "that which is having rasa, is mādhurya. Rasa resides both in vāk i.e. word and sense and also; in 'vastu' i.e. 'content. We do not go deeper in analysing his understanding of where 'rasa' stays, i.e. what exactly is the abode of rasa. But one point is clear that he seems to hold that in poetry both form and content contribute to rasa. 'Rasa in word and object - should mean this. At - II. 292, again he explains 'madhurya' as 'a-grāmyatā' i.e. 'lack of or absence of vulgarity'. Dandin, II. 292 reads as :
“vākyasyā’grāmyatāyonir mādhuryam (V1. .ye) darsito rasaḥ, iha tv astarasā”yattā
rasavattā smrtā girām." Taruņa-Vācaspati explains as : "evam śộngārā”dibhiḥ astabhiḥ, pūrva-darsitena ca a-grāmyatārūpena rasena navadha rasatvam iti rasavad alamkāram upasamharati; vākyasyeti.” - This is not very clear. Or, perhaps Taruņa Vācaspati does not know the secret of rasa. Hrdayamgamā is perhaps clearer when it observes - "mādhuryagune pradarśitaḥ śabdárthayor agramyatayā jātaḥ rasaḥ vākyasya bhavati. alamkāratayā nirdistam rasavatvam astarasā"yattam eva." But even this does not ring sound. By 'agrāmyatā' of 'sabdárthau', perhaps grammatical correctness or 'sādhutva' of 'vāk' is implied. Bhāmaha had called it to be "supām tinām ca vyutpattim” which was taken by some as 'alamkrti', but not so by Bhāmaha who called it only to be "sau-sabdya". At least a sort of grace descends on language which is grammatically chaste and this may be taken as having a sort of beauty-natural beauty - or 'rasa' - in a figurative way. Perhaps these commentators drive at this. Dandin perhaps does not seem to take 'rasa' in its 'NS.

Page #88

The concept of “Rasa”
1263
sense' i.e. technical sense, but only in the general sense of say, 'kāvya-rasa' or 'poetic beauty in general; in all such occurrences. Hemacandra says the same when he observes : "śruti-varņā'nuprāsābhyām vāg-rasam, a-grāmyā'bhidheyatayā tu vastu-rasaḥ. Māņikyacandra also agrees to this (pp. 180, K.P. ānandāśram edn.) when he observes : "śruti-varņā’nuprāsābhyām vāgrasaḥ, a-grāmyatayā tu vasturasah. ittham raso dvedhā. At III. 149, (Dandin) again "girām rasah" is explained by Tarunavācaspati as 'sādhutvam' only as explained by us above. At. I. 62, (Dandin) which reads as :
“kāmam sarvópy alamkāraḥ rasam arthe nișiñcati, tathā'py agrāmyataiv enam
bhāram vahati bhūyasā.” 'rasa' does not seem to carry any technical connotation, but that of beauty of content and expression'.
Dandin like Bhāmaha, incorporates rasa-bhāvā”di under emotionbased alamkāras such as preyas, rasavat, and ürjasvi. II. 275 reads as :
“preyaḥ priyatarā"khyānam rasavad rasa-peśalam, ūrjasvi rūdhā’hamkāram
yukrótkarşam ca tat trayam.” Dandin treats of these figures at II. 275, 294. It may be noted that the 'prabhā commentary (Edn. Poona, B.O.R.I. '70) explains Dandin with full knowledge and application of the rasa-theory in NS., as well as in the context of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta's views on dhvani. Thus 'prabhā' (pp. 257, under II. 275 as quoted above) observes - "trayāņām asamlaksyakramatva-rūpaika-dharmatvāt ekatra nirdeśah." Now whether Dandin knew rasā"di-dhvani to be 'asamlaksyakrama and vastu-alamkara-dhvani as "samlaksya-krama” or not, is a position not very clear to us. The fact that Dandin was a predecessor of the Dhvanyaloka suggests that he could not have this technical terminology before him, but on the other hand we cannot even rule out this possibility because Anandavardhana had suggested that 'dhvani' tradition was 'samāmnāta-pūrva' and Abhinavagupta had made it clear that this tradition was not caught in 'book-form, prior to the Dhvanyāloka' - 'vinā'pi viśista-pustakesu viniveśanāt.' Thus an oral tradition cannot be ruled out. Perhaps Bhāmaha. Dandin and other ancients knew it for sure but did not choose to elaborate 'dhvani' or 'vyañjana' in their works.

Page #89

1264
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA In Kavyādarśa II. 275-292 at the end of which we find a note such as "iti rasavaccakram” in Prabhā-edn., we find the following observations on the part of Dandin :
“By preyah is meant a more beautiful or lovelier expression. ['priyatarā”khyāna' is explained by prabhā (pp. 257, ibid) as - 'priyataram bhāvā bhivyaktyā boddhavyasya prītyatiśayakaram, vaktur vă prītyā’dhikya-sūcakam preyaḥ preyo nāmā'lamkārah] 'rasavad' is that which is delightful on account of rasa. (i.e. tender due to rasa). ['prabhā' observes : (pp. 257, ibid): tathā ca rasa-peśalam rasena ratyā"di-sthāyibhāva-rūpena peśalam, sahrdayā”nanda-jananam ākhyānam rasavad alamkāraḥ). 'Urjasvi' is that where 'garva' pride or self-respect is conveyed, (prabhā, pp. 257, ibid observes : tathā rūdhah abhivyaktah ahamkāro garvah yatra tādṛśam ākhyānam, ürjasvi.). These three are having 'utkarsa' or blossoming (of language) and hence deserve to be stamped as ‘alamkāras'. Prabhā (pp. 257, 258, ibid) observes - "yuktaḥ alamkāra-vyapadeśopayuktaḥ utkarşaḥ vācyaśobhā yasmāt tat. tat trayam teşām preyah-prabhịtīnām trayam alamkāra-vyapadeśárham bhavati ity arthaḥ. sādřśyā”dayo vācyártha-śobhā-janakatvād yathā upamálam kārā”dayo bhavanti, tathā bhāvā”dayópi tenaiva kāraṇena alarmkāra-vyavahāryā bhavitum yuktā ity arthaḥ.”
II. 276 cite the illustration viz. “adya yā mama govinda..." etc. This expression contains the 'bhagavad-vişayaka-rati-bhāva' i.e. 'love for God' on the part of Vidura. As it is conveyed through an artful sentence-structure, it strengthens the beauty of expression towards conveying love for God. II. 277 says that Hari was absolutely pleased - 'su-prītah' - listening to Vidura's apt expression. God is 'bhakti-matra-samaradhya' i.e. to be propitiated by devotion alone. II. 278, 279 also express love for God on the part of king Rātavarmā when Lord Siva presented Himself before the king. This expression is also 'prīti-prakāśanam', an illustration of 'bhāva-dhvani'.
With II. 280, Dandin turns to 'rasavat' and illustrates all the 'rasas' as 'rasavad alamkāra'. II. 280 is an illustration of sambhoga-śrngāra. This is supposed to be an expression of Udayana at the sight of Vāsavadattā whom he had taken as dead. Dandin observes (II. 281) that the 'prīti' that was expressed in earlier illustrations has reached the status of 'Sțngāra'.
"prāk prītir darsitā séyam ratiḥ śộngārtām gatā."

Page #90

The concept of “Rasa”
1265
Thus Dandin, following Bharata, knows the differences between 'bhāva' and 'rasa'. Rati with reference to 'deva' i.e. god and the like reaches to the level of bhāva (dhvani), but love for the beloved scales the heights of 'śộngāra-rasa'. Dandin calls it to be 'rasavad vacaḥ (= alamkāraḥ)' on account of “rūpa-bāhulya-yoga' - “rūpabāhulya-yogena tad idam rasavad vacaḥ” (II. 281 b). Prabhā (pp. 265, ibid) explains it as - "rūpa-bāhulya-yogena rūpasya svarūpasya bāhulyam vibhāvā’nubhāvavyabhicāri-bhāvā"dibhiḥ pariposas tasya yogena sambandhena śộngāra-rasatvam prāptā." - In VS. II. 282-291 Dandin illustrates and explains raudra-rasa, and then vīra, karuna, bībhatsa, hāsya, adbhuta and bhayānaka. With this he completes the discussion on eight rasas as acceptable to him. Perhaps he was not inclined to accept the śānta-rasa. He observes at the end of “rasavac cakram”, VS. II. 292 :
"vākyasyā’grāmyatā-yonir mādhurye darsito rasaḥ iha tv asta-rasā”yattā
rasavattā smrtā girām." 'agrānyatā' is explained at I. 62-67, 68. Perhaps obscenity concerning theme is not welcome to Dandin. But even grammatical irregularities also should walk in as 'agrāmyatā', for faulty use of language never pleased Bhāmaha.
Ürjasvi (VS II. 293-294) for Dandin, is suggestion of a bhāva called 'pride' or 'garva.' Prabhā observes : (pp. 272) · "darpaśālinā ahamkāravatā kenā'pi pumsā, vīrena, evam uktvā yuddhe niruddhaḥ parājitah paraḥ śatruḥ, muktah, gantum anujñātaḥ. tat tasmād ayam ūrjasvy alamkāro jñeyah. evam ādikam yathā atra vīra-rasa’vyabhicārī garva ūrjasvitvenóktas tathā anya-rasā’vyābhicārī ūrjasvī bhavati ity arthah.”
Thus for Dandin preyaḥ, rasavat and ūrjasvī cover the emotion-based alamkāra as in case of Bhāmaha. For both Bhāmaha and Dandin the instances of rasa and bhāva are 'alamkāra' of 'vāk' i.e. poetry, in the broader sense of the term.
It may be noted however, that Abhinavagupta, (pp. 272, A.bh., N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S. 2nd Edn.), while explaining Lollata's view on rasa being "caused by the vibhāvā"di milieu, observes that earlier writers such as Dandin also held a similar view. "cirantanānām ca ayam eva paksaḥ. tatha hi dandinā svā'lamkāra-laksane abhyadhāyi-“ratiḥ śộngāratām gatā, rūpa-bāhulyoyogena" (iti kävyādarśe ii. 281), "adhiruhya parām kotīm kopo raudrā”tmatām gataḥ”, ityā”di ca.

Page #91

1266
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
rūpabahulya-yogena' is explained by Taruņa-vācaspati as 'by coming together of determinants, etc.' . "tad idam rasavat. rūpa-bāhulya-yogena vibhāvā'nubhāvavyabhicăriyogena ity arthah."
The HỊdayamgamā adds - “rary abhidhānaḥ eșa sthāyī bhāvah mộtety ādinā vāg ārambhā'nubhāvena anumīyamānaiḥ harsa-dhști-smrti-vitarka-prabhṛtibhih vyabhicāribhiḥ samsrjyamānaḥ karuņánantarām śrngārā”khyām labhate. tena anvitam etat rasavat.
We have seen that for Dandin 'preyas' is 'priyatarā”khyān.' i.e. felicitous expression (VS. II. 275) and 'rasavat' is where rasa abounds - 'rasapeśalam'. Urjasvi nas pride or garva, a bhāva as dominant or that expression which has appropriate excellence - 'yukrótkarsa'. We have seen from the illustrations cited by Dandin that it becomes clear that for him, preyas occurs in case of the suggestion of some bhāvas. Taruna-vācaspati observes : "deva-guru-pitrā”di visayaḥ priti-prakāśaḥ preyah.” In the same way, ūrjasvi exhibits a bhāva of 'garva' or 'pride'. Thus actually ‘rasavat' is concerned with what is later termed as rasa-dhvani, while both preyas
irjasvi have a concern, with what is later termed as 'bhāva-dhvani', though we keep our fingures crossed and suggest that this later classification was perhaps not fully known to Dandin. Of course Anandavardhana holds that 'dhvani' was "samāmnāta-pūrva", but we may not fully endorse Rangācārya Reddi's views expressed in Prabhā that rasavat, preyas and urjasvi for Dandin are grouped together because all of them form the varieties of what is called "a-samlaksyakrama-dhvani" - i.e. dhvani with sequence not noticed in it. He observes :
yānam a-samlaksya-kramarūpaika-dharmatvāt ekatra nirdeśah.” On the contrary we may take these early writers as those who had just, unknowingly, touched the fringes of dhvani - "dhvani dig unmīlitā api na laksitā." Prabhā does not identify ‘samkaksyakrama'dhvani' elsewhere.
But at the same time, we feel that Dr. S. K. De (pp. 212, SKT. Poetics) is surely off the mark when the observes : "But the Rasa in these figures is subordinate to the expressed figure itself which it serves as a means of embellishment, "alamkāratayā smộtam"; in other words, the rasa is developed not for its own sake, but as increasing the beauty of expression." We fail to agree with this. Nowhere Dandin suggests that “rasā"di' make only for what is technically termed later as "guņībhūtavyangya." By "alamkāratayā smộtam”, what Dandin actually means is that here (i.e. in this illustration) karuna rasa becomes the 'alamkāra' of kāvya. Rasa-bhāvā"di are accepted - 'smta' - by Dandin as only alamkāra of poetry. The term alamkāra is to be taken in the wider sense, as already

Page #92

The concept of "Rasa"
1267 noted by us, as a "kāvya-sobhākara dharma” i.e. that characteristic of poetry which makes for poetic beauty. For otherwise, if we follow Dr. De here, we fail to trace any other alamkāra either of sound or sense in these illustrations, to which a particular rasa or bhāva can be subordinated. Again, Dandin calls 'rasavat to be that which is “rasa-peśala” i.e. that which causes delight due to rasa” (II. 275).
It may also be understood that for both Bhāmaha and Dandin 'preyask and 'Urjasvi' are concerned with a bhāva (or, what may be termed 'bhāva-dhvani' in later context). In that case there is no point in counting two alamkāras one each going with 'bhāva' of rati with refrence to deva, nộpa, guru, or garva-ahamkāragoing with vira-rasa. For us, there is no logic in naming one bhāvadhvani as 'prevas' and the other as 'ūriasvi'. Or perhaps there can be traced some degree in ascendance of these bhāvas. Perhaps ūriasvi illustrates 'bhāvódava', as termed in later parlance and prevas has 'bhāva-samdhi' as its goal, with bhāvas such as rati. and wabhicārins as harsa etc. join hands here. We are not very sure about this.
Dandin also, like Bhämaha, while describing the characteristics of a mahākāvya wants it to be (VS. I. 14-20) “rasa-bhāva-nirantaram" (I. 18). (i.e. rasaiś ca bhāvaiś ca nirantaram, paripurnam-Prabhā, pp. 21), and that it should also possess welldefined samdhis. He also, like Bhāmaha refers to other works for a discussion on the nature of drama - (mišrāni nātakā"dīni, tesam anyatra vistarah VS. I. 31 ab) -
Vāmana does not treat these alamkāras. He, however, has tried to incorporate rasa in his own way in the fartha-guna' - i.e. excellence concerning sense, viz. 'kānti', which he defines at III. 2-15 as, "dīpta-rasatvam kāntih.” Now, by 'dīptarasa' Vāmana does not refer only to vīra, or raudra rasa but any rasa which is "fully aroused”. For, he observes :
"dīptāḥ rasāḥ śrngārā"dayo yasya sa dīpta-rasah. tasya bhāvo dīpta-rasatvam kāntih." - (vrtti, on III. 2.15). Scholars observe that Vāmana seems to make an advance over his predecessors in subsuming rasa under guņas, which for him, form the 'essential characteristic of poetry. 'Gunas' for Vāmana are 'nitya-dharmāh, as compared to alamkāras that are accidental or impermanent - 'anitya', a distinction, which does not seem to have been either even made or even acceptable to Bhāmaha and Dandin alike. We have no great faith in the observation of these scholars, for the predecessors of Vāmana had a more catholic concept of alamkāra, which was the invariable characteristic of poetry. For them 'gunas' were special alamkāras of this or that 'märga' or style but upamā etc. were 'sādhāraṇam alamkārajātam” i.e. beautifying agents common to both the mārgas or all the mārgas i.e. poetic styles.

Page #93

1268
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Udbhata : In the fourth varga of his Kāvyālamkāra, he mentions emotion-based figures in the first kārikā. He defines, what he calls 'preyasvat' in IV. ii as -
"ratyā"dikānām bhāvānām anubhāvā”di-sūcane yat kävyam badhyate sadbhis
tat preyasvad udāhstam." When great poets compose poem in which 'rati' and such other bhāvas are indicated (or suggested) by anubhāvas or consequents it is said to be having 'preyas' - i.e. it is 'preyasvar. The Vivrti (Edn. G.O.S., '31) suggests that here 'rati' is to be understood with reference to god, preceptor, king etc. "ratir iha deva-guru nộpā"di-visayā gļhyate.
Pratīhārendurāja also explains that this viz. preyasvat is a 'bhāvakávya’ The N.S. Edn. Bombay, 1928, pp. 56 has -
"evam ete bhāvānām avagati-hetavaś carvāraḥ yad uktam bhattódbhatena - "catūrūpā bhāvā”.
tad esām ratyā"dikānām bhāvānām pañcāśat-samkhyānām yāny anubhāvā"dibhiś catur samkhyaih samastatvena vyastatvena ca yathayogam sūcanāni sva-laksana svarūpāņām sāmānyavasthā”päditānām pratipädanāni taiḥ kāvyam, upanibadhyamānam preyasvat. 'preyah'-sabdavācyena priyatarena ratyā"lambanena vibhāvanena ratir upalaksyate. tayā ca sāhacaryād ratya”dayo bhāvāh pañcasad avagamyante. evam ca bhāva-kāvyasya preyasvad iti laksanay, vyapadeśah. atra ca bhāvānām alamkāratā, kāvyam alamkāryam.”
'Preyas' is alamkāra and 'preyas-vať kāvya is alamkārya for Udbhata as explained by Pratihārendurāja.
Vivrtikāra (on IV. 2 pp. 32), is also clear that - "kāntā-viṣayāyās tu rateḥ sūcane rasavad alamkāro vaksyate.” When love is narrated with reference to the beloved it is the province of 'rasavat alamkāra. Actually the more we read of Vivrti and also of Laghu-vrtti, we feel that both the Vivrtikāra as well as Pratihārendurāja are not great alamkārikas and they do not have a very clear grasp of the basics of aesthetics as explained at the highest level by both Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who are a class by themselves. 'Rasavat is the next alamkāra discussed by Udbhata at IV. 3 (or 4) as -
“rasavad darśita-spastaśrngāra"di rasad ayam,

Page #94

The concept of “Rasa”
1269 sva-sabda-sthāyi-sañcāri
vibhāvā'bhinaya"spadam." "that in which the development of sentiments such as śrngāra and the like is clearly shown, and in which are included (the indicators such as) a verbal statement of the sentiments, the stāyin, the sancārins, vibhāvas and abhinaya."
Now 'rasavat' is that 'having rasa'. This is different from the earlier alamkara which centres round bhāva' and not 'rasa'. But Udbhata seems to believe that 'rasa' can be 'sva-sabda-vācya' and this is absolutely against the dictum of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and their followers. Jagannātha gives a number of views on rasa, where even sthāyin, sancūrin, vibhāva, abhinaya (i.e. anubhava) etc. are also individually taken as rasa or indicators, or suggestors of rasa. So, this theory also is ancient, though immature. Udbata also mentions nine rasas, with 'śānta' clearly mentioned as a separate rasa. Poetry as substratum of rasa is said to be 'rasavat' as explained by Vivrtikāra (pp. 34) : "tesām aspadam yat kāvyam badhyate tat kāvyabandhanam rasavat.” Pratīhārendurāja also observes (pp. 58, ibid) : "etesām ca svasabdā"dīnām pañcānām samasta-rūpatayā śrngārā"di-rasā"virbhāvo darśyate tat kāvyam rasavat, rasāḥ khalu tasya alamkārāḥ.”
Dr. De, as we had quoted earlier seems to be under the influence of these commentators.
Pratīhārendurāja is himself perplexed as he knows both Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. He can not explain the ancient ālamkārikas in their proper context. So, he observes : (pp. 58. ibid) - "rasānām bhāvānām ca kävyaśobhā'tiśava-hetutvāt kim kāvvā'lamkāratvam uta kāvya-sīvitatvam iti na tāvad vicāryate grantha-gaurava-bhayāt. rasa-bhāva-syarūpam cā'tra na vivecitam aprakrtatvād bahuvaktavvatvāc ca."
'Urjasvi' is explained by Udbhasa in a way which has nothing to do with what Bhāmaha or Dandin had to say. For Udbhata, what is later termed rasā"bhāsa or bhāvā”bhāsa is said to be 'Ürjasvi'. He observes : (IV. 9. pp. 59)
"anaucitya-pravṛttānām kāma-krodhā'di-kāraņāt, bhāvānām ca rasānām ca
bandha ürjasvi kathyate." i.e., Úrjasvi is "the delineation of sentiments (= rasas), and feeling (= bhāvas) which hurt the sense of propriety in their depiction, or which are expressed in

Page #95

1270
SAHRDAYĀLOKA passion, anger, etc." This is an entirely novel explanation of Uriasvi. It may also be noted that the use of such terms as, "kāma-krodhā"di-karanāt" perhaps suggests that 'rasa' according to Udbhata as in case of Dandin, is 'caused by factors such as vibhāvā"dis. Abhinavagupta had tried to read Lollata's view in Dandin. This can be extended to Udbhata also. 'Samāhita' (IV. 7 or 14 ?) is defined as :
"rasa-bhāva-tad ābhāsa-vrtteh praśama-bandhanam anyā’nubhāva-niḥśūnya-rūpam
yat tat samāhitam." i.e. Samāhita is, “the description of the quelling of sentiments (rasa), feelings (bhāva) or their semblances (ābhāsas), quite unmixed with other accessories (such as anubhāvas).
Vivști (pp. 36, ibid) explains this as - "anaucitya-pravrttă rasa-bhāvā rasā”bhāsa-bhāvā”bhāsa-sabda-vācyāh. tena śāstra-viruddhānām a-śāstraviruddhānām vā rasa-bhāvānām yā praśāntir nibadhyate tat parihārarūpatvāt samāhitam. na ca rasántara-prādurbhāvo'tréty uktam anyasya rasasya anubhāvair niḥśeşena śünyam.”
The last remark is interesting. The commentator explains that not only there is quelling of emotion or sentiment both authorised and unauthorised makes for samāhita, but there should not be the possibility of enhancement of any other rasa also and to guarantee this it is stated that "no other anubhāva (or anubhāva of no other rasa) should be present here."
It may be stated that Udbhata has fully grasped the NS. of Bharata and he knows what Bharata has to say about rasā”bhāsa and bhāvā”bhāsa. He also knows about bhāva-praśama i.e. quelling of emotion.
Pratīhārendurāja (pp. 60, ibid) also observes : "ha rasa-bhāvānām śāstrasamaya a-viruddhena tad-viruddhena ca rūpena dvaividhyam uktam. tatra ye śāstra-samayā’-viruddhā rasabhāvā terasa-bhāva-sabdenā'tra vivaksitāh. tadviruddhās tu tadābhāsāh. tesām rasa-bhāvānāmca yā vrtcih svāśrayasambandhātmikā, tasyāh praśame nibadhyamāne samāhitálankāro bhavati. tatra hi, teşām rasa-bhāvānām samādhānam samadhih pariharo bhavati. Samāhitam iti bhāve ktah."

Page #96

The concept of "Rasa"
1271
Thus it appears that Udbhața treats of rasa as a part of alamkāra. But he has made a sort of an advance in discussing rasa, eventhough as an alamkāra, as can be seen in the definitions of preyasvat and the like. He mentions terms such as 'anubhava' and refers to the 'sva-śabda-vācyatva' of rasa. Thus he seems to have more closely applied Bharata's theory to poetry though even the earlier masters were throughly conversant with Bharata when they described the 'sarga-bandha' as graced by "su-sandhis" and "vividha-rasas". But for Udbhața rasa can be sva-śabdavācya, which is not acceptable to Anandavardhana and his followers though a stray mention of a vyabhicarin or sattvika, or even a sthayin is tolerated as such instances are met with in creations of such greats as even Kālidāsa, Bhāravi and the rest. Udbhața also mentions 'santa-rasa' which is advocated very passionately by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta.
Rudrața Coming to Rudrața, we find a still greater advance in the incorporation of ideas pertaining to rasa. The first point to be noted is that he does not include rasavat, preyas, ūrjasvi etc. in his treatment of alamkāras. At I. 4, in his kavyalamkāra, he characterises 'kavya' as 'sa-rasa' i.e. blessed with aesthetic relish or rasa. He observes (I. 4, pp. 4, Edn. Chowkhamba Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, '66 Sri. Ramdev Shukla) -
"jvalad-ujjvala-vāk-prasaraḥ
sarasam kurvan mahākaviḥ kāvyam, sphutam akalpam analpam
pratanoti yaśaḥ parasyā'pi."
Surely, this applies not only to a mahā-kavya but any good composition by a great poet, or a first-rate poet, a mahākavi. It can begin with a muktaka and end with an epic in metrical compositions and anything drafted in prose that bears the charm of poetry, i.e. literature, belles - letters, in general.
In the later adhyāyas, i.e. Chs. XII-XVI, we find the topic of rasa discussed along with the discussions on the nayakas, nāyikās i.e. heroes and heroines etc. Actually Rudrata seems to be the first known ālamkārika who seems to include topics treated in greater details in the NS. Of Bharata, in his work on literary aesthetics. This trend flowers in Hemacandra and later in Viśvanatha. His justification for bringing in this topic of rasa is as follows: He observes that poetry should incorporate rasas because those who have an aesthetic bent of mind are frightened by the dry teachings of the śāstras. They can learn wisdom about the four ideals or ends of life i.e. 'purusárrthas' from poetry which is full of rasas.

Page #97

m
.
1272
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Rudrata, XII. 1.2, read as -
"nanu kāvyena kriyate sarasānām avagamaś caturvarge, laghu mțdu ca nīrasébhyaste hi trasyanti śāstrebhyah.” tasmāt tat kartavyam yatnena mahīyasā rasair yuktam, udvejanam eteșām śāstravad .
eva anyathā hi syāt.” (XII. 1, 2) Namisādhu observes (on Rudrata, XII. 2) (pp. 373, ibid) that rasas are not considered while dealing with the figures of sense, because poetry has word and sense for its body and vakrokti, vastava, etc. as literary embellishments, while rasas are like beauty, the natural quality (sahajah gunah), and therefore are excluded :
"atha alamkāra-madhya eva rasāḥ api kim nóktāḥ. ucyate-kāvyasya hi śabdárthau śarīram. tasya ca vakrókti-vāstavā"dayah kataka-kundalā”daya iva krtrimā alamkārāḥ. rasās tu saundaryā”daya iva sahajā guņāḥ iti bhinnas tat prakaraņā”rambhaḥ.
Thus, as noted earlier, rasas are treated by Rudrata with reference to (kāvyaphala) (i.e.) the object of poetry, as derived by connoesseurs. He then directly proceeds with the enumeration or rasas such as - śrógāra, vīra, karuna, bibhatsa, bhayānaka, adbhuta, hāsya, raudra, śānta, and preyas i.e. ten in all.' (XII. 3) He reads as -
"śộngāra-vīra-karunā bībhatsa bhayānakádbhutā hāsyaḥ, raudraḥ śāntah preyān iti
mantavyā rasāḥ sarve." The order of rasas has hardly any rhyme or rythm. We know that Bharata has given a particular order which is logically explained by Abhinavagupta. At XII. 4, Rudrata suggests that rasas are so termed because they are relished as such - "rasanad rasatvam etesām" :
"rasanād rasatvam etesām madhurā”dinām ivóktam ācāryaiḥ,

Page #98

The concept of “Rasa”
1273 nirvedā”dişv api tan nikāmam asti iti
te'pi rasah." This means that Rudrata accepts a position that even, the 33 vyabhicārins such as ‘nirveda' and the like, are also capable of being relished in the same fashion as are the sthāyins and therefore the number of rasas may not be limited to just eight, or nine or ten etc.
Namisādhu on Rudrata XII. 4, quotes from Bharata and explains Rudrata's stand : "sthāyi-bhāvānām eva rasanam bhavisyati ity āha - nirvedā"disv api tad rasanam nikāmam astīti hetos tépi rasā jñeyāḥ. yasya tu pariposam na gatās tasya bhāvā eva te, ayam āśayo granthakārasya - yad uta nā'sti sā kā’pi cittavrttir yā pariposam gatā na rasī-bhavati. bharatena sahrdavā"varjakatva-prācuryāt samiñām ca”śrityāstau nava vā rasā uktā iti."
Namisādhu explains that on account of greater number of sahrdayas enjoying eight or nine rasas, and by resorting to the samjñā i.e. specific term given to it, Bharata has counted eight or nine rasas. But in fact even Bharata accepts as many rasas as are bhāvas that are capable of being fully relished.
Thus, this discussion again suggests that Rudrata here treats of rasa-nispatti as seen in Bharata and correlates it with the sahrdava who relishes rasa as a kávya. phala. Perhaps this prepares the background for Anandavardhana and then Abhinavagupta who connect rasa-enjoyment with the connoisseur and that too as a kavya-phala, 'phala' for Rudrata being equated with 'prayojana' in the A.bh. which explains the famous-expression, "kávyártho rasah" as "kāvyasya prayojanam rasaḥ”, wherein the, term 'artha' is not ‘abhidheyavāci but 'prayojanavācī.
Rudrața then proceeds to give two varieties of śộngāra viz. 'sambhoga' and 'vipralambha' and then proceeds with different types of nāyakas i.e. heroes and his companions. XII. 6 onwards, Rudrața describes the different types of nāyikās. The XIIIth chapter is devoted to sambhoga-śộngāra and the XIVth chapter treats of the other variety viz. the vipralambha śộngāra. In the XVth chapter Rudrata describes the other rasas viz. vīra, bībhatsa, bhayānaka, adbhuta, häsya, raudra, śānta and prayān. After Udbhata. Rudrata is the next known alamkārika who openly accepts the Santa, and is even more generous when he talks of preyān and then the basic possibility of each bhāva, sthāvin or otherwise flowering into the position of fullfledged rasa.
At the end of Ch. XIV he also suggests (XIV. 36) that when either of the two lovers is not interested in the other, it becomes the case of śộngārā”bhāsa.

Page #99

1274
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Namisādhu introduces XIV. 36 with the remark viz. : anyonyā'nurakta-pum-nāryoh śrngāro'nyathātve tu śrngārā”bhāsa ity āha -
"śộngārā”bhāsaḥ sa tu yatra virakte’pi jāyate raktaḥ, ekasminn aparo'sau
nā’bhāsyeșu prayoktavyah.” (XIV. 36) i.e. íộngāra takes place when both a man and woman are involved in love. Otherwise it is 'śộngārā”bhāsa' or only false imitation of love. Says he (i.e. Rudrața) - "When the other one is in love eventhough the first one is not in love, it is the case of false appearance of love (i.e., śrngārā”bhāsa). This (i.e śộngārā”bhāsa) is not to be practised in case of noble characters (such as king etc.)." Rudrata taking hints from Bharata, then describes rītis and vrttis appropriate to different rasas - (XIV. 37).
"iha vaidarbhī rītiḥ pāñcāli vā vicārya racanīyā, madhurā-lalite kavinā
kāvye vșttī tu śộngāre." Namisādhu observes : athā'tra rītīnām anuprāsa-vrttīnām cā'vasare visayavisaya-vibhāgam āha-(this is followed by the verse quoted as above). This shows that all other thought-currents such as rīti, vrtti etc. where supposed to be correlated with rasa in the centre even by Bharata and the early tradition he inherited and also by Rudrata and other ancients who followed Bharata. So, when Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in the Dhy. and Locana follow this scheme, it is only a clearer application of Bharata's theory as followed even by the ancients. Rudrata (XIV. 38) also observes :
"anusarati rasānām rasyatām asya nányaḥ sakalam idam anena vyāptam ābāla-vrddham, tad iti viracanīyaḥ samyag esa prayatnād
bhavati virasam evā’nena hīnam hi kävyam.” The central position of śộngāra-rasa is neatly brought out by Rudrata, and Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta also prescribe this. It is also suggested by all these authorities that delineation of Sțgāra requires great care as it is very delicate in nature. The last adhyāya is devoted by Rudrata to different types of prabandhas.

Page #100

The concept of “Rasa”
1275 It should be noted as already seen by us above, that in the light of the remarks of Namisādhu, Rudrata is inclined to take rasa as "sahaja guna" i.e. 'natural quality of kävya i.e. poetry, as against alamkāra which is an artificial (krtrima) device and therefore an external ornament. Vāmana was the first to say that gunas are "nitya dharma" i.e. 'permanent quality of kavya, as against 'alamkāra' or ornaments i.e. figures of speech that are 'anitya-dharma' or 'impermanent characteristic of kavya. Vāmana incorporated rasa in what he termed "kānti guna" which formed one of the essentials of poetry, as compared to alamkāra, which is for him, 'external to poetry. Thus we see that the tendency to make rasa as something essential to poetry rather than an alamkāra which is external, first originated in Vamana and seems to have been carried on in Rudrata. Of course, we may say in favour of Bhämaha and Dandin that, in their own way they never took 'alamkāra' i.e. 'atiśaya', i.e. 'vakratā' as external to poetry. "The individual forms or shapes this 'vakratā' takes can be different. What Vamana and later alamkārikas including the dhvanivādins did was that they mistook the variety for the substance; and therefore the impermanancy of a particular expression of vakratā as 'alamkāra' and therefore, taking it in a limited sense of the form it takes, took it to be 'a-nitya'. In fact as re-insisted by Kuntaka, it is the 'vakratā', or 'atiśaya' or 'alamkāratva' of an alamkāra which was favoured by Bhāmaha and Dandin. But then Vāmana, Rudraţa and the Dhvanivādins later had their own way of presentation of poetic beauty and virtually there was nothing different in their views.
Rudrata, as noted above, in the last chapter of his work treats of the various types of prabandhas or literary compositions. He observes that the four aims of life (= puruşárthas) should be treated in prabandhas with rasas intermixed in them : Rudrata XVI. i. observes :
"jagati caturvarga iti khyātir dharmā’rtha-kāma-mokṣāņām, samyak tān abhidadhāt
rasa-sammiśrān prabandheșu.” "In the world, the four viz. dharma, artha, kāma and moksa are said to be the ends of life. They should be narrated carefully in literary compositions in a way intermixed with rasas."
Thus, for Rudrata 'rasa' is the central characteristic of poetry in general which serves the purpose of attainment of the four aims of life. With this, he further notices the varieties of prabandhas in poetry viz. (mahā) kāvya, and kathā, ākhyāyikā etc. Thus major compositions accordings to Rudrata are either in verse

Page #101

1276
SAHRDAYĀLOKA or in prose. These two basic types are again subdivided into works having plots imagined by the poets or based on tradition. These again could be mahat i.e. long or laghu i.e. short. Thus by laghu-prabandha he seems to cover any form that can go under 'minor' composition.
Rudrata (XVI. 5) observes that the major compositions are such that treat of all the four ends of life in a wider scale, wherein also all the rasas find place with varieties of descriptions (kāvyasthānāni) in-built in them." :
"tatra mahānto yeșu ca vitateşv abhidhīyate caturvargaḥ, sarve rasāḥ kriyante
kāvyasthānāni sarvāṇi." by 'kavyasthānāni', according to Namisadhu is meant the stuff described such as “puspoccaya-jalakrīdā”dīni.” But we can take Rudrata's expression to mean, "sarve rasāḥ kāvyasthānāni kriyate", i.e. "all rasas are made to be the base of poetry.”
The minor compositions deal with any one out of the four ends of life, and not all rasas are delineated in it but just one rasa, or failing if many rasas are delineated they do not individually dominate the whole composition, i.e. they occupy portions of the poetic composition or are not fully delineated. Rudrata observes (XVI. 6) :
"te laghavo vijñeyāḥ yeşv anyatamo bhavec caturvargāt, a-samagrā’nekarasā ye ca
samagraikarasa-yuktāḥ.” It may noted that Rudrata perhaps does not insist on the size, bigger or smaller of the composition but on the fact that such laghu-prabandhas are they pursue only one end of life. May be large or small size is taken as inherent in these, or perhaps only smaller compositions are intended. Again delineation of all rasas not to their fullest posibility or a single rasa to its fullest possibility are the options. But ‘a-samagra' and 'samagra' may have reference not to the complete or incomplete delineation of rasa but to the part of the composition. Thus a prabandha is laghu if it delineates many rasas of equal prominance in various portions of its theme, or is one in which a single rasa emerges as a total effect.
se are options which can be thought over while interpreting Rudrata's words.

Page #102

The concept of "Rasa"
1277 But one thing that emerges as supreme is that for him, no poetry of whatever form is welcome without 'rasa'.
While dealing with smaller or minor compositions Rudrata suggests (XVI. 33.34) that in such compositions in prose (or even in verse), the 'karuna rasa' or ‘pravāsa-śrngāra' i.e. vipralambha should be delineated :
"atra rasam karuņam vā kuryād athavā pravāsa-śộngāram, prathamánurāgam athavā punar ante nāyakábhyudayam."
(XVI. 34, Rudrata). With this ends our investigation in the concept of rasa as seen in sources beginning with the Vedas and Vedic literature, down to earlier alamkārikas ending with Rudrața. In the next chapter we will take care of the attitude of the alamkārikas of the Kashmir School of thought, beginning with Anandavardhana and ending with Jagannātha.

Page #103

Chapter XV “Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana
and others posterior to him.".
Two points have to be borne in mind that, in this chapter, we will not discuss the theory of rasa-ralisation as read in different works such as those of Abhinavagupta, Mammata and the rest, and that we will cover up writers on dramaturgy beginning with Dhananjaya/Dhanika and the rest. For the theory of rasa-realisation and the nature of rasa, number of rasas and śānta-rasa we will devote the next two chapters. With Ch. XVIII - 'nātakanirnaya' will end the part I of this huge project.
As noted earlier, with Ānandavardhana, we enter, as it were, into a new era of sanskrit literary criticism.
He seems to have fully realised the importance of rasa both in poetry and drama, and tries to give rasa a prominent place while incorporating it in his general scheme of “vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa" as applied to poetry in particular. Before we start with any further discussion we have to bear a maior point in mind very clearly that, 'rasa' is not equivalent only to presentation of emotive stuff only, but it involves the total personality of the aesthete, including his intellectual and volitional aspect translated in worldly activity also. Rasa is both 'sui-generis' and 'pari-passu' with any art in general including poetry and drama and the chief distinguishing characteristic of rasa-experience is 'vigalita-vedvántaratva-anubhūti'. i.e. an experience where anything else than the art prescented falls out of the scope of the enjoyer's consciousness for that moment. This was known to Bharata and his predecessors and successors and is very much known to Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and a host of other writers in India, who have written with authority on any art-form. With this remark, which we will discuss further in Ch. XVII, we continue our investigation with Anandavardhana.
For Anandavardhana then, the soul of poetry is 'dhvani' 'i.e. principal suggested sense', arrived at through the verbal function of vyañjanā. This 'dhvani' or the

Page #104

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1279
principally suggested sense is for him three-fold viz. vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea or matter of fact, alamkaradhvani or suggestion of a poetic figure or a descriptive device, and rasa-dhvani or suggestion of sentiment or emotive stuff in general. It may be borne in mind that suggestion of emotive stuff is not congruent to 'rasa', but is one of the aspects of rasa. This rasa-dhvani-both in its emotive context and in its wider context is regarded as the highest type of dhvani by Anandavardhana (= A.). For him, this 'rasa' as seen by us under his treatment of Dhvani (Ref. Ch. XI) is never the object of direct statement i.e. it is never 'sva-sabdavacya', meaning it is never realised just by naming it or using its proper name. Rasa is always realised indirectly, i.e. it is suggested through the delineation of proper vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva i.e. determinants, consequents and ancillaries, of course described through words, as Abhinavagupta explains in Locana i.e. sabda-samarpyamāṇa-in poetic art. These vibhāvā"dis are visually presented in dramatic art. They take different forms through different media in various different arts as dance, music, painting, sculpture and the rest. Thus A. seems to have achieved a great point while harmonising the concepts of rasa as seen in the dramatic art or art in general and that of the verbal power, the vyañjana function in poetry.
-
We have underlined two streams of thought viz. the one pertaining to śabdavṛttis, with particular reference to vyañjana and dhvani in literature, and the other pertaining to the origin and development of the concepts of rasa and cognate ideas. In the Dhvanyaloka, we find these two currents meeting and merging with each other in a clear scheme not read as such in the ancient alamkarikas from Bhāmaha to Rudrata or others not known to us. A. seems to bring forth, to the best of our knowledge and also to the knowledge of Abhinavagupta, for the first time, a harmonious and integrated theory or vyañjana-dhvani-rasa.
We will try to analyse A.'s integrated theory in greater detail. In earlier chapters on vyañjana and dhvani (i.e. Chs. VIII & XI) we have outlined A's theory. A. himself states that he had to lay down clearly the theory of dhvani as its form was negatived by some of his anteriors. But, it may be noted that, as we have not been able to find the earlier theorists who propagated dhvani (as stated by A. in his remark - "samāmnāta-pūrvaḥ"), in the same way, we do not know exactly who opposed dhvani prior to him, which prompted him to write his monumental work. We have however, found theories about the two functions of the word viz. primary and secondary i.e. bhakta, without of course putting it systematically, and we have found the seeds of vyañjana in these. We also looked into the various darśanas for

Page #105

1280
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA different theories of word and meaning that served as a rich heritage and inspiration for Ā. and his followers.
Considering however, A.'s arguments and illustrations to prove the independent verbal function of vyañjanā, we cannot deny the possibility that there might have been a tradition among the teachers of poetics or literary critics, which embodies affirmation and denial of vyañjanā. These teachers might have been (as seen in the Ch. on vyañjanā-virodha, i.e. Ch. IX) his contemporaries or near or earlier predecessors. Ā. quotes, without naming a verse, with a remark - "tathā ca anyena krta evátra ślokah.” This verse rediculed the fact of dhvani. The Locanakāra identifies the author of this verse as some 'Manoratha kavi' who was Ā.'s contemporary, i.e. 'samāna-kāla-bhāvin'. If Abhinavagupta is right in this identification, and we have no reason to denounce it, we may conclude that amongst the contemporaries of A., the theory of 'wanian-dhvani-rasa' must have been propounded, denounced and also stoutly defended. But as to teachers earlier than this, of dhvani, we have no independent corroborative evidence.
With this general resume we will consider Ā.'s views. We find that Ā., by three progressive stages comes to regard rasa as the ātman or soul of poetry. The first stage is found in the second kārikā of the first udyota of the Dhvanyāloka, wherein Ā. asserts that -
"arthaḥ sa-hỉdaya-ślāghyaḥ kāvyā”tmā yo vyavasthitaḥ, vācya-pratīyamānā”khyau
tasya bhedau ubhau smộtau.” "That meaning which wins the admiration of refined critics is decided to be the soul of poetry. The 'explicit and the implicit' are regarded as its two aspects.” (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 7, ibid).
So, to begin with, for Ā., the meaning that is commended by the cultured critics is the 'soul of poetry in the first stage. Thus poetry has to have beautiful meaning. But the 'vācya' or expressed aspect of the poetic meaning is not investigated by Ā. saying that it has been explained, i.e. taken care of by many alamkārikas in the form of various figures of speech like simile and others (kārikā I. 3) (“bahudhā vyäkrtah sonyaih). But the other aspect of beautiful poetic meaning is explained to be 'implicit' or pratīyamāna and this is explained on the analogy of beauty in fairsex' - "lāvanyam iva anganāsu” (Dhy. I. 4). This implicit sense, like lāvanya, is over and above the several parts of the body. He seems to suggest that beauty is

Page #106

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1281 something which emerges as is were, as totality of effect, as abstraction coming out of the whole and not individual parts. The 'pratīyamāna' or implicit sense also emerges as such an effect. This is the second stage in which the importance of the pratiyamāna is established.
This is followed by a discussion in the gloss i.e. vrtti on Dhv. I. 4, establishing the difference between 'vācya' and 'pratīyamāna'. This discussion, as we note from the vrtti, pertains to, of course, with what is technically known as vastu-vyañgya, or suggestion of an idea. The second variety of vyangya that he refers to is alamkāra-dhvani. It may be noted that this covers not only the field of figures of speech not directly conveyed, but we may say that this can cover all possible newly invented ‘vyañjakas' i.e. turns of expression as practiced by modern writers as say, images and symbols and all devices that are practiced in absurd poetry or absurd theatre to-day by most modern writers in various languages including English, French, German and what not.
The third variety of 'pratīyamāna' is what he lebels as "rasā”di-laksanah” i.e. rasa, bhāva, etc.
About this variety it is said that it is absolutely different from the 'vācya' i.e. expressed. This third variety of 'pratīyamāna' viz. rasā"di-dhvani is presented as the soul of poetry in Dhv. I. 5, which reads as -
“kāvyasyā”tmā sa evā’rthas tathā cā”dikaveḥ purā, krauñca-dvandva-viyogótthaḥ
śokaḥ ślokatvam āgataḥ.” We have noted what Abhinavagupta had stated in his Locana on this. For him it is not Vālmīki's individual sense of sorrow, that is referred to here, but generalised sorrow that becomes the object of Vālmīki's poetry.
This is the third stage. Thus in the kārikās (Dhv. I) 2-4, and the vrtti thereon, we find the philosophy of Ā., regarding the soul of poetry, in a nut-shell. Charming meaning, appreciated by cultured critics is the soul of poetry, but there too the 'pratiyamāna' i.e. implicit sense is more important. This is, we may note, A.'s personal bias. In the three varieties of this ‘pratīyamāna' i.e. implicit sense, the 'pratīyamāna rasa' is the soul of poetry, or better say it is the 'soul of soul' dhvaneh ātmā.” This ‘rasa' is explained in the vrtti thereon as "kāvyasya sa eva arthaḥ sārabhūtah.”, thus carrying forward the traditional meaning of rasa as the essence in poetry. The implicit sense in general, i.e. the three-fold implicit sense is something

Page #107

1282
SAHṚDAYALOKA
quite different from the direct meaning of words. This point he proves by giving illustrations and explains that the expressed and the implicit are different from each other both in nature and scope. We have seen this in greater details earlier in our chapter on dhvani (i.e. Ch. XI). He has illustrated and explained vastu-dhvani in verses such as "bhama dhammia." etc. It may be noted here, that A. clarifies the point that vastu and alamkara dhvanis can be presented by vyañjana as well as direct statement, i.e. abhidha. Thus they can be both, direct meaning i.e. vācyártha as well as indirect i.e. suggested meaning i.e. vyangyártha. But in case of rasadhvani, however, there is a complete break with abhidhā.
We have suggested that the field of alamkara-dhvani is capable of covering up certain modern devices used in poetic language such as poetic images and symbols, as well as absurd use of language as seen in absurd poetry or theatre. We have dealt with the illustrations of this variety earlier (Ch. XI). We will also repeat that Abhinavagupta has stated that 'alamkaradhvani' is so termed on the analogy of 'brāhmaṇa-śramaṇa'. We will now proceed to A.'s discussion on rasa-dhvani and the general position of rasa in poetry.
Coming to the principal variety of vyañjanā i.e. rasa-vyañjanā, we have first to note that in the implication of rasa, there is no room for the direct use of terms such as śṛngāra, karuņa, etc. - i.e. directly naming any rasa, or of terms such as rati, hāsa, śoka, etc., i.e., naming directly any sthayibhāva i.e. basic emotion. What is emphasised here is that merely by repeating these words, the sentiment or emotion which is experienced through poetry, is not evoked. Even in cases where such words as hāsa, śoka, etc. are used, the sentiment concerned has to be evoked by some other means. The delineation of factors that suggest rasa, are technically termed as vibhāva, anubhāva and sañcari-or vyabhicari-bhāva as we have learnt from Bharata and his tradition. The doctrine of vibhāva, anubhava and vyabhicāribhāva is contained in the famous rasa-sutra of Bharata in his N.S. Anandavardhana, not quoting this sūtra directly, discusses this point in the following way.
The third variety of the implicit sense viz. rasa"di-dhvani can never be expressed directly in words, i.e. it can never be 'sva-śabda-vācya', and it never enters the field of worldly experience, i.e. loka-vyavahāra or ordinary parlance as well. It can be the object of art only, as Abhinavagupta explains - "rasas tu natya eva, na loke" (A.bh. on rasa-sūtra).
This third type of the implied sense viz. rasa-bhāvā"di-dhvani is seen to shine out as a result of the power of implication based on the expressed i.e. "ākṣipta-taya."

Page #108

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1283
It never becomes the object of direct verbal expression and hence it is necessarily distinct from the the expressed sense. If at all it could be the object of the expressed, it might be so alleged either as being denoted by its proper name, or as being expressed through the delineation of setting and the like. If the first alternative be true, there would be no possibility of an experience of sentiments in instances where their proper names are not employed.
Never are they so expressed directly by their proper names. Even when the proper names are present, the experience of sentiments, emotions etc., is not due to them but due only to the delineation of a proper setting and the like. The experience of sentiments, emotions etc. is only given a designation by the proper name and are not at all conditioned by it. A. observes (Dhv. I. iv. Vṛtti) - "yatra'pyasti tat tatrā'pi visista-vibhāvā"di-pratipadana-mukhenaiva eṣām pratitiḥ. sva-śabdena sa kevalam anudyate na tu tat-kṛtā, viṣayántare tatha tasya adarśanāt." Thus, in fact we do not have the experience of sentiments, emotions, etc. in all the instances where only proper names are used. Indeed there is not even the slightest experience of the presence of sentiments in a composition which contains only their proper names such as śṛngāra and the like, and without the delineation of vibhāvā"di at all. That means, on the strength of both positive and negative argument in favour of vibhāvā"di, the sentiments emotions etc., are exclusively evoked by the latent power of the expressed, and in no way mentioned directly i.e. explicitly. Thus it stands that rasa-dhvani or the third variety of the implicit sense is quite distinct from the expressed sense and is conveyed only through vyajana (Trans. K.Kris.). Its cognition, adds A., however, may appear to be almost simultaneous with the expressed : "yataśca sva'bhidhānam antarena kevalebhyo'pi vibhāvā"dibhyo visiṣtebhyo rasā"dīnām pratītiḥ, kevalāc ca sva'bhidhānād a-pratītiḥ, tasmād anvaya-vyatirekābhyām abhidheya-samarthyā"kṣiptatvam eva rasā❞dīnām, na tv abhidheyatvam kathañcid iti tṛtīyópi prabhedo vācyād bhinna eva iti sthitam. vācyena tv asya sahéva pratitir ity agre darśayiṣyāmaḥ." (vrtti, Dhv. I. 4, pp. 12, ibid)
Here, Abhinavagupta (Locana on Dhv. I. 4) (pp. 24, Edn. Nandi, ibid) - observes : "yas tu svapnépi na sva-śabda-vācyo na laukika-vyavahara-patitaḥ, kintu śabdsamarpyamāṇa-hṛdaya-samvada-sundara-vibhāvā'nubhāva-samucita-prāg-vinivistaratyādi-vāsanā-'nurāga-sukamāra-sva-samvid-ānanda-carvaṇā-vyāpāra-rasanīya
rupo rasaḥ, sa kavya-vyāpāraika-gocaraḥ rasadhvanir iti, sa ca dhvanir eva iti, sa eva mukhyatayā ātmā iti."

Page #109

1284
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Abhinavagupta seems to suggest that this experience of sentiments and the like, or say, aesthetic pleausure, is of the nature of supreme joy. In the minds of all the individuals, there are certain permanent impressions such as rati, hāsa etc. engramed from past life and born of the experience of everyday life. When one
me dramatic performance, or reads a poem, one experiences the vibhāva, anubhāva etc., and the permanent fixed emotions are roused to the status of rasa or a sentiment, and the cultured man experiences supreme joy. This rasa then, is of the form of relish and is recognised as the soul of poetry and only this, in reality, is ‘dhvani', and is basically the ‘soul.
Thus rasa is the subject of vyañjanā par excellence.
Ā. treats this third variety of rasā”di-dhvani under the subdivision called asamlaksya-krama-dhvani i.e. suggestion with imperceptible sequence. This variety is placed under vivaksitanyaparavācya-dhvani or abhidhāmūladhvani, the second variety being samlaksya-krama-dhvani or suggestion with perceptible sequence. The former, i.e. one with imperceptible sequence includes cases of rasa-dhvani, bhāvadhvani, tad-ābhāsa-dhvani, bhāvódaya, bhāva-samdhi, and bhāva-sabalatā. (Dhv. II. 3). These have innumerable sub-divisions, but all these are placed under a common head of a-samlaksya-krama-dhvani. The fact of unnoticibility of the sequence of the expressed and the implicit sense is interpreted in another way by saying that both are as if grasped simultaneously. Rasā”dis rise to the status of dhvani only when they are suggested as principal sense. But when rasa, bhāva etc. become subservient to the expressed sense, it becomes the province of the alamkāras such as rasavat and the like, according to Ā. (Dhv. II. 5) and are termed "gunibhūtavyangya” poetry.
Ā. is of the opinion that the asamlaksya-krama-vyangya i.e. rasā"di-dhvani is to be found with reference to varņa i.e. a letter or syllable, pada or word, vākya or sentence, samghatanā or construction or texture, and prabandha i.e. whole composition. Dhv. III. 2 observes :
“yas tv alaksya-krama-vyangyo dhvanir varņa-padā”dişu, vākye samghatanāyām ca
sa prabandhe’pi dīpyate." Abhinavagupta explains that it is to be seen with reference to a part or fraction of a word - "padaikadeśa” or two words i.e. 'pada-dvitaya' also : "ādi-sabdena padaikadeśa-dvitayānām grahaņam.” (pp. 206, ibid, Locana, Dhv. III. 2.).

Page #110

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and.....
1285 The varna or syllables also suggest rasa and the like. Ā. explains this by saying that letters such as ś, s, r, yukta varnas, dh, etc. do not promote śpngāra-rasa, while they are condusive to bībhatsa and the like. (Dhv. III. 3, 4). The suggestion of rasa through pada or a word is illustrated in the verse. "utkampini bhayapariskhalitámśukāntā.” etc. In this illustration, the word 'te' makes for the suggestion of the karuna-rasa. Abhinavagupta observes : "iti tadīyam saudaryam idānīm sátiśaya-śokāveśa-vibhāvarām prāptam iti.” Suggestion through a fraction of a word is seen as in the verse viz. vridayogān natavadanayā...etc. wherein, 'tribhāgah', a fraction in the word “cakita-hariņi-hāri-netra-tribhāgah” is suggestive. “krtaka-kupitaiḥ bāspámbhobhiḥ.” etc. is an illustration where a sentence or vākya becomes suggestive.
This is an illustration of vipralambha-śrngāra. At times this suggested sense of the type of rasa is mixed with some alamkāra also as in the verse, "smara-navanadi-pūreņódhāḥ." etc.
Ā. mentions three types of “samghatanā” or 'texture' viz. asamāsā, madhyamasamāsā and dirgha-samāsā, and he adds that these three varieties rest on gunas i.e. excellences such as sweetness-madhurya-and the like, and make for the suggestion of rasas, the limiting factor with them being the propriety of thespeaker and the subject-matter and also the literary medium adopted, and form of literature. Dhv. III. 5, 6 27 read as -
"a-samāsā samāsena
madhyamena ca bhūșitā . tathā dīrgha-samāséti
tridhā samghatanóditā. (Dhv. III. v) guņān āśritya tisthantī mādhuryādīn, vyanakti sā rasān; tanniyame hetur aucityam vaktp-vācyayoḥ.” (III. 6 Dhv.) viṣayāśrayam apy anyad aucityam tām niyacchati, kāvya-prabhedā”śrayataḥ sthitā bhedavati ca sā.” (Dhv. III. 7)

Page #111

1286
SAHṚDAYALOKA Ā. further points out by way of elaboration that in case of karuņa and vipralambha, ‘asamāsā' - samghaṭanā i.e. texture having absence of compounds is favourable. In 'raudra' however, it can be either 'madhyama-samāsā' or 'dirghasamāsā' i.e. texture having compounds of two, three, four words i.e. middle-sized compounds, or texture having very long compounds is recommended. He also underlines that in all types of texture, the presence of 'prasāda-guna' or excellence called perspicuity is a must - "sarvāsu ca samghaṭanāsu prasādā"khyo guno vyāpi." For it is said to be common to all rasas and all types of textures - "sa hi sarva-rasasādhāraṇaḥ sarva-samghatana-sādhāraṇas'ca." A. observes that samghatana or texture may vary with reference to the form of literature such as 'muktaka' or a single independent stanza and the like; or a prose composition etc.
'Prabandha' or a whole composition also becomes suggestive of rasa as illustrated by the Rāmāyaṇa or the Mahabharata. The theme could be either historical or imagined as the case may be. But it should be properly beautified by the propriety of vibhāva anubhava and sañcari-bhāva. A. (Dhv. III. 10) observes:"
"idānīm alakṣya-krama-vyangyo dhvaniḥ prabandhā"tma rāmāyaṇamahābhāratā"dau prakāśamānaḥ prasiddha eva. tasya tu yathā prakāśanam tat pratipadyate -

vibhāva-bhāvā'nubhāva
sañcāry aucitya-cāruṇaḥ vidhiḥ kathāśarīrasya
vṛttasyótpreksitasya vā. (Dhv. III. 10) iti vṛtta-vaśāyātām tyaktvāananuguṇām sthitim, utprekṣya'pyantara'bhiṣṭarasócita-kathónnayaḥ, (Dhv. III. 11) sandhi-sandhyanga-ghatanam rasa'bhivyaktyapekṣayā na tu kevalaya śāstra
sthiti-sampādanecchayā. (Dhv. III. 12) uddipana-praśamane
yatha'vasaram antarā, rasasya"rabdha-viśranter
anusandhānam anginaḥ. (Dhv. III. 13)

Page #112

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
"alamkṛtīnām saktāv
apyā"nurūpyeṇa yojanam,
prabandhasya rasā"dīnām
vyañjakatve nibandhanam." (Dhv. III. 14)
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 135, 137 ibid)
"Construction of only such a plot, either traditional or invented, as is charming with its decorum (of the accessories of sentiment, viz.,) stimuli of setting, abiding emotions, emotional responses, and passing moods. (III. 10)
1287
"If in a theme, adapted from a traditional source, the poet is faced with siuations conflicting with the intended sentiment, his readiness to leave out such incidents and inventing in their place even imaginary incidents with a view to delineating the intended sentiment: (III. 11)"
"The construction of divisions and subdivisions of the plot only with a view to delineating sentiments and not at all with a desire for mere conformity to rules of poetics" (III. 12)
"Bringing about both the high tide of sentiment and its low ebb appropriately in the work; preserving the unity of the principal sentiment from beginning to end (III. 13)
A discrete use of figures of speech even when the poet is capable of using them in any number; such are the conditions which underlie the suggestiveness of a whole work of literature in regard to sentiments etc." (III. 14) (Trans. K. Kris.)

A. has supplied illustrations of all these practical observations. According to him, a whole composition thus not only by itself suggests rasa, but successively by degrees also, through instances of "samlaksya-krama-dhvani" contained in it. : "na kevalam prabandhena sākṣād vyangyo raso, yāvat pāramparyeṇā'pi iti darśayitum upakramate", observes the Locanakara, on Dhv. III. 15. A. illustrates this in the speech of Pāñcajanya in Madhu-mathana-vijaya or as in 'Viṣama-bāṇa-līlā”, when Kāmadeva meets his friends. Abhinavagupta explains fully how these speeches of Pañcajanya, Yauvana, etc., ultimately help the evocation of the principal rasa. It is also found illustrated in the famous "grdhra-gomāyu-samvāda" in the Mahabharata. Abhinavagupta (Locana, Dhv. III. 15) observes that the santarasa is fully realized here : "sa cabhiprayo vyaktaḥ śāntarasa eva parinisthitatām prāptaḥ" - Ā. observes that the rasā”di dhvani is also suggested by case-terminations (= sup), conjugational terminations (= tin) number (= vacana), relation (= sambanha),

Page #113

1288
SAHRDAYALOKA accidence (= kāraka sakti), primary and secondary affixes (= krt, taddhitapratyaya), and also compounds (= samāsa). (At all places, the translation either follows K.Kris. directly, or is under his influence.) Dhv. III. 16 reads as -
"sup-tin-vacana-sambandhaistathā kāraka-Śaktibhiḥ krt-taddhita-samāsaiś ca
dyotyólaksya-kramaḥ kvacit." Upasargas or prepositions and nipātas or indeclinables also make for suggestion of rasa according to Ā. who illustrates the same with instances from Kālidāsa.
The next topic that is taken up for discussion concerns with obstacles in rasavyañjanā. Ā. proceeds to mention certain factors that tend to obstruct the realisation of rasa. He says that a good poet should take pains to avoid such factors as may obstruct the rasa being realised in a big composition or even in a single stanza. Dhv. III. 17 runs as :
“prabandhe muktake vā'pi rasādīn bandhum icchatā, yatnaḥ kāryaḥ sumatinā
parihāre virodhinām. "prabandhe muktake vā’pi rasa-bhāva-nibandhanam praty adrtamanāh kavir virodhi-parihāre param yatnam ādadhīta. anyathā tv asya rasamayah ślokah ekópi samyan na sampadyate.” (vịtti, Dhv. III. 17).
The factors that may cause obstruction in rasa-realisation are enumerated as below :
(i) sketching the setting and the like of a sentiment that is of the nature quite contrary to the one in hand;
(ii) giving a very lengthy description of something even though it is connected with the main sentiment;
(iii) abruptly cutting off the delineation of the sentiment or its untimely evocation;
(iv) frequent delineation of a sentiment even if it is fully roused; and (v) impropriety with reference to behaviour.

Page #114

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...... Dhv. III. 18 & 19 read as:
"virodhi-rasa-sambandhivibhāvā"di-parigrahaḥ vistareṇā'nvitasya'pi vastuno'nyasya varṇam; akāṇḍa eva vicchittir
akāṇḍe ca prakāśanam, pariposam gatasyā'pi paunaḥ punayena dipanam; rasasya syad virodhāya
vṛtty anaucityam eva ca."
Ā. elaborates in his vṛtti as below:
(i) as for example, after delineating the hero and the setting with reference to śānta-rasa, if the same person and setting are immediately thereafter described with reference to śṛngāra-rasa, the first blemish occurs. The above is an illustration of vibhāva-parigraha with reference to an opposite type of rasa. Vyabhicariparigraha of the opposite type of rasa is seen when anger of a young beloved is being pacified by words that may promote renunciation. Anubhava-parigraha of the opposite type of sentiment is seen when, in case the beloved has picked up a love-quarrel, the hero is described to exibit expressions-anubhāvas pertaining to raudra-rasa by getting angry and bashing the beloved and the like.
1289
(ii) The second blemish takes place e.g. when a poet wants to describe a situation with reference to say, the vipralambha śṛngāra i.e. love in separation, and gets lost into a very lengthy description of mountains, forests etc., on account of his love for 'yamaka' and the like.
(iii) Abrupt cutting off of the delineation of a contextual sentiment is a fault, said to occur when, e.g. a poet, instead of finding out the way to unite the hero and the heroine, who have come to know each other's longing for each other, describes something else. This occurs, e.g. in Ratnāvalī, when on coming of Babhravya, Ratnavali is temporarily forgotten!

Untimely evocation of sentiment occurs when e.g. eventhough the battle is on, Rāmacandra is described to be suffering due to separation from Sītā. Or, it is seen in the delineation of śṛngara on the battle field in the second act of Venisamhāra.

Page #115

1290
SAHRDAYALOKA
Ā. observes that in the instances cited above, there is a clear breach of propriety and it can not be saved by pointing out that the hero is eclipsed by ill fate. ! : "na ca evam vidhe visaye daiva-vyāmohitatvam kathāpurusasya parihāro, yato rasabandha eva kaveh prādhānyena sva pravsttinibandhanam yuktam.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 19)
Ā. says that the poets should be solely devoted to the suggestion of sentiment and the like. We have taken pains for all this and not merely for the establishment of dhvani alone !
"rasā”di-rūpa-vyangya-tātparyam eva esām yuktam iti yatnósmābhir ārabdho, na dhvani-pratipadana-mātrā'bhiniveśena."
It may be carefully noted that not only for Bharata, his illustrious predecessors and for Anandavardhana/Abhinavagupta and all the followers of the Kashmir school of poetic criticism, but even for literary and art-critics belonging to schools of thought, apparently not in conformity with A. and Abhinavagupta, 'rasa' means not only sentiment such as śrngāra, karuna, etc., but it has a wider connotation of aesthetic relish, born of chewing i.e. contemplation on the object of art, getting merged into it, i.e. laya, samāpatti, niveśa and what not; i.e. total art-experience which removes all consciousness of anything else than the object of art, during the time of its experience (i.e. tātkālikatva), or we may say, it is an art-experience which is "vigalita-vedyantara”. This is acceptable to all Indian art-critics, including Kuntaka, Dhananjaya/Dhanika, Mahimă, Bhoja, Sāradātanaya and all the rest. The discerning will realise .. also uses the term 'rasa' in both these senses; the 'linga' i.e. determining characteristic of this experience being “vigalita-vedyantaratva".
(iv) The fourth difficulty arises when rasa that is already fully aroused is repeatedly described as such. Rasa, after being fully aroused by its constituents and after being relished, tends to fade away in the fashion of a fading flower, if evoked repeatedly.
(v) Vyavahāra-anaucitya i.e. vrtty anaucitya occurs e.g. when a heroine directly talks about her desire to the hero, and not indirectly through proper gestures and the like. Or, it happens when vrttis - dictions - such as kaiśiki and he like, as laid down in Bharata, are described not with reference to their proper conditions or context.
Ā. cites some 'parikara' i.e. 'summing-up' verses to support his statements and observes that whatever is laid down by him is in harmony with the opinion of great poets such as Vālmīki and the like.

Page #116

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1291 He further elaborates the topic and gives instruction as to how to delineate factors as are connected with sentiments of the opposite type, i.e. 'virodhirasas'. He observes : (Dhv. III. 20) -
"vivakṣite rase labda-pratisthe tu, virodhinām bādhyānām angabhāvam vā
prāptānām uktir a-cchalā." Trans. K.Kris. pp. 165, ibid) : "After the intended leading sentiment has been established on a secure footing, there will be no defect in including even hindrances provided that these come either as foils or as ancillaries."
Ā. is of the opinion that after the intended rasa is fully realised, the hindrances can be delineated in a two-fold way as said above. The 'bādhyatva' - i.e. serving as foils of the hindrances is said to be there when they are positively over-come by the intended sentiment and not otherwise. Thus delineated they only tend to enhance the intended sentiment or, these factors cease to be hindrances when they are subordinated. They can be subordinated either in a natural way or in an imagined way. In case of natural subordination, there is no case for hindrance e.g., in the description of disease. with reference to the vipralambha-śrógāra. But if one describes things that are not natural ancillaries e.g. death with reference to love in separation it will create hindrance. Ā. is of the opinion that even if a poet thinks that death can be possibly described in case of love in separation, he should not do so. For, if the substratum of sentiment is lost, sentiment itself will be totally blasted. And you are not up to promote karuna here. If the poetry is centred round karunarasa, such description is unobjectionable. Or, at times, description of death, in case of śrngāra, becomes unobjectionable, if there is a chance for an immediate reunion. In case of a prolonged reunion, the evocation of proper sentiment is retarded. The poet should avoid this.
Ā. illustrates the case of "bădhyatvena-ukti" i.e. narration as foils of the hindrances in the verse, viz. "kvā'kāryam sasa-laksmanah..." etc., or as in case of the advice given by the other sage, when Pundarīka is lost in love for Mahāśvetā. The natural subordination is illustrated as in, "bhramim a-ratim alasa-hrdayatām”, etc., superimposed subordination is seen as in, "pându-ksāmam vadanam"; etc., or as in, "kopāt komala-bāhu-lola-bāhu-latikām..." etc.
Opposite Sentiments. - Ā. then proceeds to explain how opposite sentiments are to be delineated in a whole composition. He is of the opinion that eventhough

Page #117

1292
SAHRDAYĀLOKA it is accepted that the whole work of poetic composition should abound in different sentiments, the poet, desirous of achieving the greatness of his works, would delineate only one sentiment as the principal one. Dhv. III. 21 - observes :
"prasiddhépi prabandhānām nānā-rasa-nibandhane, eko rasóngīkartavyah
tesam utkarsam icchatā." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 175, ibid): "Though there is a convention that more than one sentiment should find a place in entire works of literature, one of them alone should be made principal by the poet who aims at greatness in his works."
The Vștti on Dhv. III. 22 reads as : “prabandheșu prathamataram prastutaḥ san punaḥ punar anusamdhīyamānatvena sthāyī yo rasas tasya sakala-bandha-vyāpino rasántarair antarāla-vartibhiḥ samāveso yat sa náñgitām upahanti." . "When a sentiment happens to be intended as primary in a work and is kept up constant by being delineated again and again, its importance cannot be marred at all by the inclusion of other passing sentiments since it underlies all the rest." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 175, ibid)
A. explains it further. He says that just as there can be principal action or plot of a composition even if it gets mixed with other sub-plots, in the same way there can be one principal sentiment (Dhv. III. 23). Ā. holds that not only sentiments such as vīra and śrngāra or śộngāra and adbhuta can be correlated as principal and subordinate, but also opposite type of sentiments such as śngāra and bībhatsa, vīra and bhayānaka, śānta and raudra, or śānta and śộngāra also can be correlated as such, if when one sentiment is principal, the other one is not fully aroused : Dhv. III. 24 observes -
"a-virodhi virodhi vā rasongini rasántare, pariposam na netavyas
tathā syād a-virodhitā.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 177, ibid) : "When a sentiment is delineated in a work as principal one, no other sentiment, whether un-opposed or opposed to it, should be treated elaborately. This will ensure one that no opposition between them will remain anymore.”

Page #118

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1293
Thus, a rasa not of the opposite type as in case of śṛngāra and hasya, need not be fully aroused as compared to the main sentiment. Even if they are equally developed, there is no contradiction, e.g. in the verse, viz. "ekato roditi priya, anyato samara-turya-nirghoṣaḥ..." etc., or as in kaṇṭhāt cchitvā'kṣamālām..." etc.
Or, the vyabhicāribhāvas with reference to a rasa opposite to the main sentiment, should not be described at length. And in case they are so described, there should be an immediate reversion to the vyabhicāribhāvas of the principal sentiment. Or, when a subordinate sentiment is treated fully, it should be, at all events, kept only as a subordinate by constant attention; such other escapes should also be imagined.
In case, the subordinate sentiment is of the opposite type, it should be slightly less developed as compared to the main sentiment e.g. in case of santa and śṛngāra.
A. then proceeds to lay down the specific means of overcoming opposition between two opposite sentiments. Dhv. III. 25 observes -
"viruddhaika"śrayo yas tu virodhi sthāyino bhavet. sa vibhinna"śrayaḥ kāryas tasya pose'py a-doṣatā."
i.e. if an opposite sentiment is delineated with reference to the same substratum as that of the principal one, the opposite sentiment should be given a different substratum and thus even if the opposite sentiment is fully treated, there will not be any contradiction, e.g. in case of vira and bhayānaka. If vīra is delineated with reference to the hero, bhayānaka should be delineated with reference to the enemy. The opposition between sentiments arises in a two-fold way e.g. one as already seen above, such sentiments as vīra and bhayanaka cannot reside in the same substratum, or, the opposition between sentiments may arise when certain sentiments come side by side in the same substratum. Now, in such cases, some other sentiment, not opposite to either, should interveue in between, i.e. it can be sandwiched between the two opposite type of sentiments, (Dhv. III. 26) e.g. in Nāgananda, santa and śṛngāra are delineated with adbhuta intervening in between. Dhv. III. 26 reads as :
"ekāśrayatve nirdoso nairantarye virodha-vān, rasántara-vyavad hinā
raso vyangyaḥ sumedhasā."

Page #119

1294
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 181, ibid) - "A sentiment which has no opposition due to sameness of substratum, but which becomes an opposite of another (i.e. principal) sentiment coming closely beside it (= i.e. if juxtaposed), should be so conveyed by the intelligent poet that a third sentiment will intervene between these conflicting ones.”
The vștti on this reads as : "yaḥ punar ekā’dhikarņatve nirvirodho, nairantarye tu virodhi, sa rasántara-vyavadhānena prabandhe niveśayitavyaḥ. yathā śāntaśrngārau nāgānande nivesitau."
Thus, the contradiction between two sentiments in one and the same sentence also can be remedied e.g. in the expression, “bhūreņu-digdhān navapārijāta..." etc. (vrtti. Dhv. III. 27) : "rasántara-vyavahitayor eka-prabandhasthayor virodhitā nivartata ity atra na kācid bhrāntih. yasmād eka-vākyasthayor api rasayor uktayā nītyā viruddhatā nivartate.”
Ā. is of the opinion that these instructions should be carefully observed more in case of śộngāra which is the most delicate type : (Dhv. III. 28) :
"virodham avirodham ca sarvatréttham nirūpayet, viśeşatas tu śrngāre
sukumāratamo hy asau.” If the poet is slightly negligent in respect of the delineation of śrngāra, it is immediately noticed and therefore he has to be very attentive in this task.
Other concepts : Having thus disposed of the main topic of rasa-dhvani, Ā. has to find place for other concepts of literary criticism as discussed by his predecessors. This he does under his wider and catholic scheme of 'vyañjanadhvani-rasa'. For example, he treats the topic of vrttis such as lalitā , parusā, upanāgarikā etc. as given by Udbhata, Rudrața, etc. and rītis such as gaudī and vaidarbhi, as given by Dandin, Vamana etc., in the following way: A. holds that the main task of a great poet lies in a proper marshalling of all the contents and the expressions in the direction of the sentiments and the like. Dhv. III. 32 observes :
"vācyānām vācakānām ca yad aucityena yojanam, rasā"di-visayeņaitat karma mukhyam mahākaveh."

Page #120

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1295 vācyānām itivștta-višeşāņām vācakānām ca tad viņayāņām rasā”di-vișayeņa aucityena yad yojanam etan mahākaver mukhyam karma. avam eva hi mahākaver mukhyo wāpāro vad rasādin eva hi mukhyatavā vākyarthīkrtya tad-vyaktyanugunatvena śabdānām arthänām ca upanibandhanam.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 32) : (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 189)". "The main business of a first-rate poet is none other than the proper marshalling of both contents, i.e. plots and expressions used in setting them forth, in the direction of sentiments, etc. In other words, the main function of the poet lies only in making (one) sentiment principal throughout the poem and employing both words and senses only in such a way that the sentiment is suggested clearly."
Ā., relating the concept of vrttis as seen in Bharata and others to his main thrust of vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa, further observes :
"etac ca rasā"di-tātparyeņa kāvya-nibandhanam bharatā”dāv api suprasiddham eva iti pratipadayitum äha :
rasā"dy anuguņatvena vyavahāro'rtha-sabdayoh, aucityavān yas tā etā
vṛttayo dvividhāḥ sthitā).” - Dhv. III. 33 (Trans. K.Kris.; pp. 189, ibid): "The following text shows how this idea of writing a poem only with the main intention of suggesting sentiments etc., is a well-known concept even in ancient treatises such as that of Bharata -
Vịttis (lit. Modes) are said to be of two kinds only because they relate to appropriate employment of senses and sound in keeping with sentiments, etc.” (Dhv. III. 33)
The vștti on this further observes : "vyavahāro hi vịttir ity ucyate. tatra rasā'nuguna-aucityavan vacya"śrayo yo vyavahāras tā etāh kaiśiky adayo vịttayaḥ. vācakāśrayaś cópanāgarikā"dyāḥ. vșttayo hi rasā"di-tātparyena sannivesitā kām api nātyasya kāvyasya ca cchāyām āvahanti. rasā”dayo hi dvayor api tayor jīvabhūtāḥ, iti-vșttā"di tu śarīrabhūtam eva.”
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 189, ibid) : "Modes of employment are themselves given the designation of "Mode". The mode of employing senses in conformity to sentiment as well as to the consideration of decorum underlies the various (dramatic) modes such as "Kaiśiki etc. Similarly, that which relates to sounds underlies the (figurative) modes such as Upanāgarikā (the urban) etc. Thus mode, properly

Page #121

1296
SAHRDAYĀLOKA employed with the soul intention conveying sentiments etc., will lend charm to dramatic as well as poetic works. Sentiments etc., constitute the life-essense of both these modes; plots, etc. serve only as the body."
Ā. clearly states further that, once this theory of poetry is fully understood, even the so called ‘modes' relating to the nature of sounds, as well as to the nature of meanings will become intelligible. He adds that when this theory of poetry involving a descrimination of the suggested-suggester relationship is grasped, other categories like literary modes like kaiśiki and upanāgarikā will become quite intelligible. Otherwise modes will remain only incredible like unseen objects, and will not come within the range of personal experience. He observes, 'at Dhv. III. 46 (pp. 260, Edn. K.Kris.)
"asphusa-sphuritam . kāvya-tattvam etad yathóditam, a-saknuvadbhir vyākartum
rītayaḥ sampravartitāḥ.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 261, ibid) - "Those who were unable to explain properly this essential principal of theory as they had only a glimmer of it (and nothing more), have brought into vogue the theory of styles. The vṛtti (pp. 260, ibid) observes : "etad dhvani-pravartanena nirņītam kāvya-tattvam a-sphuţa-sphuritam sad a-sak nuvadbhiḥ pratipādayitum vaidarbhi, gaudī, pāñcālī ca iti rītayaḥ pravartitāḥ. rītilaksana-vidhāyinām hi kāvya-tattvam etad a-sphuţatayā manāk sphuritam āsīd iti laksyate, tad atra aphuţatayā sampradarśitam ity anyena rīti-laksaņena na kiñcit." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 261, ibid) - "We have explained above the fundamental principle of poetry by using the term 'dhvani’. Since only vague glimmerings of this principles were had by ancient writers, they could not explain it exhaustively and thus did they bring into vogue the theory of three styles, viz., Vaidarbhi, Gaudī, and Pāñcālī. While the theorists of style show only vague flashes of this very principle of poetry, we have very clearly demostrated it in all its bearings and hence there is nothing for us to consider seriously about the theory of styles. Ā. further observes : (Dhv. III. 47, pp. 260, ibid):
"sabda-tattvā”śrayāḥ kāścid artha-tattva-yujo’parāḥ, vịttayópi prakāśante jñāte'smin kävya-laksane."

Page #122

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1297 (vrtti, on this reads as) - "asmin vyangya-vyañjaka-bhāva-vivecanamaye kāvyalakşane jñāte sati, yāḥ kāścit prasiddhā upanāgarikā"dyāḥ śabda-tattvā”śrayā vịttayo, yāśca artha-tattva-sambaddhāh kaisiky adayas tāh samyag rīti-padavim avataranti anyathā tu tāsām a-drstárthánām iva vrttīnām a-śraddheyatvam eva syān na anubhava-siddharvam. evam sphuţatayaiva laksanīyam svarūpam asya dhvaneh.”
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 261, ibid) - "Once this theory of poetry is fully understood, even the so-called "Modes" relating to the nature of sounds as well as to the nature of meanings will become intelligible.” (III. 47)
"When this theory of poetry involving a discrimination of the suggestedsuggester relationship is grasped, other categories like literary modes, viz. those relating to sound such as upanāgarikā, as well as those relating to sense such as "Kaisiki', will become quite intelligible (even in the same way as the styles). Otherwise, Modes will remain only incredible like unseen objects, and will not come within the range of personal experience (though there might be testimony of
at effect). Therefore, the nature of principal suggestion should be understood clearly."
It may be noted here that Dr. K.Kris. translates 'vstti' as 'modes' and so we have kept the term as it is when we quote from him. Elsewhere, we use the term 'diction' for vrtti. 'Vrtti' remains 'vrtti', even when called as 'mode' or 'diction'.
When Ā. observes that 'the nature of principal suggestion 'svarūpam asya dhvaneh' is to be understood clearly, he obviously refers to his scheme of vyañjanādhvani-rasa first and then to 'rasa-dhvani' as principal suggested sense, when the term stands not only for suggestion of emotive-stuff i.e. rasa-bhāvā”di but also for 'rasa' - the ultimate aesthetic pleausre, the 'art-sense' - at the base of all art. Ā. always expects us to keep in mind this wider connotation even when he talks of rasa as śrngara-vīra, etc. i.e. sentiments. It is precisely for this purpose that he emphatically establishes "śānta-rasa" and he is vehemently supported by Abhinavagupta in both Locana and the Abhinavabhārati. By śānta-rasa as a 'mahā. rasa' what is meant is only the highest aesthetic experience' or 'art-experience and not just evocation of a particular emotion.
Ā. also correlates the concepts of alamkāra, guna and dosa with rasa - both in the emotive sense, or in the wider sense of art-experience in general, through his scheme of vyañjanā.
It may be noted that in the concepts of alamkāra, guna, vrtti and rīti we can include all newer and newer experiments by literary artists in the direction of what

Page #123

1298
SAHRDAYĀLOKA is termed 'symbols' or 'images' or even what is termed as purely 'absurd' in literary or dramatic contexts. Ā. has kept his doors open for all this but for the present he observes that figures like metaphor and the like, become truly significant, (i.e. will be real ornaments) when they are employed in instances of śrngāra which is the soul of suggestion, with great descrimination. Again by śộngāra we should understand not only the emotive stuff but also the soul of poetry i.e. art-experience, the wider sense of śrngāra as taken by Bhoja-rājā also - 'raso'bhimano srngārah'. A. observes at Dhv. II. 17.
"dhvanyātmabhūte śộngāre samīksya vinivesitaḥ, rūpakā”dir alamkāra-varga
eti yathārthatām." For in his earlier kārikā (i.e. II. 16) he has observed that -
“rasā”kşiptatayā yasya bandhaḥ śakya-kriyo bhavet, a-prthag yatna-nirvartyaḥ
sólamkāro dhvanau mataḥ.” - i.e. (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 59, ibid) - "Only that is admitted as a figure of suggestive poetry whose employment is rendered possible just by the emotional suffusion of the poet and which does not require any other extra effort on his part.” - We may say that for Dr. K.Kris.'s use of words such as "the emotional suffusion of the poet”. we would like to read, “the art-experiment of the poet." This will include all amazing experiments such as done by modern literary artists in any spoken to-day. For, this is hinted at by Ā., when he observes in his vrtti on Dhv. II. 16, when he says - "nispattāv āścarya-bhūto'pi yasyā-'lamkārasya rasā”ksiptatayaiva bandhaḥ śakya-kriyo bhavet sósminn alaksya-krama-vyangye dhvanāv alamkāro matah. tasyaiva rasā’ngatvam mukhyam ity arthaḥ.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 59, ibid): "Though in the result it might appear very amazing, that figure, whose employment is due only to the poet's over-mastering emotion (i.e. art-sense, experience), regarded as a figure of 'suggestive poetry of undiscerned sequentiality.' The idea is that it alone serves as the best vehicle of sentiment.”
Ā. then lays down some guide lines for the use of alamkāras or we may say figurative style or diction in poetry. He holds that the sole consideration is that it is only a means to the delineation of sentiment, or say to bring about art

Page #124

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1299
experience and that it is never an end in itself. The alamkāra should be employed at the right time and should be given up also at the right time. The poet should not feel over enthusiastic in pressing an alamkāra too far, even when it is employed. Again, the poet should be keenly watchful in making sure that it remains a secondary element only. These are the various means by which figures like metaphor and the like, become accessories of the suggested sentiment, or better of say, the art-effect attempted. A. observes at Dhv. II. 18-19:
"vivakṣā tat-paratvena nä'ngitvena kadācana, kāle ca grahaṇa-tyāgau náti-nirvahaṇaiṣitā. nirvyūḍhāv api cángatve yatnena paryavekṣaṇam,
rūpakā"dir alamkāra-vargasya angatva-sadhanam."
A. duly illustrates all this.
He also correlates gunas or excellences and samghatana or structure and holds that both should be employed in poetry as to suggest sentiment i.e. to bring home aesthetic pleasure or art-effect (Dhv. III. 6).
Ā. also correlates the topic of doșa or blemishes in poetic art to the general concept of rasa or art-experience, i.e. rasa-vyañjana. He observes at II. 11, that
"śruti-duṣṭā"dayo doṣā anitya ye ca darsitāḥ
dhvanyātmany eva śṛngāre
te heya, ity udahṛtāḥ."
anitya-doṣāś ca ye śruti-duṣṭā"dayaḥ sūcitāḥ tépi na vācye artha-mātre, na ca vyangye śṛngāra-vyatirekiņi, śṛngare va dhvaner ana"tmabhūte. kim tarhi ? dhvanyātmany eva śṛngāre angitaya vyangye te heyā ity udāhṛtāḥ. anyathā hi teṣām anitya-doșată eva na syāt."
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 53, ibid) - "Defects like 'indelicacy which have been shown to be impermanent (by ancient writers), have been in fact illustrated as blemishes only with references to the erotic sentiment when its nature is suggestion." (Dhv. II. 11).

Page #125

1300
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Vrtti) - 'Impermanent defects like 'indelicacy' which have been mentioned by earlier writers do not become defects at all when they are found in instances of expressed sense only, or even in instances of suggested erotic sentiment, if suggested sentiment is also not of the utmost importance therein, or in instances of sentiments other than the erotic. That the defects are to be avoided as such only when the erotic happens to be principally suggested, becomes clear by the illustration given (by ancient writers themselves). If this were not so, they would not at all be impermanent defects.”
Thus the concept of blemishes is also correlated to the central concept of artexperience or 'rasanubhūti'.
In the treatment of samghatanā or construction' the appropriateness of certain types of compounds and that of certain consonents with certain rasas is mentioned, e.g. it is suggested that the use of certain consonants as would be found appropriate i.e. effective for the art-effect of vīra, or raudra or bhayānaka, would not prove to be appropriate for the art-effect of say, śrngāra and karuna. In fact such inappropriate use would amount to a dosa or belmish, with reference to guna, rīti or samghatanā concerned.
Thus, Ā. integrates the theories of vyañjanā and rasa i.e. art-effect into a whole and gives us a complete theory of poetry. He does not discard any concept fl by his predecessors but finds place for them in the wider embrace with his 'rasa' i.e. art-experience in the centre. Ā. keeps rasa-experience, i.e. art-experience as central and emotive experience for him is part of his wider scheme of vyañjanā-dhvanirasa. Viśvanātha however insists only on rasa-dhvani and ridicules other art-forms that take care of stylistic and content-based central thrusts, as seen perhaps with the modern artists of to-day practicing 'absurdism' in art.
Alamkārikas of the Kashmir school i.e. followers of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, beginning with Mammata down to Jagannātha do not differ basically from Ā. in their treatment of rasa, but for Mukula. Kuntaka. Mahimā. Dhananjaya/Dhanika and Bhoja the central importance of art-effect remains the same, there is quarrel as to the realisation of this effect. They challange Vyañjanā and not 'rasa', or art-experience. We will try to see how they differ.
Mukula Bhatta - We are dealing here, it may be noted in advance with some of the posterior writers to Ā., whose works have come down to us and not with those such as Lollata, Śrī Śankuka, and Bhatta Nāyaka whose works have not reached us, but whose views on rasa-ralisation have reached us through

Page #126

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1301
Abhinavabhārati. We will take care of these when we deal with the theory of artexperience in the next chapter. So, for the present we begin with Mukula.
For Mukula, the author of Abhidhāvrtta-mātrkā the whole rasa-bhāvā"di complex was not unacceptable as he is posterior to Bharata and even Ā. A number of illustrations that he has cited for this or that variety of abhidhā/laksaņā are read in different context in the Dhv. also. What he opposed was the fact of vyanjana and therefore also the whole edifice of dhvani that rested on vyañjanā. He asserted that all the varieties of dhvani can be understood through the functioning of laksanā and hence this talk of vyañjanā/dhvani made no sense to him. This he asserted even while accepting such terminology as “vivaksita-anyapara-vācya and atyantatiraskrta-vācya, and also sabda-sakti-mūlata" and the rest. Actually he twice uses the term 'vyangya' while treating "sambandha-nibandhana-laksana. He observ (pp. 63, edn. Dr. Rewaprasad Chawkhamba Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, 73) -
"laksanā"tmikayos tu tayor vācyasya a-vivaksitatvam, na tv atyantam tiraskārah, laksyamāna-dvāreņa kathamcit kārye anvitatvāt. tatra, sambandhanibandhanāyām laksanāyām avivaksita-vācyatve udāharanam, “rāmo'smīti." atra hi rāma-sabda-vācyam dāśarathi-rūpam vyangya-dharmántara-pariņatatvāt svaparatvena anupāttam, tasmad a-vivakṣitam, na tvaryantam tiraskstam vyangya-dharma-dvāreņa vākyárthe kathamcid anvitatvāt...”
Mukula thus unconsciously accepts Ā.'s ruling though consciously he rebels against him by not accepting vyañjanā and therefore 'dhvani'. He observes : (pp. 66, ibid) : "etac ca sarvam bahuvaktavyatvād iha na nirūpyate. lakṣaṇāmārgávagāhitvam tu dhvaneh sahrdayair nūtanatayópavarnitasya vidyate iti diśam unmilayitum idam atróktam. etac ca vidvadbhiḥ kuśāgriyayā buddhyā nirūpanīyam, na tu zagity evā’sūyitavyam ity alam atiprasangena.” .
The difficulty with Mukula was that he could not see beyond the śāstras. We have all through our presentation maintained that the grammarians and the dārśanikas, while treating their śāstras, had no business to talk about or even mention vyañjanā. They had to deal with only the directly expressed sense with a slight chance of deviation (laksanā) if any, which in itself is a 'dosa' - a blemish - in the eyes of the Mimāmsakas. But this does not mean that they rejected vyajanā in poetry. Even Pāṇini is said to have written a mahākāvya and no poetry on earth in any age, any language, could be without vyañjanä and vyangyártha. The śāstra had concern with the scientific use of language only while the poetic use of language cannot but involve an emotive stance which falls in the ambit of vyañjanā alone.

Page #127

1302
SAHRDAYĀLOKA So, the net outcome is that Mukula seems to be an innocent soul. Actually he has tried to improve upon Ā.'s observations at times to no good result. For example, 7. takes 'rasa' to be 'vyangya' or suggested only and also as principal. Rasa is never conveyed through its own naming even in a dream - svapnépi na sva-sabda-vācyah. This is Ā.'s assertion. Mukula on the otherhand accepts rasa as arrived at through 'āksepa' i.e. implication. Now this term 'āksepa' is used both in the sense of laksanā, or implication i.e. 'arthāpatti' or even 'anumāna' i.e. inference. Mammata uses, this term, and this, not against A.'s own use, in the sense of vyañjanā' also. But Mukula uses "ākṣepa' only either as laksaņā or arthāpatti, he being a dire opponent of vyanjanā. Again, for or Ā., 'rasa' is part of a variety of dhvani which is termed
any 'vivakṣitányaparavācya'. This variety is totally away from laksanā, and the 'vācya' or expressed meaning in this variety does not change. For Ā., the variety in which lakşaņā has a role to play is called “a-vivakṣita-vācya", in which the 'vācya' or directly expressed sense changes either partially or wholly. For Mukula, however, laksanā is also possible in what he terms 'vivaksita-vācya' as well. The illustration
s is, "mahati samare satrughnas tvam.” He observes : (pp. 65, ibid, under 'kriyāyoganibandhanā laksana') : "yatra tu nimittasad-bhāvād vācyérthe vivaksita eva tasya arthántarasya śabda-śaktyantara-mūlatayā vyavasthitasya a-vyavāyaḥ kriyate, tatra tad-viparītatayā vācyártha-tiraskrivā-vaiparītyam. na khalv atra vācyasya arthasya tiraskriyā, api tu vivaksitatvam eva, yathā 'mahati samare satrughnas tvam' iti.”
Actually he could not see beyond the physical limitations of the śāstras, which in themselves were never against vyañjanā so far as poetry was concerned. Mukula, pleased with his own presentation, at the end of his work declares :
"daśavidhena anena abhidhā-vrttena samagrasya vāk-parispandasya vyāpyatvād anena vākarana-mīmāmsā-tarka-sāhityā”tmakesu caturşu śāstresu upayogāt taddvāreņa ca sarvāsu vidyāsu sakala-vyavahāra-mūla-bhūtāsu prasāranād asya daśavidhasya abhidhā-vsttasya sakala-vyavahāra-vyāpitvam ākhyātam.
Thus, Mukula does not reject the fact of rasā"di, but he is averse to vyañjanā. It may be noted that Mukula has not engaged himself in any theoretical discussion either on the theory of rasa-realisation or on the discussion concerning the nature or number of rasas.
Kuntaka : We have examined Kuntaka's general approach to vyañjana and dhvani in earlier chapters. His vicitrā-abhidhā did not exclude vyañjanā and his

Page #128

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1303 'vakrókti' included both dhvani' and 'rasa'. So, he is neither a die-hard vyañjan.virodhin nor an anti-dhvani theorist. In this light it will prove to be very interesting how he accomodates the fact of rasa in his theory.
Kuntaka's (= K.) approach to the fact of rasa is noteworthy. For him, rasa is the highest factor in the poetic art which is of the form of vakrókti. Vakrókti is related to rasa in the same way in which it is related to dhvani. Thus, just as for the dhvanivādin, dhvani is the soul of kāvya, and rasa-dhvani is the highest form of dhvani, in the same way, vakrókti is the soul of poetry and rasa is the most important aspect of vakrókti.
K. seems to pay great importance to the fact of rasa. He wants poetry to be 'tadvid-ählāda-kārini' i.e. such as would delight the critics : VJ. I. I reads as (Edn. K.Kris. Karnatak Uni., Dharwad, '77, pp. 6)
"sabdárthau sahitau vakra-kavi-vyāpára-śālini bandhe vyavasthitau
kávyam, tadvid-ählāda-kārini." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 292, ibid) - “Poetry is that word and sense together enshrined in a style revealing the artistic (lit. 'out-of-the-way) creativity of the poet on the one hand and giving aesthetic delight to the man of taste on the other."
At VJ. I. 5, while dealing with 'kāvya-prayojana' he refers to rasa. He observes :
"caturvarga-phalā"svādam apy atikramya tad-vidām, kāvyámộta-rasenā’ntaś
camatkāro vitanyate.” (pp. 5, ibid) (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 291, ibid) - "Apart from the enjoyment of the benefits of the four-fold values, there is the immediate sense of delight produced in a reader as a result of his enjoying the nectar of poetry." Again, while talking about sukumāra mārga, he says that a 'sahrdaya' or a 'tad-vid' is "rasā"di-paramártha-jña." He observes :
“bhāva-svabhāva-prādhānyanyakkṛtā"hārya-kausalaḥ, rasā"di-paramárthajñamanah-samvāda-sundaraḥ.” (VJ. I. 26)

Page #129

1304
SAHṚDAYALOKA
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 329, ibid): 'Where studious technical skill is superseded by the prominence given to the inner nature of things, where beauty is felt due to sympathy by men of taste who are experts in enjoying sentiments etc..."
The vṛtti (pp. 46, ibid) reads as: "anyac ca kidṛśaḥ ? rasă"di-paramartha-jñamanaḥ-samvada-sundaraḥ. rasaḥ śṛngārā"dayaḥ. tad ädigraheņa ratya"dayópi grhyante. teṣām paramarthaḥ paramarahasyam." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 332, ibid) : "Further, the style is characterised as that 'where beauty it felt due to empathy by men of taste who are expert in enjoying the essence of sentiments and the like. Sentiments are erotic and so on. By 'and the like', are meant dominant moods such as 'love'. Their essence is their highest secret." While dealing with 'saubhagya' guna, the critics are described as 'sarasa"tma' i.e. ardra-cetas. VJ. I. 56 reads as (pp. 69, ibid) -
-
"sarva-sampat-parispanda
sampadyam sarasā❞tmnām,
alaukika-camatkāra-kāri kāvyaika-jīvitam."
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 355, ibid): "It is something attained by the full co-operation of all the constituent elements and it is something which surely results in an extraordinary aesthetic effect in the mind of the connoisseurs, in short it is the whole and sole essence of poetry."
K. also seems to take rasa as the soul of poetry. He declares it categorically that prabandha-vakrata is the highest form of vakrókti. In an antar-śloka i.e. a mnemonic verse, under IV. 26, K. observes: (pp. 283, ibid)
"vakratóllekha-vaikalyam a-sat-kävye vilokyate, prabandheṣu kavindrāṇām kirti-kandeṣu kim punah."
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 577, ibid)
"Absence of literary beauty may be found only in bad literature. How can it even have place in the great works of master-poets, works which are the shiningshoots of their immortal glory ?"
These Prabandhas or compositions on which the fame of great poets rests, are full of 'rasa', they are (under IV 4, antara śloka-13): (pp. 252, ibid)

Page #130

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1305 “nirantara-rasódgāragarba-sandarbha-nirbharāḥ giraḥ kavīnām jīvanti
na kathāmātram āśritāḥ." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 544, ibid) :
The words of great poets come to life only - "when they contain incidents which are bubbling with sentiments : not when they merely follow the story as found in the source." We can replace the term "sentiments" for 'aesthetic rapture', for this exactly is meant by K., not just the emotive stuff. .
Thus for K., 'rasa' is the soul of 'prabandha' or a composition and is one of the aspects of vakrókti. K. thus seems to cover rasadhvani of the asamlaksya-variety also under his larger concept of 'rasa-vakrata'.
Rasa for K. is not vācya or expressed. While dealing with the problem of the alamkāras such as 'rasavat and the like, K. laughts at Udbhata's assertion that 'rasa' can be 'sva-sabda-vācya'. Under V.J. III. 11, in his vịtti, K. observes : (pp. 146, ibid) - "yad api kaiścit -
"sva-sabda-sthāyi-sancāri-vibhāvā'bhinayā” spadam” - ity anena pūrvam eva laksaņam viśeșitam, tatra sva-sabdā”spadatvam rasānām a-parigata-pūrvam asmākam. tatas ta eva rasa-sarvasva-samāhita-cetasah tat-paramā’rthavido vidvamsa evam prastavyāḥ-kim sva-sabdā”spadatvam rasānām uta rasavata iti. tatra pūrvasmin pakse-rasyanta iti rasās te sva-sabdā”spadās teșu tişthantaḥ śộngārā"dişu vartamānāḥ santas taj-jñair āsvādyante. tad idam uktam bhavati-yat sva-sabdair abhidhīyamānāḥ śrutipatham avatarantas' cetanānām carvana-camatkāram kurvanti ity anena nyāyena ghfta-pūra-prabhịtayaḥ padārthāḥ sva-sabdair abhidhīyamānās tad āsvāda-sampadam sampādayanti'ty evam sarvasya kasyacid upabhogasukhārthinas tair udara-caritair ayatnena eva tad abhidhāna-mātrād e rājya-sampat-saukhya-samrddhiḥ prapādyeta iti namas tebhyah."
s. K.Kris., pp. 432, ibid) - "Another writer has added to the afore-said definition another qualification, namely,
"And which is brought forth by its designation, the dominant emotion, the passing mood, the excitant and gesture.” (37) (Udbhața, IV. 3) -
Of these, that rasas can be evoked by their designation is something unknown to us so long. Hence these very celebrated specialists on rasa, who claim to know everything of 'rasa' might be asked these questions : Do rasas admit of being

Page #131

1306
SAHRDAYĀLOKA designated by their names or does the poem having rasas admit of being so designated ? If the first alternative is accepted by them, the following is our difficulty : Rasas are those which are 'tasted' and these are again contained in their designations such as the word 'erotic', and only as such they become the sources of delight to connoisseurs. To explain further, when words denotin mentioned, as soon as they fall on the ears of sentients, they should start yielding aesthetic delight. By the same token, words like - "ghee-dish”, as soon as they are uttered, should be enough to produce the taste of that dish. That way, whatever be the sense-delight desired by a person, that could be easily procured without any effort by those great souls merely uttering the concerned words. They could thus attain without trouble all the joys of an emperor of the three worlds.'We take leave of them with a big salutation.”
While considering the nature of kāvya-vastu or poetic theme, K. takes rasa to be very important. Thus at VJ. III. 10, (vrtti) he observes that 'rasa-nirbharatā' or the condition of being drenched in rasa is the principle aspect of poetic context : (pp. 143, ibid) - “tad evamvidham svabhāva-prādhānyena rasa-prādhānyena ca, dvi-prakāram sahaja-saukumārya-sarasam svarūpam varnanā-visaya-vastunaḥ śarīram eva alamkāryatām eva arhati, na punar-alamkaranatvam.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 429, ibid) - "Thus what is beautified and can be regarded as the body of all descriptive art can be only two-fold-containing either the prominence of naturalness or sentiment, both having their own beauty. Neither can ever be regarded as an ornament.” K. devides 'kāvya-vastu' i.e. poetic context as two-fold, 'cetana' or sentient and 'jada' o insentient, and takes the first one as principal and for that 'rasa-pariposa' or the enhancement or rasa is inevitable. See VJ. III. 7 - and vrtti thereon : (pp. 138, ibid) -
“mukhyam a-klista-ratyā"dipari-poșa-manoharam, sva-jāty ucita-hevāka
samullekhójjvalam param.” - mukhyam yat pradhānam cetana-surā'surā"di-sambandhi svarūpam, tad evamvidham sat kavīnām varnanā"spadam bhavati sva-vyāpāra-gocaratām pratipadyate. kidịśam ? a-klista-ratyā"di-pariposa-manoharam. a-klistah kadarthanāvirahitah pratyagratā-manoharo yo ratyā"dih sthāyibhāvas tasya pariposah śrngāra-prabhrti-rasatvā-"pādanam, "sthāy yeva tu raso bhaved” iti nyāyāt. tena mahārham, manohāri."

Page #132

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1307 (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 424, ibid) -
"The first, i.e. the primary kind, is made beautiful by a spontaneous presentation of emotions like love. The second is rendered lovely by a description of the animals etc. in a way natural to their species.” (III. 7)
(Vrtti) - The primary subject-matter which relates, as we saw, to the sentients like gods and demons, comes within the purview of the poetic activity in the way suggested below. The method is one of spontaneous presentation of emotions like love. The word spontaneous is used to indicate that the emotions like love should be free from banality and very striking by their fresh flavour. When so treated, the emotions are raised to the level of sentiments like the erotic; for the well-known rule states that the dominant emotion itself gets transformed into sentiment. Now this becomes very appealing to the heart.
After this K. gives many illustrations of vipralambha and karuņa rasas and leaves other rasas to the readers. : (vịtti, VJ. IV. 7): "evam vipralambha-śrngārakaruņayoḥ saukumāryād udāharana-pradarśanam vihitam. rasántarānām api svayam eva utprekṣaṇīyam.” (pp. 140, ibid).
For K., the description of 'jada' or 'insentient object becomes interesting on account of its ability to evoke rasa - (vịtti, VJ. III. 8, pp. 142, ibid) - "jaļānām acetanānām salila-taru-kusuma-samaya-prabhstīnām evamvidham svarūpam rasóddīpana-sāmarthya-vinibandhana-bandhuram varnanīyatām avagāhate.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 428, ibid) - "The treatment of the non-sentients should also conform mostly to the kindling of the sentiments. Objects such as water, tree, spring, etc. are seen serving this purpose.” In the same way and for the same purpose, i.e. to evoke rasa, the description of the unimportant sentient objects such as birds and the like, is also welcome. VJ. III. 8 reads as - (pp. 141) :
“rasoddīpana-sāmarthyavinibandhana-bandhuram, cetanānām a-mukhyānām
jadānām cā’pi bhūyasā.” K. adds (vștti, VJ. III. pp. 143, ibid as quoted above) that "kāvya-vastu' or poeticcontext is two-fold, on account of its being 'svabhāva-pradhāna' or, -rasapradhāna', and that both should be embellished, on account of both of them being "sahaja-saukumārya-sarasa" or full of rasa on account of natural beauty.

Page #133

1308
SAHRDAYĀLOKA While discussing different margas also, K. refers to rasa. The sukumāra mārga is charming (V.J. I. 26) on account of its being favourable to the mental aptitude of those who know the highest object called rasa : VJ. I. 26 reads as (pp. 43, ibid) -
"bhāva-svabhāva-prādhānya-nyakkstā”hārya-kausalaḥ, rasā"di-paramártha-jñamanah-samvāda-sundaraḥ."
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 329, ibid) - "Where studious technical skill is superseded by the prominence given to the inner nature of things, where beauty is felt due to sympathy by men of taste who are experts in enjoying sentiments etc." We can read 'enjoying aesthetic relish-rasa’ for just 'sentiments' etc.
The vicitra-mărga is also 'sarasā”kūta' i.e. accomplished by 'rasa-nirbharábhiprāya'. V.J. I. 41 (pp. 53, ibid) reads as -
"svabhāvaḥ sa-rasā”kūto bhāvānām yatra bandhyate, kenā'pi kamaniyena
vaicitrenópabrmhitaḥ." and also read - VJ. I. 40 (pp. 53) -
"pratīyamānatā yatra vākyárthasya nibadhyate, vācya-vācaka-vșttibhyām vyatiriktasya kasya cit."
(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 339, ibid) (VJ. I. 40) - 'Whrein, further, the intended purport of the whole is communicated by a suggestive use of language, which is distinct from the two wellknown uses, viz. the communicative use of meanings and the denotative use of words;
(VJ. I. 41) - Wherein the real nature of things pregnant with sentiments is augmented with a novel-beauty which is unique."
The madhyama mārga, being a combination of these two, must be necessarily charged with rasa-"rasa-pusta".

Page #134

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1309 Thus we see that with his theory of Vakrókti' or a striking mode of speech, differing from and transcending the ordinary everyday mode of speaking about a thing, and such that charms by the skill of the poet, K. seems to co sources of charm in poetry, beginning with alamkāra, or artistic turn of expression and ending up with dhvani and rasa. As already noted earlier, even 'dyotaka' and 'vyañjaka' words, on account of their quality of the ability to render meaning, - i.e. ‘artha-pratīti-kāritva', are termed 'vācaka' i.e. 'expressive of meaning', metaphorically. For him also 'rasa' both in the sense of a suggested sentiment as well as the supreme purpose of poetry, aesthetic delight, is the highest goal a poet has to reach.
Dr. K.Krishnamoorthy in his learned introduction to "Vakrókti-jivita of Kuntaka" (Pub. Karnatak Uni., Dharwad, Edn. '77) has some special remarks on 'Kuntaka's idea of Rasa in relation to Alamkāra' (pp. XXX-XXXIX, ibid, Intro.). On pp. XXXVIII Dr. K.Kris. has interesting note as follows :
“As prof. Daniel H. H. Ingalls observes penetratingly, “The word 'rasa' possesses an ambiguity of denotation"; a particular 'rasa' is said to lie in a given literary work as a sweet taste or a bitter taste may lie in a given food or drink. The connoisseur of poetry is also said to have a 'rasa' (a taste) for the poetry he enjoys, much as a wine-taster has a taste of wine.” (ft. note - Daniel H. H. Ingalls : An Authology of Sanskrit court Poetry, Cambridge, Mass, 1956, p. 14, note). - After Abhinavagupta the two meanings have been confounded so often that it is difficult to determine - what exactly is meant by any writer in a given context. But Kuntaka is blissfully free from this ambiguity. He restricts his usage of the word 'rasa' to the first meaning only unlike post-Abhinavagupta writers. He invariably uses other words like 'ahlāda' to mean the second. But he is second to none in his insistence on a sensitive literary taste in the reader and always describes them with epithets like 'Sahrdaya' or 'tadvid'. And Kuntaka himself reveals a literary taste of the first order among sanskrit literary critics. A careful perusal of the fourth chapter will show how Kuntaka always is concerned with the opt-repeated question - "What has the poet tried to express and how has he expressed it ?" It is the only possible method open for practical criticism. The other side of criticism, viz. fudicial evaluation is also represented by Kuntaka in his observations on the failures of even master poets. Like a modern literary critic, he covers all the parts of poetics which deal with plot, character, and thought in his observations involving 'aucitya' and 'an-aucitya'. He not only asserts a new doctrine, but disengages a new essence which men of taste can relish from the vast riches of Sanskrit literature. The only value he upholds is the aesthetic value of 'vicchitti'."

Page #135

1310
SAHRDAYĀLOKA We have stated our position in the chapters dealing with vyañjanā and dhvani and have tried to evaluate K.'s achievements. Ingalls as quoted by Dr. K. Kris. as above seems to display a lack of the basic understanding of the meaning of 'rasa'. Bharata and all the ālamkārikas posterior to him never take 'rasa' in any physical sense at all. When he gives the illustration, Bharata knows that he has to explain the fact of aesthetic relish by citing from day to day experience and it is here that he is very clear that the taste from food or drink is only “mānasa" and those who taste it are termed as “bhuñjānas” and not gluttons. We have made it very clear and will make is clearer when we deal with the nature of rasa in greater detail, that
is more an experience both exclusive to art - 'Sui generis' and also 'pari passu with art-experience. It is extra-ordinary in its nature and the most important aspect of it is that it is an experience which is said to be exclusive', - 'vigalitavedyantaratva' being its differentiating mark. The whole tradition of Indian artcritics, including literary critics have no illusion about this, be it a Bharata, or a Bhāmaha or Anandavardhana or any. 'Rasa' is a 'total experience which involves the emotive, imaginative or intellectual and the practical aspect of the personality of a genuine enjoyer. So, 'rasa' is not only a sentiment', but also 'Supreme delight born of the art-experience. It is in both these senses that the term is known to all art-critics in India and Kuntaka, of course, is one of those. If he defied Anandavardha to some extent, it was because as Dr. K.Kris. observes, he was a predecessor of Abhinavagupta. Had he been posterior to the latter, there would not have been any difficulty for him in accepting 'vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa' scheme. To that extent, we take him to be unfortunate. We feel we do not have to controvert Ingalls misunderstanding. Dr. K.Kris. is a name whom we hold in very high estime and when he seems to go rather over-jubilant regarding Kuntaka's achievement, we take it only as an “artha-vāda”.
Dhananjaya and Dhanika :- Whether these two were predecessors of Kuntaka or posterior to him is immaterial here. One thing is certain that these two also challange the concept of vyañjanā-dhvani but certainly they accept the fact of 'rasa'. The fourth flash of the Daśa-rupaka is devoted to 'rasa', the realisation of, and its nature. The Avaloka by Dhanika has all the venom against vyañjanā and dhvani and both the DR. and its Avaloka advocate the bhāvya-bhāvaka-sambandha between vibhāvā"dis and rasa. We have discussed this in full under tātparya and also under vyañjanā-virodha. The fact of the supremacy of rasa is welcome to these authors. # For Mahima Bhatta also 'rasa' is as much welcome as it is to Bharata Anandavardhana, Kuntaka, Dhananjaya or any alamkārika worth his salt. 'Rasa'

Page #136

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1311
both in the sense of an emoive response and also as the highest aesthetic goal that covers up the former also, is acceptable to Mahimā also, howsoever an avowed anti-vyañjanā and anti-dhvani theorist he may be.
Mahimā hails 'rasa' in poetry to such an extent that poetry without rasa is no poetry at all for him. He supports a definition of poetry, as a description of vibhāvā"dis adorned by music and the like : (pp. 102) Edn. Dr. Rewaprasad : yad āhuḥ -
"anubhāva-vibhāvānām varṇanā kāvyam ucyate, teşāmeva prayogat tu
nāryam gītā”di-rañjitam." Nārya i.e. drama is the representation on stage, of poetry which contains description of vibhāvā"dis. This representation, Mahimā accepts, is one which is adorned by music and the like.
Mahimā further observes : (pp. 102, ibid) : "evañ ca, ye sukumāramatayaḥ, śāstra-śravaņā”di-vimukhāḥ, sukhino rāja-putra-prabhrtayaḥ pūrvatra adhi-krtāḥ, ye ca atyantatópi jada-matayaḥ, tāvatā vyutpādayitum aśakyāḥ, strī-nryā"todyā”diprasaktā ubhaye’pi tébhimata-vastu-puraskāreņa guda-jihvikayā rasā-"svādasukham mukhe datvā tatra katukousadha-pānādāv iva pravartavitavyāh. anyathā pravsttir eva esām na syāt, kim uta vyutpattiḥ. kāvyā”rambhasya sāphalyam icchatā tatpravstti-nibandhana-bhāvena rasā"tma-katvam avaśyam upagantavyam tanmātraprayuktaśca dhvani-vyapadeśaḥ
na ca rasānām vaisistye tad ātmanah kāvyasya višiştatvam iti yuktam vaktum, a-vyāpteh. evam hi pratiniyata-rasa"tmana eva tasya dhvanitvam syāt, na anyasya anya-rasā”tmanah, vaišistyā”bhāvāt. isyate ca tatrā’pi ity avyāptir laksana-dosah.”
Mahimā hereby wants to suggest that kāvya, of course adorned by vibhāvā"dis and therefore codusive to rasa, is meant primarily for the happy-go lucky people such as princes and the like, who are of mediocre intellect and who are averse to listening (or studying) the Sāstras. They are the first among those for whom poetry is created. The next come those who are absolutely dull-witted and are incapable of even receiving or enjoying poetry. To activate them, i.e. to guide them to some activity, nātya is required, for these people are by nature tuned more towards women, dance and the like, which form part of drama. Both of these are to be activated by placing something they like, i.e. by placing some form of art which is

Page #137

1312
SAHRDAYĀLOKA sweet because of its being rasa-oriented. It is like men who are given bitter medicine by coating the same with sweet covering. If this practice is not resorted to, then such people will not be guided to any useful activity at all. And, Mahimā underlines, those who want that the poetic activity should be fruitful, have to see to it that poetry is charged with rasa - "rasā”tmakatvam avaśyam upagantavyam”.
It may be very interesting here to note that when Mahimā insists of poetry being 'rasā"tmaka', he wants us to understand that 'rasa' here stands for the highest relish, as art-meaning, as the objective of any art. This is as explained by Abhinavagupta who wants us to believe that Bharata when he observes - "kavyártho rasaḥ” means that 'rasa' i.e. highest aesthetic pleasure is the supreme objective of poetry, or any art. As noted by us, all ălamkārikas worth their name, know that 'rasa' is not just the emotive experience brought about by a particular set of vibhāvā"dis ending in the realisation of sentiments, individually known as śrăgăra, hāsya, karuna etc. 'Rasa' is beyond sentiments. Mahimā holds that if an individual sentiment only is taken as 'rasa' then the term 'kāvva' applied to a poetry with śrīgāra, will not be applicable to kāvva charged with karuna or any other rasa. Thus there will be 'a-vyāpti-dosa', or the fault of the definition being too narrow. Only poetry charged with this wider concept of 'rasa' is said to be 'dhvani' i.e. art of sound.
Mahima further notes (pp. 103, ibid) : “ata eva ca na guņā’lamkāra-samskstaśabdártha-mātra-śarīram tāvat kāvyam, tasya yathokta-vyangyárthópanibandhe sati visistatvam iti śakyam vaktum. tasya rasā”tmatā'bhāve mukhya-vịttyā kāvyavyapadeśa eva na syāt, kim uta visistatvam.”
Mahima here strongly objects to the view of the dhvanivādins that poetry derives its speciality through the suggested sense (i.e. in form of vastu-dhvani and alamkāra-dhvani) over and above by its being qualified by gunas and alamkāras, i.e. its body being made of word and sense graced by excellences and figures of speech. Mahimā seems to hold that anything less than 'rasa' will not do and so poetry primarily ceases to be poetry if it does not have rasa for its soul. For Mahimā the function of poetry is instruction through entertainment and for this, the presence of rasa is unavoidable. Poetry without rasa is useless as it cannot serve any purpose.
It may be noted that Mahima is not concerned with any theoretical discussion concerning rasa-realisation, but his views seem to be closer to Śrī. Sankuka who regarded rasa as inferred i.e. anumeya'. For Mahimā even vastu-dhvani' and ‘alamkāra-dhvani' of Anandavardhana are cases of inference. For Mahim, the spectator's apprehension of rasa is a clear case of inference. In this inference, the

Page #138

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1313 sthāyibhāva is inferred from the combination of vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabicārins. He observes : (pp. 83, ibid) - "na ca rasā"dişvapi vibhāvā"di-prakāśanasahabhāvena prakāśanam upapadyate. yatas tair eva kāranā”dibhih krtrimair .vibhāvā"dy-abhidhānair asanta eva ratyā”dayaḥ prati-bimbakalpāḥ sthāyibhāvavyapadeśa-bhājah kavibhih pratipatr-pratiti-patham upanīyamānā hrdayasamvādā"svādyatvam upayantaḥ santo rasā ity ucyante. na ca kāraṇā"dibhih kāryā”dayaḥ pratibimbakalpāḥ sahaiva prakāśayitum utsahante, kārya-kāraņabhāvā'vasāyasyaiva avasādaprasangāt. yatra tu tal lakṣaṇam, mukhyatayā sambhavati tat kāvyam eva na bhavati kuta tad-vićeșa-dhvani-rūpatā syāt.”
The language of Mahimā carries impressions of Abhinavagupta, but the conclusion is not indentical. He seems to suggest that if vibhāvā"dis are kārana, then their simultaneity-sahabhāva- is out of question and so the ghața-pradīpanyāya is not acceptable for it will violate the very nature of vibhāvā"dis as 'cause' element. Thus 'dhvani' can not be a 'kāvya-viseșa' either. .:
Mahimā further observes that the manifestor-prakāśaka-is two-fold, viz. of the form of an adjunct i.e. upādhi-rūpah, or 'svatantra' i.e. independent. Jñāna i.e. knowledge, sabda i.e. sound (or word)and pradīpa i.e. lamp are of the former type, i.e. they are 'upādhirūpa'. 'Dhūma' i.e. Smoke is a manifestor of an independent type i.e. it is 'Svatantra'. In case of rasa-realisation, the first type i.e. upadhirūpa will not suit the purpose, for in that case poetry will be restricted only to such objects as are 'pratyakşa' i.e. directly apprehended or 'abhidheya' i.e. directly stated. The other i.e. 'svatautra' is nothing else but of the form of 'linga' i.e. unfailing mark. It is not a 'vyañjaka' i.e. suggester for the notion of suggestion does not apply to this case at all. Even the dhvanikāra does not accept, observes Mahimā, the simultaneity of the manifestor and the manifested in case of all the three types of dhvani including rasa. If the objector (i.e. dhvanivādin) goes for such a definition of dhvanikāvya which may not necessitate the simultaneity of vyangya and vyañjaka, then also there will be over-lapping i.e. ati-vyāpti in anumāna. Thus Mahimā raises two objections to the 'abhivyakti' theory of rasa. 'Abhivyakti' or manifestation implies simultaneity of illumination of the manifestor and the manifested. This is not the case with rasa-apprehension because it takes place only after the apprehension of vibhāvā"dis. This is accepted by Anandavardhana himself, observes Mahimā. Again, he argues further, that manifestation does not require any cognitive relationship like invariable concomittance. A lamp and a pot do not stand in need of a relationship of smoke and fire, related through invariable concomitance. So the acceptance of abhivyakti would mean that rasa is cognised

Page #139

1314
SAHRDAYĀLOKA by each and every person, because as in case of lamp and pot, the revealation of rasā”di by vibhāvā”di does not require any pre-requisites such as knowledge of invariable concomittance. This fails to explain the fact that rasa-pratīti does not occur to one and all but only to the accomplished person, the sa-hỉdaya, who know the relation between vibhāvādis and sthāyin concerned. It may be noted that the thrust of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta also, in a way would tend to take us to gamya-gamaka-bhāva between vibhāvā"dis and rasa. But the main objection against anumāna theory is that anumāna is an intellectual process which is totally different in nature from the realisation of aesthetic pleasure. Abhinavagupta therefore observes that if it is a case of anumana, then why not we experience rasa even in ordinary parlance - "laukiképi kim na rasatā ?” The second objection to anumāna theory is that anumāna or inference yields indisputable meaning. But there is no certainly concerning the suggested meaning. Again, anumāna being a means of valid knowledge the inferred meaning ought to be valid and real, as such the disputes about its validity would be out of question. This is not the case with the suggested meaning.
But Mahimā has refuted, to his satisfaction the view that aesthetic pleasure cannot be explained by inference. He seems to refer to Abhinavagupta's dissatisfaction towards inference.
He begins with giving the summary of Anandavardhana's views when he had suggested that the two apprehensions of vibhāvā”di and rasā"di naturally occur in sequence and not simultaneously. Again, Ā had suggested that when the second apprehension of rasā"di occurs, the first apprehension is not negated but it also continues like the apprehension of lamp along with the apprehension of jar.
To this Mahimā’s reply is as follows - Actually the vyaktivādin when he accepts the sequential apprehensions of the vācya i.e. expressed and the vyangya i.e. suggested, accepts our view-point that there is 'gamya-gamaka-bhāva' between the two. Ā. himself has said in so many terms that the vibhāvā"dis themselves are not rasa. So, the apprehension of rasā”di is invariably connected with the prior apprehension of vibhāvā"di, thus the sequence between the two is incontrovertible and is there for sure. That this sequence is not noticed as it is very subtle is a fact and it is therefore that rasa"di are termed "a-samlaksyakrama by A. Mahim, then quotes words from Ā. which almost take us to believe that even he was not against gamya-gamaka-bhāva between these two apprehensions. Mahimā quotes Ā.'s words such as - "punaś ca, 'tasmād abhidhānā’bhi-dheya-pratītyor iva vācya

Page #140

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1315 vyangya-pratītyor nimitta-nimitti-bhāvād niyamabhāvī kramaḥ. sa tu ukta-yukteḥ kvacil laksyate kvacit tu na laksyata'iti. - "The apprehension of the setting, etc. is only an invariable condition of all apprehension of sentiments etc., hence we might posit a cause-effect relation to exist between the two apprehensions. There is therefore, bound to be some temporal sequentiality also between the two. But this sequentiality is not noticed since it is minute. Hence it is that we mentioned above that sentiments are suggested only through undiscerned sequentiality." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 191, ibid) It may be noted that the readings in Dr. K.'s Edn. and in Mahimă are slightly different and it will be interesting to study Mahima's quotations from the Dhv. from text-criticism point of view. Of course Mahimā does not seem to misquote or twist the text to his advantage.
Here of course, Mahimā quotes from the vrtti on Dhv. III. 33. (pp. 196, Dr. K.'s Edn., ibid). The english rendering by Dr. K. Kris. renders it as (pp., 197, ibid) : "It is clear therefore, that even as the apprehensions of denotative word (= abhidhāna) and denoted sense (= abhidheya) involve a cause-effect relation and consequently temporal sequentiality, so also the apprehensions of the expressed and the suggested involve a cause-effect relation as well as temporal sequentiality. As already illustrated, sometimes it is noticed and sometimes it is not."
Mahimā, after quoting the words of Ā., concludes that in view of this he will establish in due course the "linga-lingi-bhāva” i.e. a cause-effect relation between the two apprehensions. Thus all varieties of dhvani can be subsumed under inference. (pp. 67, ibid) : "tad evam vācya-pratiyamānayor vaksyamāna-kramena linga-lingi-bhāvasya samarthanat sarvasyaiva dhvaner anumana'-ntarbhāvaḥ samanvito bhavati, tasya ca tad apeksayā maha-visayatvāt.” The inference or anumāna has a wider scope and it covers up, holds Mahimā, even such cases of gunībhūta-vyangya as illustrated in figures such as 'paryāyokta' and the like. This 'anumāna' or inference is of the form of expression and hence we have to understand 'parártha' anumāna by it. The mention of three-fold reason or linga is pararthánumāna'. People of dull intelligence do not grasp this point. (pp. 6, 7, ibid) - "tacca vacana-vāpāra-pūrvakarvāt parártham ity ava-gantavyam. tri-rūpalingā"khyānam parārthánumānam iti kevalam ukta-naya-anubhijñatayā tan na lakṣayaty avicaksaņo lokah.”
Mahimă wants to drive at the conclusion that poetic inference is made of aesthetic delight. We do not experience pleasure when we infer feelings like grief in actual life. But, the same causes, effects etc., termed as vibhāvas, anubhāvas etc. in poetry make for inference of rasa, a blissful experience. Causes in ordinary life

Page #141

1316
SAHRDAYĀLOKA and vibhāvā"dis in poetry are not of identical nature. He quotes the substance of theory which he has inherited. He observes (pp. 71, ibid) - "na ca loke vibhāvā”dayo bhāvā vā sambhavanti, hetv ādīnām eva tatra sambhavāt. na ca vibhāvā”dayo hetvā"dayaśca ity eka evā'rtha iti mantavyam. anye hervā"dayónya eva vibhāvā"dayaḥ. teşām bhinna-laksanatvāt. tathā hi.”
Mahimā talks the language of tradition and it includes Ā. and Abhinavagupta also who claim to interprete Bharata. Mahimā holds that the set of causes etc. in ordinary parlance and the vibhāvā"dis in art not identical. Abhinavagupta had also explained that these are called vibhāvas etc. on account of their strength of rendering their object as enjoyable : 'vibhāvayan' is explained by him as "āsvādayogyi-kurvan." Mahima quotes from Bharata to explain 'vibhāva' and also 'anubhāva' and also 'vyabhicărins'. The quarrel lies in the fact that the vyaktivādins call this process of relish by the name of vyañjanā, while Mahimă insists on 'anumiti'. To be fair, as Bhatta Nayaka pointed out 'abhivyakti' is not pure abhivyakti, and Mahimā's anumiti is also not pure anumiti. It is just a poetic function which renders the object of its description relishable. Call if by any name, vyañjanā' or 'anumiti'. Mahimā holds that the vibhāvā"dis have existence in the realm of inference only and are not objects of reality, as they exist only in poetry or any art-form. They are artificial while causes etc. are real. Only vibhāvā"dis make for relish i.e. rasa as it is the essence of their nature. They are therefore pratīyamāna i.e. implied or 'gamya' i.e. 'inferred' only. Their apprehension is called 'rasa' - relish, which is natural to them. He observes : "(pp. 74, ibid) : “tad evam vibhāvā"dīnām hetvā”dīnām ca křtrima-a-krtrimatayā, kāvya-loka-visayatayā ca svarūpabhede visayabhede ca avasthite sati ekatva-a-siddher yadā vibhāvā"dibhir bhāveșu ratyā”dişveva pratītir upajanyate tadā teşām tanmātra-sāratvāt pratīyamānā iti, gamyā iti ca vyapadeśā mukhya-vșttyā upapadyanta eva. tatpratīti-parāmarśa eva ca rasā”svādaḥ svābhāvika ity uktam.” He further adds (pp. 75) : “sópi ca tesām na tathā svadate, yathā tair evā’numeyatām nīta iti svabhāva evā'yam, na paryanuyogam arhati. tad uktam -
“nā’numito hervā”dyaiḥ svadaténumito yathā vibhāvā”dyaiḥ na ca sukhayati vācyórthaḥ
pratīyamāna sa eva yathā.” iti. He quotes from the Dhv. in his support. Mahimā tries to explain the pleasure in the aesthetic context on the basis of the imaginative existnece i.e. the fictiveness of

Page #142

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1317 the emotion and not its being a part of real life, and also on the basis of the unexpectedness of its cognition. Dr. C. Rajendran (pp. 122) quotes in support from Dr. V. K. Chari who observes that, “it is the fictive nature of the poetic representation that makes it possible for us to enjoy it with detachment and without the impingement of arthakriya' or 'causal efficiency." All this is stated clearly by A., Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and all Indian aestheticians who maintain the extraordinary bliss as the outcome of art-experience. Again the suddenness ('sadyah paranirvrti' as Mammata would coin the word) of rasa-experience is in itself a source of delight i.e. Camatkāra. Mahimā (pp. 59) observes : “tad hi mukhye citrapustaka”dau vyakti-visaye paridrstam eva." Ruyyaka explains (pp. 60, ibid) as - "ālekhya-prakhyā”dau santam asā'vasthite pradīpādinā prakāśite jhasity adbhutárthaprakāśanāc camatkāro jāyate. tadvad rasa'dāv ity upacara-prayojanam'. When a picture is placed in darkness and when suddenly a flash of light reveals it, the result is 'Camatkāra' or sudden absolute joy. In the same way rasā"di-prakāśana yields instantaneous bliss. The use of the term 'vyakti-visaye' by Mahimā may suggest his tacit acceptance of the theory of vyañjanā. But actually this is not so, and it is only an appearance. Here vyakti' stands for 'manifestation' and not 'suggestion'.
It is clear that Mahimā has explained the fact of rasa-experience to his own satisfaction. We will not choose to call it "far from satisfactory" as observed by Dr. . Rajendran (pp. 122, ibid) : For, as observed earlier, if Mahimā's anumiti is not 'anumiti' of the darśanas, then Anandavardhana's 'abhivvakti' is also not the abhivvakti of the darśanas. Thus both are different from their original and hence both are 'half-truth' or both are “new truth”.
Bhoja : We will try to examine Bhoja's position concerning rasa, with reference to both his Saraswati Kanthābharana (i.e. SKĀ) and also his Sțngāraprakāśa (Sr. Pra), of course under the shadow of the valuable research of Dr. V. Raghavan.
For Bhoja, in poetry which is free from blemishes and is having excellences and figures of speech, there has to be 'rasa-a-viyoga' i.e. “not the absence of rasa." Sr. Pra. XI, pp. 429 has - "nirdosasya gunavato'lamkrtasya ca kävya-śarīrasya kāminiśarīrasya iva saubhāgyátiśaya-nispattau rasā’viyoga eva prakrstaḥ upāyaḥ gīyate.
Bhoja has discussed the topic of rasa in his own way. From a wider angle as done by Dandin, rasa is also for Bhoja, a 'kávya-sobhākara-dharma' causing beauty in poetry and hence is an 'alamkāra'.
Bhoja, has included 'rasa' in what he terms 'rasókti'. For him literature is divided into three basic components such as vakrókti, rasókti and svabhāvokti. Here,

Page #143

1318
SAHRDAYĀLOKA 'rasókti' is the best expression. The SKĀ. V/8 reads as :
"vakróktis' ca rasóktiś ca svabhāvóktiś ca vānmayam, sarvāsu grāhīņīm tāsu
rasóktim pratijānate.” (pp. 555, Edn. NS. Bombay, '34) 'Vakrokti' for Bhoja is having predominance of alamkāras. 'Svabhavākti' has gunas as predominant feature while 'rasókti' abounds in 'rasa'. It may be noted that Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi in his Sanskrit work viz. "Kāvyálamkārakārikā” takes exception to the term 'rasókti' with an argument that 'rasa' and 'ukti' are selfcontradictory for 'rasa' is never 'ukta' or directly expressed. But we may, in defence of Bhoja here suggest that even Bhoja does not suggest that 'rasa' is ever 'ukta' or an object of abhidhā'. What he means by 'rasókti' is only this much that it is a sort of poetic expression with 'rasa' as its predominent feature, i.e. an 'ukti' charged with rasa. We should not over-read things. For Bhoja is very clear about the importance and the nature of rasa. He observes that like 'presence of excellences' i.e. 'gunayoga', 'rasa-aviyoga' i.e. 'absence of separation from rasa' is a 'nitya'/must' feature of poetry : “nityo hi kāvye guņa-yoga iva rasā’viyogah.” (pp. 437, Śs. Pra.)
This ‘rasa-a-viyoga' is brought about by two factors, (i) depending on vākya i.e. vākya-visayaka and (ii) depending on prabandha i.e. prabandha-visayaka. The Sr. Pra. (pp. 431) observes, (Ch. XI) : "tayor vākya-visayo'ślīla-a-mangala-ghrnāvad artha-grāmyam ity adi dosahānena, dīpta-rasatvam kāntir ityādi gunópādānena, kaiśiki-vaidarbyādy alamkāra-yogena ca." i.e. The first variety is arrived at by remaining free from blemishes such as aślīla, a-mangala, ghrnāvad, artha-grāmya etc., and by accomplishing excellences such as kānti etc. and also by such embellishments as kaiśiki and vaidarbhi, etc.
Bhoja holds that “rasa-aviyoga' is brought about by many factors operating together. He gives illustrations from food, dress, cosmetics, music, love etc. He observes : (Śr. Pra.) pp. 431, Ch. XI) : "tataś ca bhojana iva madhurā’mla-lavanasāļavānām, veșa iva vastrā’nulepana-mālya-vibhūşaņānām, dhūpa iva candanā’gurukarpura-sidhrakāņām, sangīta iva nștta-vādya-pathyānām, premaņi iva kopā’nunayaprasāda-sangama-sukhādīnām, gārhasthya iva dharmártha-kāma-mokşasādhanā’nusthānānām kāvya-śarīrépi rūpakā"dīnām samsșstir eva viśeşataḥ svadamāno rasā'viyoga-hetur bhavati. He adds (pp. 435, ibid) that even 'rasa' is alamkāra in a wider sense as it makes for poetic beauty - "tatra alamkāra-samkaraḥ samsrstir ity eva vaktavye nānā-grahaņam guņa-rasā"dīnām apyalamkāratāpratipattyartham. teşām api kāvya-sobhā-paratvena alamkāratvāt.

Page #144

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1319
On pp. 437, Ch. XI Śr. Pra., Bhoja observes that rasa-aviyoga is 'nitya' dharma for poetry. "nityo hi kavye guṇa-yoga iva rasa'viyogaḥ. gunavato rasavataś ca niścitā eva asya praśamsā." From his guna-vicara it follows that he even tries to place rasa in kānti-guna, as done by Vamana. But as read above (pp. 431) he feels "guṇā'lamkara-sanniveṣa-viśeṣa-janyatvān nāná-lamkāra-samsṛstāv eva
that
·
prakṛṣṭatvam labhate."
Rasa'viyoga of the type called 'prabandha-viṣayaka' is also arrived at by the same factors such as 'doṣa-hana'. It seems that Bhoja favours an observation that 'rasa' is a total effect of all poetic devices taken together.
In short, rasa-aviyoga, is termed as a constant feature - 'nitya' - in poetry and 'rasa' is also in a wider sense an 'alamkara'. To support this Bhoja quotes Dandin 2/275 such as -
"preyaḥ priyatarā"khyānam rasavad rasa-peśalam,
ūrjasvi ruḍhā'hamkāram
yuktótkarṣam ca tat trayam."
Dandin has termed these three alamkāras as "yuktótkarṣa", a term that is explained by Bhoja in his own way. Bhoja's understanding or explanation of the term 'yuktotkarṣa' runs as follows :
"yuktótkarṣam ca tat trayam ity anena a-yuktótkarṣāṇām apy ūrjasvi-rasavatpreyasām guṇatvam eva, na alamkāratvam iti jñāpayati." (Śr. Pra. XI, pp. 437, ibid). These three viz. preyas, rasavat and 'ūrjasvi, in a state wherein they are subdued i.e. in a-yuktótakarṣā"vastha are taken as preyas-guna, bhāvika-guna and aurjitya-guna. Thus when the three are 'yuktótkarṣa' i.e. roused to their fullest capacity, they are termed rasas. Dr. Raghavan also is perturbed by this remark and is ill at ease while explaining this (sec. pp. 431, Śr. Pra. Raghavan). Perhaps it is that Bhoja is inclined to take the same as either 'rasa' or 'guna' as when they are roused to the full capacity (of course by due vibhāvā"dis) - i.e. yuktótkarṣa, or when they are a-yuktótkarṣa. The discussion needs greater attention.

Seeking inspiration from Dandin, Bhoja describes three stages or 'kotis' of Śṛngāra-rasa acceptable to him. These, are "purvākoti" i.e. primary stage, 'madhyamā koți' i.e. the middle position, and 'uttamā koți'. i.e. the highest stage. Pūrva-koti occurs when 'rasa' arises in mind in form of 'mana-maya-vikāra', and

Page #145

1320
SAHRDAYĀLOKA this is the "rūdháhmkārată of ūrjasvi.” Dandin has termed 'rasavat' as 'rasapeśala'. This is the second stage wherein ratyā"di bhāvas reach their highest expression through the proper delineation of vibhāvā"dis. This is the 'madhyamávasthā' of rasa. The third i.e. ‘uttarā koți', i.e. the highest stage is the stage of 'alamkāra' as suggested through the 'priyatarā"khyāna' called 'preyas'. : "Śr. Pra. XI. pp. 436, ibid) : "tatra ūrjasvi rūdhā”hamkāram ity anena ātmaviseșa-nişthasya utkrsta-adrsta-janmanóneka-janmā’nubhava-samskārā"sāditadraļhimnaḥ samagrā”tmaguņa-sampad-udayātiśayahetor ahamkāra-višeşasya upasamgrahād-ahamkārā'bhimāna-śộngārā”dyapara-nāmno rasasya māna-mayavikāra-rūpeṇa abhimāninām manasi jāgrataḥ pūrvām koțim upavarņayati.... rasavad rasa-peśalam ity anena vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-samyogād rasanispattir iti ratyā"di-rūpeṇa anekadhā”virbhavato bhivardhamānasya para-prakarsa-gāminaḥ śrngārasya madhyamām avasthām avasthāpayati.
... preyaḥ priyatarā”khyānam iry anena ca samasta bhāva-mūrdhábhișiktāyā rateh para-prakarsā’dhigamād bhāvanāpathāʻtikrame bhāva-rūpatām ullanghya premarūpena parinatāyā upādānād bhāvántarāņām api para-prakarsadhigame rasa-rūpena pariņatir iti jñāpayan ahamkārasyóttamām koțim upalaksayati.”
Perhaps by these three stages Bhoja refers to bhāva-dhvani, rasa-dhvani i.e. wherein all the 49 bhāvas are raised to the status of rasa, and the highest stage, that we have discussed above as aesthetic pleasure which is supreme, which is ‘kāvyártha' of Bharata, which is 'śānta' of Anandavardhana and Mahārasa Abhinavagupta. The third stage is the final stage of art-experience wherein differences of labels such as śrngāra, karuna, vīra etc. that depend on particular set of vibhāvā"dis mingle and merge into a total art-effect.
Thus the madhyamā'vasthā can be equated with the enhanced stage of bhāvas such as rati and the like. Or, perhaps these are only bhāvas and are termed rasas metaphorically. But we feel that the explanation of the threefold kotis as suggested by us above suits more not only to Bhoja but to all art-experience. It is suggested by some scholars that this three-fold scheme is inspired by Dandin's treatment of preyaḥ, rasavat, and ūrjasvi, and that Bhoja also seems to opt for the enhanced stage of a primary feeling being called rasa, and thus getting closer to Lollata also. Or, perhaps this also is not a true interpretation of Bhoja's theory wherein the three stages actually should harmonize, as suggested earlier, with bhāva-dhvani, rasadhvani, and ultimate kāvyártha i.e. total art-experience or 'Sānta'rasa' or 'Mahārasa' of Abhinavagupta.

Page #146

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1321 Or perhaps when Bhoia takes 'prevah privatarā"phyāna' as purvā-koti of rasa he seems to cover up alamkāra-dhvani or vakrókti of Kuntaka covering all beautiful expressions leading to both vastu-dhvani and alamkāra-dhvani. We keep this point open to debate. But perhaps Bhoja, by his pūrvā-koti, as Ā. by vastudhvani and alamkāra-dhvani, keeps the doors of art-experience open for the inclusion of all modern-most-modern techniques of expression terminating into 'absurd' poetry and 'absurd theatre' also. This point is open to debate.
The explanation of the rasa-sūtra according to Bhoja falls in the madhyamakoţi. Here, he has also explained vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva. How the combination of vibhāvā"dis yields rasa is explained by Bhoja as under -
Bhoja informs that as the juice comes out of the suger-cane, as oil is squeezed out from the seeds of mustard or rapeseeds, as gold is brought out from raw minerals, as is iron derived from stones, butter from curd, fire derived from a set of special wood, or a machine or friction, in the same way special rasas are born of special emotions such as rati and the like, with the help of special set of vibhāvā"dis. Thus enhanced emotion such as rati etc., i.e. enhanced with the help of vibhāvā"dis becomes rasa.
Explaining this process of enhancement or upacaya Bhoja observes that as salts when they get mixed up with earth etc. turn other substances into salt, i.e. make them 'ātma-rūpa', and thus get enhanced, in the same way, the sthāyins such as rati etc., turning the vibhāvā"dis into their own form - ātmarūpa-get enhanced and are termed rasa.
It is suggested by some that Bhoja's idea of rasa-nispatti here is closer to the upacitivāda supported by Dandin and Lollața. But its peculiarity is that at the root of this thinking lies the sat-kārya-vāda of the Sāmkyas accordings to which kārya i.e. effect is believed to be inherently present in a dormant or un-manifest condition in the cause itself. The expression of the un-expressed, the vyakta' phase of the 'avyakta' is the essence of rasa-nispatti-prakriyā. Thus rasas inherently dwell in vibhāvā"dis, of course in an unexpressed form, or un-manifested form, but when these vibhāvā"di-s combine with the sthāyin they get manifested. Bhoja's 'prakarsa' may be equated with Lollata's 'Upacaya'.
It may be noted here that by taking sthāyin, vibhāva, anubhāva, and vyabhicărin as rasa in their enhanced stage, Bhoja removes the line of demarcation that divides them. He holds that all 49 bhāvas beginning with rati etc., by getting combined with vibhāvā"di-s, and thereby getting enhanced deserve to be termed

Page #147

1322
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA “rasa”. He observes : (pp. 444, śr. Pra., Ch. XI, ibid) - "ratyā"dīnām ekonapañcāśatópi vibhāvā’nubhāva-vyabhicāri-samyogāt para-prakarsā’dhigamo rasavyapadeśārhatā rasasyaiva madhyamā'vasthā, preyaḥ priyatarā"khyānam ity upalaksanena yathā rateh prema-rūpena parinatis tathā bhāvāntarānām api parama-paripāke pramāņa-rūpeṇa pariņatau rasaikā"yanam iti rasasya paramā kästhā iti pratisthitam bhavati."
Bhoja's explanation of rasa-sūtra pertains to the madhyamā’vasthā of rasa wherein not only the basic emotions, i.e. ratyā"di eight sthāyins, but all the forty: nine bhāvas enumerated by Bharata are said to be enhanced to the capacity of rasa. But as suggested by us earlier, perhaps this could be equated with the bhāva-dhvani.
How through the combination of vibhāvā"dis the bhāvas are enhanced to the capacity of rasa is explained by Bhoja by citing many illustrations. His words are : (pp. 444, śļ. Pra. Ch. XI, ibid) :
"katham punar vibhāvā'nubhāvavyabhicāri-samyogad rasa-nispattih? ucyate, yathéndu-sannidheś candrakantah syandate, yathā arka-sannidhes sūryakantah jvalati, yathā karpūra-sannidheḥ sphatiko vilīyate, tathā tebhyas ālambanavibhāvebhyas tadākāra-parinaténdriya-buddhy-upādhi-yogino'bhimani-manasas te rati-krodha-sokā"dayo bhāvāḥ samutpadyante.
This explains the role of the ālambana-vibhāvas. The role of the uddīpanavibhāvas is explained as (pp. 444, Ch. XI. Śr. Pra., ibid) - "yathā indúdaye samudraḥ kşubhyati, yathā’pathyasevanayā vyādhir abhivardhate, yathā anārya-sannidher asādhuh sutarām duhkhīkaroti, tatha tebhays tebhyah uddipana-vibhāvebhah, tattad-anubhava-samkāra-yogino manasas tat-tat-bhāvā'bhivrddhaye te te vikāra upajāyante.”
He explains the role of anubhāvas and vyabhicārins in the words (pp. 445, Śr. Pra., Ch. XI., ibid) :
"atha yathaikasyā’pi bhūruhā”deh kānda-skandha-sakhā-vitapādayah prakārāḥ, pallava-patra-puspa-phala-sampad ādayo vikārāh, ekasyā'py ambhasah pavāhā”varta budbuda-tarangā"dayo vivartā, muktāphala-phena-lavana-karakā"dayo vipariņāmāh, ekasyā’pi dhvane tāra-madhya-mandra-krstā"dayo bhedāḥ, varņa-pada-vākyakūjitā"vaha-parivahā”dayaḥ skandhāḥ, prāņā’pāna-vyānā”dayo'nubandhās tebhyas tebhya upādhibhyo jāyante, tathaikasyā’pi rati-krodha-śokādes tebhyas tebhya upādhibhs te te anubhāvā vyabhicāriņaś ca ābhyantarā bāhyāśca vyavasthāsambhavābhyām upaplavante-tatrā bhyantarā vyabhicārişu cintautsukyā”vegavitarkā”dayaḥ bāhyāḥ sveda-romāñcā’śru-vaivarṇyā"dayaḥ anubhāveșvā”byantarāḥ

Page #148

1323
"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...... smaraṇecchā-dveṣa-prayantnāḥ bāhyā mano-vāg-buddhiśarīrā"rambhāḥ ta ubhayépy anu kriyamāṇā sāttvikā”ngika-vācika-citra-sāmānyā'bhinaya-vyapadeśam labhante.
On pp. 445, he concludes - "atha yathékṣubhyo rasaḥ, sarṣapebhyas tailam dhātubhyo hiranyam, aśmabhyo loham, dadhno navanītam kāṣṭhatógnis tebhyas tebhyo yantra'gni-mantha-samyogebhyo niṣpatati tatha svebhyaḥ svebhyo vibhāvā'nubhāva-vyabhicari-samyogebhyaḥ rati-krodha-śokā"dibhyas te te rasă niṣpadyante."
Bhoja has some further interesting observations concerning rasa. He observes (pp. 446, Śr. Pra., Ch. XI., ibid): "atha yathā lavaṇa-rasa"dayaḥ sva-samyogino mṛdvikādīn apyātma-rūpatām nayanta upacīyante, tathā ratyā"di-janmāno rasāḥ ratyādīn iva vibhāvādīn apy ātma-rūpatām nayanta upacīyante." Also read
"atha yathā sarpir-jatu-madhucchiṣṭā”dīnām pārthivānām ghana-tuhinakarakā"dīnām āpyānām trapu-sīsa-rajatā"dīnām taijasānām agni-samyogāt dravatām adhis sāmānyam bhavati tathā vibhā'vanubhāva-vyabhicāriņām rasasamyogad rasatā, rasena eva sāmānyam bhavati."
Bhoja suggests that during the moments of art-experience the sensitive enjoyer has no cognition of vibhāvā"di-s as something separate or independent of the total rasa-experience.
He also endorses particular taste from particular combination, though as rasasāmānya this event partakes of the total experience. He observes: (pp. 446, ibid) - "yathā ikṣu-rasebhyo madhu-niṣpattir yathā madhurā"dibhyo ṣāḍavótpattir yathā guḍā"dibhyoḥ āsavotpattis tathā tebhyas tebhyo rasa-sāmānyebhyaḥ rasaviseṣā'bhinirvṛtiḥ.
He believes in a fundamental rasa which has varieties such as rasa"bhāsa, bhāva, bhāvā"bhāsa etc. He observes; (pp. 446, ibid) :
"atha yathaikasya'py agner bhaumadivyaudaryā”dayo jātibhedāḥ dāhā"loka pākā”dayo'rthakriyāḥ (= causal effects), dhūmárcir-angārā”dayóvasthaḥ samdṛśyante tathā ekasya api rasasya bhāva-rasa-tadābhāsā”-dayo jātibhedāḥ utkaṇṭhā'bhiṣanganirvṛttyādayórthakriyā utpā'dābhivṛddhi-sthairyā”dayo'vasthās samupalabhyante."
Thus for Bhoja 'rasa-sāmānya' is the highest art-experience and in the moments when this experience operates, the distinction between sthāyin, anubhāva, vyabhicärin, etc. melts away. All 49 bhāvas deserve to be reckoned as rasa, when enhanced, as they are all 'rasyamāna' or 'āsvādyamāna'. Rudrața (XII. 4) as we know had also taken note of this and had suggested "rasanād rasatvam" of all the 49 bhāvas. Bhoja also terms the abhinayas such as vācika, āngika, sättvika, āhārya and even sāmānya to be rasa which is wide enough to include even 'nepathya'.

Page #149

1324
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Now, a big number of individual rasas prop up and they being “kāvya-śobhā-kara" are also termed as 'alamkāra' in the end. It may be noted that thus rasa-experience in its wider sense is art-experience in general for Bhoja and it is not restricted to mere emotive experience only. This is the case with A. and Abhinavagupta also. Thus 'rasa' is not just the experience of śộngāra and the like alone, but is total artexperience and the result is 'Camatkāra' or say 'divine surprise'.
Whatever art-expression may be, if it leads to this final stage it is 'rasā'nubhūti' for Bhoja.
So, ultimately Bhoja seems to favour one rasa. Innumerable rasas are perhaps only bhāvas, or just aspects of a rasa-sāmānya, and when portrayed in poetry or drama, only one rasa-śțngāra - which is of the form of bliss - ānanda-results. This only is 'rasa'. It results from the tasting of words and meanings portrayed in poetry and drama (or any art). For Bhoja the highest stage or limit of rasa-experience is only one and identical and is termed 'śộngāra' by him. In S.K... (V. i) Bhoja observes :
“rasóbhimānóhamkāraḥ śộngāra iti gīyate, yórthas tasyā’nvayāt
kāvyam kamanīyatvam aśnute." Thus the blissful state that results as an ultimate outcome of any number of rasas experienced, is termed 'śộngāra' by Bhoja. This final stage of bliss - "ānandarūpatā” - is Bhoja's śộngāra' - "eka eva śộngārah”. This bliss is experienced by the soul adorned by I-ness i.e. ahamkāra and therefore is not equal to the paramaānanda i.e. spiritual bliss of the highest rank. It is slightly lesser and hence 'rasa' is placed along with "ahamkāra-abhimāna-śộngāra." In his Śr. Pra. (I. 3, pp. 1, Vol. I. Śr. Pra. ibid) - Bhoja observes -
"ātmasthitam guņa-viśeșam ahamkstasya, śộngāram āhur iha jīvitam ātmayoneh, tasyā”tma-śakti-rasanīyatayā rasatvam,
yuktasya yena rasiko'yam iti pravādah.” Dr. Raghavan (pp. 452) observes : "It is called śộngāra not only as one that takes man to the acme of perfection, but also because it is Love, it is the very life of Ātma-yoni or Kāma. Kāma is not meant here as sexual love, even as śrngāra is

Page #150

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1325 not used by Bhoja here in the sense of love between man and woman and even as Bhoja's Ahamkāra here is not egotism."
Bhoja, as we have seen, has observed : “śngāro hi nāma visistésta-drstacestā'bhivyañjakānām ātma-guna-sampadām utkarsa-bījam buddhisukhaduḥkheccha-dveșa-prayatna-samskārā’-tiśaya-hetuḥ ātmano’hamkāra-viśesaḥ sacetasā rasyamānah rasa ity ucyate-yad astitve rasikaḥ anyathābhāve nīrasa iti.”
Thus for Bhoja, the ‘aham'-tattva, i.e. I-ness, i.e. its evocation is the very life of 'ātma-yoni' or kāma, and it takes its birth from the soul.' This self-manifested kāma is termed 'śrngāra', the taste of which is apprehended by the self in the self itself. This taste is rasa.
For Bhoja the enlightened cultured person, rasika, with pure conscience does not enjoy the bliss born of the taste of poetry. But this is experienced by the 'ahamkāra' - the sense of I-ness that stays in the cultured person. The bliss enjoyed by this I-ness qualified by Abhimāna, is higher than worldly pleasure and when it reaches its highest limit of enhancement i.e. when it touches the peak, it is termed śộngāra : “Sțngam riyate.” There is only one point of this highest bliss and hence Bhoja says: "eka eva śrngāraḥ”, The highest art-experience is just one and identical. He observes : (Śr. Prā. I. 6) that he calls only one i.e. Śrngāra, as rasa, of course in his special sense :
“śộngāra-vīra-karuņádbhuta-raudra-hāsya-bībhatsa-vatsala-bhayānaka-śānta nāmnaḥ, āmnāsişur daśa-rasān sudhiyo; vayam tu śộngāram eva rasanād rasam āmanāmah."
Thus the taste of I-ness - ahamkāra - in the soul is the pūrvā-koți and śộngāra is the utimate i.e. paramā koţi. Bhoja, almost echoing the words of Abhinavagupta saying ‘nirvighnā samvit' as the highest state of rasa-consciousness, imagines what he terms as “Sệngāra”. “Rasika' for Bhoja is then a cultured person whose I-ness has developed to the extent of rasa-experience. The term 'rasa' attains its true connotation when viewed thus from the point of the 'rasika'.
Dr. Raghavan explains that Bhoja has brooded over the concept of rasa keeping in view the ‘rasika' in the centre. He explains the term 'rasika' as "rasah asya asti iti”, thus 'rasa' is taken as 'guna' i.e. excellence of an individual. Bhoja believes that this rasa-dharma in the 'rasika' is itself "ahamkāra". This rasa-ahamkāra is seen in individual connoisseur, poet, character, nata or artist and also the spectator. Of course, rasa which is of the form of citta-samvāda (i.e. hrdaya-samvāda) does not happen with all people with reference to all rasas. It is on account of this that in

Page #151

1326
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the works of Bharata and others the characters are classified as uttama, madyama and adhama. Over and above the eight rasas as read in Bharata, Bhoja adds four more such as udātta, uddhata, preyas and śānta. Bhoja considers these rasas with reference to the four types of nāyaka or hero. The types are dhiródātta, dhira-lalita, dhīra-śānta and dhīróddhata.
Bharata has talks of four prakrti-rasas or basic rasas and four vikrti-rasas i.e. those born of the earlier four. Bhoja does not accept this. He discusses this problem in his own way but it may be observed, as noted by us already, that Bhoja's śrngāra i.e. abhimana-śrngāra is very special and is not identical with the traditional concept of śrngāra as seen in Bharata and the rest.
We will try to discuss further the difference between the traditional concept of śộngāra and Bhoja's special śộngāra, as below :
Bhoja makes it clear that the śộngāra as imagined or explained by him is only basically the real rasa, and that the śộngāra as explained in other works is no rasa at all. It is merely of the status of a 'bhāva' only; i.e. it is only 'rati'. In the same vein, the so called vīra-rasa or any other rasa is only a bhāva, a basic emotion such as utsäha, or whatever else as the case may be. The so called rasas are only sthāyibhāvas. When the cultured person, a rasika, relishes these different sthāyins, then of course the sthāyin concerned is in an enhanced stage with the help of the vibhāvā”dis, but all of them necessarily do not reach the status of a rasa, i.e. they do not attain to 'rasatva'. They are simply the basic emotions in an enhanced state. Now these enhanced basic emotions jointly merge into a stage called "ahamkāra abhimāna-śộngāra." Only this is rasa, one and only one! It is enjoyed with the quality of the rasika, that is termed as ahamkāra, or his special excellence called ‘abhimāna'. As the poetic emotion, i.e. bhāva in poetry, is caused by bhāvanā (i.e. it being bhāvanā-bhāvita) it is termed "bhāva". This 'bhāva' when it reaches its most enhanced stage, it is termed 'rasa'. Bhoja observes : (Śr. Pra. I. 10) :
"ā-bhāvanodayam ananya-dhiyā janena yo bhāvyate manasi bhāvanayā sa bhāvaḥ, yo bhāvanāpatham atītya vivartamāna
sóhamkştau hțdi param svadate rasósau.” Again, the ratyā"di sthāyi-bhāvas, and harsa-adi vyabhicārins are also not different from one another in their basic nature. All bhāvas are of the form of the

Page #152

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1327 flames of fire, and they tend to give shape of fire in form of śộngāra, to rasa which basically stays as a spark i.e. sphulinga. Just as the flames are many but the fire is one and identical, in the same way emotions such as ratyādi which are enhanced are many, but rasa is only one and is termed 'śrngāra'. He observes (pp. 431, Śr. Pra., ibid) -
"sa śộngāraḥ, sóbhimānaḥ, sa rasaḥ tata ete. ratyā”dayo jāyante. taiś cā’yam prakarsa-prāptaiḥ saptārcir arciścayair iva prakāśamānaḥ, śộngāriņām eva svadata iti."
Bhoja treats all bhāvas on equal footing. He observes : (pp. 430, Śr. Pra., ibid) : “nanv aştau sthayino' stau sātrvikās tyastrimsad vyabhicāriņa iti bruvate. na tat sadhu. yatomisām anya-tamasyai tena eva parasparam nirvartyamanatvat kaścit kadācit sthāyī kadācit tu vyabhicārī. atóvasthānāt sarvépy ami vyabhicāriņaḥ, sarvépi sthāyinah, sāttvikā api, sarva eva manaḥprabhavatvāt. anupahatam hi manassattvam ity ucyate.”
We may observe that in the A.bh. on the śāntarasa, we read the same thought as expressed by Abhinavagupta also that even sthāyins also become vyabhicārins and vice-versa. A.bh. reads as (pp. 150, Edn. Nandi. NS. Chs. I, II, III & VI) : “jugupsām ca vyabhicāritvena śộngāre niședhan munir bhāvānām sarveşām eva sthayitva-sañcāritva-cittajatvā-'nubhāvatvāni yogyatayópa-nipatitāni śabdárthabalākrstāny anujānāti.” (The reading is seen in Masson-Patwardhan).
Thus Bhoja presents his own rasa-vicāra and accepts virtually the 'rasatva' of only 'śrngāra' which is certainly not in the traditionally accepted sense. His śrngāra is not idential with the delineation of śrngāra as seen in literature, i.e. ratiprakarsa, but is the total effect of a literary work, i.e. it is "kāvyártha".
In Ch. XI. of his Sr. Pra. Bhoja explains that the termination of rasa i.e. his śộngāra-rasa is in 'prema'. Sủngāra-rasa as depicted in poetic works hasérati' as its basic emotion. This means love between the hero and the heroine. This love is not restricted to man and woman alone but is of the nature of a wider relation such as love for war, love for parihāsa i.e. laughter, love for the surprising theme - adbhuta, etc. Now due to the delineation of these variety of love-feelings the general love-feeling that takes shape in the heart of the cultured person, is termed śạngāra when it is raised to its highest status. The śộngāra of the form of rati-prakarsa is different from this. This is borne out by Bhoja's explanation of the four-fold śrngāra such as dharma-śrngāra artha-śrngāra, kāma-śrngāra and mokşa-śộngāra.

Page #153

1328
SAHRDAYĀLOKA As observed by us earlier there are three kotis or stages of Bhoja's śộngāra. The taste in form of I-ness or ahamkāra is the pūrvā-koti, and the ratyādi-bhāvaprakarsa is the madhyamā koți of rasa. In the final stage Bhoja incorporates all rasas and all bhāvas that give rise to different rasas. This is the stage of “rasa" i.e. "prema-rasa”. This is the highest stage, termed "Uttarā koti”. Bhoja says that this 'rasa' is itself termed 'prema' and the ratyā"di bhāvas are imagined to terminate in such expressions as rati-priya, rana-priya, etc. Bhoja (pp. 429 Pra., ibid) observes : “rasam tv iha premānam eva amananti. sarveşām api hi ratyādi-prakarsānām rati-priyah, amarsa-priyah, parihāsa-priyah, iti premani eva paryavasānāt.” Abhinavagupta also has a similar observation when he says : “Sarva-rasānām śānta-prāya eva āsvādaḥ.”, suggesting thereby a 'mahā-rasa'.
The 'bhūmā' i.e. the highest peak of 'rati', 'hāsa', etc. is not rasa for Bhoja, but it is only his 'śộngāra' that is 'rasa' For Bhoja 'rasa' is not just a kávya-rasa but it is an experience which terminates into 'prema' and 'self-realisation'. In short it is divine bliss.' Thus only one rasa, the śrngāra that Bhoja accepts ultimately becomes 'prema-rasa', which can be bracketted with Abhinavagupta's 'mahārasa'. Even Bhoja could have named it as 'mahārasa'. But the difficulty is that while Abhinavagupta has equated his 'mahārasa' with 'sat-cit-ananda' of Paramātman, and while Jagannātha has called this ānanda to be one with the cid-ananda of Paramātman, Bhoja begs to disagree on this count. Bhoja's śrngāra is of course of the form of, 'paramānanda', but it is not exactly the 'sac-cid-ananda' form of paramātman, but it is of the form of paramānanda which is born of the sattvaguna of the rasika who is blessed with 'ahamkara-abhimana'. Precisely for this, he terms it as, "sarvātma-sampad-udayā'ti-śayaika-hetuh.", i.e. his śrngāra drives the rasika to achieve the highest peak of ātma-gunas or qualities of soul.
Bhoja thus takes his 'eka eva śrngāra' as a synonym for 'ahamkārā"nanda'. We can read Bhattanāyaka's influence here, for he also called 'rasa' to be, "brahmā"svāda sahodara" and not identical with the same. Bhoja also like Bhattahāyaka accepts rasa-carvaņā as taking shape with the help of bhogavyāpāra.
Bhoja's rasa-vicāra thus is a new “prasthāna", so to say. Though of course, his presentation is not very neat and tidy in the sense that he gives a number of similes, i.e. resorts to metaphorical language to bring home his points. The basic fact about rasa-experience is, as the Kashmir school of thought underlines, "lokóttara" phenomenon and therefore no worldly illustrations can explain the same. Even Bharata, when he quotes the illustration of 'sādavā"dirasa' is careful in bringing home this point when he insists that rasa-experience is not a physical taste but a ‘mānasa-bodha'.

Page #154

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and.
1329 Bhoja's commentator Nșsimha-bhatta observes that the śộngāra in kavya results in the relish of bliss only because of a favourable consciousness dawning in the heart of the rasika, and even unhappiness i.e. duhkha turns into 'sukha' or happiness. Through its taste, the 'ahamkāra'.of the rasika is aroused and when it reaches, the highest peak it is termed 'śộngāra'. Read, Śr. Pra. pp. 429 ibid : “kim tarhi śrngāraḥ ? śrngāro hināma viśistesta-drsta-cestā'bhivyañjakānām ātma-guna-sampadām utkarşa-bījam, buddhi-sukha-duhkheccha-dvesa-prayatna-samskārā”dyatiśaya-heturātmanóhamkāra-guna-vićeṣaḥ sacetasā rasyamānaḥ rasa ity ucyate.” -
Nrsimha observes : “yena rasyate, yena anukūla-vedanīyatayā duhkham eva sukhatvena abhimanyate, yena rasikaih ahamkriyate, yena śrngam ucchrayo rīyate sa khalu tādrśah (śrngāra-rasah).”
From this śộngāra-rasa are born all rasas and bhāvas. Bhoja observes that from a single and only element, ahamkāra, are born vivartas in form of bhāvas : “tad astitve rasiko, tad anyathārve nīrasaḥ iti. tad āvirbhāvahetavaś ca tatprabhavā eva bhāvāḥ. For Bhoja only ‘ahamkāra' is sthāyin and hence is termed 'rasa'. From this one ahamkāra-rasa the bhāva-prakarsas are born and are termed 'rasa' only metaphorically. Bhoja observes (pp. 430, Śr. Pra., ibid, Ch. XI) :
"tatra kecid acaksate. frati-prabhavaḥ śặngāraḥ' iti. vayam tu manyāmahe. ratyādīnām ayam eva prabhava iti. śộngāriņo hi ratyādayo jāyante, na asộngāriņaḥ. śrngāriņo hi ramante, smayante, utsahante, snihyantīti. te tu bhāvyamānatvād bhāvā eva, na rasāhyāvat sambhavam hi bhāvanayā bhāvyamāno bhāva eva ucyate. bhāvanā-patham atītas tu rasa iti. manónukūlesu hi duḥkhādisv api sukhānubhavā'bhimāno rasah. sa tu pāramparyena sukha-hetutvāt ratyādibhūmasu upacārena vyayahriyate, ato na ratyādīnām rasatvam, api tu, bhāvanāvisayatvād bhāvatvam eva.”
These upacara-rasas are three-fold viz. prakrsta, bhāvarūpa and abhāsa. Whatever it may be, the bhāva remains a bhāva only and only metaphorically, due to the entrance of ahamkāra in it, it is accepted as rasa, it being rasya-māna i.e. relished.
Bhoja increases the number of rasas when he accepts many rasas being born of one fundamental rasa. When these many rasas come together, we arrive at the rasa-samkara. Bhoja observes (pp. 446, ibid) : “atha yathekşurasebhyo madhunispattir, yathā madhurādibhyaḥ sādavotpattir yathā guļādibhya āsavótpattis tathā tebhyas tebhyo rasa-sāmānyebhyaḥ rasa-viśeşā’bhinirvșttih.” He also mentions

Page #155

1330
SAHRDAYĀLOKA 'jātibhedas' or types of rasas such as bhāva, rasa, tadābhāsa etc. He also talks of three stages of these such as utpāda or janma, abhivrddhi or expansion and sthairya or staying and also takes note of 'phala' such as 'utkanthā' and the rest. He observes (pp. 446,. ibid): "atha yathaikasya'pyagner bhauma-divyaaudaryā"dayo jātibhedaḥ dāhā”loka-pākā”dayor'thakriyāḥ dhūmárcirangārā”dayóvasthāḥ samdrśyante tathaikasyā’pi rasasya bhāva-rasa-tadābhāsādayo jātibhedā utkanthā’-bhişanga-nirvṛttyādayórtha-kriyāḥ utpā’dābhivrddhisthairyā”dayo'vasthās samupalabhante."
The many rasas as imagined by Bhoja are finally acceptable to him as "alamkāra", which for him is basically three-fold such as "vakrókti, svabhāvokti and rasókti.” He has incorporated all discussion concerning rasa, under 'rasókti'. Under vakrókti and svabhāvokti Bhoja has covered up discussions concening 'alamkaras' and 'guna-s'. Thus for Bhoja, guna, alamkāra, rasa etc., being kāvya-sobhākara are basically ‘alamkāra' in the wider sense of the term. Thus the whole poetic canvass is created through 'alamkāra' and through these alamkāras, 'rasa-aviyoga' is established in poetry.
Agni-purāņa - The author of A.P. (= Agnipurana; references are to “Agnipurāņóktam kāvyálamkāra-śāstram"; Edn. Sampūrņānanda SKt. Uni., Dr. Paras Nath Dwivedi, Varanasi, A.D. 1985); is positively under Bhoja's influence but he has absorbed some ideas from Abhinavagupta also. Ch. IV (Edn. ibid., pp. 71; original ch. 339, Ref. Raghavan) VS. 1-4 begin with the explanation of what is meant by 'rasa'. A.P. (Ch. IV., 1-4) reads as :
"akşaram paramam brahma sanātanam ajam vibhum, vedānteșu vadanty ekam caitanyam jyotir īśvaram. 1 ānandah sahajas tasya vyajyate sa kadacana, vyaktih sā tasya caitanyacamatkāra-rasā”hvayah. 2 ādyas tasya vikāro yaḥ sa mahān iti tu smrtah, tato bhimānas tatrédam samāptam bhuvana-trayam.

Page #156

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1331
abhimānād ratih sā ca pariposam upeyușī, vyabhicāryā"di-sāmānyāc
chrngāra iti giyate. 4 Para-brahama or the Highest Divine is non-perishable, eternal, beyond birth and all-pervading. It is said to be one and only in the Vedānta, is of the form of consciousness, light and is the Supreme Lord.
The natural i.e. in-born bliss of that (Supreme Spirit) is manifested only at times. This manifestation (of bliss) is termed 'caitanya', 'camatkāra' and 'rasa'. The first change (of form, from the Supreme) is termed “mahar” (tattva). From this proceeds 'abhimāna' and in it are covered up the three worlds. From this ‘abhimana' springs ‘rati', and when this ‘rati' is fully enhanced, with the help of accessories or vyabhicārins, it is termed "śộngāra".
It may be noted that the A.P. takes 'rasa' to be of the form of 'highest bliss' or 'paramānanda'. Brahmāsvāda is the same as camatkāra which again is identical with 'rasa', according to the A.P. This is in conformation with Abhinavagupta. Bhoja on the other hand takes 'rasa' as paramānanda-rūpa, but for him, this joy is slightly of an inferior type when compared to the joy of consciousness, i.e. cid-ānanda of the Supreme Spirit i.e. paramātman. He places it as "ahamkāra-abhimāna-śrngāra” in a sort of a composite form. Bhoja believes that from this ‘ahamkāra' itself all 49 bhāvas beginning with rati arise. The A.P. on the other hand, accepts only 'rati' as being caused from this original source and not the other sthāyins as well. But when he attaches importance only to śộngāra, he seems to follow Bhoja.
Again, A.P. believes that from śrngāra other rasas emerge as off-shoots. It is observed (VS. 4-6) -
tad-bhedāḥ kāmam itare, hāsyā”dyā’py anekaśaḥ, sva-sva-sthāyiviśesāc ca pariposā"di-laksaņāḥ sattvā”di guna-santānāj jāyante paramātmanaḥ- 5 rāgādr bhavati śộngāro raud as taikśnyāt prajāyate,

Page #157

1332
SAHRDAYĀLOKA vīróvastambhajah
samkocódbhūr bībhatsaḥ. 6 It is observed that ahamkāra-śặngāra has many off-shoots such as hāsya and the like. These are born due to the peculiarity of individual sthāyins raised to the peak, i.e. enhanced. They are born of the extension of the quality of sattva and the like of the paramātman.
Thus, śộngāra (in the ordinarily accepted sense) is born of 'rāga' or attachment, 'raudra' from fierceness, vīra from avastambha i.e. courage or pride or determination, bībhatsa from 'samkoca' i.e. shrinking. Like Bharata, the A.P. then observes that from śộngāra, raudra, vīra and bībhatsa are born (the vikști-rasas, such as) hāsya, karuna, adbhuta and bhayānaka respectively. The A.P. observes out of their special bhāvas are thus born the nine rasas such as śrngāra, hāsya, karuna, raudra, vīra, bhayānaka, bībhatsa, adbhuta and śānta.
The application of these rasas (in poetry, drama or any art-form) is said to take place, according to A.P., with the help of 'abhimāna', without which all these are of no consequence.
Dr. Raghavan (pp. 495, ibid) observes that A.P. in its Ch. 343, holds rati-śộngāra as enhanced due to dharma, artha, kama and moksa. But here he seems to follow Bharata who has discussed with reference to the ten types of drama, the three-fold śrngāra such as based on darma, artha and kāma. He has also taken note of darma-kāma, artha-kāma, kāma-kama and moksa-kāma while treating what is termed, "sāmānya'bhinaya". On the same footing, A.P. also talks of four-fold ‘upaciti'-enhancement of rati-śrngāra. The A.P. seems to accept rasa as the 'soul of
seems there is a special and harmonious combination of both the Kashmir and Mālava schools of thought.
It may be noted that for the A.P. 'abhimana' is but identical with 'ahamkāra'. The term 'abhimāna' does not carry the usual sense of 'ego', but is a sort of state wherein the emotions of ordinary world which yield happiness or unhappiness as the case may be, are found to be only relishable, and therefore "abhi-mata" i.e. acceptable. The sukha-duḥkhā"tmaka worldly experiences become of the nature of bliss and therefore acceptable due to this "abhimāna" quality, of the Supreme, i.e. a quality which is ‘ātma-sthita-guna-višeşa'. It is termed rasa because it is "rasyamana" i.e. 'relished'. It is 'śrngāra' because it takes the enjoyer to the highest peak. Thus the śộngāra of A.P. is not the lust-born love of male and female, but is ‘prema' or, 'ātmanistha-rati'.

Page #158

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and.....
1333 The A.P. also discusses the nature of bhāvas and their relation with rasa. For the A.P. the kávya-samsāra is created by the prajāpati named 'kāvi'. If he is sensitive-sa-hrdaya - he creates 'sa-rasa' kāvya, and if he is 'vi-rāgi' or 'nī-rasa', his poetry also will be without rasa. Like Bharata, A.P. also observes (Ch. IV., 28 pp. 89, Edn. ibid) -
"na bhāvahino'sti raso na bhāvo rasa-varjitaḥ, bhāvayanti rasān ebhir
bhāvyante ca rasā iti. 28 We cannot imagine a position when rasa is without bhāva or bhāva is without rasa. The bhāvas cause rasas, and the rasas (in turn) cause the bhāvas (i.e. as Abhinavagupta explains, it is with reference to rasas that the bhāvas are termed bhāvas). The A.P. talks of eight sthāyi-bhāvas, eight sättvika-bhāvas and 33
ns. The causes of the sthāyins are termed 'vibhāvas' and these are two fold such as the ālambana and uddīpana-vibhāvas. The anubhāvas are explained as - (Ch. IV. VS. 60-61, etc.) (pp. 104, ibid)
"ālambana-vibhāvasya bhāvair udbuddha-samskrtaiḥ, mano-vāg-buddhi-vapusām smrtī'ccha-dveşa-yatnataḥ, ārambha eva vidusām anubhāva iti smrtaḥ, sa cā’nubhūyate ca
anubhāva iti nirucyate.” i.e. With the help of the enhanced feelings of the alambana-vibhāva (i.e. nāyaka, nāyikā, etc.) through the effort of smộti, icchā, dveșa and yatna going with mana, vānī, buddhi and śarīra respectively, that which is born or effected is termed anubhāva. We know that Säradātanaya, as we will go to record later, also speaks of these anubhāvas such as mana-ārambha-vāg-arambha, and buddhyārambha., Thus these anubhāvas are prompted as physical actions promoted by mana, buddhi, or Vāk. They are placed as this or that variety on account of the part played in majority either by manas, or vāg, or buddhi. The buddhyārambha anubhāvas are

Page #159

1334
SAHRDAYĀLOKA caused by the activity of buddhi and are said to be three-fold such as rīti-vrtti and pravstti. A.P. (IV. 70, pp. 108, ibid) observes :
“bauddho’padeśa-vyāpāraḥ sa buddhy-ārambha ucyate, tasya bhedās trayas te ca
rīti-vrtti-pravṛttayaḥ.” The variants available for 'bauddho.' and 'buddhyā"rambha' are, "vācopadeśavyāpāra" and "bauddhāya esa', respectively.
Thus predominance of mental activity - mānasika-vyāpāra - is manaārambha-anubhāva. This is again two-fold such as paurusa and straina. The first consists of sobhā, vilāsa etc. the eight qualities. Hāva, bhāva, helā etc. are straina. The narration of speech is vāg-arambha anubhāva. It is twelve-fold such as ālāpa, pralāpa, vilāpa, etc. The activity promoted by buddhi i.e. intelligence is of three types such as rīti-vrtti and pravṛtti. The activity based on bodily gestures is termed śarīrā"rambha-anubhāva. This is twelve-fold such as līla, vilāsa, vicchitti, etc. etc. The A.P. has correlated these four vyāpāras with the four-fold abhinaya i.e. acting. The mana-ārambha is connected with sāttvika abhinaya, vāg-ārambha with vācika-abhinaya, buddhyā”ramhha and pravṛtti are part of this. The śarīrārambha is connected with angika-abhinaya. The activities of limbs and parts of limbs fall under this.
We have seen above how Mahimā, Dhananjaya and Dhanika treat the topic of rasa. After Bhoja and A.P., we will pick up the thread as seen in Mammata, down to Jagannātha wherein the Kashmira School of thought has an upper hand with some minor straying away as seen in the Nātyadarpaņa of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, whose ideas carry some impressions from different sources. Similarly, śāradātanaya, Sāgaranandin and Rasā'rņava-sudhākara of singabhūpāla, and then Rūpa and Jiva-Goswamin also carry some different traits. We will discuss this as under :
Mammața discusses 'rasa' following absolutely the lead of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Actually we may say that the works of these three form the real “prasthāna-trayī” of alamkāraśāstra.
Mammața (= M.) observes that the basic emotion, i.e. sthāyin suggested by vibhāvā”di-s, is rasa. K.P. IV. 27, 28 (pp. 62, 64, Edn. R. C. Dwivedi, pub. Motilal

Page #160

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1335 Banarasidass, Delhi, '67) read as :
“kāraṇāny atha kāryāņi sahakārīņi yāni ca ratyādeḥ sthāyino loke tāni cen nātya-kāvyayoḥ - IV. 27, vibhāvā anubhāvaś ca kathyante vyabhicāriņaḥ, vyaktaḥ sa tair vibhāvādyaiḥ
sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smộtaḥ.” IV. 28 "Now, if the causes, effects and auxiliaries of the basic mental state, such as love, in the world are (found) in poetry and drama, they are spoken of as determinants, ensuants and transitories (respectively). The basic emotion, manifested (= suggested) through these determinants etc., is known as 'rasa'.” (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 63, 65, ibid).
Following his masters Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta M. is also clear regarding the fact that the vibhāvā"di-s in themselves are not rasa, but they make for rasa. Rasa is suggested in an unnoticeable sequence by these vibhāvā"di-s. This rasa is not identical with alamkāras such as 'rasavat and the like.
M. observes (vștti, K.P. IV. 25, pp. 60, 61, ibid) : “na khalu vibhāvā’nubhāvavyabhicāriņa eva rasaḥ, api tu rasas tair ity asti kramah. sa tu na laksyate.
tatra ca, rasa-bhāva-tad ābhāsabhāva-śāntyādir akramaḥ, bhinno rasādy alamkārād
alamkāryatayā sthitaḥ.” (K.P. IV. 26) adi-grahanāt bhāvodaya-bhāva-samdhi-bhāva-sabalatvāni. pradhānatayā yatra sthito rasā”dis tatra alamkāryah, yathódāharisyate. anyatra tu pradhāne vākyárthe yatrángabhūto rasā"dis tatra gunībhūta-vyangye rasavat-preya-ūrjasvi-samāhitā”dayó lamkārāḥ. te ca gunībhūta-vyangyā bhidhāne udāharisyante.”
(Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 61, 63, ibid) : " 'Without perceptible', etc., implies - it is not at all that the determinant - ensuant, and the transitory (vibhāva, anubhāva, sañcāribhāva) by themselves are rasa, but rasa is (manifested) through these, hence there is sequence but it is not perceived (owing to its quickness).

Page #161

1336
And there,
(K.P. IV. 26) The non-sequential (i.e. a-samlakṣya-krama-vyangya) consisting in rasa, emotion, their semblance, pacification of the emotion and the like is different from the figures, such as rasavat, and stands as one to be adorned.
By the use of 'and the like', are meant the 'rise of emotion', the 'co-existence of emotions', and the 'variegation of emotions'. Where 'rasa' etc. stand out prominently there it is the object to be adorned as will be illustrated later on. Otherwise, when the meaning of a sentence is prominent and rasa, etc. are subordinate, there is the subordinate, suggested sense (i.e. mediocre poetry) are the figures rasavat, preyas, ūrjasvi, samahita and others. And these will be illustrated later under the description of the 'subordinate suggested sense'.
SAHṚDAYALOKA
-
For M., the worldly basic emotion i.e. laukika or loka-gata sthāyin is different from the 'suggested' i.e. 'vyakta'-sthāyin. Thus 'rasa', which is of the form of "suggested sthāyin", is different from worldly emotion, i.e. it is "sthāyivilakṣaṇa."
In view of this M. quotes the rasa-sutra of Bharata and furnishes all explanations of this sūtra as advanced by Bhatta Lollata, Śrī. Śańkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nayaka and Abhinavagupta and proceeds to get engaged in the epistemological consideration of the nature of rasa. All this we will discuss later when we take up the topic of rasa-realisation and the nature of 'rasa'.

M. further explains that in the rasa-sūtra there is mention of "vibhāvaanubhava-and vyabhicārin", the three of them to bring home a point that the mixture of these three taken together, i.e. the whole "samagri" is the cause of rasa, with which it is associated in an invariable relationship. The idea is that individual vibhāva, anubhavas or vyabhicärin can stay away separately of a given rasa, but when they are combined in a given form, they make only for a given rasa. The 'Samagri' as a whole is invariably connected with this or that rasa. Yes, poets are masters of themselves and so if in their poetry we come across the delineation of only a particular vibhāva, or a particular anubhava or a particular vyabhicărin alone, then the other respective missing members of the combination or sāmagrī are to be imagined by a sa-hṛdaya. This means the other factors are implied if not stated directly in a given piece of poetry. Individual vibhāvas are likely to go with more than one rasa, but a given combination suggests only a given rasa alone. M. observes (Vṛtti, K.P. IV. 28, pp. 72, ibid) :

Page #162

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
"vyāghra"dayo vibhāvā bhayānakasya iva vīrā'dbhuta-raudrāṇam, aśrupātā❞dayo'nubhāvāḥ śṛngārasya iva karuṇa-bhayānakayoḥ, cinta"dayo vyabhicāriṇaḥ śṛngārasya iva vīra-karuṇa-bhayānakānām iti pṛthag anaikantikatvāt sūtre mīlitā nirdiṣṭāḥ."
(Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 75, ibid) :
"The determinants, tiger and the like, belong to the Heroic, the Wonderful and the Furious, as to the Terrific; the ensuants like the fall of tears belong to the Pathetic and the Terrific, as to the Erotic; the transitories like anxiety to the Heroic, the Pathetic and the Terrific, as to the Erotic. As these are not exclusive (to any particular rasa), they have been mentioned together in the aphorism (of Bharata).
1337
M. mentions the eight rasas as read in Bharata and also mentions śānta, the ninth, half-heartedly. M. observes (K.P. IV. 35 a) (pp. 88, ibid)
"nirveda-sthāyibhāvā"khyaḥ
śāntópi navamo mataḥ."
"Quietism also is the ninth rasa with detachment as its basic emotion." This M. does perhaps under the influence of the DR. of Dhananjaya.
Hemacandra follows the lead of the great three i.e. Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammața. His disciples Ramacandra and Gunacandra beg to differ in some respect from the Kashmir School of thought.
It may be noted that Hemacandra (= H.) in his learned commentary termed 'Viveka' on his own Kāvyánuśāsana, has virtually paraphrased the whole of Abhinavabhāratī on the rasa-sūtra and other portions connected with rasa, bhāva etc. He has therefore preserved very reliable readings from the original A.bh. that was available to him. It is therefore that Gnoli, and even Masson and Patwardhan have preferred readings from the A.bh. as presented by H. in his Viveka. Actually my Guru Dr. V. M. Kulkarni has given the reconstructed text of the missing portion of the A.bh. on the Bhāvádhyāya i.e. Ch. VII of the N.S. Actually H.'s viveka is the most reliable research tool for fixing up of actual readings from various sources which include not only the great works on Alamkāra such as the Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhaṭṭa, but also the great literary works such as those of Kālidāsa. Actually in separate research papers read at various venues we have tried to fix up the variants as read in the works of

Page #163

1338
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Kālidāsa with the help of H.'s viveka. But this apart, H. has the genius of presenting the most difficult topics in a lucid way and his style and presentation in this respect deserve to be placed with the greatest masters of Sanskrit prose such as the great Adi Sankarācārya and the great Anandavardhana.
We will deal with all theoretical points concerning rasa-realisation and the like in the chapters 16 and 17 of this volume, and of course H.'s name will figure therein, but for the present we look into only that portion from the text of the Kā. Śā. wherein he discusses the topic of rasa (Ch. II. Kā. Šā. Edn. Parikh and Kulkarni, Bombay, '64. All references are to this edn.)
In the second chapter of his Kā. Šā. (pp. 88, ibid) he starts with the topic of rasa for consideration. He observes :
(sūtra. 26) rasa-lakṣaṇam āha"vibhāvā’nubhāva-vyabhicāribhir abhivyaktaḥ sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ. (1)
vāgādy abhinaya-sahitāḥ sthāyi-vyabhicāri-laksaņāś citta-vșttayo vibhāvyante visistatayā jñāyante yais tair vibhāvaiḥ kāvya-nāțya-śāstra-prasiddhaiḥ ālambanóddīpana-svabhāvair lalanódyā-nā”dibhiḥ, sthāyi-vyabhicāri-lakṣaṇam citta vrtti-visesam sāmājika-janónubhavan anubhavyate sāksātkāryate yais tai anubhāvaiḥ katākşa-bhujā”kśepā”dibhiḥ, vividham ābhimukhyena carana-śīlair vyabhichāribhir dhrti-smrti-prabhṛtibhih, sthāyibhāvā’numāpakatvena loke kāranakārya-sahacari-sabda-vyapadeśyaih, mamaivaite parasyaivaite na mamaite, na parasyaite iti sambandhi-viśeșa-svīkāra-pariharaniyama-anavasāyāt sādhāranyena pratītair abhivyaktaḥ, sāmājikānām vāsanā-rūpeṇa sthitaḥ sthāyi ratyādiko bhāvo niyatapramātrgatvena sthitópi sādhāraṇópāyabalāt sahşdaya-hțdayasamvāda-bhājā, sādhāranyena gocari-kriyamāņaś carvyamāṇataika-prāno, vibhāvā"di-bhāvanā-vadhir alaukika-camatkāra-kāritayā para-brahmā’svāda-sodaro, nimīlita-nayanaiḥ kavi-sahrdayai rasyamānaḥ sva-samvedana-siddho rasaḥ.”
After this in the Viveka follows the discussion on rasa-nispatti-prakriyā, wherein the text of the A.bh. containing the views of Lollata and others is preserved with purest of pure readings. This takes up pp. 89-102 (text, ibid), and then follows in the body of the text the epistemological consideration of the nature of rasa as read in the A.bh. and the K.P., (pp. 103, ibid). This we will pick up later.
The portion as quoted above explaining the fact of rasa also contains full impressions of what we read in the A.bh. and also in the K.P. The substance of this paragraph can be explained as follows:

Page #164

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1339 Hemacandra (= H.) following Mammața (= M.), Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana (= A.) is very clear that suggested basic emotion "abhivyaktah sthāyi bhāvah" is "rasa". This is done with the help of 'vibhāvā"di's. He further explains the terms vibhāva etc. as follows. Vibhāvas or determinants are so called because through them are caused to be known the sthāyin or basic emotions in a very special way : "vibhāvyante viśistatayā jñāyante yaiḥ taiḥ vibhāvaih” says H. These vibhāvas cause the mental states such as sthāyins or permanent or basic emotions and vyabhicārins or transitory mental states be known in a very special way. This “very special way" i.e. 'visistatayā' means these mental states, though residing in individual ‘sāmājika', are not known or are not brought to light as individual mental states. This means they cease to be personal. There is no cognition such as "these are my feelings or emotions, or these are not my feelings or emotions, or that these are or are not somebody else's feelings and emotions." Actually the cognition of the emotions is so very special that it is cleared of any relation whatsoever with anyone, present or past or even future. This is the magic of the 'vibhāvas' or determinants. The power of these vibhāvā"dis gets rid of any personal relationship between the emotion manifested and any individual. The vibhāvas, explains H., are two-fold such as 'ālambana' and 'uddīpana' i.e. the substrate and the stimulating causes, known both in poetry and drama, such as the hero, heroine etc. and garden etc. These two types of vibhāvas are the causes so to say. The 'anubhāvas' or consequents or ensuants are factors that cause to apprehend the feelings and emotions. These anubhāvas are so to say 'effects', such as the side-glance, and the tossing of arms etc. that cause the feeling of, say love, to apprehend. The sāmājika is caused to apprehend various emotions and feelings by the physical expression of feelings. The third factor is the vyabhicarins or transitory feelings that go hand in hand with the basic emotions and as explained by M., and these cause to enhance the basic emotions. These three i.e. vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicārins are known in ordinary parlance as kāraņa, kārya and sahacārins respectively. They stand as factors that help the inference of a particular feeling or emotion in a given person in worldly context. Here, in the context of poetry and drama or art in general, these three factors are revealers or suggesters so to say and not causes that lead to inference. The feelings suggested are not personal feelings of a given person or character. The emotions and feeling thus evoked are so to say de-individualised i.e. “sādhāranyena pratīta.” They are collected in a non-personal form. Emotion thus

Page #165

1340
SAHRDAYĀLOKA evoked or suggested by impersonalised vibhāvā”dis is termed “rasa”. The acting in case of drama, or description of acting in case of poetry helps the cause of the vibhāvā”dis. These abhinayas are four-fold such as acting connected with speech, body, mind and external apparatus, such as stage-decoration, costumes, makeup, etc. This generalised suggested or evoked emotion is enjoyed by the samājika, who himself is also placed beyond personal relationship. The sāmājika has attained a status wherein he acquires aesthetic sympathy - "sahşdayahrdayasamvāda”, and thus is beyond personal hates and likes, preferences and prejudices. The emotion thus evoked actually stays in the heart of the sāmājika as a result of impressions of past births, observes H. But these generalised emotions when suggested by generalised vibhāvā"dis are free from personal bindings. They are therefore relished, become the object of aesthetic delight. “Relishing' is its life-breath. This relishing lasts till the presentation of vibhāvā”dis lasts. This relish is of the nature of a-laukika i.e. extra-worldly bliss or camatkāra. This enjoyment of suggested basic emotion through means of art i.e. vibhāvā"dis, is termed "rasa" which is 'sva-samvedana-siddha' i.e. object of extraordinary self-experience. It is located in art only, i.e. it is “sui generis” or exclusive to art. H. observes that the enjoyment called 'rasa'-experience is similar to the taste of ultimate reality - i.e. “para-brahmā"svāda-sahodara".
H. as noted earlier, accepts 'śānta' as the ninth rasa without any reservation as seen even in M. we will discuss the problem of śānta-rasa, the number of rasas etc. in the next chapter.
We will discuss the concept of rasa as seen in the Nātyadarpana (= ND.) of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra later when we pick up works on dramaturgy. Though of course chronologically the N.D. should follow the Kā. Šā.. but we will pick up this work along with other works on dramaturgy. We could have taken even the DR. of Dhananjaya separately. But on account of the antivyañjanā stance, and on account of its earlier date we considered that work earlier. The other works on dramaturgy more or less follow the lead of vyañjanā-dhvani-vădins. Even Sāradātanaya is not anti-vyañjanā-theorist. So, we will now move on to Vāgbhața (I), the author of Vāgbhatálamkāra or kāryā'lamkāra.
Vāgbhata (V. i) is of the opinion that, even if it is perfectly cooked, food is not palatable without salt, in the same way poetry without rasa is not enjoyable.

Page #166

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1341 He seems to belong to the tradition of those, including Sankuka perhaps, who hold that the basic emotion i.e. sthāyin enhanced by anubhāvas, vibhāvas, sättvikas and vyabhicārins is rasa :
"anubhāvair vibhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, āropyamāņa utkarşam
sthāyi bhāvo bhaved rasah." It is interesting to read 'sātrvika bhāvá over and above the three viz. vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicārins.
The ND. of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra also observe, as we will go to see later that "śritótkarsah sthāyibhāvah rasah.” It may be interesting to note further that Vägbhața (I), at V. 3, enumerates the sthāins which go to include 'sama' also. Thus he supports the case of śāntarasa, as is done by Udbhața. At I. 4, he mentions nine rasas along with śānta and observes that these nine are supported by the wise : navaite niścitā budhaih.” He proceeds to deal with two-fold śrngāra and then with nāyaka. He talks of nine rasas individually also. He does not enter into any theoretical discussion concerning rasa-realisation.
Vāgbhața (II) follows M. and the Kashmir tradition. He observes (V; pp. 53, Edn. NS., 1915) : "tatra vibhāvánubhávair vyabhicāribhis' cā'bhivyaktā rati-hāsaśoka-krodhótsäha-bhaya-jugupsā-vismaya-samāh sthāyino bhāvāh, kramena śrngārahāsya-karuna-raudra-vīra-bhayānaka-bībhātsa-adbhuta-śāntā nava rasā bhavanti.
He proceeds to discuss each rasa along with its vibhāvā"dis. Then he describes the thirty three vyabhicărins, and eight sāttvikas. He then talks of rasābhāsa and bhāvābhāsa born of 'an-aucitya'. Then he talks of rasa-dosas and their exceptions, three-fold prakrti or nature, four-fold nāyakas, three-fold nāyikā, the eight avasthā or states of nāyikās, etc. Jayadeva, in Candrāloka (VI 1-3) talks of rasa as follows :
ālambano'ddīpanā”tmā vibhāvaḥ kāraṇam dvidhā, kāryo'nubhāvo bhāvasca sahāyo vyabhicāry api.” (VI. i) galad-vedyántarod bhedam hrdayesv a-jadātmanām,

Page #167

1342
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA milan-malayajā”lepaiva”hlādam vikāsayan (VI. ii) kāvye nāțye ca kārye ca vibhāvyā”dyair vibhāvitaḥ, āsvādyamanaika-tanuḥ
sthāyibhāvo rasaḥ smộtah.” (VI. iii) Here Jayadeva (= J.) uses the term vibhāvita' in the sense of abhi-vyakta’. The rest follows the lead of the Kashmir tradition. He had also noticed, while defining poetry, that the poetic expression has to be accompanied by rasa. He does not go for any theoretical discussion on the nature of rasa. He goes on to deal each rasa individually. He also accepts śānta and observes at VI. 13 -
"nirveda-sthāyikaḥ śāntah satsangā"di-vibhāva-bhūḥ, kşamādikā'nubhāvo'yam
stambhādi-vyabhicārakah.”. Then he talks of sthāyins and vyabhicārins, rasābhāsa and bhāvābhāsa, bhāvaśānti, bhāvódaya, bhāva-sabalatā and bhāva-samdhi etc. and then rītis.
Vidyādhara in his Ekāvalī (III. i) following the Kashmir tradition accepts rasa to be collected by vyañjan, and he denounces, after M., the tātparyavāda. He also discusses the nature of rasa after M. He establishes that rasa is not inferred, nor recollected (smrti), nor effected (i.e. kārya), but is of an extra-ordinary nature. He accepts all rasas including the karuna, to be of the nature of bliss or ānanda, and is of the form of happiness and is an experience wherein all consciousness of anything but itself is melted away - 'vigalita-vedyantara'. He takes rasa to be that taste which is born of the perception i.e. suggestion of 'kāvyártha' and is born of the bliss of self :
“svādah kāvyā'rtha-sambhedād ātmānanda-samud-bhavah.” The taste is four-fold with reference to the position of the conscience such as ikasa, vistara, viksobha and viksepa. The Vikasa' is explained on the analogy of the blossoming of flowers. Vistāra is the expansion like that of a tree. Viksobha or disturbance is like that of an ocean and viksepa is like the hustling due to wind. We may read the impression of the DR. here. The four upādhis of citta of the form of vikāsa, vistara etc. are respectively called śrngāra, vīra, raudra and bībhatsa.

Page #168

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1343 "Upādhi' is explained by Vidyadhara as bhūmikāśraya - i.e. The basic. The four upādhis are also to be counted respectively in case of hāsya, adbhuta, karuna and bhayānaka. All this follows Bharata. Vidyādhara's presentation is clean and lucid.
Vidyānātha : The rasa-prakarana, in the Pratāpa-rudriya (= PR.) begins with this observation : (pp. 155, Edn. '14, Madras, Chandrasekhara Shastrigal) - atha sarvesām prabandhānām jīvitabhūtasya rasasya svarūpam nirūpyate - "vibhāvánubhāva-sättvika-vyabhicāri-sāmagrī-samullasita-sthāyibhāvo rasaḥ.”
It may be noted that Vidyānātha calls 'rasa' to be the very life of all poetic compositions. But he is clearer in forming the rasa-sūtra with the mention of sättvika-bhāvas in the 'sāmagri' i.e. combination that makes for the blossoming (“samullasita") of the sthāyi-bhāva, termed rasa (in its 'samullasita' state). He seems to be under the influence of the school of thought as represented by the Agnipurana which also mentions "sättvika-bhāva” separately.
Kumārasvāmin in his “Ratnāpaņa” (pp. 155, 156, ibid) observes :
vaksyamāņa-lakṣaṇā vibhāvádaya eva samagrī, tayā sarasa-kāvya-samg; hītayā, nipuņa-nața-pradarśitayā vā, sāmājika-bhāvyamānayā samullāsita āsvādyamāno nirbhara'nandah samvid-rupatam niyamanah sann ity uktam bhāva-prakāśe • “prakāśānanda-cid-rūpām rasatām pratipadyate, prakrsyamāņo yo bhāvaḥ sa sthāyīti nigadyate', iti. evamvidhaḥ sāmājika-nistho ratyā"disthāyibhāvo, rasyate āsvādyate iti vyutpattyā rasa ity ucyate. tad uktam - “rasateh svādanárthatvād rasyanta iti te rasāḥ.”
Kumāraswāmin seems to suggest that the combination i.e. samagri which is of the form of vibhāva, etc., - which is presented either by poetry or by the expert actor (in case of dramatic art), - and the samagri which is relished by the sāmājika gives rise or causes to sprout, the highest joy which is made of consciousness. The Bhāvaprakāśana is quoted as saying that - "That is called sthāyi-bhāva which is enhanced and is relished (rasatām pratipadyate) in form of consciousness made of light and bliss.” Thus, this type of ratyādi-sthāyin, based in the self of the sāmājika, when enjoyed, or tasted is termed rasa, because of its being "tasted". He quotes a source suggesting that because it is tasted or enjoyed it is termed 'rasa'; the Vras is in the sense of being tasted'.
One thing is clear that Vidyānātha, perhaps under the influence of the mālava school of thought, uses the terms "samullaita-sthāyibhāvo rasaḥ”. He could have clearly stated "abhivyaktaḥ" or "vyaktaḥ", as he himself, as observed earlier, does accept ‘vyangyártha', 'vyañjanā' and "dhvani”. But his loyalty towards the Mālava

Page #169

1344
SAHRDAYĀLOKA school of thought is also clear when he quotes from the DR. (pp. 157, ibid):
"tathā coktam daśa-rūpake - "vibhāvair anubhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, ānīyamānaḥ svādutvam
shãyi bhāvo rasal smetah.” He goes on to explain 'sthāyibhāva' is so termed because it is not over-powered by similar or dissimilar feelings or emotions in the moments of the rasa being experienced. Again he quotes the DR. (pp. 158, ibid) -
"sa-jātīyair vijātīyair a-tiraskệta-mūrtimān, yāvad rasam vartamānaḥ
sthāyī bhāvaḥ udāhstaḥ." Then he mentions nine rasas including the śānta and also mentions 'sama' the sthāyin of śānta, along with the other eight, viz, rati hāsa, etc. Here he seems to accept the lead of Ā. and Abhinavagupta in accepting 'śānta' - rasa clearly as an independent rasa.
Vibhāva (pp. 158, ibid) for him is the cause of the birth of rasa - "rasótpadanakāranam”, and is said to be two-fold such as the ālambana and uddīpana. The ālambana-vibhāva is said to be "rasa-samavāyi-karana" (pp. 159) - Thus it is the inseparable or material cause of rasa. The separable or a-samavāyi-kārana is the uddīpana-vibhāva. "itarat kāranajātam uddīpana-vibhāvah." (pp. 159, ibid). He quotes here from "śrngāra-tilaka".
'Anubhāva' is explained as effect - “kārya-bhūto'nubhāvah” (pp. 159, ibid)
The sāttvika-bhāvas are explained (pp. 159, ibid) as - "atha sāttvika-bhāvāḥ” - paragata-sukhā”dibhāvanayā bhāvitántah-karanatvam sattvam. tato bhavah sātrvikāḥ." 'Sattva' is that state of mind which is pervaded by imaginary feelings of happiness or unhappiness as actually experienced by others. Through this mental state i.e. 'sattva', are born the sāttvika bhāvas. This means the exhibition of sättvika-bhāvas on the part of an expert actor rests on his capacity to identify his mental state with the mental state of someone else, and this requires concentration of mind. Vidyānātha simply enumerates the thirty-three vyabhicārins (pp. 161, ibid). He does not define the same but quotes the K.P. IV - viz. "kāranāny atha kāryāni... vyabhicarinah."

Page #170

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1345 He draws a line of distinction between rasa and rasā”bhāsa, when he observes (pp. 162, ibid) -
"loke kārya-kāraṇa-sahakāri-sabdavācyā nāyikā-nāyaka-kațākṣa-bhrūksepanirvedā"dayaḥ, kāvya-nāryayos tu vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-sabda-vyapadeśyā bhavanti. śrngāra-vīra-raudrā'dbhutānām lokóttara-nāyakā"śrayatvena paripoșātiśayah ata eva śộngārasya mlecchā”di-visayatve tv ābhāsatvam.” He further observes : (pp. 162, 3 ibid) - tathā cóktam -
ekatraivā'nurāgaś cet tiryan-mleccha-gato’pi vā, yoșito bahu-saktiś ced
rasā"bhāsas tridhā matah." Thus one-sided feeling (ekatra-eva-anurāga, as in case of Rāvana's infetuation for Sītā), or love with reference to unsophisticated or uncultured people, or love with many ladies (or males also ?) at a time, gives rise to three-fold rasā”bhāsa.
He also talks of the four viz. bhāva-śānti, bhāvódaya, bhāvasamdhi and bhāvaśabalatā with reference to the four states of the vyabhicārins.
Then he goes for the explanation and definition of the ratyādi sthāyins. He ends here with sama. Sama is defined as ‘nirvikāra-cittatva' due to 'vairāgyā”di', wherein.
īśvaránugraha, satsanga”, etc. Then he picks up the eight sāttvikas. (pp. 171, ibid). Thirty-three vyabhicārins are the next to be defined and illustrated. (pp. 173-186 ibid).
Then he observes (pp. 187, ibid) that as the sātrvikas and the vyabhicārins are individually associated with many rasas, no illustration with reference to just one rasa is given. For example all are associated with śrngāra - "tatra sātrvikānām vyabhicāriņām ca anekarasa-sādhāraṇatvān na višesam apeksya udāharanam krtam. tathā hi śrngāre sarvesām anupraveśaḥ sambhavati."
Then Vidyānātha discusses śrngāra-cestā such as bhāva, hāva, helā, etc. which are eighteen in number. Then tvelve states - ‘avasthāḥ of śộngāra such as cakṣuḥprīti etc. ending with 'marana' are described with reference to the four-fold expression such as ‘ankuritatva', 'pallavitattva', 'kusumitatva' and 'phalitatva'.
Then he talks of two-fold śộngāra such as sambhoga and vipralambha (pp. 199, ibid) following again the lead of 'Srngāra-tilaka'. The four sub-varieties of the latter, such as abhilāșa, īrsyā, viraha and pravāsa are also discussed. Then rasā"bhāsa, bhāvódaya, bhāvasama, bhāva-samdhi and bhāva-babalatā are

Page #171

1346
SAHRDAYĀLOKA illustrated (pp. 201-203. ibid). Rasa-samkara is taken up next and illustrated. He means by this the co-existence of rasas in a single verse or composition.
He then talks of the substratum of rasa. Here he talks perhaps of worldly rasa as staying in the hero : (pp. 205, ibid): "atra raso nāyakāśraya eva". But he talks of sāmājika-gata-rasa also. We feel that in taking rasa to be anukāryarāmā"dināyakā"śraya, Vidyānātha is under some misconception of rasa. For the followers of the Kashmir School, rasa always resides in art and never in real life. “rasas tu nātya eva, na loke” (A.bh. NS. Ch. VI). But Vidyānātha observes : (pp. 205, ibid) :.
"atra raso nāyakā”śraya eva. yadi param nipuna-nata-cestayā tathāvidhakāvya śravana-balena ca sāmājikaiḥ sākṣād bhāvyate, tadā paragatasyápi rasasya samyag-bhāvanayā paratra niratiśaya"nanda-jananam a-viruddham.” i.e. For Vidyānātha, rasa primarily resides in the original nāyaka. But looking at the imitation by an expert actor, or by listening to poetry describing feelings of others, when men of taste (sāmājikas) enjoy rasa, it is said to be 'para-gata' also i.e. residing elsewhere and not in the original hero.
Then he talks of the rasa, i.e. a-laukika-rasa as residing in the sāmājikas also on the strength of sadhāranīkarana. But whatever Vidyānātha writes, as we quote below. suggests only his primary understanding of 'rasa'. Even his commentator Kumaraswamin also, as observed by us elsewhere also, depicts an immature understanding of the fact of rasa. Vidyānātha observes (pp. 205, ibid)
"atra raso nāyakā”śraya eva. yadi param nipuna-națacestayā tathāvidha-kāvyaśravana-balena ca sāmājikaiḥ sākṣād bhāvyate tadā paragatasyā'pi rasasya samyag bhāvanayā paratra niratiśayā"nanda-jananam a-viruddham.” The commentator Kumāraswāmin observes (pp. 205, ibid) here - "tair (= if by the sāmājikas) yadi param sākṣād bhāvyate, kevalam svasambandhitvena anu-samdhiyate ced ity arthaḥ. tarhi putrā"dyā”nanda-darśane pitrā"di-vad atrápyā”nanda udetīti bhāvah.” - All this seems childish.
Then says Kumāra-swāmin, Vidyānātha explains the a-laukika-rasāśraya : "atha alaukika-rasasyā”śrayam āha." "athavā iti...” Vidyānātha observes : (pp. 205. ibid) - "athavā mālaty adi-sabdebhyah yosinmātra pratitau, rāvanā"di-sabdebhah satru-mātra-pratītau ca smrty ārūdhena tat-tad-yosidvisesena anukāryena sāmājikāśrayatvam na viruddham.
The N.D. of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra also exhibits immature understanding concerning rasa, in like fashion as done by Vidyānātha. We will consider it later.

Page #172

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1347
Vidyanatha rules out the case of 'nata' experiencing rasa, for he simply imitates : (pp. 206, ibid) - "natasya anukaraṇa-mātra-paratayā naiva rasā'śraya-yogyatā.” But gives some concession as is done by the ND., such as when the nata becomes a 'bhāvuka' or a sympathiser like a sāmājika, he may experience rasa - "tasya bhāvukatvā'bhyupagame'pi sāmājikatvam eva" - Thus as a sāmājika he is entitled to enjoy rasa !
Vidyanatha holds, following Bharata and the rest, that the manifestation of anubhavas (on the part of the actor) depends on expertise due to training, practice etc.
He discusses rasa-virodha smoothened by poet's expert handling. He talks of 'rasad rasótpatti', again following the lead of Śṛngara-tilaka. He talks of vyabhicārins that go with this or that rasa, again following Śṛngāra-tilaka.
He observes that (pp. 208, ibid): "bhāratīyókta-prakriyaya yady apy eka eva rasas tathā'pi mahākavi-prasiddhayā rasa-samkaraḥ svīkriyate."
We do not know what he is aiming at by 'bharatiyókta prakriya'. But he seems to recommend that basically there is one rasa but rasas are said to be many with reference to the practice of the great good poets. Here perhaps he shows impressions of both Abhinavagupta and Bhoja.
Then talking about rasavad ādi alamkāras, Vidyānātha proceeds to observe (pp. 208, ibid)
"tatra rasă"der a-prādhānye rasavad ādy alamkārāḥ bhavanti. anyā'ngatvena rasa-nibandhane rasavad alamkāraḥ, bhāva-nibandhane preyo'lamkāraḥ. rasā"bhāsabhāvā"bhāsa-nibandhane ūrjasvi alamkāraḥ. bhāva-śānti nibandhane samāhitā'lamkāraḥ. tathā bhāvódayo'pi."
He seems to follow here the lead of Alamkara-sarvasva. He observes: (pp. 208, ibid): "etad alamkara-sarvasve prapañcena uktam." He says that these will be illustrated in the chapter on alamkāras.
At the end of the chapter on rasa, he tries to give a sort of summary that helps in apprehending the nature of rasa : All this is mostly under the influence of the Mälava School of thought. He observes (pp. 208, 211, ibid):
"guṇā'lamkāraśrī-kṛta-parikaro bhāvavibhavaḥ sphurat-prādurbhāvaḥ kramagalita-vedyántarasukham vā duḥkham vā nibiḍayaty yunoḥ sahṛdaye tvamandā❞nandā❞tmā pariṇamati pūrṇo rasabharaḥ" raso vākyárthaḥ san vilasati

Page #173

1348
SAHṚDAYALOKA
padárthāḥ punaramī vibhāvādyā yasmin kila dadhati viśrantim ucitām, ato bhāvā eva krama-samuditányonya-vibhava rasībhāvam bibhraty atha ca paṭatām tantavatvaiva. bhāve sthāyini vardhamana vibhave ratyādike sindhuvat kallolā iva sambhavanti vilayam ca"yanti bhāvā muhuḥ, nirvedādy upabhoga-bhāvitanijāśvādátireko raso loke syād anukārya eva kathito natye tu sāmājike."
The commentator takes pains to explain that a-laukika rasa is necessarily with reference to the sāmājika in the opinion of Vidyanatha. He quotes Śāradātanaya and Naraharisūri to support his observation.
It is clear that both Vidyanatha and his commentator Kumaraswāmin are equally not clear about the basic nature of rasa.
Viśvanatha (= V.) the author of Sahityadarpana is crystal clear in his understanding of the nature of rasa. He accepts the supreme importance of rasa and holds it to be the very soul of poetry: "vākyam rasā❞tmakam kāvyam"- is his famous definition of poetry. Of course, he recognises rasa as form of dhvani, the 'a-samlaksya-krama' variety as done by A., but he devotes an entire chapter to rasa (= S.D. III.), wherein the has presented the summary and significance of rasatheory as advocated by the great A. and also Abhinavagupta, followed by Mammata. Actually V. has a thorough grasp of the essence of the theory of rasa as against the immature understanding on the part of such followers of the Malava School of thought as Vidyānātha, Kumāraswamin and the rest. Actually, Kuntaka Dhananjaya, Dhanika, Mahimā and also Bhoja were never in doubt regarding the basics of the nature of rasa. Only such theorists as Rāmacandra, Gunacandra, Vidyanatha, Kumāraswamin, or even the handsome jain monk Siddhicandra had some misconceptions concerning the true nature of rasa. For the present we will consider what V. has to say on this topic.
V. begins the Ch. III. of his S.D. with the words :
atha kóyam rasa ity ucyate -
"vibhāvena'nubhāvena
vyaktaḥ sañcāriņā tathā, rasatām eti ratyā"diḥ
sthāyibhavaḥ sa-cetasām.'
This is clearly after M. (K.P. IV. 28). Viśvanatha observes that "vyaktaḥ" i.e. suggested basic emotion such as 'rati' - love, and the like, attains to the status of being 'rasa', through the agency of the determinants, the consequents and the

"

Page #174

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1349 assessories or accompanying subordinate feelings. This rati and other basic emotions stay in the cultured enjoyer (= reader or spectator)
V. observes that the "sātrvika bhāvas” being of the form of anubhāvas, are not seperately mentioned. We know that this is done by Dhanañjaya and some of his followers.
V. knows that this suggestion of rasa is not 'manifestation' which is technically of an object which has its independent existence even prior to its moment of manifestation. It is precisely for this reason that Bhatta Nayaka had objected to "abhi-vyakti” as advocated by Ā. So, to be theoretically clearer, V. suggests that in case of rasa, this abhivyakti is to be understood on the analogy of the formation of curd through milk. Here the sthāyin, when 'vyakta’ attains to a new form as that of 'curd which is not 'milk'. Actually A., Abhinavagupta and M. meant exactly this when they talked of the “abhivyakta sthāyin” being 'rasa'. Suggestion is not manifestation. 'Suggestion' is unique to art. It is "sui generis”; it is exclusive to art, and therefore it is 'lokóttara’ - Abhinavagupta had observed that as such a thing is not to be seen in the worldly context, it is therefore that it is termed “a-laukika”. But sadly Bhatta-Nayaka had not grasped this point and therefore he levelled a criticism on the 'abhivyakti of rasa', which he should not have done.
But V. has resorted not to the Vivarta-vāda' or the theory on illusory change, but to pariņāma-vāda to explain this fact of abhivyakti. He observes : (S.D., Vrtti, III. i; pp. 70, Edn. Chowkhambha SKT. Samsthan, Varanasī, '85; with Lakshmi Comm.) “vyakto dadhyādi-nyāyena rūpántara-pariņato vyaktīksta eva rasah. na tu dipena ghata iva pūrya-siddho vyajyate.” He quotes Locana to support his observation : “tad uktam locanakāraiḥ - "rasāḥ pratiyanta iti tv odanam pacati itivad vyavahāraḥ.” The idea is that when we say that a cook is cooking rice, it is only a metaphorical expression, because the rice-corns when they are cooked are termed rice. Thus 'sthāyī is "abhivyakta" - is only a metaphorical expression for the very process is to be understood as rasa-enjoyment. There is no distinction here between the process and object of suggestion. This is a unique phenomenon. So, V. says that 'rasa' is not pre-existent as is the case with a jar lying in darkess and manifested by a lamp. The process of abhivyakti of sthāyin is itself rasa. We may add here that the transformation of worldly objects that cause happiness or unhappiness in a form which offers only supreme bliss is also, so to say, “rūpántara-prāpti”.
It may be noted that this observation on the part of V., may be taken as his original insight in the nature of rasa. Even Abhinavagupta was at pains to explain this ‘abhivyakti' which is not strictly in the philosophical sense i.e. “dārśanika" sense

Page #175

1350
SAHṚDAYALOKA as is taken generally. That 'abhivyakti' has to be taken in a loose sense prompted the great Abhinavagupta to concede that rasa may be said to be of course in a loose sense, 'karya' or 'effected', or 'pratyeya' i.e. 'inferred'. Actually no dārśanika terminology is perfect enough for its being applied to this fact and process of rasa. It is for this that 'rasa' is termed to be 'a-laukika' i.e. 'extra-worldly'.
Viśvanatha then proceeds to explain the secret of the word "sthāyin" as read in this sutra. He says that in the expression "ratyādiḥ sthayibhāvaḥ", the term "sthāyibhāvaḥ" is already covered up by the mention of "ratyādiḥ", but it is separately mentioned precisely to bring home the fact that 'ratyadi', which are 'sthayin's in one context may become vyabhicārins in another context also. We know that Abhinavagupta had noted this fact while discussing the śānta-rasa in his A.bh. The substance is that whatever attains to the position of rasa is only to be taken as 'sthāyin'. - "atra ca ratyā"di-padópādānād eva prāpte sthāyitve, punaḥ sthāyi-padópādānam ratyā"dīnām api rasantareṣv a-sthāyitva-pratipādanā'rtham." (vṛtti, S.D. III. i., pp. 71, ibid)
V. then proceeds to observe (pp. 71, ibid): "asya svarupa-kathana-garbha āsvādana-prakāraḥ kathyate." i.e. The mode of enjoyment, which is having the narration of its nature inherent in it, is being stated." The Laxmi țikā explains (pp. 71, ibid) - "svarūpa-kathanam garbhe yasya saḥ, āsvada-prakāraḥ anubhavā"kāraḥ āsvada-prakāra ity aupacārikaḥ prayogaḥ, āsvādā'bhinnatvāt."
Viśvanatha observes (S.D. III. 2, 3, pp. 71, ibid)
"sattvódrekad a-khanda svaprakāśānanda-cinmayaḥ, vedyántara-sparśa-śūnyo
brahmā"svāda-sahodaraḥ - 2 lokóttara-camatkāra-prāṇaḥ
kaiścit pramātṛbhiḥ
svä"käravad abhinnatvena
ayam āsvādyate rasaḥ." - 3
Rasa is relished as non-different from one's own self, according to some connoisseurs. It has extra-worldly supreme delight - camatkāra as its life breath. It is akin to the taste of Brahman the supreme spirit. When it is being tasted, the consciousness concerning other worldly objects evaporates for the time being. On account of the exuberance of 'sattva', rasa, of the form of consciousness, supreme

Page #176

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1351 joy, light and having no parts, is enjoyed by the connoisseurs. Rasa is said to be of the nature of boundless bliss - ‘nirbharā"nanda', and hence while its being experienced, there is no knowledge of the difference between knowledge and the object of knowledge. Hence it is termed 'vedyár -sparsa-śünya', and also "brahma" - ā-svāda-sahodara."
V. observes further in the vștti that mind when not in contact with 'rajas' and 'tamas', is termed "sattva". Thus 'sattva' is an internal quality which takes one away from objects that are externally cognised. The exuberance of 'sattava' stiffles 'rajas' and 'tamas' and manifests itself. The cause behind this happening is the study of poetry of extra-ordinary nature.
By ‘akhanda' or 'one not admitting parts', is meant that it is one cognition offering happy experience wherein the cognition of vibhāvādis and ratyādi form an identical unit, an integral whole. They are not cognised in parts. It is 'svayamprakāśa' in a sense, says V., to be explained later. When it is said to be 'cinmaya', the suffix 'mayat' is indicative of its own form; i.e. it is of the form of consciousness itself.
'Camatkāra' is said to be the life of rasa. It is extra-worldly, i.e. lokóttara. Abhinavagupta has given the name of 'camatkāra' to a cognition-samvit-which is free from all obstacles - "sakala-vigna-vinirmukta-samvit." Visvanātha explains that the expansion of consciousness of the sāmājika, which is 'vismaya' or exceptional delight full of extra-ordinary suprise, is termed 'camatkāra'. That only is the life of rasa-experience. - (vrtti, S.D. III. 3, pp. 72 ibid) : "camatkāras' citta-vistāra-rūpo
navā'para-parvāvah." To support this he quotes an expression of one Nārāyana, his fore-father. Accordingly 'camatkāra' is the essence of rasa. At the centre of this, therefore stands 'adbhutarasa' or 'wonderful rasa. Hence Nārāyana accepts only the 'wonderful as 'rasa' :
"rase sāras camatkārah sarvatrā'py anubhūyate, tac camatkāra-sāratve sarvatrā'py adbhute rasaḥ. tamäd adbhutam evā"ha
krti nārāyaṇo rasam." By ‘kaiścit' - "by someone" is meant by those who have accumulated merits in past births. Explaining “svādaḥ kāvyártha-sambhedad ātmā”nanda-samudbhavaḥ,"

Page #177

1352
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
V. observes that by this it is suggested that rasa is identical with the fact of relishing. So when it is said that "rasa is enjoyed”, it is only a metaphorical expression for the difference between the object of relish and the activity of relish is only imaginary. The Laxmi commentory observes that the metaphor here is to be understood as in case of the expression viz. "the head of Rāhu". (pp. 74, ibid)
Viśvanātha has suggested that rasa is “svākāra-vad abhinna.” Mammața, while explaining the views of Abhinavagupta uses the same terminology. In the 'vivști' commentary, explaining this point, Tarkavāgāśa (pp. 73, ibid) observes that though the soul and body are different and yet their oneness is mentioned in such expressions that, "I am fat”, in the same way, rasa is relished in the absence of the basic difference between the enjoyer and the enjoyed and yet it is said, “rasa is enjoyed (by me)", etc. As in case of the perception of a jar, the difference is projected when it is said, “I know (a jar)” etc., here in rasaconsciousness this difference is not projected because there is non-difference between 'rasa' and its apprehension. This is the essence of the expression "svā”kāravad abhinna."
Or, it can be explained in a different way also. It is like this. Just as the philosophers who uphold 'pariņāma-vāda', do not accept difference between knowledge and its object, in the same way 'rasa' and its "āsvāda" or tasting are non-different, i.e. are absolutely identical.
Viśvanātha presents the epistemological observation concerning the nature of rasa, under the influence of Abhinavagupta and Mammața. S.D. III. 20-28 discuss this point. They read as :
“nā'yam jñāpyaḥ, sva-sattāyām pratīty avyabhicārataḥ, yasmād esa vibhāvā"disamūhā'lambanā”tmakaḥ. (III. 20 S.D.) tasmān na kāryah, no nityaḥ, pūrva-samvedanójjhitaḥ, a-samvedana-kāle hi na bhāvópy asya vidyate.* (S.D. III. 21)

Page #178

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1353 (* pp. 88, ibid has this foot-note here :
"na cā'nādir anantóyam anityaḥ sambhaved rasaḥ, asya bhānam a-bhānañ ca
carvaņā-vasataḥ param.” carvaņāyām satyām nivșttāyām ca, rasasya “tadā bhānam a-bhānañ ca aviruddham.” ity api mūla-pāthaḥ kvacit kvacid upalabhyate.)
nā'pi bhavişan, sākṣādānandamaya-sva-prakāśa-rūpatvāt, kārya-jñāpya-vilaksana-bhāvān no vartamānópi. (III. 22, S.D.) vibhāvā"di-parāmarśavişayatvāt sacetasām, parā”nanda-mayatvena samvedyatvād api sphutam. (III. 23 S.D.) na nirvikalpam jñānam tasya grāhakam isyate, tathābhilāpa-samsargayogyatva-virahān na ca. (III. 24 S.D.) savikalpaka-samvedyaḥ sāksātkāratayā na ca, paroksas tatprakāso nā'parokṣaḥ śabda-sambhavāt. (III. 25). tasmād alaukikaḥ satyam vedyaḥ sahşdayair ayam, pramānam carvanaivátra svábhinne vidusām matam. (III. 26 S.D.) nişpattyā carvaṇasyā'sya nispattir upacāratah, a-vācyatvā"dikam tasya

Page #179

1354
SAHRDAYĀLOKA vakṣye vyañjana-rūpaņe. (III. 27 S.D.) ratyā"di-jñāna-tādātmyād eva yasmād raso bhavet, atósya sva-prakāśatvam
a-khaņdatvam ca siddhyati.” (III. 28 S.D.) (pp. 86-93, ibid) -
The substance of the above nine karikás is understood as follows. But prior to that it may be noted that as compared to M. or Abhinavagupta himself, V. has admirably summerised the wisdom of the Kashmir School of thought in flowing and lucid karikās, the substance of which proceeds as -
Rasa is not an object of knowledge, i.e. it is not knowable or jñāpya, as it is never absent from its own cognition. When rasa is there it is invariably cognised. This is not so with reference to physical objects such as a jar and the like, which, in the absence of light or revealer, ceases to be an object of cognition. In short, rasa is ‘pari-passu' with its apprehension. It does not exist beyond the existence or scope of its own apprehension. Physical objects such as a jar, even though existing, may not be apprehended.
Rasa can not be said to be of the nature of physical effect i.e. it is not 'kārya' or 'caused' either: Rasa can not be said to be caused' or kārya, because it is cognised along with the cognition of the combination of the vibhāvā”dis. If rasa were caused by the vibhāvā"dis then its cognition would continue even after the cognition of vibhāvā”dis is over. But this is not so. As Abhinavagupta has put it, rasa is “vibhāvā"di-jīvitā'vadhiḥ” - i.e. rasa is apprehended neither a moment before or after the cognition of vibhāvā”dis. Thus if it were “kārya” or caused, during the apprehension of rasa, the cognition of vibhāvā”dis should cease. The karana-jñāna and kārya-jñāna are never simultaneously cognised. The knowledge of the application of sandal-paste and the knowledge of the feeling of happiness that results from the former are sequential and never simulataneous. But rasa is simultaneously cognised in the same breath as when the vibhāvā"dis are also cognised. Thus rasa-bodha has no 'vibhāvā"di-jñāna' as its cause.
Rasa, says Viśvanātha, can not be said to be 'nitya' or eternal, which is ‘anādi' and 'ananta' i.e. which has neither beginning nor end. Rasa can not be ‘nitya' for we do not apprehend it in moments prior to the apprehension of vibhāvā"dis. Thus as it is 'bereft of prior cognition' - "pūrva-samvedanójjhita", it can not be said to be

Page #180

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1355 nitya. Actually when vibhāvādi-s are not cognised, rasa is not experienced as such, i.e. it does not seem to exist in the absence of the cognition of vibhāvā"dis. If a thing is ‘nitya', it continues to exist even in the absence of our apprehending the same.
Again, rasa can not be said to be a future entity i.e. that which is to come into existence in future or that which is to be apprehended in times to come. This is not so because rasa is of the nature of an entity made of bliss and light to be experienced directly at a given moment. - "sākṣād ānanda-maya-prakāśa-rūpatvāt.”
Rasa, thus, being neither 'kārya' nor 'jñāpya' can not be said to be 'vartamāna' i.e. present at a given moment. Rasa can not be said to be existing at a given moment like a jar or a piece of cloch (ghaça or paca). The Laxmi çikā (pp. 88, ibid) explains this point as under : "nanu tarhi rasasya vartamānarvam eva angikriyatām ity āśankya samādhatte - "kārya-jñāpyety adi." raso nā'pi ghataparādivad vartamāno vidyamānarūpah siddha iti bhāvah. kāryam janyam, jñāpyam janyabodha-visayībhūtam, tayor vilaksana-bhāvād apūrvatvāt. vartamānasya vastunaḥ, kārya-jñāpyā'nyataratva-niyamād iti bhāvaḥ. itaḥ prāg eva kāryatvam jñāpyarvam ca rasasya na ity uktam. evañ ca, janyo ghatahjñāpyópī'ti vartamānatvam tatra, a-janyo'pyākāśo jñāpyaś ca iti vartamānatvam; tatrā'pi raso na janya uta na jñāpya iti no vartamāno'pi iti kārikā”sayaḥ." .
The apprehension of rasa, observes Viśvanātha, is neither ‘nir-vikalpa' nor 'savikalpa'; i.e. its apprehension is neither non-determinate nor determinate. In nirvikalpajñāna or non-determinate perception, there is no knowledge of any relation whatsoever. In Rasa-cognition, however, the collection of vibhāvā"dis or vibhāvā"diparāmarśa' is cognised. The viśista-vaiśistya-sambandha is cognised. Nirvikalpajñāna is said to be such where any relation is not noticed. In case of rasa-cognition, the apprehension of vibhāvā"dis and its relation with rasa-bodha are cognised. Lakshmi tikā observes (pp. 89, ibid) - "nirvikalpakam jñānam samsarga-anavagāhijñānam, tasya rasasya grāhakam visayatānirūpakam nesyate; raso nirvikalpajñāna-visayo na iti bhāvaḥ. tat sādhayati hetu-dvayena-vibhāvā”dīnām parāmarso visista-vaiśistyā'vagāhi-jñānam sambandha iti yāvat, visayo viśesya-rūpeṇa jñeyo yasya tasya bhāvas tasmāt.” The idea is that rasa which is ‘sva-prakāśa-rūpa' is the object of itself only - "sva-prakāśa-rūpasya svena eva visayîkaraṇād, iti bhāvah.”
Another point is that nirvikalpaka-jñāna is "nisprakāraka". No dharma' is cognised here in form of "prakāratā". But as rasa is of the nature of highest-bliss, - "paramānandmaya", 'ānanda-mayatva' is cognised in it as 'prakāratā'. So, rasabodha can not be held to be 'nir-vikalpaka', or non-determinate.

Page #181

1356
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Rasa can not be termed to be 'sa-vikalpa-samvedya' i.e. an object of determinate knowledge either because there is absence of the suitability of contact with abhilāsā - The Lakşmi ţikā explains (pp. 89, ibid) : "hi tathā hi sa-vikalpakasamvedyānām ghara-pațā”dīnām vacana-prayoga-yogyatā - "ayam ghara' iti, abhilāşa-vyavahāra-yogyatā, tat kāvyastha-śabdena asti iti śesaḥ. vyangyatvena rasasya tu na tathā ity arthaḥ.” The idea is that whatever are the objects of determinate knowledge are capable of being expressed through words directly such as ‘ghata' or a 'jar', 'pata' or a piece of cloth etc. But in case of 'rasa' this sort of capacity of being expressed directly by words is absent, 'Rasa' cannot be named. It is indescribable or “a-nirvacanīya”.
It can not be said to be 'paroksa' i.e. 'in-direct as it is directly felt, "säksātkārataya”. It is neither 'a-paroksa' i.e. 'direct' because rasa-pratīti is caused directly by words in poetry.
It is precisely for this situation, observes Viśvanātha, that rasa-apprehension has to be classed as 'a-laukika' i.e. extra-worldly. It is in fact apprehended by men of taste. The proof-pramāna-for this is the relish-carvana-of rasa by the experts. This 'carvanā' is 'sva-abhinna' i.e. not different from its self, i.e. the object. In short in this process of relish or enjoyment there is no virtual difference between the process of relishing and the object of relishing. 'Carvaņā’ itself, is ‘āsvādana'. 'Rasa' and its 'āsvāda' are absolutely one and the same.
Now, the problem is that if rasa is held to be 'sva-prakāśānanda-samvit-maya', then how is its 'anubhūti' brought about ? How is it that the rasa-sūtra of, Bharata talks of its 'nispatti' i.e. of its being 'caused as an effect ?
"The answer is that it is said to be 'nispatti' on account of the process of relishing being caused. Actually 'rasa' is said to be 'nitpanna' or 'caused' only metaphorically. Viśvanātha observes : (vrtti - S.D. III. 27, A, pp. 92, ibid) : "yady api rasā'bhinnatayā, carvanasyā'pi na kāryatvam, tathā'pi tasya kādācitkatayā upacaritena kāryatvena, kāryatvam upacaryate.” Viśvanātha says that rasa 'being indescribable' will be shown while discussing vyañjanā -
"a-vācyatvā"dikam tasya
vaksye vyañjana-rūpaņe.” (S.D. III. 27B) By "ādi”, 'laksyatva' i.e. its (not) being an object of laksaņā or indication also will be discussed there only.

Page #182

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1357 Viśvanātha then picks up yet another point raised by the prima-facie view. The objection could be placed as follows : The objector says that if rasa is said to be the combination of rati etc. and vibhāvā"dis, then how can we accept 'sva-prakāśarva' i.e. self-manifestation of rasa, or also its a-khandatva i.e. non-divisibility ? - "nanu yadi mīlitā ratyā”dayo rasas tat katham asya sva-prakāśatvam, katham vā akhandatvam - ity āha." .
"raryādi-jñāna-tādātmyād eva yasmād raso bhavet, tato'sya sva-prakāśatvam a-khandarvam ca siddhyati.”
(S.D. III. 28, pp. 93, ibid) As 'rasa' is said to be absolutely identical with the knowledge or apprehension of ratya"di, its 'sva-prakāśarva' or the state of being self-evident and its indivisibility -'a-khandatva' stand proved. If the apprehension of ratya"di were different from the fact of manifestation, then only its sva-prakāśatva can be challenged. But it is not so, for the apprehension of ratyā"di combination is itself the apprehension of rasa. Viśvanātha observes (Vịtti, on S.D. III. 28, pp. 93) - "yad uktam - yady api rasa'nanyatayā carvanā'pi na kāryā, tathā'pi kādācitka-tayā kāryatvam upakalpya - tad ekā”tmani anādivāsanā-pariņati-rūpe ratyā”dibhāvépi vyavahāra iti bhāvah." . Eventhough carvaņā or the process of relishing also itself not being different from rasa, cannot be said to be of the form of an effect or kārya, but as it happens occasionally, i.e. as it happens only when poetry or art-form is presented and in itself is not a routine occurrence in this work-a-day world, and hence only metaphorically it is said be a "kārya” i.e. 'caused'. 'Ratyā”di' being 'a-bhinna' or non-different from 'carvanā', is also said to be 'kārya' metaphorically. This 'ratyādi' is the result of the impressions or vāsanā having no beginning. Therefore also it is said to be 'kārya' only metaphorically. Viśvanātha quotes from the A.bh. and observes : “abhinno'pi sa pramātrā vāsanópanīta-ratyādi-tādātmyena gocarīkrtaḥ.” Those who do not accept the sva-prakāśatva of jñāna or 'bodha', observes Visvanātha, will be punished by the Vedāntins. As 'rasa' is identical with its apprehension - tādātmyād eva - its non-divisibility or 'akhandatva' also stands proved. Rati or other basic emotions and the vibhāvādis connected with them are collected by different cognitions individually to begin with, but later they are all fused into one and are cognised as identical and rise to the status of rasa

Page #183

1358
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Viśvanātha here quotes some samgraha-kārikā :
"vibhāvā anubhāvāśca sāttvikā vyabhicāriņaḥ, pratīyamānāḥ prathamam
khandaśo, yanty akhandatām.” He further observes :
“paramárthatas tv akhanda eva ayam vedānta-prasiddha-brahma-tattva-vad veditavyah" iti ca.
Viśvanātha also discusses one subtle point in his vștti on. S.D. III. 3 (pp. 74, ibid) :
He observes: "nanu etāvatā rasasya ajñeyatvam uktam bhavati iti vyañjanāyāśca jñāna-višeşatvād dvayor aikyam āpatitam -
"svajñānenā'nya-dhīhetur siddher'the vyañjako mataḥ, yathā dīpónyathābhāve
ko višesosya kārakāt ?". ity ukta-diśā, ghata-pradīpavad vyangya-vyañjakayoḥ pārthakyam eva iti katham rasasya vyangyatā ? - iti cet... (pp. 74, 75, ibid) -
The idea is how is rasa experienced when its āsvāda is said to be svaprakāśānanda-samvit-maya ? Vyañjanā is also a type of knowledge or apprehension and so it has to be deemed as identical with rasa-bodha. So, how can rasa be said to be suggested or vyañjita ? Vyangya-vyañjaka-bhāva is possible only between two different i.e. non-identical objects as in case of a 'ghata' and 'pradīpa'. The lamp by revealing itself also reveals the jar, which exists prior to revelation. Hence, lamp is said to be the revealer or vyañjaka or manifestor. It this is not held so, i.e. if the difference between the manifestor and manifested is not accepted, how can we distinguish between the manifestor and a "kāraka” hetu or "cause" ? In short there will not be any difference between a vyañjaka-hetu and a kāraka hetu.
In reply to this objection, Viśvanātha quotes from A.bh. viz. "vilaksana evā'yam krti-jñapti-prabhedebhyaḥ svādanā”khyaḥ kaścid vyāpāraḥ.” (pp. 75, ibid)
i.e. “This process of relish is totally different from both causation and manifestation.” Precisely for this, it is termed 'rasana', 'āsvādana', 'camatkarana' etc.; terms which are exclusive by themselves. Viśvanātha observes that as we are intent upon the usage of terms other than abhidh, etc. (i.e. laksanā also), we have called it to be 'suggested':

Page #184

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1359 "abhidhā”di-vilaksaņa-vyāpāra-mātra-prasādhana - grahilair asmābhī rasā"dīnām vyangyatvam uktam bhavatīti." (pp. 75, ibid)
Viśvanātha observes that rasa is not vācya' i.e. directly stated, not is arrived at by purport i.e. 'tātparya'. He has discussed this while treating vyañjan, and we have examined it in our chapter on vyañjanā. He also, following Abhinavagupta holds rasa to be of the nature of pure bliss i.e. "ananda' and rejects the talk of unhappiness following “karuna' etc. In short, he does not believe in the 'duḥkhamayatva' of Karuna. As for the substratum of rasa also, he follows Abhinavagupta and holds that only the sāmājika i.e. a cultured critic or man of taste is the substratum of rasa. The sthāyin in a sahrdaya attains to the position of rasa with the help of vibhāvā"dis. Rasa is not acceptable to him with reference to 'anukārya' or 'anukartā' i.e. the original character or the actor. If for the sake of argument, it is said that the actor enjoys rasa, then for that moment the actor is to be deemed as the sāmājika or enjoyer, observes Viśvanātha. The Sāmājika i.e. the man of taste, while enjoying art, has no consciousness of the difference between ‘anukārya' and 'anukartā', and for this reason also rasa cannot be said to be enjoyed by either the anukārya or the anu-kārtā. Viśvanātha explains that the rasaexperience derived by the 'sāmājika' is due to the process of 'sādhāranīkarna' i.e. generalisation' or better say, 'de-individualisation'. He observes (S.D. III. 9-10, pp. 79, ibid):
"vyāpāro'sti vibhāvā"der nāmnā sādhārani-krtiḥ, tat-prabhāveņa yasyā"san pāthodhi-plavanādayaḥ. (S.D. III. 9) pramātā tad abhedena
svātmānam pratipadyate, nanu katham manusya-mātřasya samudra-langhanā”dau utsāhódbodha, ity ucyate -
utsäha"di samudbodhah sādhāranyā'bhimānataḥ, nặnām api samudrā"dilanghanā”dau na dusyati. (S.D. III. 10)

Page #185

1360
SAHRDAYĀLOKA ratyādayo'pi sādhāranyenaiva pratīyanta ity āha -
sādhāranyena ratyādir
api tadvat pratīvate." Visvanātha explains that there is a power of vibhāvā"dis called 'sadhārani-krti' by name. By the strength of it, the crossing of an ocean, or controlling an ocean etc. becomes possible. With the help of this, the sāmājika or pramāta identifies himself with Rāma etc.
To a question that how can any (i.e. all) human-beings, afford to have the zeal to cross an ocean etc., the answer is that such an "utsāha' or zeal for a superhuman feat such as crossing an ocean becomes possible in case of anybody through the power of this 'sādhāranya' i.e. generalisation. Thus, if men, i.e. ordinary human beings deem themselves as capable of crossing an ocean, it does not incur any blemish because all are charged or tranformed by this 'sādhāranya'. Love etc., i.e. ratyā"di of the original character such as Rāma and the like are also experienced by all spectators or enjoyers of art, by the force of "sādhāranya". ..
Viśvanātha observes that the feeling of love etc., taken personally i.e. svātma-gatatvena, i.e. taken as referring to an individual, will cause shame, uneasiness etc. with reference to individual culture of the enjoyer. If it is held that ratyā”di i.e. love etc. are with reference to someone else - "paragatarvena", then no relish will result - "a-rasyatā"pātah". It is through this power, of 'sadhāranya' that all are, as it were involved in whatever is presented and the result is rasa or enjoyment.
The vibhāvā”di-s, he observes, are also experienced in a generalised form, to begin with. The enjoyer - sāmājka-does not experience the vibhāvā"dis as connected or not connected personally with him, or with someone else, and in the enjoyment of rasa, there is no determination concerning the nature of the vibhāvā"dis, i.e. it can be said with precision that they either belong to or do not belong to the self of the enjoyer or someone else. Viśvanātha observes : (S.D. III. 12, pp. 81, ibid) :
“parasya na parasyéti maméti na maméti ca, tadā”svāde vibhāvā”deḥ paricchedo na vidyate." (S.D. III. 12)

Page #186

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1361
If it is asked that how can these vibhāvā"dis be held as 'a-laukika' or extra ordinary?, then it is stated (S.D. III. 13, pp. 81, ibid) -
vibhāvanā"di-vyāpāram alaukikam upeyuṣām,
a-laukikatvam eteṣām
bhūṣaṇam na tu dūṣaṇam.
'adi'sabdad anubhava-sañcaraṇe. tatra vibhāvanam ratyā"der viseṣena asvädánkuraṇa-yogyatā-nayanam. anubhāvānam evambhūtasya ratyā"deḥ samanantaram eva rasă"di-rūpatayā bhāvanam. sañcāraṇam, tathābhūtasyaiva tasya samyak caraṇam." - (pp. 83, vṛtti, S.D. III. 13)
These vibhāvā"dis attain to a power called 'vibhāvana' i.e. "asvada-yogyikarana" or making themselves suitable of being relished. This vibhāvana-vyāpārais a-laukika i.e. extra-ordinary, i.e. it is seen in the context of art only. This attainment of `vibhavana-vyapara is, so to say, an ornament a "bhisang", and no a blemish i.e. 'dūṣaṇa'. By 'ādi' in the term "vibhāvanā"di" is meant 'anubhavana' with reference to 'anubhavas' and 'sañcaraṇa' with reference to vyabhicārins. 'Vibhavana', as explained already, is 'making itself an object of relish', and this goes with the basic emotions such as 'ratya"di'. 'Anubhavana' is experiencing such. 'vibhāvita' - ratyä"di in form of rasa, simultaneously. 'sañcāraṇa' is supporting and enhancing 'paripustī-karana' of the basic emotions.
-
Viśvanatha takes an interesting note that worldly cause, effect and assessories are termed vibhāva etc., with reference to the apprehension of rasa, and they are all taken as "causes" - "kāraṇāny eva" only. The three taken together are to be understood as "cause" for 'rasa'-bodha. He observes: (pp. 82, ibid): (vṛtti, S.D. III 13; and S.D. III. 14)
"vibhāvā"dīnām yatha-samkhyam kāraṇa-kārya-sahakāritve katham trayāṇām api rasódbodhe karaṇatvam ity ucyate
"kāraṇa-kārya-sañcāri
rūpā api hi lokataḥ,
rasódbodhe vibhāvā❞dyāḥ
-
-

kāraṇāny eva te matāḥ." (S.D. III. 14)
If it is asked that in the rasa-experience if vibhāvā"dis are 'kārana'-cause, then how is it that there is identical cognition of vibhāvā"dis and rasa simultaneously?

Page #187

1362
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the answer is -
“pratīyamānah prathamam pratyekam hetur ucyate, tataḥ samvalitaḥ sarvo vibhāvā"dih sacetasām." prapānaka-rasa-nyāyāc,
carvyamāņo raso bhavet.” (S.D. III. 15) yathā khanda-maricā"dīnām sammelanād apūrva iva kaścid āsvādah prapānakarase sañjāyate, vibhāvā"di-sammelanād ihā'pi yathā ity arthaḥ. .
The idea is that prior to rasa-apprehension all vibhāvā”dis are said to be "cause", with reference to ratyā"di. After this prior individual cognition, through the power of vyañjanā they get inter-mixed. On the analogy of "pra-pānaka-rasa" i.e. a beverage made of suger, black pepper etc. and other ingredients, the whole complex becomes such in which particularity of these factors melts into one homogenity and the whole is relished as one indivisible unit. This relish is such in which even the separate identity of the process of relish and the object of relish is not preserved.
To a question that if the three - i.e. vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicărin - taken together cause rasa then how is it that we have instances of poetry with rasa, where only one or two of these are seen ? The answer is that whatever is seen apparently missing is implied and thus is imagined to be there.
The sāmājika experiences rasa on account of the ratyā"di planted in him in form of impressions. This 'vāsanā' is two-fold viz. 'idānīntani' i.e. "present" and 'prāktanī - belonging to past birth. In the absence of the former, even the Mimāmsakas will be able to enjoy rasa, and in the absence of the latter even the sāmājika - the cultured - will fail to enjoy rasa : S.D. III. 8b reads as : “na jāyate tadā"svão vină ratyā"di-vāsanām." - vāsanā ca idānīntani prāktani ca, rasā"svādahetuh; tatra yady adya na syāt tadā śrotriya-jaran-mīmāmsakādīnām api sa syāt. yadi dvitiya na syāt tadā yad rāginām api kesäñcid rasódbodho na drśyate, tanna syāt. uktañ ca, dharmadattena -
sa-vāsanānām sabhyānām rasasyā"svādanam bhavet nirvāsanās tu rangāntahkāstha-kudy'āsma-sannibhāh.”
(S.D. III. 8, & Vrtti, pp. 78, 79, ibid).

Page #188

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and.....
1363 Thus Visvanatha has explained the essence of rasa-experience in a neat and lucid fashion, following the lead of the three greats - viz. Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata.
Bhānudatta in his Rasa-tarangini (Edn. Grantha Ratna Mālā, 1987-'88; also with Hindi Intro. Trans. etc.) deliberates over the process of rasa-realisation. For him, the sthāyibhāva attained to perfection, with the help of vibhāva, anubhāva, sättvika-bhāva and vyabhicări-bhāvas, is rasa. Or, that where the mind reposes with the help of sthāyin and vibhāvādis, is rasa. Or, the impression - vāsanā' of the enhanced 'prabuddha' - sthāyin, is rasa: (pp. 103, ibid) - "vibhāvā'nubhāvasāttvika-vyabhicāri-bhāvair upanīyamāna-paripurnah sthāyibhāvo rasyamāno rasah. bhāva-vibhāvā'nubhāva-vyabhicāri-bhāvair mano-viśrāmo yatra kriyate, sa vā rasah. prabuddha-sthāyibhāva-vāsanā-vā rasaḥ.” The mention of sāttvikabhāva, perhaps under the influence of the DR. and the Mālava school of thought could also be due to the fact that for him rasảnukūla-vikāra or bhāva is two-fold. Accordingly two types of vikāra' are accepted by him; one 'antara' and the other "sarira" or external. The internal change refers to sthāyin and vyabicārin and the external vikāra or change covers the 'sātrvika' and 'anubhāva'.
Bhănudatta has attempted a threefold explanation of rasa. According to the first explanation the sthāyin raised to perfection with the help of vibhāvā”dis is rasa. This could be under Lollata's influence. In the other explanation, he has called, 'rasa' to be 'the poise, mental-poise' i.e. 'mano-viśrāma'. We know that Bhatta Nayaka and Abhinavagupta have used terms such as “laya, samāpatti, bhoga, viśranti”, etc. This could have influenced Bhānudatta here. According to the third explanation, rasa is the impression or vāsanā of the prabuddha-sthāyin or enhanced basic emotion. We know that Lollata has suggested that the sthāyin staying in form of permanent impression, when enhanced, is termed 'rasa'. But Bhānudatta has something else to be conveyed here. 'Vāsanā of sthāyin and its enhancement' is the order in Lollata. Here the order is reversed. So, Bhānudatta's approach is different. But it is clear that attempting three definitions or
tions suggests that Bhānudatta follows nobody's lead, but goes for his own separate identity, which to us looks rather confused. 'Confusion' is no identity for us; whereas 'logical fusion' could be one. Again, Bhānudatta uses the term "upaniyamāna” and not "vyajyamāna”. He also talks of eight rasas, following Bharata, and also of the nispatti or birth of (vikrti) rasas from (prakrti) rasas.
Bhānudatta perhaps sides with those confused thinkers like the authors of the Nārya-darpana, and Siddhicandra, the authors of "Kāvya-prakāśa-Khandana”, who

Page #189

1364
SAHRDAYĀLOKA accept 'rasa' at both the levels i.e. at the "laukika" or worldly context, and also at the "a-laukika" or extra-ordinary i.e. art.context. We know that the Kashmir tradition accepts rasa only at the art context : "rasas tu nātya eva, na loke" . observes Abhinavagupta, ruling out any possibility of rasa experience at the gross i.e. worldly lovel. For Bhānudatta, rasa born of worldly context or "laukikasannikarsa” is 'laukika' i.e. worldly. Rasa born of 'alaukika-sannikarsa' is a-laukika. This latter is of the form of knowledge - jñāna-only and the former i.e. laukika is six-fold. But for us all this suggests a basic ignorance of the essential nature of 'rasa' which is beyond any physicality. 'Saksāt jñāna' or direct knowledge', for Bhānudatta follows from the experience of vibhāvā"dis and the apprehension of knowledge - "jñānabodha" - is accepted to result from the samskāras i.e. impressions left behind by past births. The a-laukika-rasa is again said to be threefold such as, “svāpnika", "mānorathika" and "aupanāyika”. Now this third variety is experienced in the camatkāra brought about by word and sense in poetry, and also is visualised in drama. However, for him, both laukika and a-laukika rasa are blissful or "ānand-rūpa" for him. This involves contradiction. For, those who accept rasa at laukika level, have got to take it as 'sukha-duhkhā"tmaka'. Of course, the N.D. of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra attempt an equillibrium between the two ends by saying on one hand rasa to be 'sukha-duhkhā"tmaka', but taking it to be "blissful" on the other, taking into account the effect resulting from the expertise of the poet and the actor - "kavi-nata-gata-kausala." But all this, to us involves clean contradiction and an unsuccessful attempt to patch up two ends which are opposite to each other in nature as light and darkness - "tamah-prakāśavadviruddha-svabhāva."
Thus Bhānudatta's attempt, like that of Rāma-candra and Gunacandra to attempt a fusion of two approaches to the nature of rasa, finds no takers after him, doomed as it was in its very birth, being logically and aesthetically unacceptable. He has also talked of eight rasa-drstis with reference to eight rasas, but this point gains importance only from the point of view of acting i.e. abhinaya. In his other work viz. "rasa-mañjari”, we get only the analysis of the vibhāvā”dis of the eight śộngārā”di rasas that he accepts.
Keśava Miśra in his Alamkāra-sekhara (A-se) while giving the definition of poetry observes that poetry is vākya or sentence, having rasa and it has to be 'śrta' and such which causes special happiness. - "kāvyām rasa"dimad-vakyam, śrutam, sukha-višesa-krt." - (pp. 2, 2nd NS. edn. Bombey, 1926, A.D.) By 'adi' in 'rasā"di' he suggests the presence of 'alamkāra'. In the second marīci, (pp. 6, Edn. ibid) he calls

Page #190

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1365 'rasa' to be the “soul” – ātmā of poetry. He observes :
“rītir uktis tathā mudrā vịttiḥ kāvyasya jīvitam, trividhasyā'pi doşās tu tyäjyāḥ ślāghāya dvaye gunāḥ. (II. i) alamkāras tu sobhāyai rasa ātmā, pare manah.” tat tad rasópakārinyas
tat tad desa-samudbhavāḥ.” (II. ii) (pp. 61, ibid) In the 20th Marīci, Keśava discusses the topic of rasa (pp. 68-77, ibid). He observes (pp. 68) - "rasa ātmety uktam. tasya yathā-ātmānam vină śarīram aprayojakam tathā rasam vinā kāvyam." As is body useless without soul, so is poetry of no purpose without rasa. He observes -
"sādhu-pāke vina svādyam bhojyam nir-lavaṇam yathā, tathaiva nīrasam kāvyam,
syān no rasika-pustaye." (pp. 69, ibid) “Tasty-food without proper cooking, or food without salt, so is poetry without rasa; not for the pleasure of the man of taste."
He further observes (pp. 69, ibid) : "tatra rasatvam angángi-bhāvā”pannasakala-vibhāvā”di sākṣātkāratvam. 'angā"ngi' iti samūhā”lambanavāraṇāya. rasatvam api jātir iti vayam.
Thus for Keśava, 'rasatva' i.e. the class of rasa is the fact of experiencing directly the total admixture or causal stuff made of all vibhāvā”di - i.e. vibhāva etc., which are related as principal and subordinate. He observes that the last feature is to avoide (equal) mixture of vibhāvā”dis. - This is to be understood as follows. The idea seems to be that the sthāyin is principal and the rest, i.e. vibhāvā"di are subordinate and 'rasa' results from this combination of principal and less important stuff. 'Rasa' is said to be 'jāti' or class, in view of the total number of eight or more individual rasas. Thus for Keśava, perhaps like Abhinavagupta 'rasa' basically is only one, a single unadulterated aesthetic effect, being called many in view of the different types of combinations brought about by various vibhāvā"dis i.e. determinants, consequents etc.

Page #191

1366
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
He seems to summarise the view of Mammata when he says : (pp. 69) - kecir tu -
"kāranenā'tha käryena sahakaribhir eva ca, vyaktatvam nīyamānas tu .
sthãyi-bhāvo rasah smetah.” "Kāraṇa' is such as anganā, i.e. a lovely lady (the ālambana), yauvana or youth (again, uddīpana), etc. “Kārya' is explained by sāttvika-bhāvas such as stambha, sveda etc. kāryāņi -
“stambham svedo'tha romāñcaḥ, svara-bhango'tha vepathuḥ, vaivarṇyam aśru-pralaya
ity asțau sāttvikā matāḥ.” Sahakāriņaḥ - udyānā"dayaḥ (These are the uddīpana-bhāvas).
Vyabhicāriņo glānyā”dayaḥ. He quotes almost from the DR. when he observes : (pp. 69, ibid) :
"vibhāvair anubhāvais' ca sättvikair vyabhicāribhih, aropyamāna utkarsam
sthãy bhāvo rasah smrtah.” Then he goes to mention nine rasas such as :
“śrngāra-hāsya-karuņaraudra-vīra-bhayānakāh, bībhatsádbhuta-śāntā”khyāḥ
kāvye nava rasāḥ smrtāḥ.” (XX. i.) (pp. 69, ibid) He further devides śrngära as 'sambhoga' and 'vipralambha'. The first is graceful union of two lovers. It is illustrated as based on the heroine as in "śünyam vāsagpham." etc. Keśava (pp. 70) then proceeds to give a four-fold classification of nāyikā. Sambhoga based on hero-nāyakāśraya is illustrated as in, "tvam mugdhāksi vinaiva kañculikayā..." etc. The hero though manifold is basically four-fold such as anukūla, dakșina, śatha and dhrsta.

Page #192

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1367 Vipralambha is two-fold such as pūrvánurāga, māna, pravāsa and karuņa (XX. 11, pp. 71). He goes on to discuss häsya, karuna etc. also. He also discusses, after tradition, the virodha and a-virodha of rasas (pp. 75, ibid)
Then he picks up nine sthāyins, the ninth being nirveda. (XX. 31, pp. 76, ibid) The sthāyin is defined exactly after the DR. Keśava observes (pp. 76, ibid):
viruddhair a-viruddhair vā bhāvair vicchidyate na yaḥ, ātmabhāvam nayaty anyān
sthāyī bhāvaḥ sa ucyate.” The DR. has "sa sthāyi lavanā”karah.” He then explains each sthāyin. He also explains 'anubhāva' as "vikāras tu bhāva-samsūcanātmakah." He goes on to explain sātrvikas and vyabhicārins etc. all after the DR. The vyabhicārin is explained as -
viseșeņā'bhitaḥ kāvye sthāyinam bhāvayanti ye, anubhāvā"di-hetūn tān
vadanti vyabhicāriņah.” (XX. 36, pp. 72, ibid) Thus vyabhicārins make for a special support of sthāyin in poetry and are the cause of the effects called anubhāvas. They are enumerated as thirty three after tradition. He talks of bhāva-babalatā also, but observes that each of these individually portrayed in poetry also are praiseworthy.
With this ends Keśava's treatment of rasa.
Jagannātha : In the first anana of his R.G., Jagannātha (= J.) enumerates fivefold dhvani (pp. 64, R.G.; Edn. Prof. R. B. Athavale, Pub. Uni. Book. Production Board, Guj., Ahd.; pp. 64). Dhvani for J. is basically two fold such as (1) abhidhāmüla and (ii) laksanāmúla. The first one is again three-fold such as rasa, vastu, and alamkāra-dhvani. The next one is two-fold such as arthāntarasamkramita vācya and atyanta-tiraskrta-vācya. Rasa-dhvani includes the subvarieties such as bhāva-dhvani, tad-abhāsa, bhávaśānti, bhāvodaya, bhāva-samdhi and bhāva-sabalatva. After thus making a brief introduction he straight away begins to discuss the
'rasa', which he terms to be the soul of rasa-dhvani, it being extremely charming (pp. 64, ibid) - "evam pañcā"tmake dhvanau parama-ramanīyatayā rasadhvanes tad ātmā rasas tāvad abhidhiyate.”

Page #193

1368
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
It may be observed that like Visvanātha and Mammata, his predecessors, J. also accepts the lead of Abhinavagupta in explaining the nature of rasa, though of course, he presents a discussion of other views also as presented by Abhinavagupta, and also adds some fresh views concerning rasa. Basically following Abhinavagupta, perhaps he has a fresher presentation and he not only explains the process of rasa-realisation, he goes on to present like Mammata, Hemacandra and Visvanātha, the whole discussion concerning the sthāyins, vyabhicărins, etc., the numbers of rasas, etc. all after Bharata and the Kashmere School of thought that he upholds. In short he treats all aspects concerning the so-called rasa-theory. In fact we are devoting a separate chapter on the process of rasa-nispatti and rasasvabhāva, in which we will try to analyse the views of Abhinavagupta, both with reference to his Locana and the Abhinavabhārati and the views of Mammata, and Jagannātha in this connection. So, for the present we will stop with only quoting J.'s concept of rasa as read in his R.G. (pp. 64, ibid) . "samucita-lalita-sanniveśa-cārunā kāvyena samarpitaiḥ, sahrdaya-hrdayam pravistais tadīya-sahşdayatāsahakstena bhāvanā-vićeșa-mahimnā vigalita-dusyantaramanītvā”dibhir alaukika-vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-sabda-vyapadeśyaiḥ śakuntalā”dibhir ālambanakāraṇaiḥ, candrikā”di-bhir-uddīpana-kāranaiḥ, aśrupātā"dibhiḥ kāryaiḥ, cintā"dibhiḥ sahakāribhiś ca, sambhūya prādurbhāvitena alaukikena vyāpārena tatkāla-nivartita-anandāmsā"varanā'jñānena ata eva pramusta-parimita-pramātặtvā"di-nija-dharmeņa pramātrā sva-prakāśatayā vāstavena nija-svarūpā"nandena saha gocaríkriyamanah prāg-vinivista-vāsanārūpo ratyā”dir eva rasah."
The substance of the above passage can be collected as follows : To begin with poetry is rendered beautiful by the presentation in it of the whole context material which is proper and beautiful.
The piece of beautiful poetry presents vibhāvā"di to rasikas. This material enters the heart of the cultured readers or rasikas. They are aided by the quality of sympathy i.e. sa-hrdayatā - of the rasikas. This results in a bhāvanā - a special feature - the power of which sees to it that the object described such as Sakuntalā, the wife of Düsyantā, leaves its identity of being the wife of a particular king. In short the 'bhāvanā' removes particularity of objects described. In short Dusyanta, or Sakuntalā leave their individual identity when presented in poetry and when they become objects of a special bhāvanā or poetic power or happenning. Now these objects that are described in poetry on account of their transformation whereby they loose their identity of being particular man, woman etc., are termed and

Page #194

"Concept of Rasa”, as seen in Anandavardhana and.....
1369 acknowledged as vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicărins. These are special terms which are not used in common parlance. They are a-laukika, so to say. Now these objects, originally particular Dusyanta, Sakuntalā etc., and now termed ālambanavibhāva, along with moon-light etc. serving as uddīpana-kāranas or enhancing factors, and with kārya, termed anubhāvas such as aśru-pāta or shedding of tears etc., and vyabhicārins or enriching subordinate feelings such as cintā, or brooding over the lover, etc., combine into a complete complex. With the help of vyañjanā i.e. a laukika power of poetry, the material stands to remove the ignorance of the sa-hțdaya. This ‘ajñānámśa' or layer of ignorance used to cover the ananda-amsa or the basic element of bliss in the consciousness of the enjoyer or sa-hrdaya. This results in the removal on the part of the enjoyer, of the parimita-pramātstva i.e. his limited ego (with all personal worldly limitations). Such a pramātā or enjoyer of poetry whose limitation of particularity are removed becomes conscious of the basic emotions such as rati etc. located in him in form of impressions engramed from previous births, along with the bliss of his own self which is self-manifest at that moment. This consciousness of de-limited emotions which are part of his pure self is termed rasa.
J. here quotes M. who has already stated : "vyaktaḥ sa tair vibhāvā”dyais sthāyi-bhāvo rasaḥ smộtah.” - i.e. Rasa is basic emotion suggested with the help of - vibhāva, anubhāva, etc. J. observes that by 'vyaka' is meant 'that which is the object of the process of 'vyakti' i.e. suggestion. This process of suggestion is of the form of consciousness with its cover of ignorance removed. :"vyaktaḥ vyaktivisayīkstaḥ. vyaktiś ca bhagnā"varaņā cit.” (pp. 64, ibid). J. goes to explain further that just as a lamp which is covered, enlightens the objects and itself when the cover is removed, in the same way the self-consciousness of the rasika or the cultured man of taste, causes to manifest ratyā"di basic permanent emotions vested as part of his self, along with the vibhāvā"dis. This self-consciousness not only manifests or suggests these emotions along with the vibhāvādis but it also manifests itself. (pp. 64, ibid):
“yathā hi sarāvā”dinā pihito dipas tan nivșttau sannihitān padārthān prakāśayati, svayam ca prakāśate, evam ātma-caitanyam vibhāvā”di-samvalitān ratyādīn." J. holds that ratyādi sthāyins being of the form of vāsanā or impressions, are attributes of the self i.e. antahkarana. The attributes of the antahkarana are manifested directly by self-consciousness and hence these ratyādi are called "sāksibhāsya”. This is accepted by all ālamkārikas and also the vedantins.“antaḥkarana-dharmāņām sākṣibhāsyatva - abhyupagateh.” (R.G., pp. 64, ibid).

Page #195

1370
SAHRDAYALOKA Vibhāvā"dis are also taken along with ratyādi to be manifested by selfconsciousness, i.e. the sākṣibhāsyarva of vibhāvā"dis is also accepted though they are not part of individual consciousness, but are external. But they are also said to be sāksi-bhāsya along with ratya"di on the analogy of physical objects such as horse etc. seen in a dream that become part of consciousness, or like the illusion of silver in mother of pearl.
J. further attempts an alternate explanation. In the first explanation it was explained that with the help of extra-ordinary causal factors such as vibhāvā"dis, an extra-ordinary power called carvaņā or āsvāda is caused which makes the sthāyin of the enjoyer its object. But in this second attempt this intermediate vyāpāra is dropped altogether and in order to frame a very short definition of rasa, a sort of correction is introduced in the process of rasa-experience. The new definition is that no newer vyāpāra called carvanā is generated by vibhāvā"dis, but along with the asvāda or taste, there is experience of 'ātmā”nanda' to the città-vrtti. Rasa is the name of this experience of atma banda or "bliss of soul”.
J. observes : (pp. 64, 64, ibid): "yad vā. vibhāvā"di-carvana-mahimnā sahrdayasya nija-sahşdayatāvaśonmişitena tat sthāyyupahita-sva-svarūpā”nandā”kārā samādhāv iva yoginas' cittavrttir upajāyate, tanmayıbhavanam iti yāvat. anando hy ayam, na laukika-sukhántara-sādhāraṇaḥ an-antaḥkarana-výtti-rūpatvāt.
ittham ca abhinavagupta-mammața-bhatrā”di-svārasyena bhagnā"varana-cidviśisto ratyā"dih sthāyi Bhāvo rasa iti sthitam."
The idea is : It may be said that on the strength of vibhāvā"di-carvanā i.e. chewing of determinants etc., (i.e. without accepting an intervening of an extraordinary vyāpara or function, but directly) the citta-vrtti of the sahrdaya, aided by the quality of one's own sa-hşdayatā or sympathy, attains to the form of the bliss of its own form which is befitting the enhanced sthāyin concerned in the case. This means that the mental attitude or citta-vịtti becomes blissful or anandamaya or 'tanmaya'. As in case of sa-vikalpa-samādhi or meditation with determinate cognition the mental attitude of a yogin takes the form of 'brahmā"nanda', i.e. it makes the brahma"nanda its object, i.e. it is not totally merged in brahman, same is the case here. The idea is that in this rasa-realisation activity, the cit upon the bliss accompanied by the sthāyin as its object, but it does not get merged in the bliss. This means there is a sort of distance - tāțasthya - between jñāta and jñeya. The rasika is necessarily conscious of the fact, while enjoying, that the particular rasa is very sweet to his taste. This consciousness is very much there and it is not efaced totally. Now, observes J., it has to be kept in mind, that this ananda'

Page #196

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1371 is not of the type of other enjoyment felt at ordinary parlance, because this ananda
ot of the type of feeling of happiness of the mind, but it is of the form of the self i.e. ātman itself.
Thus, according to Abhinavagupta or Mammata, rasa is that sthāyin which is fully manifested by self-consciousness after the removal of any covering whatsoever.
But J. finds difficulty in the above explanation also because he feels that even the above explanation is not in total harmony of the śruti text-viz., "raso vai sah." J. further observes : (pp. 65, ibid) :
"vastutas tu vaksya-māna-śruti-svārasyena ratyā”dy avacchinnā bhagnā"varanā cid eva rasah" - In fact, taking into account the śruti text (viz. raso rai sah) to be quoted later, the consciousness itself manifested in a form qualified by ratyā"di sthāyin, is itself rasa. And this rasa is of a special type. The idea is that in the earlier explanation it was stated that ratyādi sthāyin qualified by 'cit' or consciousness is rasa. Here it is stated that 'cit' qualified by 'ratyādi' is rasa. Thus this rasa has for its form a sort of speciality in form of a visesya' qualified by a 'višesana'. In normal language this can be explained as follows. There are two elements in the substance called rasa, and they are, (i) ratyādi sthāyin and (ii) "cit." The difference in these. two explanations concerns as to which of these two portions forms either the višesya i.e. qualified and the viśesana or qualification.
So, J. holds that either the 'caitanya' is taken as višesana or višesya, it is clear that taking into account this caitanya-amśa rasa becomes self-manifest or svayamprakāśa. But if the ratyā"di-amśa is taken into account, rasa will be 'anitya' and
ara-prakāśa': (pp. 65, ibid) : sarvathaiva câ'syā viếistā"tmano višesanam višesyam vā cid amśam ādāya nityarvam sva-prakāśatvam ca siddham. ratyādyamsam ādāya nityatvam sva-prakāśarvam ca siddham. ratyädyamsam ādāya tv anityatvam itarabhāsyarvam ca."
The enjoyment-carvanā - of this rasa (= asvāda) means the removal of the lid that covers the caitanya or consciousness : "carvaņā cā'sya cid-gata-āvaranabhanga-eva, prāg uktā; tad ākārā antahkarana-vrttir vā.” (pp. 65, ibid) - i.e. or, it is already stated that the mental state taking the shape of ratyā"di sthāyin is itself 'carvaņā' i.e. 'rasa-carvaņā”. This is different from the samādhi i.e. concentration or meditation of mind in which there is enjoyment of para-brahma after getting merged with it. This is so (= i.e. different), because the bliss of consciousnesscaitanya"nanda-associated with object such as vibhāvā”di-s, is the ālambana or
T
.

Page #197

1372
SAHRDAYĀLOKA support or visaya i.e. object in this carvaņā. In the sa-vikalpa samādhi pure brahman dissociated with external objects, is the ālambana. The difference between rasa-carvaņā and the savikalpasamādhi of the yogins, is only this much. Rasacarvanā is 'bāhya-visaya-sahita' and 'yogi-samadhi' is 'bāhya-visaya-rahita' : "iyam ca para-brahmā"svādāt samādher vilaksanā, vibhāvādi-visaya-samvalita-cidānandaālambanatvāt.” (pp. 65, ibid).
This carvaņā is caused only by the function of poetry (called vyañjanāfunction.) : "bhāvā ca kāvya-vyāpāra-mātrāt."
J. further elaborates as follows: If it is asked that what is the gurantee - or pramāņa in the statement that in that (rasa) carvanā there is consciousness of the element of happiness, then the reply is our retort i.e. counter question that what is the authority in accepting that there is consciousness of the element of happiness in samādhi or deep concentration also ? If it is said that in case of the latter (i.e. samadhi) there is an authority in the words of the Bhagavad-Geetā which observes : "sukham ātyantikam yat tad buddhi-grāhyam ati'ndriyam”, then we say that even in case of carvaņā-sukha also there are two supports, one such as the sști-vākyas viz. "raso vai sah." "rasam hy eva'yam labdhvā anandi-bhavati" (taittiriya upa. ānanda-vallī., anu. 7), and also the second viz. the experience (of bliss) by all the sa-hțdayas.
J. further observes that (pp. 65, ibid) : "yā iyam dvitīya-pakse tad ākāra-cittavstry atmikā rasa-carvanā upanyastā, sāśabda-vyāpāra-bhāvyatvāt śābdī. aparoksa-sukhā"lambanatvāc ca a-paroksā"tmikā. 'tarvam'-vākyaja-buddhivat. ity āhur abhinavaguptā"cārya-pādāḥ.”
The idea is that when it is stated that rasa-carvanā is of the form of 'ānandā”kāra-cittavṛtti' that carvanā, as it is caused by the vyañjanā-function of words, it is 'born of words' i.e. "śābdi”. Again as sāksāt-sukha or direct happiness is as base or ālambana, it can be said to be of the form of knowledge. As the knowledge brought about by the mahā-vākya viz. "tat-tvam-asi” is born of words in a sentence and therefore could be taken as 'śābda' or 'word-born', and as it is of the form of direct experience and is therefore 'direct' or 'a-paroksa', also same is the case with this rasa-carvan, which is both 'sabdi and 'a-paroksa'. This is the view of Abhinavagupta-pādā"cārya, says J.
After this J. discusses other views on rasa-nispatti such as those of Bhatta Nayaka and others. This we will pick up for discussion in the next chapter on 'rasarealisation' as explained by Abhinavagupta, Mammata and the rest. J. of course has

Page #198

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1373 his own original presentation. He also gives some other views not mentioned directly by his earlier masters, especially the views of 'The Navyas' or moderns. These moderns are not mentioned by name. But our impression is that contrary to the views as expressed by our guru prof. R. C. Parikh in his critical edition of the ‘Kavyaprakāśa-khandana' of Siddhicandra, we believe that the view of the moderns' was very much in circulation in the circle of literary critics in the times of J. But surely it was not Siddhicandra, as Prof. Parikh wants us to believe. On the contrary Siddhicandra seems to be posterior to J. as he seems to summerise the views as expressed in the R.G. But one thing is certain that the navyas were against taking rasa to be of the form of unaloyed bliss only.
They, believed that the nature of rasa is not absolute bliss', but is a sort of a mixture of happiness and unhappiness - i.e. "sukha-duhkhā"tmako rasah.” This trend was already noted in the A.bh. itself while explaining the ‘ādi' in "harşādīns ca adhigacchanti", the famous words of Bharata. But this view is directly articulated in the Natyadarpana of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, so far as available documents are concerned. The navyas were in favour of this. The navyas had other things also to say about rasa. This will be discussed in all details in the next chapter.
For the present in this chapter, we will now turn our attention to some other works on dramaturgy such as the Daśa-rupaka, the Nātva-darpana, the Bhăva-prakāśana, the Rasārnava-sudhākara, and The Nātaka-laksana-ratnakosa. Bhānudatta is taken up earlier for his work is not a work on dramaturgy, while Śāradātanaya is taken up here for his work is both a work on poetics as well as dramaturgy. We will also deal, by the end of this chapter with Rūpa and Jeeva Goswami's work as they have something special to say on rasa. We will begin with the Daśarupaka (DR.) of Dananjaya.
The DR. along with the commentary 'Avaloka' of Dhanika is a major work on dramaturgy after the NS. of Bharata. The alamkārikas that preceeded Anandavardhana, i.e. from Bhāmaha to Rudrata, had avoided a direct discussion on drśya-kāvya i.e. visual art-forms, and also a full discussion on rasa and topics that go with the same. Rudrata of course had something concerning rasa, nāyaka, nāyikā etc., but primarily his work also was not dedicated to dramaturgy and discussion on rasa in the centre. With the DR. and other works on dramaturgy mentioned above, a new trend is seen wherein dramaturgy is in focus as against poetics. Rasa of course is a major topic with these and we will pick up a critical presentation of what these works have to offer, especially concerning the topic of 'rasa'.

Page #199

1374
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The fourth flash of the DR. (Edn. The Adyar Library Series Vol. 97, '69; Prof. T. Venkatacarya, with Avaloka of Dhanika and Laghuţikā, of Bhatta-Nșsimha, and also, Edn. (Hindi) - Chawkhamba Vidya Bhavan, Chowk, Benares; '55, Dr. Bholashanker Vyas) begins with the remark : (pp. 167, ref.s are to the Adyar Edition) - atha idānim rasabhedaḥ pradarśyate -
"vibhāvair anubhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, ānīyamānaḥ svādyatvam
sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smộtaḥ." (DR. IV. i) . "sthāyi-bhāva or the basic emotion brought to the state of being tasted, with the help of vibhāva-s, anubhāva-s, sātrvikabhāva-s and 'vyabhi cari-bhāva-'s, is rasa.”
Contrary to Bharata, DR. makes a separate mention of the sättvika-bhāvas. Normally the Kashmir School of thought following Bharata chooses to include the - sāttvika-bhāvas in the anu-bhāvas; the former being more concerned with the mental or psychological aspects and the latter being more physical.
The Avaloka (pp. 167, ibid) observes : "vaksyamāna-svabhāvair vibhāvā'nubhāvavyabhicāri-sāttvikaiḥ kāvyópāttair abhinayópadarsitair vā, śrotr-preksakāņām antarviparivartamāno ratyä"dir vaksyamāna-laksanah sthāyī svāda-gocaratām nirbharā”nanda-samvid-ātmatām ānīyamāno rasaḥ. tena rasikāḥ sāmājikāḥ, kāvyam tu tathāvidhā"nanda-samvid-unmilana-herubhāvena rasavat, 'äyur ghrtam' ityā"di-vyapadeśavat.
It may be noted that Dhananjaya does not enter into the topic of how rasa is experienced from poetry or drama. It is Dhanika who elaborately rejects the case of vyañjanā as established by the great Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta representing what we term as the Kashmir School of thought. Dhanika has supported the case of tātparya as against vyañjanā. We have discussed his antidhvani and anti-vyañjanā approach under both tātparya and vyañjanā earlier. So, we will not get involved in that topic anymore but pick up the thread concerning rasa, the number of rasas, vibhāvā"di etc. as explained and accepted by Dhananjaya in the text of the DR. The DR. IV. 2 speaks of 'vibhāva' as two-fold :
"jñāyamānatayā tatra vibhāvo bhāva-poșakst,

Page #200

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1375 ālambanóddipanatva
prabhedena sa ca dvidhā." That which is known is 'vibhāva'. It sustains the bhāva. It is two-fold such as ‘alambana-vibhāva' and 'uddīpana-vibhāva'.
Dhanika explains (pp. 168, ibid, avaloka on DR. IV. 2) 'evam ayam', 'evam iyam' ity atiśayokti-rūpa-kāvya-vyāpārā”hita-viśista-rūpatayā jñāyamāno vibhāvyamānaḥ san ālambanatvena uddīpanatvena vā yo nāyaka”dir abhimata-deśakālā”dir vā sa vibhāvah
The substance is that we take the characters as depicted either in poetry or presented on stage in a drama, as they are, i.e. 'he is like this', or 'she is like this'. The description of characters in poetry or drama is of course, being poetic, is having a tinge of 'atiśayokti' i.e. extra-ordinariness about them. But through this extraordinary description the poet secures the particular form of his characters. The sāmājika or the cultured reader or spectator accepts the character of Rāma or Sīta, etc. to be as such i.e. "He (= Rāma) is like this”, or, "She (= Sītā) is like this" etc. Thus the agents which cause the sāmājika to have this apprehension are termed 'vibhāvas' and they are 'ālambana' or forming the very base, such as the hero or the heroine etc., and 'uddīpana' or enhancing agency such as the surrounding conditions consisting of say, a lovely garden, a moonlit-night, etc. etc. as the context may be. Dhanika quotes Bharata in support suggesting, “vibhāva is that the meaning of which is grasped." The two-fold vibhāva-s will be elaborated while discussing individual rasas, observes Dhanika.
Dhanika silences an objection here. He observes : (pp. 168-9; ibid) -
"amışām ca an-apekṣita-bāhya-satrvānām śabdópadhānād eva āsāditatadbhāvānām sāmānyā"tmanām sva-sva-sambandhitvena vibhāvitānām sākşad bhāvaka-cetasi viparivartamānānām ālambanā"dibhāva iti na vastusūnyatā. tad uktam bhartphariņā -
śabdópahitarūpāms tān buddher visayatām gatān, pratyakşam iva kamsā”dīh sādhanatvena manyate." - iti.
(V. P. Sādhana-samuddeśa - 5) saç sahasri-kştā'py uktam - ebhyās' ca sāmānyaguna-yogena rasā nispadyante." iti. (N.S., G.O.S., Vol. I. pp. 348)."

Page #201

1376
The substance of Dhanika's argument is :
The objector may say that the vibhāvā”di-s in poetry are limited to words only. They do not have a real physical existence. In drama also Rāma, or Mālinītața etc. are also unreal. Thus on account of their not being real, i.e. because of their vastuśūnyata, they are not directly cognised (i.e. pratyakṣa). Thus the vibhāvā❞di-s in kavya can not be associated with "jñāyamānatva". To this Dhanika's reply is as follows: Whatever is applicable with reference to vibhāvā❞di-s that are objects of worldly knowledge, is not applicable to vibhāvā"dis delineated in poetry or drama. With reference to worldly cognition the physical existence of a given object is expected.
But vibhāvā❞di-s in poetry do not require physical existence as a pre-condition. For, the apprehension of vibhāvā"di-s in poetry is brought about by words used in poetry and not by real objects. Again, the objects of worldly knowledge are only particular while those described in poetry are of 'sāmānya' or 'de-individualised' - form. These vibhāvas go with their individual rasas and move in the mind of the connoisseur in such a way that, as it were, he has direct knowledge. Marked with such special features such vibhāvas are either 'alambana' or 'uddipana'. The fact is that in the mind of the connoisseur this generalised - samanya-or- 'ideal' - form of vibhāvā"di-s is apprehended and hence they should not be taken as "vastu-sunya" i.e. unreal. When through words we apprehend some object metally or intellectually, it becomes as if such as "directly apprehended". Bhartṛhari also suggests the same thing when he says that, "when words such as 'Kamsa' are used in a sentence, not only the words are utterred but along with that these words make the form of 'Kamsa' etc. the object of our intelligence. Now these "buddhigata kamsa" etc. i.e. Kamsa etc., apprehended by intellect are accepted by us as if they are directly cognised and become 'karma', 'kāraka', etc. and thus are apprehended by us as jñāpaka' i.e. sadhaka - of our knowledge in form of agent, or object (i.e. kartā, karma), etc.
Bharata has also said the same thing when he observes that these vibhāvas, when generalised - "sāmānya-guna-yogena" - make for rasas.
The DR. IV. 3 observes that -

SAHṚDAYALOKA
"anubhavo vikāras tu bhāva-samsucana"tmakaḥ, hetu-kāryā"tmanoḥ siddhis
tayoḥ samvyavahārataḥ."

Page #202

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1377 'anubhāva' is that (external) indication which suggests the (basic) emotion. They are cause (i.e. hetu, vibhāva) and effect (= kārya, anubhāva) of rasa and as they are seen as such (i.e. cause, effect etc.) in worldly context, they are said to be established as such. Hence their definitions are not separately attempted.
Dhanika says that because these vibhāvas and anubhāvas (in poetry) are directly realised as hetu and kārya in worldly real context, they are established as hetu and kārya in art-context (i.e. poetry, drama etc.) also. He observes : (pp. 171, 172, ibid) : "tayor vibhāvā'nubhāvayor laukika-rasam prati hetu-kārya-bhūtayoh samvyavahārād eva siddhatvān na prthag-laksanam upayujyate. tad uktam"vibhā'vānubhāvau loka-samsiddhau loka-yātrā'nugāminau loka-svabhāvā'nugatvāc ca na prthag laksanam ucyate.” (N.S., G.O.S. Vol. I, pp. 348).
Dhananjaya at DR. IV 4 tries to explain as to why a 'bhāva' is so termed as "bhāva”. Why all i.e. sthāyin, anubhāva, sātrvika, and vyabicārins are termed 'bhāvas' to begin with ? DR. IV. 4 observes :
“sukha-duḥkhā”dikair bhāvair
bhāvas tadbhāva-bhāvanam;" In the first karikā i.e. DR. IV. i, along with 'vibhāva' and 'anu-bhāva', 'sātrvikas' and 'vyabhicārin-s' were also mentioned. The word 'bhāva' is used with all the three viz. sthāyin, sāttvika and vyabhicārin. So, here Dhananjaya feels it imperative to explain the basic term "bhāva". This is defined as - By the happiness or unhapiness as expressed by the 'anukārya' (i.e. original character) as depicted in poetry or drama, the sāmājika also feels similar happiness or unhappiness etc. in his heart.
heart is having the same feeling as expressed by the anukārya of poetry or drama. This identity of the bhāva of the anukārya with the bhāva of the sămājika is termed 'bhāva'. Dhanika observes : (pp. 172, ibid)
"anukāryā”śrayatvena upanibadhyamānaiḥ sukha-duḥkhā”di-bhāvais tadbhāvasya bhāvaka-cetaso bhāvanam, vāsanam bhāvah. tad uktam - 'aho hy anena rasena gandhena vā sarvam etad bhāvitam, vāsitam, iti. yat tu 'rasān bhāvayan bhāvah' iti, kaver antargatam bhāvam bhāvayan' iti (N.S. G.O.S. Vol. I., pp. 346) ca, tad abhinaya-kāvyayoḥ pravartamānasya bhāvaśabdasya pravsttinimitta-kathanam. te ca sthāyino vyabhicāriņaś ca iti vakşyamāņāḥ."
The substance of what Dhanika wants to convey here may be put as follows. The characters that are imitated in drama are real Rāma, Dusyanta etc. The poet depicts feelings of happiness, unhappiness etc. in these characters and they are

Page #203

1378
SAHRDAYĀLOKA presented by the actors on stage. When the feelings of these anukāryas are felt, i.e. when their bhāvanā/vāsanā is felt by the connoisseur, this bhāvanā is termed bhāva (bhāvaka-cetaso bhāvanam vāsanam bhāvah). Dhanika quotes the N.S. here in support. It is stated therein - "oh, by this rasa or gandha, (= fragrance), everything is, as it were, turned into bhāva i.e. bhävita. Just as an insence stick, when lighted, turns everything around fregrant, in the same way the happiness etc. of the character makes the spectator feel happiness etc. The heart of the sāmājika is, as it were, 'vāsita' i.e. rendered full of fregrance.
The term 'bhāva' is explained with the help of another etymology also. It is said,
an bhāvayan bhāvah". i.e. bhāva is such that makes the rasas possess those bhāvas, (i.e. they are bhāvita). It is also said, “Bhāva is one which equips the heart of the poet with that particular bhāva'. The ancient ācāryas have fielded these etymologies of 'bhāva'. The etymology given above (i.e. the first) therefore, cannot be accepted, says an objector. To this Dhanika's reply is as follows : These two etymologies (as cited in the N.S.) are for the currency of the term 'bhāva' with reference to acting and poetry. The etymology as attempted by Dhanika is with reference to the bhāva as is being experienced in the heart of the connoisseur. Thus the etymologies as presented by the NS. are not in contradiction of the one presented by Dhanika with reference to the sāmājika.
There is visaya-bheda in these views and hence no opposition. These bhāvas are sthāyins and vyabhicārins as will be shown later. DR. IV. 4b, 5a, explain the sāttvika-bhāva-s as,
"prthag bhāvā bhavanty anye anubhāvatve’pi sāttvikāḥ, (4b) sattvād eva samutpattes
tac ca tadbhāva-bhāvanam. (5a) Even though the sättvika-bhāvas are also anu-bhāvas, they are taken as different bhāvas. They are called 'bhāva', because they are derived from 'sattva' i.e. mental attitude. 'sattva' means experiencing the same feeling by the sāmājika in his heart, as is experienced by the anukārya i.e. 'rāma' etc.
Dhanika observes (pp. 173, ibid) : “para-gata duḥkha-harsa"di bhāvanāyām atyantánukūlā'ntah-karanatvam sattvam yad āha-"sattvam nāma manah prabhavam. tac ca samāhitamanstvād utpadyate. (N.S. G.O.S. Vol. I. pp. 374). etad eva asya sattvam yat duḥkhitena praharşitena vā aśru-romāñcā"dayo nirvartyante.

Page #204

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1379
tena sattvena nirvṛttāḥ sättvikāḥ. tad bhāva-bhavanam ca bhāvaḥ; tata utpadyamānatvād aśru-prabhṛtayo'pi bhāvāḥ, bhāva-samsūcanā”tmaka-vikārarūpatvāc ca anubhāvā iti dvairūpyam eteṣām."
The substance is as follows. 'Sattva' is that special quality of mind when the antaḥkarana or heart is filled with absolute identical or favourable response on account of unhappiness or happiness seen with reference to somebody else. It is said 'sattva' springs from mind. It is born of concentrated mind. It is the quality of sattva which makes for tears or horripilation when one is either unhappy or happy. Thus sättvika bhāvas are those that are displayed with the help of sattva i.e. extreme concentration of mind. Bhāva is explained as 'attaining that feeling of someone else'. Tears etc. as born of sattva (i.e. concentration of mind), are also termed anubhavas as they are signs suggesting this or that feeling. Thus sättvika bhāvas have a double role and hence are also anu-bhāvas as well.
DR. IV. 5b-6 describe the eight anubhavas such as stambha, pralaya, romāñca etc. DR. explains only stambha which is stupefication of limbs, and 'pralaya' as 'unconsciousness'. The rest, the DR. observes are absolutely clear and need not be explained.
The vyabhicārins are explained in the DR. IV. 7 as:
viseṣād ābhimukhyena
caranto vyabhicāriṇaḥ,
sthāyiny unmagna-nirmagnäḥ kallolā iva väridhau."
By 'visesa' is meant 'abhimukhya' i.e. in consonance with, in front of. So those that take place following the lead of the sthāyins are termed vyabhicārins. They are, like upsurging and falling waves in an ocean, also gathering strength and fading away only when respective sthāyi-bhāva is present.
Dhanika explains (pp. 174, ibid) "yathā vāridhau saty eva kallolā udbhavanti viliyante ca tad vad eva ratyā"dau sthāyini satyeva avirbhāva-tirobhāvābhyām abhimukhyena caranto vartamānā nirvedadayaḥ vyabhicāriņo bhāvāḥ."
Thirty-three vyabhicārins are enumerated following Bharata's lead. They are individually defined in the DR., and Dhanika cites stanzas to illustrate the same. Nirveda and jaḍatā have sub-varieties also. So also śrama, dhṛti, and trāsa. Āvega
also has a number of sub-varieties.

Page #205

T
1380
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Sthāyin is defined at DR. IV. 34 (pp. 196, ibid) as -
viruddhair a-viruddhair vā bhāvair vicchidyate na yah, ātmabhāvam nayaty anyān
sa sthāyi lavaņā”karaḥ.” That which is not hindered by opposite or non-opposite emotions but leads others to merge with oneself is the permanent basic emotion. It is like an ocean (which leads all that pours into it to merge in itself).
Dhanika explains further as follows: (pp. 196, ibid). - "sajātīya-vijātīyabhāvántarair atiraskrtatvena upa-nibadhyamāno ratyā"dih sthāyi." He illustrates it from Brhatkathā and also Mālati-mādhava.
Then he discusses the possible nature of 'virodha'. It could be born of the fact that two emotions either cannot be juxtaposed - 'saha-anavasthānam' or there may be absolute contradiction allowing no. co-existence whatsoever - i.e. "bādhyabädhaka-bhāva”. All this seems to follow Anandavardhana's lead.
Commenting on "viruddhair a-viruddhair vā", Dhanika (pp. 197, ibid) explains : "viruddhair a-viruddhair vā bhāvaih ya āhitah samskāro na vicchedi bhavati, pratyuta tān sarvān ātmabhāvam nayati, sa sthāyi bhāvo lavanā”karah.” This is illustrated by Dhanika. Anandavardhana's lead is apparent in all this.
The sthāyi-bhāvas are mentioned as eight and the ninth 'sama' is reluctantly mentioned with a remark that - "śamam api kecit prāhuḥ puştir nätyesu na etasya." (DR. IV. 35 b. pp. 202, ibid). So, both Dhananjaya and Dhanika have no faith in sama, at least so far as dramatic art is concerned. It seems that Mammata, a great protegonist of the Kashmir school, was also impressed by Dhanañjaya and Dhanika.
Dhanika denounces sama with reference to drama and critically discusses, to his satisfaction, the case of Nāgānanda. He suggests that the sthāyin in this play is "dayāvīra-utsäha”. : (pp. 203, ibid) - "ato dayāvīrótsāhasyaiva tatra sthāyitvam śrngārasya angatvena, cakravartitva-avyāpteś ca nāntarīyaka-phalatvena a-virodhād abhīpsitam. evam ca sarvatra drastavyam iti. paropakārapravrttasya vijigisor năntarīyakarvena phalam sampadyate ity āveditam eva prāk atostāv eva sthāyinah.” The DR. IV. 36 further disowns 'nirveda' as a sthāyin in the words :
"nirvedā"dir atādrūpyād a-sthāyī svadate katham, vairasyāyaiva tat-posas tenā'sțau sthāyino matāḥ.”

Page #206

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1381 ‘a-tādrūpya' means 'getting over-whelmed by viruddha or a-viruddha' emotions. 'nirveda' has no capacity to absorb the riot run by other emotions. It can not absorb other emotions and cannot see that other emotions get defeated and merged into it. So nirveda can not be called a sthāyin. As it is a-sthāyin, how can it be relished in form of a rasa ? Actually if nirveda is enhanced in poetry and drama it will cause 'vai-rasya' i.e. negation or demolition of rasa. Dhanika observes : (pp. 204, ibid) :
viruddha-a-viruddha-a-viccheditatvasya nirvedā"dīnām abhāvāt a-sthāyitvam. ata eva te cintā”di-vyabhicāryantaritā api pariposam niyamānā vairasyam āvahanti. na ca nisphalávasānarvam eva etesām asthāyitvanibandhanam, häsyā"dīnām apy a-sthāyitva-prasangāt. pāramparyena tu nirveda"dīnām api phalatvāt. ato' sthāyitvād evai tesām a-rasatā."
Nirveda, because of the lack of the quality of "viruddha-a-viruddha-aviccheditatva", cannot be a sthāyin. It gets removed or 'vicchinna' by other bhāvas. Some take nirveda along with 'cinta' etc, the vyabhicărins together and accept its enhancement. But even with the help of a-virodhi-vyabhicārins, nirveda is not enhanced to the capacity of rasa. Now it can be argued that sthāyins such etc. also do not have a clear phala or effect, i.e. they also are 'nisphalávasāna'. So, even hāsya as a rasa also will have to be discarded. Their result also has no contribution whatsoever. On the other hand if closely observed, even nirvedádi are not totally without an effect i.e. they are not nisphalávasāna, for nirvedā”di become anga - i.e. subservient to any other sthāyin which in itself is not 'nisphala'. Thus in sequence - paramparā - 'nirveda' also bears some fruit. So 'whatever is 'nisphala' is not a 'sthāyin' - is not a rule. Absence of an effect i.e. 'phala-rahitatā' cannot be taken as the 'prayojaka' of a sthāyin. The actual reason for any emotion not being taken as a sthāyin could be only this that it has no capacity to stand the strengh of other emotions, opposite or not opposite. As 'nirveda-ādi' lack this quality, they can not be taken as sthāyins. So, for Dhanika there are only eight sthāyins and eight rasas.
After this Dhanika enters into a long discussion as to how rasas are arrived at through 'tatparva' and that projection of wanjanā is useless. We have discussed all this in separate chapters earlier and therefore this may not detain us here. The DR. IV. 37 observes : (pp. 211, ibid) :
"vācyā prakaraņā”dibhyo buddhisthā vā yathā kriyā, vākyárthaḥ, kārakair yuktā sthāyī bhāvas tathétaraih.”

Page #207

1382
SAHRDAYĀLOKA In a sentence we understand, with the help of context and kārakas, a particular ativity as vākyártha, either directly stated as above or as implied through context alone. Thus ‘kriya' either directly stated or otherwise is the sentence-sense. In the same way, through vibhāvādi-s, sthāyin emerges as vākyārtha' i.e. tātparyártha or purport in poetry, i.e. in a poetic statement. Sthāyī, like implied kriyā i.e. buddhisthā kriyā, is arrived at through context i.e. prakaraṇā"di.
Dhanika establishes the supremacy of tātparya-vịtti and denounces vyañjanā in his Avaloka on DR. IV. 37.
The DR. IV. 38-47 discuss the topic of rasa in greater detail. DR. IV. 38-39 (pp. 217) read as -
“rasaḥ sa eva svādyatvād rasikasyaiva vartanāt na-anukāryasya vịttatvāt kāvyasya a-tatparatvatah.” (IV. 38) drastuḥ pratītir vrīdérsyā. . rāga-dveșa-prasangataḥ, S . laukikasya sya-ramaņi
samyuktasyaiva darśanāt.” - (IV. 39). Rasa is so called because of its being relished and because it is located only in the connoisseur or rasika who is present. Rasa is not said to be present in the 'anukārya' i.e. original character such as Rāma, Sitā, etc., that are imitated reason is that the 'anukārya' is a matter of past i.e. history. Again poetry is not written to please these historical characters. If rasa were accepted with reference to the anukārya, then as in drama, so also in actual life if a seer sees somebody making love, he should experience rasa. But on the contrary such a sight promotes, with reference to the individual culture of an onlooker, a response of aversion, shame, jealousy, attachment, displeasure etc. as the case may be.
Dhanika (pp. 217, ibid) observes in Avaloka : "kāvyárthópaplāvito rasikavarti ratyā"diḥ sthāyī bhāvaḥ sa iti nirdiśyate. sa ca svādyatām nirbharā”nandasamvidātmatām-äpädyamāno rasah. rasikavarti vartamānarvāt; na anukāryarāmā"di-vartī, vịttatvāt tasya.

Page #208

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
atha śabdopahita-rupatvena vartamānasya api vartamanavad avabhāsanam ucyate. tatha'pi tad avabhāsasya asmada"dibhir anubhūyamānatvād asat-samatā eva svādam prati. vibhāvatvena tu rāmā"der vartamānatvād avabhāsanam iṣyata eva. kim ca na kavyam rāmā”dīnām rasópajananāya kavibhiḥ pravartyate. api tu sahrdayānānandayitum. sa ca samasta-bhāvaka-samvedya eva. yadi ca anukāryasya rāmā"deḥ śṛngāraḥ syat tato nāṭaka"dau taddarśane laukika iva nayake śṛngāriņi sva-kāntā-samyukte dṛśyamane śṛngāravan ayam iti prekṣakāṇām pratiti-matram bhavet na rasikānām svādaḥ satpuruṣāṇānām ca lajjétareṣām tv asuya-rāgā'pahārecchādayaḥ prasajyeran. evam ca sati rasādīnām vyangyatvam
apāstam...etc.
The DR. IV. 40, 41, 42a - read as : "dhīrodāttādy avasthānām rāmādiḥ pratipādakaḥ,
vibhāvayati ratyā"din
svadante rasikasya te. (IV. 40 DR.)
tā eva ca parityakta
-viśeṣā rasahetavaḥ;
krīḍatām munmayair yādvad bālānām dvirada"dibhiḥ (IV. 41) svótsähaḥ svadate tādvat
śrotṛṇām arjunā"dibhiḥ -
42a DR. 42b reads -
1383
kāvyártha-bhāvanā”svādo
nartakasya na vāryate." (DR. IV. 42b)
Dhananjaya is of the opinion that the anukarya such as Rāma and the like that are described in poetry, stand for the stage of a dhirodatta and the like (in general). These Rāma etc. cause the apprehension of ratyā"di in the sāmājikas who relish the same. These 'rāmā"di' deprived of their individuality i.e. when they are deindividualised, make for the (enjoyment of) rasa.
As children, while playing with earthen toys, say a toy elephant etc., relish their own sthayin such as 'utsāha', in the same way the cultured readers or spectators enjoy their own emotion seeing the emotion of characters such as Arjuna and the

Page #209

1384
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
like. This, i.e. Arjuna and others presented through art-forms are as unreal as toyelephants in case of children. But, the sāmājkas derive bliss or ānanda through these characters.
In DR. 42 b. Dhananjaya says that enjoyment of rasa in case of the actor is not totally rejected. If the actor also enjoys the kāvyártha, then in the capacity of a bhāvaka he is entitled to enjoyment of rasa.
Now Dhanañjaya talks of the four types of rasa-experience with reference to the resultant four-fold mental state of the enjoyer. He observes : DR. IV. 43, 44, 45 a read as :
"svādaḥ kāvyártha-sambhedād ātmānanda-samudbhavaḥ, vikāsa-vistara-ksobha-viksepaiḥ sa caturvidhah." - DR. IV. 43 śrngāra-vira-bībhatsa-raudresumanasaḥ kramāt hāsyā'dbhuta-bhayótkarsa karuņānām ta eva hi. - DR. IV. 44 atas tajjanyatā tesām
ata evávadhāranam. - 45 a "On account of the apprehension of poetic meaning, the special bliss caused in the heart of the connoisseur is termed 'svāda' or relish.
This relish is said to be four-fold such as (i) when the mind or conscience feels a flash of light as it were, or expansion, or dilation, or shaking i.e. disturbance or movement, i.e. scattering. This happens in case of śộngāra, vīra, bibhatsa and raudra respectively and similarly respectively in case of hāsya, adbhuta, bhayānaka and karuna also. DR. talks of the four mental attitudes or states of consciousness - citta-bhūmayaḥ - that result from a rasa-experience. The next four i.e. hāsya etc. also have a similar effect and therefore they are deemed as resulting from the first four respectively. This refers to Bharata's concept of four prakti-rasas and fourvikrti-rasas. Dhanika explains that in Bharata's statement viz. "śrngārād hi bhaved hāsyah"... etc. the idea is that śrngāra etc. are the 'hetu' of hāsya etc. But they are not related as labsolute kārya-karana-bhāva because they are caused by other reasons also. Dhanika observes : (pp. 221, ibid)

Page #210

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1385 śộngārād hi.: (N.S. G.O.S. 6/39) iti hetu-hetumadbhāva eva sambhedā'pekṣayā larśitaḥ. na (tat] kārya-kāraņā'bhiprāyeņa. teșām kāraṇāntara-janyatvāt.
Dhanika thus suggests that the rasas are only eight as suggested here.
He then discusses how even karuna causes bliss and not unhappiness. In this respect these Mālava-School alamkārikas seem to agree with the Kashmir school. After this the DR. once again focuses on śānta rasa. It is observed at DR. 45b -
sama-prakarsó nirvācyo
muditādes tad ātmatā - (pp. 223, ibid) Introducing these lines Dhanika observes : (pp. 223, ibid): nanu ca śāntarasașya an-abhineyatvāt yady api nätye’nupraveśo nāsti tathā'pi sūksmā'tītā”divastūnām sarveșām api śabda-pratipādyatāyā vidyamānatvāt kāvya-visayatvam na nivāryate. atas tad ucyate -
As śänta-rasa cannot be represented on stage, it is not recognised with reference to drama. But all subtle or past things can be apprehended through words. Thus everything (including śānta) can be the object of poetry.
DR. 45b therefore suggests that śānta rasa, which is of the form of enhancement of sama is indescribable. It is of the form of 'muditā' or joyousness etc.
Karikā IV. 46 is an attempt to suggest how the combination of vibhāva, anubhāva and sancărin results in rasa-relish. We may say that the DR. attempts its own explanation of rasasūtra. It is observed :
padárthair indu-nirvedaromāñcā"di-svarūpakaiḥ kāvyād vibhāva-sañcāry anubhāva-prakhyatām gataiḥ - IV. 46 bhāvitaḥ svadate sthāyi
rasaḥ sa parikīrtitah.” IV. 47 a DR. Worldly objects, with reference to poetry (or any art) are termed vibhāva etc. With the help of these vibhāvā"di-s the sthāyin is relished as rasa when it is turned ino a state of 'bhāva'. Dhanika observes : (pp. 224, ibid, on DR. IV. 46, 47a):
"atiśayóktirūpa-kavyavyāpāra-āhita-višesaih candrā”dyair uddīpana-vibhāvaih, pramadā-prabhrtibhiralambana-vibhāvaih, nirveda"dibhir vyabhicāri-bhāvaih romāñca-aśru-bhrūksepa-katākṣā”dyair anubhāvaiḥ avāntara-vyāpāratayā padārthībhutaiḥ vākyárthaḥ sthāyi bhāvo, bhāvito bhāvarūpatām ānītah svadate, sa rasa iti prāk-prakaraña-tātparyam.”

Page #211

1386
SAHṚDAYALOKA
The idea is that the sāmājika apprehends the vibhāvā❞di-s in form of padártha i.e. word-meaning, and padártha makes the sthāyin situated in the heart of the sāmājika, an object of bhāvanā-vyāpāra. The result is the attainment of bliss in form of relish. This "ananda" in form of "asvada" is rasa. Thus rasa is nothing else but the 'bhāvita' state, or the state of relish of the sthayin itself. It seems Dhananjaya is closer to Lollata and Bhatta Nāyaka.
It may be observed that Bharata had devoted a separate chapter viz. the bhāvádhyāya over and above the rasádhyāya for explaining bhava. But the DR. seems to suggest that on account of the basic identity of bhāva and rasa, no separate treatment of bhavas along with their vibhāvā"di-s is considered here. As the vibhāvas of both rasa and the related bhāva are identical, both rasa and bhāva are taken as non-different and hence no separate treatment of bhāvas is required as is done by Bharata. DR. IV. 47b observes :
"lakṣaṇaikyam vibhāvaikyād abhedad rasa-bhavayoḥ."
Now onwards, the DR. takes up individual rasas with their varieties if any. Dhanika of course provides poetic illustrations for all rasas, such as śṛngāra, with its varieties and avasthās, vīra, bībhatsa, raudra, etc.
DR. IV. 84 (pp. 250, ibid) observes that bhāvas such as prīti, bhakti etc., and rasas such mṛgayā, akṣa, etc. get included in harṣa, utsäha etc. clearly; and therefore are not separately cognised:
"prīti-bhakty ādayo bhāvā mrgaya'kṣā"dayo rasāḥ, harṣotsāhā"diṣu spaṣṭam antarbhāvān na kīrtitāḥ."
DR. IV. 84
This means that the DR. is in favour of absorbing the love for any game, be it the game of dice, or say cricket or boxing or any, in 'utsaha', the sthāyin of vīra, while priti or bhakti are taken up under accepted vyabhicārins.
In the same vein, harṣa, utsäha etc. along with alamkāras, are capable of absorbing the 36 bhūṣaṇas (or lakṣaṇas), and 21 sandhyantaras. DR. IV. 85 reads:

"ṣad-trimśad bhūṣaṇā"dīni
sāmā"diny eka-vimśatiḥ,

Page #212

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1387 lakṣma-sandhyantarā”khyāni
salamkāreșu teșu ca." Dhanika observes : (pp. 250, ibid) -
"vibhūdsanam cā'ksara-samhatiś ca,
śobhā'bhimānau gunakīrtanam ca.” - ity evam ādīni șat-trimśat kāvya-lakṣaṇāni, 'sāma bhedaḥ pradānam ca' ity evam ādīni sandhyantarāny ekavimśatir upamādişv alamkāreșu harşótsāhādişv antarbhavanti. tena na prthag uktāni.”
Dhanañjaya ends his work with a famous expression that there is no object on earth, howsoever ugly, or even if it be a non-object so to say, which does not attain the status of rasa-bhāva. DR. IV. 86 (pp. 250, 251) reads :
"ramyam jugupsitam udāram athā'pi nicam, ugram prasādi gahanam vikstam ca vastu, yad vā'py a-vastu kavi-bhāvaka-bhāvyamānam tan nā'sti yan na
rasa-bhāvam upaiti loke.” The Laghaţikā of Bhatta Nșsimha adds (pp. 251, ibid) : ramya-jugupsitā"dirūpam vastu a-vastu.vā rasībhūya kavi-bhāvena anākrāntam loke násti ityā”ha - ramyam iti.
It may be observed that after Abhinavagupta these two viz. Dhananjaya and Dhanika have come up with a great contribution in the field of art-criticism. They
he court of Muñja and were the protegonists of the Mālava School of aesthetics with a lot of influence of Bhattanāyaka and mighty following in the works of Bhoja and some others. We see how the Mālava School has wielded its influence on even Rāmacandra and Gunacandra who were disciples of Ācārya Hemacandra, an artent follower of the Kashmir School of thought as represented by the great Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammața. Even śāradātanaya the author of Bhāvaprakāśana, Sāgaranandin the author of Nātaka-laksana-ratnakośa, and Singa-bhūpāla the author of Rasārņava-Sudhākara were influenced by

Page #213

1388
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the Mālava School in general and perhaps the DR. in particular. So, the DR. along with the Sr. Pra. of Bhoja and the Sāhityamīmāmsā of unknown authorship were great works belonging to the Mālava School of aesthetics. We will now move on to the Nātyadarpana (= ND.) of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra (= R. & G.). Ksemendra's rasa-vicāra will be taken up in our proposed Vol. II, when in a separate chapter, we will discuss the concept of 'aucitya'.
Nātyadarpana (ND.) discusses the concept of rasa in the fourth chapter or 'Viveka': The editions referred to by us are the G.O.S. Edn. '29; and the Hindi N.D. Deptt. of Hindi, Delhi University, Delhi, '91; with Intro., Trans. and explanation by Ācārya Visveśvara Siddhānta-Siromani. We have great respect for Viśveśvarajee, but the other names associated with this edition do not carry weight whatsoever for us.
It may be noted at the outset that the ND. moves away, though not totally, from the Kashmir School, while discussing the topic of rasa. It takes rasa to be of the nature of both happiness and un-happiness - i.e. sukha-duhkhā"tmako rasah - and perhaps the forgotten tradition that went with the words of Bharata such as, "harsādīnsca adhigacchanti" - is revived here. It may be observed that the ND. has absorbed a number of influences from Dhananjaya's and Bhoja's Mālava tradition, and has also restated some elements from Dandin, Lollata, and Sankuka. We will carefully and closely examine what the ND. has to say on rasa.
The ND. I. 3 observes that the part of drama is difficult to traverse as it is rendered complex by billows in form of 'rasa'; while the path of poetry is easier on account of its being rendered soft by the use of alamkāras.
“alamkāra-mrduh panthāḥ kathā"dīnām su-sañcaraḥ, dus-sañcaras tu nāțyasya
rasa-kallola-samkulah.” It is observed that only he is a poet with the help of whose composition even the mortals drink nectar. His language dances in the area of drama, twisting and whirling with the waves of rasa.
sa kavis tasya kāvyena martyā api sudhāndhasaḥ, rasórmi-ghūrņitā nātye yasya nộtyati bhāratī, (ND. I. 5)

Page #214

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1389 To glorify the presence of rasa in a poetic composition, the ND. I. 6, 7 read as follows:
nānārtha-sabda-laulyena parāñco ye rasámộtāt, vidvāmsas te kavindrānām arhanti na punaḥ kathām. I. 6 śleşā'lamkāra-bhājópi rasā'nişyanda-karkaśāḥ durbhagā iva kāminyaḥ
prīņanti na mano giraḥ." (ND. I. 7) After the glorification of 'rasa' in the first viveka, the N.D. in its third viveka deals with the topic of rasa, theoretically. The definition of rasa at N.D. III. 7 reads as : (pp. 290, Edn. Viśveśvara, Hindi) :
"sthāyī bhāvaḥ śritótkarso vibhāva-vyabhicāribhiḥ, spastā'nubhāva-niśceyah
sukha-duḥkhā”tmako rasaḥ." The basic emotion, when enhanced with the help of determinants and accessories, and when confirmed by clear consequents, an
confirmed by clear consequents, and which is of the nature of happiness and unhappiness, is termed 'rasa'.
It may be noted that the ND. does not use the term “samyoga” or combination (of vibhāvā"dis), but instead places the term 'sthāyibhāva' in the definition. We know that Bharata had not used the term 'sthāyin' and had used the term 'samyoga'. The sthāyin for the ND. becomes rasa when enhanced by vibhāva and vyabhicărins and inferred by clearly marked anubhāvas. We may say that by calling the 'śritótkarsa sthāyin' i.e. enhanced basic emotion as (identical with) rasa, the N.D. seems to revive the tradition of Lollata for whom upacita-sthāyin was rasa. In a way the ND goes with the upacitivāda of Lollata, so to say. But it is not just this. Vyañjanā is neither opposed nor totally rejected by the ND. Thus the ND. puts in a newer light the whole heritage of dramatic criticism and seems to evolve a sort of synthesis of its own. We may also say that by taking rasa as enhanced sthāyin and also by taking rasa to be of the nature of both happiness and unhappiness, the ND. also seems to accept the tradition of "sthāyi eva rasah" as against the Kashmir tradition of (laukika) sthāyi-vilaksaņo rasaḥ.”

Page #215

1390
SAHRDAYĀLOKA 'Sthāyin' is explained by the N.D. as : (vrtti, ND. III. 7, pp. 290, ibid) - "pratikṣaṇam udaya-vyaya-dharmakeșu bahusv api vyabhicärisv anuyāyitayā avaśyam tisthati iti sthāyī." The permanent basic emotion is one which necessarily stays as constant among many passing feelings (= vyabhicārins) that have rise, fall etc. as their characteristic every moment.” Or, say 'ratyā"di' is sthāyin, with reference to 'glāni' etc. the vyabhicārins for only in the presence or absence of the former the latter are present or absent. This ratyādi sthāyin when enhanceed, takes the form of rasa. The Vștti (ND. III. 7, pp. 290, ibid) reads further: “vibhāvair lalanódyānā”dibhir ālambanóddīpana-rūpair bāhyair hetubhih, sata eva āvirbhāvāt, vyabhicāribhir glānya”dibhi rasika-manah-śarīra-vartibhiḥ, pariposaņāc ca, śritótkarsah, svīkstasākṣātkāritvā'nubhūyamānā vastho, yathā-sambhavam sukha-duḥkha-svabhāvo rasyate āsvādyate iti rasaḥ."
Now this "sata eva āvirbhāvāt" is not in tune with the Kashmir School of thought which regards 'rasa' not as pre-existent but only “tātkālika” and "vibhāvā"di-jīvitāvadhi". But this trend we see later in Viśvanātha and earlier perhaps in the Mālava School of thought. ND. is clear that "upacayam prāpya rasarūpeṇa ratyā”dir bhavati", thus favouring upacitivāda' basically. The vyabhicārins that enhance this sthāyin are those staying in the mind of the 'rasika'.
ND. divides, rasas into two such as those like srngāra-hāsya-vīra-adbhuta and śānta that promote happiness on account of their determinants etc. being 'işta' i.e. of welcome type. The rest, i.e. karuna, raudra, bibhatsa, and bhayānaka born of unwelcome - an-ista-determinants etc. cause unhappiness and therefore are said to be “duhkhā”tmānaḥ.” : “tatra ista-vibhāvā”di-grathita-svarūpa-sampattayaḥ śộngārahāsyavīra-adbhuta-śāntāḥ sukhā"tmānah. apare punar anișta-vibhāvā”dy upanitā”tmānah karuņa-raudra-bībhatsa-bhayanakās' catvāro duḥkhā”tmānaḥ.
ND. criticises the view of those who hold all rasas to be of the nature of happiness, because this is against our experience. ND. observes that forget about the second group of rasas - i.e. bibhatsa, bhayānaka, karuņa and raudra, to provide happiness when born of real causes - "mukhya-vibhāvópacitāh”, but even when these four are born of vibhāvā"dis, projected through either poetry i.e. kāvya or drama i.e. nātya, they cannot cause happiness. Actually they lead to unexpressible unhappy state of mind in case of those who experience the same. It is therefore that people shun or get nervous about such rasas as bhayānaka etc. There can be no mental disturbance by any experience of happiness :
“yat punaḥ sarva-rasānām sukha-duhkhā"tmakatvam ucyate tatpratītibādhitam. āstām nāma mukhya-vibhāvopacitāḥ, kāvyábhinayópacitópi bhayānako

Page #216

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1391 bībhatsah karuņo raudro vā rasā"svāda-vatām anākhyeyām kām api klesa-daśām upanayati ata eva bhayānaka"dibhir udvijate samājah. na nāma sukhā"svādad udvego ghatate." (pp. 291, ibid)
This is in direct opposition to and flagrant discard of what Abhinavagupta and the Kashmir School of aesthetics has to report on the nature of rasa. Abhinavagupta's words are (A.bh. NS. VI. 31) "asman mate tu samvedanem eva ānandaghanam āsvādyate, tatra kā duḥkhā"sankā.” ND. seems to follow a line suggested through the words of Bharata in the expression, "harşādīn sca adhigacchanti', and explained there by Abhinavagupta that here by 'ādīn' are suggested both harşa and soka i.e. happiness or bliss and also unhappiness or, sorrow. This line of thinking, perfectly misguided and also supported by some of the moderns such as Siddhicandra in his "Kāvya-prakāśa-khandana', and also by the 'navyāh' to an extent as seen in the R.G., takes its stand on the fallacious assumption that the emotions and feelings as depicted in poetry, drama or any art, are not only the same as met with in the work-a-day world but are absolutely identical in nature i.e. are yeilding both happiness and unhappiness as the case may be, with the worldly emotions and feelings. Actually the Kashmir School has vehemently opposed this conclusion and it is therefore, that for this school 'rasa' is "sthāyi-vilaksana" i.e. laukika-sthāyi-vilaksaņa in the sense that it is made of pure bliss - ānanda-ghana-- and is experienced in the context of art only : “nātya eva rasaḥ, na loke” and not in worldly context at all. This is a fundamental difference between these two schools of thought and we support only Abhinavagupta in this regard.
But the ND. seems to be conscious of another fact also and it is that even tragic scenes in a drama are appreciated by men of taste. But they i.e. Rāmacandra and gunacandra say that men of taste feel ultimately happy not because of the inherent extra-ordinary bliss-generating nature of rasa, but because at the first phase of experiencing bhayānaka etc. they do feel unhappy but at a later stage they are awestruck i.e. they as it were experience 'camatkāra' at the thought of the expert presentation by both the poet who wrote the script and the actor who performed so well as to make it look real. This 'camakāra' gives them delight. All this seems childish to us.
The ND. to substantiate their belief of rasa being “sukha-duḥkhā”tmaka', further illustrate from poetry and drama. They say that no sa-hrdaya will enjoy i.e. feel happy at the sight of Sitā's abduction, Draupadi's insult, Hariscandra's slavery, or death of Rohitāśva.
ND. reads as follows : (pp. 291, ibid) : "yat punar ebhir api camatkāro drśyate

Page #217

1392
SÁHRDAYĀLOKA sa rasā"svāda-virame sati yathā'-vasthita-vastu-pradarśakena kavi-nata-saktikauśalena. vismayante hi sirscheda-kārinā'pi prahāra-kuśalena vairinā śaundīramāninaḥ. anena eva ca sarvángā”hlādakena kavi-nata-śakti-janmanā camatkāreņa vipra-labdhāh paramānanda-rūpatām duḥkhā"tmakeşv api karuņā"dişu sumedhasah pratijänate. etad āsvāda-laulyena preksakā api etesu pravartante. kavayas tu sukha-duhkhā"tmakasamsārā'nurūpyena rāmā"di-caritam nibadhnantah sukha-duḥkhā”tmaka-rasanu-viddham eva grathnanti. pānaka-mādhuryam iva ca tiksnā"svadena duhkhā"svādena sutarām sukhāni svadante iti.
bi ca sītāvah haranam. draupadyāh kacámbarā”karsanam, hariscandrasya cāņdāla-dāsyam, rohitāśvasya maranam, lakṣmaṇasya śaktibhedanam, mālatyā vyāpādanā”rambhaņam ity ady abhinīyamānam paśyatām sahțdayānām ko nāma sukhā"svādah." ?
The arguments are advanced on the theory that laukika-rasa and kāvyānātya"di-gata-rasa are absolutely identical in nature. The ND. seems to accept 'rasa' - even at worldly level, but we know that the school represented by Abhinavagupta accepts the possibility of rasa in the context of art only.
The ND., believes that the actual sorrowful behaviour results with reference to the karuna, as experienced by actual Rāma (i.e. real anukārya). This expression of sorrow is of the nature of unhappiness only. If its imitation causes happiness, then it cannot be considered to be actual imitation, for it would look contradictory : "tathă anukāryagatāś ca karuņā”dayaḥ paridevitā'nu(di)kāryatvāt tāvad duhkhā"tmakā eva. yadi ca'nukarane sukhā"tmānah syur na samyag anukaranam syāt. viparītatvena bhāsanād iti." (pp. 292, ibid)
This shows that the ND. has failed even to understand the true significance of Bharata's words viz. "natyam... bhāvā'nukirtanam". Gross imitation and artful representation or recreation are never identical.
The ND. observes further that when there is experience of happiness even in the context of the karuna. being either staged or described, actually it is a taste of unhappiness only. Only a miserable person will feel happy while listening to the miserable condition of some other unhappy person. He will be unhappy on listening to the joy of somebody else. So, Karuna and such other rasas have to be taken as causing unhappiness.
All these arguments may hold good when psychology of 'people in ordinary worldly context is looked into. But only the elect enter the world of art. Only the people blessed with divine sensitivity have an admission in the world of art wherein laws of gross physical world pale into insignificance

Page #218

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1393 along with the apparent rules of common psychology. The ND. has to learn this or get out of the world of aesthetics.
The ND. further notes that the vipralambha-śrngāra is of the nature of unhappiness due to torment, but as there is inherent possibility of love in union, it is taken, in the end, to be of the nature of happiness. The ND. has to pass this remark because it has branded śộngāra as basically 'sukhā"tmaka', and one variety viz. vipralambha is seen apparantely associated with unhappiness due to mental torment, the disunited lovers have to experience.
After this the ND. turns its attention to yet another basic question concerning the substratum of rasa. For the ND. rasa is seen primarily in the original characters and then in the spectators, and also in those too who listen (or read) poetry and also compose it. We strongly object to this observation which unholds rasa in actual persons in worldly context. The ND. observes - (pp. 293, ibid) - rasas' ca mukhyalokagataḥ, prekşakagataḥ, śrotr-anusandhāyakadvaya-gato vā iti.” By ‘anusandhāyaka' we mean the poet who composes poetry. He too may enjoy rasa, we believe, only when purged of all limitations of lower ego. Of course, as a sensitive soul he receives impressions personally from his personal encounter with the context he is involved in, but when he writes poetry his entire limited self is brushed aside and, possessed as it were he is, he presents everything local with a universal colouring. Thus de-individualisation or sādhāraṇīkarana operates first at the level of the poet personally, then at the level of the vibhāvādi's or the material he presents through his poetic muse, and then this sādhāranīkarana operates at the level of the enjoyer of art. This secret of art-experience the ND. and its like-thinkers refuse to accept and we feel sorry for the same. In their rasa-kārikā the authors had suggested that 'rasa' is 'spastánubhāva
This means that the effects or consequents of the enhanced sthāyin indicate the same. The anubhāvas make the inference of the enhanced sthāyin possible. As the anubhāvas help us infer the sthāyin concerned, they i.e. the anubhāvas have to be clear and unfailing signals that help this inference. Only such signals are taken as unfailing marks : "spastāḥ iti spastāḥ samyan nirnītāḥ. asandigdham hi lingam bhavati. anubhāvayanti parasthān api rasan avabodhayanti iti anubhāvāh. stambha-sveda-aśru-ramāñca-bhrūksepa-ādayah. tair yathā sambhavam sat-tayā niśceyaḥ.” (pp. 293, 4; ibid).
The ND. further observes that in poetry and drama the rasa that is apprehended is that rasa which stays in somebody else. Now such an apprehension cannot be

Page #219

1394
SAHRDAYĀLOKA direct because the qualities of mind are beyond the grasp of physical organs. So, it has to be indirect. This indirect apprehension is caused only by a medium which in invariably associated with that object. In case of rasa signs having invariable association are only the physical reactions noted in an outward fashion : (pp. 294, ibid) : "iha tāvat sarvaloka-prasiddhā parasthasya rasasya pratipattih. să ca na pratyaksā, cetodharmāņām atīndriyatvāt. tasmāt paroksā eva. paroksă ca pritipattir avinābhūtād vastvantarāt. atra ca rase anyasya vastyantarasya asambhavāt kāryam eva avinākstam."
It may be noted that here the ND. tries to explain that the apprehension of rasa staying in somebody else than oneself has to be collected with the help of external signs that follow as invariable results. The characters presented on the stage express their feelings through acting that comprises of exhibiting external effects following invariably from their mental states. But these resultant expressions of the characters become so to say causes for the evocation of rasa in the spectator. This will drive the N.D., and it is absolutely logical, to a conclusion that for the spectator the stuff presented on the stage, i.e. characters, their acting, their feelings inferred from their acting etc. form an indivisible cause - a vibhāva which s sthāyin in the heart of the spectator. So, actually Bharata's rasa-sūtra can be shortened to just this much viz. "vibhāvād rasanispattih", wherein this 'vibhāva' in the newer and wider sense is made of everything seen on the stage i.e. the characters or alambana, the context or uddīpana, their acting suggesting their mental state etc. The milleu or the whole samagri or combination becomes a cause, so to say, a vibhāva which stimulates the sthāyin of the spectator or art-enjoyer.
The ND. believes that an actor or an artist exhibits the signs of his experiencing an emotion even in the absence of actual experience of such a feeling in his case personally. But such effects as exhibited by an artist even in the absence of actual emotion are to be taken only as causes. It should not be said that these artificial exhibition of effects has no invariable relation with a feeling. Actually these effects serve only as cause - vibhāva - for the spectators.
ND. observes (pp. 295, ibid) : "paragata-vibhāvādy anukriyāyām ca pararañjanártham pravsttasya natasya rasā'bhāve'pi stambha-svedā"dayo bhavanti iti, naisām rasa-nāntarīyakatvam āśankanīyam. teşām paragata-rasa-janukatvena akāryatvāt. nața-gatā hi stambhā"dayah preksaka-gatarasānām kāranam. prekşakagattās tu kāryāņi.” Lollața has also indicated this difference between anubhāvas as exhibited by an artist and the anubhāvas that are connected with rasa, bhāva of the character or person concerned.

Page #220

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1395 The ND. Observes that if the anubhāvas seen in a actor are genuine, i.e. are of the form of real kārya or effect, then we can imagine the existence of rasa even in an actor. There is no law that debars the actor from experiencing rasa, observes the ND. : “na ca natasya raso na bhavati ity ekāntah.” (pp. 296, ibid). The harlots, exhibiting love for earning money, at times fall in love genuinely also. Same could be the case with the actor also. Just as a singer, singing to entertain someone else, himself also enjoys his own singing, in the same way the actor can experience rasa while getting one with the character, say Rāma, during his imitation of Rāma's feelings.
ND. observes that the horripilation and the like as observed in a man or woman. or in an actor, or as described in poetry, cause rasa in somebody else. So, these 'anubhāvas', causing rasa in others are actually counted in 'vibhāvas' or 'cause'. But the anubhāvas located or observed in a spectator, or a listener (of poetry), or in a poet (anu-sandhātā) or a composer, are results of rasa and as they are sure indicators - niśceyaka - or vyavasthāpaka of rasa staying in them, so, they are kārya-rūpa or of the form of effects : (NP., pp. 296, ibid): “romāñcā"dayaś ca ye strī-pumsa-nata-kāvyasthās te pareşām rasa-janakatvăd vibhāva-madhya-vartinah, preksaka-śrotranusandhātrā"di-sthitās tu rasasya kāryāni santo vyavasthāpakāh."
The ND. as noted above, accepts rasa at worldly context, of course both with reference to individual and also at a general level. Laukika-rasa at both levels, particular and general, is acceptable to the ND. and this goes diametrically opposite to the theory of the Kashmir School of thought. The ND. observes that when the vibhāvas are real and lead the individual sthāyin to rasa only in a limited personal context, there the experience of rasa is limited to an individual only. The ND. observes that when love concerns a woman who actually is in love with someone else, the 'rati' that is enhanced in of a general type - "sāmānaya-visayā-ratih" and hence the taste of śộngāra here is not with reference to a fixed person - i.e. niyatavisaya but is of the 'sāmánya' type. Now, all this for us falls beyond aesthetics. For us, the primary concern of art is absolute bliss with no personal limitations active at any stage. The full circle of art-experience is made of de-individualisation and has no concern whatsoever with practical context of day-to-day world. The ND. however accepts rasa-experience at the reality level and that too both of the individual and general type. This confounds us totally. The ND. says that when we look at a woman, though unknown to us, getting unhappy owing to a tragedy concerning her kith and kin, we experience general type of enjoyment of karuņarasa. This means that sympathy, unselfish of course, for any tragic event in actual

Page #221

1396
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA reality is taken by ND. as general type of rasa-experience. ND observes : (pp. 297, ibid) - "bandhu-sokā"rtām ca rudatīm striyam avalokya sāmānya-visaya eva karuņa-rasā"svādaḥ. evam anyeşv api raseșu višeșa-sāmānya-visayatvam dostavyam.”
This observation of ND. goes against our normal practice also. When we witness a tragic accident we say, "how tragic ?". We do not say we enjoy "tragicsentiment". We also do not appreciate love-making in public. It is never termed 'śrógāra-rasa'. Actually the term 'rasa' means 'āsvāda' or "carvanā" i.e. aesthetic chewing. In practical world we do not relish such situations and certainly will not choose to use the term "rasa” in such contexts. ND.'s observations are absolutely unfounded from practical point of view also. Let us dismiss such a talk as pure, unalloved non-sense. .
The ND. further observes that the vibhāva-s in poetry and drama that are basically unreal but are presented in such an artistic way) in poetry and acting that they look as it were real. These apparently real but in fact unreal vibhāvā"dis
rough poetry or drama (or any art whatsoever) cause the sthāyin to rise to the status of rasa for the listeners, spectators and composers. This 'rasa' is only of the general type. So, ND. is hopefully agreeable to the fact that at least in art there is no scope for rasa-experience of individual type. (pp. 298, ibid) : "ye punar a-paramārtha-santópi kāvyā'bhinayābhyām santa iva upanītā vibhāvās te śrotr-anusandhātr-preksakāņām sāmānya-visayam eva sthāyinam rasatvam āpādayanti. atra ca visaya-vibhāga-anapekşi rasā"svādapratyayaḥ.” Here the apprehension of rașa does not involve any personal consideration.
Thank God; at least the authors of ND. accept this much that aesthetic enjoyment through art is beyond personal limitations.
We may raise one question here. On an earlier occasion, the authors had argued that who would not be (personally) unhappy witnessing scenes of the abduction of Sītā, or the insult of Draupadī, etc.? This observation involves an accepted situation where the spectators individually feel unhappy. This goes against the observation by ND. noted in earlier paragraphs here. This is self-contradiction. Or, the authors may defend their position by saying that Sītā or Draupadi is not personally related to the spectator and so the Karuņa is here of a 'general nature. But all this is pure none-sense. The ND. exhibits this lack of any sense when it is observed (pp. 298, ibid) : “na hi rāmasya sītāyām śộngare anukriyamāne sāmājikasya sītā-visayaḥ śộngāraḥ samullasati api tu sāmānya-strī-visayaḥ. niyatavisaya-smaraņā"dinā sthāyinaḥ pratiniyata-visayatāyām tu pratiniyatavisayah rasā"svādah."

Page #222

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1397 The basic trouble with ND. is that it fails to draw a line of demacration between the world of art and the world of practical reality. ND. seems to take them as one and identical.
ND. observes that the reason why when one person enjoys a dramatic scene somebody else does not raise an objection to his enjoying, is that the vibhāvādi-s, presented by poetry or drama (or any art) are in fact unreal and as they are common to all, the enjoyment or rasa is not ruled out in case of any individual enjoyer and surely this is not in contradiction to someone else's enjoyment also. : (pp. 298, ibid) : "tathā a-paramárthasarām abhinaya-kävyä'rpitānām ca vibhāvānām bahu-sādhāranatvād ya ekasya rasā"svādah sonya-a-pratiksepā"tmā, ity ayoga-vyavacchedena na punar anya-yoga-vyavacchedena."
Thus the rasā"svāda or art-experience in both practical life or in poetry (i.e. art), is having some location necessarily. For it can not take place in the absence of substratum whatsoever. (Thus, it is either located individually in a person, or in a general nature with many, both in art and reality). ND. observes that total absence of substratum will defeat all mental states. No mental state is possible without its being grounded in a substratum. Rasa is just a variety of mental disposition: (pp. 299, ibid) - "evam ca loke kāvye vā sarva-rasika-sādhārano rasā"svādo, na punah sarvathā api adhāránullekhī. ādhārollekha-nirapeksāyāś cittavștteḥ kasyāścid anupalakṣaṇāt. citta-vștti-viśeșaś ca rasah."
The ND. again turning its focus on the connoisseur asserts that the stuff that causes the basic sthāyin to enhance, i.e. the vyabhicārins or assessories are also to be imagined as staying in the sāmājika only. These vyabhicārins staying in the sāmājika enhance the sthāyin staying in the same substratum to the capacity of rasa. Precisely because of these they are termed as co-runners - '"sahacārins” of the sthāyin. In poetry or drama, the vyabhicārins or anubhāvas concerning women etc. - make up a whole to arouse the sthāyin in someone else (i.e. sāmājika) and therefore the whole "sāmagrī" presented through art-medium can be broadly termed "vibhāva” i.e. they can be imagined to fall in the scope of 'vibhāva'. From the point of view of the lady-character concerned they may be termed "vyabhicărins" etc. (of the heroine), but in reality from the point of view of rasa-experience of the sāmājika, all these can be covered up by just "vibhāva-s”. In short, if Bharata had stated, "vibhāvād rasa-nispattiḥ" - only, even then it would have been a correct and exact narration of facts. This seems to be the opinion of the authors of the ND. Rea 301, ibid) : "yad apy ucyate "vibhāvā'nubhāva-samyogād rasa-nispattih", iti tatra api anubhāvā vyabhicāriņaś ca stry ādi-varṇanīya-anukāryā"pekṣayā eva drastavyāḥ.".

Page #223

1398
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
ND. further notes : (pp. 301, ibid) : "tad evam pratyakşa-parokşābhyām gamaḥ sukha-duḥkhā"tmā (i) lokasya, (ii) natasya (iii) & (iv) kävya śrotr-anusandhātroh, (v) preksakasya ca rasaḥ. kevalam mukhya-strī-pumsayoh spastena eva rūpena raso, vibhāvānām paramārtha-sattvāt ata eva vyabhicāriņónubhāvāśca rasajanyah tatra spasta-rūpāh. anyatra tu preksakādau dhyamalena eva rūpena. vibhāvānām a-paramārtha-satām eva kāvyā"dinā darśanāt. ata eva vyabhicărinónubhāvāśca rasā'nusāreņa a-spastā eva. ata eva preksakā”di-gato raso lokottara ity ucyate."
Rasa is an experience involving happiness and, or, unhappiness. It takes place with reference to oneself or someone else, and is therefore said to be pratyaksa i.e. direct or paroksa i.e. indirect. It is seen with reference to practical world of reality i.e. loka, and also with reference to the actor, the one who listens to (or reads) poetry, or the composer (i.e. poet, etc.) and the spectator. The rasa in practical life, i.e. loka-gata rasa, is to be understood as pratyaksa or direct and clear i.e. spasta; because the young woman or young man involved therein are real i.e. are actually living persons. The rasa on the otherhand as experienced through the art-medium i.e. poetry or drama, is to be taken as paroksa i.e. indirect and a-spasta or hazy or nebulous, as the characters involved therein are un-real or imaginary. Because of its being hazy or nebulous, this type of rasa is said to be extra-ordinary or "lokottara", observes ND., which also accepts that poetry (or drama) is said to be 'sa-rasa' i.e. 'having rasa', only metaphorically because in fact rasa is a characteristic only of the sentient beings, it being of the form of citta-vrtti or mental despoisition. How can rasa, of the form of an enhanced mental state could be designated as “soul" of poetry/drama which is in-sentient ?
The ND. observes (pp. 302, ibid) : "kāvyasya ca rasā"virbhāvakatvāt sarasatvam. na punaḥ kävyam eva rasaḥ, kāvye adhāre vā rasaḥ. śritótkarso hi cetovstti-rūpaḥ sthāyī bhāvo rasah. sa ca a-cetanasya kāvyasya åtmā ādheyo vā katham syāt ? tataḥ kävyā'rthapratipatter anantaram pratipatņņām rasā"virbhāvaḥ.”
ND. further obsrves that those who apprehend poetry enjoy rasa, like happiness, that stays within their self. They do not enjoy rasa as something external such as a sweet-ball etc. : pratipattāraś ca ātmastham sukham iva rasam āsvādayanti. na punar bahistham rasam modakam iva pratiyanti.” (pp. 302, ibid) : Thus for ND. rasa-experience is not an external entity but is only subjective and internal. Experience of sweets is different from that of rasa. By the taste of an external item, 'rasa' of the nature of aesthetic chewing is not caused. - "na hi bahisthasya rasasya pratyaya-mātreņa rasā"svādas' carvaņā”tmakaḥ samgacchate.” (pp. 302, ibid). ND. adds that from poetic content concerning the horrible and the tragic (i.e.

Page #224

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1399 bhayānaka and karuna) the basic emotions of fear and sorrow (i.e. bhaya and śoka) staying in the mind of the apprehender, result in the experience of bhayānaka and karuna rasa. If the sthāyin of the apprehender himself does not terminate into the state of rasa, then there is no possibility of the apprehension of rasa which stays outside the self of the enjoyer. For, actually if rasa is noted basically located in the self of the enjoyer than there is no possibility of its being located in either poetry or the artist. For if there is apprehension of something which is non-existent, then even a non-sensitive person will experience rasa : "asatasca api pratyaye ahțdayasya api pratītiḥ syāt.” (ND. pp. 303, ibid).
Thus, after the apprehension of poetry that describes vibhāva (etc.), the sthāyin of the apprehender himself becomes rasa. It is for this reason that poetry is also said to be "having rasa" (only metaphorically). ND. observes : (pp. 303, ibid) - "tato vibhāva-pratipadaka-kāvya-pratipatter anataram pratipattur eva sthāyī raso (sī) bhavati. tad hetutvāc ca kāvyam rasavad iti."
The ND. ends its discussion on rasa with this remark. Hopefully it looks that the authors are concerned more with rasa through art-medium, rather than through real causes in practical world.
It may be said to the credit of the authors Rāmacandra and Gunacandra that they have discụssed the problem of rasa-experience from many angels, both relevant and irrelevant. But they have presented a broad-based theory of rasa to their satisfaction. They being the disciples of Ācārya Hemacandra who was a staunch follower and admirer of Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata, and therefore a die-hard supporter of the Kashmir School of aesthetics, these authors showed guts to differ from their great guru. This shows the brighter side of the academic climate in those days in Gujarat and India, where freedom of thought and expression prevailed perfectly and when respect for human values touched the highest peak.
After giving the rasa theory the ND. discusses, practically after Bharata and the tradition in dramaturgy in general, the topics such as the nature, number and scope of anubhāvas, vibhāvas and vyabhicārins. Following Mammata, it looks the ND. observes (pp. 303, ibid, Kārikā III. 8) :
“kārya-hetuḥ-sahacāri sthāyyādeh kavya-vartmani, anubhāvo vibhāvasca vyabhicāri ca kirtyate.”

Page #225

1400
SAHRDAYALOKA The same explanation of individual terms is also read here under. ND. observes that the stāyins, being of the form of consciousness, are said to be 'a-jada' i.e. only sentient, while the vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vabhicārins are both sentient as well as in-sentient. The anubhāva called dhairya, being of the nature of mental state is sentient while perspiration (i.e. 'sveda') being only physical is insentient; sthāyin alone which is enhanced, is principal and the rest being covered by the sthāyin are all subordinate. ND. also notes, following Abhinavagupta that the whole combination of vibhāvā"dis goes with this or that rasa invariably, but individual vibhāva, anubhāva or vyabhicārin may be found with this or that rasa, as the case may be. There is no invariable conomitance between individual vibhāvā"di and individual rasa.
Then ND. talks of the number of rasas to be nine (ND. III. 9, pp. 305). The sequence in the Kārikā also follows the logic as stated in the A.bh. ND. observes that only these nine rasas deserve to be enumerated as they cause special delight and are related to the ends of life, basically. But reluctantly the ND. mentions that there are other rasas also, but they are subsumed under the said rasas by some learned people : "ete śộngārā”dayo navaiva rasā rañjanā-višeșeņa puruşárthayogádhikyena ca sadbhiḥ purvā”cāryair upadistāḥ. sambhavanty apare'pi. yathā garddha-sthāyi laulyaḥ, ārdratā-stāyi snehah, āsakti-sthāyi vyasanam, a-ratisthāyi duhkham, santosa-sthāyi sukham ityādi. kecid eşām pūrvesvantarbhāvam āhur iti. (pp. 306, ibid)
Then the ND. explains and illustrates these nine rasas. Then after Anandavardhana the ND. observes that in poetry poets should be very attentive to rasa-delineation (pp. 318, ibid) "atha kāvyeșu rasa-nibandhane avahitair bhāvyam iti upadišati
artha-śabda-vapuḥ-kāvyam rasaiḥ prāņair visarpati, añjasā tena sauhārdam
raseșu 'kavimāninām.” (ND. III. 21) ND adds (pp. 320, ND. III. 22) -
“na tathā artha-śabdótprekşāḥ ślāghyāḥ kávye, yathā rasaḥ, vipāka-kamram api āmram udvejayati, nīrasam."

Page #226

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and....
1401 After Anandavardhana the problem of rasa-virodha is also then discussed. Rasadosas are also enumerated following the lead of Abhinavagupta and Mammata. The Vrtti under ND. III. 23, explains this with illustrations. Nine sthāyins, including sama, are enumerated at ND. III. 24 and explained in
rty-three vyabhicārins following tradition are enumerated at ND. III. 25-27., followed by explanation of individual vyabhicărins. At times the authors differ from Mammata, and the DR. also.
At ND. III. 44, it is observed that among the rasādi-s, there is cause-effect relation with one another also. Anubhāvas are taken up next (ND. III. 45) and explained individually (upto ND. III. 49). The third chapter of the ND. ends with a discussion on four-fold abhinaya or acting such as vācika-angika, sāttvika and āhārya.
We will now turn to the Bhāraprakāśana (= B.P.) of śāradātanaya. (śā) (Ref.s are to the two editions viz. Edn. Oreintal Institute, Baroda, 1968, and Edn. Madan Mohan Agrawal., pub. Chowkhamba Surabharati prakashan, Varanasi, '83.). It may be noted that B.P. records a number of dramaturgic traditions even prior to Bharata and the author seems to present some views which do not conform perfectly with the tradition as represented by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, though of course he is quite close to them and Mammata on se many counts. But by and large he seems to represent a tradition that we have termed "Mālava School of aesthetics". as represented by the DR. Bhoja, and the Agnipurāna also. But one fact emerges that Šā. has incorporated certain thought currents that were obsolete, so to say, when we look into the throbbing tradition of aesthetics that seems to be represented in Mammața and his illustrious followers. As we are committed to the tradition as represented by Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata, we feel that Sā. at times, talks things that look simply unacceptable. But, on the other hand, the fact remains that the so called Mālava tradition as preserved in Bhoja, Agnipurāna and the rest keeps on making appearance now and then in the works of such authors as Sā., Bhānudeva, or even Jayadeva to an extent. We will try to examine Sā.'s views on rasa and bhāva and problems correlated with these topics quite closely, and of course as dispassionately and critically as possible. One thing is certain that Śā. deserves a very close analysis and claims tremendous respect for preserving traditions that seem to be almost pushed out by the juggernaut of what we call the Kashmir School of thought.

Page #227

1402
SAHṚDAYALOKA
It may be noted that we will restrict our study of Śa. only to the area of bhāva and rasa, though of course Śa. has a number of noteworthly observations in other directions of dramaturgy as well. We have noted his views on sabdaśakti-s, especially tatparya and vyañjana, and also on minor art-forms in earlier chapters. His special views on "natyótpatti" etc. need not detain us here, nor his views to correlate 'natya'-tradition with its philosophical or 'dārśanika' background. His views on music and dance also form his special contribution.
As suggested earlier we are concerned here with what Śā. has to say about 'bhāva' and 'rasa'. Before we go for a closer observation citing actual references from his text, we will try to make a general survey of his attitude towards these two basic concepts of Indian Aesthetics. We will go for an in-depth study at a later stage.
The first important point that emerges from a casual survay of the contents of his work is that he has paid prime importance to the concept of 'bhāva' and has rendered the consideration of 'rasa-tattva' also to a position secondary to 'bhāva'. This is evident from the very title of he work which reads as "Bhāva-prakāśana" or 'Light on Bhāva'. For him also, though 'rasa' forms the vital energy, the 'prāṇa' of dramatic art (or any art in general), but 'rasa' has for its cause 'bhāva' at its root. 'Rasa' is 'sadhya' or 'end' and 'bhava' is 'sādhana' or 'means' for him, and therefore more important and more basic. It is precisely for this reason that Śā. has taken up first the consideration of the concept of 'bhāva', to be followed by the thoughts on 'rasa'. This goes against Bharata who has upgraded 'rasa' when he treated the topic of 'rasa' in the VI th Ch. of his N.S., and followed it with 'bhāva', to be discussed in the next Ch., i.e. in Ch. VII of the N.S. This topic is debetable and we will try to examine what logic prompted Bharata to maintain the order of 'rasa-bhāva' as against Śā.'s, 'bhāva-rasa'. This we will do later.
But. Śā. feels that as the position of bāvas is permanent in man's mind, heart or consciousness, and through the medium of this bhava alone we arrive at rasaexperience, 'bhāva' should come first for treatment. This is Śa.'s logic. Basically this fact cannot be negated if we look at it from an angle Śā. has advocated. But there are loop-holes in this and we will talk of it later.
The poet's mental state, which through the medium of the actor bewitches the mind of the cultured spectator or 'sāmājika', is termed 'bhava'. It is observed by Dr. M. M. Agrawal (pp. 13, Intro. Edn., ibid) that while Bharata has analysed Bhāva

Page #228

1403
"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
from the angle of sensation śā. has done it, over and above from the angle of sensation of happiness and unhappiness, also from the angle of the philosophical tenets of the Samkhya School of thought. We do not get this point clearly. But we will try to explain Bharata's approach and the fallacy in Śā.'s understanding later. Dr. M. M. Agrawal's approach is not acceptable to us for our own reasons.
But this does not deter us from appreciating the subtle and analytical approach Śā. has placed before us in considering the topic of 'bhava'. At the out-set we may note that Śā. has explained eight types of uddīpana-vibhāvas, and four types of anubhavas. We will go into greater details later.
One more point to be noted as distinguishing Śa.'s approach is that for him relish of rasa i.e. 'rasa-asvada' is different in type, when we take into account the aptitude, culture, intellectual equipment etc. of the enjoyer. Young people seek passion - physical aspect in the delineation of Śṛngāra, a person with 'money' or wealth at the centre of his psyche will consider achievement of wealth in it, i.e. 'artha-labha' will be sought after by such a person even in Śṛngāra, etc. A brave man has a leaning towards appréciation of adventure only and regards such theme as the best, and a learned man has fascination for philosophical considerations over anything else. This type of subjective and preferential attitude to rasa-relish has - roots, more in psychology, we feel, than in pure aesthetics.
Agrawal observes that Bharata's approach to the problem of rasa concerns dramatic art in chief and later writers (on poetics) placed poetry in the centre. But Śā. has a fusion of both these angles. This observation is also debatable. We feel that Bharata kept 'drama' in focus while discussing 'rasa' not because he was ignorant of the applicability of rasa-theory to literature or any other art for that matter. But he did it because his work dealt with drama and dramatic art in particular and hence his application of rasa-theory was drama-oriented. But at a number of places, we have yet to find time to count, Bharata has talked of "kavyarasa" also. That 'rasa' theory was catholic enough to cover all art, including drama, poetry, music, dance, architecture, sculpture, painting and what not, was clear to Bharata and to Anandavardhana and other writers alamkaraśāstra who applied rasa-theory to poetry. That rasa-theory was germane to all the arts was known to all aestheticians beginning with Bharata down to Jagannatha and even his followers. Śā. is just one of those. We will now first pick up the thread concerning 'bhāva', along with a close reference to the text of the B.P. and then 'rasa', applying the same methodology. Our observations are going to be critical and neutral or dispassionate.
on

Page #229

1404
SAHRDAYALOKA Sā. in the first chapter or 'adhikāra' states that he studied all relevant sources on dramaturgy and has composed his work. He observes : (pp. 2, G.O.S., Edn., '68; Line 15) -
"tayaiva nātyavedasya niyuktódhyāpane tadā, prītas sópi sadāśivasya śivayor gauryā matam vāsuker vāg-devyā api nāradasya ca muneh kumbhódbhava-vyāsayoḥ śisyāņām bharatasya yāni ca matāny adhyāpya tāny añjanā. sūnor apy atha nātyavedam akhilam samyak tam adyāpayat.” śāradātanayo devyāḥ tān adhītya ca sannibhau, ādāya sāram etebhyo hitártham nātyavedinām. bhāva-prakāśanam nāma prabandham akarot tadā etasmin prathamam bhāvas
tasya bhedās tatah param... Śā. treated bhāva first, along with its subdivisions, and things connected with bhāva. B.P. (pp. 3, ibid, reads) :
tad avāntara-bhedāśca, tat tat kāryesu kausalam, tat-sādhyo'rthas tathā teşām upakāryópakāritā. rasópādānatā teşām cara-sthira-vibhāgataḥ tad darśanāni, tad drstih drsți-dharmāḥ prthagvidhāḥ. parasparasya sāmarthyam

Page #230

1405
"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and.....
sāhacaryāt kvacit kvacit iti-bhāgatayā bhāvā dvādaśaite, tato rasaḥ. tadbhedā bhedabhedāśca teşām janma ca nāma ca janakatvam ca janyatvam teşām anyónyataḥ prthak pradhānetara-bhāvaśca teşām anyónya-samkaraḥ, tanmelanam ca tat-siddhir vićeṣaḥ samkarodbhavaḥ. tad vyangyatā vācyatā ca tan maitrī tad-virodhitā, tat-kālaniyamas tat-tad-varņās tad-daivatāni ca. sthāyi-sañcāri-bhedāśca teşām drstayópi ca iti vimśatir uddistāḥ prakārā rasa-gāminaḥ. tataḥ śabdártha-sambandhas tat-prakārāḥ prthag-vidhāḥ, tad-vșttayo rūpakāņi tad-bhedās trimsad ātmakāḥ. etair arthaiḥ prabandhóyam yathāvat kathyate'dhună kathyante yéntarā bhāvās tat-tad-arthánuşanginaḥ. tatra tatraiva vijñeyās te sūkşmekşikayā budhaiḥ, uddistānām ihárthānām lakṣaṇa-pratipādanam."

Page #231

1406
SAHDAYĀLOKA Sā. composed this work called Bhāva-prakāśana. In this first 'bhāva' is treated. Then its divisions and sub-divisions are discussed. Then the expertise needed to present these bhāvas with the meaning aimed at by them is discussed and the relation of utility between them is discussed. How bhāvas whether 'cara' or 'sthira' become instrumental in rasa is then shown. The appearance, vision connected with the particular bhāva, different characteristics of sight, their strength at times due to mutual relation of bhāvas, are all discussed. These go to make twelve approaches to the topic of bhāva.
Then 'rasa' is discussed along with its divisions and sub-divisions (or, varieties and sub-varieties), their birth, name, their mutual causality, their relation of principal and subordinate., their mutual relation due to samkara i.e. mixed type their mixture, their special achievement, mixing up and birth, their suggestivity or capacity of being directly stated, their favourableness (to one another) or opposition, the time, rules, colour, preciding deity, their basic emotion, passing feelings, their drsti etc. are discussed. Thus twenty angles concerning rasa are discussed in the B.P.
This is followed by a discussion on the relationship between word and meaning, their varieties, the vșttis, and then of the types, in all thirty, of rūpakas and uparūpakas.
B.P. observes that the definitions of these topics are given either following the order, or the propriety concerned. Subtle observations mark all this presentation. With this, the discussion on bhāvas starts (pp. 3, 4, etc., ibid) :
“bhāvah syād bhāvanam bhūtir atha bhāvayatīti vā. padártho vā kriyā sattā vikāro mānasóthavā, vibhāvāś cā'nubhāvāśca
sthāyino vyabhicāriņaḥ." Bhāva is primarily 'bhāvana'. The idea is that through the feelings of happiness and unhappiness of the 'anukārya' Rāma and the like, the causing (or rousing) of (identical) bhāvas or feelings in the heart of the sāmājika i.e. man of taste is called 'bhāva'. So bhāva is "causing i.e. bhāvana" of the bhāva of the samājika.

Page #232

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1407
Then two-fold etymology of the term 'bhava' is given, such as (i) bhūtiḥ and (ii) 'bhavayati'. 'bhūti' means 'bhavanam' or 'being' (bhu+ktin) 'bhāvayati' is that which causes (something else than itself, here the bhāvas in the hearts of the sāmājikas). So that which happens and that which causes to happen are both called “bhāva”. The first etymology means 'satta' i.e. existence or being'. The second leads us to the 'act of causing' i.e. activity, which causes something else.
Bhāva in the sense of a 'padártha' i.e. object is called 'vibhāva.' In the sense of 'kriya', it is termed anubhava. In the sense of 'satta', or being it is termed 'sthāyibhāva', i.e. that which stays. In the sense of mental off-shoot it is an impermanent feeling, the 'vyabhicarin'. In the sense of presentation through mental concentration manasa it is a 'sättvika' bhāva.
B.P. (pp. 4, ibid) observes :
"padártho vā kriyā sattā vikāro mānasóthavā
vibhāvāś cā'nubhāvāśca sthāyino vyabhicāriṇaḥ,
sättvikāś ceti kathyante bhāva-bhedāś ca pañcadhā.”
Vibhāvas are those that make the objects known: "arthän vibhāvayanti iti vibhāvāḥ parikirtitāḥ." (B.P. pp. 4, ibid)
'anubhava' is explained as "making the known object (= vibhāvita artha) anobject of experience."
"vibhāvitárthanubhūtiḥ anubhāva iti smṛtaḥ." (pp. 4, ibid)
Sthayin-s are explained as those 'bhāvas' that have stayed in the mind for long, those that are enhanced with the help of related items (= anubandhi-s; here vibhāva, anubhāva and sañcarin-s), and those who attain to the status of rasa, i.e. who are of the form of rasa - "rasā❞tmānaḥ." B.P. (pp. 4, ibid) observes:
"avasthitās ciram citte sambandhāc ca'nubandhibhiḥ, vardhita ye rasā❞tmānaḥ
te smṛtā sthāyino budhaiḥ."
Vyabhicārin-s are those that are by nature not permanent, but appear again and again, i.e. those that sub-serve or move (around) the sthayin-s in the act of the birth of rasa. Sättvika-bhāva-s are those that are born of Sattva (i.e. mental concentration) and are two-fold viz. svīya i.e. belonging to self or a-sviya not belonging to self.

Page #233

1408
SAHRDAYĀLOKA B.P. (pp. 4 ibid) reads as -
"sthāyinā rasa-nispattau caranto vyabhicāriņaḥ, sattvajā ye vikārāḥ syuh svīyā'-svīya-vibhāgataḥ ta eva sātrvikā bhāvā
iti vidvadbhir ucyate.” We may say in explaining the terms viz. sthāyin, vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicārin, śā. is indebted to his predecessors, though of course, he has the distinction of putting things very succinctly.
Bharata explains as - (pp. 344, 5, 346, etc.) (Vol. I. G.O.S., Edn., '56)
“bhū iti karane dhātus tathā ca bhāvitam vāsitam krtyam ity anarthántaram. loképi ca prasiddham, aho hy anena gandhena rasena vā sarvam eva bhävitam iti. tac ca vyāptyartham. ślokāś cātra -
vibhāvenā”hịto yórtho hy anubhāvais tu gamyate, vāg-anga-sattvā'bhinayaiḥ sa bhāva iti samjñitaḥ vāganga-mukha-rāgena sattvenā'bhinayena ca kaver antar gatam bhāvam bhāvayan bhāva ucyate. 2 nānā'bhinaya-sambaddhān bhāvayanti rasān imān yasmāt tasmad ami bhāvā
vijñeyā nātya-yoktrbhiḥ. 3 atha 'vibhāva' iti kasmāt. ucyate-vibhāvo vijñānā'rthah. vibhāvah kāranam nimittam hetur iti paryāyāḥ. vibhāvyante'nena vāganga-sattvā'bhinayā ity ato vibhāvah. yathā vibhāvitam vijñātam ity anarthāntaram. atra slokah
"bahavo'rthā vibhāvyante vāgangā'bhinayā"śrayāḥ,

Page #234

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1409 anena yasmāt tenā'yam
vibhāva iti samjñitaḥ." - 4 atha 'anubhāva' iti Kasmāt ? ucyate - anubhavyate anena vāg-anga-sattva-krtó bhinaya iti. atra slokah
“vāg-angā'bhinayenéha yatas tv arthónubhāvyate, śākhā'ngópānga-samyuktas
tv anubhāvas tataḥ smộtaḥ.” - 5 .... (pp. 348, ibid) tatrā'stau bhāvāḥ sthāyinaḥ trayas-trimsad vyabhicāriņaḥ. asțau sāttvikā iti bhedāḥ. evam ete kõvya-rasā'bhivyakti-hetavah ekonapañcāśad bhāvāh pratyavagantavyāh ebhyaś ca sāmānya-guna-yogena rasā nispadyante.
(pp. 355, ibid) - vyabhicāriņa idānīm vyākhyāsyāmaḥ atrā”ha - vyabhicāriņa iti kasmāt ? ucyate - vi abhi ity etāv upasargau. cara iti gaty artho dhātuh. vividham abhimukhyena caranti iti vyabhicārinah. vāg-anga-satrvoperāh prayoge rasān nayanti iti vyabhicāriņaḥ. katham nayanti iti. ucyate - 'loka-siddhānta eșah. yathā sūrya idam dinam naksatram vā nayatīti. na ca tena bāhubhyām skandhena vā niyate. kim tu loka-prasiddham etat. yathédam sūryo nakṣatram dinam vā nayatīti. evam ete vyabhicāriņa ity avagantavyāḥ.."
Abhinavagupta, Mammața, and Hemacandra follow this. We have explained the DR. earlier.
The B.P. has given a further analysis of the vibhāvas. Šā. observes that with reference to the eight rasas such as srngāra, etc. there are eight types of vibhāvas such as : lalita, lalita'bhāsa, sthira, citra, khara, rūksa, nindita, and vikrta : (B.P., pp. 4, ibid) :
"lalitā lalitā'bhāsāḥ sthirāś citrāḥ kharā iti, rūksāś ca ninditaś caiva vikrtās ceti ca kramāt, śộngārā'di-rasānām te vibhāvā nāmabhih krtah."

Page #235

1410
SAHRDAYALOKA Śā. observes that - (pp. 4, ibid)
"lalită lalitā"bhāsā bhāvāḥ śộngāra-hāsyayoḥ, sthirāś citrā vibhāvā ye te vīrā'dbhutayoḥ kramāt kharā rūkņā vibhāvāḥ syū raudrasya karunasya ca bhayānakasya vikstā
bībhatsasya ca ninditāḥ.” These very same when combined into one, two or three different bhāvas, are termed uddīpanas.
Lalita and the rest are explained by Śā. as follows : Those bhāvas which are instrumental in enhancing the śrngāra-rasa, and those that are collected by respective sense-organs, those that create pleasure in mind are called "lalita".
The vibāvas associated with hāsya are either indicated, heard, seen or remembered. They are called "lalitā”bhasa".
Sthira vibhāvas are connected with vīra, and they are capable of yielding steadiness. They are also either heard, seen, remembered or meditated upon i.e. thought over.
Citra vibhāvas go with adbhuta-rasa. They make for supremacy (i.e. aiśvarya). They make the heart experience surprise.
Those that go to create karuņa-rasa are 'ruksa' vibhāvas. They torment the sense-organs by the objects that fall within their scope.
Khara' vibhāvas are those which cause mental timidity instantly when considered. They make for the 'raudra' rasa.
The vibhāvas of the bībhatsa cause the eyes to be closed immediately and they are never cherished. They are termed "nindita".
Vikrta' vibhāvas go with the terrible or bhayānaka rasa and when contacted with sense-organs, they cause degeneration. Sā. then takes up alambana vibhāvas : (pp. 5, ibid) -
"atraiválambanā bhāvāḥ kathyante rasa-bhūmayaḥ,

Page #236

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1411 anuddistā api yathā
rasā'nubhava-siddhaye.” 'For the success of rasa-experience, the alambana-bhāvas, that form the background of rasa, are now stated.
The ālambana-bhāvas that go with śrngāra are in form of young ladies or young men that are sweet, graceful, handsome etc.
Deformed, of ugly shape, and imitating some-one-else's actions are the ālambana of hāsya, such as 'kuhaka' or cheating, etc.
The person who is self-sacrificing, gifted with sāttvika qualities, i.e. purity, humility and the like, one who is brave and bold and adventurous and decorated by the scars of weapons forms the alambana of vīra-rasa.
Persons with deformed figure, irregular dress, abnormal behaviour and movements, etc. are persons who perform illusory performances and are the ālambana of adbhuta-rasa.
Ferocious figures are the alambana of raudra. Ematiated persons, disheartened souls, weak, dispirited, afflicted with disease and dirty persons are the alambana of karuna rasa.
People with figure and dress abhorred, un-welcome behaviour, limbs etc. andafflicted with disease, and piśāca etc. i.e. fiends, goblins, etc. are the ālambana of bībhatsa rasa.
Those who have entered a deep forest, or have entered a great war, or who have offended their preceptors or seniors or masters or kings are the ālambana of bhayānaka rasa.
These vibhāvas of the type of lalita and the like, with respective alambana bhāvas awaken the respective sthāyin to the capacity of a rasa.
Actually the above is just the summary of the descriptions of śrngārā"di along with their vibhāvā"di, as given by earlier masters such as Bharata and the like. The only contribution of Sā. is that he has named them as 'lalita', and the like.
Now Śā, picks up the discussion on anubhāvas. It may be noted that here he is absolutely influenced by Bhoja. Agnipurāna and the so called Mālava school of aesthetics. The anubhāvas are four-fold accordingly. B.P. (pp. 6, ibid) observes :
anubhāvaś caturdhā syān mano-vāk-kāya-buddhibhih,

Page #237

1412
SAHRDAYĀLOKA i.e. The anubhāvas or consequents are four-fold with reference to mind, speech, body and buddhi i.e. intelligence.
The B.P. observes that those that fall in the first category are the ten bhāvas of a young-lady
"mana-ārambhánubhāvā
bhāvā”dyā daśa yoșitām.” (pp. 6, ibid) The twelve 'ālāpa' etc. form the vāg-ārambha. anubhāvas. The ten bhāvas such as lilā etc. of the young ladies are gātrā"rambhā'nubhāvas. Rīti-vrtti and pravrtti are buddhyā"rambhā'nubhāvas :
vāgārambhā'nubhāvāś ca dvādaśā”lāpa-pūrvakāḥ, gātrā"rambhánubhāvāś ca līlā"dyā daśa yoșitām. buddhyā"rambhā'nubhāvās ca
rīti-vrtti-pravíttayah. (B.P. pp. 6, ibid) . Stupification i.e. stambha and the rest are the eight sāttvika-bhāvas. Nirveda or dispondancy and the rest, i.e. the thirty three in all are the vyabhicarins.
With reference to young ladies twenty natural i.e. sattvaja alamkāras or ornaments are considered. The bhāvas such as līlā etc. are of course not sattva-ja i.e. sättvika, but they are counted here on the analogy of “people holding umbrellas are moving" - i.e. 'chatri-nyāya.' So the lila"di bhāvas, on account of their carrying the special mark or linga of sattva, are termed "sättvika's.
"yauvane satrvajāḥ strīņām alamkārās tu vimšatih, tatra līlā"dayo bhāvā yady api syur na sättvikāḥ, chatriņām gativattépi
tallingatvena sāttvikāḥ. (pp. 6, ibid) - That stuff, observes Śā., that terminates into 'sattva' is termed 'manas'. It is said to be the 'samkalpa' or 'strong determination of both Isvara and liberated souls. The 'sattva' of worldly people acts in form of 'manas' and the wise call this ‘manas' by the name of 'sattva' for it takes its form.

Page #238

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1413 The stuff, caused from ‘rajas' is termed 'prāna'. For God and liberated souls, it is said to be the cause of activity. It stays in form of 'prāņa' among worldly people.
That which results from 'tamas' is 'vāk'. For God and liberated souls it is sweet language, but for worldly people it takes the form of “word” in general. That which is pronounced with feelings of anger etc., and which causes such fruits (i.e. anger etc.) without failing, is the speech of worldly people. That speech which originates from God and liberated souls is termed 'vānī, by the wise : B.P. (pp. 6, 7, ibid) -
yat sattva-pariņāmi syād dravyam tan mana ucyate, īśvarasya ca muktānām tat saņkalpo bhavisyati. samsāriņām manastvena pariņamya pravartate, tat-sattva-pariņāmitvāt sattvam ity ucyate budhaiḥ. yad rajaḥ pariņāmi syād dravyam sa prāņa ucyate, iśvarasya ca muktānām
kriyāhetuḥ sa īritaḥ. ... etc. etc. It may be noted that to explain mana-ārambhā'nubhāva, śā. here first explains the mystic background of vāk, as used by the Gods, liberated souls and ordinary people. We feel this has hardly any bearing on the aesthetics of mana.-ārambha-anubhāva.
B.P. goes on to add to the above discussion by observing that Ravi, Soma and Vahni are the preciding deities of manas, prāna and vāk respectively. This order is established by the yogins. This is followed by some other mystic details.
After this the B.P. comes to explain and define mana-ārambha-anubhāva. A clear impression of the DR. is seen here and this we will show later by citing comparision. The B.P. had earlier observed that Ravi, etc. are the presiding deities of manas, etc. The soul takes respective forms of names etc. and is identified with the same. These three viz. manas, prāna and vāk, as they become instruments for the acts of God, and liberated souls, they are termed deities. That which is 'prānamaya' is termed 'antaryāmin' or one who dwells within, and jīva stays in the body. The jiva, by its activities, controls the body and so with the body (as its instrument) becomes the doer of all activity.

Page #239

1414
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The doer becomes 'prānamaya' by presiding over and controling the senseorgans, soul, earth etc. (i.e. přthivi, ap, tejas, vāyu and ākāśa), and other deities : This ‘prānamaya' neither stays in that doer, nor in the jiva. Whatever is ‘manomaya' guides the jivas to activity. The triguņā”tmaka buddhi, citta, and ahamkāra are the means of all activity for the jīvas. From these all bhāvas emanate. As the Sun is a witness to all, manas is occupied by the Sun. The manas knows whatever through
kāras or impressions, and remains pure of all impressions. Such pure mind, along with gunas is termed 'sattva'. B.P. (pp. 7, 8, ibid) reads -
“buddhi-cittā'hamkrtayaḥ tasya triguņa-sambhavāḥ, sarveșām api jīvānām sarva-vyāpāra-hetavaḥ. etebhyaḥ sarva-bhāvānām prabhavaḥ samudāhstaḥ, ādityaḥ sarva-sākṣitvāt mano yat tad adhisthitam. yat-saņskāra-vaśād vetti sarvam, tat tena nirmalam, tādņg eva manah sattvam
guņair asprstam ucyate.” Now the B.P. gives the definition of mana-ārambha-anubhāva. It reads as -
"tasmad a-vikrtād adyaḥ spando bhāva udāhstaḥ, cittasya a-vikstiḥ sattvam
viksteḥ kärane sati." The first 'spandana' or vibration, born of that sattva which is beyond any change is termed 'bhāva'. Sattva is that state of mind which remains unchanged eventhough there are resons for a change. Then from that springs 'bhāva' which is like the first change from a seed. Thus a change in mental attitude is termed "bhāva". B.P. (pp. 8, ibid) -
"tatólpā viktir bhāvo bījasya ādi-vikāravat,

Page #240

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1415
ato manovikārasya
bhāvatvam prakațīkstam.” This can be read with DR. II. 33b (pp. 112, ibid) :
“nirvikārātmakāt sattvād
bhāvas tatrā"dya-vikriyā.” Dhanika writes : (pp. 112, ibid) - tatra vikārahetau saty a-vikārā”tmakam sattvam. yathā Kumārasambhave (3/40) - "srutāpsarogītirapi... samadhibhedaprabhavā bhavanti.” tasmāda-vikāra-rūpāt sattvāt yaḥ prathamo vikāróntar viparivarti-bijasya ucchūnatā iva sa bhāvah."
Now this exhibition of philosophical information on the part of śā. is not in good taste. Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta had written a number of philosophical works and were great yogins themselves, but they have never engaged themselves in such showmanship.
On the contrary Abhinavagupta clearly says that we do not believe in such activity and do not drag in unnecessarily innocent souls in this sort of a mire.
Actually the four-fold anubhāvas that the Mālava school advocates, are nothing else but pure anubhāvas i.e. mental and physical responses to an emotion, with manas, vāk gātra and buddhi playing major roles. In fact all activity is having a mixture of all these four factors but here they are named or classed differently taking into account the predominance of this or that element. Virtually anubhāvas are 'acting'. The DR. has discussed twenty ornaments of young ladies..
"yauvane sattvajāḥ strīņam
alamkārās tu viņśatiḥ." (DR. II. 30a, pp. III, ibid) Śā. has utilized all these in his various types of anubhāvas, as we will go to observe next. Śā. observes that (according to the tradition as read in Bharata),
"vāgbhir angair mukha-rasair yas sattvábhinayena ca, bhāvayan bahir antassthān arthān bhāva udāhstaḥ.” (pp. 8, ibid)

Page #241

1416
SAHRDAYĀLOKA i.e. Bhāva is that which causes (or makes 'bhāvita') the internal and external items with the help of vāk i.e. speech, anga i.e. limbs and the colour of the face - 'mukha-rāga'.
The B.P. then describes hāva, helā, šobhā, kānti, dīpti, mādhurya, prāgalbhya, dhairya, and audārya. The DR. had taken the first three as 'śarīraja', and the next seven as "a-yatnaja”.
B.P. following the DR. then describes the ten bhāvas such as līlā, vilāsa, vicchitti, vibhrama, kilikiñcita, mottāyita, kuttamita, bibboka, lalita and vihrta. The DR. calls them "daśa bhāvā svabhāvajāh”. But the B.P. reads : "śārīrā daśa yositām.” While the DR. had only three viz. bhāva, hāva and helā as “śarīrajāh” and the next 'ayatnajāḥ' i.e. svabhāvajāḥ, the B.P. has all these ten as “sāttvikāḥ”.
The B.P. (pp. 9, ibid) then explains all these i.e. līlā, vilāsa, etc. almost after the DR. - The B.P. then observes : (pp. 10, ibid)
"ete sādhāraṇā sattvagātrā”rambhā'nubhāvayoḥ, sthairyam gāmbhīryam ācāryaiḥ
cittārambhāv udāhrtau.” i.e. These are the common types of both sattva (i.e. mana) ārambha-anubhāva, and gātra-ārambha-anubhāva. The acāryas (i.e. Bhoja, here) have counted 'sthairya' and 'gāmbhīrya' as included in citta-ārambha-anubhāva. These two (i.e. mana-ārambha and gātra-ārambha.) are seen in a greater proportion in śrngārarasa and in the mixture of vira-rasa, and adbhutarasa. Elsewhere their abundance is located depending on special purpose or context. Thus in case of śrngāra-rasa and at places in adbhuta-rasa twenty bhāvas of women are observed. The ācāryas (i.e. Bhoja) have also mentioned "kridita” and “keli” among gātra-ārambhaanubhāva : (B.P. pp. 10, ibid)
“prācūryam eşām śộngāre, virádbhuta-samāgame, anyatra teşām samsargavaśāt kāryavaśād api.” "bhāvās tu vimśatis straiņāḥ śộngāre kvacid adbhute,
krīạitam kelir ity etau gātrā”rambhāv udāhỉtau.” ‘krīļita' is explained as special sport of the time of childood, youth or adolescence. The same is termed 'keli' with reference to a lover.

Page #242

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and.
1417 The learned (i.e. Bhoja of course) talks about these two bhāvas by the name "gātrā"rambhā'nubhāva".
"gātrā"rambhā'nubhāvatva
dvitayam kathyate budhai).” (B.P. pp. 10, ibid) The following twelve bhāvas are vāg-ārambha-anubhāva. They are - ālāpa, pralāpa, vilāpa, anulāpa, samlāpa, apalapa, sandeśa, atideśa, upadeśa, apadeśa and vyapadeśa. Šā. explains them individually.
With reference to buddhyā"rambhā'nubhāva, riti is first stated. Rīti is use of sentences of speech. It is said to be four-fold : (B.P. pp. 11, ibid) -
buddhyā"rambā'nubhāveșu rītiḥ prathamam ucyate, rītir vacana-vinyāsa-kramaḥ,
sā'pi caturvidhā. Vacana-vinyāsakrama' seems to be accepted from Rājasekhara's kāvyamīmāmsā.
The four types of rīti accepted by Śā. are from the area of vaidarbha, pāñcāla, lāța and gauļa. Two more are mentioned as "saurāsțrī” and “drāviļi”.
Śā. observes that a style or rīti of composition is named after the province concerned. At times rīti is known on the basis of compounds, sukumāratā or felicitous expression, etc. also, and also on the basis of metaphorical expression, alliteration, or even any expression, speaker or any sub-variety etc. also; - B.P. (pp. 11, ibid) :
"tatra vaidarbha-pāñcālalāța-gauda-vibhāgataḥ, saurāștrī-drāviļi ceti rīti-dvayam udāhstam. tat-tad-desīya-racanarītis-tad-deśa-nāmabhāk, samāsa-saukumāryā"ditāratmyāt kvacit kvacit. upacāra-viśeşāc ca prāsā'nuprāsa-bhedataḥ.”

Page #243

1418
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
tathā saurāstrikā bhedād drāviļībhedatópi ca. prativacanam pratipuruşam tad avāntara-jātitaḥ, próktā
kavibhiś caturvidhā ity esā.” The manifold rīti, in short is said to be four-fold by the wise people. We stop here only, says Sā., for fear of expansion of our work -
"grantha-vistara-bhitena
mayā tābhyo viramyate.” (pp. 11, ibid) Vịtti' is said to be four-fold with reference to its being originated from rk, yajus, sāma and atharvan. They are bhāratī, sāttvatī, kaiśiki and ārabhati. The followers of Udbhata (i.e. Audbhatāh) are considering a fifth vịtti also, based on meaning; the artha-vrtti. But others (i.e. Bhoja) mention the fifth as viśrāntā' in place of the artha-vștti. B.P. pp. 12, ibid, reads as -
"vșttis' caturvidhā, rg-yajussāmā'rtharva-sambhavā. "bhārati-sātrvati-caiva kaiśiky arabhatīti ca, audbhatāḥ pañcamīm arthavṛttim ca pratijānate. arthavștter abhāvāt tu
viśrāntām pañcamīm pare;" According to a tradition recorded in the NS., the four vrttis originated from the various functions of speech, body and mind, during the fight between Vişnu and the demons Madhu and Kaitabha.
The Kāvyamīmāmsā calls vịtti to be "vilāsa-vinyāsa-krama". Other traditions concerning the origin of vịttis are also noted such as the 'bharatas' promulgated the 'bhāratī with speech as a predominent element. According to others the four vrttis came out from the four faces of Brahmā when he watched a dramatic performance. These, were accompanied by śțngāra, vīra, bibhatsa and raudra rasas.

Page #244

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
Four pravṛttis are enumerated in the B.P. (pp. 12, ibid):
"dākṣiṇātyā tathā"vantyā pauratsya ca auḍra-māgadhi, pravṛttayas' catasrópi
vāg-arambhāḥ syur ekadā." tad-vyāpārātmikāḥ proktā vṛttayaś ca caturvidhāḥ"
Now it may be observed that Śā. talks of four pravṛttis in between and once again starts talking on vṛttis, which are "tad-vyāpārātmikā" - the expression accepted from the DR. II. 47a- meaning that there are four vṛttis (such as kaiśikī etc.) based on tad his (= of the hero) behaviour. The B.P. observes that in the four vṛttis such as bhāratī, and the like, the behaviour pattern of the hero is fixed with reference his speech (vācika), mental activity (sättvika), dance form (nṛtta), external make-up (āhārya) and bodily movement (angika).
B.P. observes (pp. 12, ibid) :
"tad-vyāpārā"tmikāḥ próktā vṛttayaś ca, caturvidhāḥ. vācikam, sättvikam, nṛttam āhāryam ca tathā"ngikam, yathākramam niyamitam
bhāraty ādyāsu vṛttisu."
Actually the mention of four pravṛttis seems to be mis-fit.
B.P. again quotes from DR. II. 62 (pp. 131, ibid) - informing us as to which vṛtti is fixed with which rasa. (B.P. pp. 12, ibid): ?
"sṛngāre kaiśiki vire
1419
sāttvaty ārabhatī punaḥ, rase raudre ca bibhatse
vṛttiḥ sarvatra bhāratī."
Kaiśiki goes with śṛngāra, sattvatī with vīra, and ārabhațī is fixed with raudra and bibhatsa while bhārati is used in the context of all the rasas. The Kāvyamīmāmsā has "tatra veṣa-vinyāsa-kramaḥ pravṛttiḥ, vilāsa-vinyāsa-kramaḥ vṛttiḥ, vacana-vinyāsa-kramaḥ rītiḥ. (Ch. III)

Page #245

1420
SAHṚDAYALOKA
Śā. again switches over to 'pravṛtti' and accepts a verse from the DR. (= DR. II. 63, pp. 132, ibid) This reads (B.P. pp. 12, ibid) as :
"deśa-bhāṣā-kriya-veśa-lakṣaṇaḥ syuḥ pravṛttayaḥ, lokādevávagamyaitā yathaucityam prayojayet."
Pravṛttis have varieties with reference to deśa (= region), bhāṣā (= language), and kriyā (= activity). They are to be understood from worldly context. They are to be employed with reference to the propriety. Thus 'pravṛtti' represents local context.
Śā. observes that vṛttis with their subdivisions are explained by Bhoja, Someśvara and the rest. So, their form is only slightly indicated.
The pravṛttis concerning particular regions should be understood from experts belonging to those particular regions, but the difference in activity are impossible to know or describe. So the pravṛttis and kriyās, whereever found, are to be understood with the help of regional experts.
Normally there are seven types of languages, and as many branches (vi-bhāṣā) of languages also. Māgadhī, āvantikā, prācyā, śaurasenī, ardha-māgadhī, paiśāchī and dākṣiṇātyä are spoken in those respective regions. Śakārī, ābhirī, cāṇḍālī, śābarī, drāviḍī, andhrajā, and lowly language - hina of the foresters, are spoken by respective tribes. The types of activities should be looked for, in different regions.
All this was discussed with reference to the four-fold anubhavas. The B.P. (pp. 13, ibid) reads -
-
"ete'nubhāvāḥ kavibhir nibandhe yogyakalpitāḥ, abhineyā naṭair nātye tat-tad aṛtha'nukülataḥ."
These (four-fold) anubhavas are imagined by wise people for presentation. With reference to the meaning in context, they are to be performed by actors in a drama.
Śā. now once again picks up the main thread and talks of vibhāva and anubhava following DR. Read B.P. pp. 13, ibid -
vibhāvaḥ kāraṇam, kāryam anubhāvaḥ prakīrtitaḥ, hetu-käryä"tmano siddhis

tayoḥ samvyavahārataḥ

Page #246

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1421 jñāyamānatay, tatra vibhāvaḥ bhāva-poșa-krt bhāvo hțdi sthito yena
vyajyate cā'nubhāvyate. Vibhāva is said to be the cause, anubhāva is said to be the ‘kārya', i.e. effect. Their relation of cause and effect is supported by worldly order.
Vibhāva is that which is known. Vibhāva enhances the bhāva or (basic) emotion. Bhāva stays in the heart. It is suggested as well as effected by that (which is vibhāva).
Now there is some difficulty in following this line, : bhāvo hțdi sthito yena vyajyate ca anubhāvyate” which is followed by,
bhrūksepa-katāksādir vibhāvo hrdayam śritah, bhāvān vyanakti yaḥ
sóyam anubhāva itīritaḥ.” We feel that we should read a full-stop after... yena vyajyate. The meaning will be that the emotion staying in the heart of the samājika is suggested by the vibhāva' (on the stage, or as described in poetry.). The next line should be read along with "ca anubhāvyate" of the earlier line and has to be corrected as,
“bhrūkṣepa-katākṣādibhir bhāvo
hțdayam sritaḥ." The emotion staying in the heart of the character is also inferred by twisting of eye-brows etc. presented by the actors and these anubhāvas also then help in the suggestion of emotions in the hearts of the sāmājika - "bhāvān vyanakti sóyam anubhāva iti īritah."
Bhāva, observes Śā. is the mental identity of experience on the part of the sāmājika, with the unhappiness etc. of characters such as Rāma and the like :
“rāmādy āśraya-duḥkhā”der anubhūtes tad ātmatā sāmājikasya manaso yā sa bhāva iti smrtaḥ.”

Page #247

1422
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Thus (B.P., pp. 13) through their nature vibhāvas, anubhāvas and bhāvas are explained.
"evam vibhāvā'nubhāva-bhāvāḥ
próktā svarūpatah.” The B.P. (pp. 13, ibid) further observes that when rasa manifests, many other anubhāvas are seen. They are said to be the enhaneers of respective rasas (in the sāmājika).
śā. further observes that 'sattva' is three-fold with reference to buddhi, jñāna and ananda. This sattva sits upon (i.e. controls) the mind and naturally enjoys the objects that go with respective sense-organs -
“manas sattvam adhisthāya tat tad indriya-gocaran, buddhim āślisya viṣayān anubhūńkte svabhāvatah, tridhā sattvam bhaved
buddhi-jñāna-ānanda-vibhedataḥ.” B.P. (pp. 14, ibid) says that 'sāttvika’ (bhāvas) are so termed because they are caused by 'sattva' - which is a quality (of mind) by which one experiences the same bhāva as that of the character observed. These are feelings of happiness or unhappiness of mind. By observing these as related to others the mind experiences the same bhāvas for oneself. This is 'sattva' and sāttvika-bhāvas are born of this sattva i.e. concentration of mind. These sättvikas are also anubhāvas, but are termed differently as they are born of sattva i.e. concentration of mind, or concentrated mind. B.P. (pp. 14, ibid) reads as -
"tad-bhāva-bhāvanā"tmā syāt para-duḥkhā'di-sevayā, parasya sukha-duḥkhā"der anubhāvena cetasaḥ tad-bhāva-bhāvanam yena bhavet tad anukūlataḥ, tat sattvam tena nirvșttās

Page #248

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1423 sāttvikā ity udīritāḥ." anubhāvatva-sāmānye saty apy eșām prthaktayā lakṣaṇam sattvajattvād hi
te'pi stambā"dayaḥ smrtāḥ. Eight sāttvikas such as stambha, sveda etc. are counted, and then explained individually.
These are seen as enhancers of rasas in poetic compositions in particular.
After this, thirty three vyabhicārins are enumerated and individually explained, along with sub-divisions in certain cases.
B.P. (pp. 25, ibid) observes that those who are experts in rasa-theory should realise the mutual vibhāvā'nubhāvatva' i.e. cause-effect relation, between sāttvika-s and vyabhicărin-s. If some other bhāvas are also observed over and above these, they are to be subsumed under these that are mentioned. Other bhāvas that are closer to those vyabhicărins considered here are named as vibhāvas and anubhāvas. The learned should know this mutual relationship among the sthāyins also.
They (i.e. presented in poetry and drama) should be termed “vibhāva-s” in a general sense as they are meant to touch the heart of the sāmājikas, and for exhibition of excellent acting, and also for enhancement of rasa. The N.D. also has suggested this that the whole mix of vibhāvādi-s presented on the stage or through
hould be termed "vibhāva" in a general sense. When certain vibhāvādi-s are ascertained and fixed with reference to certain sthāyins, they suggest that fixed sthāyin. If this desired result does not follow, it is because of some drawback in their presentation (by poets or artists) B.P. pp. 25 reads as
"drastavyam tatra tatraiva
sättvika-vyabhicāriņām, paraspara-vibhāvā'nubhāvatve rasakovidaih.
anyépi yadi bhāvāḥ syuś citta-vrtti-višesataḥ, anatarbhāvas tu sarvesām drastavyo vyabhicărișu ye bhāvās teșu bhāveşu

Page #249

1424
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
pratyāsannāḥ parasparam, vibhāvato'nubhāvāc ca, sphurabhedā ihóditāḥ. sthāyisvapīyam anyonyam prakriyā jñāyatām budhai). sabhyān rasayitum, abhinaya-cāturyártham, rasam ca posayitum kavibhir nibandhanīyās te [ca] vibhāvā"dayo niyatāḥ. sthāyişu bhāveșu ye ca vibhāvā"dayaḥ pratiniyatāḥ, tair eva sati nibandhe bhāva-višesah pratīyate tatra. yady anyathā nibandhe, sādhāranyena samśayótpatteh doso vibhāvyate vā,
yukta-vibhāvā”di-vaidhuryāt. It may be noted that the concepts of vibhāva, anubhāva, sthāyin, sāttvikas and sañcărin as read in the B.P. are also under the strong influence of the DR. and quite often the same words are accepted in definitions and elaborations.
Sā. observes that the vibhāvádis either stated directly or implied help the cause of enhancement of rasa.
Vyabhicārins are explained in the same terms as read in the DR. BP. (pp. 25, ibid) reads -
viśeşād ābhimukhyena caranto vyabhicāriņaḥ sthāyiny unmagna-nirmagnāḥ
kallolā iva vāridhau. This is DR. IV. 7 (pp. 174, ibid) Sā. further observes that as waves in an ocean are rising and falling and expanding the glory of the ocean they merge with the
me, in the same way the vyabhicārins are rising and merging in the sthāyins and thus nourish the sthayin and themselves also and become rasa.

Page #250

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1425
Sā. again suggests that at times (as in case of nirveda or sama) though they (i.e. vyabhicārins) rise to the capacity of rasa, as they are not steady, they are not useful for the purposes of nātya etc. So, those who know nātya take only eight as sthāyins. Even if sama, wherein all activity ceases, be taken as sthāyin, its acting is not possible in a drama as it is without any anubhāva. So, according to the seniors (i.e. vrddha-i.e. Bharata) there is no enhancement of rasa (in case of sama) and so only eight sthāyins are recognised as useful for drama.
Again drawing inspiration from the DR., Śā observes that sthāyin is only that which, by imposing its nature or form renders others (= opposite or non-opposite bhāvas) one with oneself. It is like waters of the ocean.
Eventhough ‘nirveda' may be a bhāva (= sthāyi-bhāva), as they are also relished like other sthāyins, nirveda and such others can not be taken as sthāyins as they like the other eight recognised sthāyins, cannot make others (= viruddha or aviruddha) one with oneself like the ocean. So, even if nirveda and others are enhanced, they will bring 'vairasya' or absence or mis-representation of rasa. This is under the influence of DR. IV. 36 (pp. 204, ibid) Śā. thus concludes : (pp. 26, ibid) :
ato nātyavidām astāv
evā'tra sthayino matāḥ. So, only eight sthāyins are recognised by those who know the dramatic art.
Only that bhāva, when enhanced becomes rasa, is sthāyin. If others also rise to the status of rasa they are to be included or subsumed under these eight only. The activity of bhāva is of the form of experience. The expertness in presenting the same should be termed as their enhancement. The sadhya artha - i.e. the end for them is rasa, which is their soul.
"tat sādhyo'rtho rasas
teşām, tad ātmā"pattir eva saḥ.” Sā. observes that even vibhāva is anubhava and the latter is like vibhāva. Both of them are vyabhicārins and the latter are also both of them. Thus they are interrelated. The difference in rasa is brought about by difference in this mutual relation. Their being 'cara' i.e. not constant or 'a-cara' i.e. steady is due to context. Šā. promises to discuss the darśana, drsti, etc. concerning the bhāvas later. With this the first adhikara on bhāva ends.

Page #251

1426
SAHṚDAYALOKA
In the second chapter Śā. picks up discussions on rasa. But before we get into it, we should make our point clear about Śa.'s treatment of giving priority to bhāva and therefore discussing the same ahead of the topic of rasa as against Bharata's order of rasa first and Bhāva next. Śā. is right and Bharata also agrees to the point that it is the bhāva, i.e. sthāyī bhāva to be precise, that is raised to the capacity of rasa. So, 'bhāvebhyo rasaḥ' is a generally accepted theory. In view of this Śā. has treated bhāvas first and has also called his work "Bhāva-prakāśana" suggesting that bhāvas are the basis on which the grand edifice of rasa is raised.
Bharata knew this. But, even then he has treated rasas first and bhāvas next, why ? The reason is obvious. Dramatic art, or literary art or any art worth its name has "rasa" in the centre. 'Rasa' again is something which we experience in the context of art only. Abhinavagupta asserts: "natya eva rasaḥ". Here 'nātye' stands for any art. Now whatever is discussed, whichever topic, forms part of the central theme viz. rasa. Nothing, no part, division, sub-division, no nothing concerning art can be discussed without reference to 'rasa' which is the central theme of any art. na hi rasad ṛte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate - asserts Bharata. This means that there is no topic whatsoever, however intimate portion it may be of a given art, can proceed without rasa, i.e. can be discussed without its basic relationship with rasa. Bhāvas are also discussed therefore with a view to their being promoters of rasa. - i.e. aesthetic relish. Bhāvas are two-fold so to say; viz. the worldly bhāvas that are topic of such modern science as psychology and there are bhāvas that are stuff for aesthetics. Now the worldly bhāvas or normal bhāvas that we talk about in all our worldly context, are by nature either giving happiness or unhappiness - i.e. they are sukha-duḥkhā❞tmaka. Whatever gives happiness is welcome to us, and we shun those feelings that cause pain or sorrow, so to say. This is a fact of life. But art is such a medium which transforms the nature of these worldly feelings. All bhāvas, when object of art, or when presented through the medium of art are yielding bliss alone and nothing else than that. So, their nature is exclusively blissful. Bhāvas remain the same but their nature is transformed in the context of art, here dramatic or poetic art for Bharata and Anandavardhana. Abhinavagupta observes: "asman mate tu samvedanam eva anandaghanam āsvādyate, tatra kā duḥkhā"śankā ?. Bharata also seems to hold the same view for he is very clear that the taste enjoyed by the qualified people is never physical, but only mental - "api tu mānasaḥ." No physicality can be dreampt of as having any bearing on art-experience. Thus bhāvas, in context of art-experience or rasa'nubhūti, are simply blissful by nature. They are the same bhāvas as we come across in routine context but their nature is transformed and thus they are a

Page #252

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1427 different set of bhāvas, a different bunch of feelings not come across in routine experience. Thus these special bhāvas earn their speciality, in view of the central theme called 'rasa' or aesthetic experience or art-experience. This is how 'rasa' which is basic to anything connected with art, comes first. Bhāvas, a new set of bhāvas, - thus follow this basic concept of rasa. Precisely for this Bharata treated 'rasa' first, to be followed by bhāvas. The seventh chapter of the NS. deals with bhāvas as they are. But when they become art-stuff they change into something “only blissful”. So, we feel Śā. is not justified in treating bhāvas ahead of rasas. In fact he has missed the very intention of Bharata when the latter places rasas first.
We will now discuss the treatment of rasa by Śā. It may be noted that Śā.is, as elsewhere, here also under the tremendous impa ct of the Malaya school as represented by Bhoja, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika.
Śā. has discussed the topic of rasa keeping both the dramatic and the poetic art in the centre. It may be noted at the outset that he has taken care to note down certain ancient traditions also, even prior to Bharata's, such as those of VệddhaBharata, Vāsuki, Padmabhū, Nārada, etc. Perhaps by Vệddha-Bharata he means the senior Bharata who drafted the larger version of the N.S. The present available N.S. is supposed to contain six thousand verses and 36 or 37 chapters. The longer version is not available to us but was perhaps known to Sā. The ānuvamsya verses, or "bhavanti ca atra ślokās" i.e. verses, or āryās that appear in the present NS. could be from the earlier NS. of the longer magnitude. In the absence of the name of the author, or perhaps the tradition so named him, Śā. also refers to the author of the longer version as "vrddha-Bharata”. We will refer to these details as and when we deal with Sā.'s views.
B.P. second chapter begins with etymological explanation of the terms dealing with this or that vyabhicărin. We do not know the exact source of this presentation. It could be Sā.'s own contribution, or he might have accepted it from a source not available to us. Šā. also discusses the mutual relationship between vyabhicārins, sāttvika-s, and sthāyins etc. They are mutually found to be obliging and or helpful to one another, observes Śā. He says : "evam uktāś ca nirvāhāḥ sāttvika-vyabhicārinām, niruktā yogataḥ kecid uktāḥ kecic ca rūļhitaḥ.” (B.P. pp. 32, Line 3-4)
(pp. 32; line 5, ibid) upakāryópakāritvam eteşām kathyate'dhunā, etc.

Page #253

1428
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Sā. explains how various vyabhicārins and sāttvikas combine and contribute to
th of a rasa, :āvirbhāvo rasānām syāt, sättvikais tu yathóditaih.” (pp. 32, line 17, ibid). When rasas are born they are indicated by the vyabhicārins - "jñāpakā jāyamānānām ete syur vyabhicāriņa).” (pp. 32, line 18, ibid). The anubhāvas are indicating - lakṣayanti - the rasas - "lakṣayanty anubhāvās tu vartamānam tadā rasam.” (pp. 32, line 19 ibid) Thus the vibhāvas and the vyabhicārins deserve a serious study, observes Sā. Some, relying on others, or becoming subordinate to others derive strength among these :
"eșu kecit sva-samarthyam pusyanty anyaśritā api, gunībhūtāḥ kadācit tu sāmarthyam prāpayanty amī.” evam anyonya-sāmarthyam
darśayanti rasódaye." We do not make out the difference between 'anya-śrita' and "gunībhūta". But bhāvas show strength by inter-dependence, in the act of the birth of rasa, says Sä.
Śā. goes to explain how a certain sthāyin accompanied by various sāttvikas and vyabhicārins helps the cause of say, sambhoga śrngāra, or any other contextual rasa.
After explaining the association and strength of various bhāvas, sā. explains the causality of various sthāyins with reference to rasas - (pp. 34, lines pp. 9, 10, B.P.) - "sāhacaryam ca sāmarthyam bhāvānām samyag īritam,
kathyate sthāyibhāvānām rasópādāna-hetutā.”
Śā. then explains rati, prīti, hāsa, utsāha, etc. The etymological explanation of the terms such as rati, hāsa etc. are also given. This is of hardly any consequence.
After this he comes to the consideration of how these bhāvas tend to be rasas, their nature and scope, the nature of rasa, the expression of the state of rasa etc. B.P. (pp. 36, line, 5 ibid):
"eteșām ca rasā"tmatvam svarūpam ca rasasya ca, rasāśrayā'bhivyaktīnām visesah kathyatédhunā."

Page #254

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1429 “Rasa' is sthāyin raised to the capacity of relish, caused by vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sāttvikas and vyabicărins. This is directly accepted from DR. IV. i. Śā. also observes before this that when vibhāvā"dis are presented in an appropriate way, they cause the sthāyin to be known. Along with vibhāvā"di-s and four-fold acting these sthāyins reach the status of a rasa. B.P. (pp. 36, lines 7-10) :
vibhāvā”dyair yathāsthāna-praviștaiḥ sthāyinah smrtāḥ, caturbhis' cā'py abhinayaiḥ prapadyante rasā”tmatām. vibhāvair anubhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, ānīyamānaḥ svādutvam
sthāyī bhāvo rasaḥ smstah.” The DR. has "ānīyamānah svādyatvam.” This is the only difference between the DR. and the BP.
Then the BP. accepts parts from the NS. and continues as follows : B.P. (pp. 36, lines - 11-14) reads as -
"vyañjanausadhi-samyogaḥ yathā”nnam svādutām nayet, evam nayanti rasatām
itare sthāyinam śritāḥ.” The first half is from Bharata (ref. G.O.S. Edn. Vol. I, pp. 288-289, Ch. VI. 35, etc. etc.) The next half says that the other bhāvas lead the sthāyin to the status of a rasa, (like ingrediats leading food-stuff to the state of being palatable). The other portion that follows in the B.P. is also under the influence of the NS. The B.P. reads : (lines : 15-22):
"yathā nānā-prakārair vyañjanausadhaiḥ pāka-viseșaiśca samskệtāni vyañjanāni madhurā"di-rasānām-anyatamena ātmanā parinamanti, tad bhoktrnām manobhis tādrśā"tmatayā svādyante, tathā nānāprakārair vibhāvā"dibhāvair abhinayaih saha yathā”rham abhivardhitāḥ sthāyino bhāvāḥ sāmājikānām manasi rasā”tmanā pariņamantas teşām tādātvika-manovịtti-bheda-bhinnās tat tad rūpeṇa tai rasyante."

Page #255

1430
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
“nānā-dravyausadhaiḥ pākair vyañjanam bhāvyate yathā, evam bhāvā bhāvayanti
rasān abhinayaiḥ saha." (This is from NS. VI. 37). śā. observes that thus Vāsuki has also observed the birth of rasa from bhāvas. So, rasas, as the case may be (of individual rasas), are born of bhāvas : (BP. pp. 37, lines, 1, 2, ibid) -
"iti vāsukinā 'pyukto bhāvebhyo rasa-sambhavaḥ tasmād rasās tu bhāvebyo nispadyante yathā'r hataḥ.”
Śā. now suggests that the sthāyins resting in hero and heroines are enhanced with the help of vibhāvas, anubhāvas, sātrvikas and vyabhicārins. The actors or artists represent them as imitation in drama. These are relished by the sāmājikas and are hence termed rasas. (B.P. pp. 37, lines 3-8) :
"vibhāvais'cā'nubhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhícāribhiḥ, vardhitāḥ sthāyino bhāvā nāyikā"di-samāśrayāḥ. anukāratayā nātye kriyamāņā națā"dibhih, sāmājikais tu rasyante
yasmāt tasmād rasāḥ smộtāḥ.” Sā. enters into, so to say an epistemological investigation in the nature of rasa. He observes that rasa is neither a 'dravya' or an object, nor a 'sāmānya', or visesa i.e. it is berefect of particularity or class. It is not even a quality - "guna”. It is, neither 'karma', activity, nor 'samavāya' or combination or union, nor "another substance." It is a sort of mental attitude, depending on external objects, raised to the highest capacity by vibhāvā”di-s. This is called 'rasa' by the wise : (BP. pp. 37, line 7-10):
na dravyam na ca sāmānyam na viśeso guņo na ca, na karma samavāyo na na padārthántaran ca sah.

Page #256

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and..
1431 vikāro mänaso yas tu bāhyā'rthä”lambanā"tmakaḥ vibhāvā”dyā”hitótkarso rasa ity ucyate budhaiḥ.”
Śā. further adds that even if rasa is said to be mano-vikāra or attitude of mind, it has to be a 'padártha' i.e. an object. Six (different) objects making us experience (six) rasas are apprehended and hence 'rasa' itself is different from the objects. But as rasa is manifested through (various forms of) objects, it can be taken as one such (padártha). Thus, rasa though different from padárthas or objects could be also one of those. BP (pp. 37, lines 11-15, ibid) :
“raso mano-vikārópi padárthā'nyatamo bhavet, padárthā sad pramīyante rasasyā'nubhavā”tmakāḥ. ato rasaḥ padárthébhyo mātrayā kvā'pi bhidyate, dravyā’dīnām padárthānām tat tad rūpatayā rasaḥ kvā'pi kvā'pi prakāśena
teşām anyatamo rasaḥ.” We know that ‘padártha' is that which has a name : abhidheyatvam padárthasāmānya-laksanam (Tarka-samgraha). Now they are six such as 'dravya, guna, karma, samavāya, .višesa, sāmānya', Sā. drives home a point while discussing the nature of rasa epistemologically, that 'rasa' is both a 'padártha' as well as it is not a 'padártha'. But here it seems that Śā. confuses between aesthetic entity called rasa and rasa in its physical context such as the six tastes of eatables : We do not feel convinced about Sā.'s approach here.
Accepting Bharata as a final authority śā. observes that we will discuss vibhāva-s, anubhāvas and sthāyins for the establishment of rasa, following the lead of Bharata. Though vibhāvā"di-s, observes śā., have been spoken of earlier by him, according to their respective nature and form, they will be spoken of again from other point of view also; for knowledge (i.e. information) is always useful (anywhere in any form). : (pp. 37, lines 16-19) -

Page #257

1432
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
"vibhāvāś c'ānubhāvāśca sthāyino rasa-siddhaye kathyante bharatóktena vartmanā nā'nyathā kvacit. uktā api vibhāvā”dyāḥ pūrvatra sva-svarūpataḥ matántarena kathyante
jñānam kvā'py upayujyate." The vibhāva, anubhāva, sātrvika-bhāva, vyabhicāri-bhāva and sthāyins are also narrated following the views of the learned. Accordingly, that which, along with sattva, vāk, and anga, make the kávyártha (= meaning or object) of poetry cause to manifest, are said to be bhāvas in dramatic theme, by the wise. (B.P. pp. 37, 38, ibid)
"yad bhāvayanti kāvyárthān sattva-vñg-anga-samyutān, tasmad bhāvā iti prājñair
ucyante nātya-vastuşu. Śā. further observes : (pp. 38, ibid, also NS. VII. 2. G.O.S., Vol. I)
vāg-anga-mukha-rāgais ca sattvena abhinayena ca, kaver antargatam bhāvam
bhāvayan bhāva ucyate. Through speech, body, facial colour, and sāttvika abhinaya (= acting,
rmance), that which makes one realise the feeling internal to a poet's heart, is called 'bhāva'. Again following NS., Sā. observes that 'that meaning which is brodught about by vibhāva, and is inferred by the anubhāva along with the help of three-fold acting concerning speech, body and mind, is termed “bhāva”. (pp. 38, ibid)
"vibhāvenā"hịto yórthas tv anubhāvena gamyate, vāganga-sattvā'bhinayaiḥ sa bhāva iti kirtitah.”

Page #258

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1433 Those who know drama observe that 'vibhāva' is that which causes to know the acting with the help of speech, body and mind : (BP. pp. 38, ibid)
"vāg anga sattvā'bhinayo yenaiva ca vibhāvyate, sa bhāvo nātya-tattvajñair
vibhāva iti darsitah.” Those who are experts in 'bhāva', know that 'nimitta', 'karana', 'hetu' and 'vibhāva' and 'vibhāvanā' are synonyms.
“nimittam kāraṇam hetur vibhāvaś ca vibhāvanā, ittham vibhāva-paryāyāḥ
kathyante bhāva-kovidaih.” (B.P. pp. 38, ibid) "Vibhāva' means 'vijñāna' or knowledge. Knowledge is that which is known. “Vibhāva is so called because many objects, resting on three-fold acting of speech, body and mind, are known through it.”
"vijñānā'rtho vibhāvaḥ syād vijñānam ca vibhāvitam, bahavórthā vibhāvyante vāg-angā'bhinayā"śrayāḥ anena yaşmāt tenā'yam
vibhāva iti samjñitaḥ.” (B.P. pp. 38, ibid) All this follows the NS. In the same vein. following the NS. Śā. ex
explains 'anubhāva' and 'vyabhicāri-bhāva. B.P. (pp. 38, ibid) :
"vāg-angā'bhinayenéha yasmād arthónubhavyate, sarvāngópānga-sahitaḥ so'nubhāvas tataḥ smộtaḥ. āvirbhūya tirobhūya caradbhiś câ'ntarā'ntarā, yair raso bhidyate'nekaḥ te smộtā vyabhicāriņaḥ.”

Page #259

1434
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Those by which the existence of all bhāvas is known, are the sättvika-bhāvas, as they are born of sattva i.e. concentrated mind.
"bhāvānām api sarveșām yaiḥ sva-sattā vibhāvyate, te bhāvāḥ sattva-janmānaḥ
sāttvikā iti darsitāḥ.” (B.P. pp. 38, ibid) Those that are described in poetry and presented by the actors (on the stage) and those that (finally) stay as rasa (in the hearts of the sāmājikas) are known to be sthāyins. : (B.P., pp. 38, ibid) -
"sthitāḥ kāvyā”dișu națair abhinītā yathā'rhataḥ, rasā”tmanā'vatişthante
satsu ye sthāyino'tra te.” Sä. further observes that certain bhāvas are purely mental, certain bodily, still others are of the speech and some are sāttvikas i.e. belonging to sattva, i.e. concentrated mind. (B.P., pp. 38, ibid)
bhāvāḥ syur mānasāḥ kecid angikā api kecana vācikā api kecit syus
sātrvikā api kecana.” Some bhāvas are found in objects (dravya) and some among guna and karma. But in all these 'bhāva' means 'prayojana' i.e. intention. Prayojana, i.e., 'abhiprāya', 'tātparya' or 'phala' also, and also 'bhāva' - are all synonyms.' 'Bhāva' is a term also used by the wise for ‘dravya' (object), kriyā (activity), guna (quality), speech (vacah) and manas (= mind). 'Bhāva' is a term that conveys 'abhiprāya' i.e. opinion, intention etc.
Šā. has given different meanings of the term bhāva, but all these meanings, we feel are not having the aesthetic context. They are meanings found in general usage.
Sā. now comes to the topic of rasa and loosely using the terms observes that all these bhāvas are useful in enhancing the rasas in a given context. Enhanced by the vibhāvas, nourished by the anubhāvas (= now this is a loose usage. He should have said 'inferred by anubhāvas), placed in deserving relation by the sāttvikas, and

Page #260

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1435
painted or coloured or decorated by the vyabhicārins, the sthāyi-bhāvas are the basis of arriving at rasa
(B.P. 39, ibid reads) - "ete bhāvā rasótkarṣe tatra tatro'payoginaḥ. uddīpitā vibhāvaiḥ svair anubhavaiśca poṣitāḥ, bhāvaiś ca sättvikair yogyasamsargair vyabhicāribhiḥ, citritāḥ sthāyino bhāvā rasópādāna-bhūmayaḥ."
When their (= of the sthayins) relishable form is evolved, i.e. relishable through the minds of the spectators, it is said to be of the form of rasa. And, through different types of their forms (or activity) evolved; the dramaturgists call them different rasas.
B.P. (pp. 39, ibid) :
-

"yadā tadaiṣām āsvadyamānarūpam yad unmiṣat,
manobhiḥ prekṣakāṇām tad
udeṣyati rasă"tmanā.
tatra'ntarasya bheda ye vyāpārasyóditāḥ pṛthak,
te sarve natya-tattvajñaiḥ
kathyante hi rasā"hvayāḥ."
Śā. observes that thus is narrated in general the birth of rasa-s. In these the nature of things or its imitation is seen as presented in a visual way (pp. 39, ibid) :
"evam rasānām udayaḥ sāmānyena samīritaḥ, svabhāvo va'nukāro vā
yasmin dṛśyatayā sthitaḥ."
According to the followers of Bharata (i.e. Bharatāḥ), that is the substratum of rasa (i.e. here sāmājika or nața). But Śa. holds that rasas can never reside in nata or actors. In fact the actors present before the cultured audience, the bhāvas that reside in the noble characters, as imagined by the poets in poetry, and to be

Page #261

1436
SAHRDAYĀLOKA performed by experts. These are presented in poetry by poets for fame, wealth, pacification of unrest in the kingdom, or for the pacification of obstacles in (religious) activity, and for the achievement of the auspicious. They are presented, as if they are present (or belonging to to-day) by the actors. So, natas do only this and hence, they can never be the substratum of rasa.
Śā. observes that mental savour is rasa, and it causes mental pleasure : (pp. 40, B.P. ibid) -
"manaso hlādajananaḥ
svādo rasa iti smộtah.” According to this terminology only Śrngāra can be called a 'rasa', as it only gives pleasure :
sộngārasya sa yujyeta
tasya hlādā”tmakatvataḥ. The rest (i.e. other rasa-s) are called 'rasa' on account of some reason or the other.
"anyeșām rasatā prāyaḥ
siddhā kenā'pi hetunā." Just as people enjoy other tastes, beyond the sweet, on account of variety of place and time (i.e. context), in the same way those who are born, or are yet to be born, through their friendship or enmity being carried as impressions (= samskāras) enjoy different rasas such as Srngāra, hāsya, karuna, etc. - Thus all rasas, getting combined, make for the pleasure of people in context of different time, place etc. B.P. (pp. 40, ibid) observes :
śộngārasya tu yujyeta tasya hlādā”tmakatvataḥ, anyeșām rasatā prāyaḥ siddhā kenāpi hetunā. yathā nộņām tu sarveşām sarvépi madhurā"dayaḥ, bhuktā rasā”tmatām yanti deśa-kālā"di-bhedatah,

Page #262

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1437 tathā jātā janisyanto jāyamānā parasparam, parasparasya sarvatra mitródāsīnaśatravaḥ, teșu kasyā'pi śộngāro, hāsyaḥ kasyacid eva saḥ, adbhutas sa ca kasyā'pi kasyā'pi karuņo bhavet evam sankarato'nyonyam deśa-kāla-guņā"dibhiḥ śộngārā"dyā sadasyānām
bhavanti hlādanā yataḥ.” It is therefore that they are called 'rasas' as they are relished by the cultured : "tasmāt sāmājikaiḥ svādyā rasa-vācyā bhavanti te."
Sā. further observes that due to differences in human nature, and also. differences due to situation etc., and because of the mind being momentary (i.e. its tendency being such), someone tastes a particular one rasa. Hence, all are called by the name of “rasa”. This is the opinion of the teachers :
"prakrtīnām ca bhinnatvād avasthā"di-vibhedataḥ manasaḥ kṣaṇikarvāc ca tān ekaḥ svadate yataḥ, tatópi rasa-vācyā syur
ity ācāryāḥ vyavasthitāḥ. (pp. 40, B.P., ibid) Sā. now picks up another topic. He observes that some accept the suggestivity of rasas while others hold that they are directly stated. Some call them inferred or apprehended and some, only implied. Some take them as meaning of clauses - "avāntara-vākyártha”, and some as meaning of a mahā-vākya (i.e. a complex sentence). Thus the theory is undisturbed by its expression at different places : (pp. 40, B.P. ibid) :

Page #263

1438
SAHRDAYĀLOKA "eke rasānām vyangyatvam vācytvam kecid ūcire, pratyāyyatvam vadanty anye gamyatvam api kecana. tathā'vāntara-vākyártham mahāvākyárthatām pare evam nyāyo no bhidyeta
kvā'pi kvā'pi prakāśataḥ Śā. observes that rasa will be "vyangya' i.e. suggested in the anukārya i.e. original rāmā"di by the agency of the actors. This is beyond our understa Rasa will be the total sentence-sense when delineated in any particular poem. It can be apprehended-pratyāyya-in the nata i.e. artist also on account of the identity of name, i.e. when the nața is called “Rāma", rasa is imagined in him also through temporary identity through the name Rāma given to him. On an earlier occasion Śā. had denied the possibility of the actor being infused with rasa. Here, he seems to contradict his earlier remark. Or, perhaps here he quotes the opionion of others. Śā. observes that thus the location of rasa has to be imagined by the learned at various substratums. B.P. (pp. 40, 41, Edn. G.O.S., ibid) :
“rāmādāv anukārye tu națair vyangyo bhavisyati, tat tat kāvya-nibaddhas tu vākyárthaḥ sa bhavisyati. nāmā"di-tādātmyā"patter națe pratyāyya eva saḥ, evam evóhya eva syāt
tatra tatra vicaksaņaih.”. Rasa, according to some, is both, when delineated in poetry; an avāntaravākyártha and a mahāvākyórtha i.e. both the meaning of a subordinate clause and also the total meaning of a compound or a complex sentence.
tad avāntara-vākyártho mahāvākyártha eva ca. (B.P. pp. 41, ibid)

Page #264

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1439 Following his Mālava School. Śā, now proceeds to deal with the topic of rasa. He observes that in muktaka i.e. a single-verse or a prabandha, i.e. a composition of larger magnitude, with the help of the difference or varieties of sthāyins and sancārins, and with the help of anubhāvas of lady-characters (and also of malecharacters, as depicted by the artists), rasa is 'bhāvita' i.e. caused, or it is said to be 'vāsita' i.e. caused. Through the acting of this or that form (i.e. original characters), rasa is clearly manifested in the cultured spectators (= sabhyesu). This rasa is of the form of consciousness i.e. samvit, and also of the form of prakāśa and ananda i.e. light and bliss. (or, it is of the form of flash of consciousness - "samvitprakāśa", and bliss - "ānanda.). It is apprehended (gamyaḥ) (by the cultured person) an one's own direct experience (svā'nubhūtitah) It is also of the form of 'ahamkāra' or 'I-ness' and 'abhimāna' i.e. something which is abhimata i.e. acceptable and therefore ‘abhi-māna'. On account of rasa being of the form of ahamkāra-abhimāna, it flashes forth in external objects also - (bāhya'rthesu). The light (prabhā) of knowledge (jñāna), the light of bliss, and that of kriyā or activity is born of either an external cause or of its own. In view of this, ahamkāra-abhimāna are explained later. B.P. (pp. 41, ibid) :
"muktakā”dau prabandhe ca sthāyi-sañcāri-bhedataḥ, pramadădy anubhāvena bhāvito vāsito rasaḥ.tat tad rūpasya abhinayaiḥ sabhyeșu vyajyate sphutam, samvit-prakāśānandā”tmā gamyaḥ syāt svā'nubhūtitaḥ, ahamkārā'bhimānā”tmā bāhyártheșu prakāśate. ahamkárábhimānā”di svarūpam kathyate'dhună. parasmad ātmano bhānti jñānā"nandakriyā-prabhāḥ.

Page #265

1440
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Sā. explains that jñāna-prabhāsa i.e. flash of knowledge is that which pervades the body (or enclosure) of jīva, which is the jewel of consciousness. (caitanya-mani). It is that consciousness which is born of the (para-ātma) highest spirit as well as of all objects : "saiņā parā”tmanaḥsarva-vastūtthā cetanā bhavet. (pp. 41, ibid)
Ananda-prabhāsa or the light of bliss is also that which is manifested on all sides of the beings and is connected with their happiness and (happinessyielding) objects.
Kriya-prabhā is prāņa or vital air, that stays in all bodies. The highest being is one that causes vibrations in all objects. Jñāna-prabhā along with anand-prabhā is the source of being or 'sattva.' : (B.P. pp. 41, ibid)
"jñāna-prabhāsāś caitanya-maneh jīvasya sarvataḥ, śarīra-vyāpinī tatra vyāpanā bhavati sphuţam. saiņā parā”tmanah sarva-vastutthā cetanā bhavet, tathākānanda-prabhāsā'pi purușeșu samantataḥ. abhivyaktā satī teşām sukham vaişayikam bhavet. kriyā-prabhā bhavet prāṇaḥ sa dehesu pravartate. paramā"tmā sarva-vastuparispanda-pravartakah, jñāna-prabhā sā”nandā
tasyāḥ sattvam prajāyate.” From kriyā-prabhā ʻrajas' is born. Śakti is born of sattva. Thus it gives birth to the highest - "kriyāprabhā rajas sattvāc chaktiḥ, syād uttamā prasūḥ.” (B.P. pp. 41, ibid)

Page #266

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1441 'Mano-mayādayah' - i.e. mind and the rest are the substratum of these three 'prabhās. At times they stay independently and at times jointly. Sattva-guna is having a very wide area and in it stays ‘rajas'. In 'rajas' stays 'tamas'. Manas stays in ātman. As they stay close to each other, they are imagined to be mixed with one another. Sattva stands in the centre and around it stay rajas and tamas. Out of the combination of the gunas are born five 'tan-mātrā-s' (i.e. sabda, sparsa, rūpa, rasa and gandha). Along with these are born the five (mahā)bhūtas (such as, prthvī, ap, tejas, vāyu and ākāśa). Thus are born these ten objects. Along with five karmendriyas (i.e. hasta, pada, pāyu, upastha and vāk) five jñānendriyas (i.e. cakṣu, śrotra, ghrāna, rasana and tvak) and two-fold mind are born. The ten tanmātrās along with ahamkāra have ten sense-organs as their fall-off (vikști) (or change)
"ahamkārena yuktānām tanmātrānām yathākramam, daśendriyāņi kathyante
teşām vikrtayas tadā.” (BP. pp. 42, ibid) Manas is said to be the 'vikrti' of one ahamkāra. Vikrti (change, fall-off) is born of praksti (= source). So, it is termed 'mahān'. That prakrti is three-fold i.e. sātrvikī, rājasī and tāmasī. This follows sāmkhya system - (B.P. pp. 42, ibid) -
ahamkārasya caikasya vikrtir mana ucyate, prakster vikrtiḥ, sopi mahān; să ca tridhā bhavet. sāttviki, rājasi caiva
tāmasi céti; Sättviki determines the objects of senses and so the wise call it to be "buddhi.” (adyavasāyo buddhiḥ., sāņkhya-kārikā, 23). Along with its parts this buddhi alone (acts for the benefit of) all living beings -
"svāmśaiḥ saha yutā sarva-jīvānām upakārikā.”

Page #267

1442
SAHṚDAYALOKA
(B.P. pp. 42, ibid) - Its portions i.e. amsas are of the form of 'vyasti' i.e. individual parts. Its five jnanendriyas i.e. subtle sense-organs are helpers in reviewing the object :
"vijñānéndriya-pañcakam, sāhāyakam bhavet tat tad viṣaya"locanā"diṣu."
Manas helps (obliges) it by strong will or desire-samkalpa. (samkalpakam manaḥ, sāmkhya-kārikā, 27). When a sense-organ has indistinct perception such as, "this object", the mind has a distinct perception in form of its samkalpa such as, "this object is such and such; it is this and not that." etc. Samkalpa thus is special perception in form of viseṣaṇa-viśeşya. This is the quality of mind-manas. Direct knowledge 'a-parokṣa-jñāna' is 'alocana' but 'paroksa' or indirect-perception is 'samkalpa': 'buddhindriyāṇām sammugdhavastu-darśanam alocanam uktam' (Tattva-kaumudī, edn. Jha, pune, '65, pp. 103)
-
Ahmkara is that which qualifies buddhi, through 'abhimana'. 'Abhimana' is that cognition such as "this is mine." Thus the cognition of the knower with the object known is termed 'abhimana'. As it is the cause of activity, rājasī (ahamkāra) is termed "prāṇa". It helps, by its parts, all beings, itself staying in the heart of all. Karméndriyas help the cause of ahamkara by accepting (i.e. uniting with) its objects. Manas also helps the cause of ahamkara by a desire or samkalpa such as "I should do". Tamasi (ahamkāra), due to constant pariņāma (i.e. changes), in the state of creation, is (called) "kāla". Its 'pariņāma' are the moments (i.e. kṣaṇā"di). On account of this all being meet with 'parinama' i.e. changes. In form of vibration (spandana) Kāla brings changes in objects and thus in fact helps the cause of jñātā i.e. knower, jñāna i.e. knowledge or cognition, and jñeya i.e. object of knowledge. Śā. observes :

"sa kālaḥ spanda-rūpeṇa padárthän pariṇāmayan, anugṛhṇāti vettāram vittim vedyañ ca, tattvataḥ."
(pp. 43, ibid)
Thus, ahamkāra is said to be three-fold in view of the three gunas such as sattva, rajas and tamas (pp. 43, ibid):
"ahamkāras tridhā sóyam sattva"di-guna-bhedataḥ,"

Page #268

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1443 That which is of the 'sättvikā' variety due to sattva-guna, has sense-organs as its effects or off-shoots or parts born of it; i.e. resultant items. Thus ahamkāra is the cause of indriya-s or sense-organs. From 'tāmas' ahamkāra spring 'bhūtaś i.e. the five tanmātrā-s are born of tāmas ahamkāra, which is its cause. Rājas or taijas ahamkāra helps the cause of both of these i.e. both the kārya-ganas are caused by rājas ahamkāra. Sāmkhya kārikā, 25 may be read here as -
"sättvika ekādaśakaḥ pravartate vaikstād ahamkārāt, bhūtā”des tanmātraḥ, sa tāmasaḥ,
taijasād ubhayam." Ahmkāra is of three types viz. sāttvika, rājasa and tāmasa; sāttvika variety causes eleven sense-organs, and tāmasa causes five tanmātrās. Eventhough the rājasa-ahamkāra has no independent function, but as sattva and tamoguņa are by themselves without any activity, they cannot perform their functions on their own and hence they need the help or assistance of rājasa or rajo-guna which is capable of activity. Thus rājasa-ahamkāra helps the cause of both sāttvika and tāmasa. Rajoguņa being active-cañcala’-makes the other two also move. Thus by generating activity in the other two, rājasa ahamkāra also is a cause in generating the effects brought about by the other two
The tendency-vștti or ahamkāra is termed abhimāna'. This ‘abhimānā”tmikā vrtti' becomes the object of fixed sense-organ : "sā'bhimānā”tmikā vrttis tat-tadindriya-gocarā” (B.P., pp. 43, ibid) :
Now the concept of rasa is correlated to this philosophical context. BP. (pp. 43, ibid) observes :
“bāhyárthálambanavati śrngārā"dirasā”tmatām yāti, tatra vibhāvā”di
bhedād bhedam prayāti ca." Relying on external objects, this vștti (i.e. abhimāna) takes to śrngārā”di rasas. This means that the abhimānā”tmikā vịtti, being the object of sense-organs,

Page #269

1444
SAHRDAYĀLOKA through external objects, takes the form of śộngārā”di rasa-s. On account of differences of vibhāvā”di-s, it attains to various types.
When, depending, on one's own abhinaya or acting, the 'lalita' - vibhāvas, get engaged to respective sthāyin along with sättvika-s, anubhāva and vyabhicărin-s. there whatever is the result of rati (sthāyin) attains the name of śrngāra-rasa. The sāmājikas enjoy the same. (B.P. pp. 43, ibid) :
"vibhāvā lalitāḥ sattvā'nubhāva-vyabhicāribhiḥ, yadā sthāyini vartante, svīyā'bhinaya-samśrayāḥ, tadā manaḥ prekşakāņām, rajas-sattva-vyapāśrayisukhánubandhi tatratyo vikāro yaḥ pravartate,
Špngāra-rasábhikhyām labhate, rasyate ca taiḥ.” Thus śā. explains other rasa-s also. When lalitā"bhāsa (imitation of genuine lalita) vibhāva, along with sattvā”di bhāvas that bring enhancement, alone with acting, enhance the sthāyin concerned, the mind of the spectators is in touch of rajo-guna and is blended with tamo-guna also, and resorts to caitanya i.e. consciousness. There whatever vikara - change' of rati is caused, is termed "hāsya"rasa. The samājkas relish the same.
Thus Śā. explains the formation of vīra, adbhuta, raudra, karuņa, bībhatsa and bhayānaka-rasas.
Śā. observes that this sort of creation of rasas-s is narrated in "yoga-mālāsamhitā”,
"idrsi ca rasótpattih manovsttiś ca, śāsvatī, kathit, yoga-mālāyām
samhitāyām vivasvate.” (pp. 45, ibid). We do not know anything about this "yoga-māla” - samhitā, which is either a philsophical treatise or a work on dramaturgy. Sā. observes that in 'samhita' (perhaps the same, yoga-mālā) Śiva has explained fully tāndava, lāsya, nātya and nartana to the Sun-God, i.e. Vivasvān.
Šā. then goes on to explain that along with ārabhați vịtti (style), dance with uddhasa (fast) karañas and angahāras is termed “tāndava”. The NS. (IV. 30)

Page #270

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1445
explains that the movement of hands and feet in dance is termed "karana". They are one hundred and eight. Six, seven, eight or nine karanas taken together are termed "anga-hāra”. They are thirty-two. Read,
“hasta-pada-samayogo
nộtyasya karaṇam bhavet.” (NS. IV. 30) and also, “sadbhirvā saptabhir vā'pi
astabhir navabhir tathā, karanair iha samyuktā
angahārāḥ prakīrtitāḥ.” (NS. IV. 33) Tāņdava is of three types such as fast, very fast and fastest or very very fast. Such varieties as, "an-uddhata, uddhata and ati-uddhata" also are noticed. These, Śā. says, will be discussed later.
'Lāsya' is a softer form of dance with kaisiki vrtti, gentle angahāra and 'laya'rhythem. Śā. talks of its varieties also. That which was associated with “Tandu” sage is called “tāndava”. After explaining “nộtya", Śā. says that “nātya” is that which is the act of an actor. This is of the form of representation of the padártha/ vākyártha as seen in a drama. (B.P. pp. 46, ibid) -
“nātaka-sthita-vākyárthapadárthā'bhinayā"tmakam, nața-karmaiva nāryam syād
iti nāțyavidām matam." 'Nștta' is that which consists of bear movements of hands and feet, i.e. that which is brought about by karanas and anga-hāras. Modern 'break-dance' could be placed with 'nţtta'.
“karanair angahāraiśca
nirvșttam nșttam ucyate.” (B.P. pp. 46, ibid) :
'Nartana' is accompanied by vrttis and instruments and songs. This is qualified by movements of limbs also. This 'nartana' commonly stays in nātya, nrtta, lāsya and tāņdava and gundali (a variety of lāsya).

Page #271

1446
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (B.P. pp. 46, ibid) :
“vịttibhiḥ sahitam gītam tathā vādyā”dibhir yutam, nartanam; gātra-viksepamātram ity ucyate budhaiḥ.” etan nātye ca nștte ca lāsya tāņdavayor api, gundaly ādiņu sarvatra
sādhāranyena vartate.” There are eight types of mental behaviour of the sāmājikas. These eight only are experienced in a drama. The Sāmājikas know (eight) different rasas through them only.
"yatostadhā manovịttiḥ sabhyānām nāțya-karmani, astāv evấnubhūyante
tāsūktās tai rasāḥ prthak.” Śā. thus bases all this, including the discussion on nịtta, nộtya, nāțya etc. and holding of only eight rasas in a drama, on the DR. Thus he follo tradition. It may be noted that the philosophical concepts of the sāmkhya system which he narrated as a background to explain ahamkāra-abhimāna-rasa, seems to be useless. Bhoja also has done such unnecessary exercise. Actually Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who were great 'yogin-s' themselves and very learned philosophers or dārśanikas too, refrained from making this "show-off of their learning. For, their prime task was to discuss aesthetics and not philosophy. But very great as they are, they could afford to do away with such a show of pseudoscholarship to which Śā. falls a prey.
Śā., following the DR. again rejects the case of śānta-rasa with reference to drama. He observes that some theorists mention a ninth mental attitude (i.e. śama), and as a result accept 'śānta' as a (ninth) rasa in drama also.
But the vākyártha-padártha i.e. the content, such as practicing penance etc., on account of their expectancy of being acted (which in itself is not possible) can not be presented on the stage and hence 'śānta' cannot be a rasa in a drama.

Page #272

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1447
(B.P. pp. 47, ibid) :
"kecin navā"tmikām āhur
manovrttim vicaksaņāḥ tataś śānto raso nāțye'py astīti pratijānate.” nāțakā'di nibandhe tu tapaś carana-vastuni abhinetum aśakyatvāt
tad-vākyártha-padárthayoḥ.” Śā. observes that sama-sthāyin, being enhanced by determinants that may be proper to it, is termed 'śānta-rasa' by some experts.
But sama is marked by absence of mental digressions. So it can not rise to the capacity of 'rasa'. Hence 'śānta' cannot be accepted as rasa (B.P. pp. 47, ibid) -
"samas sthāyī vibhāvā”dyair yathāsthāna-nivesitaiḥ vardhitaś ced rasaḥ śāntaḥ asti'ty udbhāvyate kvacit. asya sarva-vikārāņām śünyatvād rasā"tmanā, pariņetum na śaknoti
tasmāt śāntasya nódbhavaḥ." Hence, holds Šā., nātyarasa-s are only eight. This is the opinion of "Padmabhū” i.e. Brahmā also,
"tasmān nāļyarasā
astāv iti padmabhuvo matam." Śā: now records the origin of these concepts, not recorded elsewhere. This is in 'pauraņika' style - He observes :
In ancient times the origin of rasas was narrated by Vāsuki. Nārada narrated the same differently.

Page #273

1448
SAHRDAYĀLOKA "utpattis tu rasānām yā purā vāsukinóditā, nāradasyocyate saisā
prakārántara-kalpitā.” (pp. 47, ibid) Following Bhoja and elucidating Bhoja's position Śā. observes that mind is in contact with external objects and with its seat in rajo-guna and helped by ahamkāra brings out a change-vikāra which is termed “śộngāra”.
bāhyárthā”lambanavato manaso rajasi sthitāt sā'hamkārād vikāro yaḥ
sa śțngāra itiritah. (B.P. pp. 47, ibid) From the same mind, in the absence of rajoguņa, but with sattvaguna, 'hāsya' is born -
"tasmād eva rajohināt
sa-sattvād hāsya-sambhavah.” (pp. 47, ibid) Vira is the change, when mind is in contact with external objects, and is in touch with ahamkāra, rajah and sattvaguņa. Thus vīra results.
"ahamkāra-rajah-sattvayuktād bāhyártha-samgatāt, manaso yo vikāras tu
sa vīra iti kathyate.” (pp. 47, ibid) From the same combination as above, but without ahamkāra and rajas, is adbhuta born -
"tasmād evā'dbhuto jāto
rajo'hamkāra-varjitāt.” (pp. 47, ibid) But with contact of external objects along with rajas, tamas and ahamkrti, raudra is born as a change from mind :
"rajas-tamóhamkştibhiḥ yuktad bāhyártha-samśrayāt, manaso yo vikāras tu, sa raudra iti kathyate.”

Page #274

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
(pp. 47, ibid)
But from the same combination but without rajas and ahamkāra, karuņa is born from the mind.
"karuņas tata eva syād
rajo'hamkāra-varjitāt, cittávasthāt tu manaso
bahyarthā"lambanā”tmanaḥ." (pp. 47, ibid)
When mind is in contact with external objects and tamas and sattva, bībhatsa is born -
tamas-sattva-yutāj jāto
bībhatsa iti kathyate. (pp. 48, ibid)
In the absence of sattva, when mind is covered up by tamas, and in contact with external objects, bhayānaka is born -
"sattva-buddhi-vihīnāt tu
manasas tamasa'nvitāt,
bāhyād eva samutpanno

1449
bhayanaka iti'ritaḥ." (pp. 48, ibid)
But Santa is born of mind, when there is absence of rajas and tamas and it is seated in sattva and when it is slightly out of contact with external objects :
"rajas-tamo-vihīnāt tu sattva'vasthāt sa-cittataḥ,
manāg a-sprṣṭa-bahyarthāt śānto rasa itî'ritaḥ."
Though Śā. does not accept santa with reference to drama, he accepts the same in poetry as is done by his mentor Dhananjaya in his DR.
Śā. now explains the etymology of the word "śṛngara" as is done by Bhoja. Śā. observes that whatever is the best form of manifestation of bhāvas, such as deśa (space), kāla (time), vayas (= condition) dravya (physical object), guna (quality), prakṛti (nature) and karma (activity) is termed "śrnga" i.e. the highest peak. That by which this śṛnga or highest peak is reached is termed 'śṛngāra".

Page #275

1450
"deśa-kāla-vayo-dravyaguna-prakṛti-karmaṇām, bhāvānām uttamam yat tu tac chṛngam śreṣṭham ucyate." iyanti śṛngam yasmāt tu tasmat śṛngāra ucyate."
(B.P., pp. 48, ibid) -
√'Has' with termination "ap" gives the word "hasa". It means laughter. When 'ghan'-termination operates, we arrive at the word "hasa". Thus from the √has, with two terminations we get 'hasa' and 'hasa'. Here there is an alternate granted. Either take √has or √svan, (= to make noise), we come to the word 'hāsya' with the etymology viz. "that for which a person is laughed at - "hāsyate asau." So, deformed limb, age (avastha), object (dravya), language (bhāṣā), -ornament (alamkāra), activity (karma) are causes which make a man laugh. Thus it is termed "hāsya".
•
SAHṚDAYALOKA
Now Śā. explains the etymology of 'vira'. Vra is in the sense of giving alms √lā also is in the same sense. It is in the sense of 'jñāna' or 'khaṇḍana' also. The grammarians take V'ra' & V'la' as identical. 'Vira' is therefore one which destroys the opposition - "viruddhān rāti hanti it vīra-śabdasya nirvāhaḥ.” (Śā., pp. 48, ibid) Or, that which knows various objects, or beautiful objects, is vīra. "vividham vicitram ca lāti, jānāti, kṛntati" is vīra. This is the opinion of some ancient masters. Or, "that which inspires the enemies" is also the etymology of vira - "vidviṣṭān prerayati."

The word 'adbhuta' is derived from √bhr, with 'utac' termination, along with 'avyaya', meaning 'vismaya' or marvellous. Šā. observes: "vicitra yasya bhavati citta-vṛttis tatódbhutaḥ." (pp. 49, ibid)
--
"Rudra gives hand" - "rudraḥ hastam dadāti" - This is the derivation of "raudra". The activity or agency has for its cause, what is "raudra". That activity which makes others cry is called "raudra" -
'yat karma radayaty anyan
sa raudra iti va bhavet."
'Karuna' is derived as follows - √ghṛni is used in the sense of compassion, almsgiving, catching etc. "ghṛṇi dhātur -
dayā-dāna-grahaṇeșu ca vartate."

Page #276

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
"gṛhṇāti datte dayate
iti karma ghṛṇer itam." (B. P. pp. 49, ibid)
Thus √ghṛn is used in the sense of compassion, giving alms, and accepting something (grahaṇa). "gṛhṇāti datte dayate iti karma".- this is the meaning of 'ghṛṇā' The wise men say that through this activity whatever is the mental attitude that results is termed "ghṛṇā". The grammarians explain "ghṛṇā" as "karuņā." So, the composers of nighņu also take 'ghṛṇa' as "karuṇā". "Karuḥ" means 'kleśa' or unhappiness. That which does not tolerate this "karuḥ" is 'karuna'. The experience of this feeling of 'karuņa' is "karuņa" (rasa). The mental attitude which does not bear or tolerate the miseries inflicted by others, is the bhāva called "karuna."
Thus 'bībhatsa' is explained from √badh, with 'san' termination. garhā, nindā, bībhatsa, kustā etc. are synomyms.
'ñi-bhi'-bhaye-means √bhi is for fear. The learned explain the word 'bhaya' as 'calana' (i.e. going away, running away). "bibheti bhāyayati anyān karmaṇā iti bhayam." That which is afraid and that which makes others afraid is termed 'bhaya.' That which is born of 'bhaya' and akrośa' is termed "bhayānaka."
Wherein changes, both external and internal get mixed and get quiet, that feeling (bhāva) is termed śānta-(Śā. pp. 50, ibid).
“ābhyantarāś ca bāhyāś ca vikārā yatra samyutāh yasya bhāvasya samyanti sa santa iti kathyate."
Śā. says that derivations of words such as 'sṛngara' and the like are attempted by him folllowing the line of etymologists who derive words either on the basis of meaning, or roots, or 'vacana', or 'yoga' or through commonness of letters etc.
1451
To us, these derivations of words does not help the cause of aesthetics and therefore, this is a totally futile exercise by Śā.
Śā. now turns to an important topic. He says that experts explain differently how the spectators experience the fact of the superimposition of Rama etc. on the
actors :
(pp. 50, ibid)

"rāmādyā"ropaṇātmā dhiḥ prekṣakāṇām naṭā"diṣu jāyate yā'tra vidvadbhir bahudhā sā vivicyate."

Page #277

1452
SAHṚDAYALOKA
He follows the views as recorded in the A.bh. First of all he takes up the view of Śrī. Śankuka, without naming him. He observes: (pp. 50, ibid)
"rämóyam ayam evéti yéyam prekṣakadhir nate, anukaryépi rāmā❞dau
sā samyag iti kathyate."
Right-cognition is that which is of the form of "only this (man) is Rāma and Rāma is only this man." This right-cognition is with reference to the original (anukarya) Rāma as well as the actor. This should be the nature of the cognition of the spectator if it is right-cognition.
It will be called false cognition if after the first cognition of the actor being taken as Rāma, there will subsequently arise a cognition, a stronger one, that he is not Rāma.
"ayam sa na iti mithyaiva
bodhād auttara-kālikāt" (pp. 50, ibid)
Doubtful-cognition is of the nature of
"Is he Rama or not ?"
"ayam rāmo na véty eṣā
matiḥ syāt samsaya"tmikā." (pp. 50, ibid).
A cognition of similarity on the part of the spectator takes the form of "this actor is like Rāma." Thus these are the optional cognitions which a spectator may have with reference to the actor who plays the role of Rama in a drama.
But actually the cognition in the context of art is different from all these four types of cognition. This is the view of Sankuka which is explained by Śā. with naming Śankuka. Śankuka holds that art-cognition is different from samyagmithya-samsaya and śādṛśya types of cognitions. This art-cognition takes place on the analogy of "citra-turaga" i.e. a painted horse.

"citre turaga-buddhyā"di
nyāyenaiva naṭā"diṣu dhiya..." (pp. 50, ibid)

Page #278

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1453 This art-cognition is brought about on the strength of 'kāvyā'nusamdhāna' i.e. repeated encounter with poetry and due to strength of training-śiksā-bala; on the part of the actor, who performs his role in an expert way. This the actor presents with the help of vibhāvā”di-s that are basically artificial, but are tainted by the perception of reality in them. With these vibhāvā"di-s, through the relation of gamya-gamaka- bhāva i.e. relation of inference, a feeling is inferred. This inferred sthāyin, on account of its inherent beauty, is relished and this anuksta-anumita-sthāyin is termed rasa(according to Sankuka.) : (BP. pp. 50, 51), ibid) :
"citre turaga-buddhyā"dinyāyenaiva națā”dișu, dhiyā kāvyánusamdhānabalāc chikṣāvaśād api. nirvartita-sva kāryā”diprākaryena prakāśyate kstrimair api satyatvá-bhimāna-kalusīkstaiḥ, vyapadesyair vibhāvā”disabdaiḥ samyoga-rūpiņā sa gamya-gamakatvena kvacid apy anumīyate vastu-saundaryataḥ sópi. rasanīyatvam eşyati, anyánumīyamānena
sthāyitvena vibhāvitaḥ. Here, actually the ratyādi is not present and yet it is relished in form of rasa
"atrásann api ratyā"dih
svādyate taiḥ rasā”tmana.” (pp. 51, ibid) This is the view of some (=i.e. śrī-Sankuka)
"evam kecid vadanty etām nate rāmā"di-semusīm.”

Page #279

1454
SAHRDAYĀLOKA But, śā. further observes, that the Bharatas who know dramaturgy say that this (= as explained by Sankuka) is not so
"naivam ity eva bharatā
nātya-vedártha-vedinah.” (pp. 51, ibid) Who these Bharata-s are, we do not know. But in the A.bh. we know that the preceptors (=upādhyāyāh) of Abhinavagupta refuted Sankukas views. Without naming, śā. also presents the views of these Upādhyāyas (i.e. Tauta, perhaps). Śā. observes : (pp. 51, ibid) :
“naivam ity eva bharatā nātya-vedártha-vedinah, rāmā"di-buddhir yā nātye preksakāņām națā"dişu, séyam na samsayamatir na viparyāsa-dhir api naiva sādrśya-dhir esā,
na citra-turagā"tmikāExperts in dramaturgy hold the view that the cognition of Rāma in the actor, by the specators, is not of the form of doubt (=samśaya), nor of the form of similarity (=sādrśya), nor a false cognition(viparyāsa).
It is not of the form of "citra-turaga” cognition as well.
The reason is that, as there is no possibility of a doubt due to factors viz. time and space, it can not be of the form of doubt. Spectators know that Rāma happened to be in times and place quite different from the present. So, no doubt of the form of, "Could the actor be Rāma ?" can ever take place in the mind of the spectators. On account of subsequent termination of cognition, it certainly can not be a false cognition. The cognition that takes place during performance can not be of the form of similarity for the spectators know that there is no ghost of a chance of similarity between the legendary Rāma and the poor actor. Rāma is presented through poetry and nața is very much existing before the eyes of the spectators. This can not be a cognition on the analogy of 'citra-turaga' also, for the spectators know the artificiality connected with the horse that is painted in a picture. All painted things are not real but only artificial. The painting again is insantient, while the actor is a santient being. So, on earth, there can never be a

Page #280

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1455
cognition based on the analogy of a painting. Śā. has beautifully analysad the views of the Upadhyāyas (=Tauta) as mentioned in the Abhinava-bhāratī. Abhinavagupta himself has not presented this analytical presentation of the views of his preceptors. B.P. (pp. 51, ibid) observes :
"na samsayasya śankā syād deśa-kālā"di-bhedataḥ, na viparyāsa-dhiḥ sā syād bädhäd auttara-kālikāt. kāvyā"dy upanibaddhasya rāmādeś ca natasya ca, sādṛśya-dhi-hetv-abhāvān na ca sadṛśya-dhir bhavet. citre likhita-vastūnām manyante kṛtrimā❞tmatām, sarvépi yat-tataś citraturaga❞tmā na dhir bhavet. naṭādes cetanatvena citrasyácetanatvataḥ, tasmāt kadācana kvapi
na citra"di-matir bhavet."
When the cognition of Rama in the actor is yielding the desired result, then in the absence of badhaka (i.e. refuting cognition), it has to be right cognition. On account of this samyak-pratīti with reference to nata, the spectators are overpowered by rasa. Thus the cognition of Rama with reference to the nața is supported by the result (artha-kriyā).
(B.P. pp. 51, 52, ibid) -

"yadā hy artha-kriyā-karmasamarthā rāmadhir nate, tadānīm bādhakábḥāvāt tasya samyaktvam ucyate. prekṣakās tad-rasā"viṣṭā

Page #281

1456
SAHRDAYĀLOKA națe samyak-prayoktari, yat tatórtha-kriya-karma
samarthā rāmadhir nate. Śā. now observes that he has thus proclaimed the rise of rasa (=rasódaya), from the point of view of its form (=rasa-svarūpa) and its substratum (=rasā”śraya), from Bharataś point of view. Now its manifestation will be discussed : (B. P. pp. 52, ibid)
"evam rasānām udayah svarūpā”śraya-buddhitaḥ darsito bharatóktah.
tasya vṛttir nirupyate.".. Now Bhatta- Nāyakaś view is stated. Sā. observes that - rasa is not apprehended as if it is a taţastha-experience i.e. it is not apprehended through inference, as if no one is personally involved. Nor it is apprehended in a personal way. It is neither directly stated, nor produced at any given moment. With the help of anubhāvas presented as if they are genuine (i.e. identical with the origial) by lady-characters etc., the taste is caused, which carries the hearts of the connoisseurs. Due to presentation of bhāvas and abhinaya (=acting) in a generalised way, it is conveyed by bhāvakatva-vyāpāra, and is enjoyed by bhogafunction which is of the nature of the experience of blissful consciousness. Thus the relation (between vibhāvā”di-s and bhāva) is said to be “bhoktr-bhogyárthasambandha” This view of Bhatta Nāyaka is explained by Sā. without naming the author -
"na taţastha-tayā na ātma-gatarvena pratīyate, na cábhidhīyate kvápi nótpadyate kadācana. tādātvikena pramadā”dyanubhāvena väsitaḥ, svādaḥ sahrdayānām yo hlādā”tmā hệdayamgamaḥ sa bhāvábhinayāt sādhāraṇīkarana-rūpayā

Page #282

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1457 bhāvakatva-vyāpriyayā bhāvyamānaḥ svabhāva-vat, bhogena samvidā"nandamayenaivópabhuksyate, bhoktr-bhogyártha-sambandha
prakāraś cábhidiīyate." In the end śā. gives his own rasa-theory. He observes that on account of three tattva-s or entities such as rāga (attachment), vidyā (knowledge) and kalā the selfoperative activity (svatah pravrtti) of purusa i.e. an individual soul takes place with reference to objects of senses-(gocara). With the help of instruments i.e. karanassuch as intelligence (buddhi) etc., this activity begets 'bhoga' i.e. enjoyment and rests (finally) in form of impressions i.e. vāsanā. There is experience of enjoyment coloured by unhappiness, delusion etc. also.
The abhimana which is of the form of happiness is termed 'rāga.' Rāga is said to be the cause of limiting of the quality of content of a soul.- Through this limitation the soul is attached to objects of senses (Ref. Iśvara-pratyabhijñāvimarsinī, Edn. K. C. Pandey, '50, pp. 237-8; Allahabad).
Vidyā is that factor which limits the omniscience of a soul. As a result the soul become a knower of “limited objects.” (see, Pandey, ibid, pp. 237).
Thus 'Vidyā' is the upādāna-material cause-of rāga. With the help of 'vidyā’ a wise mans knowledge is manifested.
"Kalā' is the factor which flashes the consciousness covered by ‘mala' or covering. The activity of intelligence of the form of happiness and unhappiness is termed "gocara."
According to Kashmir Saiva darśana three types of 'mala' go with a soul. They are "āņava”, “māyā” and “kārma." Anava-mala is that covering which covers the form of Jiva such as jñātr-i.e. knower and kartr i.e. doer. On account of anavamala, jiva has a limited form. Māyā is the apprehension of 'a-vastu' as against 'vastu' i.e. thing in itself. In fact māyā is said to be the root-cause of all the three mala-i.e. limitations or covering. Kärma-mala is the cause of the birth and enjoyment of fruits of a soul. (See Iśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikā- 2,3,4,5)
Thus, observes Sā, through the agency of bhāvas or feelings, acquired through successive births, and with the help of intelligence which is instrumental in enjoying these bhāvas which are objects, the enjoyment derived is in form of rasa.

Page #283

1458
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The ancient masters of Saivā”gamas have delineated this subject in this way. The soul enjoys objects, having sole interest in enjoyment. This the soul does when its consciousness is charged by ‘Kalā', when it is shown objects by 'vidyā', and when t is coloured by 'raga'. With the help of instruments in form of intelligence-the soul enjoys with 'māyā' staying in him for all time. The rasika-s thus enjoy the bhogas. The guna-s such as sattva etc. help the cause of buddhi. This enjoyment is rasa.
Sa. has thus discussed the nature of rasa-experience from the point of view of śaiva-āgama. He has discussed the epistemologilal background of rasa-experience. But we feel that this discussion of theory is uncalled for. What matters is only the nature of rasa-experience and not an acount that explains the "making of rasa." The B. P. (pp. 52, 53) read as
“rāga-vidyā-kalā-samjñaḥ pumsas tattvais tribhih svatah, pravṛttir gocarótpannā buddhyā"di-karañair asau, bhogam nispādya nişpādya vāsanā”tmaiva tisthati, duḥkha-mohádi-kaluşam api bhogyam pratīyate. yat-sukhatvábhimānena sa rāga iti kathyate, vidyā nāméti tattvam yad rāgópādānam ucyate. tayábhivyajyate jñānam puruṣasya vipaścita), caitanyasya svabhāvataḥ. abhijvalanahetur yā sā kaléty abhidhīyate sukha-duḥkhā”tmikā buddher vịttir go-cara ucyate. evam paramparā-prāptair bhāvair visayatām gataiḥ, buddhyādi-karanair bhogān

Page #284

“Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1459 anubhunkte rasā”tmanā. śivágama-jñāir arthóyam evam uktaḥ purātanaiḥ. kalótkalita-caitanyo vidyā-darśita-gocaraḥ. rāgeṇa rañjitaścáyam buddhyā”di-karanair yutaḥ māyādyavani-paryantam tattva-bhūtāni sthitam. bhunkte tatra sthito bhogān bhogaika-rasikaḥ pumān prerakatvena buddhyā"dikaraņānām punaḥ punaḥ.” upakurvanti sattva"di gunās te
tatra tatra tu."We will now turn to Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kośa (NLRK.) of Sāgaranandin,
pression is that Sagaranandin has given the summary of what Śāradātanaya has presented at length in the BP.
Actually the NLRK. has not made any theoretical observations on various views concerning rasa-realisation. It has mostly quoted from Bharata and kept quiet over issues of concern. It speaks of eight rasas only and avoids discussing the case of śānta-rasa, altogether. NLRK (Edn. chaukhambha Skt. sansthan, Varanasi, Prof. Babulal Shukla, Shastri, '72) (pp. 182) Kärikā 190 mentions eight rasas to begin the topic, with introductory words such as- "atha rasāḥ kathyante.”
After mentioning the eight rasas, the vștti observes : catvāra eva vā. yataḥ
"śộngāránuguņo hāsyaḥ, karuņo raudra-karmajaḥ, adbhutaḥ karma vīrasya
bībhatsasya bhayānakaḥ-" This follows Bharataś observation concerning prakrti-rasa-s and vikrti-rasa-s.

Page #285

1460
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Descsibing how rasa is arrived at, NLRK. (pp. 182, ibid) Kā. 191 observes :
“vibhāvasyánubhāvasya vyabhicāriņa eva ca, samyogād unmised bhāvaḥ
sthāyyeva tu raso bhavet." When due to combination of vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicārin a sthāyin is enhanced, it becomes rasa.
That NLRK. adds 'sthāyin' follows DR. and other such sources. Bharata in his rasa-sūtra did not mention 'sthāyin.' But we cannot say here for certain that the NLRK., by mentioning sthāyin is a supporter of Lollata, or a supporter of 'rasa' being of the nature of both 'sukha' and 'duḥkha.' We will go ahead with the NLRK. and try to fix its attitude later.
After giving the observation as above, NLRK, in its vrtti says that "athava rasās ta bhāvāś ca ete anyonyópakārāt sahabhāvena eva pravartamānāḥ siddhim adhirohanti. yathā
"na bhāva-hīnósti raso na bhāvo rasa-varjitaḥ, paraspara-kytā siddhir
anayoḥ rasa-bhāvayoḥ.” Kā. 192 (NS. VI. 37). This is a quotation from NS. of Bharata. But we are surprised to see that after giving a rasa-sūtra (kā. 191), the NLRK. switches over to the problem of the relation between bhāva and rasa. Of course the NS. does discuss this topic but here the treatment lacks a proper design and methodology.
vrtti (pp. 183) on Kā. 192 observes : anna-vyañjanavat. yathā bhoktur annam vyañjanam upa-kurute, vyañjanam annam, tato rasah syāt tathaiva bhāvān rasāh, rasāns ca bhāvā upakuryuh.
This is like food and spices, observes the NLRK. As in case of the food of an enjoyer, spices make it richer and testier, and spices find place because of foodstuff, and by their combination taste is born, similarly, rasa-s and bhāva-s help the cause of one another.
Now actually this illustration of anna-vyañjana is borrowed from the NS. of Bharata but is applied to a different context. In the NS. the illustration was served only to illustrate, how many things combine and produce a single entity. There was

Page #286

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and..
1461 no intention in the NS. to illustate utility of each other to serve the cause of each other, i.e. "parasparópakāra.”
The NLRK. further observes in the vrtti (pp. 183, ibid) :
"parasparam sarvadā sambaddhāh preksakān manasi pramodena upaślisyanto rasā iti vyapadiśyante. (=These bhāvas, including the sthāyin and the vibhāvādi-s)
ombine with one another and are termed rasas, embracing the spectators with delight in their minds."
This is a careful non-committal expression of the NLRK. How the vibhāvādi-s combine with the sthāyin is not made clear thus implying all the possibilities of janyajanaka-bhāva, gamya-gamaka-bhāva and vyangya-vyañjaka bhāva all in one !
The NLRK. further notes the views of others. (pp. 183, ibid) : "anye tu kāryakāranarvam anayoh sat-kārya-vādidarśanena angīkurvanti-yatra bhāvāh kāryam rasah karanam, dvayam apy etat tulya-kālāvasthityā anyónyópasādhayanti."
"Others, following the principle of satkāryavāda, accept the cause-effect relationship between these two (i.e. rasas / bhāvas). Accordingy, the bhāva-s are 'effect' and the rasa-s are 'cause'. Both of these, on account of simultaneity, serve the cause of one another (=parasparópakāra), and achieve the end resulted from (contribution of) one another."
Perhaps the view of the samkhya-theorists on rasa, read in the A.bh. is referred to here. But 'rasa' here is said to be cause' and 'bhava' is mentioned as "effect." This goes against Śā.ś view. We had suggested that bhāva-s in aesthetic context are considered by Bharata and placed next to rasa for consideration. This way NLRK.ś observation can be said to be true, because laukika-bhāvas have no bearing on rasa.
After this NLRK. treats of individual rasas such as śrngāra and the like. The vibhāvā"di-s, the types if any etc. are also mentioned following Bharata and tradition. Sāgaranandin (=Sā.) does not consider Santa-rasa, but at the end of the treatment of individual rasas, he, following the lead of Anandavardhana observes :
"āksipya sa-vyājam ati-prasaktam rasam rasajñaḥ punar ādadīta, na cátigādham ca, na cáti-mandam
sandīpanam drstam idam rasānām."- Kā. 227 (pp. 191. ibid). If the delineation of rasa is stopped in the middle due to any reason, the knower of rasa should once again start. This delineation should neither be over-done nor should be below normal level. This is the right process of presenting rasas.

Page #287

1462
SAHRDAYĀLOKA After this Sā. correlates rasas and vịtti-rīti-s. He observes :
eșu ca raseșu śộngāra-kārunya-hāsā mțdavaḥ bhārati-kaisiki-vaidarbharītibhājaḥ raudra-bībhatsa-bhayānakāḥ dīptāḥ bhāraty-ārabhas-visayāḥ gauda-rītibhājaḥ madhyamau vīrád hutau bhārati-sātrvatī-vişayau pāñcāla-rīti-bhājāu iti.”
-This passage is clear. The NLRK. now treats of bhāva-s etc. Sā. quotes NS. VII. 2
- "vāg-anga-sattvábhinayair
āhāryábhinayair api, kaver antar gatam bhāvam
bhāvayan bhāva ucyate.” With the help of the (four-fold) acting concerning speech, body, mind and costumes, settings etc., that which brings into focus the internal feeling of a poet is termed 'bhāva.'
Sā. also quotes NS.VII. 7yórtho hrdaya-samvādī tasya bhāvo rasodbhavah, śarīram vyāpyate tena
śuskam kāştham ivágninā.” "That meaning which sweeps the heart is the bhāva which causes rasa. The body (i.e. the whole self of the rasika) is covered up by that, like fire engulfing dry wood.” Sthāyin, according to Sā. is- (pp. 192, ibid; Kā. 230) :
"bahūnām samavetānām rūpam yasya bhaved bahu, sa bhāvaḥ kathyate sthāyi
seșās tu vyabhicāriņaḥ." When many bhāva-s come together, that which comes out as most striking, is called sthāyin, and the rest are all accessories. This carries impression of the DR.
All these bhāvas are resulting from mind, says Sā. They stay in the body which is their natural resort. These bhāvas cause the rasa-s to happen and hence are termed bhāva-s :
"sattva-bhedāḥ bhavanty ete,
śarīra-prakrti-sthitāh,

Page #288

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
bhāvayanti rasān yasmāt
tasmād bhāvaḥ prakīrtitāḥ." (Kā. 231, pp. 192, ibid)
Then eight sthāyin-s are enumerated but the list begins with hāsa, suggesting that the treatment lacks proper method :
"hāso ratiś ca śokaś ca
krodhótsähau bhayam tathā, jugupsā vismayaś céti
sthāyibhāvāḥ prakīrtitāḥ." (Kā. 232, pp. 192, ibid)
Vibhava-s are explained in the NLRK (Kā. 233) as
"vibhāvyanté dhigamyante vāgangábhinayāśritāḥ,
ebhir artha yatas tasmād vibhāvā samudāhṛtāḥ."
vibhāva-s are so called because through them, with the assistence of acting concerning speech and body, the meanings are properly conveyed.
To explain 'anu-bhāva' Sa. quotes NS. VII. 5 - (pp. 192, ibid)
"vāgangábhinayair ebhir yasmin arthónubadhyate, sarvāńgópānga-samyuktastv anubhavas tataḥ smṛtah."
Anubhava is so called for it conveys (i.e. makes infer) the meaning with the help of acting concerning speech, body etc. The anu-bhāva is accompanied by (movements of) all major and minor limbs.
1463
Sā. quotes the opinion of others (pp. 193, ibid) :
anyas tv aha- rasópādāna-hetur-vibhāvaḥ, rasábhivyañjakónubhāvaḥ, rasaprāpayitā bhāvaḥ, bhāvópakāriṇaḥ carāḥ sattvikāś ca bhāva bhaveyur iti.

-
Others say that-vibhāva is the material cause of rasa, anubhava is the suggester (i.e. manifester through inference), bhāva is that which causes the rasa (to enhance). The accessories are those that help the cause of (i.e. nourish) rasa.
These 'cara' i.e. impermanent accessories are thirty-three. Sā. enumerates the thirty-three vyabhicārins after Bharata.

Page #289

1464
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
Then individually the vyabhicārins are explained / defined and illustrated, beginning with 'nirveda.' How each vyabhicārin is born of which causes (vibhāvas) and how it is presented through acting is also explained. The last vyabhicārin is termed 'saucam'.
At times synonyms are given.
Eight sättvika-s follow the traditional list. Sā. observes that 'sattva' is that quality which flashes forth other things. The bhāva-s born of this quality of 'sattva' are termed 'sattvika-s': "sattvam nāma prakāśako guṇaḥ. tena nirvṛttāḥ sättvikāḥ."
Sā. here has followed the concept of sattva-guna of the samkhya darśana. Abhinavagupta (G. O. S. Vol. III. pp. 150) explains it as- "sattvajam, manaḥsamādhānajam.
Sā. observes that only to help the cause of sthāyin-s, the sattvika-s and vyabhicārin-s operate :
"sthāyinām eva bhāvānām upakārāya sarvadā
pravartante nivartante
sättvikā vyabhicāriṇaḥ." (Kā. 240, pp. 207, ibid),
with this the treatment of 'rasa' and 'bhāva' is over in the NLRK.
We will now pick up the Rasārṇava-Sudhākāra (=RS.) of Śinga-Bhūpāla (=Ś. B.) for the treatment of the topics of 'rasa' and 'bhava'. It may noted beforehand that the so called Mälava School had its effect more on works concerning dramaturgy, rather than works concerning pure poetics or alamkāra-śāstra.
We cannot trace the origin of this Mālava School of aesthetics but it could be parallel to, or even prior to the Kashmir School of thought to which, we feel even Bharata belonged. Sāradātanaya has given an account of the origin of drama etc., which is not met with even in Bharata. Bharata, we know, sought the origin of natya from the four vedas. Šā. respects this view but suggests (B. P. pp. 55, 57; 284285, G. O. S. Edn. ibid) that natya originated from Lord Siva, (B. P. pp. 55, line 20)svātantryam eṣām (=mukhya-rasānām)

utpattim itareṣām ca sambhavam,
vyāsa-próktena mārgeṇa kathayāmi yatharthataḥ. kalpasyante kadācit tu

Page #290

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1465 dagdhvā lokān maheśvaraḥ,....
..... etc- etc. pp. 285- "gaccha brahman purárātim
ambikā-patim īśvaram.... etc. Bharata and others have correlated the origin of drama with Brahmā.
Again according to Bharata, the sons of Bharata brought ‘nārya' down to earth from heaven, when they were inspired by Nahusa. For Šā., the credit goes to Manu and not to Nahusa.
In short, even if we do not pay attantion to the 'pauranika' account in BP., the fact remains that Sa. talks of a different tradition of art, particularly the dramatic art. But with this was also related the poetic art and hence Sa. treats both of the dramatic and poetic arts together. But he seems to represent in both an older tradition that may go by the name of Mālava tradition. Dananjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, to some extent even Ramacandra and Gunacandra or even their preceptor Hemacandra, and then Sāradātanaya(-we may not mention the anonymous work, Sāhitya-mīmāmsā that preceded Ruyyaka), and Sāgaranandin and Singa-Bhūpāla, to an extent even Vägbhata I and II, and also some other Jain writers on Kavi-śikṣā, and Pratāpa-rudra, followed the lead of this Mālava-School of thought, which was not favourably inclined to Santa-rasa and talked also of four types of anubhāvas such as vāg-arambha, gātrā"rambha, sattvā”-rambha and buddhyārambha types, with the last variety covering rīti-vętti-and pravstti.
Now with this backgroand we will proceed with the Rasārnava-Sudhākara (RS.) of singa-Bhūpāla (ś. B.), to examine the concepts of 'rasa' and 'bhāva' as seen
ur references are to the Ananthashayan Edn. (=Trivendrum Edn.) by T. Ganapatishastri, ’16.)
RS. I. 58 (pp. ibid) observes that rasa in full bloom is the life-breath of nātya i.e. dramatic art. Therefore the author takes up its consideration,
“rasótkarşo hi nāțyasya
prāņās tat sa nirūpyate.” RS. (1. 58b, 59a) defines rasa as,
vibhāvair anubhāvais ca sättvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, (I. 58b) aniyamānaḥ svādutvam sthāyi bhāvo rasaḥ smộtah. (I. 59A).

Page #291

1466
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Sthāyin raised to the capacity of relish with the help of determinants, consequents, sātrvika-s, and accessories is termed rasa. This is clearly under the influence of the DR. IV. i where in place of 'svādutva' we read 'svādyarva', as under:
"vibhāvair anubhāvaiśca sātrvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ, aniyamānaḥ svādyatvam ,
sthayĩ bhāvo rasah smrtah.” It may be noted that the RS. has covered up all details concerning the art of drama in three chapters called 'vilāsa-s', while the DR. has given four chapters for the same treatment. Both of course basically follow the lead of Bharata, but as noted above they have absorbed greater influence of what we term the Mālava School of aesthetics. This need not mean that the Malava School and the Kashmir
School to which Bharata seems to belong to. were at daggers drawn against each - other in all respects. No, not so. On the contrary both respected the basic thought
currents of rasa and bhāva, keeping them in centre. Their approach to certain basics was identical but perhaps the Malava School had a more systematic approach to the concept of anubhāva-s, which were four-fold such as vāg-ārambha, gātrā"rambha, cittā"rambha (or sattvā"rambha) and buddhyā"rambha, the last variety included riti-vrtti-pravrtti in its fold. We saw this in Agnipurāna and Bhoja but we miss it in the DR. though it is a leading pro-mālava-school document. A general tendency is not to accept śānta-rasa at least in the context of dramatic art. As for the basic concept of, (laukika) sthāyi eva rasah." leading to "sukhadhukhā”tmako rasaḥ,” and (a-laukika) schāyi is rasa, i.e. rasa is (laukika) sthāyivilaksana, as it is an "ānanda-ghana-samvedanam eva', - individual writers have their own choice. We will go to see what line is picked up by the RS.
After defining 'rasa', RS. comes straight away to what is meant by vibhāva, and its varieties. RS. (I. 59 b, 60; pp, 9 ibid) observes :
“tatra jñeyo vibhāvas tu rasa-jñāpana-kāraṇam, (1, 59. b) budhair jñeyóyam ālamba uddīpanam iti dvidhā, adhāra-visayatvābhyām nāyako nāyikápi ca.” (I. 60)

Page #292

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1467 Vibhāva is to be acknowledged as the cause of the apprehension of rasa. The wise should know it to be two-fold viz. the base (ālamba) and the cause of evocation, i.e. uddīpana, or evocater. The first is two-fold from the angle of substratum and object. Both the hero (=nāyaka) and the heroine (=nāyikā) are mutually substratum and object for each other.
With this introduction, without going into the nicety of how rasa is born (=rasa-nispatti) and the true nature of rasa, etc. the Rs. deals with the concepts of Nāyaka and nāyikā in all details, as they form the alambana-vibhāva causing rasa. Nāyaka for RS. is the substratum for rasa and he carries away the heart of the sāmājika with the help of 'vastu' or dramatic theme. So, he is to be carefully understood by theorists. Rs. I. 56 (pp. 8, ibid) observes
"svaccha-svādu-rasā”dhāro vastu-cchāyā-manoharaḥ, sevyaḥ suvarna-nidhi-vat
nātyamārgasya nāyakaḥ.” The principal hero of a dramatic piece is one who is associated with the principal out-come or object of the drama and he is said to be not given to misfortune or ultimate defeat or blemishes in character (=a-vyasani).
“pradhāna-phala-sampannaḥ
a-vyasani mukhya-nāyakaḥ." This is suggested by the Nātya-darpaņa IV. 7 (G. O. S. Edn.).
The RS. goes on describing the general good qualities of the nāyaka as mahābhāgya, audārya, sthairya, daksatā, aujjvalya, dhārmikatva, kulīnarva, vāgmitā, krtajñatva, naya-jña-tva, sucitā, māna-śālitā, tejasvitā, kalā-varva, prajā-rañjakatā etc. (RS. I. 616-63) (pp. 9 ibid).
RS. observes that the nāyaka is ‘uttama' i.e. of the highest ranking when blessed with all the aforesaid high qualities. If some qualities are missing, he is of the middle order (=madhyamah), and with many good qualities missing (bahu-gunahinah) he belongs to the lowest type (=adhamaḥ) (RS. I. 71, 72a, pp. 13). He is also classified as four-fold such as dhīródātta, dhira-lalita, dhīra-praśānta and dhīróddhata i.e. the noble lofty, the one attached to sweet things and fine arts in life, the steady and serious type and the haughty. RS. then discusses these types (I. 73-77 pp. 13-16 ibid). Then types such as 'anukūla', satha, dhrsta and daksina

Page #293

1468
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
(RS. I. 81,a) are mentioned with sub-varieties discussed at length in what follows. The RS. illustrates all this with apt quotations. After this 'upa-pati'-or paramour is described at RS. I. 83 (pp. 18) as one who is served by a woman who crosses all decorum (=langhitā"cārayā striyā) and one who does not observe basic etiquette (vinápi vidhina). His characteristics are also described. Then the helpers of the hero in his love-adventures (=śřngāra-nāyaka-sahāyāḥ) are treated. They are pithamarda, vita, ceta, and vidūşaka (RS. I. 90-92a, pp. 20, 21, ibid), along with their qualities. With this ends the topic on 'nāyaka' or hero.
RS. now picks up nāyikā (1.94, pp. 21, ibid) and gives as many as three hundred and sixty types. Bhānudatta's Rasa-Mañjari also discusses this. Basically a noble lady is having the same lofty qualities as are seen in a noble hero. The helpers of the heroine are (RS. I. 160, 1, pp. 37 ibid) dūtī, sakhi, ceļī, lingini (a ladymendicant), prati-vesini (lady staying in neighbourhood), dhātreyī, śilpakārī (=beautician), kumārī (an unmarried girl), kathini (a story-teller), kāruh i.e. a washer-woman, vipraśnikā (=a fortune-teller), etc. etc. They are having qualities of the helpers of the hero (=netr-mitra-gunánvitāḥ; RS. I. 161, pp. 37, ibid). With this the treatment of 'nāyikā’ends.
Now RS. picks up uddīpana-vibhāva with 'śộngārasya uddīpana-vibhāva to begin with. They are said to be four-fold-guna-cestā-alamkrtayas tatasthāś ca" (RS. I. 162, pp. 38, ibid). Nāyaka-Nāyikā are the direct substratum of rasa. Uddipana-vibhāva are the indirect causes of rasa (=a-pratyaksa). RS. obderves (I. 162);
"uddīpanam caturdhā syād alambana-samāśrayam, guna-cestá-lamkrtayas
taţasthāś céti bhedataḥ.” The first three rest on the ālambana, i.e. guna-s, cestā and alamkrti rest in the hero or the heroine. But 'taţastha' is that type such as natural surrounding etc. Bhoja also talks of mālya, vastra, vibhūsana etc., and also rtu or natural surrounding etc. This is a special quality of The Mälava-School. The Kashmir school of aesthetics chooses not to go into minor details like this. The ND.. B.P. PR. also discuss this. Actually though the SD. is primarily committed to the Kashmir School of thought, its treatment of nāyaka, nāyika, their friends, their qualities etc. is inspired more by the Mālava School, though of course, traits of these are noticed in Bharata also.

Page #294

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1469 The guņas in ālambana are :
"yauvanam rūpa-lāvanye saundaryam abhirūpatā mārdavam saukumāryam
céty ālambana-gatā gunah.” (R.S.I. 163, pp. 38, ibid) Youth is again said to be fourfold, and with reference to each type the behaviour pattern is different. All these are described in great details. Alamkāra is also fourfold with reference to dress (vāsas), ornaments (bhūşā) garlands (mālya) and cosmetics (anulepana) (R.S.I. 187a, pp. 44). "Tațastha' uddīpana includes moonlight (candrikā), bath-room with shower (dhāră-gpha), rising of moon, cooing of a cuckoo, the mango-tree, soft-wind, bees, a bower, a step-well, thundering of clouds, interior of a palace, music, pleasure-mountain, a river etc. (RS. I. 187-9; pp. 45) The 'cestā' includes lilā, vilāsa, etc. as describad in the 'anubhāva'-section With this the topic on vibhāva comes to an end. 'Anubhāva'- is explained as (RS. I. 190, pp. 48, ibid):
"bhāvam manógatam sākṣāt svahetum vyañjayanti ye, ténubhāvā iti khyātā
bhrū-viksepa-smitā"dayaḥ.” Movement of eye-brows, smile etc. are anu-bhāvas i.e. consequents which cause to imagine (or manifest) their cause, viz. the feeling in the mind (or heart),
These are said to be four-fold such as those going with citta (i.e. mind, or concentration of mind), gātra (body, limbs), vāg (i.e. speech) and buddhi (i.e. intellect). RS. I. 19a, (pp. 48 ibid) observes;
"te caturdhā citta-gātra
vāg-buddhyā"rambha-sambhavāḥ.". Cittajāh bhāvāḥ or feelings connected with mental effort are said to be ten :
"tatra ca bhāvo hāvo helā sobhā ca kānti-diptī ca; prāgalbhyam mādhuryam dhairyódārye ca cittajāḥ bhāvāḥ.”
(RS. I. 191, pp. 48 ibid)

Page #295

SAHṚDAYALOKA
Gātrā❞rambha anubhava covers all bodily movements. They are also counted as
ten such as
1470
(RS. I. 199, pp. 52, ibid) :
"lila-vilāso-vicchitir
vibhramaḥ kilikiñcitam,
moṭṭāyitam kuṭṭamitam
bimbo(vvo)ko lalitam tathā,
vihṛtam ceti vijñeyā
yoṣitām daśa gātrajāḥ." (I. 200 A)
The author explains each of these with illustrations. It may be noted that Ś.B. has taken the twenty anubhāvas as enumerated above going with 'citta' and 'gātra', to begin with but after supplying apt illustrations he has called them to be "sättvikaalamkara-s" of the heroine :
(RS. I. 209, pp. 57 ibid):
"kathitāḥ sattvajāḥ strīņām
alamkārās tu vimsatiḥ."
For Bharata, bhāva, hāva and hela were three ‘anga-ja' alamkāras, and the seven viz. śobhā and the rest were a-yatnaja-alamkāras-s. Lilā and others, the ten enumerated as 'gātra-ja' are taken here as svabhāvaja alamkāras-s. (NS. Ch. XXIV5,6; 12, 13; 24).

Dhnañjaya, and Ramacandra/ Guṇacandra follow Bharata, while Saradātanaya takes these twenty alamkārās-s as mana-ārambha (i.e. citta-arambha) and gatraārambha alamkāras-s. Śingabhūpāla seems to have accepted Śāradatanayaś approach. Bhoja in his Śr. Pra. enumerates twelve mana-arambha-anubhava-s, including "sthairya" and "gambhirya" in these. RS. has other ideas as seen above. RS. includes 'sthairya' and 'gambhirya' under "dhairya". Thus citta-arambhaanubhavas are ten only for Ś.B. Bhoja has also enumerated 'kriḍita' and 'keli' under gātra-arambha which are rejected by RS., according to which 'krīḍita' is found only in the childhood of a girl and does not deserve to be counted among anubhāvas. But we find in normal life that girls, who have entered youth, also undertake 'krīḍita' and it has a special colouring of youth. 'Keli' is also rejected by RS. (I. 213, 214), but even this rejection does not look logical.

Page #296

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1471
After describing the sātrvika alamkāras-s for nāyikā, RS. deals with same with reference to a nāyaka also. They are enumerated as : (RS. I. 215, pp. 58, ibid).
“sobhā vilāso mādhuryam dhairyam gāmbhīryam eva ca, lalitaudārya-tejāmsi
sattva-bhedās tu pauruşāḥ.”Dhairya, gāmbhīrya, audārya, and teja were treated under nāyaka-nirūpaņa.
The rest are explained here. Śinga-bhūpāla has taken 'gāmbhīrya' and dhairya as citta-ja, and the six others are gātra-ja. (RS. I. 219, pp. 60)
"atra gambhīrya-dhairye dve cittaje gātrajāḥ pare, eke sādhāranān etān
menire citta-gātrayoh."-. For Bharata, Dhananjaya, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, Sāgaranandin and Viśvanātha these are Sättvika-gunas of the nāyaka. Sāradātanaya takes these eight anubhāva-s going with males, as gātra-ārambha-anubhāva.
Vāg-ārambha anubhāvas of RS., are treated by Bharata as vācika-abhinaya : N.. S. XXII. 51, G. O. S.
"kāvya-vastușu nirdisto
dvādasábhinayā”tmikah.”The A.bh,on it reads as-kāvyavastusv iti daśa-rūpaka-bhedesu dvādaśarūpóbhinayā"tmako vācikábhinayasya bhāvah ity arthah."-. For Singa-bhūpāla, it is termed vāg-ārambha-anubhāva-This is twelve-fold such as (RS. I. 220, 221, pp. 60, ibid) :
"ālāpaś ca vilāpaś ca samllāpasca pralāpakaḥ, anulāpápalāpau ca sandeśaś cátideśakah; nirdeśaś cópadeśaś ca apadeśo vyapadeśakaḥ, evam dvādaśadhā proktā vāg-ārambhā vicakṣaṇaḥ."

Page #297

1472
SAHRDAYALOKA These are individnally explained next. These twelve vāg-ambha-anubhāva-s are found everywhere in rasa. Bharata mentions them at NS. XXIV. 50, 51. Šā. has also treated these at BP. I. pp. 10, 11. RS. has made the concepts clearer by defining and illustrating them individually.
Buddyā”rambha-anubhāva-s include rīti-, vịtti and pravstti. (buddhyā”rambhāḥ tathā proktā, rīti-vștti- pravsttayaḥ" Rīti for RS. (I. 227, 228, pp. 64, ibid) is
“ritiḥ syāt pada-vinyāsa-bhangi, sā tu tridhā matā, komalā, kațhinā, miśrā
ceti syāt, ".... Komalā is also termed vaidarbhí as it is popular among vidarbha-people (RS. I. 230 A., pp. 64, ibid). Kathinā is also known as "gauļi" as it is popular among gauda-people :
“kathinā sā gaudīty uktā taddeśa-budha-manojñatvāt.”
(RS. I. 239, pp. 68, ibid).Miśrā is having balancely mixed qualities of the first two :
“yatróbhaya-guna-grāmasanniveśas tulādhrtah, sā miśrā saiva pāñcāli
ityuktā taddeśaja-priya." (RS. I. 240, pp. 69, ibid) Miśrā is also termed Pāñcālī.
Over and above this RS. also accepts andhrī, lāti, and saurāștrī, as equivalent to Komalā with soft letters. (RS. I. 241, 2, 3, pp. 69, ibid). RS. does not give definitions of these as this act may create difficulty in the present work, but recommends that those who are interested in these may look for them further in Bhojaś works :
"tāsām grantha-gadutvena laksanam nócyate mayā, bhojā"di-granthakārais tu tad ākāňkşibhir īksyatām.”

Page #298

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1473 (RS. I. 243, pp. 69, ibid)
We know that Rājasekara has suggested that, "vacana-vinyāsa-kramo rītih, vesa-vinyāsa-kramo vșttiḥ, viläsa-vinyāsakramo pravsttih." Thus 'vstti' covers costumes and make-up also and pravștti covers the general behaviour-pattern of a given locality, region, province, or country as the case may be. Sanskrit dramaturgy and literary criticism are so broad-based and also catholic in their approach that all these elements are systematically covered and treated under specific heads with meticulous care. Opinions seem to differ concerning minor details. But the approach is absolutely methodical and in keeping with aesthetics.
“ingabhūpāla has named śleșa, prasāda, samatā, mādhurya, sukumāratā, arthavyaktiḥ, udāratā, ojah, kantiḥ, and samadhi as the ten excellences of vaidarbhī rīti (R. S. I. 231, pp. 65, ibid).
These are individnally explained also. Bharata has also enumerated these ten gunas-and so also Dandin and Vamana have done. Sāgaranandin also follows Dandin.
Vidyānātha has twentyfour gunas with fourteen more such as udāttatā, suśabdată, preyān, aurjitya, vistara, sammitatva, gāmbhīrya, samksepa, sauksmya, praudhi, ukti, bhāvika, gati, and rīti. This has likeness with Bhoja. We need not go into greater details as we propose to pick up these concepts of rīti, vrtti, pravrtti, guna, dosa, laksana, alamkāra etc. in their entirety in the vol. II of this work in separate chapters. Suffice it to say, that RS. has followed Dandin in the concept of guna-s.
"Vrtti" is from Vvrt, to behave. With the affix ktin in the sense of bhāva, we arrive at the meaning of vartana' i.e. behaviour. The behaviour that goes to achieve the four ends of life is vịtti. Anandavardhana observes : "vyavahāro hi vịttir ucyate" (Dhv. III. 33, vrtti.) Thus the behaviour which in art imitates normal worldly pattern is vrtti- Natya-vrtti-s are said to be four such as bhāratī, sātrvati, kaiśikī and ārabhatī. Abhinavagupta observes : (NS. XX. i, A.bh., pp. 83, G.O.S.) : "viśesena hrdayā”vešena yuktā vrttayo nātyopakārinyah."- He says that the whole universe is covered up by these four vịtti-s, which are operative since of yore, but when practiced in art with a special mental effort, they help the cause of drama through the medium of a poet and an actor.
For Singabhūpāla, vịtti is connected with rasa and bhāva, both in poetry and in drama, through acting.
“nāțya-kāvya-kriya-yogarasa-bhāva-samanvitaḥ,

Page #299

1474
SAHRDAYĀLOKA sa eva samayo dhātrā
vịttir ity eva samjñitah.” (RS. I. 258, pp. 71, ibid). The N. D. and the S.D. also call the vștti-s to be nātya-mātņkāḥ or nātyamātarah as they help the cause of drama. The vrtti-s thus not only help the cause of drama, but also cover the bodily, mental and speech-activities of the hero and other characters. : tad-vyāpārā"tmikā vrtcih, DR. II. 47; Dhanika observes here : "pravsttirūpo netrvyāpāra-svabhāvo vịttiḥ."
Origin of vrtti-s is described in the RS. following the NS. (XXII 1-23) account of the fight betweenVišņu and Madhu Kaitabha. Following the. BP., RS. observes that bhārati is born of the Rgveda, sātrvati from Yajurveda, kaiśiki from the Sāmaveda and ārabhaī from the Atharvaveda : (R. S. I. 260, pp. 71 ibid) :
"rgvedāc ca yajurvędāt sāmavedad atharvanah, bhāratyādyāḥ kramāj jātā
ity anye tu pracakșate.”' Bhāratī is one followed by the Bharata-s : "prayuktatvena bharataiḥ bhāratīti nigadyate.” (RS. I. 261, pp. 71, ibid). RS. observes that as this is practice in prastāvanā, it will be treated there in details. NS. DR. and SD. describe this as predominantly in sanskrit, with speech element as principal -vāk-pradhānā,
ta-mayi, to be used by male characters- purusa-prayojy, and Bharataprayuktā, but not used by females- "strī-varjitā”. The four parts of bhārati are prarocanā, vīthī, prahasana and amukha.
Sātevati is one with sattva-guna as predominant quality. Other qualities are also seen in this. RS. I. 262, pp. 71 observes :
"sātrvikena gunenápi tyāga-sauryā”dinā yutā, harşa-pradhānā, santyaktaśokabhāvā, ca yā bhavet.”. sātrvatī nāma sā vịttiḥ próktā laksana-kovidaiḥ.” (I. 263 A).

Page #300

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1475
The four parts of sattvatī are samlāpa, utthāpaka, samghatya and parivartaka.
"angāny asyās tu catvāri samllāpótthāpakāv api, sanghatyaḥ parivartaś ca
ity eṣām lakṣaṇam ucyate."
(RS. I. 263, 264 A., pp. 71, ibid).
Kaiśiki is (RS. I. 268, 269, pp. 74, ibid) :
-
"nṛtta-gīta-vilāsā"dimṛdu-śṛngāra-cesitaiḥ, samanvita bhaved vṛttiḥ, kaiśiki ślakṣṇa-bhūṣaṇā." "angany asyās tu catvāri narma, tat-pūrvakā ime spañja-sphotau ca garbhaś ca eṣām lakṣaṇam ucyate."
Kiaśiki is blessed with soft activities of śṛngāra and has four parts or limbs such as narma, narma-spañja, narmasphoța and narma-garbha.
narma is a-gramya-parihāsa i.e. cultured light talk for pleasing the lover. Its subvarieties are also counted. Narma-sphañja is a union which is happy in the beginning and fearsome in the end. Narma-sphota is having some portions of a feeling that suggest śṛngāra. Narma-garbha is the behaviour of the hero or the heroine for achieving oneś end.
Ārabhai vṛtti is packed with magical performances, - māyā, indrajāla, and also full of a variety of fights, cutting and splashing etc.
RS. I. 280, 281, (pp. 83, ibid)- observe :

"māyéndrajāla-pracurām citra-yuddha-kriyāmayīm,
chedyair bhedyaiḥ plutair yuktām vṛttim ārabhatīm viduḥ."
anganyasyās tu catvāri samkṣiptir avapātanam,

Page #301

1476
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
vastütthāpana-samphetau
iti pūrve babhāșire." The four parts of arabhai are, samkşipti, ava-pātana, vastütthāpana, and sampheta.
RS. I. 286 pp. 85 ibid, observes that out of these four, bhārati is said to be sabdavrtti and the other three are artha-vrtti-s. RS. also mentions a fifth vrtti viz. a 'miśrā' or a mixed one which has a mixture of all the four vrttis. This is the view of others. RS. has no faith in this variety. (pp. 86, ibid).
RS. has tried to demarcate each vịtti with special rasa-s. RS. I. 290, pp. 87, ibid, observes :
“kaisiki syāt tu sộngāre rase vire tu sātrvati, raudra-bībhatsayor vịttir
niyatā”rabhati punah." śộngārā”dișu sarveșu rasesvistā eva bhārati.
It may be noted that in the above observation the mention of śộngāra etc. is just a sort of a token. By śộngāra is also meant hāsya, by vira, also adbhuta, and by raudra and bībhatsa also karuna and bhayānaka are meant respectively. Thus Kaisiki is fixed for śrngära and hāsya, sātevati for vīra and adbhuta, and ārabhati goes with raudra, karuna, bībhatsa and bhayānaka-rasa-s. Bhārati is common to all rasa-s.
RS. criticises Rudrata in this context : kaiśikīty anuvṛttau rudrațaḥ
"śộngāra-hāsya-karuņarasátisaya-siddhaye, esā vịttiḥ prayatnena prayojyā rasa-kovidaih."- iti. "vicāra-sundaro naisa
mārgaḥ syād ityudāsmahe.” -RS. I. 291 B.
It may be noted in passing that Rudrāta feels that Bharataś suggestion is that the use of the vrtti-s with reference to this or that rasa is based on most

Page #302

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1477 observations but it is not a fixed rule which can never be altered. This is Rudrațaś view. RS. does not agree with Rudrata and takes the fixing of vrtti-s to be as tight a regulation as a law of natural sciences. But this may not be so.
"Pravștti" is also part of buddhy-ārambha-anubhava. It is a technical term. As by 'vrtti' is meant the physical, mental and speech activities of nāyaka and the rest, 'pravstti' also stands for the same "vyāpāra” or activity. But this vyāpāra is of a different type. From the point of view of difference in country or region, there are seen differences in a hero's language, costume, behaviour pattern etc. These are termed 'pravstti.' Say, for example to crack a joke by speech is vācika-vyāpāra and it falls under "vaco-hāsya-narma” type of kaiśiki-vrtti. But this activity of cracking a joke etc. is done in a languague that goes with the hero's region or country. This will fall under "pravrtti."
Thus 'pravṛtti’ is general behaviour-pattern of a particular region or land or country.
The NS. observes : (Ch. XIV.36 prose vrtti thereon, pp. 165, G.O.S.) “pravṛttir iti kasmāt ? ucyate, prthivyām nānā-deśa-veşa-bhāṣā-ācāravārtāh khyāpayati iti pravṛttiḥ.” Thus 'pravrtti' is that which reveals the lauguage, behaviour, occupation (=vārtā,='krsi' etc.), etc. of a given country or region. The poet derives the knowledge of different lauguages or dialects of regions and applies the same in his dramatic creation. Bharata talks of four pravstti-s such as āvantī, dākṣiṇātyā, pāñcālī and audra-māgadhī. DR. and BP. almost follow Bharata. RS. also observesI. 294, pp. 88, ibid - that the language (or dialect), costumes and activity of a given region is "pravstti”
"tat tad deśocita
bhāṣā- kriyā-veśāḥ, pravṛttaya).” Bhāṣā is divided by singa-bhūpāla into prācya (=eastern), avantyā, māgadhī, bahlikā, dākṣiṇātyā, śūrasenya and andhramāgadhi. Thus it is seven-fold -“saptadhā syād”. Then there is vibhāṣā (=minor lauguage) such as sabara, dravida, andhraja, śakāra, ābhīra, cāņdāla, and one projected by foresters. These are also seven..
Actually the list can be wider or narrower as to the know-how of a theorist. RS. suggests that there are other vibhāsā-s also but as they do not serve the purpose they are not enumerated, (RS. I. 294,-298 A)-“tāsām an-upayogitvāt nátra lakṣaṇam işyate.” (pp. 88, ibid).
Thus, it may be observed that the delineation of the concept of "anubhāva" in the RS. is quite exhaustive. It is in keeping with the tradition of what we term the

Page #303

1478
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA Mālava-School of thought as represented in the Agni-purāna, Bhoja's works, the DR., etc. RS. has not only quoted various views but has also begged to differ from some predecessors. By and large the presentation is critical and objective. • We how turn to the more important topics of 'Bhāva' and “Rasa”.
We know that for Bharata bhāva-s were the instruments that made the sāmājika-s understand the kāvyártha. :
"vāg-anga-sattvópetān kävyårthān bhāvayanti iti bhāvāh." . (NS. Vol. I. Ch. VII, pp. 76, G.O.S. Edn.) Bharata has, in a way, also advocated the interdependence of bhāva and rasa
“na bhāva-hīnósti rasaḥ, na raso bhāva-varjitaḥ, paraspara-krtā-siddhis
tayor abhinaye bhavet.” The bhāva-s and rasa-s, with mutual dependence, make their presence feel in acting. Abhinavagupta explains that rasa-s make the bhāva-s capable or make them deserve the nomenclature of 'bhāva'; but of course from bhāva-s spring the rasas. "bhāvā rasān bhāvayanti nispādayanti. rasās tu bhāvān bhāvayanti. bhāvān kurvanti. bhāvā"di-vyapadesyān kurvanti. -ity arthah.” (A.bh., NS.) VI. 37.)
Bharata has enumerated forty-nine bhāvas in all out of which eight are sthāyin, eight are sātrvikas and thirty-three are vyabhicărin-s. All posterior writers, both on dramaturgy and poetics have followed Bharata in this regard, with very minor additions, alterations, if at all.
· The RS. begins its treatment of bhāva-s with sāttvika-bhāva-s (pp. 88, 89, ibid, I. 298B-301, etc.) Those that are born of 'sattva' or mind or "special mental effort, concentration" are termed sättvika-bhāva-s. The term 'sattva' means, "to paint (the spectator's mind) with some bhāva or feeling." Sättvika-bhāva-s normally are seen or produced after the feelings or emotions are created, and in this sense they are also “anu-bhāvas” i.e. “those that follow the bhāva-s” but they are not termed "anubhāva-s” but are given a special name of "sātrvika", because they are born of 'sattva' i.e. mind or a special mental effort that is qualified by concentration. To be happy or unhappy following the happiness or unhappiness of others, is a quality called "sattva". This is a special mental state on the part of an artist which is bor of concentration of mind. The mind of the actor, so to say, gets identified with the state of mind of the character concerned. Singa-bhūpāla accepts this view of

Page #304

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1479 Bharata and holds that when the mind of the bhāvaka-s feels an identical feeling as that of some others (i.e. characters) it is called "sattva"by those who know : RS. I. 298 B (pp. 88) observes :
"anyeşām sukha-duḥkhā”di
bhāvanā-krta-bhāvanam." RS. I. 299 (pp. 88 ibid) observes :
"ānukūlyena yac cittam bhāvakānām pravartate, sattvam tad iti vijñeyam
prājñaih sattvódbhavān imān.” The bhāva-s or feelings born of this 'sattva' i.e. special mental quality, are termed 'sāttvika’-bhāva-s. They are eight such as : "stambha, sveda, romāñca, svara-bheda, vepathu, vaivarnya, aśru, and pralaya." RS. I. 300-301 (pp. 89. ibid) read as :
"sättvikā iti jānanti bharatā"di maharsayaḥ, sarveșām api bhāvānām. yaiḥ sattvam pravibhāvyate. te bhāvā bhāva-tartvajñalḥ sāttvikāḥ samudīritāḥ, te stambha-sveda-romāñcāḥ,
svarabhedaś ca vepathuḥ. (Rs. I. 300, 301) · vaivarṇyam aśru-pralayāv
ity asçau parikīrtitāḥ.”-(I. 302A) RS. describes each sättvika bhāva following Bharata. The cause and expression of each sättvika are meticuleusly discussed, with apt illustrations of all various causes of a given sättvika.
With the consideration of sāttvika-s, ends the first Chapter or vilāsa of the RS. called 'rañjakóllāsa.' (pp. 97, ibid).
In the beginning of the second 'vilāsa' of his Rs., Śingabhūpāla starts with the discussion on vyabhicāri-bhāva-s that are thirty-three following Bharata's lead,

Page #305

1480
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The term "vyabhicārin” is explained in the beginning of the chapter. RS. II. 13, pp. 98 read as :
"vyabht” ity upasargau dvau
višeşábhimukhatvayoḥ, viseșeņábhimukhyena caranti sthāyinam prati.- (RS. I. i) vāg anga-sattva-yuktā ye jñeyās te vyabhicāriņa). sancārayanti bhāvasya gatim sancāriņópi te.” (II. ii) unmajjanto nimajjantah sthāyiny ambunidhāv iva, ürmivad vardhayanty enam
yāpti tadrūpatām ca te.” (II. iii) The term 'vyabhicărin' is derived with the help of 'vi' and 'abhi' as upasarga-s with Vcar-"viśesena abhimukhyena caranti" is the explanation. The accessories i.e. vyabhicārins are so called because they move with a special purpose of nourishing towards the basic emotion i.e. sthāyin. These, accompanied by acting (in drama, or description of the same in poetry), are known as vyabhicărin-s. They are called sancárin-s also as they become instrumental in the movement of various sthāyi bhāva-s towards rasa. The sthāyin is related to them as ocean to the waves that are rising and falling. These vyabhicărins also come and go, or rise and fall as needed for the promotion of the sthāyin towards rasa. They nourish the sthāyin and help it to achieve the status of rasa.
They are also vyabhicārin-s or not-permanent as there is no permanent relation between a given vyabhicărin and a given sthāyin. A given vyabhicārin may be found with a particular sthāyin in a given context and the same vyabhicārin may accompany a different sthāyin in a different context. These vyabhicărin-s are counted to be thirty-three in the RS., which follows Bharata's tradition here. Each is explained in details with sub-varieties arising from different contexts. For example 'nirveda' is seen because of tatrvajñāna, durgati, āpad, viprayoga, irsyā, etc. It is said to be a sense of frustration or despondency-'naisphalyamati' born of various reasons as above. All are illustrated. In the same way different vyabhicārins having different rensons are all taken into account.

Page #306

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1481
RS. observes that some other vyabhicarin-s counted by other authorities could be included in these thirty-three, as the case may be. RS. (II. 94b, 95, pp. 139, ibid)observes :
"udvega-sneha-dambhérṣā
pramukhāś citta-vṛttayaḥ, utkeṣvantar bhavantíti
na pṛthaktvena darsitāḥ."
To support his view Singa-bhūpāla also quotes BP. :
"anyépi yadi bhāvāḥ syus' cittavṛtti-viśeṣatah, antarbhāvas tu sarveṣām
dṛṣṭavyo vyabhicāriṣu."
But an interesting point is noted by the RS. when (II. 95b, pp. 139-ibid) it observes that these vyabhicārins could also play the role of a vibhāva or an anubhava towards one another in a given situation.
"vibhāvā anubhāvāś ca
te bhavanti parasparam."
This reminds us of the remark in the A.bh. in the context of Santa-rasa for which Bharata lays down jugupsā (a sthāyin) as a vyabhicārin.
The cause-effect relation with reference to each vyabhicārin is to be understood, observes RS., following world-order :
"kārya-kāraṇa-bhāvas tu
jñeyaḥ prayeṇa lokataḥ."
(RS. II. 90a; pp.139 ibid). The RS. elaborates this in the vṛtti: (pp. 139, 140 ibid):
tathā hi, santāpasya dainyam prati vibhāvatvam, glānim praty anubhāvatvam. prahārasya pralaya-mohau prati vibhāvatvam, augryam praty anubhavatvam. ca. viṣādasya utpādā"vegam pratyanubhāvatvam stambham prati vibhāvatvam. vyādher glani-stambha-pralayādīn prati vibhāvatvam.
These vyabhicārin-s are again two-fold, observes RS. (at II. 96, 97, pp. 140 ibid) with reference to their independence or dependence. They are said to be independent when not engaged in arouising some other bhāva, but once they reach

Page #307

1482
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the stage of being subservient to others they are dependent. Perhaps the first case gives rise to what may be taken as bhāva-dhvani. :
svātantryāt pāratantryāt ca te dvidhā vyabhicāriņaḥ. (RS. II, 96b) parapoșakatām prāptāḥ paratantrā it íritāḥ, tad abhāve svatantrā syur
bhāvā iti ca te smrtāh"- RS. II. 97.) RS. illustrates this with 'nirveda' being svatantra or otherwise (pp. 140 ibid)
With this RS. discusses the problem of Santarasa which is not acceptable. This is in keeping with the Mālava tradition. The RS. starts the discussion with these remarks : (pp. 140, 141, ibid):
"nanu nirvedasya śānta-rasa-sthāyitvam kaiścid uktam. katham asya anyónyópakaranatyam iti ced, ucyate- sati khalu grāme sīmā-sambhāvanā.
sthāyitvam nāma samskāra-pātavena bhāvasya muhur muhur navibhāvah. tena nirveda-vāsanā-vāsite bhāvaka-cetasi naisphalyena abhimateşu vibhāvā"disu tatsāmagrābhūtasya nirvedasya utpattireva na sangacchate, kim punah sthāyitvam. kiñca a-sati nirveda-sthāyini śānta-rūpo bhāvakānām 'svādas citragata-kadalī-phala rasā"svāda-lampațānām rāja-śukānām viveka-sahodaro bhaved iti krtam samrambhena.
Śinga-bhūpāla does not accept the śānta-rasa for there is no sthāyin for this rasa. He says that when there is no village the question of its boundary never arises ! Sthāyitva means having fresher and fresher expression when a feeling strongly layed in form of vāsanā or inpression in mind is aroused due to favourable reasons. In case of the mind of an enjoyer imagined to be pervaded by the impression of nirveda, owing to failure of securing an objective (=nisphalatā), the activity of required vibhāvā”di-s does not start at all. Now nirveda depending on this sāmagrī, of special vibhāvā"di-s, which is absent, is not at all born to begin with. What to talk of its being raised to the capacity of śāntarasa ? The relish of śānta of the so called enjoyers is equivalent to the relish of painted bananas by royal parrots !
We may say that analogy is not an argument. Actually the RS. only parrots the arguments of some others belonging to the Mālava School of thought. Śinga-bhūpāla has refused himself an honest following of A.bh.

Page #308

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1483 RS. now (II. 98, pp. 141, 2 ibid) comes to the problem of bhāvā”bhāsa. This is done following the accepted lead of the Kashmir School as represented by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. RS. II. 98, observes :
"ābhāsatā bhaved esām anaucitya-pravartinām, asatyatvād a-yogyatvād
anaucityam dvidhā bhavet.” Bhāvā”bhāsa is born of impropriety which is two-fold viz. (i) due to its (=bhāva's) being unreal or (ii) due to its being improper (to the context).
The first type is seen with reference to insentient objects. In the verse viz. "kas tvam bho, kathayāmi...." etc. actually a tree cannot feel a sensation and the description of despondency with reference to a tree is in itself untrue. The other variety is with reference to the lowly born people with undignified behaviour, and also with reference to birds, beasts etc. RS. II. 99 (pp. 142, ibid) reads as :
a-satya-krtam tat syād acetanagatam tu yat, a-yogyatva-kştam próktam
nīca-tiryan-narā”śrayam. RS. talks of four stages of vyabhicārins such as utpatti (=bhāvódaya), sandhi, śabalya (=sabalatā), and (bhāva) śānti. (RS. II. 100, pp. 143).
RS. picks up the discussion on sthāyins at II. 104, and enumerates the eight as established by Bharata : (pp. 145, ibid) :
"sajātīyair vijātīyair bhāvair ye tv atiraskṛtāḥ, kșirádbi-van nayanty anyān svātmatvam sthāyino hi te." bharatena ca te kathitā rati-hāsó-tsāha-vismaya-krodhāḥ, śokótha jugupsā bhayam ity asțau lakṣma vaksyate teşām."

Page #309

1484
SAHRDAYĀLOKA RS. describes each sthāyin individually mentioning different causes that give them birth; e.g. 'rati' is
“yūnor anyonya-visayā sthāyinícchā ratir bhavet, nisargeņa, abhiyogena, samsargeņa abhimānataḥ.” (RS. II. 10, 60)
upamá-dhyātma-visayair
· eşā syāt tatra vikriyāḥ.” (RS. II. 1079) :: All varieties are duly illustrated. This pattern continues with other sthāyins also. In his treatment Singa-bhūpāla has controverted the views of Bhoja and others such as Dhananjaya, on minor issues.
RS. talks of six stages of rati such as prema, māna, pranaya, sneha, rāga and anurāga. This is evquated with the sprouting, blossoming etc. of a flower, fruit etc. All stages are defined and illustrated.
Other sthāyins are also treated mostly following tradition. Śingabhūpāla refutes the views of Bhoja under rati, of Dhañjaya under jugupsā, and of Sārngadeva under bhaya. He explains the view of Bharata to assert the unitariness -ekatva-of bhaya. He also refuted the sthāyitva of 'garva' as accepted by Bhoja. Same is the case with Bhoja's assertion of sneha, dhịti and mati. Bhoja in his Sarasvatīkanthābharana V, accepts these four additional sthāyins flowering into uddhata, preyas, śānta and udātta rasa-s. Actually Bhoja's Śr. Pra. talks of three kotis of rasa, the highest being śrngāra, which we may equate with the mahā-rasa or śānta-rasa concept of Abhinavagupta.
RS. sums up the discussion on rasa-bhāva (RS. II. 159-166a, pp. 172, 3, 4, 5). This of course is followed by consideration of individual eight rasas (RS. II. 166b264) (pp. 175-208, ibid).
We will deal with Singabhupāla's theoretical concern regarding the nature, substratum etc. of rasa first; RS. II. 159-166a-(pp. 172, 173 ibid) read as :
"tad astāv eva vijñeyāḥ sthāyino munisammatāḥ, sthāyinoștau trayastrimśat sañcāriņosta sāttvikāḥ.”– II. 159

Page #310

“Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and... __ 1485
1485 evam ekona-pañcāśad bhāvāh syur militā ime. evam hi sthāyino bhāvān Śinga-bhūpatir abhyadhāt.- II. 160. athaiņām rasa-rūpatvam ucyate Singa-bhūbhujā, vidvanmānasa-hamsena rasa-bhāva-vivekinā. II. 161. ete ca sthāyinaḥ svaiḥ svair vibhāvair vyabhicāribhiḥ, sättvikair anubhāvaiếca națábhinaya-yogataḥ. II. 162 sākṣātkāram ivā”nītaiḥ prāpitāḥ svādurūpatām, sāmājikānām manasi
prayānti rasa-rūpatām. II. 163. The sthāyins attain to the status of rasa in the minds of the connoisseurs. With the help of particular vibhāva-s. etc., and the acting of the actors, the sthāyins are as it were directly experienced-sāksātkāram iva ānītãh-and raised to the status of taste in the minds of the sāmājikas. They are then termed rasa-s.
The illustration is also drawn, to explain this, from Bharata. RS. II. 164, 5 read as
dadhyā”di-vyañjana-dravyais' ciñcā”dibhir atha ausadhaiḥ. guļā"di-madhura-dravyair yathāyogam samanvitaiḥ. - II. 164. yadvat pāka-viśesena sādavā”khyo rasaḥ paraḥ, nişpadyate, vibhāvā"dyaiḥ
prayogeņa tathā rasaḥ. II. 165. The nature of rasa is supreme bliss and it is experienced by men of taste

Page #311

1486
SAHRDAYĀLOKA sóyam anand-sambhedo
bhāvakair anubhūyate. II. 166a (pp. 173, ibid) Singabhūpāla then goes for some discussion in his vịtti- (pp. 173, ibid).
An objection is raised. It is that rasa-experience in case of a sāmājika is impractical. Rasa which is of the form of enhancement of sthāyin (sthāyi-prakarsa) staying in the hero can not be experienced by the sāmājika (where the sthāyin does not stay).
To this RS. replies, as follows : Yes, the objection is true. But who the hell accepts rasa with reference to the hero ? For, the particular nāyaka can be the substratum of rasa only if he is physically seen, heard or imitated. He is not seen physically. For in that case seeing the hero making love, one would experience shame, disgust, etc. This cannot end in tasting. The second and third options are also not tenable, for they are not present. When the aśraya is not there, the things (=rasa) resting on the same cannot exist. Thus nāyaka cannot be the substratum of rasa.
Even if it is accepted that rasa is located in the hero, it can not be a matter of taste for the sāmājika. Again, rasa can be said to exist in nata, only on the strength of anubhāva-s or by creation of bhāvanā i.e. sthāyin in nata. If the first alternative is accepted, we are likely to go astray, because anubhāva-s marked in the nata could be born of his practice and not because of the feeling in his heart. They are thus artificial. Again, if we take the actor as the substratum of rasa, we do not believe rasa to exist in the sāmājika even if anubhāva-s are located in the latter. Thus existence of rasa anywhere on the strength of the presence of anubhāva-s stands vitiated and not vindicated.
If it is stated that rasa is believed to exist in the actor due to vibhāva, then the question to be answered is that whether rasa is located in nata due to the character of Mālavikā which is enacted (anukārya), or by the lady who presents Mālavikā and is nata's wife herself ? If rasa-creation in nata is due to anukārya Mālavikā who is taken as a vibhāva, then there is impropriety; for Mālavikā can be a vibhāva only for Agnimitra and never for the actor. If the beloved or wife of the actor, playing the role of Malavikā, is treated as vibhāva, then no rasa experience will result, for in case of direct physical love-making at reality level only vulgarity will result and not rasa.
Thus rasa can neither reside in the anukārya (=original character of Rāma and the like) or anukartā (i.e. actor). Singabhūpāla asserts that rasa can be believed to

Page #312

"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and...
1487
exist only in the sāmājika, the cultured enjoyer. The objector may raise a point that if rasa is believed to be located in the sāmājika then the same difficulties will arise. There is lack of propriety-anaucitya-in taking Mālavikā as the vibhāva for sāmājika, and there is vulgarity or ugliness if the wife or beloved of the sāmājika is believed to replace Mālavikā. To remove this crunch Singabhūpāla has resorted to the views of both the bhuktivādins and also the abhivyaktivādins- He observes: (pp. 173, 174-ibid): "nanu mālavikā"di-vibhāva-viśesasya anaucityād bhāvasya a-sannihitatvāc ca, sāmājikānām api natavad evam rasāśrayatvam prasajyata iti ced, atra kecana samādadhate."
"vibhāvā"di-bhāvānām anapekṣita-bāhya-sattvānām śabdópādānād eva āsāditasadbhāvānām ānukulyapekṣayā nissādhāraṇānām api kāvye nāṭye abhidhāparyāyeṇa sadhāraṇīkaraṇā"tmanā bhāvanā-vyāpāreņa sva-sambandhitayā vibhāvitānām sākṣād-bhāvaka-cetasi viparivartamānānām ālambanatva"dy avirodhād anaucityā"di-viplava-rahitaḥ sthāyī nirbharā"nanda-viśranti-svabhāvena bhogena bhāvakair bhujyate iti."
The view of the Bhuktivādin-s (=we know them to be Bhaṭṭanāyaka and his followers) is that the vibhāvā❞di-s take a generalised form with the help of bhāvanāvyāpāra which follows abhidhāvyāpāra. These vibhāvā"di-s do not bother about external objects and are present only through the agency of words only. In poetry and drama, these vibhāvā"di-s, though a-sādhāraṇa i.e. particular in nature (i.e. though they are presented as individual Rama, Sītā etc.), are realised as if in a generalised form through bhāvanā vyāpāra which follows the abhidhä function. Presented in a generalised form they get related to the sāmājika as if they are his personal relations (sva-sambandhitayā vibhāvitānām). Thus, there is no opposition to these vibhāvā"di-s that operate in the heart of the bhāvaka-s in form of their alambana. Thus the bhavaka, through a vyāpāra or function called bhojakatva, enjoys the supreme bliss which is of the form of repose of the sthayin which is free from all possible blemishes of impropriety etc.
RS. then presents the view of the abhivyakti-vadin-s almost in the words of Abhinavagupta and Mammața. RS. observes (pp. 174, ibid) :
ca
"anye tv anyathā samādhānam āhuḥ. -loke pramadā"di-kāraṇaiḥ sthāyyanumāne abhyasa-pātavāt, sahṛdayānām kāvye nāṭye ca vibhāvā”di-pada-vyapadesyaiḥ a-svasambandhitvena ca sadhāraṇyāt pratītaiḥ,abhivyaktībhūtaḥ, vāsanātmakatayā sthitaḥ sthāyī ratyā"diḥ, pānaka-rasa-nyayena carvyamāņo lokóttara-camatkāriparamānandam iva kandalayan rasa-rūpatām āpnoti."

Page #313

1488
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The abhivyaktivādins suggest that it is the sthāyin of the sahrdaya that is tasted as rasa. The sahşdaya reader or spectator of poetry or drama should be adapt, at wordly level, in infering somebody else's mental feelings through external expressions. Such an expert spectator sees the vibhāvā”di-s presented through artmedium in a generalised and yet personally connected form. These vibhāvā"di-s make for the manifestation of the sthāyin and all these get combined on the analogy of a beverage which is tasted and which causes extra-ordinary bliss resulting in rasa-experience.
RS. has not directly mentioned vyañjanā but he does not seem to oppose it either. Singa-bhūpāla observes that as the bhuktivādin-s and the abhivyaktivādin-s hold rasa to be rested in the sāmājika, and therefore, he also has no objection to this view : (pp. 174, ibid) -
“evañca bhukti-vyakti-pakşayor ubhayor api sāmājikānām rasāśrayatvopapatter anyatara-paksa-parigrahā”grahād udāsmahe."- As both bhuktivādin and abhivyaktivādin accept rasa with reference to the sāmājika, we (i.e. Singabhūpāla) do not feel like taking sides. This means both are acceptable to him so far as rasaexperience is accepted by both to rest with the sāmājika. Thus, RS. has avioded a theoretical position concerning the process of rasa-nispatti but has accepted the general agreement of both the views that rasa rests with the sāmājika. This means that he is not favourably inclined to the view of Lollața or Śrī. sankuka, the former"utpatti-vādinprefering to locate rasa in anukārya, the latter-"anumitivādin” making rasa rest in "anukartā.” RS. makes the concluding observation (pp. 174, 175, ibid) favouring the view that the sthāyin-s of the sāmājika-s are enjoyed as rasa, with vikāsa. (flashing), vistāra (expansion) vikșobha (disturbance) and viksepa (movement) as qualifying this experience of rasa. It may be noted that these four citta-bhūmi-s are alluded to by Dhananjaya, but Bharata is not against this. RS. Observes : (pp. 174, 175 ibid):
“prāyeņa bhāratīya-matánusāriņām prakriyā tu loke kārana-kārya-sahakārirūpatām upagataiḥ kāvye nātye vā rasa-sūkti-sudhā-mādhuri-dhurīnair yathóktábhinaya-sametair vā, padárthatvena vibhávānubhāva-sañcāri-vyapadeśam ca prāpitair nāyikā-nāyaka-candra-candrikā-malayānil”ādi-bhrūvikṣepa-katāksapātasveda-romāñcā"di-nirveda-visādā"di-rūpair vāsanā”tmakair ātma-sambandhitvena abhimatair bhāvaiḥ dharma-kīrti-ratānām şad-anga-nāțya-samaya-jñānām nikhilakalā-kalapa-kovidānām santyakta-matsarāņām, sakala-siddhānta-vedinām rasabhāvā-vavecakānām kāvyártha-nihita-cetasām sāmājikānām manasi mudrāmudrita-nyāyena viparivartitā vāsitāś cábhivardhitāḥ sthāyino bhāvāḥ kāvyárthatvena

Page #314

"Concept of Rasa” as seen in Anandavardhana and..
1489 abhimatāḥ bāhyārthā”lambanā”-tmakāh santo, vikāsa-vistāra-viksobhaviksepā”tmakatayā vibhinnāḥ, svarūpena āsvādyamānāh paramānanda-rūpatām āpnuvanti iti sakala-sahrdaya-samvedana-siddhasya rasasya pramă rena samsādhana-pariśramaḥ śatrjana-citta-viksobhāya kevalam, na upayogāya iti prakstam anusarāmaḥ.”
This is beautiful prose and makes excellent reading.
With this RS. embarks upon the varieties or number of rasa-s which according to it is eight such as śộngāra, hāsya, vīra, adbhuta, raudra, karuna, bībhatsa and bhayānaka. In these pairs of two, the latter each is derived from the former : "esu uttaras tu pūrvasmāt sambhūtah visamāt samah-” (RS. II. 167, pp. 175 ibid).
RS. observes that as there is much to talk about of śrngāra and as it pleases all, śộngāra is taken up first for treatment (RS. II. 168, pp. 175, ibid) The varieties sambhoga and vipralamba are accepted by RS. The latter is caused by many reasons. RS. describes all sub-varieties due to various reasons. The word used is "...adibhir vyajyate." But this is not RS.'s commitment to vyañjanā; 'vyajyate' here may mean just "manifested." RS. accepts karuna-vipralambha and refutes the views of the DR. in this respect (RS. II. 218, 219, pp. 189, ibid). Hāsya is accepted as six-fold. This follows accepted pattern. Vira has three varieties such as dāna-vīra, yuddha-vīra and dayā-vīra (RS. II. 236, pp. 195, ibid).
RS. does not mention any varieties of either adbhuta or raudra; or karuna though Bharata has given three varieties of raudra and karuņa. Bibhatsa is also ksobhaja, śuddha and udvegi i.e. three-fold for Bharata and Dhananjaya but RS. has not given these varieties. Bhayānaka also is three-fold for Bharata such as vyāja-janya, aparādhajanya and vitrāsitaka, but RS. has kept quiet over the varieties.
RS. has accepted 'rasa-samkara' in its own way. When there is angàngi-bhāva located with reference to two rasa-s, it is rasa-samkara for RS. (II. 252, 253, pp. 200 ibid). RS. has no faith in a rasa-samkara wherein two rasa-s of equal prominence are juxtaposed. Singabhūpāla says that this position is unacceptable as there is no factor which decides in favour of one of the two to be tasted first. -
"kecit samānabalayor anayoḥ sankaram viduh-II. 252b na parīkşākşamam idam matam prekṣāvatām bhavet, tulyatve pūrvam āsvādaḥ katarasyéty aniścayāt.”

Page #315

1490
SAHRDAYĀLOKA But this argument seems primary. In a given illustration rasa is not to be tasted one by one. As is the case of bhāva-sabalatā, so is the case of rasa-samkara wherein the man of taste enjoys more than one rasa simultaneously in a given illustration.
Rasa-virodha is treated in RS. following the lead of Ānandavardhana. (RS. II. 257-261, pp. 200, 201, ibid).
Rasā”bhāsa for RS. is subordination of the principal rasa, or attaching greater importance to subordinate rasa is also rasā”bhāsa.
angenángi rasaḥ svecchāvịtti-vardhita-sampadā, amātyena avinītena
svāmīva-ābhāsatām vrajét.” (Ii. 263, pp. 202, ibid). Rasā”bhāsa for RS. is four-fold such as a-rāga, aneka-rāga, tiryak rāga and mleccha-rāga. a-rāga is lack of love. aneka-rāga is when one lady has affairs with many heroes. Even a hero with equal love for many ladies gives rise to aneka rāga. Tiryag-rāga is expression of love among birds and beasts and mleccha-rāga is love for a lowly born. Meanwhile RS. refutes the view of Vidyadhara concerning tiryag-rāga.
We know that anaucitya-pravrtti is said to be the cause of rasā”-bhāsa in view of almost all predecessors of Singabhūpāla. But Śi. and Sā. have different ideas about rasā”bhāsa where the prādhānya-aprādhānya of angi and anga rasa-s is taken into consideration. This is throwing away tradition. But getting deeper into the four varieties as suggested by the RS. perhaps we arrive at the acceptance of tradition.
With this the consideration of the concepts of rasa and bhāva in RS. ends. The RS. has some fresh ideas and has remained open to the influence of both the Kashmir and Mālava Schools of aesthetics in this respect.
Our investigation of Rasa as seen in Ānandavardhana and his posterior anthors ends here. For the sake of convenience we have treated writers on dramaturgy at the end of the chapter; those, almost all of them have preceded Viśvanātha.
In Ch. XVI, we will now discuss the theory of rasa-realisation as seen in Abhinavagupta and then in Mammata and Jagannātha in the following chapter with the status of śāntarasa at the end of Ch. XVII.

Page #316

Chapter XVI Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
It may be noted in the beginning of this duscussion that Abhinavagupta has treated this topic of the process of rasa-realisation both in the Abhinavabhārati (A. bh.) on the NS. (Ch. VI) and also in the Locana on the Dhvanyāloka. The treatment in the A.bh. is more exhaustive and hence we will take it as the base of our discussion, but we will also cite paralled treatment as read in the Locana in a comparatively brief way, wherein even names of ācārya-s holding this or that view are also not always mentioned. So, keeping the A.bh. in the centre we will continue here. It may be noted that we have dealt with the views of post-Mammaţa writers as and when they have figured in the earlier chapter. These writers almost echo the views as expressed by Mammata and then Abhinavagupta. Visvanātha as we have seen has been very exhaustive in his treatment but the rest are comparatively brief in their presentation. We have seen Hemacandra also in the earlier chapter but he has a special status in so far as his Viveka commentary presents some genuine readings from the A.bh. which remained doubtful in the G.O.S. Edn. als has preferred to accept Hemacandra's readings and we in our gujarati edn. of the rasádhyāya of the NS. with A.bh. have done the same.
We have seen that the theory of rasa forms the central topic of Indian aecthetics with reference to any art such as drama, poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, dance etc. Bharata has shown how the concept of rasa is central to the dramatic art as well as music and dance, and it may be noted that he was very clear that even the art of poetry has rasa at its centre, for he refers at innumerable places to what he terms "Kāvya-rasa". Thus 'rasa' was not exclusive to drama only but was the soul of any art.
Anandavrdhana advocated the theory of three-fold dhvani with reference to poetry and even here 'rasa-dhvani' captures the central position. All writers who followed the lead of Anandavrdhana and Abhinavagupta in literary criticism, in

Page #317

1492
SAHṚDAYALOKA
reality acknowledged "rasa-dhvani" as the soul of poetry, though theoretically trirūpa-dhvani was accepted as the soul of poetry. These writers on literary criticism tried to apply, of course keeping Bharata's lead at heart, the rasa-theory to sahitya or poetry. The dhvanivadin-s actually correlated all other concepts of literary criticism such as alamkāra, guņa, rīti, vṛtti, doṣa, etc. to 'rasa' which was always kept in the centre of consideration. Even Bharata, while discussing lakṣaṇa-s, alamkāra-s, guṇa-s, etc. suggests that these are to be used in poetry keeping "Kavya-rasa" in the centre.
The pure form of rasa is discussed by Bharata in the sixth chapter of his NS. The famous rasa-sūtra in the NS. runs as : “vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-samyogād rasanispattih." The birth of rasa takes place by (=results from) the combination of dererminants, consequents and accessories. Different commentators of the NS. have examined this rasa-sutra carefully and have presented their explanations. We know that a commentary on NS., Abhinavabhāratī (=A.bh.), of the great -Abhinavagupta, is available in print. Abhinavagupta has taken judicious and unbiased note of different opinions on various topics of the NS. of his predecessors who also commented on the NS. of Bharata. The original commentaries of these presecessors such as Bhatta Lollata, shrī Śankuka, Bhaṭṭa nayaka and the rest are not available to us. Perhaps the mss. containing the same are lost to us, or some day they may appear before us. But for the present they are as good as lost to us. Abhinavagupta has noted the views of these predecessors on various topics. At times he has discussed at length and even refuted the same. We can reasonably have faith in the fact that these works, in form of commentaries on the NS. were available to Abhinavagupta and also to some of his illustrious posteriors such as Acārya Hemacandra and prior to him even Mammata, the anthor of the Kavyaprakāśa. If they were available to Hemacandra, may be they were also available to Dhananjaya, Dhanika and Bhoja also, and also perhaps to Kuntaka and Mahimā. But we are not sure of this. But this could have been the academic climate of centuries around 1000 A.D. We also know that after Abhinavagupta who follows the lead of Anandavardhana, many others such as writers from Kuntaka down to Jagannatha and even after him, discussed the topic of rasa and of rasa-nispatti also, in their own way. But most of them such as Mammața, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Viśvanatha etc. echo the views of Abhinavagupta. Those who tried to dig a new sub-way of their own, leaving the high-way prepared by Abhinavagupta, did not exert great influence on posterity. We have examined quite a few of them earlier. By and large the thought current promoted by Anandavardhana

Page #318

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1493 Abhinavagupta-Mammata got currency and was firmly established in Indian art criticism in general and dramatic or literary criticism in particular. We will try to examine these views in the light of mainly Abhinavagupta in a balanced, unbiased and critical way.
The process of rasa-realisation as reflected in Bharata's rasa-sūtra was explained by various commentators whose views, either in brief or at length are presented in the Abhinavabhārati. We have no quarrel in believing that the sequence as maintained in the Abh. of these views also reflects the date of these authors. Thus, perhaps Bhatta Lollata comes first as his views are presented at the head of all else, in the Abh.
Bhatta Lollata's views are given in the Abh. on pp. 266, NS. vol. I. G.O.S. 4th Edn., '92. Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy. The substance of Lollata's observations on the famous rasa-sūtra of Bharata, can be explained as follows; - but before we peoceed with the same, it may be noted that the various views on rasa-nispatti differ on the interpretation of two key words in the sūtra, viz. 'samyoga' and ‘nispatti'. Ācāryas differ in explaining how the combination-samyoga-of vibhāvā”dis takes place, and how the birth or nispatti of rasa follows. Bhatta Lollata seems to present the following explanation which most of the critical observers name as ‘utpatti-vāda' but what we have chosen to term "utpatti-upaciti-vāda" forreasons we will explain in due course.
Lollata observes that the term 'samyoga' or combination appearing in the rasasūtra should mean a combination of the vibhāvā"di-s mentioned in the sūtra with "stāyin”, a term not mentioned by Bharata, but as Lollata wants us to believe, should be added in the rasa-sūtra. This combination of vibhāvā"di-s with sthāyin makes for the ‘nispatti' i.e. birth, "utpatti”of rasa, according to Lollata. : "vibhāvā”dibhiḥ samyago’rthāt sthāyinas tato rasa-nispattiḥ. (pp. 266, ibid); He further observes that 'nispatti' or 'birth' has to be understood in the following way. 'Nispatti' consists of three elements. First comes 'utpatti' i.e. the vibhāva-s are the cause of the citta-vștti in form of the basic emotion of sthāyin. : “tatra vibhavs’ cittavṛtteḥ sthāyyātmikāyā utpattau kāraṇam.” (pp. 266, ibid) : “More precisely, the determinants are the cause of the birth of the feeling, which constitutes the permanent state of mind.” (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 25, (“The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta”- second Edn., Chowkhamba Sanskrit series office, Varanasi, 1968). How anubhāva-s and vyabhicārin-s combine with the sthāyin is
explicitly explained by Mammata who observes that anubhāva-s make for the • (inferred) apprehension of the sthāyin and the vyabhicārin-s stand to support the

Page #319

1494
SAHRDAYĀLOKA same and make it more enhanced or 'pusta'. Thus Mammata, as observe later, is of the opinion that the three factors viz. vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicārin have their individual special relation- samyoga-with the sthāyin and as a result a three-fold nispatti also takes place. Vibhāva-s cause the sthāyin to appear, anubhāva-s make for its inferential existence and vyabhicărin-s make for its enhancement or puşti. Thus nispatti is made up of uttpatti-upaciti-pusti. It is therefore that we have chosen to call Lollata's view by the name of "utpatti-upacitivāda.” This sounds better than calling it as "utpattivāda", which reveals only half truth. Or We may call it by the name “utpatty ādi vāda.”
Lollata further explains that here "anubhāva-s" are not to be taken as effects of rasa, for how can anubhāva-s of the form of 'effect of rasa could find place among the cause element mentioned by the sūtra ? : "anubhāvāś ca na rasa-janyā atra vivakṣitāḥ, teşām rasa-kāraṇatvena gananánarhatvāt.” (pp. 266, ibid). So, observes Lollata, these anubhāva-s mentioned in the sūtra are to be taken as anubhāva-s of -the bhāva-s. "api tu bhāvānām eva.”-“The consequents intended by Bharata are not, obviously, those which arise from the rasa-s,- for they cannot be considered as causes of rasa-, but the consequents of the states of mind only," (Trans. Gnoli., pp. 25, ibid);
Here what exactly is meant by "api tu bhāvānām eva" is not made clear. Gnoli explains (pp. 25, ft. note no 2, ibid): "Rasa will also produce certain effects in the spectators- it will make them mutter in fear, make their hair stand on the end, etc. These effects, (lit. consequents,- anubhāva) cannot, of course, be considered as the causes of rasa. The causes of rasa can only be the effects of the permanent mental states." We do not agree with this explanation of Gnoli.
As noted above "bhāvānām anubhāvāḥ” are explained as “sthāyinah anubhāvāh” by Gnoli. Bharata has in the VII th Chapter of the NS., discussed various bhāva-s, both sthāyin-s, and also sättvika-s and vyabhicārin-s where he has mentioned the anubhāva-s or effects of mental states. These are mental states accepted at normal worldly level, i.e. these are laukika-bhāva-s which become aesthetic material with reference to rasa only. We believe that the anubhāva-s that Lollata wants us to understand as 'cause' element are the anubhāva-s as exhibited by the actors playing the role of the characters concerned. Thus they are to be taken virtually as anubhāva-s of the alambana-vibhāva, i.e. the hero, heroine or any character on the stage, viewing which, a sympathetic response is created in the spectator through "hỉdaya-samvāda.” So the anubhāva-s of the sthāyin should mean the anubhāva-s exhibited by the characters i.e. alambaba-vibhāva-s- of the

Page #320

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1495 sthāyin staying in their mind. They are part of acting which stimulates sympathetic response in the spectator. Thus there is cause-effect relation between these anubhāva-s of the sthāyin (of the character) (as exhibited by the actor) and the anubhāva-s resulting from spectator's experience of the feeling concerned Dusyanta's physical expressions stimulate Sakuntalā's feeling and her physical expressions of that feeling, and vice-versa. The expressions of both Sakuntalā and Duśyanta form part of the “cause” that generates sympathetic response in the spectator. This is what Lollata wants to convey. Thus Lollata is clear between the difference between two sets of anubhāvas, the first as exhihited on the stage by actors and the second set as resulting on the person of the spectator due to the rasa-experience on his part personally. The former are the 'cause' mentioned in the rasa-sūtra. This is the view also of Prof. Dr Kanti Candra Pandey. Anubhāva-s are those of the sthāyin-s as explained by Gnoli and some others. But they are those expresed by the artists, who play the role of various characters. This is the view of Dr. Pandey with which we feel like agreeing.
Another point that Lollaţă discusses is that both the vyabhicārin-s and the sthāyin-s are mental feelings i.e. two cognitions, and hence how is it that they can co-exist ? The answer to this difficulty is that the sthāyin-s here are to be taken as existing in form of vāsanā i.e. latent impression. So, for Lollata, enhanced sthāyin - is itself rasa-tena sthāyyeva vibhāvā"dibhir upacito rasah." sthāyī bhāvatv anupacitaḥ."- By itself the sthāyī is 'an-upacita' and is not termed 'rasa'. 'Vāsanā' or latent impression' is explained by Gnoli in ft. note no.1, pp 26 (ibid) as follows : "It is a general principle of Indian thought that two forms of cognition cannot occur simultaneously (cf. Nyāyasūtra, I. i. 16) To avoid a contradiction of this rule, Bhatta Lollata remarks that there is nothing to prevent the assumption that the permanent mental state is presented in the state of latent impression (samskāra-vāsanā). The word 'Samskara'” means the impressions (which exist sub-consciously in the mind) of the objects experienced. All our experiences whether cognitive, emotional or conative exist in a sub-conscious state and may under suitable conditions be reproduced as memory (Smrti). The word vāsanā (Yogasūtra, IV, 24) seems to be a later word. It comes from the root Vvas" to stay. It is often loosely used in a sense of samskāra, and in Vyāsa-bhāsya they are identified in IV. 9. But vāsanā generally refers to the tendencies of past lives most of which lie dormant in mind. Only those appear which can find scope in this life. But Samskāra-s are the sub-conscious states which are being constantly generated by experience. Vāsanās are innate samskaras not acquired in this life.” (Dasgupta H. I. Ph. I, pp. 263).

Page #321

1496
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Lollata observes that in the example given by Bharata too, some flavourings appear in a latent state, like the permanent state, and others in an emergent state, like the transitory states. Thus rasa, as observed earlier, according to Lollaţa, is simply a permanent state, intensified by the determinants, consequents etc.; but, had it not been intensified, it is only a permanent mental state. Lollata also adds that rasa is present both in the person reproduced i.e. original character such as Rāma and the like, the ‘anukārya', and also in the reproducing actor, the artist who plays the role of a given character, the 'anukartā', by virtue of the power of realisation (of the form of the original, i.e. rūpánusamdhāna).
It may be noted that Lollața broadly terms the three factors of utpatti, pratīti and paripusti by a single term “upaciti.” The relation of the sthāyin with vibhāvā”di-s is
anya-janaka-bhāva", with anubhāva-s of "gamya-gamaka-bhāva” and with vyabhicārin-s, of “posya-posaka-bhāva." Thus it is three-fold, or say, "three in one."
The sthāyin, which basically by itself is not intensified (an-upacita), becomes rasa, - when thus itensified or enhanced by “vibhāva-anubhāva and vyabhicāri-bhāva.”
Lollata's opinion deserves further scrutiny. Basically he calls the sthāyin itself, “sthayi eva", to be rasa, may be in an enhanced form. We know that among theorists of aesthetics, there are two thought currents prevalent and they are diametrically opposite to each other. The first one is the one supported by Lollata and in this tradition, 'rasa' is imagined to be identical with (laukika) stāyin (of course in an intensified form). Thus between rasa and sthāyin there is difference in ‘avasthā' i.e. state or position but not in nature i.e. svarūpa. This thought-current holds that "sthāyī eva rasah." As opposed to this, the other thought-current holds that 'rasa' is "sthāyi-vilaksana" i.e. "of a different nature than that of sthāyin.” The first tradition that takes rasa and sthāyin as identical in nature (and not in form), do accept that cause, effect and accessory i.e. kārana, kārya and sahakārin of the worldly level are the same as the vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva in art, i.e. in poetry and drama here. These are identical in nature, i.e. there is no svarūpabheda or, svabhāvabheda between the two sets. The difference is not in basic nature but in name only. Thus for these theorists, the sthāyin-s that appear in art-forms such as poetry, drama, etc. are not only the same but are also identical in nature with the sthāyin-s as observed in the worldly context. There is no difference in nature between these two sets of laukika-stayin, cause, effect and accessory on one hand and a-laukika (or kāvya-nātya-gata) sthāyin-vibhāva-anubhāva and vyabhicārin on the other. The two sets are not only identical in form but identical in nature also. This means that the sthāyin as presented in the art-form is equally 'sukha-duhkha

Page #322

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1497 mohā”t maka' as the sthāyin in worldly context. Thus both are causing happiness or unhappiness as the case may be. They are both “sukha-duhkha -mohā"tmaka.” Thus these theorists do not maintain that 'rasa' is an apprehension made of “pure bliss", and that it is met with only in an art-form. The other thought current maintains that there is basic difference between the nature of the two sets mentioned above. For these theorists rasa is met with, never in ordinary parlance but only in art- “rasas tu nārya eva, na loke." and that for them therefore rasa is an apprehension made of pure pure bliss alone : "asmanmate tu samvedanam eva ānandaghanam āsvādyate, tatra kā duhkhā"sankā ?” -How can we ever imagine even a faint shadow of unhappiness in 'rasa' i.e. "art-experience ?” This second thought-current is supported by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and their followers down to Jagannātha. For the first batch of theorists laukika-bhāva-s i.e. feelings met with in normal worldly experience and kavya-nātya-gata-bhāva-s i.e. feelings delineated through art-medium are identical in form and nature, and for the second batch of therists these feelings are identical in form and name only but never in nature. When presented through are-medium the worldly feelings have their nature completely transformed and they become perennial source of eternal bliss alone. Thus tragic feelings presented through art-medium, which is so to say an alchemy, are transformed into bliss-yielding material.. Thus all rasa-s are said to be 'sukhā”tmaka' or anada atmaka or bliss-yielding for these thorists, and therefore they are 'a-laukika' or 'extra-ordinary. They make us experince the state of ananda which is beyond worldly feeling of happiness or 'sukha.'
But if this 'a-laukikatva or 'extra-ordinariness' of the feelings presented through art-medium, i.e. poetry and drama here, is removed and thus if worldly feelings causing happiness or unhappiness (laukika-sukha-duhkhā"tmaka-bhāvas) are identified with rasa of potry and drama etc., then there will arise a situation where 'rasa' or art-experience will have to be taken as one yielding happiness and unhappiness i.e. of the sukhā-duḥkha-mohā”tmaka-svabhāva, like worldly experience. Abhinavagupta has opposed this thought current but Lollata perhaps seems to support it and no doubt it was also perhaps even older than Bharata and perhaps also not accepted by him. Bharata seems to refer to this tradition when he uses such terms as "harşādīns ca adhigacchanti”, i.e. "connoisseurs attain to joy etc." It is this thought-current which is supported by Rāmacandra and Gunacandra in their Natyadarpana and later also by Siddhicandra Gani in his Kāvya-prakāśakhandana. Perhaps this thought-current got currency in Gujarat of those days under some impact of the Mālava tradition.

Page #323

1498
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Lollata also mentions the substratum of rasa. For him, rasa primarily resides in Rāma etc. the anukārya, and through art-ful identification of form (i.e. the power of realisation or, rūpánusamdhāna). rasa is also imagined to reside in the actor who imitates the original character. The actor is “anu-kartā.”
Now if we look at these observations of Lollata in a casual way, we may feel that Lollata has not concerned himself with, i.e. say he is innocent of, the experience of the connoisseur i.e. spectator, or reader etc. Thus for Dr. Kanticandra Pandey Lollața discussed the topic of rasa only from the point of view of the production of drama. i.e. took care only of the view of the producer alone. But we fail to agree with this observation of Dr. Pandey who also feels that Mammata in his K. P., while placing the view of Lollata has knowingly twisted the text by using such terms as “nartaképi pratīyamānah” We do not accept Dr. Pandey's views when we carefully look into the presentation of Lollata's views by Abhinavagupta. It is impossible to accept that Lollata has no idea whatsoever of the rasa-experience on the part of the connoisseur at all. For, we know that while discussing the term "anubhāva” in the rasa-sūtra, Lollata makes a remark that these anubhāva-s are to be understood as "those of the bhāva-s and not as the result of rasa-experience.” Thus Lollata very clearly understands the difference between "bhāvānām ye anubhāvāh" which are of the nature of "cause” and “kārya-rūpa i.e. rasa-janyaanubhāva-s” which are of the nature of "effect of rasa”. Now if we proceed from this position further, we have to find out where could these "kārya-rupaanubhāvas” stay. It is obvious that in the absence of no other alternative these kārya-rūpa-anubhāva-s can stay only in the enjoyer i.e. spectator. The cause or kārana-rūpa-anubhāva-s are those of the bhāvas i.e. vibhāva-s, ālambana such as Rāma and the like, presented on the stage and the karya-rūpa-anubhāva-s different from these are marked in the enjoyer as a result - kārya-of rasa-experience on his part. Thus it is childish to imagine that Lollata has no idea whatsoever of the artexperience on the part of the enjoyer i.e. "rasika”. Of course, this our belief is logical and clear but Lollata has not clearly laid down the same in so many terms. So, we do not agree with Dr. Pandey's another suggestion that Mammata has knowingly twisted the text of the Abh.. by adding the term “pratīvamānah.” Perhaps, Mammata had a better version, an original one, with him. or, he explained the text in a clearer way.
Now, as a logical corollary our second observation also stands vindicated that 'rasa' was imagined to be of the nature of both happiness and un-happiness by Lollata, when he accepted rasa at worldly level i.e. in the 'anukārya' or original worldly character like Rama and the like. It is possible to argue that 'anukārya' is the character as portrayed by the poet. But in that case also it becomes equivalent

Page #324

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1499
to the historical character, if any, not seen physically equally by the spectator. Even if it is argued that the anukarya is not a historical character but a Ramesh or a Suresh or a Sachin imagined to be the hero by the poet, then also for the spectator he is not only a distant person for all time, but a person belonging to the real world and so an individual. To imagine rasa in this 'anukarya' also peters out to the position that rasa is accepted at the worldly level and hence rasa is just an intensified worldly feeling resulting in an experience of happiness, unhappiness and moha or delusion. Abhinavagupta testifies that earlier ācāryas such as Dandin also consider upacita or intensified or advanced sthāyin as rasa. Thus Lollata's thought current also seems to be quite ancient and was perhaps even known to Bharata.
Lollata observes that with the help of 'anusamdhana' rasa is located even in the actor. This term 'anusamdhana' is technical but is left unexplained by Lollata, however commentators on Mammaṭa's Kavyaprakāśa try to explain it either as "aropa" i.e. superimposition or 'abhimana' or "I-ness" i.e. sense of "I am Rāma" in the actor. Dr. K. C. Pandey tries to explain it as "Yojana" or 'connection' of the individuality of the actor with that of the character. 'Yojana' is also a technical term of the Pratyabhijñā darśana used when Jiva correlates itself with Siva.
In Lollata's view thus we may find the seeds of "laukikatva" and "sukhaduḥkhā"tmakatva" of rasa. We may call this opinion as having "realistic" undertone. Lollata also thought that the co-existence of both sthayin and vyabhicärin is possible in a single given moment if the former is taken as 'samskāra' or 'vāsana' i.e. latent impression.
Śrī. Sankuka has severely criticised Lollata's view on rasa. It may be noted that Abhinavagupta himself does not directly criticise or find fault with any view expressed by his predecessors. He simply quotes the refutation of an earlier view by a later authority which is prior to him. He does this without passing any comments of his own. On the contrary when he passes epistemological observations on the nature of rasa he seems to accept, or at least does not seem to reject, the opinions of all of his earlier masters.
Śrī Śankuka's refutation of Lollata's views is quoted in great details by Abhinavagupta. In Sankuka we may find the roots of what later Mahima-bhatta stood for, i.e. of the thought-current of accepting inferential nature of rasaexperience. It is safer for us to believe that Śrī Śankuka is the earliest known promulgator of anumiti-vāda rather than taking him to be the original promoter of this view. This thought-current also could be still older. We can correlate

Page #325

1500
SAHṚDAYALOKA
Śrī Śankuka's views with the views of the Naiyayikas as expressed by Anandavardhana under Dhv. III. 33. Before we proceed with Śrī Śankuka's views as laid down in the Abh., it will be interesting to quote the same from Locana (on Dhv. II, 4, pp. 108, ibid, Dr. Nandi's edn.), which reads as :
"atrócyate-rasa-svarūpa eva tāvad vipratipattayaḥ prati-vādinām. tathā hi, pūrvávasthāyām yaḥ sthāyī sa eva vyabhicāri-sampā"dinā prāptaparipoṣónukaryagata eva rasaḥ. nātye tu prayujyamānatvān nāṭyarasa iti kechit.
The refutation proceeds in the Locana without mentioning the name of ŚrīŚankuka. It reads as (pp. 108, ibid)
-
"pravaha-dharmiṇyām citta-vṛttau citta-vṛtteḥ citta-vṛtty antarena kaḥ paripoṣárthaḥ? vismaya-śoka-krodhādeś ca krameņa tavan na paripoṣaḥ, iti na anukarye rasaḥ anukartari ca tadhātve layā"dy ananusaraṇam syat. sāmājikagate vā kaś camatkāraḥ ?, pratyuta karuna"dau duḥkha-praptiḥ. tasman nā❞yam pakṣaḥ. kas tarhi ? iha anantyān niyatasya anukāro na śakyaḥ, nisprayojanaś ca visiṣṭatā-pratītau tāṭasthyena vyutpatty abhāvāt."
The objections raised by Śrī Śankuka against Lollata, as read in the Abh. are as follows :
(pp. 266, NS. vol. I. G.O.S. ibid): etan na iti śrī śankukaḥ. vibhāvā❞dy ayoge sthāyino lingá-bhāvena avagaty anupapatter, bhāvānām pūrvamabhidheyatāprasangāt; sphīta-daśāyām lakṣaṇántara-vaiyarthyāt, manda-tara-tamamādhyasthyā"dy ananty apatteh, hāsya-rase ṣoḍhatvà bhāva-prāpteḥ, kāmávasthāsu daśasv asamkhya-rasa-bhāvā"di-prasangat, śokasya prathamam tīvratvam kālāt tu mandya-darśanam, krodhótsäha-ratīnām amarṣa-sthairya-sevaviparyaye hrāsadarśanam iti viparyayasya dṛśyamānatvāc ca."
"This interpretation, says Sankuka, is unsound. Why ?- (a) Because, without the determinants etc., the permanent mental state cannot be known, for the determinants, etc., are the characteristic signs, i.e. the logical reasons (linga), by means of which knowledge of it is made possible. (b) Because, if the thesis of Lollata is right, Bharata should first have expounded the permanent states and only afterwards the Rasas, (c) Because the second definition of the determinants, etc., in their state of full development, (put forward by Bharata in connexion with Rasas, which according to Bhatta Lollata, are nothing but permanent mental states), would become a useless waste of words. (d) Because, evey feeling would come to be subdivided into an infinity of different gradations, weak, weaker, weakest, indifference, etc. (e) Because, there would no longer be six

Page #326

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1501
varieties of Comic Rasa (hāsya). (f) Because, in the ten states of love (Kāma), there would be an infinite number of mental states and of rasas. (g) Because we see that what happens is just the contrary, in the sense that sorrow (śoka) is at first intenser and is seen to grow weaker with time, and that in the feelings of anger (krodha), heroism (utsaha), and delight (rati) a diminution is met with when the indignation (amarṣa), firmness (sthairya) and sexual enjoyment (sevā) are absent." (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 27, 28, 29, ibid).
The substance of all this is that without accepting vibhāvādi-s as logical reasons or unfailing mark (i.e. linga), the apprehension of rasa, which is "lingin", is impossible, like the knowledge of fire on the mountain without sighting the smoke. Hemacandra has added this remark here : "na hi dhūmam vinā dharādharántastho vahnir avagamyate." (viveka, Kā, Śa.) Thus acceptance of linga-lingi-bhāva between vibhāvā"di-s and rasa is inescapable.
Again, for Lollata rasa is the intensified state of the basic emotion. Thus for him, existence of sthayin-s prior to rasa-s has to be accepted. But, argues Śrī Śankuka, if in reality it were so, then Bharata would have taken up first the sthayin-s for consideration, and rasa-s could have followed this consideration. But Bharata has not done this. We know that Bharata first considers the rasa-s in the VI th Ch. of his NS. and then takes up bhava-s for consideration in the next i.e. the VII th Ch. of his NS. This can serve as an answer to Sārdātanaya also who prefers to consider bhāvas first and discusses rasa later in his Bhāva-prakāśana. Again, if rasa were only an intensified stage of bhāva, then Bharata need not have enumerated the vibhāvā❞di-s of both rasa once, and then again of sthāyins next, the vibhāvā"dis in both the cases being idential. There can not be difference in Vibhāvā"dis simply because of a different stage of one and the same thing. Hemacandra again clarifies in his Viveka : "na ca utpattau padarthānām kāraṇam abhidhāya puṣyatām punah tad utpattikāraṇam abhidhātavyam vaiyarthyā"patteḥ."- It will be meaningless to explain the causes etc. of one and the same thing twice over.
"upaciti" of sthāyin, if
Again as the enhancement or intensification accepted, has to be in a certain rising order or sequence, and we will also have to accept this rising order or sequence i.e. 'tȧra-tama-bhāva' in case of rasaexperience also. So, we will have to accept many and not just six varieties of hasya or comic, and also will have to accept not just the ten stages of love but innumerable stages of love will have to be accepted. These three arguments virtually suggest one and the same point.
Thinking on the same line, we find that in case of sorrow i.e. soka the order is reversed. The force or shock of sorrow is most intense in the first moment and

-

Page #327

1502
SAHRDAYĀLOKA tends to fade away gradually as time passes. The Soka has a tendency not to get intensified or 'upacita', every next moment but that of fading away gradually in course of time! Thus Lollața's view can not be accepted, suggests Śrī Sankuka. From these arguments also, we get an indication that Lollata seems to take the rasas as of worldly nature only.
After refuting thus the view of Bhatta-Lollața, Śrī-Sankuka presents his own view as follows : (pp. 266, NS. vol. I, ibid) :- “tasmād hetubhir vibhāvā"khyaih kāryaiś ca vyabhicāribhiḥ, prayatnárjitatayā krtrimair api tathánabhimanyamānair anukartssthatvena lingabalatah pratīyamānaih stāyī bhāvo mukhya-rāmā”digatasthāyy-anukarana-rūpah. anukaranarūpatvād eva ca nāmântare rasah."
“Therefore, Rasa is simply a permanent mental state of mind, and, more precisely, the reproduction (anukarana) of the permanent state of mind proper to
the person reproduced-Rāma, etc.; and just because it is reproduction, it is called · by a different word that is ‘Rasa'. (p. 29, Gnoli)
The substance of Śrī Sankuka's theory is that in the process of rasa-realisation the vibhāva-s are of the nature of cause i.e. hetu, the anubhāva-s are of the nature of karya i.e. effect and the vyabhicărin-s are accessories or 'sahacarin proceed with the theory of Sri Sankuka, it may be observed that actually there are two aspects of his theory and they are 'anuksti' or artful imitation on the part of the 'nata' or stage-artist, and 'anumiti' or (artful) inference on the part of the cultured spectator or reader i.e. sāmājika. Thus his view, which is normally popularly known as “anumitivāda" should be better termed as “anukrti-anumitivāda'. This is our opinion. We will now proceed to analyse this anuksti-anumitivāda of Sri Sankuka.
We have noted above that in this view, the vibhāvā"di-s are held as cause, effect and accessories. Now the nata or the stage artist accomplishes those vibhāvā"di-s through his personal effort. Basically the nata or the stage artist has personally nothing to do with the character he is representing on the stage. So, everything with the artist is only acquired and there is nothing that is naturally related to him. He presents the vibhāvā"di-s on the stage on the strength of the training that he has received and the practice he has put up.
"The determinants (= vibhāva-s), indeed, can be realized (anusamdhāna) through the power (bala) of poetry, the consequents through the skill (śikṣā) of the actor, and the transitory mental states through the actor's ability to present his own

Page #328

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1503 artificial consequents. But the permanent mental state cannot be realized, even through the power of poetry." (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 29, 30, ibid) -
The Abh. reads (pp. 4, Nandi Edn.) - "vibhāvā hi kávyabalād anusamdheyāh, anubhāvāh siksātah, vyabhicărinah krtrima-nija'-nubhā vā"rjanabalāt. sthāyi tu kāvya-balād-api nā’nusamdheyah.”
However, the fact is that the actor, though presents the combination of artificial expressions, these vibhāvā"di-s, though artificial, do not look like artificial. But they look like natural. Mammata, we will go to observe later, suggests that this apparent naturalness is caused on the strength of the material presented, which, by nature is beautiful - "vastu-saundarya-balāt". The naturalness of the vibhāvā”di-s thus presented is not genuine but only artificial but looks like genuine on the strength of the inherent beauty of the material presented - (krtrimair api tathā anabhimanyamanaih).”
With the help of the artificial but skillful presentation on the part of the actor, the sāmājika is made to infer the feeling staying in the character imitated. This feeling of the character imitated is also of the form of imitation of the feelings of the original character i.e. Rāma and the like. Thus the actor is himself not Rāma, but we have before us imitated Rāma. The feelings the actor presents are also imitation, and this through gestures not genuine but looking natural due to the training he has received and the practice he has put up of presenting the artificial in an artful way so that the whole presentation looks natural. Now with the help of this natural looking artificial presentation of the actor who plays the role of the character, the spectator infers the mental state, which of course is not genuine but could be only of the form of imitation ! Thus this anukrta - anumita-sthāyin is rasa according to Sri-Sankuka. The actor imitates the feelings of the original. These imitated feelings are inferred to be there in the character, by the spectator with the help of vibhāvā”di-s, artificial of course, presented in form of 'cause' or linga. The anukrta-anumita-sthāyin is enjoyed by the samājika in form of rasa. As they are anukrta-i.e. imitated, the feelings or bhāva-s are termed "rasa". Thus, we can safely call the view of Sri Sankuka by the name of "anukrti-anumiti-vāda”.
The vibhāva-s are here in this process, correlated on the strength of poetry, the anubhāvas on the strength of the training the actor has undergone and the skill he has acquired thereby, and the vyabicārin-s are artificially presented on the strength of anubhāva-s or artful expressions which are not genuine but only astificial. The sthāyin is not collected, says Sankuka, even on the strength of poetry, and is only inferred. Precisely for this reason, observes Sri Sankuka, Bharata has not mentioned

Page #329

1504
SAHṚDAYALOKA
'sthayin' in the rasa-sutra. The sthāyin of the anukārya can never be grasped in any way. Only its imitation can be inferred. Thus for Śrī-Śankuka, 'anukṛta-rati' is śṛngāra-rasa." "tena ratir anukrīyamāṇā śṛngāra iti tad atmakatvam tatprabhavatvam ca yuktam." (pp. 5, Gnoli.) - "Thus, the Erotic Rasa is simply the permanent mental state of delight imitated; So that [what Bharata said, namely] that Rasas are made up of the permanent feelings and are born of them is quite appropriate too." It may be noted that according to Bharata the erotic and the pathetic rasa-s are born (- prabhava) of the sentiments of delight and sorrow respectively; while instead, the other rasas are made up of them (- atmaka), observes Gnoli. (foot-note 6, pp. 31, ibid). Thus rasa is not of the form of sthāyin (as imagined by Lollata) or is not even born of it. From the words "tad-atmakatvam tat-prabhavatvam ca [a]yuktam" and Mammata's note: "vastu-saudaryabala" it is suggested that for Śrī-Śankuka, rasa is not sthāyi-rūpa, but is "sthāyi-vilakṣaṇa", i.e. 'a-laukika' or extra-ordinary, and not of worldly nature.
Śrī Śankuka also covers up another point here. For him "anukṛta-sthāyin" is rasa. But this anu-karana, brought about by the actor, which is inferred-anumita-by the sāmājika is itself 'mithya' or un-real. So then, how can this un-real cognition bring about the apprehension of the aesthetic experience which is 'real' in its nature ? The answer follows in the following words :
"artha-kriya'pi mithyā-jñānād dṛṣṭā yathā -
mani-pradīpa-prabhayor
mani-buddhyā'bhidhāvatoḥ mithyājñānā viseṣépi
viseṣo'rtha-kriyām prati."
(pramāṇa-vārtike prattyakṣa-paricchede 57) -
"It is found furthermore, that even mistaken cognition is, sometimes, not without causal efficiency (arthakriyā) - (Gnoli, Trans. pp. 31)
Gnoli does not read the stanza viz. "mani-pradīpa-prabhayoḥ..." etc. in the body of the text but we have incorporated it in bracket in our (i.e. Dr. Nandi's) edition following the G.O.S. Edn., which is retained by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy also in the '92 Edn. of the N.S. Vol. I. (G.O.S.). Gnoli observes (pp. 31) in the foot-note no. 7. : "To corroborate this statement, Hemacandra quotes here a famous stanza of Dharmakirti. PV. II. 57: "Between two people approaching two lights, the one produced by a jewel, the other by a lamp [without being conscious of what they

Page #330

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1505 really are, but] with the idea that it is jewel, there exists a difference in respect of causal efficiency, but not a difference of mistaken cognition. This stanza is also quoted by Mahimabhatta, Vyakti-viveka pp. 78. Causal efficiency, the capacity to produce effects (artha-kriyā, artha-kriya-kāritva) is the basic criterian of every form of right cognition, and, therefore, of the real existence of a thing. When, for example, a man sees a mirage and, on going near it, does not find water which he expected to find, (and cannot, therefore, drink, wash himself, etc.), his perception is a mistaken one; the water which he has seen is not capable of appeasing his desires, of carrying out functions proper to real water. In some cases, however, even the mistaken perception is endowed with causal efficiency. In the present case, for instance, it allows the observing subject to find a jewel which is real, in other terms, it does not delude the expectations of the perceiving subjects. Even a mistake, observes Dharma-kīrti, if it does not delude the perceiving subject, is a source of right knowledge. Now, if even a mistaken cognition, observes Sankuka, can be gifted with causal efficiency, then it is all the more reason for a reproduced cognition, i.e. the aesthetic cognition, to be gifted with it. The spectators do not, in fact, remain deluded by this, but find in the spectacle the fulfilment of their desires."
It may be observed here that Śrī Śankuka here clearly underlines the location of rasa in the sāmājika or the spectator.
But before the sāmājika or the spectator here is blessed with this aesthetic perception, he has to make certain preparations, so to say. According to Sri Sankuka, the sāmājika, first of all to begin with, takes the actor to be Rāma, or the character portrayed. If he does not take the actor to be Rāma, no further step is possible. But this apprehension of Rāma-buddhi or Rāmatva in the actor or nata, which occurs to the sāmājika, is of a special type.
This apprehension of Rāmatva in nața, by the sāmājika, is not a samyak-pratīti or true apprehension, nor a mathya-pratiti or unreal apprehension. Nor type of samsaya or doubt, nor of similarity either. The sāmājika does not feel that the actor is “like Rāma”.
The apprehension, or say art-apprehension which is different from all the four types of cognitions viz. samyak, mithyā, samsaya or sādrśya, is explained by Sri Sankuka on the analogy of "citra-turaga” i.e. a painted horse. We believe that for Sankuka the apprehension of painted horse is above the apprehensions of the real, unreal, similar or doubtful types. Thus, this special apprehension is a-laukika i.e. extra-ordinary perception which is different from normal worldly perceptions.

Page #331

1506
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Now this nata or artist, for whom this special rama-buddhi is caused in the sāmājika, with the help of vibhāvā"di-s which are also not real, brings about an artful imitation of the feelings of anukārya or rāmā"di and the anumiti or inference by the sămājika of this imitated feeling is termed 'rasa' by Śrī Sankuka. Thus Śri Sankuka draws a neat line of demarcation between what may be called artperception or kalánubhūti and real perception or worldly experience. This throbbing experience, observes Sankuka, cannot be thwarted by any argument, though it (i.e. the art-experience) does not fall in the limits of known types of perceptions.
These words are :
“na cā’tra nartaka eva sukhīti pratipattiḥ. nā’pyayam eva rāma iti. na cā’pyayam na sukhīti. nā’pi rāmah syād vā na vā’yam iti. na cā’pi tat-sadrśa iti. kintu (samyan-mithyā-samsaya-śādrśya-pratītibhyo vilaksaņā citra-turagā"dinyāyena) yah sukhi rāmaḥ asāv ayam iti pratītir asti. yad äha -
“pratibhāti na sandeho na tattvam na viparyayaḥ dhīrasāv ayam ity asti nāsāv evā’yam ity api., viruddha-buddhi a-sambhedad a-vivecita-samplavaḥ, (viplavaḥ H.C.) yuktyā paryanuyujyeta
sphurann anubhavaḥ kayā” iti. (pp. 269, G.O.S. Edn. ibid) Gnoli, pp. 32 translates : “Furthermore, here there is none of the following perceptions : "The actor is really happy", "Rāma is really that man”, “That man is not happy", "Is this Rāma or not ?", "This is similar to Rāma", but rather the perception : "This is that Rama who was happy.” Sankuka himself said : “(Here) there is neither doubt, nor truth, nor error; the notion which appears is, "This is that”, not "this is really that." What sort of an argument could disprove an experience evident in and by itself, - an experience wherein, being it devoid of any contradictory idea, one cannot distinguish any error ?”
Gnoli adds in foot-note no. 1, (pp. 32) - "Here Mammaţa quotes and clarifies at the same time A.G. (= Abhinavagupta). “The perception we have", he says, "takes the form : “This is Rāma." Like the experience one has when observing a horse in a picture, the aforementioned perception is neither valid perception, nor error, nor doubt, nor similitude. These indeed, take respectively the forms,: "This

Page #332

A
.
A
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1507 is really Rāma”, “Rāma is really this”, This is Rāma” (being vitiated, in a second time, by the perception : "This is not Rāma."), "Is this Rāma or nor”; “This is similar to Rāma." As it is, on the strength of available docume
Sankuka is the first to correlate rasa-experience with the sāmājika. But of course, Bharata had also dropped a hint in this direction when he had observed, : "sumanasah preksakāh, harsā"dīnsca adhigacchanti.” It is like that Sri. Sankuka's tradition is still older. Instead of taking him as the originator of anuksti-anumiti-vāda, it is safer to take him as a great supporter and promulgator of this theory. Anandavardhana has refuted anumitivădins who could be the precursors of Sankuka. We had also observed that perhaps even Udbhata was inclined to this view. So, it is acurate to take Sri Sankaka as an important name of this thought-current. He takes the artful imitation of sthāyin to be of the form of rasa.
The Upādhyāyas of Abhinavagupta, here perhaps Tauta (and some others, Indurāja ?) have severly criticised Sri Sankuka's views. They hold that all that SriSankuka says is pretty non-sense, and does not deserve serious attention. However, they show certain drawbacks which are noticed at the first observation. They observe : (pp. 268, ibid) :
"idam apy antastattva-śünyam na vimarda-ksamam ity upadhyāyah. anukaraną. rūpo rasa iti yad ucyate, tat kim-sāmājika-pratīty abhiprāyena, uta naţā’bhiprāyena, kim vā vastu-vrtta-vivecaka-vyākhyātr-buddhi-samavalambanena, "yathā”hur vyākhyātāraḥ khalv evam vivecayanti."
(pramāņa-vārtike sva-vrttiḥ, pp. 39, Gnoli's edn.) iti. - "atha bharata-munivacanánusāreņa.”
(This fourth option of Bharata's opinion is listed together by Gnoli. 'We accept this. But the G.O.S. Edn. takes this line in the beginning of the next para, with other words - "tatrā"dyah paksah, a sangatah.” The Kā.śā. Viveka, Edn. Prof. Parikh and Dr. Kulkarni, (pp. 93, line 20, ibid) also has the G.O.S. way of presentation. But Pundit Viśveśvarajee has also taken this as the fourth alternative and this view is separately mentioned in refutation also.) -
Gnoli translates it as (pp. 33, ibid)
Before we give Gnoli's translation it may be observed, that he read "upādhyāyāh" i.e. plural, as done by Manikyacandra. The G.O.S. has Singular. H.C. has “Bhart Totaḥ."
Trans. (Abhinavagupta following his master Bhatta Tota, criticises the theory of reproduction, supported by Sankuka.]

Page #333

1508
SAHṚDAYALOKA
"This thesis too, my masters say, is without intrinsic value and is capable of resisting a close criticism. Specifically, from what point of view, may we ask, was Śankuka saying that Rasa has the nature of a reproduction? 1. From the point of view of the spectators' perception, 2. Or, that of actor, 3. or that of the critics (vyākhyātṛ) who analyse the real nature (vastuvṛtta) of dramatic presentation) - for it has been said that, "it is in fact, the critics who analyse in this way" - 4. Or, finally following the opinion of Bharata himself?
Gnoli observes in foot-note 1, pp. 33, ibid that "The expression, "my masters", observes HC., alludes to Bhaṭṭa Tota (or Tauta), who was the direct master of A.G. and, therefore, lived in Kashmir during the second half of the tenth century. Bhatta Tota wrote a work on poetry, The Kavya-kautuka, on which A.G. wrote a commentary (vivaraṇa) which has not yet been found. The confutation of Śankuka given in the following pages, goes back, therefore to Bhatta Tota". We may add that perhaps even Bhaṭṭa Indurāja also could have been referred to here as one of A.G.'s masters.
As regards the third opition, viz. "kim vā vastuvṛtta-vivecakavyākhyātṛ-buddhisamavalambanena..." etc. Gnoli elaborates in foot-note 2, pp. 33, as follows: "This quotation is taken from the Sva-vṛtti of Dharmakirti to the Svartha'numanapariccheda of the Pramāņa Vārtika (cf. supra, p. 5; ed. Gnoli, p. 39):
"vyākhyātāraḥ khalv evam vivecayanti na vyavahartāraḥ te tu svā"lambanam eva'rtha-kriya-yogyam manyamānā dṛśyavikalpyāv arthāv ekīkṛtya pravartante." Practical life '(vyavahāra)' is based, according to Dharmakirti, on the identification of the thing in se (svalakṣaṇa) with its mental image. The mind super imposes (ārop) on the thing itself the image that it has of it and the subject believes that he is faced with reality. The difference between the thing itself, which is real and the illusory character of the mental image which has been superimposed upon it, is a theoretical distinction created by the 'critics' and 'philosophers' (vyäkhyātṛ, tattvacintaka). In confuting this concept, A.G. asserts that it is impossible to explain a thing in the theoretical moment by an explanation which contradicts one's awareness of it in practical moment. In other words, the spectators, while they are immersed in the rasa aroused by the spectacle, do not know that they are faced with an imitation. The fact automatically confutes those who sustain the theory that there is an imitation. cf. infra. pp. 40, 41.
Now, we will proceed with the refutation of Śankuka as meted out by Tauta. The thrust of Tauta's argument depends on this argument that, when we say

Page #334

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1509 something to be an imitation or reproduction of something else, the similarity between these two is grasped first, as it is implied. They observe that there is no similarity with the mental feeling of rati or love on one hand and whatever the spectator actually observes on the stage, on the other. These two are totally different. The difference between these two is underlined by Tauta in a dārśanika style, i.e. he lays bare the difference between these two from the point of view of nature i.e. svarupatah, and visayataḥ or scope.
The 'svarūpabheda' is brought about by bhinnendriya-grāhyatva and āśrayabheda by the inherent difference in these two being perceived by different sense-organs and by their being located in different substrutum. The person or body of the nata or actor, his physical movements, the items such as crown on his head etc. which he bears on his person etc. are physical objects. Rati, krodha etc. the mental feelings are of the form of mental state or disposition (i.e. citta-vrttirūpa). Thus there is difference in nature - svarūpabheda-between the two. The apprehension of the body of the actor etc. is done by the sense-organ of sight i.e. eye. The mental feelings such as rati, krodha etc. are observed by antah-karana or internal organs, i.e. conscience. Thus, between the two there is - bhinnéndriyagrāhyarva - i.e. difference in instrumentality of their observation. Aśrayabheda or difference in location is also clear. The first stays on physicality, the other on conscience. Crown and the rest are held on the body, while rati etc. are located in the mind of Rama etc. Thus there is great difference between the original mental feelings and the reproduction on the part of the actor.
The substance of Tauta's argument is this that whatever the actor-anukartāreproduces is just gross physical. The mental feelings such as rati and the like, which are qualities of conscience i.e. antahkarana - can never be imitated or reproduced by just physical movements. So, it is useless to say that rasa is "imitation or reproduction of mental feelings.” In this argument advanced by Tauta, first it is taken for granted that the opponent takes physical presentation as Srngāra etc., and then this is refuted as reproduction of the feeling of love. So, the objector tries to improve upon the Siddhāntin's faulty observation. The objector, i.e. pūrva-pakṣin says that he does not take physical expressions as reproduction, but he takes the mental feeling of the actor, which is realised through physical expression, as imitation or reproduction of the original feeling of the character concerned, here, say, Rāma. To this, Tunta's answer is that the mental feeling apprehended in this way is simply that of the actor. How can we arrive in this case at the reproduction of the mental feelings of Rāma, when we observe only the

Page #335

1510
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
feeling of the actor? Thus, simply speaking, whatever is apprehended or perceived cannot be and is not of the nature of reproduction or imitation.
The objector had stated that the actor does not reproduce his own natural feeling of love, etc. but reproduces only the feelings of Rama and the like. It is only because of this that the objector has taken the vibhāvā"di-s to be unreal or artificial i.e. kṛtrima. Bhatta Tauta now takes this argument for confutation. Tauta argues that if the cultured spectator takes the vibhāvā"di-s as artificial, then how can artificial vibhāvā"di's make for the collection of feellings such as rati or love and the like? The objector replies to this that the cultured spectator or bhāvaka, does not apprehend rati i.e. the feeling of love and the like, but only its imitation' i.e. 'ratyanukāra'. The objector says that he has already stated from the very beginning that this thing happens, with the help of inference or 'anumana' only.
Tauta now comes down heavily on the frevolity of the inference of the imitation of rati - "ratyanukāra." He observes that we may say that here an inference of rati or feeling of love can take place somehow, but how can an inference of imitation of rati take place? The vibhāvā"di-s are said to be the causes of rati etc., but not of their imitation. The point is that this "raty anukara" is not the effect of the vibhāvā"di-s, which are the cause here. We also cannot say that whatever is like rati (= rati-sadṛśa) is 'raty anukara' i.e. imitation or reproduction of rati. Similarity will not serve the purpose here. How can we infer japā-flower or jasmine flower which is red like fire or agni, from fog which is like smoke? How can we establish inference i.e. anumāna between linga-ābhāsa or artificial mark cause and "lingiābhāsa" i.e. artificial effect. i.e. between artificial proban and probandum.
The words in the A.bh. read here as (pp. 268, G.O.S. Edn., pp. 6 Gnoli. We prefer Gnoli's presentation of text):
"nanv ata eva tat pratīyamānam ratyanukaraṇam. mugdhabuddhe kāraṇátaraprabhave hi kārye, susikṣitena tathā jñāne vastvantarasya anumānam tāvad yuktam. asuśiksitena tu tasyaiva prasiddhasya kāraṇasya. yathā vṛścika-viśeṣād gomayasyaiva anumānam vṛścikasyaiva tat param mithyājñānam. yatrā'pi lingajñānam mithyā tatrā'pi na tad ābhāsā'numānam yuktam. na hi bāṣpād dhūmatvena jñātād anukaraṇa-pratibhāsamānād api lingāt, tad anukārā'numānam yuktam. dhūmā'nukāratvena hi jñāyamānān nihārān nágnyanukāra - japāpuñjapratitir dṛṣṭā." (Gnoli, prefers H.C.'s readings. We have done the same in our edn. of the N.S.)

Page #336

Rasa-nişpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1511
Gnoli translates (pp. 35, 36, ibid): "If you say that for this very reason what is perceived is not delight but the reproduction of delight, this answer, we reply, could only be made by a man of dull wits. For a thing different from the usual one can be inferred from more apparently similar effects, only if the effect, from which it is inferred is really derived from a different cause and is recognised as such by a person of experience. An inexperienced person can infer from them the usual cause only. From some perticular scorpions, for instance, it is legitimate to infer that their cause is cow-dung; and the inference, from them, of another scorpion, as their cause, would be nothing but a false cognition. But when the cognition of logical reason e.g. The Smoke - is erroneous, the inference based on this apparent logical reason will itself be invalid. The inference from mist (whether it be supposed by the observer to be smoke, or whether the latter is aware of its being only a reproduction of the true logical reason) of something which is a reproduction of fire, is nodoubt unsound. Indeed, a veil of mist something which reproduces smoke and is recognised as a reproduction - does not legitimate the inference of a heap of red roses, (we take 'jasmine') namely something that reproduces fire."
Gnoli (pp. 35) adds a foot-note here (No. 2) (pp. 35, 36) which reads as -
"Bhatta Tota's reply (set out in the following lines) may be summarized: Assuming that the Determinants, etc., are perceived as unreal or artificial (kṛtrima), they cannot legitimize the inference of either Delight or an imitation of Delight. From a mistaken or apparent logical reason, (e.g. a cone-shaped cloud mistaken for a pillar of smoke; the cone-shaped cloud does not stand in any causeeffect relation to fire, and is thus a mistaken logical reason. We cannot infer fire (in this case, mistaken cognition would occur) nor, still less, anything imitating fire (e.g., as A.G. says, a heap of read roses). A person of experience can undoubtedly infer from two things, which to the layman are apparently the same, the respective causes of each of them (example: the scorpions. According to tradition there are two kinds of scorpions, one kind being bron from other scorpions, and the other kind from dung); but in the present case the logical reason is nevertheless mistaken or apparent (the determinants, etc., are perceived as 'Krtrima') and as such an effect is neither of delight nor of an imitation of the delight. Thus, for a person of experience the inference of something which imitates delight is impossible. The inference of delight made by an inexperienced person is a from of mistaken cognition. H.C. explains ayam bhavaḥ prasiddhād rati-lakṣaṇāt kāraṇād ratyanukaraṇam nāma kāraṇa'ntaram tat-prabhavāś ced anubhāvāḥ syuḥ.

Page #337

1512
SAHRDAYĀLOKA tathaiva ca višesavidā yadi jñāyeran tada ratyanukarana-laksanasya vastvantarasyā'numānam samañjasam syāt, na caivam, tat katham iva ratyanukarana-pratītih. avisesa-vidā ca tathāvidhā'nubhāva darśane ratir evā’numīyate tac ca mithyājñanam eva iti."
After this Bhatta Tauta also rejects Sankuka's further observation that the ‘rāma-buddhi' in 'nata’ is neither samyak, nor mithyā, nor sādịśya nor samsayatype. Tauta asks as to when a spectator sees Rāma in actor, why should his apprehension not be called 'samyak'i.e. real ? And when after the is over the same, rāma-buddhi terminates and at this moment-why should, in view of this, the earlier apprehension be not called mithyā or invalid ? - Thus it is both 'tattva' as well as 'viparyaya' i.e. contradiction of the same. Rāma is perceived in other actors also. Again Sankuka had stated that on the strength of poetry, determinants are correlated (= anusamdhāna). But even this is not true. The actor who recites "seyam mama'ngesu...." etc. never for a moment thinks that sītā is his somebody. If this is for the spectators, then the correlation with the sthāyin is easier still : "yac ca ucyate vibhāvāh kāvyād anusamdhiyante tad api na vidmah. na hi ‘maméyam sītā kācit' iti svātmiyatvena pratītir națasya. atha sāmājkasya tathā pratītiyogyāḥ kriyanta ity etāvad eva anusamdhānam, ucyate, tarhi sthāyini sutarām anusamdhānam syāt. tasyaisa hi mukhyatvena "asminnayam” iti sāmājikānām pratipattiḥ.” (pp. 261, G.O.S. Edn.; pp. 7, Gnoli) - Gnoli translates : (pp. 38, ibid) : "Nor can his other assertion, “The determinats can be recognised through the power of poetry", be successfully explained. Indeed the actor, does not have the perception," Sīta is the woman I love", as if that is to say, Śītā were a part of his own real life. If it is replied that this is the meaning of the word realisation, i.e. that this is how the determinants are made perceptible to the spectators, then we answer that there ought more reasonably to be, a realization of the permanent state. Indeed the perception of the spectators is concerned, in a primary sense, principally with this and is presented in the form : "that man (is) in this (feeling).”.
Thus, it is wrong to say that from the point of view of the spectators, rasa is reproduction of the sthāyin or the permanent mental state.
Tauta now picks up the second alternative. He rejects the proposition that imitation is possible from the point of view of the actor as well. Tauta observes that when the actor performs his role, he is not conscious of the fact that he is imitating

Page #338

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1513
either Rāma or his mental feeling. Even with this, however, if imitation is insisted upon then, the following difficulties will occur. First point is whom does the actor imitate ? It cannot be the original Rāma for he is not present at the time when the actor performs. Thus 'anukarana' here cannot have the meaning of “Sadrśakarana” or behaving in a similar way, for it is not applicable here. It is because the actor has not seen Rāma personally and in the absence of this fact he cannot imitate Rāma. So, the second meaning of anu-karana will follow, i.e. it will mean, "anu=praścāt karana” i.e. doing something after something else done earlier. But then this sort of "paścāt karana" is possible in worldly context in case of one and all who live after Rāma's times. Why only the behaviour of an actor should be singled out as "anu-karana” ? Thus, in case of an actor, neither of the two meanings of "anu-karaņa" is feasible.
But the objector does not leave his point easily. He suggests that while imitating Rāma and the like, the actor is imitating the feelings of some noble person. But here the old difficulty will re-arise ! How will the imitation of the feelings of noble characters will be made possible ? If it be said that through anubhāva-s the imitation of feelings will be made possible, then the fault of 'vailaksanya' as suggested earlier will re-appear ! If it is said that the actor imitates merely the anubhāva-s or physical gestures of a noble character, then it will require further clarification as to which particular noble man or woman is intended here for imitation, for a general reference will not work here. If the objector explains that the actor imitates the anubhāva's of someone who weeps like this, or laughs like this, etc., then the very self of the actor also enters in this practice and the whole thing ceases to be an imitation. On the contrary the actor will exhibit his own personal feelings of love, sorrow, etc.
After thus rejecting the anukārya-anukartr-bhāva, it becomes pertinent for the siddhāntin to explain Bharatamani's words such as (pp. 275, Abh.) 'nārya' is “lokavịttā’nukarana” (NS. I. 112) or 'natya' is “bhāvā’nukirtana” (NS. I. 107), Abhinavagupta (= A.G.) has discussed this point on pp. 35-37 etc. (NS. Vol. I., G.O.S., ibid) and there he has also quoted the opinion of his guru, Bhatta Tauta, the author of "Kāvya-kautaka”. There “anukīrtana” is explained as “anuvyavasāya" i.e. artful re-creation. Here on pp. 276 also the same context is cited. Abh. observes : “sapta-dvīpā’nukaranam" (N.S. I. 117) ity adi tvanyathā’pi śakya-gamanikam iti. tad anukāre ca kva nāmántaram kānta-veșa-gatyanykaraņā”dau.” Gnoli (pp. 41) translates : “The expression met with in Bharata every now and again, “Drama is

Page #339

1514
SAHRDAYĀLOKA an imitation of all the forms of existence in the seven islands", etc., can have also other explanations. And even if that was a reproduction, then what would be the difference between it and the reproduction of the attire, the walk, etc. of the beloved one ?".
Gnoli observes that (foot-note 4, pp. 41) the text and the translation are both doubtful. But he has obviously missed the point. Viśveśvarjee has explained it in a perfect way. When a beloved imitates the style of her lover it is not just imitation but it is something richer and is termed by a different name viz. "līlā”. In the same way the acting, on the stage is no mere imitation but is 'nārya', the dramatic art and is thus given a separate name. Of course Gnoli himself (foot-note 3, pp. 41, ibid) explains that "imitation" must be interpreted as "re-telling", (anu-kīrtana), and therefore as a "re-perception" (anuvyavasāya). We use the term “artful recreation" for 'anukarana', and it explains the idea perfectly. This was the fourth option rejected by Tauta. The third option stands rejected of its own. (p. 4
Abhinavagupta quotes the views of Tunta here : “nā’pi vastuvịttā’nusārena tad anukāratvam a-samvedyamānasya vastuvșttatvā’nupapatteh yac ca vastuvṛttam tad darśayisyāmaḥ - (Gnoli, pp. 9. Reading of H.C. are preferred).
Gnoli translates (pp. 40, ibid) : “Nor can it be said that there is a reproduction from the point of view of the nature of things (vastu-vrtta); for it is impossible that a thing which one is not conscious, has a real nature. We shall explain further in what the nature of things consists. Gnoli adds (in foot-note 3, pp. 40, ibid) that here "vastu-vrtta" is to be viewed from the point of view of the analysing mind. Reference is made to I.P.V. II. pp. 179. "samvedana-tiraskāriņi kā khalu yuktir nāma, anupapattiś ca bhāsamānasya kā’nyā bhavisyati ?”
Thus, after rejecting all the four options, "citra-turaga-nyāya” is taken up for consideration. It is not proper to accept the manifestation of a bull or a horse on the strength of this maxim. Of course, the lamp brings into light the jar. But just by the combination of colours original bull or cow or horse is not manifested. With
lp of the painting only an aggragate similar to a cow is apprehended. The combination of vibhāvā"di-s can not be said to be similar to delight (= rati). Thus, it is not true to say that rasa is the reproduction of mental states.
The Abh. (pp. 270, G.O.S.; pp. 9, Gnoli) reads as : "yac cócyate varņakair haritālā"dibhih samyujyamāna eva gaur ityā"di. tatra yady abhi'vyajyamāna ity arthóbhipretaḥ, tad asat. na hi sindūrā”dibhiḥ pāramārthiko gaur abhivyajyate, pradīpā"dibhir iva: kintu tat-sadrśah samūha-viseso nirvartyate. ta eva hi

Page #340

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1515 sindūrā”dayo gavā'vayava-sanniveśa-sadrśena sanniveśa-viśeşeņa avasthitā gosadrg iti pratibhāsasya visayaḥ, naivam vibhāva-samūho rati-sadrśatā-pratipattigrāhyaḥ. tasmād bhāvā’nukaraṇam rasā ity asat.”
Gnoli translates (pp. 41, ibid) : “5-Some people say: "The pigments-orpiment, etc. - undoubtedly compose (samynj) a cow.” Now if the word "composé is understood in the sense of manifest (abhi-vyaj)", these people are also in error. For, we cannot say that minium, etc., manifest a real (pāramārthika) cow, like the one which might be manifested by a lamp, etc. All they do is to produce (nirvrt) a particular aggregate (samūha) similar to a cow. The only object of the image, “It is like a cow," is simply this minium, etc. applied so as to constitute a particular arrangment (samniveśa) similar to the arrangement of the limbs of a cow. In the case of the aggregate of the determinants, etc., the situation is different : this as we have said - cannot be perceived as similar to delight. Thus, it is not true that Rasa is the reproduction of mental states." .
Gnoli adds in foot-note 1, pp. 42, ibid : "The visual arts are regarded in this passage as being of a different order from poetry : The pigments, etc., are material things which imitate a material thing. Very well then, says A.G., all the same, it is impossible that the poetic expression (consisting of determinants etc., i.e. of material elements could imitate mental movement, which is of a spiritual nature." -
It may be noted here, that Gnoli (pp. 41, Translation) gives a title : "other theories", and gives no. 5 to the discussion read above in which a painting is rejected as manifestation. Actually, we feel, and this is the feeling of Pandit Visveśarjee also that the lines : "yac cocyate varnakair haritālā"dibhih..." etc. have a clear reference to Sri Sankuka's citra-turaga-nyāya. In place of 'turaga' we have "gavā"di" here. This is not an independent view rejected by Tauta. So, a separate number, i.e. number '5' given to this view by Gnoli is not justified. The concluding remark proves our point, wherein it is stated "tasmāt bhāvā'nukaranam rasā ity asat." - We know that anukrti-anumiti-vāda was supported by Śrī. Sankuka and even the maxim that he has quoted is faulty. Tauta wants to expose the hollowness of the maxim also. It need not be taken as a separate view. A separate view however follows now which is very briefly dismissed by A.G. But before we turn to that we may once again take note of the fact that the principal attack of Tauta is directed towards the anukrti-vāda of Sri Sankuka. Whatever is presented as a means to rasa-experience is certainly not of the form of an imitation. The cultured
tator only sees the attire, the ornaments, crown etc. put on by an actor and listens to his voice. With the help of all these, universalized feelings are suggested. Bhatta Tauta aims to bring this point into relief.

Page #341

SAHṚDAYALOKA Next. A.G, discusses another view in brief. The view holds that the material i.e. combination which is purely external and is capable to cause happiness or unhappiness etc., is itself rasa. Its nature is determined from the point of view of Samkhya philosophy which takes external objects as "sukha-duḥkhā”tmaka”. Vibhava-s in this combination stand as upādānakāraṇa (= dala-sthāniyāḥ) (this explanation was suggested to us by our guru Prof. R. C. Parikh who received this explanation, on his verbal authority, from Pundit Sukhlaljee). The anubhava-s and vyabhicārin-s add only to the flavour - i.e. are samskārakāḥ. The sthāyins are born of this combination and are internal and are of the nature of happiness, unhappiness etc. But this view of some who follow Samkhya philosophy is easily put aside by the siddhāntin who finds a contradiction between the statement "tatsāmagrī-janyām, for sthāyin-s, and Bharata's statement viz. "sthāyibhāvān rasatvam upaneṣyamaḥ," which implies that the sthayin-s are permanently staying in the mind and are not born a new by external factors. The pūrvapakṣin here has to resort to metaphor to explain Bharata's simple statement. Thus, says A.G., we do not go in further refutation of this view as it is useless and foolish to discuss such views which are in apparent contradiction with Bharata's views. - Again, another difficulty of difference in proportion also will arise. Will an added or reduced dose of vibhāvā❞di-s generate larger or lesser quantity of sthayin? This question also will remain unanswered. Abh. pp. 270 reads: "tena sthāyibhāvān rasatvam upaneṣyāmaḥ ity ādāv upacaram angīkurvatā grantha-virodham svayam eva budhyamānena dūṣaṇā"viṣkaraṇa-maurkhyāt prāmāṇiko janaḥ pari-rakṣita iti kim asy ócyate. yat tv anyat tat-pratīti-vaiṣamya-prasangā"di tat kiyad atrócyatām." (pp. 10, Gnoli; this reading follows H.C. We have accepted the same).
1516
Gnoli has a foot-note no. 4, pp. 42, ibid, which reads as: "According to the Sāmkhya, external objects are a modification of prakṛti, which is made up of pleasure, pain and stupor. The external objects are, thus, also themselves made up of pleasure, pain, etc. This conception is emphatically confuted by Dharmakirti, P.V. III, 268 ff."
Śrī Śankuka's views also find expression in the Locana as below: (Locana, on Dhv. II. 4, pp. 108, Edn. Nandi ibid): "atrócyate - rasa-svarūpa eva tavad vipratipattayaḥ prativādinām. tathā hi - pūrvā"vasthāyām yaḥ sthāyī sa eva vyabhicārisampātā❞dinā prāpta-paripoṣónukāryagataḥ eva rasaḥ. natye tu prayujyamānatvān natyarasa iti kecit.
pravāhadharmiṇyām cittavṛttau citta-vṛtteḥ citta-vṛtty antarena kaḥ pariposárthaḥ ? vismaya-śoka-krodha"deś ca krameņa tavan na paripoṣaḥ iti na

Page #342

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1517 anukārye rasah, anukartari ca tadbhāve layā”dy ananusaranam syāt. sāmājikagate vā kaś camatkāraḥ. pratyuta karuņā”dau duḥkha-prāptiḥ. tasmān nā'yam paksah. kas tarhi ? iha änantyān niyatasya anukāro na sakyah, nisprayojanaś ca, viśistatā-pratītau tāțasthyena vyutpatty abhāvāt.
tasmādaniyatávasthātmakam sthāyinam uddiśya vibhā'vānubhāvavyabhicāribhiḥ samyujyamānair ayam rāmaḥ sukhi iti smộti-vilaksaņā sthāyini pratigocaratayā āsvāda-rūpā pratipattir anukartrālambanā nātyaika-gāmini rasaḥ, sa ca na vyatiriktam adhāram apeksate. kimtv anukāryā’bhinnā’bhimate nartake āsvādayitā sāmājika ity etāvanmātram adḥ. tena nāțya eva rasaḥ, na anukāryādişv iti kecit.
anye tu - anukartari yah sthāyy avabhāsó bhinayā"di-sāmagryādi-krto bhittāv iva haritālā”dinā aśvávabhāsaḥ, sa eva lokātīta-tayā āsvādā’para-samjñayā pratītyā rasyamāno rasa iti nāțyād rasā nāļyarasāḥ.”
It may be noted that Abhinavagupta's presentation in Locana is less clear as compared to the one we read in the Abh. In Locana AG. does not name particular ācāryās clearly. As read above, Lollata's and Sankuka's views are almost placed together in one section and Lollata's refutation is not fully developped. Again AG. actually starts with Bhatta Nāyaka's views first in Locana, and this is followed by the passage quoted as above. Again, the passage quoted above has some lines to be read further as : (pp. 108, 110, ibid):
"apare punar vibhāvā'nubhava-mātram eva visista-sāmagryā samarpyamānam tad-vibhāvanīyā'nubhāvaniya-sthāyi-rūpa-citta-vrttya-ucita-vāsanā'nusaktam svanirvști-carvaņā-visistam eva rasaḥ tan nātyam eva rasāḥ.
anye tu śuddham vibhāvam, apare śuddham anubhāvam, kecit tu sthāyimātram, itare vyabhicărinam, anye tat samyogam, eke anukāryam, kecana sakalam eva samudāyam rasam āhur ity alam bahunā.”.
We will go to see later that Jagannātha has given nearly as many as eleven views which follow the above pattern. But the presentation of this topic is less scientific and less methodical in Locana, perhaps because Anandavardhana has not bothered about discussing this topic-Anandavardhana concentrates just on the fact of rasa or rasa-dhvani with which other thought-currents are duly correlated. On the other hand the Abh. has a direct concern with the fact of the process of rasaexperience as Bharata himself has given the rasa-sūtra.
The Bālapriyā on Locana (pp. 184, Edn. Chowkhamba, skt. Sr. Benares city, 1940) takes the first view to be that of Lollata: "bhatta-lollatādimatam adau

Page #343

1518
SAHRDAYĀLOKA darśayati.” “pūrvety ādi”. Then Bālapriyā observes : “matam idam dūsayitvā prakārántareņa vadatām Śrī-Sankukā”dīnām matam darśayati-pravāha. ity ādi.
Then what follows is explained in Bala-priyā as "sva-mata" i.e. The opinion of Śrī Sankuka. Then, without naming (pp. 186; ibid) it is stated "matántaram āhaapara ity ādi.”
With this observation we will now proceed to examine Bhatta Nāyaka's view as presented in the Abh. first and then we will also examine how Locana presents the same.
Bhatta Nāvaka starts with rejecting either the 'pratīti' or 'utpatti' of rasa. ‘Pratīti' is both direct i.e. pratyakṣa or through sabda-pramāna, or smrti, or inference. This again is both personal i.e. sva-gata, or impersonal i.e. paragata. In short Bhatta Nāyaka rejects the pratiti of rasa and also its utpatti, and thus he is opposed to both Bhatta Lollata and Sri Sankuka. He rejects even 'abhivyakti' i.e. manifestation of rasa. Here, perhaps Anandavardhana and his predecessors -are targeted for it certainly cannot be Abhinavagupta who was later in time and who quotes Bhatta Nāyaka at various points.
The main thrust of Bhatta Nāyaka's argument is that if the apprehension of say, karuna rasa, is said to be with reference to 'sva' i.e. if it is taken to happen individually or at personal level, - ātmagatarvena-then the sāmājika or spectator will have an experience of pain or unhappiness. Of course, those who accept the sukha-duh-khā"tmaka-svabhāva of rasa will not find any difficulty in accepting this. But the very fact that Bhatta Näyaka objects to this shows that he too, like Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and their followers takes rasa to be of the nature of only bliss, pure and simple ! Or, even from another angle also rasaexperience cannot be understood as happening at personal level i.e. ātmagatatvena. The fact is that Sītā and others can never be imagined to be related to the sāmājika or spectator individually. If one's own beloved is placed in place of Sītā, then even this is not possible because under the given context, the sāmājika does not remember one's own beloved. Again, yet another difficulty will arise. When the sāmājika observes Rāma and such other heroes performing superlative exploits such as crossing of ocean etc., the self-"sva" of sāmājika will not be able to enter in this. The spectator simply cannot imagine that he can even cross the ocean as done by Rāma.
The sāmājika has no apprehension of rasa even through 'smrti' or memory. Rāma and others were not experienced or seen by the spectator personally on an

Page #344

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1519 earlier occasion and hence, as Rāma and others are not pūrva-drsta i.e. met with earlier, their 'smarana' or memory is impossible. Only that which is seen or heard or experienced earlier, i.e. only that which is “pūrva-drsța' can be remembered at a later stage.
Again if it is said that here rasa-perception takes place either through direct words or statement, or by anumāna i.e. inference., then the answer is that such a perception is without joy, i.e. it is "nīrasa" or dry.
If rasa-perception is taken to happen in a “para-gata”-way i.e. with reference to someone else, then also the same contingency will occur. Thus, here the anumitivāda of Sankuka is also found to be faulty. When Bhatta Nāyaka says : “rasaḥ na pratīyate," then this sort of 'pratīti', as observed earlier could be verbal i.e. śābdi, inferential i.e. anumānikī, of the form of memory i.e. smsti-rūpā, and of course pratyaksa or direct perception. All these could be with reference to an individual'sva-gata' or with somebody else, i.e. 'para-gata'. Bhatta Nāyaka rejects all these types of apprehension or 'pratīti' by a single observation that “rasah na pratīyate." Again, Sri Sankuka's anumitivāda is also rejected on the ground that inferential knowledge could be either true or false as the case may be, but is certainly not "beautiful" i.e. "sa-rasa". AG. has also repeated this observation -"laukikanumāne tu kā rasatā ?-, but we know that Mahimā has advocated strongly the case for, . what he terms as “kāvyánumiti" as against "trakánumiti", and this kävyánumiti is "sa-rasa." But we know that here practically what happens is that 'kävyánumiti' is certainly not the technical anumiti' of the śāstras and is also hardly a diluted or an adulterated mixture, hardly deserving the name of "anumiti.” It is a quarrel of name only. Whether you call is to be "vyañjanā”, which is exclusive to art, here poetry and drama, or call it this loose "kāvyánumiti", the result is the same. But Bhatta Nāyaka rejects both of them taking both "anumiti" and "abhivyakti” in the strict sense of the darśana-śāstra.
Bhatta Nāyaka feels that if rasa-bodha or apprehension of rasa is caused by direct means i.e. if it is held to be a case of “pratyksa” or direct perception, then there
e chances of opposite reactions in case of different persons. People of different culture and taste will feel either lust, shame, disgust etc. : “na ca sabdánumānā"dibhyas tat-pratītau lokasya sa-rasata yuktā, pratyaksād iva.” (Gnoli, pp. 10) : (Translation, Gnoli, pp. 44, ibid,)- “Moreover, even if it is supposed that he (=Rāma) is perceived through verbal testimony (śabda), inference (anumāna), etc., logically there cannot be any occurrence of rasa in the audience- just as it is not aroused by a thing perceived through direct knowledge. For on the appearance of

Page #345

1520
SAHṚDAYALOKA
a pair of lovers united together, the mind of anyone present rather becomes the prey of conflicting feelings (shame, disgust, envy, and so on); and we surely cannot say that the onlooker in such a scene is in a state of Rasa !" - In short, when the sāmājika or onlooker is himself disturbed by such stray feelings, how can a state of rasa-experience, i.e. absolute bliss, can ever be imagined? Thus 'rasanubhava'- or rasa experience, following direct perception or recollection stands confuted. Bhatta Nayaka also observes here in brief that the same difficullties will arise in case rasa is said to be born or caused i.e. if "utpatti" of rasa is asserted by the purvapakṣin. : utpattāv api tulyam etad dūṣaṇam." (pp. 10, Gnoli, ibid).
Bhaṭṭa Nayaka also rejects the abhivyakti-vāda, perhaps as supported by Anandavardhana, who was his predecessor. He observes: "śakti-rūpatvena pūrvam sthitasya paścād abhivyaktau visayarjana-tāratanya"pattiḥ. sva-gata-para-gatatvā"di ca pūrvavad vikalpyam."-"If it is supposed that Rasa first pre-exists in a potential form (śakti-rūpatvena) and is later manifested, then the determinants must -necessarily illuminate it little by little. Besides. the difficulties already encountered would recur is Rasa manifested as really present in our own self, or as present in third party?" (Trans. Gnoli. pp. 44, 45 ibid).
Gnoli (pp. 45 ibid) here adds a foot-note (no.1): "This objection repeats, mutatis mutandis, the objection of the Buddhists and of the Mimāmsakas against the concept of sphota which, according to the grammarians (vaiyākaraṇa) is a vocality, eternal and without parts, distinct from the letters and manifested (√vyaj) by these. This eternal vocality causes the cognition of the meaning. This objection is as follows is sphota manifested entirely by the first letter on of a word or not? (a) If sphota is manifested in its entirety, the letters which come after are unnecessary. In other words, the first letter would be capable of rendering perceptible the meaning of the whole word. (b) If sphota is manifested gradually, then it could no longer be without parts. This second alternative is, therefore, in contradiction to the very nature of sphota. The same reasoning is applied by Bhatta Nayaka to Rasa and to the words by which it is manifested."
This gradual manifestation of the Rasa has also been criticised by Śankuka, cf. supra, p. 28." (This means that when Sankuka rejects six types of hasya or ten types of Kāma, there is a veiled reference to the manifestation theory.)
It may be noted here that Bhatta Nayaka, while rejecting the case of "abhivyakti", takes it strictly in the philosophical sense as accepted in the darśanas. Abhivyakti or manifestation means the revelation of only that which pre-exists. Thus, if rasa is said to be abhivyakta or manifested (i.e. abhivyajyate) then it must

Page #346

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1521 have existed prior-pūrva-sthiti- to its revelation. May be, it could have existed in form of latent impression i.e "samskāra."Now, in normal case, any manifestation of an object depends on the strength of the means or apparatus of manifestation. For example, if light is dim in the beginning and gets brighter and brighter later, then the objects covered in darkness will start appearing more and more clearly as the light increases. Rasa if held to be manifested by vibhāvā"di-s, then in that case there will arise this contingency of accepting gradual stages of clearer manifestation i.e. "tāratamyadosa” will prop us in case of rasanubhūti. Any added dose of vibhāvā"dis will make for brighter manifestation of rasa, and in fact, theoretically there will be no end to this, or no final stage of rasa-revelation. But we know that in the case of rasanubhati such thing is not observed. Bhatta Nayaka observes that this again can be both sva-gata and para-gata i.e. subjective or neutral as the case may be ! Thus he rejects the case of "rasábhivyakti.”
But here again we feel that Bhatta Nāvaka has blundered. He equates the abhivvakti of rasa, practically with the abhiwakti of sphota of the Vaivākaranas or, the abhivvakti as understood by the dārśanikas. This means that Bhatta Näyaka seems to take "abhivyakti” strictly in its philosophical-“dārśanika-" context and meaning, which means that only a pre-existing object can get manifested. But there is a vital difference between darśanika-abhivyakti and the "abhivyakti" of the ālamkārikas of the rasa-dhvani school of thought. It is true that rasa is manifested or is abhivyakta as is the "sphota" of the grammarians, but it is not true to hold that as is “sphoța” believed to be “pūrva-siddha", rasa is also a “pūrva-siddha" entity. No; never. We do not experience rasa before we move to the theatre and view the performance. For want of any other perfectly suitable technical terminology, rasa is said to be "abhivyakta" in a loose sense, or in a poetic context. It is ‘abhivyakti' "sui generis”. Again here 'abhivyakti' proves to be as less acceptable as was "kāvyánumiti" of Mahimā or Sankuka or their predecessors ! For the alamkarikas rasa is apprehended through vyañjanā, i.e. it is abhivyakta, but is not pūrva-siddha ! It is said to be "tātkālikaḥ eva, vibhāvā”di-jīvitāvadhih.” Thus it is ‘abhivyakta' in a loose or, a special sense of the term which Bhatta Nāyaka fails to grasp.
In Bhatta Nāyaka's presentation we come across some terminologies as seen in the Samkhya darśana and hence scholars take him to be a follower of the Samkhya system. But this conclusion is hazardous and is done in a hurry and therefore unsound. In the same vein to stamp Lollața as a mīmāmsaka, or take Śrī Sankuka as a naiyāyika is unscientific. Actually many axioms of mīmāmsā, vyākarana, and nyāya were a common intelletual and cultural heritage and were acceptable to the

Page #347

1522
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
vedāntins as well and also perhaps to the non-vedic disciplines. For example no darśana ever brands “prakrti” to be "caturguņā”tmikā” as against its being termed "triguņāmika” by the Sāmkhyas. Again, aesthetics has philosophy in its back-drop, but it was never coloured and certainly never vitiated by philosophical bias. Ācārya Hemacandra of the Jain faith has no hesitation is following Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta of the Saiva-Pratyabhijñā darśana. Aesthetics never ran a narrow track in India. But an honest effort can be made in the direction of fixing the religious and philosophical faith of a given ācārya. At times even aesthetics .was slightly coloured or rendered pink by philosophical tenets as is seen with the great Vaisnava ācāryas Rūpa and Jiva Goswami-s. Dr. Hiriyanna in his "Art Experience" has taken note of the free movement of aesthetics in India. Or, we may say that as a rich background, not just only this or that darśana, but the whole Indian philosophical climate serves the purpose of indian aesthetics. However, SaivaPratyabhijñā darśana had a major say in this business.
So, as observed earlier, there can be noted certain technical terminologies in Bhatta Nāyaka's presentation. We do not know whether he had with the view of the "Sāmkhyas" as discussed earlier. But as he is a great supporter of only the blissful nature of rasa, perhaps he had nothing to do with the Sāmkhyaview which believed in the sukha-duḥkhā"tmakatva of rasa.
We know that the Sāmkhya discipline accepts three guņas-sattva, rajas and tamas that go with buddhi. 'Tamas' is termal 'moha' or stuper also. We had seen a lot of this in Bhoja in an earlier chapter and certainly the Mālava School as represented by Dhananjaya, Dhanika and Bhoja had a lot to do with Bhatta Nāyaka also. That way, we will go to see, even Abhinavagupta and his throught-current also had a lot to do with Bhatta Näyaka. So, it is accepted that till there is predominance of 'moha' or stuper over 'buddhi', it cannot observe subtle things, and fails to understand clearly any point. One of the chief targets of art is to lessen or remove totally this veil of moha or studer that colours the intelligence. This thing i.e. removal of moha is done with the help of "dosa-hāna" i.e. freedom from blemishes, and "guna-ādāna” acceptance of excellences. We can see how later Bhoja has taken these qualities as the distinguishing marks of sāhitya. This is the case of poetry. In drama, however, removal of moha is effected by the four-fold actingcaturvidha abhinaya. When the curtain of moha-stuper is removed, the processvyāpāra- of sādhāranīkarana i.e. de-individualisation starts operating in poetry or drama. Through this sādhāranīkarana, in poetry and drama, the vibhāvā"di-s unfold in a de-individualised form i.e. sābhāranīkrta-svarūpa. Through this rasa

Page #348

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1523 realisation takes place, the enjoyment of which occurs to the sāmājika through bhojakarva-or the power of enjoyment. Thus 'bhoga' of rasa takes place. In Sāmkhya darśana, 'bhoga' is explained as the union of purusa and praksti realised in buddhi i.e. intelligence. The purusa gets reflected in the buddhi and enjoys rasabuddhi. This bhoga is imagined to be distinct in nature from anubhava or direct experience, smrti or recollection, etc. On account of the continuence of rajas and tamas in the buddhi at this moment, vaividhya or variety is added in this bhoga. On account of this 'vaividhya' or diversity, we locate druti', 'vikāsa' and 'vistara'. Some add 'viksobha' also as a fourth citta-bhūmi. This 'bhoga' rests i.e. its 'viśrānti' takes place in sva-samvit. Thus 'sva-samvit' i.e. one's own consciousness gets characterised by light i.e. prakāśa, and ananda or bliss. For this sattva-guna becomes instrumental. Rajas and tamas are subdued at this moment by the predominance of 'sattva'. Thus the nature of 'bhoga' becomes equated with the enjoyment and bliss of parabrahma-“parabrahmā”svāda-kalpa."
The thrust of Bhatta Nāyaka's thesis is like this :- In poetry and drama words do not end in abhidhā or the power of expression only. They have a capacity to yield deindividualised meaning, i.e. they render the vibhāvā"di-s sādhāranīkrta or of de-individualised nature. So rasa, which results from the vibhāvā"di-s, is enjoyed in a de-individualised form. To put it in a different way, it can be stated that the sthāyin caused by a certain imagined individual, place, time, etc., becomes generalised due to the force of generalised vibhāvā"di-s, and hence the limitations of individuality are removed and the bhāvaka is gifted with a sense of the vibhāvā"dis being his own. This means that the vibhāvā"di-s are presented as part of his own consciousness i.e. sva-samvid. with the help of poetic word, thus sva-samvit is manifested in full and enjoyment of rasa-rasa-bhoga'-results. Thus in poetry the sabda-vyāpāra or power of word extends upto "bhoga." Thus generalisation or "bhāvakatva" and enjoyment i.e. "bhojakatva" or "bhoga", prove to be the powers of word only. We know the view of Bhatta Nāyaka as “bhukti-vāda.”
The opinion of Bhatta Nāyaka is presented in the Abh. in the following words : (pp. 10, Gnoli. ibid):
"tasmāt kāvye dosā”bhāva-gunálamkāra-mayatva-lakṣaṇena, nāțye caturvidhábhinaya-rūpena nivida-nija-samkatatā-nivārana-kārinā vibhāvā”disādhāraṇīkaranā”tmanā, abhidhāto dvitīyena amśena bhāvakarva vyāpāreņa bhāvyamāno rasónubhava-smrtyā"di-vilaksanena rajas-tamónuvedha-vaicitrya-balād druti-vistara-vikāsā”tmanā sattvodreka-prakāśa”nanda-maya-nija-samvid-vibrāntilaksanena para-brahmā"svāda-savidhena bhojena param bhujyata iti.”

Page #349

1524
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Gnoli translates- pp. 45, 46, ibid): "Therefore (our thesis is as follows :- (Rasa is revealed (bhāvyamāna) by a special power assumed by words in poetry and drama; the power of revelation (bhāvanā)-to be distinguished from the power of denotation (abhidhā)- consisting of the action of generalizing the determinants, etc. This power has the faculty of suppressing the thick layer of mental stupor (moha) occupying our own consciousness : in poetry it is characterized by the absence of defects (dosa) and the presence of qualities (guna) and ornaments (alamkāras); in drama by the four kinds of representation. Rasa revealed by this power, is then enjoyed (bhuj) with a kind of enjoyment (bhoja), different from direct experience, memory etc. This enjoyment, by virtue of the different forms of contact between sattva-and rajas and tamas, is consisting of the states of fluidity (druti), enlargement (vistara) and expansion (vikāsa), is characteriged by a resting (viśrānti) on one's own consciousness (samvit), which due to the emergent state of sattva, is pervaded by beatitude (ananda) and light (prakāśa), and is similar to the tasting (āsvāda) of the supreme brahman."
Gnoli has notes (pp. 46, 47, 48 ibid) on sattva, rajas, tamas, prakāśa and brahman. They read as : (pp. 46, ft. n. 1 a)- “The light of the self, of the consciousness, does not reveal itself, in the 'sāmsārika' existence, in immaculate purity, but is conditioned by the three constituent elements (guna) of mental substance (buddhi) sattva, light, luminous and pleasant, rajas, mobile, dynamic and painful, tamas, inert, obstructive, and stupid. These three constituent elements are never present in isolation, but mingled together in unequal proportions. The state of emergence of the element sativa, limpid and mirror-like, coincides with a manifestation, always more distinct and evident, of the light and beatitude proper to the self-these indeed reflect themselves in sattva.I. P. V. V.I. p. 150 : "sattvam prakāśarūpam nirmala-nabhah-prakhyam, sarvato jalada-patalena iva vāraņā”tmanā tamasā samāvịtam āste. tatra ca măruta-sthānīyam pravịtti-svabhāvam rajah, kriyā”tmakatayā kramena tamojaladam apasārayati nyag-bhāvayati," "sattva, which is made up of light, like the immaculate ether, is completely enshrouded by tamah, the principle of obstruction, as by a blanket of cloud; Rajaḥ, which is made up of action and is, therefore, imbued with activity, serves as a wind, which, little by little, brushes away, dissipates, the cloud-bank of tamas." The three constituent elements, sattva, rajas and tamas, are associated with three states of consciousness called, respectively, expansion (vikāsa). provoked by an absolute predominemce of sativa, fluidity (druti), determined by a contact of sattva with rajas, and dilatation (vistara) determined by a contact of sattva with tamas.

Page #350

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1525 The conception of the three guņas, belonging, in particular, to the sāmkhya and yoga systems, is accepted, without notable modifications, by the whole of Indian Thought...
(b)- Druti, vistara and vikāsa are each connected with certain Rasas by later Indian theorists. Druti is the pure state of consciousness of śrngāra, karuna and śānta; Vistara of vīra, raudra and bībhatsa; Vikāsa of hāsya, adbhuta and bhayānaka. cf. Dhv. Ā. L. Comm., p. 206. Rajah predominates in druti, tamas in vistara, and sattva in vikāsa. M.C., p. 74 : yadā hi rajaso gunasya drutiḥ, tamaso vistarah, sattvasyati-vikäsah, tadānim bhogah svarūpam labhate. "It is when rajas is in fluidity, tamas in dilatation, and sattva in full expansion that fruition is realized."
ft. note 1, pp. 47, on "prakāśa”-reads as : "1-a)- The expression sattvódreka is reproduced almost without change by Mammaa., p. 74- sattvódreka-prakāśā"nandamaya-samvid-viếrānti-laksanena. It has been commented upon in several ways. I have followed, in the translation, the commentary of Vidyācakravartin (K. P., Trivendrum Sanskrit Series, LXXXVII) : sattvódrekāt yau prakāśā”nandau tanmayyām samvidi samādhi-vștti-rūpāyām yā yoginām viśrāntir vigalita-sakalaśramā nistarangeņávasthitiḥ tat-sadrśena. M. C. p. 74 comments on: sattvódrekena prakāśaḥ prakato ya anandah tanmayi yā samvit tasyām viśrāntiḥ, sā satattvam paramartho yasya sa tathā. Referring to Rasa, A.G. says in Dh. Ā.L., p. 183, that it is "rajastamo-vaicitryánuviddha-sattvamaya-nija-cit-svabhāva-nirvștiviśrānti-laksanah.” The famous definition of the aesthetic experience given by Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpana, adds nothing to the conception of A. G. and Bhatta Nāyaka. Viśvanātha says:
"sattvódrekād akhanda-svaprakāśānanda- cinmayaḥ, vedyàntara-sparśa-śūnyo brahmā"svāda-sahodarah. lokóttara-camatkāra-prāṇaḥ kaiścit pramātřbhiḥ, svākāravad abhinnatvenàyam
āsvādyate rasaḥ." "Rasa is tasted by the qualifind persons (i.e. qui rationem artis intelligunt). It is tested by virtue of the emergence of sattva. It is made up of a full intelligence,

Page #351

1526
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Beatitude, and salf-luminosity. It is void of contact with any other knowable thing, twin brother to the tasting of brahman. It is animated by a camatkāra of nonordinary nature. It is tasted as if it were our very being, in indivisibility." cf. the translation of A. K. Coomaraswamy. The Transformation of Nature in Art, Harvard, 1934, pp. 48 ff. Coomaraswamy translates camatkāra with "lightingflash." According to Viśvanātha, sattva is nothing but the mind or inner sense (manah) devoid of any contact with rajaḥ and tamaḥ.
(b) - The terminology used by Bhatta Niyaka and referred to by A. G. is exactly analogous to that used by Bhoja, in his definition of the-Sā”nanda-samādhi. : yadā tu rajas-tamo-leśánu-viddham antahkarana-sattvam bhāvyate tadā gunabhāva citiśakteh śubha-prakāśa-mayasya sattvasya bhāvyamānasyodrekāt sā”nandah samadhir bhavati. (Bhoja : Vrtti. I. 17). "When the matter of concentration (bhāvanā is commented on by Bhoja.” bhāvanā bhāvyasya visayảntara-parihāreņa cetasi punah punar niveśanam) is the sattva tinged by rajah and tamah proper to -the inner sense, then by virtue both of the subordinate state of the self, and of the emergence of sattva, which is made up of bliss and light and is the matter of concentration, that which is called 'Sā"nanda-samadhi' occurs. This passage is also quoted by Pandey I. Aes., p. 189.
On “para-brahmā"svāda-savidha,” Gnoli adds ft. note 1, pp.48 ibid as follows :: “Bhatra Nāyaka was perhaps the first to associate aesthetic experience with mystical experience. The aesthetic state of consciousness is no longer associated with the limited "T"; during the aesthitic experience the subject is completely absorbed in the object contemplated, and the whole of the reality which surrounds him disappears from his view. The same thing, mutatis mutandis occurs in mystical experience; in this sense, aesthetic experience is similar (savidha, sa-brahmacārin, sahodara) to experience of the Absolute or of the brahman. Bhatta Nāyaka and A.G. (A.G. also accepts Bhatta-Nāyaka's opinion; Dh. A.L. p. 190, “parabrahmā"svādasabrahmacāritvam cāstv asya rasā”svādasya), however, do not fail to emphasize the unmistakable characteristics of each. Bhatta Nāyaka says (Dh. Ā. L., p. 91).
"vāg-dhenur dugdha etam hi rasam yad bāla-trşņayā, tenásya samaḥ sa syād
duhyate yogibhir hi sah.” "This rasa (aesthetic experience) is poured forth spontaneously by the word which is like a cow, for love of her children, for this reason it is different from that

Page #352

Rasa-nişpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1527
which is (laboriously) miked by yogins."- Cf. also A.bh. p. 5- On the opinion of A.G., infra. pp. 82-84. Two stanzas which reflect the same idea and which are certainly from Bhaṭṭa Nayaka, are quoted by Mahimabhatta (Vyaktiviveka), p. 94 (see the translation in the Introd. p. XXVI):
"pāṭhyād atha dhruvāgānāt tataḥ sampūrite rase, tadā"svāda-bharaikàgro
hṛṣyaty antarmukhaḥ kṣaṇam." tato nirviṣayasyásya svarupávasthitau nijaḥ,
vyajyate hlada-nisyando yena tṛpyanti yoginaḥ.
The association between these two states also appears in the affinities of the terms which designate them: viśranti, nirvṛti, laya, nirveśa, samāpatti, camatkāra, etc."
We may observe here that Gnoli's observation that Bhatta Nayakā "was perhaps the first to associate aesthetic experience with mystical experience" is unsound.Actually art itself, in Indian thought, is taken as an expression of the divine and "satyam, śivam, sundaram" is the description of the highest spirit. These western scholars have a tendency to make bold observations with an intention at times, as we see in lesser names, of course not Gnoli, to disturb the rhythem and put things out of balance. There was no second opinion about the fact that art was acceptable only for the sake of life and that art was a step towards the divine. Art-experience therefore was also held closer, if not a variety of divine mystical experience. The very fact that Bharata seeks the origin of Natya from divine source clears this objective. Bhatta Nayaka was vocal but may be he had predecessors who were perhaps more vocal about this. The verses quoted by Mahima from Bhatta Nayaka as seen above could have been from a common source that was a sacred heritage for all Indian thinkers. And 'camatkara' can be translated as 'divine surprise'.
We will now turn to what Abhinavagupta himself has to say concerning rasaexperience. But it may be noted beforehand that A.G. has welcomed much of what Bhatta Nayaka has observed. But for the present we will look for the reasons why A.G. does not accept Bhatta Nayaka's authority in full without questioning. Abhinavagupta's main objection to the thesis of Bhatta Nayaka seems to be against

Page #353

1528
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the use of the word “bhoga" used in a special sense by Bhasta Nāyaka. He observes that the pūrvapaksa or objector's views denounced by Bharta Nāyaka stands rejected in its own. Even A.G. agrees to this rejection of Lollata's and Sankuka's views. But coming to Bhasta Nāyaka's own view A.G. observes :- “tatra pūrvapaksóyam bhattalollața-pakşánabhyupagamād eva nábhyupagata iti tad dūşanam anutthānopahatam eva. pratītya’di-vyatiriktaś ca samsāre ko bhoga iti na vidmah.” (pp. 11, Gnoli, ibid)
"In this exposition, the thesis confuted by Bhatta Nāyaka are accepted even by us-simply because we do not accept the thesis of Bhatta Lollata. Thus the errors confuted by Bhatta Nāyaka have been definitely put to death.
As for the rest we do not see what kind of enjoyment distinguishable from perception, etc., can exist in the world.” (Trans. Gnoli., pp. 49. ibid).
If Bhatta Nāyaka explains this 'bhoga' by 'rasana', then this 'rasana' is also a sort of "pratīti", perception or apprehension. Of course, due to difference in the shade of meaning, new term can be co -darśana, anumiti, śruti, upamiti, pratibhāna, etc. : “rasaneti cet sápi pratipattir eva, kevalam upāya-vailakṣaṇyān námāntaravat.” (pp. 11, Gnoli, ibid, Abh.).
"If you say it is tasting (rasanā), we reply that this too is a perception, and is only called by another name on account of particular means (upāya) by which it
d into existence. The same thing happens in the case of direct perecption (darśana), reasoning (anumāna), the revealed word (śruti), analogy (upamiti), intuition (pratibhāna), etc., each of which takes a different name."
Gnoli adds a foot-note (No. 4 pp. 49, ibid) and observeses on "pratibhāna”-“The term pratibhā, pratibhāna, is used in several senses, (cf. Introd. pp. XLVIII ff.) In the present passage, it has the sense of "an inexplicable intuition as to what may occur in the future, for example, "Tomorrow my brother will come." It also includes the power of understanding all kinds of sounds without effort, all that may be communicated by an animal in the world and also the power of having heavenly visions." (Dasgupta, H.I. Ph., V. 127) This particular form of consciousness is discussed by Jayanta, Nyāyamañjarī (Benares) 1936, pp. 97.ff.
Abhinavagupta's second objection against Bhatta Nayaka is when the latter rejects both 'utpatti' and 'abhivyakti". A.G. holds that rasa is an object of our experience and if we reject the case of 'utpatti' i.e. of its being caused, then we should accept that it is pūrva-siddha i.e. having pre-existence and in that case its 'abhivyakti" or manifestation has to be accepted. If it is held that rasa is not manifested then the position of its being caused (utpatti) has to be accepted. For

Page #354

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1529
if both 'utpatti' and 'abhivyakti' are rejected at a time, then rasa will be beyond any apprehension, i.e. it will be "a-prameya." Thus rasa will be a non-entity, i.e. it will be "a-siddha", for there is no third option seen in this case. : "nispädanábhivyaktidvayána-bhyupagame ca nityo vásan vā rasa, iti na tṛtīyā gatiḥ syāt." (pp. 11, Gnoli, ibid).
"Besides, if we do not admit that rasa is produced or manifested, we shall be forced to conclude that it is either eternal or non-existent : no third possibility exists." (Tran. Gnoli, pp. 49)
A.bh. further observes: "na ca apratītam vastu asti vyavahāre yogyam. athócyate pratitir asya bhogīkaraṇam, tac ca druty adi, svarūpam. tad astu, tathápi na tavan mātram. yāvanto hi rasās tāvā❞tya eva rasanā❞tmānaḥ pratītayo bhogīkaraṇa-svabhāvāḥ. guṇānām cángangi-vaicitryam anantam kalpyam iti kā tritvena iyattā."- (Gnoli, pp. 11. ibid).
"Again, the existence of an unperceived thing cannot be affirmed. The supporters of Bhaṭṭa Nayaka will perhaps reply that the perception of rasa is just what they call the power of bringing about enjoyment (bhogīkarana)- consisting in the states of fluidity, etc. Very well, then! But it is impossible that it should consist solely in these three states. For there exist just as many forms of perception-whose nature, according to you, lies in this very power of bringing about fruition- . consisting of a relish, as there are kinds of Rasa. Besides, the constituent elements, sattva, etc., can be found set out in an infinite number of different ways: one may predominate at one time and another at another. Thus it is absurd to limit the forms of relish to only three."- (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 49, 50, ibid).
It may be noted that though for the sake of argument A.G. has denounced Bhaṭṭa Nayaka's position that there is neither 'utpatti' nor 'abhivyahti" of rasa, but in fact he himself accepts the extra-ordinariness, a-laukikatva, of rasa which is not to be met with in worldly context. We will see that he will observe, "na dṛṣam" iti bhūṣam etat, na dūṣaṇam." But this alaukikatva, for A.G. is best expressed by the term 'abhivyakti' through "vyañjanā", which covers up both bhāvakatva and bhojakatva of Bhaṭṭa Nayaka, thus avoiding the contingency of what is termed "gaurava-dosa". We will see this in greater details later.
Third point that A. G. finds objectionable in Bhatta Nayaka's thesis is as noted above the three states of consciousness, vig. fluidity (druti), enlargement (vistara) and expansion (vikāsa). We have noted above that A.G. observes that there can be as many states as are rasas and the proportion in the combination of sattva, rajas

Page #355

1530
SAHRDAYĀLOKA and tamas the three constituent elements can give rise to a number of varieties. But again here we can argue that Bhatta Nāyaka mentions just three states from the practical point of view. Major states could be these three while the possibility of minor combinations and innumerable states cannot be denied theoretically. From the point of view of workable classification, perhaps Bhatta Nāyaka has enumerated three states of consciousness which are obvious and born of self-discrimination.
However, Abhinavagupta shows tremendous respect for Bhatta Nayaka also. He accepts “bhāvanā” in the sense of “making anything an object of apprehension which is of the type of tasting i.e. rasanā-vyapära." Abhinavagupta welcomes the statement of Bhatta Nāyaka contained in a given verse, because here rasa is said to be ‘kāvyártha.' Rasa is Kāvyártha,. is of the nature of tasting, is the object of highest consciousness (para-samvitti-gocarah), and is born by the combination of bhāvas i.e. vibhāvā”di-s.
A.bh. observes : (pp. 11, 12; Gnoli, ibid) : “bhāvanā-bhāvya esopi śộngārā”di- ganópi yat," iti tu yat kavyena bhavyante rasā ity ucyate, tatra vibhāva"di-janitacarvaņā”tmakā”svāda-rūpa-pratyaya-gocaratā”pādanam eva yadi bhāvanam tad abhyupagamyata eva. yat tūktam
“bhāva-samyojanā-vyangyapara-samvitti-gocaraḥ, āsvādanātmánubhava
rasaḥ kāvyártha ucyate.” iti tatra vyajyamānatayā vyangyo raksyate. anubhavena ca tad-visaya iti mantavyam”
(Trana. Gnoli, pp. 50, 51, ibid) : "However, if the word “revelation” in the expression “the Rasas are revealed by the poem” (what Bhatta Nāyaka says is : “The various rasa-s, the etotic etc., are revealed by the power of revelation”), is used in the sense that the poem becomes the matter of a tasting made up of gustation, and which is generated by the determinants, etc., it may be accepted without any question.
Again in the stanza, “Rasa is, it is said, the aim of poetry (kävyártha), it is an experience (anubhava) consisting of tasting and is the matter of cognition by not ordinary form of consciousness (para-sam-vitti), manifested (vyangya) by the union of the determinants, etc.," Bhatta Nāyaka apparently considers Rasa as manifested so that the theory of manifestation is rather maintained then discarded. By the word "experience”, we must really understand the object of it."

Page #356

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1531
Here, the discussion on the views of the purvā"cārya-s i.e. the predecessors ends in the A.bh. We saw that Lollata's view was refuted by Sankuka and Sankuka's stand was refuted by Tauta. The main objection against Bhaṭṭa Nayaka was against "bhoga", which he held as different from all types of perception,
All these thinkers have contributed in their own way to the cause of aesthetics. The result is that the thinking on rasa-niṣpatti was raised to higher and higher level. It is true that the relation of poet's world with the real worldly context gives the cultured reader or spectator-the sāmājika-the expertise to catch the mental feelings in their true perspective. The poet's world has a sound foundation in form of practical world. Insistence on this point could be the basic contribution of Lollata. On the other hand Śrī Śankuka lays greater stress on the inferential process concerning the understanding and apprehension of feelings based on the similarity between the world of the poet and the practical world. Bhaṭṭa Nayaka insists on the all acceptable and rich fact of "sādhāraṇī-karana" i.e. generalisation, better termed de-individualisation. But we can trace the roots of this thought current even in Bharata. What is fresh about Bhaṭṭa Nayaka's thesis is that he has projected bhāvakatva-vyāpāra that brings about sadhāraṇīkarana. This is equivalent to the presence of gunas and alamkāras in poetry with absence of dosas, and it operates through the medium of four-fold representation -caturvidha-abhinaya-in drama. But as we will go to see, when Abhinavagupta will explain, that virtually this bhāvakatva-vyāpāra is covered up by the vyañjanā-vyāpāra as supported by the great Anandavardhana. And this vyañjanavyāpāra was projected by theorists quite earlier than the bhavakatva-vyāpāra. The difference if any, is in name only. Bhaṭṭa Nayaka's "bhoga" also does not fall beyond the scope of rasapratiti, and this is clearly explained by Abhinavagupta as noticed by us earlier. Of course the mental states of druti, vistara, and vikāsa following rasa-experience could be taken as an important contribution of Bhaṭṭa Nayaka, but we feel that the uselessness of recognising only three mental states as argued by Abhinavagupta is quite convincing and virtually the mental state, peri passu with rasa-experience, and following the same, could be covered up by the acceptance of Santa-rasa or mahārasa as ably supported by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta,. Again, the concepts of druti, vistara, vikāsa can be correlated with the concept of mādhuryā"di gunas as supported by the dhvanivādins. True, with further research, Abhinavagupta has accepted some of the basic concepts or ideas advocated by Bhaṭṭa Nayaka, and some, though not accepted, are, in turn, accepted by Abhinavagupta in a new guise. Thus the area of differenes between Bhaṭṭa Nayaka

Page #357

1532
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA and Abhinavagupta narrows down to a great extent. It is possible that Bhatta Nayaka was either a young contemporary, or immediately posterior to Anandavardhana, so, when Bhatta Nayaka raised his voice against the all-covering genius of Anandavardhana and drafted his "Hṛdaya-darpana" for the demolition of dhvani, i.e. dhvani-dhvamsa, perhaps it was more a personality clash than theoretical differences. For, when we carefully analyse the bhavakatva-vyāpāra as supported or, say, projected by Bhaṭṭa Nayaka, the net result is that, in poetry, it patters out to be merely dosa-hana and guṇalamkāra-grahaṇa, which could be covered up by abhidha-or vyācya-vācaka-bhāva to a great extent and vyañjana to some extent, and in drama it is equivalent only to the four-fold-representation. Drama is an art which has acting as its medium and this acting has natal relations with both abhidha and vyañjana. Anandavardhana has attached supreme importance to these word-powers. But when he observed that word and sense in poetry, activated by these powers attains the potentiality of rasa-suggestion, he "went a step further and whatever was not directly stated or established by Bhatta Nayaka in plain words was rendered clear by Anandavardhana. But for reasons of his own, Bhaṭṭa Nayaka picked up a quarred with Anandavardhana, placed a cross on vyañjanā accepted by thinkers of yore, and tried to put a new name, or new label called "bhāvakatva." Virtually he served old wine in a new bottle with some disadvantage of invoking "gaurava-dosa." Why Anandavardhana called this wordpower of suggestion by the name of vyañjana is clear from the history and usage of this word, as seen earlier by us, in ancient literature beginning with the vedas and then vedängas, both nirukta and vyākaraṇa, and then down to Pāṇini, Katyāyana, Patanjali and on top of all, the actual practice of ancient poets beginning with Vyasa, Välmīki, Kalidasa and the rest. Again. Anandavardhana must have received inspirations from Bharata also who has used abhi+√vyaj at a number of places in the same sense as understood by the dhvanivādins. So what remains on the part of Bhatta Nayaka is only his wrong insistance on giving a new name to an age-old brand. To remove one word-power called vyañjanā he has to project two powers called bhāvakatva and bhojakatva, thus crossing the limits, beauty and grace of brevity, and inviting "gaurava-dosa". His "bhojakatva-vyāpāra❞ stands nullified on the ground that "rasa-bhoga" is nothng but a sort of "rasapratiti", and this fact cannot be denied. Or, we may put this slightly differently. May be, Anandavardhana following the vyakaraṇa-darśana and its "sphota" concept, supported and promulgated the concept of vyañjanā, and as against this, Bhatta Nayaka, following the plea of the Mimāmsā darśana, supported and promulgated

Page #358

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1533 the concept of "bhāvanā", and voted for "bhāvakatva." Reality is that vyañjanā serves the purpose of both bhāvakarva and bhojakarva taken together.
Before examining the rasa-theory as advanced by Abhinavagupta, certain observations emerge on their own at the outset, which are corroborated as seen earlier even by Bhatta Nayaka. Abhinavagupta depicts or explains rasa as "kāvvártha"-"tat kāvyártho rasah."-A.bh. (pp. 272, Edn. K. kris.-G.O.S. vol. I, '92). The A.bh. (ch. VII, pp. 337, ibid) further notes — tatra ca padártha väkyárthau rasesv eva paryavasyata ity a-sādhāranyāt prädhänyāc ca kävyasya arthāh rasah. arthyante prādhānyena ity arthāh. na ty_artha-sabdó abhidheya-vācī (api tu pravoiana-vācī. Sva-sabda-anabhidheyatvam hi rasādīnām dhvanikārādibhir darsitam." Abhinavagupta (pp. 272, ibid) (ch. VI. NS. A.bh.)- quotes from Bharata :- "kāvyárthān bhāvayanti iti.” It may be noted that Dr. K. Krishna-moorthy in his writing elsewhere. reads (api tu pravojanavācī) and this added note, we do not find in the printed G.O.S. Edn. We do not know the source of this added remark by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy though it is exactly implied and therefore welcome.
Sādhāranīkarana : We have observed that Bhatta Nāyaka had mentioned sādhāraṇīkarana-vyāpāra prevailing in poetry. To explain this on practical grounds, Abhinavagupta seeks an illustration from Mīmāmsā darśana. This explanation is served first in practical and then in religious context by. Abhinavagupta, to effect clarity of thinking. Just as Bhatta Nāyaka had sought inspiration for his bhāvakarva-vyāpāra from the concept of Bhāvanā in the Mimāmsā darśana, Abhinavagupta also turns to the same Mimāmsā darśana to seek inspiration. Thus, he quotes two śruti injunctions such as "rātrim āsata" and "tām aganu prādāt.” In these two statements the meaning is primarily restricted with reference to individual, number and time. But when a qualified personadhikarin- who has relevance with the śruti injunction (i.e. who has arthitā) listens to these injunctions, a further extended meaning dawns upon his mind-adhikā
."-and in this higher apprehension the limitations of time, number, individual etc. get removed. He understands a further meaning such as “I will sit", “I will offer in fire” etc. According to various schools, this perception is called propulsion (bhāvanā), command (vidhi), order (niyoga), etc.
Gnoli (pp. 52, ft. note no-4) explains : "In other words, some scriptural sentences (e.g. those quoted), awaken in the believer the need to give the omentum to the fire himself, etc. In this sense, their literal meaning undergoes a transformation : the past tense and the third person, etc., used in these sentences are turned into the present tense etc. There arises in the heart of the believer the

Page #359

1534
SAHRDAYĀLOKA form of consciousness (pratipatti), "I will give the omentum to the fire.” This passing from one sense to another is given the names of propulsion (bhāvanā), order and command (vidhi, nyioga). The terms bhāvanā, vidhi, and niyoga, are proper to the liturgical speculations of mīmāmsā (the term 'bhāvanā' used by Bhatta Nāyaka was probably taken from the terminology of the pūrva-mīmāmsā). The terms 'vidhi' and 'niyoga' observes J. T. A. I, p. 167, are used above all by followers of Prabhākara; Kumārila's disciples prefer instead the word 'bhāvanā.' The shift of sense involved, of course, presupposes the adherence of the subject to the sacred writings, his desire to attain certain ends, etc. This shift of sense is clearly explained in three ślokas quoted by H.C., pp. 98 (no doubt taken from a work on poetics existing prior to A.G., perhaps the HỊdaya-darpana of Bhatta Nāyaka. [Before we quote the verses, we place our disagreement with Gnoli. The verses could not be from Hrdaya-darpana. Bhatta Nāyaka was favourably inclined towards Mimāmsā Šāstra and therefore the śrti-vākyas quoted by A.G., or similar other could be in the HỊdaya-darpaņa. Actually H.C. did not belong to the dārśanika faith and hence he could have given these verses from some other source with popular basis.] (The verses in H.C. read as-)
"ārogyam āptavān sambaḥ stutvā devam aharpatim, syād arthåvagatiḥ pūrvam ity ādi-vacane yathā."
tataś cópātta-kālā"dinyakkāreņópajāyate, pratipattur manasy evam pratipattir na samsayah, yaḥ kópi bhāskaram stauti sa sarvópy agado bhavet, tasmād aham api staumi
roga-nirmuktaye ravim.""In the sentence “Samba regained his health when he praised the Sun-god”, etc. there occurs at first the perception of its literal sense, and then (and on this there is no matter of doubt) there arises in the mind of the perceiving subject a

Page #360

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1535 perception, which eliminates the temporal data, etc., assumed by the sentence in question. This perception is presented in the following form : "Every one who praises the Sun regains his health; so I too will praise the Sun, so as to free mysef from disease." Cf. I. PV. V., I. p. 24; I. P. V., I. p. 27.
The words in the A.bh. read as : (pp. 12, 13 A.bh., Gnoli, ibid) -"yathā hi “rātrim āsata”, “tām agnau prādāt” ity ādāv arthitā”di-lakśitasya adhikāriņaḥ pratipattimātrād ati-tīvra-prarocitāt prathama-pravsttād anantaram adhikaivopāttakāla-tiraskārenaiva "āsai" "pradadāni" ity adi-rūpā samkramanā"di-svabhāvā yathādarśanam bhāvanā-vidhi-niyogā"di-bhāsābhir vyavahrtā pratipattih, tathaiva kāvyā”tmakād api śabdăd adhikāriņódhikā asti pratipattiḥ. adhikārī cátra vimalapratibhāna-śāli-hțdayaḥ.”
(Trans. Gnoli., pp. 52, 53, ibid) :
"For instance, immediately after the first perception of the literal sense of the following expressions, “They lay by night," "He gave it (scil, the omentum) to the fire,” there occurs (in a qualified person (adhikarin), characterized by a certain pragmatic requirement (arthitā) and so on, and possessed of a keen interest in the object of perception involved, a second perception eliminating the temporal data, etc., contained in the first. This second perception consists in a tranfer (samkramana), etc., of the literal sense and is presented in the form : "I will lay,” "I will give", etc. According to the various schools, this perception is called propulsion (bhāvanā), command (vidhi), order (niyoga), etc. Now, a similar thing may be said to happen in the case of poetry : there occurs in a qualified person a perception transcending the words of a poem. The qualified person is in this case any person whose heart possesses a spotless power of intuition (pratibhāna)."-. In short to the Sahrdaya, the poetic meaning flashes forth in an unrestricted form..
Sahrdaya : Abhinavagupta calls the adhikarin with reference to poetry or art, by the name sa-hrdaya. The idea is that sādhāranīkarana takes place only in the context of a sahrdaya. Thus "sahşdayatā’-having a sympathetic heart - is a quality which is the first requirement in the kävya-bhāvanā i.e. appreciation, enjoyment of poetry. Abhinavagupta therefore puts great stress on this quality. He observes as seen above : "adhikari cátra vimala-pratibhāna-śāli-hrdayah.", or one who possesses a heart or one whose heart shines, with the light of spotless intuition. Thus, the heart of the adhikarin is like a spotless mirror. All those who have the capacity to appreciate poetry are said to be -“sa-hrdaya" or one having a compassionate heart, in whom sympathetic heart has flowered-; who are hrdayasamvāda-bhāg-i.e. gifted with artistic sympathy of heart.

Page #361

SAHṚDAYALOKA
Rasa-svabhāva : while dealing with the nature of rasa A.G. first explains the process of sadhāraṇīkaraṇa, and how a sa-hṛdaya experiences rasa. He takes an illustration from the Abhijñāna-śākuntala of Kālidāsa viz. "grīvābhangábhirāmam muhur anupatati..." etc. (Ab. śā. I. 7). He also quotes from Kumāra-sambhava and cites two illustrations viz. "umápi...." (Kumāra. III. 62), and "haras tu kiñcit..." (Kumāra. VI. 67) The first illustration suggests the bhayanaka rasa and the other two illustrate the śṛngara-rasa. The rasa-process proceeds as follows.- First of all the primary or denotated meaning of "grīvābhangábhirama..." etc. becomes clear to the sensitive reader. Then follows the next apprehension which is mental"mānasi". In this apprehension, the spatio-temporal limitations are removed. The youngone of the deer that is perceived is not perceived as an individual youngone of a deer which is terrified. After this there is apprehension of bhayānaka-rasa itself in which the limitations of space, time, individualitry etc. are removed. We find similarity of case as was observed in the illustrations quoted from the Śruti. But here we go a step further. The bhayanaka-rasa that is perceived here does not terrify the onlooker, nor does he have a feeling that some third neutral person is also terrified. Thus this apprehension is beyoud the touch of a particular individual. So, the feeling of pleasure (sukha), pain (duḥkha) etc. is removed and hence there is no inclination either to grab or avoid something (hanópādāna-buddhi). Actually the feeling individually of pleasure and pain, or to have a feeing to possess or disown, are considered to be obstacles to rasa-experience. Thus perception of rasa is different from any worldly perception, for in the latter there are obstacles such as nija-sukhádi-vivaśībhāva, etc. Here the perception of bhayānaka-rasa is vītavighna i.e. free from obstacles. Thus it is felt as if 'rasa' is entering the heart, dancing before the eyes, etc. This process marked in case of this illustration of bhayānaka-rasa, is common to all other rasas such as the śṛngāra and the like.
1536
The A.bh. reads as follows: (pp. 13, Gnoli, ibid) :- "adhikārī cátra vimalapratibhāna-śāli-hṛdayaḥ. tasya ca "grīvābhangá"bhiramam" iti, "umápi nīlālaka...," iti "haras tu kimcit" ityā"di-vākyebhyo vakyártha-pratiter anantaram mānasī sākṣātkārā”mikā, apahastita-tat-tad-vākyópātta-kālā”di-vibhāgā, tāvat pratītir upajāyate. tasyam ca yo mṛga-potakā"dir bhāti tasya viseṣa -rūpatvábhāvād bhīta iti, träsakasyápāramarthikatvād bhayam eva param deśakālādy anā❞lingitam, tata eva bhītóham bhītóyam śatrur vayasyo madhyastho vétyā"di-pratyayebhyo duḥkhasukhā"di-kṛta-hānā"di-buddhy-antarodaya-niyamavattayā vighna-bahulebhyo vilakṣaṇam nirvighna-pratīti-grāhyam sākṣād iva hṛdaye niviśamānam cakṣuşor iva viparivartamānam bhayānako rasaḥ."

Page #362

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1537 Gnoli translates : (pp. 53, 54, etc. ibid): "The qualified person is in this case any person whose heart possesses a spotless power of intuition (pratibhāna). In such a person hearing the following phrases, “There he (scil., the deer) is now, gracefully by the bending of his neck...", "Even Umā, dropping the golden Karnikāra “The firmness of Hara....", there appears, immediately after the perception of their literal sense, a perception of different order (an inner-[mānasī) perception) consisting in a direct experience (sāksātkāra] which completely eliminates the temporal distinction, etc. assumed by these sentences. Besides, the young deer, etc., which appears in this perception is devoid of its particularity (višesa), and at the same time, the actor, who (playing the role of the deer) frightens (the spectators] trāsaka, showing to be afraid, is unreal (a-pāramārthika). (please note that Gnoli has given an awkward explanation of "trāsaka.” The simple thing is that just as the deer is robbed of his particularity, in the same way the trāsaka, i.e. the terrifier, i.e. Dusyanta in this case, also looses his particularity. This explanation is given by Viśveśvarjee also; we do the same.)
-As a result, what there appears is simply and solely fear -fear in itself, uncircumscribed by time, space, etc. This perception of fear is of a different order from the ordinary perceptions (“I am afraid, he-my enemy, my friend, anybody)-is afraid"); for these are necessarily affected by the appearance of fresh mental movements (of shunning, etc.), consisting of pleasure, pain, etc., and just for this reason are full of obstacles (vighna). The sensation of fear above mentioned, on the contrary, is the matter of cognition by a perception deviod of obstacles (vītavighna), and may be said to enter directly (nivis) into our hearts, to dance (viparivrt) before our eyes : this is the terrible rasa-"
In "mānasī sāksāt-kārātmikā (pratītih), Gnoli adds in ft. note no. 4, pp. 54. ibid;- "Like the sensation of pleasure, pain, etc., the aesthetic experience is an inner or mental perception (mānasapratyakşa), i.e. it is perceived through the mind or inner self. Such a perception is self-knowing (sva-samvedana-siddha). In the A.bh. pp. 297, A.G. observes that the fact of tasting (āsvādana); (aesthetic perception being conceived as a particular form of tasting) is of a mental order : it differs from the fact of eating, which is a purely material act (rasana-vyāpārād bhojanād adhiko yo mānaso vyāpārah sa eva āsvādanam). The mind of him who tastes must be ‘ekágra', absorbed in the object of tasting to the exclusion of all else. On the contrary, he who eats may be also "anya-citta" : he can also think of other things, etc. Aestetic tasting is of a non-ordinary nature (a-laukika), sui generis. The mind is the organ of tasting; during the tasting the mind must be free of all obsetacles, deviod, that is to say, of any other sensory perceptions, etc. The subject is imme

Page #363

1538
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
in a "camatkāra" set apart from any distinction of 'selp, or others'. Aesthetic tasting is a "generalised” perception and free therefore, of obstacles (in the Abh., I. p. 291), the expression "āsvādayanti manasā” N.S. VI. v. 36; is commented upon in the following manner : ā samantāt sādhāranībhāvena nirvighna-pratipattivaśān manasā indriyantara-vighna-sambhāvanā-śūnyena svādayanti sva-para-vivekaśūnya-svāda-camatkāra-paravaśā....)”
On "apahastita-tat-tad-vākyópātta-kālā”di-vibhāgā”, Gnoli observes (ft. note, 1, pp. 55, ibid): "In other words, the spectator (and hence the state of consciousness by which he is pervaded) is not in the real time and space either of the deer or of the actor as such. In the aesthetic experience, these two temporal and spatial orders cancel each other out. On the other hand, therefore, the deer, etc. is without any temporal or spatial determination (viz. it is not felt as an element of ordinary life but is perceived in a generalised form); similarly, the actor, and hence the impression of fear which he suggests, is not perceived as a constituent element of practical life. The state of consciousness which does occur is, therefore, unaffected by space and time; it is a generalized permanent mental state."
An interesting note is also added by Gnoli (ft. note, 1, pp. 56, ibid) on the word "viparivartamānam” : “viparivrt”-means to move, to revolve, etc. The use of the word is ancient. It is to be found in Bhartshari (I., 125, tikā, p. 125 (ed. of Lahore) : "buddhau viparivartate.” In the same sense (that is, with buddhau) it is used by Dharma-Kirti and Kumarila also. A.G. comments on the word 'viparivartamānasya' in the following way (I. P. V., II, p. 140) : "vicitratvena viśvasya bhedábhedā"tmanā parivartamānasya spandanena sphurato...."
Abhinavagupta further observes that during rasa-experience the self of the sāmājika is neither absolutely negated nor presented in its particularity. What is implied by this is that the sāmājika comes out of his small particula higher in self and thus he is not presented as a small individual-višesatayā-i.e. one covered by limited ego, but at the same time he himself is the enjoyer of rasa and thus his I-ness is not totally erased. All who observe the performance of such feelings as śoka or grief, or who taste such feelings as narrated in poetry, have an identical experience. Thus the generality-sādhāranya-is not limited to a single spectator but is extended or wider, and it can be equated with the invariable concomitance between smoke and fire. In this experience which is like a direct experiencesākśātkāra-the nourishing material is provided by the actor etc. In this sāmagri or combination, generality is nourished because the limiting factors such as time, space, individual enjoyer, etc. get removed. So all the sāmājikas have an identical

Page #364

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1539
solid apprehension resulting in nourishment of rasa. This becomes possible with reference to all sāmājikas taken together because the mind of all of them are imprinted or coloured with permanent mental states that have no beginning. This sort of apprehension which is free from obstacles-nirvighnā samvit-is itself camatkāra, a sort of divine surprise. This camatkāra is a mental attitude-mānasa adhyavasāya', or it is the capacity of the mind to arrage together different things so as to create a whole design. It is termed samkalpa, smrti etc. also. But it is not smrti or recolletion of the logicians. It is the 'smrti' so termed by Kālidāsa in the line : tac cetasā smarati nūnam a-bodha-pūrvam, bhāvasthirāni jananántara-sauhrdāni."
This smrti does not rest on things experienced beforehand. Its another name is "pratibhāna”. Its nature is of "saksātkāra" or direct experience. Viewed from any angle this apprehension is of the nature of taste and pure 'rati' and other feelings get reflected in it. This apprehension which is of the nature of taste is not conditioned by any particularity, or by any other particular object. It is neither "indescribable" nor, "similar to worldly ordinary apprehension"-i.e. it is neither "anirvācyā” nor “laukika-tulyā”, nor also of the nature of superimposition-"tad āropā" ditulyā". As there is absence of any limitation of space, time and particularity, this apprehension may be called, from a certain angle, of the form of enhancement i.e. 'upacayàvāsthā astu' It can be also thought of as a sort of visaya-samagricombination of different elements, when viewed from the angle of vijñāna-vādin. But, in short from all points of view rasa may be called a feeling collected in the absence of all obstacles...
The A.bh. (pp. 14, Gnoli, ibid) reads as-“sarvathā tāvad eşásti pratītir āsvādā"tmā, yasyām ratir eva bhāti. tata eva višesántaránupahitatvāt sā rasanīyā sati na laukikī, na mithyā, nánirvācyā, na laukika-tulyā, na tadāropā”dirūpā.
eşaiva cópacayávasthás tu deśādy aniyantraņāt anukārópy astu bhāvānugāmitayā karanāt. visaya-sāmagry api bhavatu vijñāna-vādávalambanāt sarvathā rasanā”tmaka-vīta-vighna-pratīti-grahyo bhāva eva rasaḥ”.
(Trans. Gnoli, pp. 60, 61, ibid) :
"In any case, however, it is a form of perception-a perception in which what appears is just a feeling, for instance) delight, consisting of a tasting. For this reason, i.e. because it is not conditioned by further specifications, this perception is apt to become the object of a relish, and, as such, it is neither a form of ordinary cognition, nor is it erroneous, nor, ineffable, nor like ordinary perception, nor does it consist of a superimposition. To conclude we may say equally well that it consists of a state of intensification, -using this term to indicate that it is not limited by

Page #365

1540
SAHRDAYĀLOKA space, etc; that it is a reproduction-using this word to mean that it is a production which repeats the feelings; and that it is a combination of different elements-this conception being interpreted in the light of the doctrine of the vijñānavādin. From which ever point of view it is examined, Rasa is, in any case, simply and sloely, a mental state which is the matter of cognition on the part of a perception without obstacles and consisting in relish."
We can see in this epistemological observation on the part of Abhinavagupta that he accepts and incorporates the views of his predecessors such as Lollata, Sankuka and the rest by slightly modifying the same. For him rasa is a perception from which all obstacles concerning space, time, particularity etc. are removed and it is of the form of taste, pure and simple. This rasa-perception is termed differently by names such as, camatkāra, nirveśa, rasanā, āsvādana, bhoga, samāpatti, laya, and viśrānti,
We may take note of the fact here that the views stated above reflect · Abhinavagupts's own view on rasa. The fact of sādhāranīkarana, in his view, is welcomed from both Bharata and Bhatta Nāyaka. Abhinavagupta's own contribution is this that he has called rasa to be a perception free from obstacles. In view of this he has a detailed discussion on the obstacles: their nature and all the procedure to remove each one of them. He enumerates seven such obstacles with the devices to avoid or remove them. We will look into it a little later. But, while dealing with the sixth obstacle, he establishes both sthayin-s and vyabhicārins on the basis of psychology. Actually the chewing of these emotions and feelings form the stuff of rasa-carvanā. So, we will also examine their nature and form as Abhinavagupta has explained.
But before we look into this we may take note of what Gnoli has explained at given points in the A.bh. On the expression : "tathāvidhe hi bhaye, n tiraskrto na višesata ullikhitaḥ.” Gnoli (ft. note 2, pp. 56, ibid) observes :
"In the first case there would be no aesthetic cognition, but mystical cognition, characterigzed by the total absence of discursive thought and distinct apprehensions (vikalpa). In the second case, ordinary discursive cognition would occur. In both these cases, then, the "ubhaya-deśa-kāla-tyāgah” required by the aesthetic experience would be absent. cf. the Nātyadarpana by Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, Baroda, 1929, p. 161. For the antithesis between ātman and 'para' cf. PTV., pp. 71-72; atra hi madhyama-pāde ātmaiva samśrnu ah....ātmnā eva śravanam syāt na parasya..."

Page #366

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1541 Again, on the expression in the A.bh. vig. "tata eva na parimitam eva sādhāranyam api tu vitatam, vyāptigraha iva dhūmàgnyor ..." etc., Gnoli observes (ft. note, no. 3, pp. 56, 57, ibid) :-“The best explanation of this passage is to be found in the IPV., II, 4, 12 : iha tu darśana vyāpti-grahaņávasthāyām yāvantas tad-deśa-sambhāvyamāna-sadbhāvah pramātāras tāvatām ekósau dhūmā”bhāsaś ca vahnyā”bhāsaś ca bāhyanaye iva, tāvati tesām parameśvarenaikyam nirmitam.” K. C. Pandey, Bhāskari vol. III. p. 178. translates : “But according to this system, at the time of forming the idea of invariable concomitance, the images of smoke and fire are common to all perceivers, who can possibly have their existence at that place (i.e. in the kitchen, etc.), as according to those who admit the existence of an external objective world. For, in relation to these images, the Lord [i.e. Iśvara, the unlimited Ego. etc.] has made the subjects one.” A.G. observes that the pleasure given by a spectacle increases when there are a large number of spectators. In other words, when each spectator is conscious that the spectacle is being seen at the same time by a number of other people T. Ā. X. v. 85, ff :
"tathā hy ekágra-sakalasāmājika-janekşitam, nșttam gītam sudhāsārasāgaratvena manyate.” tata evócyate mallanața-preksópadeśane sarvapramātp-tādātmyam pūrņa-rūpánubhāvakam. tāvanmātrártha-samvrtti tustah pratyekaśo yadi. kaḥ sambhūya guņas teșām pramātryaikyam bhavec ca kim. yadā tu tat-tad-vedyatvadharma-samdarbha-garbhitam, tad-vastu śuşkād prāgrūpād anyad yuktam idam tadā.”

Page #367

1542
SAHRDAYĀLOKA “The spectators who watch, absdorbed, a performance of dancing, of singing, etc., feel that it is a real sea of nectar (J. comments : "anyone, in fact, can observe that spectacles seen by many people at the same time generate a greater pleasure then those which are seen by a single individual. (It is for this reason that those who teach the true nature of performances of wrestling and acting, say that, in these, a real state of identity of all knowing subjects takes place; this state generates a perception of a full and perfect beatitude (J. comments : pūrņa-rūpéti iyad eva hi pūrņam rūpam yad vigalita-vedyántaratayā tatraivánanyā”kānkșatvena parāmarśanam nāma).
If the mere consciousness of what they see on the stage (without, that is, the realization that the performance is seen by other people) were sufficient to satisfy the spectators taken one by one, how then can the different state of conscousness, which arises when they are together, be explained ? And how could it still be sustained that a state of identity of knowing subjects exists? When, instead, the spectator is aware that the spectacle is seen at the same time by all others also, one can say with reason that it appears in a different form from the arid aspect it had before (this spectacle, then, observes J., takes in another nature which generates a very high 'camatkāra'.)”. See on all that the Introd. pp. XXXVII. ff. In A.G. the expression 'vitata-vyāpti' etc. occurs elsewhere also, and not always in a technical sense (See f.i. Dh. Ā.L., p. 378; A.Bh. G.O.S. pp. 110, 136)
We will now proceed with the seven obstacles enumerated by A. G. and the devices for their removal. The A.bh. observes (: Gnoli, pp. 14, 15, ibid)- "tathā hi loke... sakala-vighna-vinirmuktā samvittir eva camatkāra-nirveśa-rasanā-āsvādanabhoga-samāpatti-laya-viśranty ādi-sabdair abhidhīyate.
vighnāś ca asyām- (1) pratipattāv ayogyatā sambhāvanā-viraho nāma, (2) svagatatva-paragatatva-niyamena deśa-kāla-viśeşā”veśaḥ, (3) nija-sukhā”divivaśībhāvaḥ, (4) pratīty upāya-vaikalyam, (5) sphuațatvàbhāvaḥ, (6) a-pradhānatā, (7) sambaya-yogaśca.”
(Trans. Gnoli, pp. 62, ibid) – “Also in the ordinary world, indeed, the different words camatkāra, immersion (nirveśa), relish (rasanā), tasting (āsvādana). enjoyment (bhoga), accomplishment (samāpatti). lysis (laya), rest (viśrānti). etc., mean nothing but a [form of] consciousness completely free from any obstacles whatever. Now the obstacles to the perecption in question are- (a) the unsuitability, that is to say, the lack of verisimilitude; (b) the immersion in temporal and spatial

Page #368

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1543 determinations pereived as exclusively one's own or exclusively those of another; (c) the fact of being at the mercy of our own sensations of pleasure etc.; (d) the defective state of the means of perception; (e) the lack of evidence; (f) the lack of some prominant factor; (g) and the presence of doubt.
The first blemish is caused by inapt presentation on the part of the poets. He presents something which creates lack of conviction on the part of the sāmājika, who cannot establish contact between his consciousness, including his intelligence and common-sense, with things presented by the writer. The enjoyer feels that all that is presented is just non-sense, which cannot be believed. It is impossibe to enjoy art when you just cannot establish any relationship whatsoever with the thing presented. So, this is the first obstacle. It is like "prathamagrāse maksikā-pātaḥ.” No question of rasa-experience can ever arise in such a condition.
The second obstacle concerns people of undevelopped sensitivity, or art-sense. Majority of viewers are like this. When something is presented through art-medium, you have not to take it as something coloured by particularity, time, space etc. In that case you are likely to be either prejudiced against or unduly attached to something presented. If you take the things presented through art medium as connected or disconnected either, personally with you, or with somebody else, enemy, friend or a neutral person, then your responses to art are bound to get coloured. You would like to accept and possess whatever is favourable and would like to reject and hate that which is unfavourable to you in any respect. The precondition of art-experience is that you should be a qualified sensitive soul, -vimalapratibhāna-śāli- sāmājika-; a sa-hrdaya who can grow beyond limited ego and personal likes and dislikes. If things are taken as connected with individnals, or belonging to this or that time and place, they are likely to thwart genuine artappeal and hence rasa-experience also. This obstacle squarely rests with the enjoyer who cannot cut through the limitations of his nature and grow into a higher I-ness.
The third obstacle is of a subtler type. Given that you have a capacity to link yourself with universal ego, i.e. to outgrow your limited ego, given that you are a man of cultivated taste and anything low or less noble does not touch you. This means you are qualified for the highest aesthetic experience. But then, you are a human being. Something has happened to you in your personal life and surrounding which has disturbed your balance of equanimity. You are, at worldly level, taken away by the force of some event and this results in your apathy towards everything around you including art-performance. Your personal pleasure or pain

Page #369

1544
SAHRDAYĀLOKA is such that has gagged your taste for artistic enjloyment for the time being and the result is that because of this disturbance at purely physical or psychological level you are not in a mood to enjoy art, eventhough basically you are an adhikarin. This obstacle also squarely rests with the inner consciousness of the adhikarin. In case of the second obstacle the enjoyer concerned had a low taste, while in this case the taste is not in question but the circumstances have conspired against a qualified art-enjoyer.
The fourth obstacle, the defective state of the means of perception, goes with a number of things. If the presention cannot be viewed properly, or cannot be heard properly, i.e. if the difficulty lies with production side, or if the spectator has diffeculty with vision, hearing, sitting arrangement etc., the art-performance cannot be enjoyed.
The fifth obstacle also results from the same sources i.e. imperfect production, acting, etc. The presentation should be such so as to render clear the intention of presentation. The presentation should be such that it renders the thing such that it is dircetly experienced, so to say. A.bh. observes : (pp. 16, Gnoli, ibid) : “a-sphuapratītikāri-sabda-linga-sambhavépi na pratītir viśramyati sphuţa-pratīti-rūpapratyaksócita-pratyaya-säkänksarvāt."-i.e.-“Even if there may be such verbal testimonies and inferences, as to provoke an evident perception, perception, however, does not rest in them) because there is, in it, the expectancy of the certainty proper to direct experience, which consists in an evident perception.” (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 68, ibid). Gnoli adds ft. note 1, pp. 68, ibid : “Even though-thus A. Shankaran, op. cit. p. 106, paraphrases this passage-there may be clear and unmistakable verbal testimony and inference, we do not completely rest content with the knowledge derived therefrom; for therein is lacking that perpetual cognition which alone makes for clear, direct and definite knowledge.” With AShankaran, I have read here-” sphuta-pratīti-kāri-sabda-linga-sambhavépi.” should I have preferred the reading "a-sphuta...." the translation would have been : "Even if there may be verbal testimonies and inferences- which as a rule, do not provoke an evident perecption-"etc.
We feel that no question arises for this second reading. Actually the obstacle is caused by lack of capacity on the part of the poet, the producer-director and also the actor. Something is basically missing which stops the presentation becoming life-like, as if directly experienced. Anyone from the three mentioned above with his

Page #370

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1545 intuitive insight can make things look like real or directly experienced. This something special can cure this difficulty.
The sixth obstacle is "a-pradhänatā” or the presentation on the part of the poet not centrally focussed. Unity of action, if not also of time and place, is required and the purpose should be kept in focus. Nobody is interested in anything that is not of central attention i.e. which is of central importance. Thus, only one sthāyin or permanent mental state should occupy the central point. Modern specimen of absurd theatre or art does not pay attention to this and does not encourage a central theme. But as we shall try to show the catholicity of arttheory later, we will see how rasa-experience is possible even in such performances that go under the name of absurd poetry or absurd theatre. But at least Abhinavagupta insists on a central motive, to begin with.
The seventh obstacle is a necessary corollary following from the sixth one. 'samsaya-yoga' is a state when the enjoyer is left in the lurch and he fails to have an exact idea as to what is aimed at by either the poet or the artist. Confusion in understanding or grasping due to confused presentation creates this obstacle.
These seven obstacles in rasa-experience have to be removed before a true rasaexperience follows. Abhinavagupta has himself suggested how these obstacles have to be removed. Let us examine the same. But before we go into any details, it may be underlined that the presentation in a proper way, i.e. the right combination of vibhāvā”di-s is the only and right key to remove these obstacles : “tatra vighnápasārakā vibhāva-prabhrtayah.”
The first obstacle occurs as noticed above by the presentation of unconvincing material. The solution is that only such stuff should be presented for which people have an accepted faith. In things of supernatured exploits only such names should be presented as heroes for whom people have implicit faith. Only Rāma can be credited with constructing a bridge over an ocean, or only a Hanuman can be credited with a jump that crosses an ocean, A.bh. observes : (pp. 15, Gnoli) -ata eva niḥsāmānyótkarsópadeśa-vyutpatti-prayojane nātakā”dau prakhyāta-vastu-visayatvā"di niyamena nirūpayisyate.
For the removal of the second obstacle, Bharatamuni has suggested the whole pūrva-ranga. Items in the pūrva-ranga would help a spectator to come out of his personal mental attitude and would prepare him to enjoy art in an impersonal way. Again, the costumes and settings provided help the cause. All these things help the

Page #371

1546
SAHRDAYĀLOKA spectatos to get into the right mental groove and be part of the generalization process : A.bh. observes (pp. 16, Gnoli, ibid)
-“...sa eșa sarvo muninā sādhāraṇībhāva
siddhyā rasa-carvanópayógitvena parikara-bandhaḥ samāśrita, iti tatraiva sphutī-bhavīsyati iti tad iha
tāvan nódyamanīyam.” (Trans. Gnoli, pp. 67, ibid) -“To conclude, all this system of relative and connected matters has been adopted by Bharata, in so far as by virtue of the state of generality produced, it primotes the gustation of rasa...."
To remove the third obstacle of personally indisposed context, various means are adopted to be used at suitable times and places. These include music, both vocal and instrumental, well-decorated halls, well-accomplished courtesans etc. Abhinavagupta observes that in view of the aforementioned state of generality, these expedients- phonic etc.- are such as to be enjoyed by all the spectators and possess such a charming power (upa-rañj) that even an unaesthetic person (ahğdaya) reaches limpidity of heart and becomes “possessed of heart" i.e. becomes "sa-hrdaya”.
The fourth obstacle is basically so apparent that all concerned, the actor, director, producer, poet, etc. can make amends in presentation and bridge the gap.
Actually for the removal of fourth and fifth obstacle, representation of four types (abhinaya), loka-dharmī, vrttis and pravsttis are all recommended. A.bh. (pp. 16, 17, Gnoli, ibid) observes : "tasmāt tad ubhaya-vighna-vighāte abhinayā lokadharmi-vștti-pravṛtty upaskrtā samabhisicyante. abhinayanam hi śabda-lingavyāpāra-visadssam eva pratyakşa-vyāpāra-kalpam iti niścesyāmah.” (Trans. Gnoli., pp. 68, 69, ibid)-“Therefore, to remove these two obstacles, there are consecrated by tradition-the four modes of representation, furnished with the styles (vrtti), the local usages (pravstti), and the realistic representation. (“loka-dharmi”)
We may note that vịttis are normally recognised as four by tradition and they are : kaiśikī, sāttvatī, ārabhatī, and bhāratī; the pravsttis are avanti, dākṣiṇātyā, audra-māgadhi and pāñcālī. Local usages regarding costumes, languages. manners and professions differ in different countries of the world. They are the 'pravrtti' or local colours in drama.

Page #372

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1547 For loka-dharmī, i.e. realistic representation Gnoli (pp. 69, ibid) provides a footnote no. 2, which reads : "For the best explanation, see A.bh. I. 292 : ” tatra ye svabhāvata eva nirmala-mukura-hỉdayāḥ, ta eva samsārócita-krodha-mohábhilāșaparavasa-manaso na bhavanti, tesām tathāvidha-dasarūpā"karnana-samaye sādhāraṇa-rasanā”tmaka-carvaņā-grāhyo rasa-samcayo nāțya-lakṣaṇaḥ sphuţa eva. ye ty atathābhūtās tesām pratyaksa-kalpócita-tathāvidha-carvanā-lābhāya națādi-prakriyā sva-gata-krodha-śokā”di-sankața-hrdaya-granthi-bhañjanāya gītā”diprakriyā ca muninā viracitā.”_“In this connection, the mind of those who have by nature hearts like an immaculate mirror is not at the mercey of the desires, anger or stupor proper to sāmsārika existence (that of everyday life). The mere fact of hearing the play read is sufficient (in itself, independently of any acting) to induce in them with the greatest clearness the perception of the various rasas which animate it; this perception consists in a Sampling animated by a generalized tasting. To make this Tasting (which needs a direct perception) available to people who are deprived of this faculty, Bharata has, on the one hand, explained the discipline of the actors, etc., and, on the other- to cut the knots of the heart obscured by anger, sorrow, etc., inherent in one's own self,-has explained the discipline of vocal music, etc.”
Representation and therefore drama in general which is founded upon representation) consists of a form of direct perception, is an adhyavasāya (mental cognition etc.; also vyavasāya, anu-vyavasāya, cf. App. I.) that is like the direct perception (sākṣātkāra-kalpa, pratyakşa-kalpa). A.bh. XXII. 150 :
"abhinayanam hi citta-vịtti-sadhāraṇatā"patti-prāņa-säksātkārakalpaadhyavasāya-sampādanam. – “Representation arouses a mental cognition which is like a direct perception; it consists in causing the generalization of mental movements." A.bh. XXII. 148 : "vighna-sambhāvanā-vihina-sakala-sādhāranaspasta-bhāva-sākṣātkāra-kalpádhyavasāya- sampattaye sarveșām prayoga ity uktam.” “It is said that the acting (prayoga=parsadi prakațīkaranam, A.bh. I. 16) of the four forms of representation aims just at rousing a mental cognition, which is like a direct perception. It consists of a generalized state of evidence common to all the spectators and devoid of every possible obstacle." Drama is the object of cognition by an "anu-vyavasāya" (about this word cf. App. I.) which is like a direct perception, A.bh. I. 43
The sixth obstacle is removed by focussing on the central theme. A.G. wants it to be a permanent mental state-sthāyin. With this he goes deeper into the analysis

Page #373

1548
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
of sthāyin and we will pick it up later. Actually his insistence on keeping the sthāyin as a central theme is because all other things-including the material surrounding, etc. revolve round this sentient theme. But as we say “niramkuśāh kavyah", and hence some most modern writers do not accept such guidance and practice absurdism in poetry and drama. How even here the catholicity of rasa-theory is applicable will be shown by us by the end of the chapter. As noted above A.G. has tried to project eight or nine sthāyins and has made psychology as the basis of the explanation of sthāyin-s. We will get into this after we complete this discussion on rasa-vighnas and their removal. Here Abhinavagupta observes. (pp. 17, Gnoli, ibid) : “a-pradhāne ca vastuni kasya samvid viśrāmyati ? tasyaiva 'pratyayasya pradhānàntaram praty anudhāvatah svatmany a-viśrāntatvāt. atópradhānatyam jade vibhāvánubhāva-varge vyabhicāriņi-caye ca samvid-ātmaképi niyamenányamukha-prekşiņi sambhavati, tad atiriktaḥ sthāyyeva tathā carvaņā-pátram :"(Trans. Gnoli, pp. 70, ibid): “Does there exist a man whose consciousness rests on anything of a secondary order (a-pradhāna) ? Indeed such a perception would find no rest in itself and would thus run (anu-dhāv) automatically towards the predominant thing. This is the reason why the permanent state only can be the object of tasting : because, I say, the dererminants and consequents, which are insentient (jada), and the transitory mental states, which though not insentient, nevertheless are necessarily depending on the permanent states, are all equally subordinate."
Gnoli adds a ft. note (no. 1) here, pp. 70, ibid :- "cf. Dh. Ā. L. p. 177 :- tac carvaņápi cittavrttişv eva paryavasyaríti rasa-bhāvebhyo nádhikam carvanīyam.” The Tasting of the Determinants, etc., necessarily terminates in the mental movements; thus, apart from the bhāva (the matter of the Rasas) there is nothing else which can be tasted.
A.bh., I. p. 268 : sa ca yady apy ananta-vibhāvā”tmā tathápi sarvesām jaļānām samvidi tasyāś ca bhoktari, bhoktrvargasya ca pradhāne bhoktari paryavasānān nāyakábhidhāna-bhoktư-viśeșa-sthāyi-citta-vrtti-svabhāvaḥ."
-“Though [drama, etc.] is constituted by a infinite number of determinants etc., all the elements, which compound it, rest, however, in the consciousness (the permanent mental state). This rests in the enjoying subject (the limited enjoying subject, the practical self) and the whole of the enjoying subjects rest, in their turn, in the principal enjoying subject (the generalized knowing subject). Therefore, we may say that drama consists in a permanent mental state of a particular enjoying

Page #374

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1549
subject, called an actor, etc." Such a mental state, continues A.G. is unique, generealized, devoid of the notions "own", "of others", etc. and, therefore, it pervades also the spectators-: ata eva sadhāraṇībhūta-tayā sāmājikam api svātmasadbhāvena samāveśayanti....
'Samsaya-yoga' is the seventh obstacle which is met with due to inacurate delineation by the poet. The individual anubhava-s, vibhāva-s and vyabhicārins have no fixed relationship with a given sthāyin. But the fixed combination of vibhāvā"di-s evokes only a given sthayin and result in tasting of a particular rasa. The poet, who wants to delineate a particular rasa should narrate the full combination in a suitable way so as to enhance a particular sthayin to the capacity of a given rasa. Failing in this, there will be doubt about the central effect of a given piece of art and the aesthete will be left in doubt as to the intention of the poet, thus thwarting the process of tasting. So, to remove this doubt "samyoga" or perfeet combination is recommended. A.bh. (pp. 19, 20, Gnoli) reads as :- "tatránubhāvānām vibhāvānām vyabhicāriņām ca pṛthak shtayini niyamo násti, bāṣpā”der ānandákṣirogādijatva-darśanād vyāghrādeśca krodha-bhaya"di-hetutvāt śrama-cinta"der utsaha-bhaya"dy anekasahacaratvavalokanāt. sāmagrī tu na vyabhicāriņī tathā hi bandhu-vināśo yatra vibhāvaḥ, paridevitáśrupātādis tv anubhā"vaś cinta-dainya"diś ca vyabhicārī, sóvaśyam sóka evéti. evam samśayódaye sanka"tmaka-vighna-śamanāya samyoga upāttaḥ."
(trans. Gnoli, pp. 77, ibid) :
-"The consequents, the determinants and the transitory sentiments considered separately are in no definite relation to any specific permanent sentiment'; for. e.g., tears, etc., may arise out of bliss, some disease in the eye, etc., and as we know, weariness (śrama), anxiety (cinta), etc., may accompany permanent feelings, as heroism, fear, etc. But the combination of these elements has an unmistakeble signification. Thus., where the death of a close relation is the determinant, wailing, shedding of tears, etc., the consequent, and anxiety, depression (dainya), etc. The transitory feelings, then the parmanent sentiment can not be other than sorrow. Therefore, considered (such a possible) arising of doubt, combination is used, just to remove this obstacle.
Thus A.G. has critically considered the obstacles in tasting and the means to remove the same. While considering the sixth obstacle A.G. at length, gets into a

Page #375

1550
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
prolonged discussion of the nature and number of permanent mental states which have a psychological basis. We will now try to understand this
The psychological basis of the sthavin
We have seen that Bharata in his Nā.śā. ch. VII deals with the nature of sthāyins etc. The tasting or chewing- carvaṇa-of these bhāva-s is 'rasa'. Bharata has, -we have noted above,-shown the difference between the sthayin and vyabhicārin by citing the illustration of a king and his servants. Abhinavagupta here attempts to explain that this difference is rooted in a deeper mental or psychological background.
Abhinavagupta observes that out of the various sentiments, only some are condusive to the ends of life, i.e. to dharma, artha, kāma ad mokṣa. Thus 'rati' or delight is conducive to pleasure, kama-and its resultant things. 'Krodha' or anger is profit-artha-oriented, but can also end in pleasure and merit. Eenergy-utsäha-has all the three ends i.e. dharma, artha and kāma. 'Nirveda' or dispondancy born of knowledge of the Highest Spirit, reality, delivers 'mokṣa' or summom-bonum. These four sentiments viz. śṛngāra, raudra, vīra and bibhatsa (or śānta) are the predominant rasa-s. At best one of these is predominant in dramas. At times all these four are seen in one and the same drama, in different situations or parts, in a predominant position.
Abhinavagupta further observes that all these rasas are dominated by 'sukha'or pleasure : "tatra sarvémi sukha-pradhānāḥ sva-samvic-carvanarūpasyaikaghanasya prakāśānanda-saratvāt" (pp. 17, Gnoli, ibid) "In this connection, all these Rasas are dominated by pleasure (sukha), for the essence of the closely dense (eka-ghana) light consisting of the gustation of our own consciousness, is beatitude."
Gnoli here adds a foot-note (no-2, pp. 72, ibid): "The intimate essence of consciousness or the "I", according to the Saiva is beatitude. The absence of beatitude and suffering are due to a need, privation, or desire for something separated from self. Beatitude is the absence of this desire, the resting in oneself of the exclusion of everything else. The "I" contains all things; everything that exists arises from its unconfined liberty. It cannot be the seat of any deprivation and can desire nothing but itself. Aesthetic experience is the tasting of one's own consciousness and, therefore, of one's own essential beatitude. In this sense, rasa is single. This tasting is coloured (anu-rañjita, rūṣita) by latent impressions

Page #376

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1551
(vāsanā, samskāra), of the mental process of Delight, etc., aroused by the determinants, etc., i.e. by poetic expression. Form this point of view, the plurality of rasas is due to the diversity of the vibhāva (vibhāvabhedam rasa-bhede bahutvena sūcayati...A.bh., I. pp. 290) cf. A.bh. I., p. 292: asmanmate tu samvedanam eva ānandaghanam āsvādyate tatra kā duḥkhā"śankā. kevalam tasyaiva citratakarane ratiśokā"di-vāsanā-vyāpāras tad udbodhane cábhinaya"divyāpāraḥ." "According to us, that which is tasted is consciousness alone which is saturated with beatitude. This fact excludes, therefore, any suspicion of pain. This consciousness which is single in itself, is nevertheless differentiated by the operation of the latent traces of delight, sorrow, etc., which are awakened by the operation of the consequents, etc., (abhinaya anubhava). For the nature of this "colouring" infused into the consciousness by the feelings of delight, etc., cf. infra, p. 82, n. 4."
Abhinavagupta explains that the mental states of permanent nature are solely these nine:
"jāta eva hi jantur iyatībhiḥ samvidbhiḥ parīto bhavati. tathā hi :

duḥkha-samśleṣa-vidveṣi
sukhā"svādana-tatparaḥ"
iti nyāyena sarvo riramsayā vyāptaḥ, svatmany utkarṣam ānītayā, param upahasan abhista-viyoga-samtaptaḥ taddhetuşu kopa-paravaśóśaktau ca tato bhīruḥ, kimcid arjijiṣur, apy anabhīṣṭatayábhimanyamānas tat-tat-sva-kartavyadarśana-samudita-vismayaḥ kimcic ca jihāsur eva jāyate. na hy etac cittavṛttivāsanā-śunyaḥ prāṇī bhavati. kevalam kasyacit kācid adhikā cittavṛttiḥ kācid ūnā, kasyacid ucitaviṣaya-niyantrita kasyacid anyathā. tat kacid eva puruṣárthópayoginity upadeśyā. tad-vibhāga-kṛtaś cóttama-prakṛty ādi vyavahāraḥ. ye punar ami glāniśankā prabhṛtayaś citta-vṛtti-viseṣās te samucita-vibhávábhāvājjanma-madhyépi na bhavanty eva, tathā hi rasāyanam upayuktavato muner, glāny-ālasya-śramaprabhṛtayo nottisthanti. yasyapi hetu-prakṣaye kṣīyamānāḥ samskāra-seṣatām tavan návaśyam, anubadhnanti. utsāhā"dayas tu sampādita-sva-kartavyatayā pralinakalpā api samskāra-seṣatām nátivartante, kartavyántara-viṣayasyótsāhā❞der akhaṇḍanāt...yathā"ha patanjaliḥ- "na hi caitra ekasyām striyām rakta ity anyāsu viraktaḥ, ityādī (A.bh. Gnoli, pp. 18, 19, ibid).

Page #377

1552
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Gnoli translates : (pp. 74, 75, ibid) : "The mental states of permanent nature are solely these nine. Indeed every creature from its birth possesses these (nine forms) of consciousness. In fact on the basis of the principle that all beings “hate to be in contact with pain and are eager, to taste pleasure,” everyone is by nature pervaded by sexual desires (delight); believes himself to be superior to others, whom he is thus led to deride (laughter); grieves when he is forced to part from what he loves (sorrow); gets angry at the causes of such separation (anger); sets frightened when he finds himself powerless (fear)- but still is desirous of overcoming the danger which thereatens him (heroism); is attacked, when juging a thing to be displeasing, by a sense of revulsion directed just towards this ugly object. (disgust); wonders at the sight of extraordinary deeds done by himself or others (astonishment); and lastly, is desirous of abandoning certain things (serenity). No living creature exists without the latent impression of these sentiments. All we can say is that some of them predominate in some people and others in others; and that in some people they originate from the usual causes and in others from causes different from the habitual.
Thus, only some sentiments are able to promote the ends of man, and, as such, they are rightly the object of teaching. The current division of men into men of elevated nature, etc., is determined by the different position occupied by these sentiments. Other sentiments, as weakness, apprehension, etc. on the other hand, can never possibly be manifested if the correspondent determinants do not exist; so, for example, a muni who practices rasāyana is immune from weakness, indolence, weariness, etc. Even in one in whom, by virtue of the determinants, these are present, they regularly disappear without leaving any trace of themselves when the causes of manifestation cease. Heroism, etc., on the contrary, even when they apparently disappear after their tasks are completed, do not cease to remain in the state of latent impressions for other forms of heroism, concerning other task. remain intact. Indeed as Patañjali has said - "The fact that Caitra is in love with one woman does not imply that he is out of love with the others." etc.
Abhinavagupta further explains the relation between the sthāyin and vyabhicārins by giving an illustration of beads that are placed together in a single string. The sthāyin is to be imagined to be the string or thread passing through vyabhicărins, here imagined to be beads of different colours. They place their colour on the sthāyi-sūtra i.e. the thread, and in turn are oblidged by the thread also. Sthāyin is principal here, and the vyabhicārins are subordinate.

Page #378

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1553
The A.bh. here reads as : (pp. 19, Gnoli, ibid) : "tasmāt sthāyi-rūpa-citta-vrttisutra-syūtā evāmi vyabhicarinah, svātmānam udayāsta-maya-vaicitrya-satasahasra-dharmāņam pratilabhamānā rakta-nīlā”di-sūtra-syūta-viralabhāvómbhanasambhāvita-bhangi-sahasra-garbha-sphatika-kāca-bhrāmaka-padma-rāga-marakatamahānīlādi-maya-golakavat tasmin sūtre sva-samskāra-vaicitryam aniveśayantópi tatsūtra-kstam upakārasamdarbham bibhrataḥ svayam ca vicitrárthāḥ sthāyisūtram ca vicitrayantó ntarántarā śuddham api sthāyi-sūtram pratibhāsāvakāśam upanayantópi pūrvápara-vyabhicāri-ratna-cchāyāśabalimānam avaśyam ānayantah pratibhāsanta iti vyabhicāriņa ucyante. tathā hi glānóyam ity ukte kuta iti hetupraśnenásthāyitásya sūtryate. na tu rāma utsāha-śaktimān ity atra hetupraśnam āhuh. ata eva vibhāvās tatródbodhakāh santah svarūpópa-rañjaka vidadhānă ratyutsāhā"der ucitánucitatvamātram āvahanti. na tu tad abhāve sarvathaiva te nirupākhyāḥ, vāsanātmanā sarvajantūnām tanmayatvena uktatvāt. vyabhicāriņām tu sva-vibhāvábhāve nāmápi násti iti vitanisyate caitad yathāyogam vyākhyānávasare. evam apradhānatvanirāsaḥ sthāyi-nirūpanayā, "sthāyibhāvān rasatvam” ity anayā sāmānya-lakṣaṇa-seṣabhūtayā višeșa-laksananisthayā ca krtah."
(Trans. Gnoli, pp. 76, 77, ibid) :
"In some sense, they are like the beads of crystal, glass, magnet, topaz, emerald, sapphire, etc., which filling the thread on which they are threaded no matter if red, blue, etc.,- so as to be set rather far apart from each other and continuously changing their position, do not leave, it is true, trace of themselves on this thread, but, all the same, nourish the ornamental composition made by it, and, being themselves various and varying in turn the permanent thread, let
o doubt appear at intervals, in its nudity, though, at the same time, they affect it by their polychrome reflections, the reflections I mean of transitory jewels : it is for this very reason that these sentiments are called “transitory”. When, that is to say, someone says, “This is a form of weakness", it is natural to ask by what is it provoked ? This question shows up precisely the instability of this mental movement. But in the case of the expression, "Rāma is full of heroism", one does not ask for the cause. The determinants (the elements which awaken the mental states) are limited, therefore, to bringing to actuality the permanent sentiments (delight, heroism, etc.) corresponding respectively to their nature and they do this by infusing into them their own colouring. Even when their corresponding determinants are absent, it can not be said that the

Page #379

1554
SAHRDAYĀLOKA permanent sentiments are non-existent, for it has been said that these, in the state of latent impressions, are present in all beings. Of the transitory sentiments, however, when their corresponding determinants are absent, not even the names ramain-all this will be explained more extensively at the suitable time and place.
Such a refutation of the subordinate elements has been made by Bharata also through the description of the permanent sentiments, introduced by the words :"We shall now bring the permanent sentiments to the state of rasas." This description follows on the definition of the general marks, and concerns the particular ones.”
It may be noted that from this discussion it emerges that the tasting of mental states is rasa. It also follows from this that the sthāyins being of the form of latent impressions that are permanent, are found in all living beings. So, when a sahrdaya reads poetry or witnesses a dramatic performance, he becomes conscious of his own emotions. It is precisely because of this that the enjoyer becomes a part of the piece of art presented.
The seven obstacles that are discussed by Abhinavagupta reveal what is expected from the poet, the producer/director/actor and also the sāmājika or the cultured man of taste. Five obstacles follow from imperfection on the side of the poet and two result from difficulties with the enjoyer. Abhinavagupta underlines one important fact that the vighnas can be removed by proper presentation of the determinants, etc. “tatra vighápasārakāḥ vibhāva-prabhịtayaḥ.” Proper delineation of the determinants etc. make for the birth of rasa.
The explanation of Bharataś rasa-sūtra according to Abhinavagupta can be placed as follows :
It may be noted that before attempting an explanation of the rasa-sūtra A.G. explains the inner meaning of vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicari-bhāva. It can be held that these are jñāpaka factors, i.e. they are indicators or suggesters. In common parlance, we infer someone else's feelings or emotions by first ascertaining the invariable concomittance between the external signs and the mental feelings connected therewith. This inference or process of reasoning is so quick that we do not notice the steps such as remembering the vyāpti-sambahdha or invariable concomittance etc. By the practice (abhyāsa) of inferring someone elseś feelings one acquires expertise in it. The quickness in inference is caused

Page #380

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1555 by practice. In poetry and drama also by the delineation of the combination of vibhāvā"di-s, a sāmājika, who has acquired the above discussed expertise at worldly level, is able to get at the bhāva-s or emotions portrayed. Normally at worldly level feelings and emotions have a cause, an effect of expression, and also some assessories which help a given cause to generate a feeling. They make for the enhancement of a feeling. But in poetry these factors i.e. cause, accessories and effects are known by other technical names such as vibhāva, vyabhicaribhāva and anubhāva respectively. Vibhāva-s are so termed because of 'vibhāvana' i.e. their inherent capacity to make things relishable. i.e. "āsvādayogya." The capacity to make things an object of experience, so to say, 'anu-bhāvana' gives the name "anubhāva" that in worldly context are known as 'effects'. Vyabhicārins are so called as they have the potential to stay around the sthāyin and enhance the same-i.e. vi-abhi-carana and pusti. A harmonious - samyag-combination, yoga, of these three factors is essential for the birth of rasa. It is essential that their samyag - yoga or harmonious combination, or ekāgratā i.e. focussed situation should take place in the minds of the spectators. This exactly is termed :"vibhāvānubhava-vyabhicari-samyogah", and through this ekāgratā or samyag yoga a meaning 'artha' follows which becomes the object of 'sva-samvadana.' The obstacles are already removed from them. So, the process of rasanā, samvedana or āsvādana becomes bliss-giving. When arrived at through this process, the ‘kāvyártha' or 'nāțyártha' or “nātya” is termed “rasa.” It is identical with the process of enjoyment-rasanā”tmaka. It is not siddhasvabhāva i.e. it does not exist prior to the process of enjoyment. It is peri passu with the process. It is "tātkālika" i.e. happening only during the process of portravel. It is experienced only while the carvanā-vyāpāra operates. Thus 'rasa' is non-identical with worldly feelings and emotions. It can not be held to be "inferred sthāyin" either, for if it taken as inference than the blissfulness-"sarasatā” will disappear, for there cannot be joy in the act of inference, which is a dry process. But, however, Mahimā disagrees with this for he attaches joy to what he terms as 'kāvyánumiti' i.e. inference in the context of art.
ninavagupta has explained the process of rasa-realisation along with the epistemological discussion on the nature of rasa in very famous lines in his A.bh. and we will go to observe that all great thinkers, Mammaţa, Hemacandra, Viśvanātha, Jagannatha and the rest have almost quoted A.bh. verbatim and have expressed their full faith in Abhinavaguptaś observations. We will quote from the original, followed by Gnolis translation. The a.bh. reads as :- (Gnoli, pp. 20,

Page #381

1556
SAHRDAYĀLOKA 21, 22 ibid) :
“tatra loka-vyavahāre kārya-kāraṇa-sahacārā”tmaka-linga-darśane sthāyyā"tmapara-cittavrity-anumā hyāsa-pātavād adhunā taireva udyāna-katāksadhrtya"dibhir laukikīm kāranatva-bhuvam atikrāntair vibhāvana-anubhāvanasamuparañjakarva-mātraprānair ata eva alaukika-vibhāvā”di-vyapadeśa-bhāgbhih prācya-kāraņā”dirūpa samskārópajīvana-khyāpanāya vibhāvā”di-nāmadheyavyapadesyair, bhāvádhyāyépi vaksyamāņa-svarūpa-bhedair guna-pradhānatāparyāyeņa sāmājika-dhiyi, samyogam, sambandham, aikāgryam và āsāditavadbhir alaukika-nirvighna-samvedanā”tmaka-carvaņā-gocaratām n ītórthas carvyamānataikasaro, na tu siddha-svabhāvah, tātkālika eva, na tu carvanátiriktakālávalambī sthāyi-vilaksaņa eva rasaḥ.”
(Gnoli translates, pp. 78, 79, ibid)
-“Rasa, in this connexion, is just that reality (artha) by which the determinants, the cousequents and the transitory feelings, after having reached a perfect combination (samyag yoga), relation (sambandha), conspiration (aikāgrya), - where they will be in turn in a leading or subardinate position-in the mind of the spectator, make the matter of a gustation consisting of a form of consciousness free from obstacle and different from the ordinary ones. This Rasa differs from the permanent feelings, consists solely in the state of gustation and is not an objective thing (siddha-svabhāva), lasts exactly as long as the gustation, and does not lian on any time separate from it. The determinants, etc., (which consist of garden, expressive glances, feelings of contentment (dhrti), etc.) transcend on their side the state of causes, etc., as these are understood in ordinary life. Their function consists solely in the fact that they colour (the consciousness of the spectator); their function is called 'vibhāvanā', 'anubhāvana' etc. Thus these take the name, of a non-ordinary character, of determinants, etc., and this denomination aims at expressing their dependence on the latent traces left by the corresponding preceeding causes, etc. The particular nature of the various determinants will be explained later. The operation of the determinants, etc. presupposes, of course, that the spectator, in the course of his ordinary life, has not neglected to make a close observation of the characteristic signs, (effects, causes and concomitant elements) of other people's mental processes, in other words to deduce the one from the other."
Rejecting rasa-apprehension to be of the nature of 'anumiti' as held by Śrī Sankuka, Abhinavagupta further observes : (pp. 20, 21, Gnoli, ibid) :

Page #382

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1557 "na tu yathā šankukā"dibhir abhyadhiyata, 'sthāyy eva vibhāvā"di-pratyāyyo rasyamānatvād rasa ucyata” iti. evam hi loképi kim na rasah, asatópi hi yatra rasaniyatā syāt tatra vastusatah katham na bhavisyati. tena sthāyi-pratitir anumitirūpā vācyā, na rasah. ata eva sūtre sthāyi-grahaņam na krtam. tat pratyuta śalyabhūtam syāt. kevalam aucityāt evam ucyate sthāyi rasibhūta iti. aucityam tu tat-sthāyi-gatatvena kāranā"ditayā prasiddham adhună carvanópayogitaya vibhāvā"ditvávalambanāt. tathā hi laukika-cittavrty anumāne kā rasatā. tena akaukika-camatkārā”tmā rasā”svādah smrty anumāna-laukika-sva-samvedanavilaksana eva. tathā hi laukikena anumānena samskrtah pramada"di na tātasthyena prati-padyate, api tu hrdaya-samvādā”tmaka-sahrdayatva-balāt purnībhavad-rasā"svādánkurībhāvena anumāna-smrtya”di-sopānam anaruhya eva tanmayıbhāvócita-carvaņā-prānataya.”
Gnoli translates. pp. 79, 80, ibid :
(But let us turn to Rasa, This is as we have said, different from the permanent sentiment] and it cannot absolutely be maintained, as Sankuka did, that what is called rasa is simply a permanent sentiment,* brought to our knowledge by the determinants, etc., and that, because this is the object of relish, it takes the name of rasa. For, if things were so, why should Rasa not exist also in everyday life ? For if an unreal thing is capable of being the object of relish, a real thing has all the more reason to be capable of it. Thus, it is legitimate to say that the perception of a permanent mental state consists in an inference; but we certainly can not rightly say that Rasa is also of this nature. This is the reason why Bharata has made no mention in the sūtra of the word "permanent sentiment;" on the contrary, the mention of it would have been a source of difficulties. Such expressions as - "The permanent sentiment becomes rasa”, are due to the correspondence (aucitya) only. This correspondence, to specify, is due to the fact that the very same things which were previously considered to be causes, etc., related to a given permanent sentiment, now serve to realize the gustation, and are thus presented in the form of ordinary self-cousciousness. Indeed, he who posseses the latent traces of the ordinary inferential processes, does not apprehend a young woman. etc., as if he were indifferent to her, but, by virtue of his sensibility-which quality is cousisting in a consent of heart, he rather apprehends her, without mounting on the steps of memory, inference, etc., as if merged in a gustation, suitable to an identification (with this young woman, etc.), which is, so to say, the sprout of the tasting of Rasa, about to appear in all fullness."
* Gnoli uses “permanent sentiment" for "permanent mental state." The use is not absolutely scientific and threfore not permissible.

Page #383

1558
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Abhinavagupta here explains how a sa-hrdaya enjoys rasa. True, the sahrdaya has the expertise at ordinary worldly level to infer ordinary mental feelings of others. In practical life he is an expert to infer someone else's feelings. This means that when the relevant causes appear, the relevant feelings will be flashed in his mind. So, when he observes a beautiful lady as described in poetry or as presented on the stage in a drama, he will not look at her as a third party (tatastha). On account of his sensitiveness-sahrdayatva-born of consent of heart-hỉdaya-samvādathe sāmājika aquires a capacity to grow over the 'tāțasthya'. Without stepping on the ladder of anumāna, smrti, etc., this experience becomes personal to himātmasāt, as this experience is of the nature of aesthetic chewing (carvanā) which causes for him an identification with whatever he observes. This aesthetic chewing is of the nature of consciousness (samvedana) and hence Abhinavagupta distinguishes this special cousciousness from other local mental attitudes.
This brings us to Abhinavagupta's discussion on the epistemological aspect of rasa-consciousness. He observes :
(A.bh., Gnoli- pp. 21, 22, ibid) :
"na ca să carvanā prān mānāntarād, yena adhunā smrtih syāt. na cátra laukika-pratyaksā"di-pramāņa-vyāpāraḥ. kim tv alaukika-vibhāvā"di-samyoga balapónataiv eyam carvanā. sā ca, pratyaksanumāna-āgama-upamānā"di-laukikapramāņa-janita-ratyādy avabodhatas tathā yogipratyakşa-tațastha-para-samvittijñānāt sakala-vaisayika-uparāga-śūnya-śuddha-parayogi-gatasvā”nandaikaghananubhavāc ca višisyate, eteşām yathāyoham arjanā”di-vighnántaródaya-tāțsthyaasphuţatva-visayā”veśa-vaivaśya-krta-saundarya-virahāt.
atra tu svātmaika-gatatva-niyamásambhavāt svánupraveśāt, paragataniyamábhāvāt tad-vibhāvā"di-sadhāranyavasa-samprabuddhócita-nija-ratyā"divāsanā”veśa-vaśāc ca, na vighnántarā"dīnām sambhava ity avocāma bahuśah.”
Gnoli translates (pp. 82, 83, 84, iid) :
"This gustation, again, is not already born in the past, from some other means of knowledge, so that it is, now, a form of memory; nor is it the fruit of the operation of ordinary means of cognition (direct perception, etc.); but it is aroused solely by the combination (samyoga) of the determinants, etc., which, as we have said, are of a non-ordinary nature.
This gustation is distinguished (a) from perception of the ordinary sentiments (delight, etc.) aroused by the ordinary means of cognition (direct perception, inference, the revealed word, analogy, etc., (b) from cognition without active

Page #384

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1559 participation (tagastha) of the thoughts of others, which is proper to the direcet perception of the yogins; (c) and from the compact ekaghana-experience of one's own beatitude, which is proper to yogins of higher orders (this perception is immaculate, free from all impressions[uparāga), deriving from external things). Indeed, these three forms of cognition, being in due order (yathāyogam) subjected to the appearance of obstacles (practical desires, etc.), lacking evidence and at the mercy of the (adorned) object, are deprived of beauty (saundarya). Here, on the contrary, because of the absence (of sensations of pleasures, pain, etc.) as inhering exclusively in our own person, of an active participation in our own self (svātmánupraveśāt), of the absence [of the afore-mentioned sensations as inhering exclusively in other persons, and the immersion (āveśa) in the latent traces of our own sentiments of delight, etc., reawakened by the corresponding determinants, etc., which are generalized-because, I say, of all these causes, the appearance of obstacles is impossible. And all this has been said over and over again.”
In connection with the above passage Gnoli has, in ft. note, 4, pp. 82, explained the nature of mystical experience which differs from the aesthetic one. He observes. -“Mystical experience involves the annihilation of every pair of opposites; everything is re-absorbed in its dissolving fire. Sun and moon,night and day, beautiful and - ugly, etc. no longer exist in it. The limited “I” is completely absorbed into Siva or Bhairva, the adored object; everything vanishes from the field of consciousness. Aesthetic experience, on the other hand, requires the presence of the latent traces of delight, etc. (aroused by the operation of the determinants, etc.). In the aesthetic experience presupposes a pre-constituted knowledge on the part of the spectator, of the psychic reactions, etc., which are normally felt before a given situation. This knowledge is, in part, innate (it forms, that is, an integral part of human nature) and is, in part, acquired through the experience of one's own reactions and one's own observation of the reactions of others.
Aesthetic experience, Rasa, manifested by a poetical description of a beautiful woman, is, for example, coloured by the mental state of delight, which is aroused by the description itself. Such a mental state is supposed to pre-exist in the spectator in a latent state, in the form, that is, of samskāra or vāsanā. The Determinants which manifest aesthetic experience awaken, implicitaly and of necessity, these latent traces also.
The beauty, the pleasantness proper to the aesthetic experience are due to the colouring of these mental processes; cf. A.bh. I. p. 290, “laukikāt pratyayāt

Page #385

1560
SAHRDAYĀLOKA upārjanā”di-vigha-bahulād, yogi-pratyayāc ca visayā"svāda-sūnyatā-parusad vilaksaņā”kāra-sukha-duḥkhā"di-vicitra-vāsanánuvedhópanata-hrdayátis'aya-samviccarvaņā”tmanā bhuñjate budhāḥ...."
“Aesthetic enjoyment consists in the tasting of one's own consciousness; this tasting is endowed with extreme pleasantness (beauty), which it obtains from a contact with the various latent traces of pleasure, pain, etc. It differs both from ordinary perception, which is full of obstacles (pragmatic requirements, etc.), and from the perception of the yogins, which is not free from harshness, on account of total lack of any tasting of external objects.” Thus by comparison with the aesthetic experience, the compact homogeneity (eka-ghanatā) of mystical experience possesses a certain harshness. Its pursuit, that is to say, calls for uncommon force and energy (cf. the concept of vīra, hero). Aesthetic experience, on the other hand, is easily attained. It is particulary suitable to people endowed with a “gentle mind."- (sukumāra-mati). In the Dh. Ā. L., p. 51, A. G. defines Rasa in the following terms :
śabda-samarpyamāņa-hțdaya-samvāda-sundara-vibhāvánubhāva-samucitaprāgvinivișa-ratyā"di-vāsanánurāga-sukumāra -sva-samvid ānanda-carvaņā-vyāpārarasanīya -rūpo rasaḥ.”-“Rasa is tasted through the act of tasting the beatitude of one's own consciousness. This tasting is pleasant (and not parusa as in mystic experience) in that the consciousness is coloured by the latent traces of the mental states of delight, etc., pre-existing in the minds of the spectators). Such traces are aroused by the corresponding determinants and consequents-which pleasant (beautiful, etc.,) by virtue of the consent of the heart-are afforded by the words." cf. Dh. Ā. L., p. 81 -
anubhāva-vibhāváva-bodhanóttaram eva tanmayībhavana-yuktyā tadvibhāvánubhāvócita-citta-vștti-vāsanánurañjita-sva-samvidānandacarvaņāgocarórtho rasā”tmā sphuraty eva..."
Gnoli, in ft. note 1, on pp. 84 also notices H.C.'s modification and enlargement of A.bh.s passage as quoted above. He observes : “This passage has been somewhat modified and enlarged by Hemacandra (see the critical Apparatus) :" Here, on the
ontrary, because of the absence [of the sensations of pleasure, pain, etc.) as inhering exclusively in our own person, we are not at the mercy of the [adored] object; because of an active participation in our own self [and] the absence (of the aforementioned sensations) as inhering exclusively in other persons, there is no lack of evidence; and because of the immersion in the latent traces of our own

Page #386

Rasa-nișpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1561 sentiments of delight, etc., re-awakened by the corresponding determinants, etc., which are generalized, there is no possible appearance of obstacles.”
The A.bh. (pp. 21, 22 etc. Gnoli) further observes : "ata eva vibhāvā"dayo na nispatti-hetavo rasasya, tadbodhápagemépi rasa-sambhava-prasangāt. nápi jñapti hetavah yena pramāņa-madhye pateyuḥ, siddhasya kasyacit prameyabhūtasya rasasyábhāvāt.
kim tarhi etat vibhāvādaya iti ? alaukika eváyam carvaņópayogi vibhāvā"divyavahāraḥ. kva anyatr éttham drsam iticed bhūṣaṇam etad asmākam alaukikatva-siddhau. pānaka-rasā"svādópi kim guda-maricā"dişu dřsta iti samānam etat. nanv evam rasóprameyah syāt, evam yuktam bhavitum arhati, rasyataikaprāno hy asau, na prameyā"di-svabhāvah.
tarhi sūtre nispattir iti katham ? neyam rasasya, api tu tadvisaya-rasanāyāh. tannispattyā tu yadi tad ekāyatta-jīvitasya rasasya nispartir ucyate, na kaścid atra dosah.
să ca rasana na pramāna-vyāpāro, na kāraka-vyāpārah, svayam tu na apramāņiki, sva-samvedanasiddharvāt. rasanāca bodha-rūpā eva, kim tu bodhántarebhyo laukikebhyo vilaksaņāiva, upāyānām vibhāvā”dīnam laukika - vailaksyanyāt. tena vibhāvā”di-samyogād rasanā yato nispadyate tatas tathāvidha rasanā-gocaro lokóttarórtho rasa iti tātparyam sūtrasya."
Gnoli translates : (pp. 84, 85, ibid) : "For this reason (ata eva) the determinants are not the causes of the production (nispatti) of Rasa; otherwise, Rasa should continue to exist even when they no longer fall under cognition. Nor are they the cause of its cognition (ñapti) (if they were, they would have to be included among the means of knowledge (pramāņa), because Rasa is not an objective thing (siddha), which could function as a knowable object. What is it, then, that is designated by the expressions, "determinants etc. ?"
We reply to this question that the expressions "determinants, etc." do not designate any ordinary thing, but what serves to realize the gustation (carvaņópayogi). Does any such thing appear elsewhere ? But the fact that it does not occur elsewhere, we reply, can do nothing but strengthen our thesis of their non-ordinary character. Does the taste of rasa of pănaka perhaps occur in molasses, peppers, etc. (of which, however, it consists) ? The case is perfectly analogous.
"But someone might say) in this way Rasa is not an object of cognition (aprameya).” That is what really occurs, we reply and suitably. Rasa, indeed, consists

Page #387

1562
SAHṚDAYALOKA
solely of a tasting and has not the nature of an object of cognition, etc. "But how then do you think that the expression which Bharata uses in the sutra can be justified when he says: "The production of Rasa (rasa-niṣpatti)"? This expression, we reply, must be understood in the sense of a production, not of Rasa, but of the tasting which refers to the Rasa (tad-viṣaya-rasana). Likewise, if the expression "The production of Rasa" is understood in the sense of a production of a Rasa whose subsistence is exclusively depending on the said tasting, our thesis is not beset by any difficulty.
Besides, this tasting is neither the fruit of the operation of the means of cognition nor of the means of action. On the other hand, it can be said that, in itself, it is not ascertained by any means of aknowledge (a-prāmāṇika), for its real existence is an inconfutable datum of our own consciousness (sva-samvedanasiddha). This tasting, moreover, is, no doubt, solely a form of cognition, but a form of cognition different from any other ordinary perception.
This difference is due to the fact that the means of it, that is, the determinants, etc., are of a non-ordinary character. To conclude: What is produced by the combination (samyoga) of the Determinants, etc., is the tasting (rasanā); and the rasa is the non-ordinary reality, which is the matter of this tasting. This is the sense and purport of the sutra.
Abhinavagupta gives the summary of what he has dicussed at length above in the words (A.bh., pp. 22, ibid) :
"ayam atra samkṣepaḥ. mūkuṭa-pratiśīrṣakā"dinā tāvan nata-buddhir acchadyate. gāḍha-prāktana-samvit-samskārāc ca kavya-bala"nīyamānápi na tatra ramadhir viśramyati. ata eva ubhaya-deśa-kāla-tyāgaḥ. romāñcā”dayaś ca bhūyasā rati-pratīti-kāritayā dṛṣṭās tatrávalokitā deśakāla-niyamena ratim gamayanti. yasyām svā❞tmápi tadvāsanāvattvād anupraviṣṭaḥ. ata eva na tatasthataya raty avagamaḥ, na ca niyata-kāraṇatayā, yena arjanábhiṣvangā”di -sambhāvanā. na ca niyata-parātmaika-gata-tayā, yena duḥkha-dveṣā"dyudayaḥ. tena sādhāraṇībhūtā samtana-vṛtter ekasyā eva vā samvido gocarībhūtā ratiḥ śṛngāraḥ. sādhāraṇībhāvanā ca vibhāvā"dibhir iti."
Gnoli translates (pp. 86, 87, ibid) :-"All this may be summarized in the following way in the first place, the identity of the actor as such is concealed by tiaras, headwear, etc.; in the second place, the idea that he is Rāma, etc., aroused by the power of the poem, neverthless does not succeed in imposing itself upon the idea of the actor, for the latent traces of the said idea are strongly impressed on the

Page #388

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1563 spectator's minds. For this very reason, the spectator is no longer living either in the space and time of Rāma, etc., nor in the space and time of the actor as such.
Acts of horripilation, etc., which have repeatedly been seen by the spectator in the course of everyday life as indexes of delight, etc., serve, in this case, to make known a delight, etc., uncircumscribed by either time or space. In this delight, just because he possesses the latent traces of it in himself, the self of the spectator also actively participates. For this very reason, this delight is perceived neither with indifference, from the outside, nor as if it were linked with a particular [ungeneralized] cause-for in this case, intrusion by pragmatic requirements, interests of gain, etc. would occur-, nor again as if exclusively belonged to a defined third person-for, in this case, sensations of pleasure, hatred, etc. would occur in the spectator. Thus, the Erotic Rasa is simply the feeling of delight-a feeling, however, which is both generalized and the object of a consciousness, which may be either single or develop consecutively. The taste of generalization is carried out by the determinants. etc.”
It may be noted that when Abhinavagupta speaks of 'Rāma', as for example, in the above passage, the same is applicable to any other character, male or female, either historical or imaginary. Abhinavagupta's concern is not with a historical character only.
Again, in the above passage, when he talks igf "bengāra-sasalhe means any! other rasa also. In fact he and also Anandavardhana and the whole school of thought these two represent, believe in one rasla, a 'mahā-rasa-and it can be given! the name of śāntarrasa. This will be rendereda clear when we will examine their position on the problem of śānta-rasa by the end of this chapter. For the presént, we will just quote the relevant portion from the Locana also that deals with this problem of rasa-nişpatti. As observed earlier, and as the advanced reader will make out for himself while reading the quotation from Locana, the treatment therein is neither that clear, nor that perfect as compared to the Abh. But this never permits 0110111-6600
DSNSDORA
DO a rash, conclusion that there is any contradiction of ideas between the twa, i.e. I DALAX21in2011 VECK.UST THI TUTTO ibab Locana and Abh., or there is any confusion in the presentation in Lacana. Only.. lésser souls would see such things in Abhinavagypta
CA TITIR O Vichibhira The Locana portion which deals with this problem of rasa may be read as follows, and it forms the commentary on Dhy. I. 4. VO
I -761VOOR DE 16V0IOTOMC1-26TE But before we quote, we repeat that Abhinavagupta's aesthetics has; its essence carved out in the discussion he devotes to the śānta-rasa. It may also be noted that
ICY 16TC GCSLIDITTUVWXC78
A 59010
TRX
11
NEZINMOTOCI VNUTOS TEHNOW TO
A
INT

Page #389

1564
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
the essence of 'sādhāraṇīkarana' and 'rasanubhuti' has been so neatly and explicitely laid down by Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana apart, no Bhatta Nayaka or any, not even Jagannatha can be said to be a match with Abhinavagupta. It has been fashionable among lesser souls, especially some writers in Gujarati who have never looked into, nor have the ability to look into what Abhinavagupta has written, to credit Bhatta Nayaka with "sādhāraṇīkaraṇa" which was not so fully understood even by Bhaṭṭa Nāyāka as compared to the "Greatest” Abhinavagupta.
The Dhv. Locana on II. 4, the portion on rasa-niṣpatti-vicara reads as: (pp. 106,-112; Dhv. with Locana, Edn. T. S. Nandi, Ahd.-'97-'98). :
"nanu'ktam bhaṭṭa-nayakena-" raso yadā para-gata-tayā pratīyate tarhi tāṭasthyam eva syāt. na ca svagatatvena rāmā"di-carita-mayāt kāvyād asau pratīyate. svātma-gatatvena ca pratītau svātmani rasasyótpattir evábhyupagatā syāt. sā cáyuktā; sītāyāḥ sāmājikam praty a-vibhāvatvāt. kāntātvam sädhāranam vāsanā-vikāsa-hetu-vibhāvatāyām prayojakam iti cet,-devatā-varṇanā"dau tad api katham? na ca sva-kantā-smaranam madhye samvedyate, aloka-sāmānyānām ca rāmā"dīnām ye samudra-setubandha"dayo vibhāvās te katham sadharanyam bhajeyuḥ. na ca utsāhā"dimān rāmaḥ smaryate, ananubhūtatvāt. śabdad api tatpratītau na rasópajanaḥ pratyakṣād iva nāyaka-mithunasya.
utpatti-pakṣe ca karuṇasyótpādād duḥkhitve karuna-prekṣāsu punar apravṛttiḥ syat. tan na utpattir api. nápy abhivyaktiḥ, śakti-rūpasya hi śṛngārasya abhivyaktau visayarjana-tāratamya"pattiḥ syat. tatrápi kim svagóbhivyajyate rasaḥ paragato vā iti pūrva-vad eva doṣaḥ.
tena, na pratīyate, na utpadyate, na abhivyajyate kävyena rasaḥ. kintv anyaśabda-vailakṣaṇyam kävyä"tmanaḥ śabdasya. tryamśatā-prasādāt.
tatrábhidhayakatvam vācya-viṣayam; bhāvakatvam rasā"di-viṣayam, bhoktṛtvam sahṛdaya-viṣayam iti trayomśabhūtāḥ vyāpārāḥ.
tatrábhidha-bhāgo yadi śuddhaḥ syāt, tantra"dibhyaḥ śastra-nyāyebhyaḥ śleṣā"dy alamkārāṇām ko bhedaḥ ? vṛtti-bheda-vaicitryam ca a-kiñcit-karam. śṛtidustā"di-varjanam ca kim artham ? tena rasa-bhāvanā"khyo dvitiyo vyāpāraḥ, yad vaśād abhidhā vilakṣaṇā eva. tac ca etad bhāvakatvam nāma rasan prati yat kavyasya tad vibhāvā"dīnām sādhāraṇatvā"pādanam nāma.
bhāvite ca rase, tasya bhogaḥ yónubhava-smaraṇa-pratipattibhyo vilakṣaṇa eva, druti-vistara-vikāsā"tmä rajas-tamovaicitryánuviddha -sattvamaya-nijacit- svabhāvanirvṛti-viśrānti-lakṣaṇaḥ, parabrahma"svada-savidhaḥ. sa eva ca pradhanabhūtómśaḥ siddha-rupa iti. vyutpattir nāma a-pradhānam eva, iti.

Page #390

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1565
atrócyate-rasa-svarupa eva tavad vipratipattayaḥ prativādinām. tathā hipūrvávasthāyām yaḥ sthāyī sa eva vyabhicāri-sampātā"dinā prāpta-pariposó nukāryagata eva rasaḥ. natye tu prayujuamānatvān natya-rasa iti kecit.
pravaha- dharmnyām citta-vṛttau, citta-vṛtteḥ citta-vṛttyantarena kaḥ pariposárthaḥ ? vismaya-śoka-krodhādeś ca krameņa tāvan na pariposa, iti nánukārye rasaḥ. anukartari ca tad-bhāve layā"dy ananusaranam syāt. sāmājikagate vā kaś camatkāraḥ ? praty uta karuṇā"dau duḥkha-prāptiḥ. tasmān nayam pakṣaḥ, kas tarhi ? ihā"nantyān niyatasya anukāro na śakyaḥ, nisprayojanaś ca, visiṣṭatā-pratītau tāṭasthyena vyutpatty abhāvāt.
tasmäd aniyatávastha"tmakam sthāyinam uddiśya vibhávánubhava-vyabhicaribhiḥ samyujyamānair ayam rāmaḥ sukhíti smṛti-vilakṣaṇā sthāyini pratigocara-tayā"svāda-rūpā pratipattir anukartrā”-lambā nātyaika-gāminī rasaḥ. sa ca na vyatiriktam-adhāram apekṣate. kintv anukaryábhinnábhimate nartake āsvādayitā sāmājika ity etāvanmātram adaḥ. tena natya eva rasaḥ, nánukāryā"diṣv iti kecit.
anye tu-anukartari yaḥ sthayyávabhāsóbhinaya"di-samagryā"di-kṛto, bhittāv iva haritālā❞dinā aśvávabhāsaḥ, sa eva lokátīta-tayā āsvādápara-samjñaya rasyamāno rasa iti natyād rasā nāṭya-rasāḥ.
apare punar vibhāvanubhavamātram eva visiṣta-samagryā samarpyamāṇam tad-vibhāvanīya-anubhāvanīya-sthāyi-rupa-citta-vṛtty-ucita-väsanánuṣaktam svanirvṛti-carvaṇā-visiṣṭam eva rasaḥ, tan natyam eva rasāḥ,
anye tu śuddham vibhāvam, apare śuddham anubhāvam, kecit tu sthāyimātram. itare vyabhicāriņam, anye tat-samyogam, ekénukāryam, kecana sakalam eva samudayam rasam ahur ity alam bahuna.
kāvyépi ca loka-natya-dharmi-sthānīyena svabhāvokti-vakróktiprakara-dvayena alaukika-prasanna-madhura-aujasvi-śabda-samarpyamāṇa-vibhāváviyogad iyam eva rasa-vārtā. astu vátra natyād vicitra-rupā rasa-pratītiḥ, upayavailakṣaṇyād iyam eva tavad atra saraniḥ. evam sthite prathama-pakṣa-evaitāni dūṣaṇāni, pratiteḥ sva-para-gatatvā"di vikalpanena. sarva-pakṣeṣu ca pratītir a-parihārya rasasya. apratītam hi piśācavad a-vyavahāryam syat. kim tu yatha pratiti-mātratvenáviśişatvépi prātyakṣikī, ānumānikī, āgamotthā, pratibhāna-kṛtā, yogi-pratyakṣajā ca pratitir upaya-vailakṣaṇyād anyaiva, tadvad iyam api pratītiś carvaṇā"svādanabhogápara-nāmā bhavatu tannidāna-bhūtāyā hṛdaya-samvadā"dy upakṛtāyā vibhāvā"di-samagryā lokóttara-rūpatvät. rasah pratīyanta iti ca odanam pacatītivad vyavahāraḥ, pratīyamāna eva hi rasaḥ. pratiter eva visiṣṭā rasanā. să ca nātye laukikánumāna-pratīter vilakṣaṇā; tam ca pramukhe upāyataya sandadhānā.

Page #391

1566
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA evam kāvye anya-śābda-pratīter vilaksaņā, tām ca pramukhe upāyatayā apeksamānā.
tasmād anutthānopahataḥ pūrva-paksaḥ. rāmā"di-caritam tu na sarvasya hrdaya-samvādíti mahat sahasam. citra-vāsanā-viśistatvāc cetasah. yad aha-tāsām anāditvam āśiso nityarvāt. jāti-deśa-kāla-vyavahitānām apy ānantaryam smrtisamskārayor eka-rūpatvāt. tena pratītis tāvad rasasya siddhā. sa ca rasanārūpā spratitir utpadyate. vācya-vācakayos tatra abhidhā”di-vivikto vyañjanā”tmā dhvananavyāpāra eva. bhogikarana-vyāpāraś ca kāvyasya rasa-visayo dhvananā”tmaiva, nányat kiñcit. bhāvakatvam api samucita-gunálamkāra-parigrahā”tmakam asmābhir eva vitatya vakşyate. kim etad apūrvam ? Do kavyam ca rasān prati bhāvakam iti yad ucyate, tatra bhavataiva bhāvanād
patti-paksa eva pratyujjivitah. na ca kavya-sabdanam bhāvakatvam., arthāparijnane tad abhāvāt. na ca kevalānām arthānām, śabdántareņárpyamāṇatve tad ayogāt. dyayos tu bhāvakatvam asmābhir evoktam. "yatrárthah sabdo vā tam artham vyankta" ity atra. tasmad vyañjakarvā"dikayā itikartavyatayā kāvyam bhāvakam, rasan bhāvayati, iti tryamśāyām api bhāvanāyām karanāmse dhvananam eva nipatati, bhogopi na kāvya-sabdena kriyate, api tu ghana-mohándhya-samkațatānivrtti-dvāreņa āsvādanáparanāmni alaukika druti-vistara-vikāsā”tmni bhoge kartavye lokóttare dhvanana-vyāpāra eva mūrdhábhisiktah. taccédam bhoga krttvam rasasya dhvananīyatve siddhe daiva-siddham. rasyamănatódita-camatkāránatiriktarvāt bhogasya iti. ** satrvā"dīnām cángāngi-bhāva-vaicitryasyā”nantyād drutyā"ditvena āsvādaganana na yuktā.
parabrahmā"svāda -sa-brahma-cāritvam cāsty asya rasā"svādasya. vyutpādanam ca sasana-pratipādanābhyām śāstrétihāsa-krtābhyām vilaksanam. yathā rāmas tátháhamity upamānáti-riktām rasā”svādópāya-sva-pratibhā-vijrmbhā-rūpām vyutpattim ante karotíti kam upālabhāmahe ?
tasmāt sthitam etat-abhivyajyante rasāḥ pratītyaiva ca rasyanta iti. ta pradhānatayā bhavatvanyathā vā. pradhānatve dhvaniḥ, anyathā rasā”dy alamkārā).”
od may be noted that Abhinavagupta looks sober when we read his remarks on Bhatta Nāyaka in the A.bh. But when we go through the above passege in Locana, we feel that Abhinavagupta has taken a sterner look at Bhatta Näyaka and is more vocal, forthright and acid in denouncing the latter's bhāvakarva, bhogikarana, and sādhārapīkarana and suggesting that all this is not even a step further beyond
!
!!
hivyaktih

Page #392

Rasa-nișpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1567 dhvani-vyañjanā of Anandavardhana, This becomes very clear when we read the above passage. However, for added delight, we quote Gnoli's translation of this passage as read in Appendix III, pp. 107, etc., ibid. Gnoli translates :
Appendix III Commentary on Dh. A., II. 4
“Now Bhatta Nāyaka says-If the Rasa were perceived as present in a third party, the spectator should be in a state of indifference. On the other hand, the poem-which, f.i, might describe the story of Rāma-does not make the reader perceive it as really present in him because that would imply this admission, namely that there is a birth of Rasa in his own self. Now this birth does not stand to reason, because Sītā dose not play the role of a determinant as regards the spectator. “But”-someone may perhaps say-"that which causes her to be a determinant is the general idea of loverness, which, shared by her, is the cause of the awakening of the latent impressions.” But I reply to this objection-how can that happen as regards a description of deities, etc. ? Further, no memory of his own beloved one does arise in the spectators consciousness (while he looks at Sītā). Again is it possible that the construction of a bridge on the ocean and the other determinants of this kind, proper to some extra-ordinary personages as Rāma and so on, may become general ? Nor it can be said that what occurs is simply the memory of Rāma, as endowed of heroism, etc., in so far as the spectator has had no such previous experience.
Even assuming that he is perceived through verbal testimony (sabda), there cannot be any birth of Rasa, just as in the case of a pair of lovers united together, perecived through direct knowledge. Moreover, according to the thesis which maintains that Rasa is produced, the birth of the pathetic Rasa would make the pereciver to experience pain, and, consequently, he would go no more to pathetic representations. Therefore, that is not a production and not even a manifestation. Indeed, if it is supposed that a Rasa f.i., the Erotic one, first pre-exists in a potential form and is later manifested, then the determinants must necessarily) illuminate it little by little. Besides, the difficulties already met with would recur : is Rasa manifested as really present in our own self, or as present in a third party? Therefore, Rasa is neither perceived, nor produced, nor manifested by the poem. The truth is that the poetic word is different from the other ones. This happens thanks to three distinct ppwers, which are so to speak, its parts (amsa): that is to say, the power of denotation, which has, as its object, the expressed sense; the power of revelation, which has, as its object, the rasa; and the power of bringing

Page #393

1568
SAHRDAYĀLOKA about enjoyment, which has, as its object, the individuals who are possessed of heart. If in poetry there were, indeed one power only, i.e. the power of denotation, without the other ones, what a difference would still remain between the various ornaments, as alliteration, etc., and the treatises illustrating them ? And together with the ornaments the various styles also would result useless. And, again, what would be the purpose of avoiding cacophony, etc. ? Therefore, there is a second power, called 'revelation of Rasa', thanks to which the language of poetry is different from any other. This power, the so-called revelation, proper to poetry, is nothing but the faculty of generalizing the determinants. Once the Rasa has been revealed, there is the enjoyment of it. This enjoyment, which is different from any other kind of perception, as direct knowledge, and memory, consists of the states of fluidity, enlargement and expansion, is characterised by a resting, by a lysis, in our own consciousness, constituted by sattva, and intermixed with rajah, and tamah, and is similar to the tasting of the supreme brahman. The chief member of poetry is only this, quite perfect. The so-called instruction has only a secondary place.
This is only one of the theories. The critics indeed do not agree about the true nature of Rasa. Indeed, some of them say that, in the first stage, we have only a parmanent state of mind, which, being later nourished by the transitory states of mind, etc., is experienced as Rasa. This Rasa, they add, is perecived as really present in the reproduced personage only, and, being displayed in the theatre, is called "theatre-rasa." This theory is criticised by others in the following way. What is indeed, they say, the sense of this intensification of a state of mind by another one as regards a mental state, which naturally develops in succession ? Surely, neither astonishment, nor sorrow, nor anger, etc., are seen to grow more intense with time! Therefore your thesis, viz. Rasa is [perceived as really) present in the reproduced personage, does not stand to reason. If you, on the other hand, say it is in the reproducing actor, obviously he could not follow the tempo, etc. If, finally, you say that it is in the spectators, what a camatkāra would still subsist ? On the contrary, in front of a pathetic scene, the spectators would necessarily feel in pain. Therefore, this thesis is not sound.
Which is then the right one? Here, because of the infinitude of gradations, no reproduction of a defined (niyata) permanent feeling must be made; this, besides, would be purposeless, because at the sight of this excessive particularity, the
vould remain indifferent, so that there could not be any useful teaching. The true nature of Rasa is therefore the following. When the determinants, the

Page #394

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1569 consequents and the transitory states are joined together with reference to a permanent mental state, (a-niyatávasthā"tmaka), there arises a perception, different from memory, viz. "This is Rāma who was happy." This perception has, as its object, the permanent mental feeling, is made up of a tasting, is ultimately founded on the reproducing actor and is also to be found in theatre only. Rasa is nothing but that. It does not require any separate support, but, on the contrary, the spectator is tasting it in the actor, who is considered as identical with the reproduced personage. This is, in brief, the nature of aesthetic experience. Therefore, Rasa lies in the theatre only, not in the represented personage etc. (This, the theory of śankuka).
Some others say: "The image of the parmanent state of mind appearing in the reproducing actor is produced by the assemblage of the different forms of representation, etc., just as the image of a horse, appearing on a wall, is produced by the various pigments, as orpiment, etc. This image is tasted by a perception of a non-ordinary nature, named also sampling, and is therefore called Rasa. The meaning of the expression "theatre-rasa", is than, 'the Rasas which are caused by the theatre.
According to others, Rasa is nothing but the whole of the determinants and the consequents, supplied by a particular assemblage, connected with determinate latent impressions suitable to the parmanent state of mind-which is the object of the acting of the afore-mentioned determinants and consequents and characterized by an intimate relish or lysis. According to this theory, the Rasas, are nothing but the drama.
Some others say that Rasa is the mere determinant, or, again, the mere cousequent; according to others it is nothing but the permanent state of mind; others say it is the transitory mental state; to others it is a comnbination of these; others say that ot is the situation to be reproduced; and others finally, that it is an aggragate of all that. But enough of these lucubrations.
The afore-mentioned Rasa occurs in poetry also, which, in the place of the realistic representation and of the theatrical conventions, possesses the natural and extra-ordinary mode of speech. The combination of the determinants, etc., by which it is produced, is, in poetry, afforded by words of a non-ordinary character, endowed with the qualities of clearness (prasanna), sweetness (madhura), and' powerfulness (ojasvin). Even if it be admitted that in poetry the Rasa-perception is someway different from drama, because of the means which are different, the process, however is the same.

Page #395

1570
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Being it so, these faults concern the prima facie view only, for, according to it, perception is subjected to the distinctions proper to oneself, to others, etc. Anyhow, no matter which the thesis is, Rasa results to be perecption. This is unavoidable. Indeed, the existence of an unperceived thing, as, for instance, a goblin affirmed. The fact that this perception is called by the names of relish, tasting, or enjoyment, does not amount to any difficulty. We know indeed that the direct cognition, the inference, the tradition, the intuition, the super-normal experience, under their different names,-caused by the different means which manifest them, are equally but forms of perception. Nothing then forbids us to admit that the same occurs in the case of rasa also, for the very reason that the means by which it is manifested, viz. the combination of the determinants, etc., assisted by the concent of heart and so on, are of a non-ordinary nature. The use of the expression, "The Rasas are perceived," is just like the one 'the porridge is being cooked.' The Rasa, indeed, is merely perceived. The relishing is only a particalar perception. This perception in drama, is different from an ordinary inferential perception; yet, in the beginning, this is required as a means. Likewise, the afore-said perception, in poetry, is different from the other verbal perceptions. Yet, in the beginning, these are required, as a means.
Therefore, the prima facie views are put to death. But if you say that the exploits of Rāma, etc., do not earn the consent of heart of everybody, that, I answer, is a great mark of rashness. Everybody's mind is indeed characterized by the most various latent inpressions; for as it has been said, "As the desire is permanent, these are beginningless," and, “On the ground that the remembrances and the impressions are homogeneous there is an uninterrupted succession of latent
sions, even if they are separated by birth, space and time." (yoga-sūtra, IV., sūtras 10 and 9). Therefore, it is established that Rasa is perceived. This perception, in its turn, presents itself in the form of relishing.
This relishing is produced by a new power, different from the power of denotation, which the expressed sense and the expressing words come to possess, that is the power of tune, of suggestion, The so-called power of bringing about enjoyment, proper to poetry, according to you, consists, actually, of this power of suggestion only, and has, as its object, the Rasa. The other power also, viz. the power of effectuation, is actually based on the usage of appropriate qualities and ornaments. We shall explain it diffusely. It is nothing new.
On the other hand, if you say that poetry is effecting the Rasa, then you, by this very statement, resuscitate the theory of production. Besides, this power of

Page #396

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1571 effectuation can be proper neither to the poetical words only, because, if the express sense is not known, the afore-said power cannot logically exist; nor to the express sense only, because, this being conveyed by other words, it does no longer exist. We, on the contrary, maintain that this power of effectuation pertaining to the two of them, as it is confirmed in the stanza, : That kind of poetry, wherein either the sense of the word suggests the implied meaning,” etc. (Dh. I. 13). Further, the effectuation process (let us here remember) is endowed with three distinguished parts, that is, the means, the necessary measures, and the end. Therefore, if we make the power of manifestation correspond to the means, the appropriate qualities and ornaments to the necessary measures, and the Rasas to the end, produced by the effecting poem, it is quite clear that the power of suggestion will correspond to the first part, viz. The means. The enjoyment, in its turn, is not produced by the poetical word, but by this non-ordinary power of suggestion only, through the suppression of our thick pall pf mental stupor and blindness. This enjoyment consists, according to you, of the states of fluidity, enlargement and expansion, is called also "tasting", and is of a non-ordinary nature. In other words, having once established that Rasa is suggested, the afore-mentioned power of bringing about enjoyment is, it too, finally established. The enjoyment, indeed, is identical with the 'Camatkāra', arising from the Rasa-experience itself. Further, as the constituent elements sattva, etc, can be found set out in an infinite number of different ways, according to the predominance of the one or the other, it is absurd to limit the forms of tasting to fluidity, etc. only. As to the theory, according to which the tasting of rasa is similar to the tasting of the supreme Brahman, we have nothing to object. Moreover, the teaching to be derived from poerty is different from the injunctions and instructions imparted by religious treatises and historical narratives. However, to them, who maintain that poetry produces at the end a teaching, which differs from usual analogy, viz. “as Räma, so I”, and consists in an enrichment of our own power of intuition,-the instrament which allows the tasting of Rasa-, we have nothing to reproach. Therefore, this is definitely establishednamely, that Rasas are manifested, and are tasted through a perception."
It will be also interesting to quote another passage from Locana, on Dnv. I. 18This reads as : (pp. 88, 98, Edn. Nandi, ibid)
"tathā hi-vibhāvánubhāva-pratipādake hi kāvye mukhyérthetāvad bādhakanupraveśópy asambhāvya iti ko lakṣaṇávakāśaḥ ?
nanu kim bādhayā, iyad eva laksaņā-svarūpam-"abhidheyávinābhūta-pratītir laksaņocyate.", iti iha ca abhidheyānām vibhāvánubhāvādīnām avinā-bhūtā

Page #397

1572
SAHRDAYĀLOKA rasādaya iti laksyante, vibhāvánubhāvayoḥ kārya-kāraña-rūpatvāt, vyabhicāriņām ca tat sahacaritvād iti cet-mā evam. dhūmaśabdād dhūme pratipanne hy agnismstir api laksaņā-kytaiva syāt, tatógneḥ śītápanoda-smrtir ityā”dir a-paryavasitaḥ śabdārthaḥ syät.
dhūma-sabdasya svārtha-viśrāntitvān na tāvati vyāpāra iti cet, āyātam tarhi mukhyārthabādho laksanāyā jīvitam iti. sati tasmin, svārtha-viśrāntyabhāvāt. na ca vibhāvādi-pratipādane badhakam kiñcid asti.
nany evam dhūmávagamanánantaram agni-smaraṇavad vibhāvādipratipattyanantaram ratyā”di-citta vṛtti- pratipattir iti śabda-vyāpāra evā’tra násti.
idam tāvad ayam pratīti-svarūpajño mīmāmsakaḥ prastavyah-kim atra paracitta-vrtti-mātre pratipattir eva rasapratītir abhinmatā bhavatah? na ca evam bhramitavyam; evam hi lokagata-citta-vștty anumāna-mātram iti kā rasatā ? yastv alaukika-camatkārā”tmā rasā"svādah, kāvya-gata-vibhāvādi-carvaņā-prāno, násau smarañánumānā"di-sāmyena khilīkāra-pātrī-kartavyaḥ. kim tu, laukikena kārya-kāranánumānā”dinā samskrta-hrdayo vibhāvā”dikam pratipadyamāna eva, na tāțasthyena pratipadyate, api tu, hrdaya-samvādāpara-paryāya-sahrdayatvaparavašīkstatayā pārņībhavisyad-rasā"svādánkurībhāvena anumāna-smaraņā”disaranim anāruhya eva tanmayıbhavanocita-carvaņā-prāṇatayā. na cásau carvaņā pramāņántarto jātā pūrvam yena idānīm smộtiḥ syāt. na cádhunā kutaścit pramānántarād utpannā, alaukike pratyaksādy a-vyāpārāt.
ata eva alaukika eva vibhāvā"di-vyavahāraḥ. yad āha-"vibhāvo vijñānárthaḥ.", loke kāraṇam eva abhidhīyate, na vibhāvaḥ. anubhāvópy alaukika eva-"yad ayam anubhāvayati vāg-anga-satrva-krtóbhinayas tasmād anubhāva iti. tac cittavsttitanmayıbhavanam eva hy anubhavanam. loke tu kāryam eva ucyate, nánubhāvah. ata eva parkīyā na citta-vșttir gamyata ity abhiprāyeņa "vibhávānubhāvavyabhicāri-samyogād rasa-nispattih” iti sūtre sthāyi-grahanam na krtam. tat praty uta salya-bhūtam syāt. sthāyinas tu rasībhāva aucityāducyate, tadvibhávanubhāvocita-citta-vrtti-samskāra-sundara-carvanodayāt. hrdayasamvādopayogi-lokacitta-vrtti-parijñānávasthāyām udyāna-pulakā”dibhiḥ sthāyibhūta-ratyādy avagamāc ca. vyabhicārī tu citta-vrttyātmakatvépi mukhya-cittavstti-paravasa eva carvyate iti vibhāvānubhāva-madhye ganitah. ata eva rasyamānatāyā esā eva nispattiḥ yat- prabandha-pravstta-bandhu-samāgamā"dikāraṇodita-harsā”di-laukika-citta-vștti-nyagbhāvena carvaņārūpatvam. atas carvaņátra abhivyañjanam eva, na tu jñāpanam pramāņa-vyāpāravat, näpy utpādanam hetu-vyāpāravat.

Page #398

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1573
nanu yadi neyam jñaptir na vā niṣpattiḥ, tarhi kim etat? nanv ayam alaukiko rasaḥ, nanu vibhāvādir atra kim jñāpako hetuḥ, uta kārakaḥ ? na jñāpako na kārakaḥ, api tu carvanopyogi. nanu kva etad dṛṣṭam anyatra ? yata eva na dṛṣṭam tata eva alaukikam ity uktam. nanu evam rasópramāṇam syat, astu, kim tataḥ ? tac carvaṇātaḥ eva priti-vyutpatti-siddheḥ kim anyad arthaniyam ? nanu apramāṇakam etat; na, sva-samvedanasiddhatvāt. jñāna-viśeṣasyaiva carvaṇā"tmatvād ity alam bahuna. ataś ca, rasóyam alaukikaḥ. yena lalita-parușaanuprāsasya arthábhidhanánupayoginópi rasam prati vyañjakatvam; kā tatra lakṣaṇāyāḥ śankápi ?_"
These lines remind us of the same usage in the A.bh. as examined earlier. Here rasa is established as a non-ordinary thing, not covered under lakṣaṇā. The translation by Gnoli, (Appendic II, pp. 102, ibid) reads as follows:
"Commentary on Dh. A., I. 18.- As to poetry, which conveys the determinants and the consequents, there is no possible appearance of any element which could provoke the unsuitability of the primary neaning; and therefore, there is in this sense little room for metaphor (=lakṣaṣā, we favour the word, "indication."). "But",-someone might argue,-what has it to do with unsuitability? The nature of metaphor had indeed been defined as follows. "The metaphor is said to be apprehension of a sense connected with the sense directly expressed. Now in poetry, we see that the Rasas are connected with the determinants, the consequents etc., which are directly expressed; indeed, the determinants and the consequents are respectively the causes and the effects of Rasas, and the transitory states co-operate with them." Your objection, I reply, does not stand to reason. If it be right, indeed, when, thanks to the word 'smoke', the smoke has been apprehended, there would arise also the idea of fire, just effected by the afore-said metaphor; and again, from fore, there would arise.the idea of removing coldness, and so on, so that words could no more have any fixed meaning. On the other hand, if you answer to this, saying that, since the word 'smoke' is reposed in its own sense, its power cannot actually extend to fire and so on, then the consequence of your argumentation is one only, namely, that the seed of metaphor, is the unsuitability of the primary meaning, because, only if this is present, the afore-said repose of a word in its own sense can be lacking. Now, in the conveying of determinants, etc., there is no element which can provoke the unsuitability of the primary meaning.
At this point, someone might perhaps urge that the apprehension of the feelings of delight, etc., immediately follows the apprehension of the determinants, etc., just as the idea of fire immediately follows the perception of smoke,. and that, being it

Page #399

1574
SAHṚDAYALOKA
so, there is little room, in this case, for a power inherent in words. But, instead of answering to this objection, I will pose a question to this clever logician, (actually, the term is Mīmāmsaka, not naiyāyika)-who knows so well the mature of perception, and it is the following: Do you think that the apprehension of Rasa is merely apprehension of the feelings of some other person? You do not deserve to fall into such a mistake. In this case, indeed, the said apprehension would be but an inference of the feeling proper to such and such people; what sort of a Rasa could it then possess? But the tasting of Rasa, which is made up of a non-ordinary camatkāra, and is animated by the gustation of the determinants, etc., proper to poetry, cannot certainly be so cendemned as to be placed on the same level as the ordinary processes of memory, inference, etc. Rather, the truth is that he whose heart possesses the latent traces of the ordinary inferential process from the effect to the cause etc., does not apprehend the determinants and so on, as if he were indifferent; being instead at the mercy of his own sensibility-which quality is also called consent of heart-, he rather apprehends them without mounting on the path of memory, inference, etc., as if merged in a gustation, suitable to an identification (with the determinants, etc.), which is, so to say, the sprout of the tasting of Rasa, about to appear in all its fullness. This tasting, again, is not already born in the past, from some other means of knowledge, so that it is, now, a form of memory; nor is it arisen now from some other means of knowledge, for as to a non-ordinary thing, the direct perception, etc., are devoid of any power. Hence, the expressions 'determinants', etc. are of non-ordinary nature; for as Bharata himself had said: "The word 'determinant' is used for the sake of clear knowledge." In everyday life, they are called causes, not determinants. The term 'consequent', is, it too, nonordinary: "Because the representation"-Bharata says "by means of words, gestures, and the temperament, makes one experience (the mental states) it is called "Consequents". This experiencing, provoked by the consequents, is nothing but an identification with the said feelings. In everyday life, they are called effects, not consequents. Therefore, just with this view in mind, namely, that we do not apprehend a feeling of others, Bharata has made no mention of the permanent mental states, in the sutra "Out of the union of the determinants, the consequents and the transitory mental states, the birth of Rasa takes place on the contrary, mention of it would have been a source of difficulty. Such expressions, as "The permanent mental state becomes Rasa", are due to correspondence only-because, that is to say thods, 19, that is to say the gustation arises, beautiful, as it is, thanks to the trace, latent within us, of the feeling corresponding to the determinants and the consequents; i gnist Jod! bas some to nonqs199 907 2wollof Waterbomun SH to all 995 26
""

Page #400

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1575 and because in worldly life, in the stage, that is, of the knowledge of the feeling of others'-a knowledge, let us say, truly indispensable as regards the consent of heartwe are able to apprehend the permanent feelings of delight, etc. from things as gardens, brisling of the hairs, and so on. The transitory mental state, is no doubt a feeling, but, since it is enjoyed in so far as it is entirely dependent on the principal one, it is reckoned by Bharata among the determinants and the consequents.
Therefore, the 'brith of Rasa', mentioned in the sūtra, must be intended as the birth of a relishing-which relishing is a sort of immersion in gustation, appearing as superior to all the other ordinary feelings of delight, etc., that may be aroused by different causes, as, f.i., meeting with a friend, and appear to develop gradnally. This gustation, therefore, is only a manifestation, not a revelation-which is the operation of the means of knowledge., and not even a production which is the operation of the means of action.
"but", -at this point someone might argue-“If this gustation is neither a cognition. nor a production, then what is it ?- But we reply-have we not said that this Rasa is of a non-ordinary nature ? What are then, these determinants ? Are they revealing causes or producing cause? We reply to this question that they are neither revealing nor peoducing, but only something which serves to realize the gustation. Does any such thing appear elsewhere ? But for the very reason why it does not appear we say that it is of a non-ordinary nature. But (someone might say) in this way Rasa is not an object of cognition (a-prameya). Let us admit itwe reply -and what of it? For, since from its gustation, pleasure and instruction derive, what other do you desire ? But you might say, it is not ascertained by any means of knowledge. This is untrue we reply, because its real existence is unconfutable datum of our own consciousness; besides, this gustation is a particular form of knowledge. And that is enough. Therefore, the said Rasa is of a non-ordinary nature-so that even alliterations of harsh or soft sounds can be suggestive of it, though they are of no use as to meaning. Here, then, there is not even the shadow of the metaphor.”
We will once again attempt a summary of Abhinavagupta's ideas on the nature of rasa and on the nature of rasa-experience.
A.G. is very clear that the perception of rasa is not of the form of memory for rasa is not an object experienced beforehand, with the help of other means of knowledge - i.e. it is not “pūrvánubhūta', which is remembered at this given moment. This aesthetic chewing.,, gustation-sarvaņā’ is brought about by, the combination of extra-ordinary vibhāvādi-s. So this perception is different from such

Page #401

1576
SAHRDAYALOKA
worldly perceptions as direct knowledge (pratyaksa), inference (anumāna), āgama or verbal authority, or observation of similitude which at local level give birth to the apprehension of worldly ratyādi-i.e. delight, etc. It is different from the knowledge of a mita-yogin which is like a third person's observation. (taṭastha). It is also different from a para-yogins experience of the self, which a compact one. The reason is that in this perception of the higest yogin, all worldly objects melt away,and hence the beauty imparted by the colouring by contact with these worldly objects is missing here. Thus there is "saundarya -viraha"-in a-mita-yogin's perception. Perception, of rasa differs from all these perceptions because, as explained. by Abhinavagupta, in the apprehension of delight (rati) etc. by worldly means, there is possibility of an attitude to possess and avoid what is agreeable or pleasure-giving and non-agreeable or pain-giving respectively thus there is "hānòpādāna-buddhi." This creates an obstacle in rasa-percepation. In the case of mita-yogin, because of taasthya there is lack of distinctness-a-sphutatva, and in -case of rasana-vyāpāra 'sphuaṭatvábhāva" is absent. In case of para-yogin's apprehension, there is absence of beauty or 'saundarya-viraha', for the material that causes colouring has vanished. In the gustation-rasanātmaka samvedana-there is no tāṭaasthya as the self of the enjoyer enters into it, i.e. the enjoyer feels being part of the experience. He does not feel that whatever he is experiencing belongs to someone else. In the act of aesthetic chewing- rasa-carvaṇā-the sāmājika apprehends the ratyā"di, staying as impressions in his own mind, through the agency of generaized determinants, etc. This apprehension is of the nature of aesthetic chewing-"rasyamāna-svabhāvā." The idea is that the taste of this special apprehension is only during the time of the apprehension of vibhāvā"dis; i.e. it is of the form of a perception. To say that 'rasa' is an "object" of perception is resorting to metaphorical expression, for, in fact, the perception, the process, itself is tasting. There is no possibility of the rise of obstacles here, as this perception, when it takes place, is beyond obstacles, i.e. it is a "vita-vighnā pratītiḥ."
Simply for this reason only the vibhāvā"di-s can not be said to be the production causes-kāraka-hetu-of rasa-perception, for, in that case rasa-perception should continue to occur even when the vibhāvā"di-s cease to exist. But this is not the case. The moment the curtain drops rasa-perception is over and the sāmājika again crashlands on the ground of everyday reality. In the same tune the vibhāvā❞di-s can not be said to be the causes of cognition (jñapti-hetu) of rasă"di, for 'rasa' has no prior objective existence. As a pot lying in a room in darkness is revealed by torch, in the same way rasa, pre-existing before the art-performance begins, is not

Page #402

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1577 revealed by vibhāvā"dis. If it has a prior objective reality, the existence of rasa should be accepted prior to the beginning of art-show. But it is imppossible to accept this. We have observed during our discussion on vyañjanā or suggestion, that it is not identical with manifestation-abhivyakti of the dārśanikas. Actually it is taller by ten fingures-aryatishat dasángulam !
Naturally that a question can be raised as to what exactly are these vibhāvā"dis ? The reply is that the use of these vibhāvādi-s is inevitable in the process of tasting. But their function should be taken as extra-worldly. It is neither kāraka, nor jñāpaka, but it is extra-ordinary ! If it is asked if a simialr thing is marked anywhere anytime, the answer is “No, And precisely because of this it is termed a-laukika, i.e. extra-worldly. If it is said that then rasa will be a-prameya or not an object of cognition, the answer is, “let it be so." For, to take rasa as an entity beyond cognition, is a bhūsana, an ornament in explaining it as an extraworldly object. This in short is not a limitation, i.e. "dūsana." At worldly level the generation of şādavā"di-rasa', which in itself is beyond its ingredients such as molases, pepper, etc., could be taken as an illustration here. Thus Abhinavagupta unerlines the extra-ordinary nature of rasa-perception or aesthetic tasting.
When it is said that rasa-pratīti is a-laukuka, what is to be understood is its difference from worldly cognitions. Art-experience can never be equated with ordinary worldly experience. The authors of the Nātya-darpana do not agree with this and they accept the nature of this taste to be pleasure-yielding and also paingiving -i.e. sukha-duhkhā"tmaka, But for the school represented by Abhinavagupta aesthetic chewing-tasting-is only of the nature of supreme bliss or beatitude-, or say, is made only of bliss-ānanda-ghana-samvedana, and even a shadow of unhappiness is ruled out from it-"tatra kā duhkhā"sankā” Now when rasa is thus placed beyond the field of worldly cognition, logically it will be said to be a-prameya i.e. beyond cognition. This is acceptable to Abhinavagupta for rasa for him is having tasting only as its life-breath-"rasyamāṇataikaprāna". Therefore it is aways beyond worldly cognition. If it is asked that in the sūtra there is mention of "nispatti" which is either "jñapi" or "utpatti", then, the answer is that there is 'nispatti' not of rasa, but of
asanā-vyāpāra i.e. only the process of relishing starts, the relish itself is beyong being produced. This process is of the form of consciousness - sva-samvedana,' which has 'rasa' as its object. Thus rasa depends on "rasanā”. With reference to the nispatti' of rasanā-vyāpāra, the birth / nispatti of rasa is also stated metaphorically. In fact the rasanā-vyāpāra is of the form of consciounsess and is not brought about either by pramāna-vyāpāra or kāraka-vyāpāra. But for this, we will not be able to brand it as 'a-pramānika' for it is "sva-samvedana-siddha."

Page #403

SAHṚDAYALOKA
After this Abhinavagupta discusses the nature of rasa-apprehension, which for him is first and last a perception-"a 'samvedana'. It is bodha-rupa-pratītiḥ. That this bodha-or pratiti is different from other cognitions is because the determinants etc. which cause it are non-ordinary and therefore different from worldly causes. We have explained in detail earlier how Abhinavagupta explains Bharata's rasa-sūtra, so we will not repeat it over here once again.
All rasas are bilss-giving :
1578
For Abhinavagupta all rasa-s are sukhātmaka. He accepts the "ananda-rūpatā sarva-rasānām" and perhaps this will drag us to believe that he, from the highest point of view, believes in only one rasa-the mahārasa-or Santa-rasa which is made of bliss alone, as we will go to see later.
The level of this ananda is higher or is beyond the level of worldly pleasure and pain. He has discussed this point while treating the sixth obstacle in rasaperception. All worldly feelings are not ānandātmaka or sukhātmaka or joy-giving. But in rasa-tasting all these worldly feelings become the object of a compact experience of beatitude and hence are all pleasure-giving. They are apprehended by a perception free from all obstacles. Thus śoka, krodha, etc. also, when they are part of this compact consciousness, they leave their original nature of yielding pleasure or pain. and become just blissful. the apprehension free from all obstacles is necessarily bliss-giving.This is one of the basic principles of the Pratyabhijñā darśana. With this ends the epistemological consideration of 'rasa' in the estimation of Abhinavagupta.
"Santa-rasa." - As noted earlier, Abhinavagupta is, like Anandavardhana, a great protegonist of Santa-rasa, which is the "rasa of rasas" which is a 'mahārasa', a sort of canvass' bhitti-on which other rasas are painted, a source-prakṛti, other rasas being vikṛti-s formed due to difference in the set of vibhāvādi-s. Thus for him, rasa-is basically one and of the nature of beatitude alone-"anadaike-ghana." We will try to examine Abhinavagupta's attitude towards Santa-rasa which in fact lays out his philosophy of aecthetics.
The śānta-rasa-prakarana is considered to be a later interpolation in Bharata's Nā-Śā., though of course, opinions differ, among scholars, on this count. But whatever it may be, for Abhinavagupta it is a genuine part of the Na-Śā. and he has written his A.bh. on this portion also, contronverting the views of anti-Śānta theorists. Not only this, but actually 'Santa-rasa' seems to be the only 'rasa', so to say, which is experienced in the last stange of tasting in any art-form. If 'viśānti', 'laya', 'samapatti', etc. are the ultimate test of aesthetic experience, then Santa

Page #404

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1579 deserves to be very much there for even the taste of any other rasa is ultimately a vigalita-vedyāntara-anubhūti. So, the other rasas, the eight i.e. śrngära and the rest get their names from the variety of vibhāvādi-s seen in them, the highest goal being carvanā-viśrānti. It is because of this that Abhinavagupta argues in favour of Sānta', which again is a name, only a name, for the mahā rasa, the 'rasa' of 'rasas'. which unites all art. The famous verses from the Nā-Sā. make this point clear, But before we quote the same, it may be noted that Bhoja, later than Abhinavagupta also underlined the basis one-ness of rasa, when he equated rasa with "abhimana, ahamkara, Srngära." The Nā-Sä. (pp. 328, 329, vol.I. G.O.S. '92. K. Kris.) verses read as :
“bhāvā vikārā ratyā”dyāḥ śāntas tu, prakrtir mathaḥ, vikāraḥ prakrter jātaḥ punas tatraiva līyate." svam svam nimittam āsādya śāntād bhāvaḥ pravartate, punar nimittápāye ca
śānta evópaliyate." It may be noted that even the so-called śānta-rasa which as Bharata says, is
“moksádhyātma-samutthas tattva-jñānártha-hetu-samyuktaḥ, naiḥśreyasopadistaḥ
śānta-raso nāma sambhavati.” -could be taken as just one more type of aesthetic experience adding the other eight varieties arrived at in the name of śrngāra, hāsya, karuna, etc. Experts in aesthetics have debated the position of this particular rasa. Some reject it, while others accept it only with reference to poetry i.e. literature and not drama proper. Be it as it is, but nobody has denied the fact of rasánubhūti in case of any art,dance, music, poetry, drama, painting, architeeture, sculpture, or any. So, it seems that Bharata has also perhaps used the name 'Santa' for both of these;one for the sānta-rasa which is ‘mokşádhyātma-samuttha etc. and for establishing which even in the context of drama Abhinavagupta has taken great care in the A.bh. on this portion, and the other, the Sānta, which is the mahā-rasa, or the basic 'rasa'

Page #405

1580
SAHRDAYĀLOKA running through all art, the art-experience itself, which is an experience exclusive to. art only, sui generis, which is “vigalita-vedyantara-anubhūti." It is this Sānta which is said to be “bhitti-kalpa" or canvas on which different designs due to different set of vibhāvādi-s emerge, leading to an art-experience which is 'alaukika.' It is this 'śānta' which is said to be 'prakrti'-rasa. Abhinavagupta has talked of this at other places also and Bharata also does the same when he uses a singular in the famous expression, viz. "na hi rasād rte kaścid arthah pravartate."
Bharata's verses quoted above bringing home this point of 'one basic rasa' could be translated as :
"Santa is in fact the prakrti (the base) from which the tramsmutes in the form of emotions like Rati (love) are generated. The transmutes produced from the bases (?, base) merge in them (? 'it'.). Emotions are generated from the basics owing to particular causes and when these causes cease to exist, the emotions too merge with Santa" (Trans. Dr. P. unni, pp. 182, Nā.-Śā, vol-I., Nag Publishers, '98, Delhi). We have suggested some corrections-viz. 'base' and 'it', in the brackets. Dr. Unni means as much, and we know it. So, our thesis is that Bharata uses the name
Sānta', both for the so called ninth rasa "tatra Santo nāma sama-sthāyibhāvatmako....” etc., to establish which the A.bh has taken great pains and with all this, which was rejected or partly accepted in later tradition, and also in the sense of “prakrti-rasa', 'the base.' Other rasa-s emerge from this and merge into this. It is, so to say, the synthesis of rasa. Abhinavagupta has tried hard to establish this basic unity of rasa at different places. This in fact, is the essence of his aesthetics.
This one basic rasa, the rasa of all rasas, the mahārasa, or the Šānta-rasa which is said to be bhitti-sthānīya is underlined by Abhinavagupta in the following passages;
(i) (pp.265, Nā.śā, vol. I. Edn.K. Kris.-)
"pūrvatra bahuvacanam atra caikavacanam prayuñjānasya ayam āśayah-eka eva tāvat paramārthato rasaḥ, sūtra-sthānīyatvena rūpake pratibhāti. tasyaiva punar bhāga-dršā vibhāgah. sopi ca na tad-eka-mukha-preksitām ativartate. etac ca uddeśe eva asmābhir abhihita-caram. abhidhāsyate cágre."
This is A.bh. on the words of Bharata which read as. (pp. 266, ibid)-"tatra rasan eva tävad ädāv abhi-vyākhyāsyāmah. na hi rasad rte kaścid arthah pravartate."
(Trans. Unni, pp. 158) : "Among these I shall deal with the sentiments at the outset. There could be nothing without the relish of sentiments (?, sentiment, singular)."

Page #406

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1581
The A.bh. is clear. It observes: "In the beginning (Bharata used) the plural. (viz. rasan), and here (i.e. in rasad ṛte) when singular is used (by the author, Bharata), the idea is- Only one (and identical) rasa is seen in a drama (=any art-form) in form of a string (running through the beads). From the point of view of division, the (individual variety) -'vibhāga' is (suggested). Even that (division into subvarieties) does never miss focussing on that (one basic rasa) alone. This we have already stated when contents were discussed. We will say this even later, (as we go on)."
(ii) It may be noted that in Na.Śā, VI. 10, (pp. 257, ibid) the samgraha' or enumeration of topics to be covered in theNa.Śā. was given beginning with "rasāḥ." : "rasa bhāvā hy abhinayaḥ...." etc. Then, on pp. 260, ibid, verse 15 (ch. VI) reads as :
"śṛngāra-hāsya-karuṇā....”
The A.bh. passage (pp. 260, ibid) reads as :
"tatra vibhāgam tāvad āha- śṛngāra-hāsyety ādinā, nātya-samgraha (6/39) ity
antena.
tatra natyam nāma naṭa-gata-abhinaya-prabhāva-sākṣātkārāyamāṇa-ekaghana -manasa-niścaládhyavaseyaḥ, samasta-nāṭakady anyatama-kavya-viseṣa-dyotaniyór
thaḥ.
sa ca yady apy ananta-vibhāvādy ātmā, tathápi sarveṣām jaḍānām simvidi, tasyāś ca bhoktari, bhoktṛ-vargasya ca pradhan bhoktari paryavasānān nāyakábhidhāna-bhoktr-viseṣa-sthāyi-citta-vṛtti-svabhāvaḥ."
(Translation): "Parts (of the general content) are narrated by the words, beginning with "śṛngāra, hāsya" etc., and ending with "natya-samgraha."
Here 'natya' (in nātya-samgraha) means that ultimate meaning (or intention) which is the outcome of the whole of a (given) dramatic piece or a (given) poem. It is arrived at as a result of a solid mental cognition, which is as it were directly experienced with the help of the force of acting of an actor.
This (ultimate meaning, viz. rasa) is having innumerable vibhāvādi-s (both sentient and insentient and presented in a variety of shapes and forms), but all the insentient ones (among them) terminate into consciousness (samvit), and this consciousness terminates into (or is centred round a bhoktā (i.e. alambanavibhāva, i.e. character), and all the bhokta-s centre round a central character (principal bhoktā, the hero). So (the ultimate meaning of) the rasa is of the form of the permanent emotion of the hero.

Page #407

1582
SAHRDAYĀLOKA After coming to the one single sthāyi-citta-vịtti of the hero, Abhinavagupta proceeds to explain rasa as
(pp. 260, ibid)
"să ca eka-citta-vșttiḥ sva-param-iti pratīyamāna-ananta-citta-vșttyantara-sataviśeşitā, laukika-gīta-geya-padā”di-lāsyánga-daśakopajīvana-svīksta-lakṣaṇa-guņā, alamkāra-gīta-ātodyā"di-samyak-sundarībhūta-kavya-mahima-prayoga-mālá-bhyāsaviśesā”śrayatvāt pracyāvitā, ata eva sadhāraṇībhūtatayā sāmājikan api svātmasadbhāvena samāveśayanti tādātmyād eva ca, anumān"āgama-yogi-pratyaksā"dikaranaka-tatastha-pramātrprameya-parakiya laukika-citta-vrtti-vilaksanatayā nirbhāsamānā parimita-svātmāny aśrayatā-nirbhāsamāna-virahāc ca, laukikapramadā"di-janita-nija-ratiśokavat, taj-jahānā”di-citta-vrtty antara-jananáksamā, tata eva nirvighna-sva-samvedanā”tmaka-viśrānti-laksanena rasanápara-paryāyeņa vyāpāreņa gļhya-mānatvād rasa-śabdena abhidhīyate."
tena rasa eva nātyam. yasya vyutpattiḥ phalam ity utyate. tathā ca rasād sta -(nā. śā. 6/31) ity atra ekavacanopapattih.
tataś ca mukhya-bhūtāt mahārasāt, sphoța-dịśīva asatyāni vā, anvitábhidhānadrśīva ubhayātmakāni satyāni vā, abhihitánvaya-drśīva tat-samudāya-rūpāņi vā rasāntarāņi, bhāgábhiniveśa-drștāni rūpyante.”
This can be translated as follows :
"That mental feeling (the principal one of the hero) is rendered bereft of such notions as "this is mine” (svakiya), or "this is some one else's" (parakiya). (In short it looses its relation with an individnal. That mans it is de-individualised, losing all contact with particularity). This (generalisation of the permanent mental state of the hero) is brought about by the influence of-(i) the stanzes, put to music, of popular songs (that figure in the drama, or poem), (ii)the greatness of the poem and the acting of an actor brought about by practice. These two are decorated by the beauty of ten parts of lāsya or dance etc. and guņas or excellences and alamkāras or embellishments used in poetry. Thus the basic emotion rendered free from any touch of particularity covers up the sāmājika-s or the spectatores also in its fold. Thus on account of identity brought about between the basic mental state of the hero and that of the spectator also, this apprehension seems to be different in nature from knowledge brought about by inference, or agama-s. It is a sort of consciousness which is also different from the one of a yogin, which is caused without the contact of sense-organs with objects, and which is, as is were is of an un-involved person, a tatastha. It is also different from cognitions having a part of

Page #408

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1583 a pramāta-knower and prameya or the object of knowledge. It is a cognition (in which, because the hero is not limited by his narrow ego-sense) which does not cause (hindrances, such as) shame, jealousy, etc. caused at personal level in the worldly context.
As this consciousness does not cause other obstructing feelings, it is an object of a function called 'āsvādana' or tasting which is of the form of resting-viśānti-of an experience free from all obstacles. This is termed "rasa" or "taste."
So then, 'rasa' is itself 'nātya', the experience of which is also termed the 'phala' or goal, or end. It is unique and one and of an identical nature. Precisely for this, Bharata uses singular in "rasad rte."
Thus, for Abhinavagupta 'rasa' is basically one and identical. There is only “rasa”, and not rasa-s. Abhinavagupta further notes in a conclusive way that
-“And because (rasa is one and identical) it may be said that, from one single mahā-rasa, other rasa-s are imagined and they are unreal (as are) spoken words (as taken distinct) from sphota (which is the only reality). Or, from the point of view of the anvitábhidhāna-vāda, other rasa-s are real, being instrumental (in arriving at the basic one rasa) (as are individual word-meanings instrumental in arriving at sentence-sense). Or, the principal one rasa is of the form of an aggregate-samudaya, as is the sentence-sense made of individnal word-meanings. Thus, individual rasa-s are seen as parts of the one principal rasa."
These passages confirm our observation that Abhinavagupta believed in one basic rasa, and the individual rasa-s were just there, viewed as different from the angle of the difference in vibhāvādi-s. Now call it 'śānta” or call it by any other name.
This rasa-theory as peomulagated by Indian thinkers is basically very catholic and it covers all arts and all individual art-forms as well, practiced by a hundred thous and poets, or artists including those of to-day. We will try to establish the Catholicity of rasa theory as follow :*
-“With reference to the available written documents, the Nāyaśāstra (N.S.) of Bharata Muni is the earliest work on dramaturgy that lays down the theory of Rasa as applicable to the dramatic art in particular and then to any fine art in general, such as the art of music, dance, painting, sculpture, literature, etc. etc.,
* This was a paper contributed to the W.S.C. in Delhi, 02. It was to be read from
the chair in one session, but the author could not attend the cenference, It was published then in A.B.O.R.I. Pune, vol. XXXV-'01, '02.

Page #409

1584
SAHRDAYĀLOKA of course keeping the 'Sa-hrdaya' or the sensitive reader/sprctator in its focus. It is to be understood as a theory of art or beauty in general that attempts to explain art-experience with reference to any art worth its name. So, for us, rasanubhūti is kalánubhūti, is saundaryanubhūti, or anandanubhūti, or experience of the highest bliss : the Divine. We can take Bharata's contribution to explain dramatic art as part of efforts by Indian art-critics in the field of aesthetics in general. Be it Bharata, Bhāmaha or Anandavardhana or Abhinavagupta, they were all concerned with the problem of beauty in general and then beauty as seen in drama or literature.
With reference to the rasa-experience or art-experience in general, Bharata has coined his famous rasa-sútra viz. “Vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-samyogādrasa-nispattih.", i.e. out of the combination (samyoga) of Determinants (vibhāva), the Consequents (anubhāva) and the Transitory Mental States
(vyabhicārin), the birth of Rasa takes place,” (Trans, Gnoli);pp. 25, ibid). That - commentators such as Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka and
Abhinavagupta have attempted different explanations of this sūtra need not detain us here, nor the different explanations advanced by Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, Ramacandrs and Guņa-candra, Siddhicandra and Jagannātha, who, following Abhinavagupta's lead, also presents eleven different attempts to explain the theory of rasa, which for us is a general theory of art. For, our sole object here is to underline its catholicity; its applicability to newer and newer forms of art in general, and literature in particular with a special reference to newer forms of absurd play and intellectual gymnasium attempted by modern western poets and also writers in India in various modern literatures such as Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Assamia, and what not.
The challange came from Dr. Paulose, at a seminar in Śrī šankarācārya Sanskrit university in Kaladi, Kerala, in March '99, when he raised a point as to the universal applicability of rasa-theory, particularly with reference to such modern plays, as for example, "Mother Courage.' The prompt answer to this from the chair vas that even a traditional explanation of rasa-theory will suit this dramatic piece called, “Mother Courage' when we suggest that here the principal 'angi sentiment is "dharma-vīra", with a subordinate (gauna) under-current of Karuna or the tragic. But this explanation apart, there is a larger scope for the rasa-theory. We begin with Anandavardhana.

Page #410

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1585
He observes in his Dhvanyāloka (=Dhv.), a great work on literary criticism and the first written document available, advocating the theory of vyañjana-dhvanirasa as solution to art experience, cf. at Dhv. IV. 1,2
"dhvaner yaḥ sa-guṇībhūtavyangyasyadhva pradarśitaḥ, anenā❞nantyam āyāti
kavīnām pratibhā-guṇaḥ." (Dhv. IV. i)
-ya eşa dhvaner gunībhūta-vyangyasya ca margaḥ prakāśitaḥ, tasya phalántaram kavi-pratibhánantyam;
and also,
"ato hy anyatamenápi
prakāreņa vibhūṣitā,
vāṇī navatvam āyāti
purvārthánvaya-vaty api." (Dhv. IV.2)
"By the ways of the principlal suggestion as also the subordinated suggestion shown thus far, the quality of creative imagination in poets will assume endlessness." (Dhv. IV. 1)
"Endlesshess of creative imagination in poets will be another outcome of the theory of principal and subordinated suggestion laid down already."
"If one should ask, 'how is it', (here is our reply) :
"By a mere touch of even a single variety of suggestion (among the many that have been enumerated), the poet's expression will acquire novelty, even though it might perhaps embody only a trite idea."

(Translation, K. Krishnamoorthy, p. 265, Dhv., Karnatak uni., Dharwar, '74).
He adds at Dhv. IV. 10, "vācaspatisahasrāṇām sahasrair api yatnataḥ, nibaddhā sā kṣayam naiti,
prakṛtir jagatām iva."
"Like the resources of premordial Nature itself, the infinite possibilities of poetic themes can never be drained off even by a million Bṛhaspati-s composing with all their might simultaneously."

Page #411

1586
(Trans. K. Kris; p. 293, ibid).
In short, Anandavardhana, is convinced of the universal applicability of his theory of vyañjana-dhvani-rása, which is a modified form of rasa-theory as applied to literature. We know that he recognises three-fold dhvani, viz. vastu-dhvani, i.e. suggestion of idea or matter, alamkara-dhvani i.e. suggestion of a poetic figure of speech, and rasa-dhvani or suggestion of emotive milieu. He has fired the first salvo in the direction of the universal applicability of the rasa-theory, which began with Bharara, or perhaps even earlier.
SAHṚDAYALOKA
We know that Bharata, while contemplating on the fact of rasa-nispatti or artexperience, suggests that it is the result of the appropriate blending of factors which he terms as vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicari-bhāva, the technical terminology given to worldly cause (i.e. kāraṇa). effect (karya), and accompanying subordinate feelings (sahakarin). Where all interpreters agree, is a point that by vibhāva, anubhava and vabhicārin, Bharata imagines some material which is connected with total human consciousness, including man's rational, volitional or conative and emotive aspects; rationality and intelligence to be sure. Thus the 'samagri' or stuff or combination concerns itself, according to Bharata, with the total human consciousness, the integral self of the aesthete, with a special reference to his developed sensitivity and sharp intelligence.
We know that our responeses born of an encounter with worldy context manifest at individual level in our work-a-day world. Bharata keeps this fact of practical life in focus, and puts it in a new perspective in the context of art in general and with dramatic art in particular. By the coining of technical terms such as vibhāva, etc. for worldly cause, i.e. kāraṇa, etc., by art-critics even prior to Bharata, what was aimed at was that, so far as the art-experience goes, there is no place for personal likes and dislikes. On the other hand, the greater fact remains that, even in a work of art, there cannot be any subject-matter which is beyond the available milleu of practical life. A poet has to concern himself with real practical life, the foundation, on which his genius constructs great palaces of highest imagination. Thus a poet cannot go beyond life. He has to think of events and situations as resulting from the situation presented to us through nature.Now, to patch up with these constrains of life resulting in unequal personal responses, artcritics thought of coining new technical terms for local cause and effect factors, and thereby attempting a complete transformation of nature coloured by personal prefernces and prejudices. Thus 'vibhāva' stands for 'vibhāvana' of worldly cause, i.e. it is, "asvada-yogyīkaraṇa", i.e. tranforming a worldly cause into a factor that

Page #412

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1587 causes supreme joy. Thus, the art-critics tried to give a new name and a new habitation to the ugly in life; “ugly", because of personal factors intervening. This 'vibhāvana’- process works like an alchemy, turning the gross into the etherial, into the divine. It transforms the material context into the spiritual, raises the gross to the level of art-experience, i.e. 'rasa'. This art-experience is made up of supreme bliss, and, to differentiate it from worldly experience, the art-critics have equalled it with the divine joy caused due to the realization of Brahman, the supreme spirit. They term it as, 'brahmā"svāda-sahodara”. The ordinary of our everyday life turns into 'extra-ordinary i.e. 'a-laukika' in art-context. Thus, by coining new terminology, the art-critics have mounted the art-experience on a pedestal, higher than ordinary, or worldly, free from local personal colouring of the work-a-day world. This art-experience is a process of, say, de-individualisation, wherein personal ego- or local likes and dislikes of a given enjoyer-melts away. The critics term this as, "sadharanīkarana", the process of de-individnulisation, wherein the lower ego melts away and yet the higher self of the enjoyer continues to exist : "ātmā na atyantam tiraskrtaḥ, na višeşatayā ullikhitaḥ”, as Abhinavagupta puts it. It is a state of consciousness where the limited ego-sense fades away, giving rise to a higher self, a super ego, so to say, the ‘ahamkāra', 'abhimana' as Bhoja would like to put it. Just as an individual soul, after attaining to yoga, rests in supreme bliss in the company of the paramātman, the Supreme Spirit, in the same way, the Sahrdayam a man of cultivated taste, who has attained to this state of Sādhāranīkarana, or de-individualisation, a state beyond personal mean calculations of profit and loss of selfish pursnits, undergoes art-experience. He is then called 'rasika'. -"rasikóyam, iti pravādaḥ”, says Bhoja.
It is in this state of art- experience, that the worldly feelings of 'mine' and yours', of grabbing the palatable and leaving the unprofitable, fade away like darkness at the advent of dawn. There is a complete transformation of the lower nature into the higher, spiritual nature. Of course, it is peri-passu with the period of the presentation of a given art form. It lasts till the performance lasts. When, say, the performance of a dramatic piece is over, or, when the reading of a classic such as "War and Peace" or "The Miserable" or "Brothers Karamazov" or "Gītāñjali” is over, this transformation evaporates. The enjoyer comes out of this experience like a yogin coming out of his state of meditation. The difference is that a yogin, after his experience of the Divine is a totally changed personality there after, which is not the case with the connoisseur, who enjoys only a short break, a limited stay in the realm of higher consciousness. Art serves the purpose of the Divine vision, 'divya

Page #413

1588
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
caksus, gifted to Arjuna by Lord Krisna to view the 'virāj' form of His Divine self. Art experience also serves as an incentive for an individual to grow permanently into higher self.
Art strips you, for the time being, of all vestures of the six-enemies, the 'sadripu'-s, that cover the inner self. Thus art-criticism is pondering over the beautiful aspect of the Divine, and it transforms the enjoyer of cultivated taste, into a man of purer self. It becomes a gate-way, so to say, to the higher plane of spirituality, it opens up the "yoga-mārga” for the enjoyer. Thus, art-experience is a special perception; it is exclusive to art; it is sui generis, This experience, according to Abhinavagupta, is free from onstacles,-it is a "vīta-vighna-pratīti", an apprehension, free from all worldly obstacles. It “may be said to enter directly, (ni-viś) into our hearts, to dance (vi-parivrt) before our eyes", są to say. (Trans. Gnoli. pp. 56, ibid). In such an art-experience, "one's own self is neither completely immersed (tiraskrta), nor in a state if particular emergence (ullikh), and the same thing happens . with other selves. As a result of this, the state of generality involved is not limited (parimita), but extended (vitata), as happens at the moment on which is formed the idea of the invariable concomitance (vyapti) between smoke and fire, or, in fact, between trembling and fear.” (Trans. Gnoli, p. 56, ibid). It is a perception, free from obstacles; call it by any name such as 'camatkāra', nirveśa (immersion), rasana (relish), āsvāda (tasting), bhoga (enjoyment), samāpatti (accomplishment), laya (lysis), or viśrānti (rest). It is art-experience and nothing else. A rose, is a rose, is a rose, and will smell as sweet, even if we call it by any other name !
Thus, any art, be it dance, music, painting, drama, literature, sculpture, or any fine art we may name, through its own vibhāvādi' content, draws the enjoyer closer to the Divine. It transforms his total personality beginning with the physical and passing through the mental and intellectual and the emotive, and ending in the spiritual. It is a transformation of body and mind into the spirit. So, rasa-experience does not end merely in evocation or enhancement of this or that feeling or emotion only to the plane of a sentiment; no, it is not just this, but it covers the volitional as well as the intellectual or rational portion of a man's personality also. Precisely for this that the great Anandavardhana has reserved a place for vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea or matter, wherein human intelligence has a greater role. It is childish on the part of Viśvanātha to dismiss vastu-dhvani as a foolish riddle, a 'prahelikā-mātra'. Actually, it is a sort of intellectual exercise cau experiences. This part of dhvani covers all modern art-forms where the intelligence or rationality of a man of cultivated taste is tested. All absurd poetry and newer

Page #414

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1589 and newer forms of absurd drama can be covered under vastu-dhvani and even alamkāra-dhvani which takes care of the faculty of imagination, or fancy of a poet, running riot. The Indian theory of art, the theory of rasánubhūti with reference to the literary or dramatic art, or any fine art, does not end only in the suggestion of emotive stuff only. It is both a visa and a passport for the enjoyer's adventure for 'a journey within.' Thus rasanubhūti or art-experience in the view of the Indian ArtCritics does not end in the explanation of eight or nine principal sentiments. It is not a key to sentimental literature alone. The art-experience takes care of the enjoyer's total personality and is 'pari-passi' with the presentation of a piece of art. It is relished in the fashion of a beverage; as it were it flashes forth before the mental eye of a cultivated enjoyer; as it were it enters the heart and moves the soul; as it were it takes the whole of the enjoyer's self, his sensitivity and his intelligence, in its close embrace; as it were it removes consciousness of anytning but itself,- a 'vigalita-vedyāntara-anubhava'-so to say. as if it makes you taste the supreme bliss of Brahman or Divine consciousness and gets the enjoyer wedded with extra ordinary joy, i.e. bliss.
Thus no question of its non-applicability to such modern plays as Mother Courage or any abstract poetry ever arises. Any newer and newer form of art attempted either by a poet, or a dramatist, or a musician, or a painter, or a dancer falls within the range of this theory of beauty advanced by Indian art-Critics. In any newer form attempted by modern artists, when there is this total effect, when there is this total trasformation of the small and individual into the vast and the divine, it is 'rasanubhūti' in the real sense as understood by the ancients. In short, this theory of art sets itself to explain an experience, involving the total personality of the enjover, including the intellectnal: it is a take off from the earth and landing into the Divine: it is a flight from the region of the earth earthy to the region of 'the air airy: it is a growing of the corporeal 'T' into the cosmic-consciousness “I”. It is sinking, mixing, melting, merging and becoming one with the Divine. This is the real secret of art-experience as explained by the ancients and surely it can meet any challenge paused by any newer experiment in the field of literary art or dramatic art, or art in general. True art-criticism lies in explaining the gross and the limited in terms of the spiritnal and unlimited, the local into the eternal, the ugly into the beautiful. Indian art-theory attempts this "pratyabhijñā” of Jiva' as "Śiva", of the small into the limitless: it explains the artist's 'sādhana' or concentrated effort, or discipline of knowing or recognising the Divine in form of the beautiful: the Heighest as "satyam" or pure-existence. 'sivam' or pure

Page #415

SAHṚDAYALOKA
auspiciousness, and “Sundaram” or pure divine beauty. Perhaps the Vaisnava artcritics Rūpa and Jiva Goswami aimed exactly at this only.
1590
Thus, the theory of rasánubhuti or art-experience, and then the theory of vyañjana-dhvani-rasa as promulgated specifically with reference to poetry, as advanced by Indian art-critics, takes in its fold, all art-forms, including all modern attempts in the direction of absurd theatre and absurd poetry, and is capable to meet with any challange posed by modern creative play-wrights and poets.
It is the most catholic art-theory we can ever imagine, and it can stand the test of world-literature of the present day.
We will try to consider specific illustrations. Absurd plays such as "The Chairs" by Eugene Ionesco or, "Waiting for the Godot" by samnel Beckett can serve our purpose. The dramatists have made use of symbolism to convey their inner unrest, or dissatisfaction with the world-order, or, say, their quarrel with the great creator, i.e. God. Even lauguage seems to be a poor, poorer medium to convey their unrest and they take recourse to the use of images and symbols for which we have to be in tune with their psyche, their intelligence, their conscience, their conviction. May be their creations suffer from a blemish that Indian art-critics recognise as "atigudha-vyangya" i.e. suggestion being too much personal. We will not worry about this. But what emerges is that the poet or the artist concerned wants to suggest his deep-rooted discontent with existence as it is. And this he does through literary art and also by the art of drama at his command. The dictionary meaning i.e. the expressed sense of the lines they have written do not take us to their inner experience. But the whole thing is suggested by the play as a whole. It is "prabandha-dhvani" i.e. suggestion resulting from the whole composition. Only men of cultivated taste and intelligence can reach this point which we will call the moment of 'rasánubhuti' or 'art-experience.'
Dr. S. D. Desai, a young friend of mine who is an art-critic with the Times of India, (Ahmedabad, Edn., dt. 3/12/00) has brought out the inner message of a play named "Purusa", directed by Vijaya Metha, with the characters being played by Nana Pateker, Ayesha, and others. He writes, under the caption : "Contemporary Issues masterfully portrayed," :-"Great play-wrights, who believe in a moral vision of emerging societies in the history of civilization, have always held a mirror to them and exposed its tragic flaws. In to-day's decadent world, inadequacies of drama skills, ethical perspectives, and moral concerns stare man in the face.

Page #416

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1591 And yet, theatre still remains a medium in the realm of art that can effectively portray excesses, imbalances, and aberrations in society and prompt introspection.
Apart from the star value attached to the play, directed by Vijayā Mehta, those who came for its star cast were incidentally terribly disappointed. It is the social concern, shared equally by the play-write Jaywant Dalvi, its director and players, that distinguishes the play. Vijaya Mehta's judicious casting (Nana, Ayesha, etc. is an important factor for effective communication. There is a ring of conviction in the social comment that the play-wright, directors and players (and that's what good theatre is all about) make without affectation..."
The Critic, Dr. Desai, has tried to analyse the play not only as a written script but also as an act of performance. What we are concerned with is only one point, that he has tried to bring out “the message” from this dramatic piece, which he suggests in the caption he has given, vig. “Contemporary issues masterly portrayed,” (and, we may add, 'presented' on the stage). This message brought home by efforts of the playwright, the Director, and the artists, is only suggested, and we can place it under the variety of 'vastu-dhvani' or suggestion of a matter of fact, or some ideas, resulting, in art-experience or ‘rasānubhūti' by only the men of cultivated taste.
In yet another good paper, “A perspective on Theatre of the absurd”, Dr. S. D. Desai observes :
"Absurdum (Latin) literally means discordance, lack of harmony. The plays written chiefly during the '50s and '60s in Europe and America, highlighted, through a new idiom, a discord between the epic human endeavour and its insignificant outcome, between the illusory security and shocking discovery or lack of it, between the grandeur that thinkers and artists associated with life and the contemporary existence, found futile and devoid of meaning."
There is no end to the waiting for Godot. In Ionesco's "The chairs”, the message was that at the end of a long life, man was reduced to moans and groans. The promise in many absurd plays was that human mobility, deceptively outward or upward, was in fact circular. Life was static.
Samuel Beckett's “waiting for Godot” opened with the line, “Nothing to be done”. The last spoken line in it was, “Yes, let's go', but, “They do not move." In Ionesco's “The Lesson," The door-bell rings and a pupil enters the professor's study for a lesson at the end, as at the beginning.

Page #417

1592
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Both, relationships and language of communication, were considered cliched and hollow. In Ionesco's "The Bald Prima Donna", a man and a woman who met as total strangers, found they were from the same city. In course of time, they discovered that they had been living in the same flat and, in fact, shared the same bed as husband and wife.
The absurdists exposed the cliched form and the inadequacy of language, especially for the portrayal of the abstract, psychological reality that is part of one's consciousness, and developed a new idiom suited to it for theatre, “Associative clusters of images with a strong visual appeal are an indespensable part of this diom,." There was neither a story nor a conflict in these plays. They did not depict the kind of reality Brecht of Oborne's plays did. The characters were not recognizable and their action seemed inapplicable.There was often a contradiction between the dialogue and the action. If you read or watched such a play with the interest, "What then ?" You would have been disappointed. - The appeal through poetic images in these plays was to reason, not emotions. A kind of tension caused by an unsettling realisation replaced the conventional conflict here. The suspense in them generally was not about what would happen next, it was about what was happening. More then the terse dialogue, it was the ingenious theatre language that became medium of communication. Chairs, a corpse, and rhinoceroses in Ionesco, characters in dust-bins in Beckett and role playing in Genet, for example, in their themes. They related to the very human existence rather than life in contemporary society.
There was a background to the shared vision of these playwrites. Around seven decades ago, Nietzsche had in an obituary announeed God dead. Two world wars had shaken faith in progress and rendered cherished personal and social ideals meaningless. Hopes of radical social change were belied. A sadist had numbed human sensitivity. Material affluence was no answer to the quest of lasting fulfilment. Words seemed to have been drained dry. Albert Camus wrote “The Myth of Sisyphus” in 1942. A broad-chested and strong Sisyphus kept rolling a huge stone up a steep rise to the mountain top. The endeavour endless, the outcome a failure.
Waiting for Godot-was recognized as a classic. Ionesco distinguished himself with his idiom, eminently suited to theatre, and his communication concerning the very essence of human life. Both these playwrights, and to some extent others, lent to their plays the strength and charm of poetry. Having a place in the main-stream

Page #418

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1593 dramatic literature, many absurd plays stand re-reading and re-viewing, and like poems they thrill one with flashes of imagination. They expose limitations of language and hint at the possibilities still remaining unexplored in theatre....."
We will not concern ourselves with the view of life taken by such artists as Ionesco and others, for which a separate paper is cotemplated by us; but for the present, suffice it to note, that even these artists 'had a message to convey, not through direct power of expression, (i.e. abhidhā). of a word, but through use of images, which are innumerable possible 'vyañjaka-s' or 'Suggesters' in Anandavardhana's opinion. Again, the appeal was to reason and not emotion. Here our 'Vastu-dhvani' comes in. 'Ingenius theatre language' and 'the strength and charm of poetry fall under 'alamkāra-dhvani.' The dark message, which even Vyāsa conveyed in the great Mahābhārata was that, “yatha yathā vicāryate, tathā tathā viśīryte,' i.e. “Thinking more and more (about world-existence), makes for its greater and greater failure." But Vyāsa had a greater message which for want of space here, we will not discuss. One point emerges that in all these plays the dominant emotion suggested is that of ‘nirveda', or better say, "tattvajñāna-janya-nirveda' or disgust, leading to śānta-rasa, and also 'Visāda' or despondency, resulting in the great 'mahā-rasa' in Abhibavagupta's opinion, the praksti-rasa, the Sānta-rasa.
Thus, the catholic applicability of Sanskrit art-criticism stands proved and we will repeat with a sense of pride that Sanslrit art-criticism, and of course Sanskrit Language, conveying the same, are competent enough to meet with contemporary challanges, here in literature and drama, as explained by the great Abhinavagupta inspired by the greatest Anandavardhana, for the present. The rasa-theory, in fact, covers all art-forms, whatever; practiced either in hoary past or rabid present or as will be practiced in the golden and divine future of humanity in general and art in particular.

Page #419

Chapter XVII
"Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammața, (= M.),
some others, and Jagannatha. (= J.)"
It may be noted at the outset that practically all writers have followed the lead of Ananda-vardhana and Abhinavagupta in explaining the fact of rasa, those who had striken a different note, such as Kuntaka, Mahima, Dhananjaya-Dhanika and Bhoja and some others such as the auther of the Agni-Purana, Ramchandra, Gunacandra, and also śāradātanaya and to some extent Sagaranandin and also "Singabhūpāla have been taken care of in an earier chapter. Even some of those who perfectly or mostly followed the lead of Abhinavagupta and Mammața, such as Acarya Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyānātha, Jayadeva and Viśvanatha have also been thoroughly examined in the same chapter, No. XV, in which their views on rasa, and also Anandavardhana and others posterior to him, are discussed in great detail. What remains therefore in this chapter to be done is to place clearly the ideas of Mammața who has neatly presented Abhinavagupta's view and of Jagannatha, who as usual has always something original to contribute in any topic concerning Sanskrit literary criticism.
In the fourth chapter of his Kavya-prakāśa (=K. P.), Mammața (=M.) deals with the divisions and sub-divisions of what he terms "dhvani-kavya". While treating vivakṣitányapara-vacya-dhvani i.e. the variety where the expressed sense is intended and yet refers to another meaning, he comes to treat rasa-dhvani, which concerns itself with suggested sense without perceptible sequence (=asamlakṣya-krama). M-takes care to note that by the expression, viz. "alaksya." etc. i.e. "whitout perceptible sequence, what is implied is that 'rasa' is not identical with vibhāvā"di-s, but it is suggested or manifested through vibhāvā"di-s, but the sequence is so fast that it is not noticed at all. But the sequence between the realization of vibhāvā"di-s and rasa is very much there "na khalu vibhāvánubhava-vyabhicāriņa eva rasaḥ, api tu rasas tair ity asti kramaḥ, sa tu na laksyate." (vṛtti, on K. P. IV. 25).

Page #420

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammața and Jagannātha
1595 K. P. IV. 26 observes that this rasā"di dhvani, with sequence not noticed therein, consists of such varieties as-rasa, bhāva, rasā”bhāsa, bhāvā"bhāsa, bhāva-śānti etc. All these patterns are different from the figures such as rasavat, etc. (rasady alamkārād bhinnah), for they, i.e. rasa, bhāva etc. are "alamkārya" i.e. "to be adorned", while rasavat and such other emotion based figures are alamkāra-s, i.e. adornments that serve the cause of the principal sentence-sense.
With this Mammata sets himself to explain the fact of rasa, the birth of rasa, how the cognition of rasa is exclusive to the field of art, i.e. how it is "sui generis", and how other cognitions differ from rasa-apprehension. He observes at K. P. IV. 27, 28 :
"kāraṇāny atha kāryāņi sahakārīņi yāni ca, ratyādeḥ sthāyino loke, tāni cen nārya-kāvyayoḥ- (IV. 27) vibhāvā anubhāvās' ca kathyante vyabhicāriņaḥ, vyaktaḥ sa tair vibhāvā"dyaiḥ
sthāyī bhāvaḥ rasaḥ smộtaḥ.” (IV. 28) i.e. The causes, effects and auxiliaries of the basic mental state, such as love, as seen in the world, are found in poetry and drama, and they are termed determinants, consequents and transitories respectively. The basic permanent emotion manifested by these factors such as determinants etc., is known as “rasa.”
It may be noted here that there is a difference in nature and scope between the worldly emotion i.e. laukika-sthāyin and the suggested sthāyin or abhivyakta sthāyin as seen in poetry or drama (or, say, any art; dance, music, painting etc.). So, rasa is "sthāyi-vilaksana" i.e. "laukika-sthāyi-vilaksana" and is different in nature, as it is made of a cognition made of extra-ordinary joy-"anandamayasamvit-svarūpa” as we will go to observe. Mammața follows Abhinavagupta in all aspects of this topic of rasa and rasa-nispatti.
M. begins this discussion by quoting the famous rasa-sútra from Bharata-viz. "vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicari-samyogād rasa-nispattih." It may be noted that though Anandavardhana's views are also rasa-oriented, he has never cared either to define rasa, or discuss the process of the birth of rasa. He has kept away from it taking it for granted that the learned are fairly conversant with the text of Bharata and the learned commentaries on the Nātya-Šāstra that had preceded him (i.e.

Page #421

1596
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Ānandavardhana). But as Mammata comes after Abhinavagupta who had stalled the storm of various views on rasa-nispatti, M. thinks it advisable to put straight all these ideas and declare his support to Abhinavagupta in unequivocal terms. The reasons, why M. was guided to register Abhinavagupta's views firmly once again was perhaps because a host of great thinkers including Bhatt Nāyaka who was mentioned by Abhinavagupta and others who followed him had picked up great quarrel with the theory of vyañjanā. Mahimā, Dhananjaya and Dhanika opposed it tooth and nail, while Bhoja did not come out openly for rasā”bhivyakti-vāda. It was then left to M. to place the last nail in the coffin by rejecting everything that went against Abhinavagupta's views.
So, quoting the rasa-sūtra of Bharata, M. discusses various views on the process of rasa-realization as recorded both in the Locana and also the A.bh. on the Nā.Śā. It may be noted that M. has presented all views in a comparatively lesser space but with equal success as compared to Abhinavagupta's efforts. At times M. shows finer analysis also of the views of the ancients. For example, M. has neatly analysed the view of Lollața. This is clearer as compared to even the presentation of Abhinavagupta himself for the A.bh. does explain that Bhatta Lollata favoured “upaciti” of rasa. M. goes a step further and also explains how this final "upaciti”nourishment-is brought about by the three factors viz. vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāri-bhāva, each having a specialised role to play in this process of “rasanispatti” or, “rasa-utpatti.” Thus, M. explains that the stāyin is caused by the vibhāva-s. i.e. the vibhāva-s and sthāyin have a cause-effect relationship. Sthāyi (janya) is related to vibhāva-s (janaka) by a-“janya-janaka-bhāva-sambandha”. Then, this sthāyin which is caused by the vibhāva-s has a different interaction with the anubhāva-s. The anubhāva-s make us known, or infer the existence of the sthāyin. Thus there is "gamya-gamaka-bhāva-sambandha" or "anumāpyaanumāpaka-bhāva-sambandha” between the sthāyin and the anubhāva-s. The sthāyin is inferred with the help of the anubhāva-s i.e. consequents. The vyabhicārin-s also have a different role to paly. They make for the enhancement or nourishment - "pus-ti” of the sthāyin which is caused by the vibhāva-s. Thus, between the sthāyin and the vyabhicārin, there is the relation of “posya-posakabhāva-sambandha". M. explains that the sthāyin, thus caused, inferred and nourished by the vibhāva-s, anubhāva-s and vyabhicărin-s respectively is termed rasa in its state of upaciti-or enhancement. Thus upaciti is explained as the sum total of birth, inference and nourishment of the sthāyin. It is in its ‘upacita' state, that the sthāyin is termed "rasa", observes Bhatta Lollata.

Page #422

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1597 M. goes a step further, following Abhinavagupta. M. explains that for Lollata this rasa resides primarily in the 'anukārya' i.e. Rāma and other historical personages who are to be imitated by the 'anukartā', the actor or imitator. It should be understood that 'Rāma' is cited as an illustration of "anukārya". But as the name is familiar with us as the hero of Rāmāyana, we should not rush to a conclusion that Lollata refers only to a historical character here. Actually he can be anyone; i.e. Rāma of the Rāmāyana or Rāma of the poet's imagination, a Rāmaņalal, or Rāmbhai, or anyone. But he is a character of a dramatic piece who is imitated by the actor or artist. Lollata holds that rasa is found first in this 'anukāya' i.e. character imitated and then rasa is found also elsewhere. M. records that according to Lollaţa, rasa is also found located in "anukartari ca națe”, i.e. 'and also in the actor who imitates (the original character)'. M. says rasa is also apprehended or perceived, -pratīyate-in the anukartā nata. This is because the actor has assumed the role of the anukārya, or original character. The words that record this situation of rasa in the actor or artist require special attention as Dr. K. C. Pandey has taken the word "pratīyate" in a special sense and has objected to the
on made by M., suggesting that he has not remained faithful to his master Abhinavagupta and has injected his own twist in the view of Lollata. Lollata's view is presented by Mammața in the following words :- (vștti, K. P. IV. 28) – (pp. 64, edn. R. C. Dwivedi, ibid)
"vibhāvair lalanódyānā"dibhir alambanóddīpana-kāraṇaiḥ sthāyī ratyā"diko bhāvo janitaḥ, anubhāvaiḥ kațākşa-bhujáksepa-prabhrtibhiḥ kāryaiḥ pratītiyogyah krtah, vyabhicāribhir nirveda" dibhih sahakaribhirupacito mukhyayā vrttyā rāmādāv anukārye, tadrūpatánusamdhānān nartaképi pratīyamāno rasa iti bharțaLollața-prabhịtayah."
(Trans. R. C. Dwivedi pp. 65, ibid)-“The basic emotion, such as love, brought about by determinants, women, gardens, and the like, which are (respectively) the substrate and stimulating causes, rendered apprehensible by the ensuants, namely; effects, such as the side-glance, and the tossing of arms and augmented by transitories, viz. auxiliaries such as self-disparagement, consitutes rasa which primarily exists in the character to be represented, such as Rāma, but which is also
account of the assumption of his role. This is the view of Bhatta Lollaţa and others.”
We know that Sanskrit commentators explain “rūpánusamdhāna" as "āropa” or "abhimāna", and Dr. K. C. Pandey suggests the technical meaning of "Yojana" a pratyabhijñā-darśana terminology, for this.

Page #423

1598
SAHṚDAYALOKA
But what we object to is Dr. Pandey's observation concerning "nartaképi ca pratīyamānaḥ." He feels that M. has tampered with the original text and has added "pratīyamānaḥ", dragging in the sāmājika. He feels that Lollata has no idea of the 'sāmājika' sharing rasánubhuti and here by "nartaképi pratīyamānaḥ", indirectly the sāmājika is brought in. We strongly object to this. True, M. has explained 'upaciti' in three ways concerning the vibhāvā"di-s and even this was not read in the A.bh. But it is very much implied in the A.bh. In the same way the A.bh. has clearly suggested that the "anubhava-s" included in the Bharata-sutra are to be taken as "bhāvānām anubhavaḥ"; for the resultant anubhavas following a rasánubhuti cannot be included in the sutra which explains the 'cause' element of, rasa. This means that Lollata was conscious of the resultant anubhava-s, which are "effects" of rasa. Naturally they are spotted in the sāmājika who has a rasa-experience. Thus, Lollata is absolutely conscious about a sāmājika undergoing rasa-experience. He is not "unknown" to Lollata. So, Dr. Pandey's talk of M. twisting the text of the A.bh. -to accomodate for the sāmājika, falls flat. We have observed earlier while dealing with the A.bh. that Lollata seems to favour a line of thinking which is in favour of (laukika)-"sthāyī eva rasaḥ", and he seems to accept 'rasa' at worldly context level also when he accepts rasa to be "anukarya-gata", and therefore, perhaps he i.e. Lollata also advocated the "sukha-duḥkhā”tmakatva" of rasa.
Śrī. Śankuka's views are also presented by M. in a brief but clearer presentation Śrī. Śankuka advocates a theory of rasa having two stages; the first stage is 'anukṛti' on the part of the actor, followed by the second stage when a sāmājika infers (anumita) a given basic emotion in the actor who is taken as a given character, say, Rama and the like; the apprehension here being peculiar to art and hence beautiful and falling beyond the range of cognitions such as distinct or samyak, i.e. valid, or invalid (mithya), or doubtful (samsaya) or analogical (i.e. sādṛśyamulaka). The actor is taken as Rama by the Samajika who then infers the emotion of Rāma in the actor who is taken as Rāma. This inference of the imitated emotion is termed 'rasa' by Śrī. Śankuka, for whom the acceptance of the actor as Rāma by the sāmājika, then the artificial presentation of artificial vibhāvā❞di-s taken as genuine by the sāmājika on account of the actor's competence, and the imagined emotion itself are all basically false but they are covered up so beautifully by artful presentation that they look genuine-"kṛtrimaiḥ api tatha anabhimanyamānaiḥ." Śrī. Šankuka thus directly connects the sāmājika with rasa. The sāmājika was only indirectly implied as having rasa-experience in Lollata's presentation. Again, as M. presents, it is made absolutely clear that the inference here is also beautiful on

Page #424

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammața and Jagannātha
1599 account of the inherent beauty of the whole matter concerned : "anumīyamānópi vastu-saundryabalad rasaniyatvena anyánumāna-vilaksanah sthāyitvena sambhāvyamāno ratyā"diko bhāvaḥ tatra asan api sāmājikānām vāsanaya carvyamāṇah rasaḥ.”-“Because of the relation of the type of the inferred and the inferential mark (with vibhāva-s, etc.) rasa, though inferred, is yet distinct from the other objects of infernce on account of its being relishable through its power of inherent charm. Rasa is that emotion considered to be permanent, which though non-existent in him (i.e. the actor) is yet being relished by men of taste." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 67, ibid). .
Bhatça Nāyaka's view is also neatly presented by M.,of course very briefly in the words : (pp. 68, ibid) :
“na tāțasthyena, ná”tmagatatvena rasaḥ pratīyate, nótpadyate, nábhivyajyate, api tu, kāvyenātye cábhidhāto dvitiyena vibhāvā"di-sādhāranīkaranā"tmanā bhāvakarva-vyāpāreņa bhāvyamānah sthāyī, sattvódreka-prakāśā"nandamayasamvid-viśrānti-satattvena bhogena bhujyata iti bharța-nāyakaḥ.” R. C. Dwivedi translates (pp. 69, ibid) :
"Neither by neutrality (i.e. being related to the actor and the real hero-and we may add, 'a third person'.) nor by a reference to one's own self (i.e. The man of taste-"taken individually", - we may add), rasa is cognised, produced or revealed; but in poetry and drama the basic emotion, universalised by the emotive function (bhāvakarva vyāpāra), different from expression (i.e. denotation and indication), and constituting in the impersonalisation of the determinant, etc., is enjoyed by (a process of) relish which is of the nature of repose in consciousness abounding in enlightenment and bliss due to predominance of the sattva. Thus holds Bhatta Nāyaka.”
We have analysed this view thread-bare while going through the A.bh. and it needs no repetition here.
M. who follows the view of Abhinavagupta presents the abhivyakti-vāda almost in the same words as those read in the A.bh. M. writes : (pp. 68, 69, ibid) :
"loke pramadā"dibhiḥ kāraṇā”dibhiḥ sthāyy anumāne abhyāsa-pāțava-vatām kāvye nātye ca tair eva kāranatvā"di-parihārena vibhāvanā"di-vyāpāravattvād alaukika-vibhāvā"di sabda-vyavahāryair mamaivaite, śatrorevaite, taţasthasyaivaite, na mamaivaite, na śatrorevaite, na tatasthayaivaite iti sambandha-višeşa-svīkāraparihāra-niyama-anadhyavasāyāt, sadhāranyena pratītair abhivyaktah, sāmājikānām vāsanā”tmatayā sthitaḥ sthāyī ratyā”diko, niyata-pramātņgatatvena sthitópi

Page #425

1600
SAHRDAYĀLOKA sādhāranyópāya-balāt tatkāla-vigalita-parimita-pramātstva-vasónmișita-vedyảntarasamparka-sūnyá parimita-bhāvena pramātrā, sakala-sahrdayabhājā sādhāranyena, svā”kāra ivábhinnópi gocarīkstaś carvyamāņạtaika-prāņo, vibhāvā”di-Jīvitāvadhiḥ, pānaka-rasa-nyāyena carvyamāṇaḥ pura iva parisphuran, hțdayam iva pravišan, sarvanginam iva alingan, anyat sarvam iva tirodadhat brahmā"svādam iva anubhāvayan a-laukika-camatkāra-kārī śộngārā"diko rasaḥ."
R.C. Dwivedi translates - (pp. 67, 71, ibid) :- “In common life, the men of taste are possessed of proficiency by repeated observation, in inferring the basic emotion. through women and the like. i.e. through causes, etc. In poetry and drama, the same (causes etc.) are designated by the words determinants, etc., by giving up
ity, etc., and because of possessing the pervading function and the like (vibhāvanā"di-vyāpāra). These (vibhāvā"di-s, etc.) are cognised in universal character on account of non-apprehension of the rule of acceptance or rejection of a particular relation as (illustrated) in (the following): . These indeed are mine; these indeed, are of the opponent; these, indeed are of the neutral; these indeed are not mine, these indeed are not of the opponent; and these, are not of the neutral.
Thus apprehended the basic emotion, love, etc., is situated in the spectator in the form of impression. Although it (the basic emotion) exists as belonging to the particular connoisseur, but on account of the power of universalising process the rasa, though non-different as one's own self, is yet experienced universaly by a connoisseur, sharing the correspondence of heart (or aesthetic sensibility) with all, in whom becomes manifest a state of limitlessness free from the contact of any other object of cognition arising from the immediate cessation of the limited character of a cogniser. Having relish (tasting) as its supreme essence, having its life coeval with determinants etc., being enjoyed as a delicious beverage, throbbing as it were; embracing as it were, the entire being; overpowering as if everything else; producing an experience akin to the taste of ultimate Reality (Brahman), and effecting an extra-ordinary charm-such is Rasa, śrngāra, etc."
M. also, following Abhinavagunta enters into an epistemological analysis of rasaperception, observes rasa is not of the form of an effect (sa ca na kāryah), for effects have a tendency to continue even when their causes cease to exist. Thus rasa, if it were an effect, would continue ever after the disappearance of vibhāvā"dis. But as
ch rasa-parception is "pari-passu" with the continuation of vibhāvā"dis. Rasa is neither cognised (nápi jñāpyah), for it is not a 'siddha', i.e. (pūrva-siddha) an entity already accomplished prior to the function of the vibhāvā"di-s. On the contrary, rasa

Page #426

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1601
is something to be relished after it is manifested through the agency of the determinants, etc. If it is asked, "where have you seen anything which is different from both the material and manifesting cause ?", (kāraka-jñāpakābhyām anyat kva drsam iti cet), the answer is, "this is seen nowhere." And not being ever seen anywhere is an adoration and not a blemish, for it proves the non-ordinary nature of rasa (a-laukikarva-siddher bhūsanam etat, na dūsanam). Rasa may be called to be "an effect" only metaphorically, as the process of relishing comes into being.
After Abhinavagupta, M. further observes that Rasa may be spoken of as cognisable (pratyeyópi abhidhīyatām), as it is the object of extra-ordinary selfconsciousness, which is distinct in nature from (i) The empirical knowledge (laukika-pratyaksa), perceptual and the like, and also distinct from (ii) The knowledge of yogins in primary stage, which is possessed of analytic knowledge, i.e. from cognition without active participation (tāțasthya) of the thoughts of others, which is proper to the direct perception of the yogins, and is also, distinct from (iii) the perfect yogin's entirely self reposed experience, free from the contact of any object of cognition, i.e. perception of the yogins of the higher order. The mode of proof cognising it (tad-grāhakam ca pramānam) is not indeterminate (nirvikalpa) as it is characterised by the consideration of vibhāvā"di-s. It is not even determinate, = (sa-vikalpa) as rasa is being relished, and it abounds in extra-ordinary delight and is known to exist from its own consciousness (sva-samvedana-siddharvāt).
The character of rasa-perception, consisting of the negation of both (i.e. determinate and indeterminate modes of proof), and yet being characterised by both, suggests as before, its extra-ordinariness, without any contradiction (-pūrvavallokottara-tām avagamayati, na tu virodham). This is the opion of Abhinavaguptapāda. M. follows him absolutely.
Here ends M.'s analysis of the process of rasa-realization.
We will now turn to Jagannātha (= J.) as all other leading authorities in this field of literary aesthetics have been throughly and individually covered by us in an earlier chapter.
Jagannātha also basically follows the view of Abhinavagupta but he has so many new things to report.
We have observed earlier that J. has given a five-fold division of dhvani. Rasadhvani is one of the five types of dhvani. He observes : (pp. 64, Edn., Athavale ibid)-:
"evam pañcā"tmake dhvanau parama-ramaniyatayā rasa-dhvanes tad ātmā rasas tāvad abhidhiyate"

Page #427

·
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
With this brief note he explains the nature of rasa, of course following the lead of Abhinavagupta and Mammața. J. observes (pp. 64, ibid)
"samucita-lalita-sanniveśa-cāruṇā kāvyena samarpitaiḥ, sahṛdaya-hṛdayam pravistaiḥ, tadīya-sahṛdayată-saha-kṛtena bhāvanā-viśeṣa-mahimnā, vigalitadusyanta-ramaṇītvā”dibhir alaukika-vibhāvá-nubhāva-vyabhicāriśabda-vyapadesyaiḥ. śakuntaladibhir alambana-kāraṇaiḥ, candrikā"dibhir uddīpana-kāraṇaiḥ, aśrupātā❞dibhiḥ kāryaiḥ, cinta"dibhiḥ sahakāribhiś ca, sambhūya prādurbhāvitena alaukikena vyāpāreṇa, tatkāla-nivartitā”-nandāmśā”varaṇájñānena ata eva, pramusta-parimita-pramātṛtvä"di-nija-dharmeņa pramātra, sva-prakāśatayā vāstavena nija-svarūpā"nandena saha gocarīkriyamāṇaḥ prag-vinivista-vāsanārupo ratyā"dir eva rasaḥ."
The substance of this presentation is-(i) When a beautiful piece of poetry or drama is read or presented, the cause etc. of rasa, i.e. vibhāvādi-s, as presented in poetry or drama enter the heart of a connoisseur. -(ii) Through the agency of these vibhāvā"di-s, an extra-ordinary function called vyañjana comes into operation. (iii) This special function called vyañana has two objectives-(a) to effect a sort of cleaning of the heart of the rasika-s. Actually, on account of attachment towards worldly matters, 'ajñāna' and 'malinya' i.e. absence of true-knowledge and obstruction (caused thereby), characterise the heart or conscience of the rasikas. Removing this 'ajñāna' and 'mālinya', the poetic function presents the inner conscience of the rasika as pure consciousness and supreme bliss. This is the first achievement of vyañjana. (ii) The second objective is to make the rasika deserve the taste of rasa, manifested, in his heart. The idea is that the 'rasa' produced by kavya or natya is of the form of 'ātmā"nanda'. i.e. bliss of the soul. Tasting this 'ātmā"nanda', the rasika is carried away by beatitude. This tasting or rasa is the result of the enhancement of the basic emotion -sthayin-already present in the heart of the rasika, in form of 'vāsana' i.e. impressions from the past birth. This vāsanā in form of sthayin becomes an object of rasika's taste due to the vyañjanā-vyāpāra resulting from the vibhāvā"di-s. In this taste the ātmā"nanda of the rasika gets mixed up. So, this sthāyi-vāsanā takes the form of rasa; i.e. of the form of "ananda" itself. The idea is that the rasa which is an object of the rasika's taste is not the rasa belonging to such characters as Dusyanta and the like, portrayed in poetry or drama. But it is of the form of tasting of the inborn impressions carried in the heart by the Sa-hrdaya. But the same sthāyin getting enhanced through the agency of causes etc. that effect feeling etc. in the heart of Duayanta, reaches the state of rasa in the rasika's heart.
1602

Page #428

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1603 The hero, heroine etc. that are seen on the stage perform acting. Through this acting, i.e. through the agency of the vibhāvā"di-complex, the sthāyin in the h of the rasika is roused to the capacity of rasa and this is a "Camatkāra" or "a divine wonder" in itself. Precisely because of this, the function viz. vyañjanā, caused by the vibhāvā"di-s presented through poetry or drama, is termed extra-ordinary.
J. proceeds to explain this topic in the light of what Mammaa has stated. He observes :- (pp. 64, 65, ibid)
-"tath, ca āhuh-"yyaktah sa tair vibhāvā"dvaih sthāvi-bhāvo rasah smrtah." iti. vyakto vyakti-visayīkrtah. vyaktiś ca bhagnā"varanā cit. yathā hi sarāvā"dinā pihito dīpas tan nivṛttau sannihitän padārthan prakāśayati, svayam ca prakāśate, evam atma-caitanyam vibhāvā"di-samvalitān ratyādīn. antahkarana-dharmāņām sākşibhāsyatvábhyupagateh. vibhāvā"dīnām api svapna-turagā"dīnām iva rangarajatā"dīnām iva vā sākṣi-bhāsyatvam a-viruddham. vyañjaka-vibhāvā”di-carvaņāyā ävarana-bhangasya vā utpatti-vināśābhyam utpatti-vināśe rase upacaryete, varnanityatāyām iva vyañjaka-tālvā"di-vyāpārasya gakārā"dau. vibhāvā"dicarvanávadhitvad āvarana-bhangasya, nivsttāyām tasyām prakāśasya āvstarvād, vidyamānópi sthāyī na prakāśate.'
The idea is-Mammața has abready stated – “vyaktaḥ sa tair vibhāvādyaiḥ sthāyibhāvo rasaḥ smrtaḥ.”
Here 'vyaka' means through the agency of vyañjanā. 'vyakti' or manifestation means the consciousness, the lid covering which is removed. This means pure consciousness, the self of the sāmājika, which is of the nature of beatitude. Like a lamp which presents itself as well as the objects, when the lid covering the lamp is removed, in the same way, the self-consciousness of the connoisseur reveals the sthāyin along with the vibhāvā"di-s, and also reveals itself. The ratyā"di sthāyin-s are the qualities of the conscience as they are of the form of vāsanā or impressions. The antah karana-dharma is manifested by self-consciousness -ātma-caitanya.' Thus ratya"di-s are sāksi-bhāsya and this is accepted by all alamkarikas and not just by the vedāntin-s. Now the vibhāvā"di-s are not the qualities of soul and yet they are manifested by self and there is nothing wrong in this. Just as there is nothing wrong when a horse seen in a dream becomes sākṣi-bhāsya or silver in rags becomes sāksi-bhāsya in a dream, same is the case with vibhāvā"di-s becoming sākṣi-bhāsya. The process of relishing-carvanā-starts and ends and hence rasa also is said to be caused and destroyed, metaphorically. The removal of the lid in form of ignorance is ‘pari passu' with the carvaņā or aesthetic chewing of vibhāvā”di-s.
So, when tasting or carvaņā ends, the manifestation of sthāyin also ends.

Page #429

1604
SAHRDAYĀLOKA J. here suggests an alternative also :
"yad vā vibhāvā"di-carvanā-mahimnā sahrdayasya nija-sahrdayatāvasonmişitena tat tat-sthayyupahita-sva-svarūpā”nandā"kārā samādhāv iva yogina'ś citta-vrttir upajāyate; tanmayıbhavanam iti yāvat. ānandóhyayam na laukika-sukhāntara sādhāraṇaḥ. antahkarana-vrtti-rūpatvāt. ittham ca abhinavagupta-mammatabhattā"di-grantha-svārasyena, bhagnā"varaņā cid-viśisto ratyā"dih sthāyi bhāvo rasa iti sthitam."
Or, it can be said that through the tasting of vibhāvā"di, (i.e. without dragging in between the alaukika-vyāpāra, but just directly) the basic emotion of the sahrdaya, along with the help of the quality of sahşdayatā, becomes one with the beatitude which is of the form worthy of the enhanced sthāyin. This means that the citta-vrtti itself becomes ananda-maya i.e. one with beatitude. As it happens with the yogin in sa-vikalpa-samādhi, the yogin's mental attitude makes brahmā"nanda its object, i.e. it does not get merged absolutely with brahma,but makes brahmā"nanda -its object, in the same way, in rasa-prakriyā also, the mental state makes the bliss along with the sthāyin, its object. It does not get merged totally into the bliss. Thus the rasika is in a way conscious of the fact that he is enjoying. But this enjoyment is not similar to ordinary happiness, for this 'ānanda' is not of the form of mental state of happiness but is of the form of the soul or consciousness itself.
Thus, observes J., looking at the substance of what Abhinavagupta and Mammata and the rest have written, 'rasa' is ratyādi itself, qualified by selfconsciousness, the lid (of ignorance) over which is removed.
But J. has some further observations concerning the above view. He observes that intead of saying, "bhagnāvarana-cid-višisto ratyadih sthāyi bhāvo rasah," - it is advisable to say that :- "vastutas tu vakşyamāņa-śruti-svārasyena ratyā"dy avacchinnā bhagnā”varaņā cid eva rasah-” i.e. looking at the substance of the śrūti, to be quoted next, actually the consciousness itself, removed of covering, and qualified by ratyā"di is itself rasa.” In place of 'cid-viśişa -ratyā"di' being taken as rasa, here "ratyā"di-viśisā cit eva rasah" is accepted.
This rasa is of a special nature. Whether the consciousness is taken either as viśeşana or višesya, rasa is ‘nitya' and also 'sva-prakāśa' i.e. self-luminous viewed from the point of view of the 'caitanya-amśa'. But at the same time it becomes 'anitya' and 'itara-bhāsya' when looked at from the 'ratyā"di-amśa.' The relish or tasting means just the removal of the covering of consciousness. Or, it is already stated beforehand, that the mental state of conscience which takes the form of

Page #430

in.
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1605 ratyādi is itself carvaņā or tasting. This rasa-carvaņā is different in nature from the taste of para-brahma in the state of samadhi. Thus it is different from sa-vikalpasamadhi, because the caitanyā"nanda or joy of consciousness which is associated with vibhāvā"di-s that are objects, is the 'ālambana' here. The idea is that in savikalp samadhi pure brahman, which is free from any external object, is the ālambana or source. In rasa-carvanā, however this is not the case because external objects in form of vibhāvādi-s walk in.
This relish or tasting or carvaņā is caused by vyañjanā which is the function of poetry (i.e. poetic word) : “bhāvyā ca kāvya-vyāpāra-mātrāt.” Now, if it is asked as to what is the proof of the existence of beatitnde in this carvanā of rasa, then our reply is : "What is the proof of the existence of bliss in samadhi either? If you say that the Gītā-vākya viz. “sukham ātyantikam yat tad buddhi-grāhyam atíndriyam” is a pramāņa for us, then we have also two pramāna-s to prove blissful nature of rasa-carvanā, and they are - (i) The śrutivākya viz. "raso vai sah...", and (ii) The direct experience to the effect of the connoisseur himself. J, ends the discussion here with the remark : (pp. 65, ibid) : “yéyam dvitīya-pakse tad ākāra-citta-výtty-ātmikā rasa-carvaņópanyastā sā sabda-vyāpāra-bhāvyatvāc châbdi. aparoksasukhā”lambanatvāc ca aparoksā”tmikā. tattvam vākyaja-buddhivat; ityā”hur. abhinavaguptā"cārya-pādāḥ."
-This is the view of Ācārya Abhinavagupta-pāda.
J. now presents the view of Bhatta-Nāyaka, who held that if rasa-pratīti is caused to the sāmājika in form of a third-party i.e."tātasthyena", then it will not result in tasting or "āsvāda." Bhatta Nāyaka argues that if it is said that rasa caused by vibhāvā"di in form of Sakuntalā is at personal level, so the sămājika can have taste, the reply is that Śakuntalā etc. are not the vibhāvas of the sāmājika at all. Rasapratīti can not take place without the support-ālambana-of vibhāva-s, and here the vibhāvas cannot be related personally to the sāmājika. It again cannot be observed that here ‘kāntātva' in a generalized form serves as a vibhāva for the sămājika for the 'avacchedaka-dharma' due for anything to become a vibhāva, should have the following qualities :- for example, in the avacchedaka dharma of śộngāra, there should be an absence of the sense of, "this lady is a-gamyā for me” in the alambanavibhāva. The absence of the consciousness of 'a-gamyātva' with reference to the heroine, can only make her proper vibhāva. The jñāna or perception in form of "Sakuntalā is agamyā for me" will be pratiyogi with reference to the required absence of such consciousness. Thus even in form of "generalized kantā” Sakuntalā

Page #431

1606
SAHRDAYĀLOKA can not be the object of love personally for a sāmājika, for “that she is a-gamyā” is a consciousness that will continue to linger in the mind of the sāmājika.
If this is not accepted, i.e. if 'absence of agamyārva' is accepted, then this sort of perception will take place even with reference to one's own sister ! As in case of śộngāra quoted above, so also in case of karuņa, the sāmājika should have a feeling that “this one cannot be the object of Soka” :-“evam a-socyatvakāpuruṣatvā”di-jñāna-virahasya tathāvidhasya karuņādau.”- observes J.
Now for arriving at the absence of the consciousness of agamyārva in case of Śakuntalā etc. a pratibandhaka-jñāna, i.e. a perception which can thwart the earlier perception is required. Now, here that the apprehension of identity of the sāmājika with Dusyanta is also not possible because the sāmājika will always carry a sort of consciousness that he lives in present and is bereft of the high qualities of Dusyanta who lived before centuries. So, he will never be able to realise an absolute identification with Dusyanta.
Now J. continues further with Bhatta Nāyaka's view,
For Bhatta Nāyaka, observes J., this apprehension of rasa as it is not caused by other means of knowledge, is not verbal or śābdī either, because, it can not be verbal. For if it is said to be sābdī, then it will be as ordinary as the narration of the story of a couple in actual life as well-“kim ca keyam pratitih ? pramāņántaraanupasthānāc chăbdi iti cet na; vyāvahārika-sabdantarajanya-nāyaka-mithunavrttanta-vittīnām iva asyāpy a-hrdyatvā" patteh.” (pp. 65, 66, ibid)
Bhatta Nāyaka observes that this rasa-apprehension is also not a mānasi-pratīti, for there is difference in nature between an apprehension caused by mental effort and apprehension of the vibhāvā"di-s. : nápi mānasi. cintópanitānām tesām eva padárthānām mānasyāḥ pratiter asyāḥ vailaksanyópalambhāt.
This rasa-apprehension, according to Bhatta Nayaka, is not of the form of smrti or memory also, as the objects of rasa-pratīti are not 'pūrvánubhūta' i.e. are not experiend prior to the said moment, i.e. are not ever experienced in the past.
So, J. says, according to Bhatta Nāyaka,-there is a function called 'bhāvakatva' or revelation.. The objects, as denoted by the power of denotation (abhidhā), get free from such perception as "a-gamyā", etc. on the strength of this bhāvakarva', and these objects get their qualities of "kāntātva" etc. promoted by this function. Thus they are presented before the sāmājika, through bhāvakarva. Dusyanta Sakuntalā etc. are placed in a generalized form before the sāmājika by their desa, kāla, vayah etc.presented in a favourable way. After this the bhāvakarva function

Page #432

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammața and Jagannātha
1607 fades away and a third function called "bhoga-krttva" i.e. the process of relish, prevails. Through the power of this function, rajas and tamas get subdued to sattva which becomes prominent and this sattva helps create a sāksātkāra, a sort of direct experience of enjoyment. This sākṣātkāra is of the form of resting viśrānti-in ānanda or beatitude which is of the form of self-consciousness. This sāksātkāra has for its object "ratyā”di which is of a generalized form, which itself is "rasa”.- Here ratyā"di which is enjoyed or tasted or the enjoyment (bhoga) of ratyā"di is termed rasa. As this bhoga i.e. āsvāda is mixed with the object it is termed as “equivalent” -"savidha" to brahmā"svāda. Thus for Bhatta Nāyaka kāvya is gifted with three functions viz. abhidhā, bhāvanā and "bhogi-krti". The only difference between this view and the earlier view is that here a fresh function called "bhāvakatva” is imagined. Rest is the same, for example 'bhoga' is not different from vyañjanā, for both have ratyā"di as an object. We know that in the Abh. 'bhāvakatva' is explained by Abhinavagupta as just the presence of guņas and alamkāras and absence of dosa-s in poetry, and the four-fold acting in drama. So he had no requirement to postulate 'bhāvakatva' to arrive at sādhāranīkarana.
Jagannātha now presents the views of those whom he calls the "navya-s”. Though J. is almost committed to Abhinavagupta and Mammata, his leaning more towards this view of the Navya-s, is also obvious. The view of the navyas is presented as follows :- (p. 66)
"navyās tu-kāvye nātye ca kavină natena ca prakāśitesu vibhāvā"disu vyañjana-vyāpāreņa dusyantā"dau śakuntalā”di-ratau grhītāyām anantaram ca sahỉdayatollāsitasya 'bhāvanā-viśeşa-rūpasya dosasya mahimnā, kalpitadusyantatvávacchadite svātmany ajñānáva-cchinne śuktikāśakala iva rajatakhandaḥ samutpadyamānó ‘nirvacanīyaḥ śākṣibhāsya-śakuntalā”di-visayakaratyā'dir eva rasaḥ-ayam ca kāryo dosa-vićeșasya.
The idea is that the New-School-thinkers proceed as follows:
In poetry and drama, the poet and actor respectively present the vibhāvā"di-s first. Then through the function called vyañjanā Dusyanta's love for Śakuntalā is suggested. Then a dosa-a blemish-called "bhāvanā-višesa" (or, special aesthetic chewing)-on the part of the sa-hrdayas starts functioning. By the force of this blemish called 'bhāvanā-višesa', on the part of the connoisseur, he, i.e. the sāmājika gets associated with qualities of Dusyanta who is imaginary. Like silver seen in the mother of pearl through ignorance, sthāyibhāva, created in the self of the sāmājika, (sthāyibhāva) the nature of which is uncertain (i.e. indescriba

Page #433

1608
SAHṚDAYALOKA
manifested by self-consciousness, i.e. one in which (imagined) Śakuntalā etc. are the object, -(such a sthāyibhāva) is rasa. As this rasa is caused by the after-said blemish viz. bhāvanā-viseṣa, it is said to be 'karya' or 'caused'. The moment the blemish (=bhāvanā-viseṣa) is removed, rasa also ends: "naśyaśca tannāśasya."
Again, "svóttara-bhāvinā lokóttarā"hladena bheda"grahāt sukha-pada-vyapadesyo bhavati- i.e. As its difference from the extra-ordinary bliss that follows it, is not grasped, rasa is said to be of the form of happiness.
Again, (pp. 66, ibid) :
sva-pūrvópasthitena ratyā"dinā tad-agrahat tad-ratitvena ekatvádhyavasanád vā vyangyo varṇaniyas' ca ucyate. avacchādakam dusyantatvam apy anirvacaniyam eva, avacchadakatvam ca ratyā"di-visiṣa-bodhe visesyatávacchedakatvam.”—
Because, either of the distinction not being grasped-the distiction between the rati or love of Śakuntala for Duṣyanta in poetry as described therein before rasa -being born in the heart of the sāmājika, or, knowing for sure that the love (described in poetry) is different and yet certainly taken as identical, this rasa in the sāmājika is said to be both suggested (vyangya) and also describable (i.e. varnya).The idea is that as rati-sthāyibhāva in poetry it is 'vyangya', but as it is an object of poetry, it is 'varnya' also.
The quality of Dusyantatva' which covers up the self of the sāmājika is also indescribable. "Avacchādakatva"-i.e. the dharma which covers the self-means when a verbal knowledge Śabda-bodha-is attempted with reference to the sāmājika, ratyā"di take the place of viseṣana (and the self of the sāmājika becomes 'visesya), and 'duşyantatva' is said to be "viseṣyávacchedaka." In plain words this means that there is an imagination on the part of the sāmājika that he is Dusyanta and that he is associated with the quality-dharma-viz. 'duşyanatatva'. This means that the sāmājika is totally covered by 'dharma' named 'duşyanta-tva'.
The navyas therefore, further note (pp. 66-67 ibid)-etena-"duṣyantā❞diniṣṭhasya ratyā"der anā"svādyatvān na rasatvam. sva-nisthaya tu tasya śakuntala"dibhir a-tat-sambandhibhiḥ katham abhivyaktiḥ ? yad api svasmin dusyanta"dy abheda-buddhis tu badha-buddhi-parāhatā" ity adikam apāstam.
This means that from the discussion as above what follows is this: "Because the sāmājika can not taste the rati or love as staying in Dusyanta, therefore the original Dusyanta-based-love can not be taken as 'rasa'. And also, if it be said that the rati in the sāmājika is suggested, then how can it be said that this rati in the sāmājika is suggested through the agency of Sakuntala etc. that has no relation whatsoever

Page #434

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1609 with the sāmājika ? If it is said that there is realised an identity of the samājika with Dusyanta, this sense of identity is destroyed by the factual knowledge on the part of the sāmājika that he is not Dusyanta."- These arguments advanced by Bhatta Nāyaka are refuted.
The Navyas say that for the ancients (i.e. Abhinavagupta) also the following is to be taken into account--
“yad api vibhāvā”dīnām sādhāranyam prācīnair uktam, tad api, kāvyena, sakuntalā"di-sabdaih śakuntalātva-prakaraka-bodha-janakaih, pratipadyamānesu śakuntalā"disu dosa-visesa-kalpanam vină dur upapadam. atóvaśya-kalpye dosavišese tenaiva svātmani dusyantā”dy abhedabuddhir api sūpapādā.”
The idea is this-The ancients (i.e. Abhinavagupta and others have advocated the sadhāranya or universalization of vibhāvā"di-s. But this sādhāranya will not stand without the projection of a special blemish-(vićişa-dosa-kalpanā.). This special blemish is to be imagined with reference to Śakuntalā etc., that are presented by poetry made of words.
The idea can be expanded as follows-It is a fact that Śakuntalā in poetry or drama is not as real as original Śakuntalā. This means Śakuntalā portrayed in poetry or drama is a creation of imagination, i.e.it is imaginary. Now without - accepting this blemish of "ābhāsatva” or “kalpitatva” or “being imaginary”, with reference to Sakuntalā in poetry or drama, these ladies i.e. Sakuntalā or whichever others, can not be an alambana-vibhāva for the sāmājika. This fact has to be accepted even by the ancients, i.e. Abhinavagupta and others. So, even they cannot escape the situation of accepting some sort of blemish with reference to Sakuntala of poetry or drama. Without accepting this dosa, we cannot justify the sādhāranya of vibhāva-s such as Sakuntalā. In view of this, what harm is there, with us the Navīna-s, who, in order to justify the love of the sāmājika with reference to Sakuntalā, resort to an explanation that, through bhrānti or error,-a dosa- the sāmājika believes that, “I am Dusyanta" ? If the prācīna-s believe in one type of dosa, the navīna-s project another type of dosa, instead. This is the only difference between the two.
J. further describes the view of the Navīna-s as follows : (pp. 67, ibid) :
“nanv evam api rates tu nāma dusyanta iva sa-hțdayépi sukha-višeșa-janakatā, karuņa-rasā”dişu tu sthāyinaḥ sókā”der duḥkha-janakatayā prasiddhasya katham iva sahrdayā"hlada - hetutvam ? praty uta nāyaka iva sa-hrdayépi duhkhajananasyaiva aucityāt.

Page #435

1610
SAHRDAYĀLOKA na ca satyasya sókā"der duḥkha-janakatvam klrptam, na kalpitasya, iti nāyakānām eva duhkham, na sahrdayasya iti vācyam. rajju-sarpā"der bhayakampā”dy anutpādakatā”-patteḥ.” sahsdaye rater api kalpitatvena sukhajanakatánupapattes' ca;
iti cet -- The idea is this-there is a possibility of some doubt here-It is this.- “If, for
e, we accept that as in case of Dusyanta, on account of rati for Sakuntala, the sahrdaya also feels a special type of happiness, then, how can śoka which is the sthāyibhāva of karuna cause happiness in the sahrdaya ? On the contrary, when it (=śoka) creates unhappiness in the hero, it is appropriate to believe that it will create unhappiness in the sahrdaya also. Now, if someone argues against this that it is true that from real soka unhappiness is caused, but it is not true to say that from imagined śoka (as in poetry or drama), duhkha or unhappiness is felt. “This means that the hero in poetry may feel unhappiness, but the sahệdaya does not feel the sameway." But to say this is not true. For, if we believe that imagined unhappy situation does not create unhappiness, then we will have to accept that imagined serpant in a rope does not cause fear, trembling etc. Again, even ratya"di which are only imagined in case of the sa-hrdaya, will fail to cause him happiness."
Now J.'s reply to these miśra-ānanda-vādin-s, (i.e. those who believe in sukha in one context and duḥkha in the opposite)-is as follows :
(pp. 67, ibid) :- "satyam, śộngāra-pradhāna-kāvyebhya iva karuņa-pradhanakāvyebhyó 'pi yadi kevalā”hlāda eva sa-hrdaya-pramāņakaḥ, tadā, kāryánurodhena karanasya kalpanīyatvāl lokóttara-kavya-vyāpārasya eva āhlāda-prayojakatvam iva duḥkha-pratibandhakatvam api kalpanīyam
True, says J.; if as the śộngāra-pradhāna kāvya causes happiness in the same way karuņa-pradhāna-kavya also causes happiness-is borne out by the experience of the sahrdaya-s, then in that case from the effect in form of pure bliss its cause, viz. karuņa-pradhāna-kavya, also has to be imagined. This means that the pure bliss experienced by the sahrdaya has for its cause poetry which is karuna-pradhāna. This sort of situation has to be imagined for sure. Then in that case it will have to be admitted that by extra-ordinary poetry just as pure bliss is caused in the same way unhappiness is also thwarted. But if on the other hand it is believed that the karunapradhāna kāvya causes unhappiness, then this "duḥkha-pratibandhakarva” or capacity to thwart unhappiness, need not be imagined in case of poetry. So, it will follow that from each particular cause, a like effect, i.e. either happiness or unhappiness will be caused-"sva-sva-karanavaíăd ca ubhayam api bhavisyati."

Page #436

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1611 But in this case, these miśra-āhlādavādins will have to face a question from the pure ahlādavādins in the following manner--"(pp. 67, ibid) :
"atha tatra kavīnām kartum, sahrdayānām ca śrotum, katham pravșttih? anista-sādhanatvena nivętter ucitatvāt.” i.e. "If, kävya causes both sukha and duhkha as the case may be, then in that case why should a poet write o a sāmājika read such poetry (which also causes duḥkha) ? For, in fact, if something is found to be an instrument of unwelcome things, people would refrain from it rather than go for it
J. further observes-“If this be so", iti cet,-“istasya adhikyād anistasya ca nyunatvāc candana-drava-lepanād iva pravrtter upapatteh."- i.e. If this be so, then on account of much of it beling ista or palatable and less of it (i.e. poetry) being non-acceptable, the activity (of kavi and sahrdaya) with reference to poetry, will continue. This is illustrated by sandal paste.
But, J. agrues that for those who believe only in happiness as a result of poetry the activity will be constant in all cases.-kevala"hlāda-vādinām tu pravrttir apratyūhā eva.
We may note that this sukha-duḥkhā”tmavāda held by some critics is expressed by Siddhicandra Giņi, the authour of Kavya-prakāśa-khandana, who was preceded in this respect by Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, the authors of the Nārya-darpana, and actually a whole tradition of such a belief is perhaps hinted at even in the Nā.Šā. of Bharata. We believe that Siddhicandra was posterior, or at the most a very juniour contemporary of J. So, it is no use identifying the name of this or that alamkārika, holding this view. But the fact is that it was current in the times of J. and hence this discussion is seen here.
J. observes further that for Kevalā”hlādavādins, the anubhāva-s such as shedding of tears etc. are also caused due to the boundless joy; and not due to unhappiness. In the same vein the shedding of tears by devotees is also explained as a result of joy experienced by them. There is not even an iota of unhappiness.
But the miśra-ānandavādins have an objection to this; and the objection reads as-"If as you say, in case of karuna-rasa, the sāmājika, though he has identified with unhappy Daśaratha, enjoys bliss, then the same experience of happiness should be seen when a man either in a dream or in delirium, should feel happiness because the superimposition of Daśaratha is very much there. But the real experience is that he feels miserable in a dream or/in/delirium.

Page #437

1612
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
The reply is that it is the greatness of extra-ordinary poetic function that the palatable taste that is caused due to it is absolutely different from any worldly experience. So, the outcome is that the bhāvanā (aesthetic chewing or, emotive process) caused by poetry causes 'āsvāda'-taste which has 'rarya"di' as its subject. : "ayam hi lokóttarasya kāvya-vyāpārasya mahimā, yat-prayojyā a-ramanīyā api śokā”dayah padárthā, āhlādam a-laukikam janayanti.
vilaksaņo hi kamanīyaḥ kāvyavyāpāra-ja āsvādaḥ, pramāņántarajād anubhavāt. janyatvam ca sva-janya-bhāvanā-janya-ratyā”di-visayatvam."(pp. 67, ibid).
So, if this joy is believed to be not caused by bhāvanā, caused by kāvyavyāpāra, there is no harm.-"tena rasā”svādasya kāvya-vyāpāra-a-janyatvépi, 'na kşatih. śakuntalā”dau a-gamyātva-jñānótpādas tu dușyantā”dy-abheda-buddhyā pratibadhyaté ityā”huḥ.
The rise of such a consciousness that, 'Sakuntalā is a-gamyā for me, is also -removed for in the mind of the rasika a consciousness of identity with Dusyanta has taken place and this removes that a-gamyātva-buddhi.
We have seen that J. has given three views concerning rasa"svāda, the first being the view floated by Abhinavagupta and supported by Mammata and acceptable to him also.
The second view was that of Bhatta-nāyaka and he tried to bridge the difference with the first view by saying that bhāvakatva is covered up by gunálamkāra-yoga and dosa-hāna in kāvya and caturvidha-abhinaya in drama, and bhoga-vyāpāra is identical with vyañjanā itself. So, virtually J. feels that Bhatta-Nayaka had nothing fresh to offer except a quarrel in 'name' only.
The third view was that of the so-called Navya-s, perhaps also shared by Siddhicandra gani, who for us is a lesser light and perhaps, in our opinion was posterior to J. We are clear that the view of these navya-s is not shared by J. but as it did carry some weight in the literary circle of his times, he has discussed the same at lenght. Our Guru Prof. R. B. Athavale also feels that J. accepted the views of the Naavyas. But we politely disagree; for J.'s committment to the views of Abhinavagupta and Mammata is clear and final and he also had an absolute faith in the "Revala-āhlādaKāritva'of poetry, drama or any art. For him rasa is "ānanda-ghana-samvedanam eva, tatra kā duhkhā”-śankā ?” Actually but for the sukha-duhkhā”tmakarva of rasa as acceptable to the Navyas, even what they call a special bhāvanā-dosa, can be called a “special bhāvanā-guna” also. Why should they call it a dosa ? Thus, when put to critical test the view of the navyas seems to lose ground.

Page #438

Rasa-nişpatti-vicara in Mammața and Jagannatha
1613
After these three views, J. again presents eight more views on the nature and realization of rasa. But before we discuss these views threadbare, we will quote at length first from prof. Dr. Sri Ramachandrudu who sits high in our estimation along with our gurus Prof-s Parikh, Dr. Kulkarni and Prof. Athavale. It may be noted however that we do not agree on all points with Prof. Ramacandrudu (Ref. The contribution of Pandita-rāja Jagannatha to Samskrit Poetics, Vol. I, Pub. Nirajanā, Delhi, Edn. '83), whose views we quote out of sheer respect for him. We have expressed our own views as above and will also note our differences with Prof. Ramachandrudu as and when we feel it pertinent.
Prof. Dr. Sri Ramachandrudu writes: (pp. 113-114) ..."Let us now examine, under this background, the theory of Rasa as expounded by PR (=Pandța-rāja, i.e. J.). As was already noted, he mentions in Rasa-gangadhara eleven different views on Rasa. He begins with mentioning the views of Abhinavagupta which are generally taken as the last word on the theory of Rasa. Of the eleven theories mentioned by PR. the first Six theories have got some important points of their own and the last three theories, which are mentioned just because they were expounnded by some ancient writers,cannot get, as PR. says, the approval of Bharata. [Here we may add that true, Bharata speaks of the three viz. vibhāva, anubhava and vyabhicarin combined only cause rasa, but in practice, as Abhinavagupta has also illustrated in his A.bh., the poets, being "nirankuśa" by nature, quite often describe just one of these factors or even any two of them, where, as Abhinavagupta suggests the elements not mentioned are to be placed by the imagination of the sāmājika. The sāmājika has to do the exercise and fill the gap. So, virtually the three together cause rasa but these three thories are mentioned keeping the practice of the poets in mind, and of course, keeping the most important among the three of vibhāvā"di-s, keeping in mind. So, we feel there should not be any grudge against these three theories also which are mentioned as follows.) :
"According to the last three theories only the vibhāva (9th view), or the Anubhava (10th view) or the vyabhicāribhāva (11th view) which is being relished (Bhavyamāna) is the Rasa. The last two theories are reminiscent of the views of Rudrata and Bhoja, who believe that every Bhāva can be developed to the state of Rasa; and the first theory is related to the prehistoric conception of even Vibhāva becoming Rasa, a theory which is not found in any of the extent works." [we beg to differ. For if scrutinized minutely, even Bhoja, and then both Rāmacandra and Gunacandra virtually suggest the abridgement of rasa-sutra as only- "vibhāvād

Page #439

1614
SAHRDAYĀLOKA rasa-nişpattiḥ.” Even Lollata had suggested that the anubhāva-s mentioned in the sūtra were not to be taken as 'rasa-janya' but as those belonging to the bhāva-s that stand for either the sthāyin-s, -and the anubhāva-s of the sthāyins are discussed at length in the Nā. Sā. Ch. VII (vol.I), -or bhāva-s may mean the alambana-vibhāvas. In the second alternative, we arrive at "vibhāvād-rasa-nispattih.” Actually 'vibhāva' is a 'cause' in general and therefore if in brief it is said, “vibhāvād rasa-nispattih," there is nothing wrong in it and we have to take this view in this light only. This is our humble opinion. Prof. Ramachandrudu then proceeds as-)
“The seventh theory that all the three thinga-Vibhāva-s, Anubhava-s and the Vyabhicāri-bhāva-s, together constitute Rasa, results, evidently, from understanding in a most general way, Rasasūtra of Bharata, where only these are mentioned without the explicit reference to the sthāyibhāva. The eighth theory holds that one of the three which ever can produce Camatkāra is Rasa and that none of them can become rasa if it fails to produce the same. This theory again, must have been the outcome of the ninth, thenth and eleventh theories, according to which, each of the - Vibhāva-s etc. can become as explained above, Rasa. Thus all these five theories
represent the views of the earlier writers, and historically speaking, they should, most probably, be placed in the following order (i) bhāvyamāno vibhāva eva rasah, (ii) anubhāvah, tathā (iii) vyabhicāryeva tathā tathā parinamati. (iv) trişu ya eva camatkārī sa eva rasaḥ (v) and, vibhāvā-dayah trayaḥ samuditāḥ rasaḥ.”
[It may be noted that we may not read any order historically speaking, for as explained by us as above, virtually these views result in only the said prominence of a given factor. It is the result of a personal choice when someone would place it this way and the other, another way.)
(pp. 114, ibid)-“PR, understands the weakness of these theories and disposes them off with one remark without any comment there on. Even Abhinavagupta mentions (and, it may be noted, we have referred to these in our earlier chapter), similar theories only in a passing remark : "anye tu śuddham vibhāvam, apare tu śuddham anubhāvam, kecin tu sthāyimātram. itare vyabhicāriņam, anye tatsamyogam, eke anukāryam, kecana sakalam eva samudāyam rasam āhur ity alam bahunā.” [Abhinavagupta has mentioned, "sthāyinam”, and “anukāryam" and "sakalam samudāyam” also, in addition to what J. has done. By 'Sakalam Samudāyam' as it comes after'anukārya' of course meaning the hero, should mean all the characters taken together, and not just the hero alone. Again, as we had seen in a quotation in the earlier chapter, the pradhāna-samvit of the nāyaka, here anukārya, is the last biggest circle in which other samvid-s get merged. So, there

Page #440

Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Mammața and Jagannatha
1615
is virtually no harm in calling the anukārya, meaning the pradhana-samvit of the anukarya to be rasa.] So, these theories do carry some weight and are not as weak or useless as sri Ramachandrudu imagines. He. however, proceeds to say, with which we feel like agreeing that-]-"In the theories of Bhatta Lollata, Śri. Śankuka and Bhața-Nayaka, presented by PR. as the fifth, sixth and the second theories, we do not find much (-any-) difference from what is written about them by Abhinavagupta and Mammata.
PR. refers to the theory of Bhatta Lollata in the following words. (pp. 88, Edn. prof. Athavale, ibid)-"mukhyataya duṣyanta"digata eva rasaḥ, ratyā"diḥ kamanīya-vibhāvā"dy-abhinaya-pradarśana-kovide, duṣyantā❞dy anukartari nate samāropya sākṣāt-kriyate,' ity eke. mate'smin sākṣātkāro duşuantóyam śakuntala"di-viṣayaka-ratiman, ity ādiḥ, prāgvad dharmyamse laukikaḥ āropyámse tv alaukikaḥ."-- By the sentence beginning with "matésmin", PR. explains how the Rasa-sākṣātkāra can be had by the Sāmājika when, according to Lollata, the real Rasa rests with the original charcter only. [It may be noted that in the earlier chapter while discussing Dr. K. C. Pandey's views, we had stated that the possibility of the sāmājika also experiencing rasa, was not totally ruled out by Lollata. Our same reemarks are applicable here also to Sri Ramachandrudu's remarks and the discussion he adds further. We will also go to observe later how Prof. Athavale takes this.].-[Prof. Ramachandrudu continues, pp. 114,as follows.] "The sāmājika will be having a peculiar śākṣātkāra,- "duṣyantóyam śakuntalaviṣayaka-ratimān" i.e. "This Duṣyanta is having Rati about Sakuntala'. Here, this cognition is Laukika-pratyakṣa so far as the "Idantāmsa" "this" is concerned, and Alaukika-pratyakṣa- so far as the 'Rati' is concerned, as in the case of the cognition, 'surabhi candanam' etc., which is laukika-pratyakṣa, so far as 'candana' is concerned, which is 'cakṣuḥ-samyukta', and 'Alaukika-pratyaksa', so far as 'saurabha' is concerned which is in contact the cakṣus by 'Jñana-viṣayapratyāsatti' (Muktāvalī, p. 270 & p. 280).
This is how this passage of Rasa-Gangadhara has been explained by Dr. Chaudhury (Kavya-tattva-samīkṣā, p. 175), and this explanation seems to be quite proper and bringing out the views of PR. But some commentators (saralā, R. G., pp. 34; Candrikā, Part I, p. 124, Hindi R. G., Part I, 67) understand this passage to mean that the pratyakṣa is Laukika so far as the Idamtvámśa is concerned, and Alaukika in the Dusyantatvámśa. There may be nothing technically wrong in this explanation because the Aropyamāṇa, according to the Naiyāyikas, is Alaukikapratyakṣa-visaya.' But (it) does not convey the correct idea of PR. who wants to

Page #441

1616
SAHDAYĀLOKA explain how the Rati etc., can be the object of the cognition of the spectator (sāmājika-pratyaksa-visaya), because in the first sentence quoted above, he says,“Raso ratyā"di...sāksāt-kriyate," and in the second sentence he explains the nature of Sākṣātkāra of Ratyādi, and therefore, to explain the passage without any reference to Ratyādi is only to neglect the spirit of this passage."
Prof. Athavale (p. 97, ibid, ft. note 12) explains this point in Lollata's view as follows- He observes that a question can be raised in this procedure about the place of the sāmājika-s. Is it that rasa is caused in them also, or not-? To this question these people (i.e. Bhatta Lollata, etc.) suggest that rasa in reality is in Dusyanta. But here there is superimposition of Dusyanta over the actor. Then through inference there is apprehension of rati in the nata- (we may say, Prof. Athavale here seems to have Mammata's words-"anukartari nate ca pratīyate" in mind, where 'pratiti' is understood as inference, done by the sāmājika). Prof. Athavale adds that the sāmājika, through a special dosa, identifies himself with the nata and enjoys rasa. - Prof Ramachandrudu (pp. 115, ibid) continues : “PR. sums up the views of Sri. Sankuka in the following words :-"dusyantā"di-gato ratyā"dir națe pakse dusyantatvena grhīte, vibhāvā"dibhih krtrimair a-krtrimatyā grhītaih, bhinne visayénumiti-sāmgryā balavatvāt anumīyamāno rasaḥ ity apare.”
Thus according to PR., The main difference between the views of Lollata and Sankuka is that according to the former the Rati, etc. are ascribed to nata taken as Dusyanta, who is pratyaksa-visaya (of course Alaukika it is) of the sāmājika, and according to the latter it is anumeya. The form of anumiti will be like this,
-"rāmóyam sītā"di-visayaka-rati-mān. sītā"dyālambana-vibhāva,-romāñcā”dyanubhāva-autsuktyādi-sancāribhāva-vattvāt. yo yad-ātmaka-vibhāvarve sati anubhāva-sañcāri-bhāvavān, sa tad ratimān.”
Here nata is recognised only in the form of Dusyantā"di not as nata, as the nata-pratyaksa is obstructed by the Anumiti of the Rati etc., because when there is sāmagrī both for the pratyaksa and the Anumāna, the sāmagrī of Anumāna is considered to be powerful, provided the objects of them (pratyaksa and Anumāna) are different.
Here Dr. Chaudhury raises a question which deserves a brief reproduction. (Kāvya-tattva-samīksā, pp. 182). While explaining the theory of Lollata it was said that the Rati etc. is Alaukika-pratyaksa-visaya. Now it is not proper to say, on behalf of Sankuka, that the Rati, etc. is Anumeya; because there is also the Sāmagri for the pratyaksa of Rati, etc. In other words, the Rati etc., being the object of both

Page #442

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1617 the pratyaksa and Anumiti, the Anumiti-sāmagrī can not be more powerful than the pratyaksa-samagri and on the contrary, the pratyaksa-sāmagri should supress the Anumiti samagri and produce pratyaksa and so Sankuka's theory is baseless. This objection is answered by Dr. Chaudhuri by quoting the views of Srīnivāsā"cārya, the commentator on Nyāya-parisuddhi, who maintains that Anumiti-sāmagri is always powerful, whether the objects of pratyaksa and Anumiti are different or the same. In view of this explanation, Dr. Chaudhuri feels, P.R.'S words-“Bhinne-visaye" etc. are to be considered used by oversight. (Kavya-tattvasamīksā, pp. 183-184)."
We have already considered above the three theories covering Abhinavagupta, Bhatta Nāyaka and the Navya-s. The only theory now to be considered is one which starts with the words- "pare tu..." (pp. 88, edn. Prof. Athavale.).
Sri. Ramachandrudu has the following comments for the theories of Navya-s and also “pare". He observes : (p. 121, ibid) :
"After briefly stating the theories of Abhinavagupta and Bhatta Nayaka, PR. advances two more theories under the headinges 'Navyās tu' and 'Pare tu'. It is not known whose theories he is reproducing here; because these two theories are not to be seen in any of the extent works on Rasa. Perhaps these are the product of the fertile brain of PR. himself which he hesitates to put forth boldly on the face of the generally accepted theory of Abhinavagupta, though he must be having some secret inclination towards at least one of the theories (most probably towards the first one beginning with 'Navyās tu'.)." (we have already expressed our viwes concerning this earlier).
Sri. Ramachandrudu notes further-(pp. 121m ibid). “The first theory also is based on Vedānta. On account of some defects, the defect of eye-sight and the dimness of light etc.,a man on seeing the piece of the pearl oyster gets the wrong impression that it is silver. A cognition cannot be produced unless the object of cognition exists before. .
Therefore, the Vedāntins accept that a particular kind of Rajata, which is technically called Prātibhāsika is produced here on the seep by the above defects and this silver is beyond definition (Anirvacanīya), for, it is neither existing, because it is not of any consequence, nor non-existing, because it is being actually seen by the perceiver. Applying the same principle, this theory believes that the Rasa also which is no other than Rati, etc., is Anirvacanīya. When the Vibhāva-s etc. are presented by the poet or the Nața, the sahțdaya, on account of vyañjanā-vyāpāra,

Page #443

1618
SAHRDAYĀLOKA first gets the cognition of Rati, etc., about Sakuntalā and the like, as associated with Dusyantā"di. The spectator being a sa-hrdaya, possesses Bhāvanā, which is a kind of defect (Dosa), and this Bhāvanā produces in him a sense of identity with Dusyantā"di (Dusyantā"dy abheda-buddhi), which in its turn, produces Rati etc., about Sakuntalā"di in him. The Rati etc., like any other Prātibhāsika, is 'sāksibhāsya' i.e. cognisible through the direct contact with the caitanya, and at this state it is called Rasa. Immediately after this cognition of Rati, etc., a peculiar transendental joy is being experienced which is wrongly identified with the cognition of Rati, and this is why Rasa is said to be 'Sukha-rūpa.' This Rasa is Kārya because it is produced by the defect i.e. bhāvakarva which is invariably existing in Sahrdaya, and is Nāśya because it disappears with the disappearance of the defect. It can not be said to be vyangya in the strict sense of the word, but it is called so because it is identified with Rati, etc. of Dusyantā"di which only is really vyangya. Even the Dusyantatva ascribed to himself by Sahrdaya is Anirvacanīya like the ratyādi, and it conceals the reality of Sahrdaya, and this also is the result of the dosa i.e.Bhāvakatva, inherent in him. It is inevitable, the Navyas contend, to accept this Dosa in a sahrdaya, because without this, it is not possible, to justify the universalisation (sādhāranikarana) of Vibhāva-s etc. Once this Dosa is accepted, it can be justified that the Sa-hțdaya identified himself with Dusyantā"di on account of the some Dosa.
Here, one question may be raised. Some sthāyibhāvas like Rati which are the source of pleasure by nature, may be able to produce preasure in the Sahrdaya when they are born in him by the above process. But the same cannot be said of the sthāyibhāva-s like Soka which are the source of grief by nature in the ordinary world, but are considered to be pleasing in a Kāvya. This objection is met by these Critics like this : If it is the experience of the sahrdaya to get pleasure even from the kavya-s with karuna as a dominent sentiment, we have to accept that the same vyāpāra of Kāvya, while producing pleasure, can also obstruct the feeling of grief. And if there is the experience of both pleasure and grief, then let us accept that both pleasure and grief are natural in Rasa. People are inclined towards such works because the quantity of pleasure is more than that of grief. Here, it may be
estioned, how it is, only grief is experienced when a man identifies himself wrongly with the grief-striken Daśaratha etc. in a dream or in a state of delirium, with no touch of pleasure ? The answer is that only a beautiful Kāvya has got this power of presenting the unpleasant Soka, etc., in a pleasant manner, which cannot be found in dream or delirium.

Page #444

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1619 After giving this theory of Navya-s, PR. puts forth another theory under the headings "pare tu". (pp. 88, Edn. Athavale, ibid). -"
Before proceeding with Sri Ramacandrudu's presentation, we will first quote the view of “Pare” from the original, which read as :
“pare tu, vyañjana-vyāpārasya a-nirvacanīya-khyāteś ca anabhyupagamépi prāg-ukta-dosa-mahimnā svātmani dusyantā”di-tādātmyảvagāhī śakunatialā"divisayaka-ratyā"dimad abheda-bodho mānasah kävyártha-bhāvanā-janmā vilaksanavisayatāśālī rasaḥ. svapnā"dis tu tādņśabodho na kávyártha-cintana-janmeti, na rasah. tena tatra na tāděśā”hlādā”pattiḥ. evem api svasminn avidyamānasya ratyā"der anubhavah katham nāma syāt. maivam. na hyayam laukika-sāksātkāro ratyā”deḥ, yená-vaśyam visaya-sadbhāvopekṣaṇīyaḥ, syāt api tu bhramaḥ. āsvādanasya rasa-visayakatva-vyavahāras tu ratyā"di-visayakatvā”lambanah' ity api vadanti. etaiś ca svātmani dusyantatva-dharmitávacchedaka-sakuntalā”divişayaka-rati-vaiśistyávagāhī, svātmatva-viśeșe sakintalā”di-visayaka-rati-viśistadusyanta-tādātmyávagāhī, svātmatva-viśiste dusyantatva-śakuntalā-visayaka-ratyor vaišistyávagāhi, vā trividhópi bodho rasa-padárthatayábhyupeyaḥ. tatra rater višeşbhūtāyāḥ śabdād a-pratītatvād vyañjanāyāś ca tat-pratyāyikāyā anabhyupagamāc ceștādi-lingikam ādau viśeșaņa-jñānártham anumānam abhyupeyam."
Let us first try to understand this. Then we will quote from Sri Ramachandrudu also. This view holds that, even if we do not accept the vyañjanā-vyāpāra (of the ancients) and the a-nirvacanīyakhyāti (as advanced by the navya-s), with the help of the influence of dosa (as advocated by the navīnas), a sort of abheda-bodha-"a perception of identity”-in the sahrdaya is created. (This is the view of these “pare"-others.).
This "abheda-mānasa-bodha' has for its subject the abheda or identity with Dusyanta felt in the mind of the Sāmājika. Again, this abheda-bodha has also for its subject the ratyā”dika, wherein Sakuntalā is the object. [This abhedabodha is caused to the sāmājika who is non-different from Dusyanta.] This abheda-bodha is caused due to repeated (mental) connection with the meaning of poetry. The objects such as Dusyanta, Sakuntalā etc. of this repeated connection have their visayatá or object-ness, different from other 'vişayatā : The obvious reason is that when this experience takes place, the ratyādi bhāva-s of real Dusyanra, etc. are not present and hence this experience is of the form of a bhrama' i.e. unreal apprehension. But even if it is a mis-apprehension its knowledge or experience is very much there. J. replies to a querry as to how such an unreal apprehension can be experienced, in the following way.- This, says J., mental cognition is termed rasa by us. Now the aforesaid unreal apprehension is there in a dream also, but as the

Page #445

1620
SAHRDAYĀLOKA same is not caused by brooding over poetic meaning and hence it cannot be termed rasa. So, no question of experiencing the joy of rasa ever arises with reference to a dream. If it is asked as to how can a sāmājika enjoy ratyādi-s which are not in him, even if your talk of bhrama' is accepted, then the answer is that it is not proper to ask such a question. For, the experience of ratyādi is not ordinary i.e. worldly. If it were worldly the existence of its object would have been a necessity.But this experience is only 'bhramātmaka' i.e. unreal. Now 'rasa' becomes the object of this taste is because in this taste ‘rati' is the object. The idea is that in reality the taste of rasa unreal or bhramātmaka. The taste of ratyādi is only superimposed on 'rasa'. That this knowledge is unreal is a different matter. To have the taste of knowledge' is a thing which does not click in our mind, for taste is related only to a 'dravya' i.e. an object. We cannot taste jñāna or such other qualities. So, the doubt raised is this that how can 'rasa' which is of the form of jñāna i.e. apprehension, be tasted ? The answer is that taste is only of ratyādi, but this taste is superimposed on 'rasa'. Actually on tasting the sthāyin rati etc., accompanied by vibhāvādi-s, rasa is caused. So 'rasa' cannot be said to be the object of taste-āsvāda-visaya. But in common parlance, rasa is said to be the object of taste. The vişayatva of sthāyi which is an object of taste is superimposed on 'rasa.'
Now, these people who hold the above view, will have to accept 'rasa' to be one of the three types of 'bodha' or apprehension. (i) A bodha' in which, in the mind of the sāmājika, dharmi Dusyanta appears as a 'vidheya'. Here this Dusyanta has Dusyantatva as its avacchedaka-dharma. So, in this bodha' the samājika is pushed into 'anuvādya-koti', while dusyantarva-dharma-yukta-dusyanta-dharmī remains in the 'vidheya'-koţi. In clear words it may be said that the sāmājika has a bhrama - an unreal cognition though a sweet one, that, “I am Dusyanta”. In this 'bodha', or mānasabodha Śakuntalā is related as an object. This is the first type of bodha. In short, in this bodha, the sāmājika has a cognition "I- who am associated with ra concerning Sakuntalā,-that sämājika (=I am) is Dusyanta". Thus Sakuntalāvisayaka-rati is the viśeşana of sāmājika, sāmājika himself is the uddeśya, and Dusyanta is the vidheya. In the original, "rati-vaisistya" is the word used which means “The relation of rati."
The second bodha will take the following shape- That Śakuntalā-visayaka-rativiśista-Dusyanta is one with myself (i.e. the sāmājika). This means that I (i.e. sāmājika) am identical with Dusyanta who believes that Sakuntalā is the object of my love or ‘rati.' The plane meaning is that I am very much the Dusyanta who has love for Sakuntalā. In Sāstriya terminology here it can be said that on the uddesya which is dusyantarva there is vidhāna of 'ahamtva'.

Page #446

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1621 The third bodha will take this shape : "svātmatva-viśista" meaning in sāmājika the vaiśistya of dusyantatva and also of 'sakuntalā-visayaka-rati' is apprehended. This means that in this third bodha "I"-is 'uddesya', dusyantarva is the vid heya and Sakuntalā-visyaka-rati-visistatva' is also a (second) 'vidheya.' So, this third mānasabodha has 'l' both as višesya and also uddesya, and dusyantatva and sakuntalavişayaka-rati-these two are visesana-s.
In all these three mānasa-bodha-s, rati which becomes a višeşana is never apprehended through (direct) word-expression, as there is, in the poem, not a single word which is the vācaka or directly expressive of rati. Again the vyañjanā which causes the apprehesion of that rati is not admitted by these thinkers. So, it becomes pertinent to accept an inference, anumāna, which makes for the aprehension of rati which becomes a visesana in this apprehension. In this inference, nata is the paksa, rati is sādhya, and for sādhya-siddhi, the abhinaya of nata is 'linga' i.e. 'hetu.' (Once this rati is realised through inference, then due to the dosa or bhrama aforesaid, there is identity of Duştanata qualified by that rati with the Sāmājika. The cognition of this abheda or identity is rasa.
This fourth opinion also is held by the Navya-s. The third opinion which preceded this fourth one has been credited to the name of the navya-s. So, to avoid repetition,J. has used the words “pare tu." The only difference between these two opinions is that the navya-s mentioned earlier first believe in vyañjanā-vyāpāra and also accept anirvacanīyakhyāti. The other 'navya-s', signified by 'pare tu' do not accept either vyañjanā-vyāpāra or anirvacanīya-khyāti- This is how Prof. R. B. Athavale explains-(pp. 92, ibid).
The fifth opinion as seen above is that of Lollata, the sixth floated by Sankuka and 7toll, the last five are mentioned without reference. We have discussed these beforehand and hence we avoid repetition of the same here.
Now we will turn once again to Sri Ramachandrudu and examine how he explains the views of “pare tu”. He observes : (pp. 123, ibid) :
-"According to this theory, there is no need of accepting vyañjanā-vyāpāra or Anirvacanīya-khyāti as explained in the previous theory. The Sahrdaya on account of the Bhāvanā-dosa, will have a feeling identifying himself with the character presented on the stage or by the kävya, as having Rati etc. about Sakuntala"di. Only this feeling of identification which is produced by the Bhāvanā of the kāvyārtha, is capable of causing Camatkāra, but not the one produced in dreams etc. The rati is not existing in Sāmājika; he may feel the Rati because he wrongly identifies himself with the one, having it. In a 'bhrama', a thing which is actually existing in

Page #447

1622
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
some other place may appear as existing in a different place as in the cause of "sukti-rajata-jñāna" where the Rajatatva is ascribed to 'idamkarāspada,' i.e. sukti, though it (Rajatatva) is really associated with Rajata only, which is in a different place and this is technicaly called Anyathākhyāti of Naiyayikas (Bhāmati, pp. 2930). Thus this theory instead of accepting anirvacanīya-khyāti as in the previous theory, appears to be inclined to accept Anyathākhyāti.
The identification of sahşdaya with Dusyantā"di may be in three different ways with slight difference in višesana-viśesya-bhāva. The first bodha is - "sakuntalāvisayakarati-viśisto’ham dusyantah.” The second bodha is - "sakuntalā-visayakarativisistaḥ dusyantaḥ aham asmi", and the third bodha is - "aham dusyantarvena śakuntalā-visayakaratyä сa visistah.” In all these three bodha-s, the ultimate meaning is the same, though there is difference in the uddesya-vidheya-bhāva. In the first bodha Dusyantatva is ascribed to "Ahamtva". In the second “Ahamtva” is ascribed to “Dusyantarva", whereas in the third bodha, Dusyantatva and rati are ascribed to Aham. In all these three bodhas, rati is visesana. Its cognition is not a śabda-jñāna, because it cannot be expressed by śabda-s. In this theory, vyañjanā is also not accepted, therefore, the cognition of rati, etc., is Anumāna. For, at first, the Sāmājika infers Rati in Dusyanta etc. with the help of the action of the actor. Next the defect in the Sahrdaya, referred to above, removes the sense of difference between himself and Dusyanta which ultimately results in one of the three kinds of cognitions, identifying him with Duşyanta. Now the Rati can be the object of direct cognition (sākṣātkāra) of sahrdaya by “jñāna-rūpa-pratyāsatti”, as was shown above while discussing about Lollata's theory. These two theories are perhaps the amplification of the one that is briefly stated in the Locana (pp. 186, Edn. with Bāla-priya) : "anye tu anukartari yaḥ sthāyyavabhāsah abhinaya-sāmagryādikştah, bhittāv iva haritālā"dinā aśvávabhāsaḥ sa eva lokātītatayā āsvādā'para-samjñayā pratītyā rasyamāno rasa iti nāryād rasāḥ nārya-rasah.”
Here the word “sthāyyavabhāsaḥ” might have given clue to PR. to develop a theory establishing the Rasánubhava to be a kind of Bhrānti-jñāna.
[We have explained this passage differently, taking it as an explanation concerning the citra-turaganyāya of Sri-sankuka. Sthāyyavabhāsaḥ is to be equated with aśvávabhāsa - or the apparent appearance of the aggragate of a horse presented through colours on a canvass. So, we need not correlate this theory with the one held by “pare tu." However, even the "pare" favour inference and do not accept vyañjanā. Hence Sri Ramachandrudu's suggestion is also not un-welcome to us. Actually in a research paper : “The samlaksya-kramatva of rasā”di-dhvani”, we have also tried to correlate the ideas in Locana with some views mentioned by

Page #448

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1623 Jagannatha in connection with words having a multiple sense. Actually J. seems to be closer to the Locana, at times] Sri. Ramachandrudu continues : (pp. 124, ibid) : Dr. N. N. Chaudhary states that these two theories are not satisfactory and he raises the following objection against them. If the Sahrdaya, as stated in the above theories, experiences the Rati about Sakuntala within himself, he will have some sense of shame to express in the presence of others. If the Rasā”svāda were to be mere Bhrānti-jñāna, it will not be an object of attraction for the wise men. To state that śoka also, when presented by a poem can be a source of pleasure, is to attach much importance to the Lokottaratva of a kāvya, without giving satisfactory reasons. Unless the process of Ajñāna-nāśa, as explained in the theories of Abhinava and others is accepted, it is not possible to establish that Rasatva is Ananda-rūpa. If, moreover, the Sahrdayatva is only a cause of Bhrānti-jñāna, it will be perhaps, like madness, a thing more to be ditasted than to be worthy of aquisition. Thus Dr. Chaudhary feels that these two theories are not even worthy of serious consideration. (Kavya-tattva-samiksā; pp. 207).
In spite of all that is said, the theory contending the Rasā”svāda to be a kind of Bhrāntijñāna, cannot be brushed aside as worthless. PR. himself appears to be in favour of this theory. The exponants of all theories of Rasa are unanimous, in spite of the difference in procedure, in accepting that there is jñāna involved in Rasa. (Abhinavagupta had attacked Bhatta Nāyaka on the ground that even 'Bhoga? is a 'pratiti' and 'rasa' is also a pratīti, and nothing is beyond a pratīti, so, it is not proper for Bhatta Nayaka to say say that, “rasaḥ na pratīyate...”.) - Whether a jñāna is a pramā or bhrama is to be decided by the nature of the object of the cognition, but not by the cognition itself. Nobody can dispute regarding the existence of jñāna, whether it is pramā or bhrama, irrespective of the existence or otherwise of its object. Thus a jñāna can be produced by the really existing things or the spurious ones. Such being the case, it cannot be altogether ignored that a Rasa also can be Bhranti-jñāna or the result of Bhrānti-jñāna, because it is being produced by things which are really non-existing at least at the time of their presentation. After all Plato is quite correct in stating that the object of art is twice removed from
nciples of Literary Criticism, p. 70). Whether he is right in condemning art on that ground is altogether a different question. The famous poet, Shakespeare places, though in a lighter vein, the poet by the side of a mad man and a lover (A mid-summer-Night's Dream V. i.sc.) clearly suggesting that the work of a poet consists in producing illusion (Bhțānti-jñāna) though perhaps a happy one.
Even while stating the theory of Abhinavagupta, PR. indicates that Rasā"svāda is, to a certain extent, illusory. There, first he states :

Page #449

1624
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
"yathā hi sarāvādinā pihito dīpas tan nivrttau sannihitan padārtham prakāśayati, svayam ca prakāśate, evam ātma-caitanyam vibhāvā"di-samvalitān ratyā”dīn, antaḥkarana-dharmāņām sākṣibhāsyatvā’bhyupagateh.” (R.G. p. 26).
Here a question would arise. It may be correct that Rati etc. being the Antahkarana-Dharmas, should be sāksi-bhāsya-s. But how can the vibhāvas etc. be sāksi-bhāsya-s ? In reply to this probable objection he says : "vibhāvādīnām api svapna-turagā"dīnām iva, ranga-rajatā"dīnām iva sākşi-bhāsyarvam a-viruddham.” (R.G. p. 26).
In fact, PR. could have established the sāksi-bhāsya-vibhāvas etc. by following the famous dictum of Vivaraņā”cārya : sarvam vastu jñāta-tayā a-jñāta-tayā vā sākṣi-caitanya-visayaḥ.” (Panca-padika-vivaranam, p. 99). But he prefers to take the vibhāvas as the creation of imagination and so the vibhāva-jñāna should be considered only as a Bhrānti-jñāna. Once the vibhāvā"di-jñāna is accepted as a Bhrānti, there should be no objection in accepting the Rasā'nubhava as the result of Bhrānti; because it is the result of vibhāvādi-jñāna, and in fact, as explained above while stating Abhinavagupta's theory, is the samūhālambana-jñāna of the vibhāvas etc.
Thought it is Bhranti-jñāna, there is nothing wrong if it is sought by the wise men, when they are sure to get pleasure of peculiar nature from it. Only become it is Bhrānti-jñāna, we cannot deny the existence of Ananda or the mixture of Sukha and Duḥkha as the case may be, and this can induce the Sahrdaya towards the drama or anykind of poetical work. Only this is how we can explain the craze of the people for reading the detective novels, which may be in our technical language, the source of Adbhuta-Rasa. That Sahrdaya would feel ashamed also need not be a serious drawback because, according to the above theories, the Sahrdaya ascribes Dusyantarva on himself and so there is, no question of experiencing Rati etc. as Ātma-gata. Moreover, even if he has such Rati, he need not have the sense of shame, because, he does not express it normally. [We feel Sri Ramacandrudu has gone astray here.] It is not clear how far the Ālamkārikas are justified in applying the process of Brahmā”nandā"svāda (the Avaranabhanga, etc.) in the case of Rasā"svāda; just because they call it Alaukika. (The earlier chapter in which following Abhinavagupta's rasa-theory we have dealt with the secret of art-experience in general which borders on the Divine. This may be looked into carefully.) The Atmajñāna being directly connected with the Brahman which is Anandarūpa, there may be Āvaranabhanga etc. acceptable on the authority of the upanisads but how such things can be talked of in the context of rasāsvāda ?"

Page #450

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannatha
1625
If it is the question of simply importing the philosophic process in this sphere also, why, even a glutton can talk of the Asvāda which is Brahmā"svāda-sabrahmacārin, and which is produced by a unique well-proportioned mixture of different ingredients in a delicious dish ! Therefore, in the absence of such, strong authority like Upanişads, acceptable at least to one section of people, all the above procedure appears to be over burdening on otherwise simple theory of aesthetic enjoyment. It may be a peculiar pleasure, but its peculiarity does not warrant accepting all this procedure.
If the ālamkārikas are so particular, they can accept the whole procedure, even if the Rasapratiti is accepted only as a bhrānti-jñāna rather as a result of Bhrānti-jñāna, because according to the Vedāntins, the whole process, leading to Brahmajñāna is only mithyā. Why, even Brahmākāra-Vrtti is Mithyā for them. As explained by Sankara-bhagavat-pāda (“kathantv asyatyena vedāntaväkyena satyasya brahmātmatvasya pratipattir utpadyate; na hi rajju-sarpena dasto mriyate... naisa dosah. sanka-visādi-nimitta-marana"di-kāryo-palabdheh; Bra. Sū. Śā. Bhā. pp. 458), Vācaspati-Miśra (śravaņādy upāyaḥ ātmasāksātkāra-paryantah, Vedānta-samuttho'pi jñāna-nicayo-satyaḥ. So'pi hi vrttirūpah kāryatayā nirodha-dharmā; Bhāmatī, pp. 458), and Vivaranakāra ("nanu brahmajñānasyā'py yadi tâvat svarūpa-mithyātvam-ucyate, angīkstam eva tat. artha-visaya-mithyātvam na. brahmani bādhā'bhāvāt.” - Pañca-pădikāvivarana, Part I., pp. 441) a real result may be achieved even through an unreal means. Thus there should be no objection in a Bhränti-rūparasā"svāda leading to, nay, being identical with Ananda'nubhava.
Moreover, it is, against the common experience to accept that the Asvada of every Rasa is a source of only pleasure. Many of the rhetoritians having once declared the Rasā”svāda as Brahmananda-sa-brahmacārin, strive hard to explain that even in such cases like śoka, the Sāmājika gets pleasure only as in case of nakha-kşata etc. But all such explanations are against our general experiences, because in Karuna, etc., we get a peculiar feeling of sadness rather than pleasure; and peculiarity can not be a proof to establish that it is only Ananda. Even Abhinavagupta declares, in unambiguous terms that in almost all the Rasas, there is a mixture of both Sukha and Duhkha, with only some difference of degrees.
[It may be noted that we do not agree with Sri Ramachandrudu's conclusions. We have explained the secret of rasanubhūti or art-experience

Page #451

1626
SAHRDAYĀLOKA following Abhinavagupta in the earlier chapter. The discerning learned should look into the same. For Abhinavagupta, as explained by us, there is only one rasa, a mahārasa, and it can be called even Sāntarasa in the higher sense of the term. And this art-experience is only an "ānanda-ghana" samvedana, a solid compact experience of pure bliss. The quotations given by Ramacandrudu can be explained in a different way also, keeping Abhinavagupta's main thrust in the centre, viz. that all art is a gateway to the entry into the Divine, and therefore only blissful. We continue with Sri. Ramacandrudu's quotations further, pp. 128, ibid.) - (Before we proceed with the quotation from A.bh. as cited by Ramacandrudu, it may be noted that he forgets a glaring fact that this A.bh. is on Nā. Šā. I. 119 which talks of "Loka-Svabhāva" being "Sukha-duhkhasamanvitaḥ" - Ramacandrudu forgets the next line after his quotation ends, which reads - "evam laukikā ye sukha-dukhā”tmāno bhāvāh, tat-sadrśah, tatsamskārā'nuviddho nātya-laksaņo'rthaḥ, samudāya-rūpah tasyaiva bhāgo'bhinayah.” - The theme of a dramatic piece is full of the delineation of laukika-bhāva-s of sukha-duhkha-svabhāva. But the āsvāda of this dramatic piece is only ananda maya, as it passes through the alchemy of art. - Ramacandrudu quotes from Hindi A.bh. (pp. 210-229) - The passage, a comm. on Nā. Sā. I. 116, reads as -
"lokasya sarvasya sādhāranatayā svarvena bhāvyamānas' carvyamāņo'rtho natyam. sa ca su kha-duhkha-rūpena vicitrena samanugato, na tu tad ekātmā. (Rāmacandrudu should underline these words - 'na tu tad ekātmā' i.e. 'nātya' is not identical with the nature of the theme which is sukha-duhkhā”tmaka; it is beyond it.) - tathā hi-rati-hāsotsāha-vismayānām sukha-svabhāvatvam. tatra tu cirakālavyāpisukhā'nusamdhi-rūpatvena visayónmukhyaprānatayā tad viņayāśamsā. bāhulyena apāyabhīrutvāt duḥkhāmśā’nuvedho rateh - (All this is to be understood at worldly level) · hāsasya sā’nusandhānasya vidyutsadrśas tātkālikólpaduḥkhā’nuvedhaḥ sukhā'nugatah. utsāhasya tātkālika-duhkhā”yāsa-nimajjanarūpā'n usandhina bhāvi-bahu-janopakāri-ciratara-kāla-bhāvi-sukhasamācikīrsātmanā sukharüpatā. vismayasya niranusandhāna-tadit-tulyasukharūpatā. krodha-bhaya-soka-jugupsānām tu duḥkha-rūpatā. tatra cirakāladuḥkhā'nusandhiprānah visayagatā'tyantika nāśa-bhāvanā-tada"kānksa-prānataya sukhaduhkhā'nuvedhavān krodhah. niranu-sandhi-tātkālika-duhkha-prānatayā tadavagamā”känkṣo'tprekṣita-sukhā’nusambhinnam bhayam. dvaikālikastva-abhīstavișaya-nāśa-jah prāktana-sukhasmaraņā’nuviddhaḥ sarvathaiva duḥkharūpaḥ śokaḥ. utpadyamāna-duhkhanusandhāna-jīvita-visayāt palāyana-parāyana-rūpā nisidhyamāna-sankita-sukhā'nuviddhā jugupsā. samasta-pūrva-duhkha-sañcaya

Page #452

Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1627 samarana-prānitah sambhāvita-tad-uparamabahula-sukha-mayo nirvedah evam vyabhicāri-prabhrtisvapi vācyam."
Here the sthāyibhāvas stated as Ubhaya-svabhāva by Abhinavagupta stand for their respective Rasas. (Ramacandrudu is grossly out of truth here. For Abhinavagupta, the basic fact of his Rasa-concept is, “sthāvi (i.e. laukika-sthāyi) vilaksano rasah." The learned author has overlooked this plain truth., because in another place Abhinavagupta says - "ity ānanda-rūpatā sarva-rasānām. kimtu uparañjaka-visaya-vaśāt tesām api kațukimnā'sti sparso, vīrasya iva] - (we have kept our reading following Hemacandra, and Gnoli), sa hi kleśasahisnutā"di-prāna eva.” (Hindi A.bh. pp. 478) - [We have explained in the earlier chapter how for Abhinavagupta Rasa - The basic rasa; you may call it śānta or Mahā-Rasa; is only one, and is ananda-ghana-eva.) (Ramacandrudu Continues, pp. 128, ibid) -
There are some others who believe some Rasas as Sukharūpa and others as Duhkha-rūpa. For example, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra the authors of Natyadarpana (and how grossly mistaken they are in understanding the 'alaukikatā' of rasa) - state, "tatra ista-vibhāvā"di-prathita-svarüpa-sampattayaḥ śngāra-hāsya-vīra-adbhuta-śāntāḥ pañca sukhātmānaḥ. apare punaḥ anistavibhāvā”dy upanītā”tmānaḥ karuņa-raudra-bībhatsa-bhayānakās' catvāraḥ duḥkhātmānaḥ. (Nā. Darpana, pp. 141, G.O.S. Edn.).
[It may be noted that we have thoroughly denounced the view of the Nā. Darpana. Relevant pages may be looked into earlier chapters.)
(pp. 129) (Rāmacandrudu) - "The Nāryadarpaņa (p. 141) further argues : People are averse to Bhayānaka-rasa. If at all there is some camatkāra, it is not because of the Rasas like Bībhatsa, but because of other things presented next to them by a skillful actor; and being deceived by this Camatkāra, even wise men declare that even rasas like Karuna are a source of pleasure.
[How grossly mistaken are these authors !) Madhusudana Saraswati also states that there is a difference of degree in the experience of different Rasa-s, and it is not correct to say that all the Rasa-s give same kind of pleasure. (B. B. Rasāyana p. 22). [We pity this gentle man.] Thus the general experience compells us to believe that all the Rasas do not consist of pure Ananda, and that there is a mixture of Duhkha, at least in some Rasas. This fact is proved beyond doubt, by the popularity of some works of some Rasas only even to-day.' (God save Sri. Ramacandradu; what has he to say about the 'Four great Tragedies' of Shakespeare ?].

Page #453

1628
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Some rhetoricians are not prepared even to give the status of Rasa to Karuna Bhayānaka, and Bībhatsa, because there is no element of pleasure in them. Siddhicandra-gani, (a just third-rate-name in our estimation; just third-rate !) writes in this context - "na ca teşām (karunā"dīnām) tathābhūtarvépi abhivyaktā” nandacidātmanā sahábhivyaktānām rasatvam iti vācyam. evam api sthayyamse rasavirodhāt... yat tu śokā"dayópi ratyā"divat svaprakāśa-jñāna-sukhātmakā iti tad unmatta-pralapitam. kiñca, sāmājikeșu mộta-kalatra-putrādīnām vibhāvādīnām śokā"di-sthāyi-bhāvasya carvaniyena aja-mahīpālā”dinā saha sāmānādhikaranyam. aśrupātā”di-darśanāt. varnaniya tanmayıbhavanañ ca apekṣitam iti cet, katham brahmā”nanda-sahodara-rasod-bodhah. katham vā na a-māngalyam. ata eva kecid aja-vilāpädikam na pathanti. bībhatse māmsa-puyā”dy-upasthityā vāntanisthīvanā”dikam yan na bhavet tad eva āścaryam. kutas tādrśaparamā”nandarūpa-rasodbodha iti. evam bhaye’pi. śāntasya tyakta-sarva-vāsanesu bhavatu nama kathañcit rasatvam, visayișu punaḥ sarva-visayoparamopasthityā katham rasarvam * ? (Kāvya. Pra. Khandana; pp. 16-22, Edn. Parikh.) Gani does not accept vīra and raudra as separate Rasa-s because their vibhāva-s etc. are the same."
[Siddhicandragani's arguments neither deserve mentioning nor refutation, in our estimation, for he does not seem to understand even the basics of aesthetics.]
Rāmacandrudu (p. 130) continues : “In views of these contradicting theories, and on the strength of the common experience, one would naturally get a doubt whether some of the old theories discussed above, are away from the Because the revealing of Anandāmía by Sattvodreka or by any such cause, being a common thing, according to them in all the Rasas, there should be no satisfactory reason to explain why there is the feeling of grief or the like, in Karuņa, etc., instead of pure Ananda. If one has to come forward with such explanations like the effect of Upādhi etc., (nature of sthāyibhāva), all the previous elaborate explanations would become futile. Under these circumstances, instead of loading the Rasa theory with so many philosophical arguments, there is nothing wrong in accepting that the Rasā’nubhava is the result of a peculiar kind of Bhrānti-jñāna which produces different effects like pleasure, melancholy-pleasure, etc.
This consideration has, perhaps prompted PR. to put forword the third and the fourth theories under the names of 'Navya-s' and 'Pare'. And it may not be improper to believe that PR. attached much value to these theories (or at least to the first of the two, because we find him generally identifying himself with Navya-s), and he names his work Rasa-Gangā-dhara, because he feels that he, for the first time, has

Page #454

Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1629 given a new turn to the theory of Rasa, on the face of the well established theories of Abhinavagupta and others. The same cannot be said of the first theory, (first in the order of Rasa-ganga-dhara, and based on vedānta) because, as shown above, PR. cannot claim any originality in that respect."
Here ends the very long quotation from Sri. Ramacandrudu. We are raminded of the famous expression from the Upanisad, of course, only in the sense we mean, viz. "tato bhūya eva tamah.” Ramacandrudu has entered into “bhūya eva tamah” concerning the basics of aesthetics. And talking about "originality" ? This is a sad modern concept of people who read and write trash! For the great Jayanta has said, “kuto'sti nūtanam vastu ?", and the great Abhinavagupta politely observes :
“ūrdhvordhvam āruhya yad artha-tattvam dhīḥ paśyati, śrāntim avedayanti, phalam tad adyaiḥ parikalpitānām. viveka-sopāna-paramparāņām.”
Actually there was no need for Ramacandradu to bring in all these views of N.D. and K.P.Kha., and such trivials, while considering rasa-theory of Jagannātha. We do not agree with him. nor even with our guru Prof. Athavale in thinking that J. was a “pracchanna-Navya”. No; he followed Abhinavagupta and Mammata in the rasa-theory_to the ditto. with further sophistication. in suggesting "bhagnā'varanā cid eva rasah.” These things are inherent in Abhinavagupta who holds rasa to be "vita-vigha-pratīti-grāhyo bhāva eva rasah." . or "nirvighnā samvit" as Rasa.
With this, we come to the end of a most interesting topic in Indian aesthetics, viz. the consideration of the nature of rasa, i.e. rasa-svabhāva and the process of rasa-realisation. It is better if like our gurus, Prof. Parikh, Dr. Kulkarni and Prof. Athavale, we refrain from making sweeping statements and keep quiet. But at times, we have to cross this limit, for saving the youngsters from gross misunderstanding of Indian aesthetics.

Page #455

Chapter XVIII “Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
While dealing with the topic of classification of poetry, we had suggested that such form of poetry which is both drśya and śravya, i.e. the rūpaka-s, will be taken up later. Accordingly, we take up this topic in this chapter, at the end of Vol. I of our proposed work, “Sahğdayāloka; OR, Thought-currents in Indian Literary criticism." It may be noted that the type of poetry called Upa-rūpakas could have been placed here also, but as, we thought, this variety had less of drama then of poetry as compared to the major rūpaka-s, we dealt with them in the earlier chapter. The upa-rupakas involve a lot of dance and music as well. The rūpakas the ten major types to be considered here, are also kävya' from the point of view of the written script and also when they are only read and not presented on the stage. It is to be noted very carefully that when we call them kāvya or "drśya kāvya", they do not cease to be pure drama i.e. rūpaka. Even Bharata did not hesitate in taking them under kavya, for he talks of guna, laksana, dosa, alamkāra, rīti, vịtti, pravstti, etc. in view of “kavya-rasa". The use of these beautifying agents is contemplated by Bharata in view of “kāvya-rasa”. So, it is gross mis-understanding on the part of such great Scholars like Dr. S. K. De, when he observes only to run down sanskrit drama, that Sanskrit Drama, also like Sanskrit poetry, had “rasa" in the centre ! Actually “Rasa” is in the centre of any art, including poetry, drama, music, dance and what not ! So, the consideration of ten major types of drama will complete the circle. The methodology will be the same. We will of course keep Bharata as a starting point and go through major works on dramaturgy to pin-point the characterstics of Sanskrit drama in general. We will also deal with the problem of the structure of Sanskrit drama, with its plot divided into junctures or Sandhis and then sub-divided into sandhyanga-s. We will have passing observations on some allied topics also. Other topics, that are part of what the Mālava-school of aesthetics terms as "buddhyārambha anubhāva", such as rīti, vrtti and pravịtti, will form part of our proposed volume II of this project. Each topic will be given a separate

Page #456

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1631 chapter and such other topics as guna, laksana, alamkāra, dosa, etc. will be treated in the next volume, God-willing, of course!
So, for the present we will start with the consideration of the characteristics and structure of the ten major types of drama, such as, nātaka, prakarana, etc.
“Nātaka.” It may be noted that Bharata mentions ten major types of rūpakas and nāšaka is the first one. Bharata observes : N.S. XVIII-1 -
"vartayisyāmy aham viprā daśrūpa-vikalpanam, nāmataḥ karmatas' caiva
tathā caiva prayogataḥ.” "O Brahmins ! I will now set the ten divisions of dramatic compositions, giving their names, functions and modes of stage-performance.” (Trans. Dr. G. K. Bhat, Bharata-Nătya-Mañjarī; B.O.R.I. Poona, '75; pp. 112; We have accepted translation at all places from Dr. Bhat. We will indicate, if and when we defer.) Bharata treats of the varieties or rūpaka in Ch. XVIII and then also in Ch. XIX - (G.O.S.) Edn.) - Bharata enumerates the following ten major types of drama -
“nāțakam sa-prakaranam anko vyāyoga eva ca, bhāṇaḥ samavakāras' ca
vīthī prahasanam dima).” (N.S. XVIII-2) They are, Nataka, Prakarana, Anka, Vyāyoga, Bhāņa, Samavakāra, Vithī, Prahasana, Dima, and Ihāmiga, mentioned in the next verse :
īhāmrgaśca vijñeyo daśamo nāțya-lakşane eteșam lakṣaṇam aham
vyākhyāsyāmy anu-pūvasaḥ.” XX.-3 Abhinavagupta in his A.bh. explains : rūpyate prátyaksīkriyate yórthaḥ tad vācakatvāt kāvyam rūpāņi, daśānām rūpāņām vibhāgah kalpyate asmād iti daśarūpa-viklapanam.” As we had noted above, Abhinavagupta also explains here that the word 'daśa-rūpa' could be taken as referring to kavya in general. In Bharata even rūpakas are viewed primarily as 'kavya'. This is clearer when we read the

Page #457

1632
SAHRDAYĀLOKA following verse :
"sarveşām eva kāvyānām mātřkā vșttayaḥ smộtāḥ, ābhyo vinis srutam hy etad daśa-rūpam prayogataḥ.” XVIII-4.
Dr. Bhat translates (pp. 112, ibid) "The vștti-s or styles are traditionally known as the “mothers” of all dramatic poems. The ten kinds of play, so far as their production is concerned, have proceeded from these." . The first half of the verse observes "sarvesam eva kávyānām" and in the next half the daśa-rūpa' is said to have proceeded from these (i.e. vstti-s). So, no water-tight division was meant by Bharata between 'kāvya' and daśa-rupa', the latter also being ‘kāvya' in the wider sense of the term. Thus Dr. De's observation concerning the importance of 'rasa' in drama also, as in 'poetry, and thereby making sanskrit drama a lesser drama, is also unfounded.
Bharata, before coming to the definitions of each variety of the ten rūpaka-s, observes how different vștti-s are associated with different types of rūpaka-s. He says that both nātaka and prakarana proceed from all styles, and resort to different structures (bandha) (XVIII-7), but the other eight types such as vīthī, samavakāra, īhāmțga, utsysţikā’nka, vyāyoga, bhāņa, prahasana and dima should be composed without using kaisiki-vrtti. Bharata now defines “nātaka” proper (XVIII. 10-12) :
"prakhyāta-vastu-visayam prakhyātódātta-nāyakam caiva, rājarsi-vamsya-caritam tathaiva divyā”śrayopetam. 11 nānā-vibhūtibhir yutam rddhi-vilāsā"dibhir guņai ś caiva, anka-praveśakā"dhyam bhavati hi tan nāțakam nāma. 12 nrpatīnām yac caritam nānā-rasa-bhāva-cestitam bahudhā sukha-duḥkhótpatti-kstam bhavati hi tannātakam.nāma." 13
(Trans., pp. 115, ibid) - (10-12)

Page #458

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1633 "The name 'Nāraka' is given to the type of play whose subject is a well-known plot-material, the hero equally well-known and exalted, which describes the life and work of one born in the family of royal sages, uses episodes connected with the divinities; comprises the (hero's) many dazzling achievements (vibhūti) [resulting in realization of the four goals of human life), and also (his) achievements connected with regal and material prosperity (řiddhi) and with women and pleasure (vilāsa), as also minor deeds (guņa, like the harmful opposition of the villain), and is properly equipped with a number of acts (anka), and linking scenes (praveśaka). The behaviour (carita) of kings, consisting of) actions (cesțita) (revealing) varied sentiments and emotional states, and arising out of joys and sorrows in their innumerable aspects (bahudhā), becomes what is called nātaka."
Dr. Bhat (pp. 115, foot note No. 4) observes : “The expectation about a wellknown plot and exalted type of hero is natural. Aristotle's prescription of tragic drama is similar. Heroes like Rāma, Krsna, Udayana, Dusyanta fulfil the particular requirement. The divine characters are used in the nātaka form only in a smaller episodes (patākā or prakarī) as, for example, the divine Bhagavati Ambā in the Nāgānanda. The reason Abhinava (gupta] explains, is that devacarita' is not very suitable for dramatic representation intended for human appreciation; if it is connected with vipralambha, karuna, adbhuta, it will not differ very much from human emotions; besides, the gods have no unhappiness or misery; human response thus is difficult to be obtained. Types like Dima, Samavakāra, which use heroic themes, are alone proper for divine characters.
The terms 'vibhuti rudhi, and guņa are translated according to Abhinava's explanation (see A.bh. pp. 412).
Dr. Unni (pp. 545, ibid) has the following observation : "AG. (= Abhinavagupta) notes : Śrī. Sankuka justifies the usage 'prakhyāta' to exclude the minor episodes of the Bhārata. Whereas, upādyāya(Bhatta Tauta) stresses the popularity of the plot.” “prakhyāte Bhāratā”dau yad vastu, tad-visayósya, tatrā’pi kiñcid aprasiddham bhavati, tan nirākaraṇāya 'prakhyātódātte"ci śrī. Śankukaḥ.” - etat tu prakhyātam vastu visayo'syeti iyatā gatā’rtham ity upādhyāya ittham āhuḥ.” The interpretation of the word 'guna' as 'sandhi-vigrahādaya', only helps to show the proficiency of the commentator in cāņakya-śāstra (Artha-śāstra) - "iti vyākhyātam cāņakyaśāstra-paricayā"vedanamātra-phalam.”

Page #459

1634
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Sri Sankuka explains : 'nrpati-caritam' to include a host of kings. "śri sankukas tu vyācaște-vijigīşur-ari-madhyamó-dāsīnau mitra-mitram iti. eșām caritam iti bahuvacanena labhyate."
Bharata does not go into further characteristics of 'nāțaka', such as number of acts, sandhis, arthaprakrtis, rasa-s etc. here, but he discusses these points separately and we will also discuss the same when we deal with the general structure, plotconstruction etc. of drama in general. But later works on dramaturgy give such characteristics along with a given variety of rūpaka.
We will discuss a given rūpaka-variety in the light of the following works on dramaturgy or poetics as the case may be in the sequence as follows : The Daśarūpaka (DR.) Śrngāra-prakāśa of Bhoja (śr. Pra.). Nāryadarpana (N.D.); Bhāvaprakāśana (B.P.) of śārdātanaya (= Śā.); Nātaka-laksana-ratna-kośa (NLRK.) of Sāgaranandin (Sā.), Sāhityadarpaņa (S.D.) of Viśvanātha (= V.) and Rasārņavasudhākara (R.S.) of singa Bhūpāla.
The DR. (Edn. T. Venkatacharya, Adyar Library Series, Madras, '69) discusses the ‘nāțaka' in the third flash (= chapter; prakāśa). It may be noted that Dhananjaya had stated earlier that rūpakas are classified on the basis of vastu (= theme), netā (= hero) and 'rasa'. In the first chapter 'vastu' is discussed. In the second chapter 'netā' is discussed along with other characters. Now in the third chapter, it should have been 'rasa' but actually 'rasa' finds place in the fourth chapter, while the third chapter deals with the types of rūpaka-s, beginning with nātaka. Dhanika, the commentator explains this deviation in treatment as follows: (pp. 135, ibid) · "bahu-vaktavyatayā rasa-vicāraatilanghanena-vastu-netr-rasānām vibhajya nātakā"dişu upayogaḥ pratipadyate" - i.e. "As the topic of rasa is very wide, and as much therefore is to be noted about that, here, the topic of rasa is bypassed and on the practice of vastu, netā and rasa, the description of the varieties of rūpakas beginning with nătaka, how these i.e. vastu, netā and rasa are used in different ways etc. is taken up first (in the third chapter). The Laghuţikā of Bhatta-Nșsimha observes (pp. 135, ibid).
- bahuvaktavyatayā iti' . vastu-netr-vicārā'nantaram rase pratipādanīye'pi tatra bahu-vidham vaktavyam asti iti pascad vaktum idānim rasa-vicāram siddham kṛtvā, tam atilanghya vastu-nett-rasā”dīnām nāțakā"dişu tāvad upayogaḥ pratipādyata ity arthaḥ.”

Page #460

“Daśarūpaka-Vicāra”
1635 With this, the DR. III. i begins with the topic of 'nātaka' with the words -
"prakstitvād athā’nyeşām bhūyo-rasa-parigrahāt, sampūrņa-lakṣaṇatvāc ca
pūrvam nāțakam ucyate.” As nāțaka forms the base of other varieties of rūpakas, as rasa is delineated to its highest and most varied condition, and as nāțaka is said to be accomplished by all characteristics, it is discussed first.
The Avaloka observes : (pp. 135, ibid) - uddișța-dharmakam hi nāțakam anuddisţadharmāņām prakaraņā”dīnām prakṛtiḥ śesam pratītam - The Laghuţikā observes : (pp. 135, ibid) : tatra prathamam nāțakalakṣaṇa-vacảne hetur uktaḥ, ‘prakstitvād'iti. anyeşām prakaraņā”dīnām viktibhūtānām asya prakstitvāt, bhūyasām rasānām angatvena, angitvena cā’tra parigrahāt, asya sampurnalaksanatvāc ca, prakaranā”dibhyah pūrvam nātakam ucyate iti. kim idam asya prakrtitvam nāma ity apeksāyām āha ‘uddista-dharmakam” iti.
After this in the DR. III. 2-38a, some miscellenious items, to be taken up later are discussed but DR. III. 38b observes that -
"pañcā’nkam etad, avaram
daśānkam nāțakam param.” i.e. the nāțaka has five acts to begin with, (but it may have) and (upto) ten acts. : Laghuţikā (pp. 153, ibid) has - etan nāțakam avaram pañcā’nkam, param daśānkam iti nāšakasya ankeșu samkhyā-niyamam darśayati, pañcā’nkam' iti. -
The verses in between discuss topics such as pūrva-ranga, bhāratī-vítti, the types such as prarocană etc., three types of prastāvanā (or amukha), vīthyanga-s, the 'itivịtta' of nāțaka, and avoiding such portions of the itivștta as are not favourable to the nāyaka..
Thus the DR. also treats some items such as anka, sthāpanā, etc. along with the nāšaka.
Now it may be noted that even the ND. first defines nāțaka and along with it takes up all topics concerning the nāțaka including the things to be avoided. Then, anka (= act), upāya, (= artha-prakrti-s), daśā, sandhi, sandhyangas, etc. are discussed, followed by the characteristics of prakarana and other types of rūpakas in the second chapter. Vrtti, rasa and abhinaya are discussed in the third chapter

Page #461

1636
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
and the fourth one has nāndī, dhruvā, nāyaka-nāyikā, their qualities, other allied topics such as language, mode of address, etc. etc. and upa-rupaka-s in the end. B. P. has its own treatment wherein it has mixed up other things also. The NLRK. also discusses nāțaka along with other related topics. Same is the pattern with the S.D. and R.S.
It is therefore advisable that here also we proceed in the same way. We will begin with Bharata, who also discusses allied topics along with nătaka. We have seen his defintion of nātaka earlier. The other topics that go with nataka are discussed as follows:
Bharata (N.S. XVIII-12) had stated that the story or behaviour of kings abounding in rasa-s (sentiments), moods, and actions, representing pleasure as well as pain, characterises a nātaka, XVIII. 13 - observes :
"asyā’vasthópetam kāryam pra-samīksya bindu-vistārāt, kartavyónkaḥ sópi tu
guņā’nvitam nātya-tattva-jñaiḥ.” (Trans. Bhat, pp. 117, ibid) - (13) Having properly reviewed the dramatic accomplishment to be achieved (kārya) which consists of definite stages of development (avasthā), from the drop (bindu) (i.e. germ) to its expansion, the experts on the principles of nātya should build an act, and also in such a manner as to conform to the requisite number (gunā'nvita).
It may be noted here that avasthā, bindu etc. are technical terms that are related to the plot of a drama and also to its development. Five stages (avasthā-s) are calculated as will be seen in due course. The arambha is the first avasthā where the germ is cast and a hint is given as to what will be achieved by the end. This is then enlarged-bindu-methodically.
The ‘anka' or act, according to Bharata is discussed here after. N.S. XVIII-14 observes :
"anka iti rūdhi-sabdo bhāvaiś ca rasaiś ca, rohayaty arthān nānā-vidhāna-yukto yasmāt tasmād bhaved ankah.”
(Trans. Bhat, pp. 117, ibid)

Page #462

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1637 "Anka is a conventional word fixed by usage. As it makes the (poetic) contents climb. i.e. it carries to] (the heart of the spectator), with the (presentation of) sentiments and emotional states, and as it follows various technical presentations (nānā-vidhäna), it is called an'anka' or act.”
Dr. Unni, (pp. 546, NS. Vol. II, Nag Publishers '98) puts this as, “Anka is a word with a conventional meaning. With the help of several devices the meaning is here developed by bhāva-s and rasa-s, and hence it is called 'Anka' (lit., a lap) - a basis.”
Abhinavagupta (A.bh., pp. 415, 6; ibid) observes that Bhatta Lollata and others read, "gūdha-sabdah" for "rūdhi-sabdah". The explanation here is "bhāvaiśca rasaiśca gūdhah” - i.e. concealed by bhāva-s and rasa-s, i.e. it contains in its depth bhāva-s and rasa-s. Others read "rūdha” and observe · "rohayatyarthān” germinates or makes climb the meaning. It is observed : “rūdhi rohanam; tena utsanga ucyate, tasmād utsangavad arohana-sambandhāt anka ity ucyate.” The poetic content enters into the heart of the audience - "yatha-svam bhāvādin arthan hrdayam āropayati." A further explanation is that “rasa-bhāvair upalakṣitān apy arthān rohayati”, i.e. meanings or ideas hinted by or charged by rasa and bhāva are brought to the understanding i.e. grasp.
DR. Bhat, (ft. n. 6, pp. 117, ibid) observes : “Abhinava refers to the reading "bhāvais'ca rasais' ca gūdhártho" adopted by Bhatta Lollata and others and rejects it in favour of 'rohayaty arthän'.
Rūdhi according to him, is the same as Rohana, and implies anka or lap; this refers to the portion of nātaka which, in its own way, presents the sentiments and emotions and carries them to the heart of the spectators; like a lovable child climbing into the lap of a parent, the aesthetic content presented through vibhāvas etc., climbs the heart, as it were, of the reader-spectator bringing him an awareness of rasa or bhāva. This analogy explains the term : rūdhi rohanam, tena utsanga ucyare yo nātakámsah... tasmād utsangavad arohana(m) sambandhāt añka ity ucyate." Abhinava, pp. 415-416.
It may be noted here that in Indian dramaturgy or literary aesthetics, every portion of a drama is expected to be important, meaningful and goal-oriented; the goal being supreme enjoyment on the part of the reader/spectator. Thus nātaka is "rasaoriented". This 'rasa' is "vita-vigha-pratīti” and “vigalita-vedyảntara" experience, which can result even from enjoyment of the pure intellectual type also. Emotion, intelligence and conation and thus the whole of the enjoyer's self should get involved in the poetic content in such a way that for the time being anything else than what is presented, falls out of consciousness of the reader/spectator. Each 'anka' is expected to work in this direction. It could be a portion of an 'absurd play as well.
.

Page #463

1638
SAHRDAYĀLOKA NS. XVIII. 15-18 further observe :
"anka-samāptiḥ kāryā kāvya-cchedena bīja-samhāraḥ, vastu vyāpi binduḥ, kāvya-samuttho'tra nityam syāt. 15 yatrā’rthasya samāptir yatra ca bījasya bhavati samhāraḥ, kiñcid avalagna-binduh sónka iti sadā'vagantavyaḥ. 16 ye nāyakā nigaditās teşām pratyakşa-carita-sambhogah nānā’vasthópetaḥ kāryastv ankóvikrstas tu. nāyaka-devī-gurūjanapurohitā’mātya-sārthavāhānām, naika-rasántara-vihito
hy anka iti sa veditavyas tu. 18 Anka has to be completed. By closing the poetic theme (in an appropriate way) the seed of the plot should reach its natural end. Bindu, born of poetic theme, meaning extension of the theme, should continue all through out the play.
By 'Anka' is to be understood that part of the play, where (a portion of) the meaning (= theme) comes to an end, and where the seed-bīja is collected (i.e. where the seed relating to the juncture joining this stage of the theme to the next is collected), and where the 'bindu' (= extention of the theme) is somewhat connected. This means that 'anka' is that portion of the play where a part of the
an end and the bīia also comes to a close, however a little of 'bindu' (= potential extention of the plot) clings on to an extent.
The ‘anka' or act should display directly the behaviour and the relationship (with queens) of the (various) heroes already mentioned. Various situations (of the heroes and other characters) should be shown in the act, which should not be too long.

Page #464

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1639 The actions or various sentiments concerning the hero, the heroine, elderly people, family priest, ministers and commander of the army are displayed anka'.
Dr. Bhat translates (Vs. 16-18) (pp. 119, ibid)
(16) "What is to be always known as an 'anka' of a play is (that presentation) where a (particular stage of) plot (development) is brought to a close, where the seed (relating to the juncture joining this stage and the next) is gathered up, and where the drop (bindu) remains somehow connected (with the theme and the following phases of the dramatic content.)"
Dr. Bhat adds in the foot-note : The translation follows Abhinava : cf : prārambhā"di-avasthā-laksano'rthah yatra samāpyate sónkah. ankasamāptyām api vā avasthāyām gadā bījasya samharanam yathāsvam sandhibhedena ucitam bhavati tadā api anka-cchedah. tatra utpattiḥ udghātanam, udbhedo, garbhanirbhedah, phalasama"nayanam iti mukha"disu yathakramam bijasya daśa-višesah samhāra-sabda-vācyāh. anka-vicchedo mā bhūt iti ava-lagna-sambandhah binduh yatra trādrg kartavyah-p. 416.
What is meant is that an act, while maintaining connection with the previous and the following stages of plot-development, must present some complete phase of the dramatic plot. Thus the phase of the plot shown in an act is three-fold
elating to the main theme, auxiliary, and something which by co-incidence or causal connection helps the main theme. (Abhinava, op. cit., p. 418)
Dr. Unni (p. 547) notes: "It is noted that three varieties of Anka are suggested here and in support the view of Kohala is cited - anayā tv aryayā ankasya traividhyam ucyate, tathā ca uktam kohalena."
Actually ‘ankasya traividhyam. should mean the phase of the plot shown in the act is three fold as explained by Dr. Bhat.
Dr. Bhat translates (VS. 17-18) : (pp. 119, ibid)
"But the act which shows different stages of plot-development connected with the direct action and union of the (different kinds of) heroes mentioned and (the actions) of the (chief and other) queens of the hero, elderly persons, family priest, minister and the leader of the caravan [i.e. commander in-chief of the army], and using various sentiments, should not be made too long; this should be clearly understood."
Dr. Bhat adds the following foot-note, (pp. 119, ibid) : The actions and love leading to union of the hero must be actually presented and not left to imagination,

Page #465

1640
SAHRDAYĀLOKA says Abhinava; otherwise the spectators would lose interest in the play. (The word in the original is 'pratyakşacarita-sambhogah)
The kinds of heroes are - Dhīródātta, Dhira-lalita, Dhīróddhata and Dhīrapraśānta. Abhinava says that 'nāyaka-devī.' etc. are mentioned to indicate the direction of incidental matters helpful to the principal plot. “nāyakā mukhyāḥ patākā”dayaḥ; devyo mahādevi-bhoginiprabhịtayah.” Chief queen and other consorts. “Gurujano mātr-pitr-bhrātrā"cāryā”di, sārthavāho'tra senapatiḥ.” Since the act presents words and actions of all these it is bound to have sentiments : ata eva naikena vicitreņa rasa-viśeșeņa yuktaḥ. tathā hi - deviyoge śrngāraḥ, nāyake vīrah; evam anyad utpreksyam.” Op. cit. p. 418.
This means that the act is expected to present variety in its theme. N.S. XVIII. 19 reads as -
"pañcā'varā daśa-parā hyankāḥ syur nātake prakarane ca, nişkrāmaḥ sarvesām yasminn
ankaḥ sa vijñeyah.” This means that in the Nātaka and Prakarana varieties of rūpaka the number of acts is supposed to be five (in the minimum) to ten (maximum). An act is known to be (that portion of a play) in which all characters (on the stage) are supposed to retire (to the green-room). N.S. XVIII 20-22 read as -
“krodha-prasāda-śokah śāpotsargo'tha vidravódvāhau, adbhuta-sambhava-darśanam
anke pratyaksajāni syuḥ. 20 (A.G. explains 'pratyaksajāni' as 'aksajam jñānam prati garāni pratyaksajāni - i.e. those which are directly observed).
"eka-divasa-pravịttam kāryas tv ankórtha-bījam adhikrtya āvaśyaka-kāryāņām avirodhena prayogeșu.” 21

Page #466

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1641 ekā’nkena kadācid bahūni kāryāni yojayed dhimān,
avaśyaka-a-virodhena
tatra kāryāni kāryāni. 22 This means that things that are directly displayed in an act should include acts of anger, favour, sorrow, release from curse, running away due to f the beginning of a miracle and its actual occurance etc. Incidents or activities that last for a full day should be presented in an act. This should be in consideration of the seed i.e. bīja of the dramatic theme. This means that all activities presented in an act should have a unity of time and unity of action. This performance should not obstruct the essential activities.
Here A.bh. observes that the maximum duration for the performance of an act should last a single day. 'āvaśyaka kārya' refers to taking meals, etc. for which both the actors and spectators must have enough free time. An intelligent (producer or playwright) may accomplish performance of many activities through one act but they should not hamper essential things.
NS. XVIII 23 suggests that all artists who enter the stage should leave the stage (by the end of the act) after performing action that is connected with the purpose of the seed : bījártha-yukti-yuktam krivā kāryam yathārtha-rasam.” This should harmonise with the object and rasa related to the seed.
Considering the nature (avasthā) of the day split up into moments (ksana), watches (yāma), and auspicious time (muhūrta, consisting of about twenty-four minutes), the plot should be suitably arranged in separate activities. This distribution should be spread in several acts. This means that all acts should display activities in consideration of the nature of the day.
Abhinavagupta observes : kşaņa-yāma-muhūrtānām yāni laksanāni kartavyāni, asmin ksane sandhyā anuştheyā iryādīni... tena eka-divasa-sampāditam upayogi cestitam anke badhnīyāt iti tātparyam.
Bharata observes that if some incidents could not be presented within the span of a day, the act should be brought to a close and the matter may be represented later through a praveśaka or interlude. If any character moves on a journey to a distant place, it could be conveyed through an intertude after closing the particular act.

Page #467

1642
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Bharata observes (NS. XVIII. 28) -
“sannihita-nāyakónkaḥ kartavyo nātake prakarane vā parijana-kathā'nubandhaḥ
praveśako nāma vijneyaḥ." This means that in the case of nātaka and prakarana, (types of rūpakas) the act should always have the hero present in it. The praveśaka is to be known as connected with the conversation of the servants and retinue.
It is further observed that in prakarana and nataka the number of acts should be from five to ten. And similar number of intertudes - praveśakas - are possible in them in the interval between two acts.
Bharata further says that in between the acts intertudes are to be placed depending upon the requirements of the theme (artha-kriyām samabhivīksya). It is further observed - (NS. XVIII-31) -
"anka-cchedam krtvā māsa-kstam varşa-sancitam vā'pi, tat sarvam kartavyam
varsad urdhvam na tu kadācit." Dr. Bhat translates : (pp. 123, ibid) -
(31) "Having made a break in an act, (i.e. having brought an act to a close), the events which take a month or an year, all that should be shown in a praveśaka), but (not events) which have taken more than an year.”
In a foot-note (pp. 123) he observes : "Obviously, this rule means that the timeinterval between two acts, so far as it relates to actual happenings, should not be more than an year. This is generally observed by the dramatists. But the rule breaks down in the case of the Rāma-kathā. See Bhāsa's Pratimā and Bhavabhūti's Uttara-rāma-carita. To accomodate this unavoidable interval of 12 to 14 years, Abhinava refers to an interpretation by which the word 'month' and 'year' is taken as collective singular. But he does not approve of this and says that time-period like an year mentioned by Bharata refers only to the actual accomplishment of an action; the time taken up by preparation or the intervening period of time, even though factually real, is to be ignored in dramatic presentation. See. Op. cit., pp. 422-423."

Page #468

"Daśarūpaka-Vicāra”
1643 Bharata further observes that when a dramatic character (yah kaścit - (purusa)) has to go on a long journey on account of some business, the experts should close the act on this point, as laid down before.
Here in the A.bh. the views of Bhatta Lollata and Upadhyāya i.e. Bhatta Tauta are referred to. This stanza is not accepted by Lollața, while Tauta not only accepts it but also notes that the idea mentioned here is only a repetition of a previous concept to bring home the point.
Bharata (NS. XVIII. 33) further observes that both in a prakarana and a nātaka, praveśaka should be placed betweed two acts, in order to facilitate the development of the theme in other acts, i.e. the praveśaka should refer to the inter-connection and further development of the central points (of the dramatic theme, in every act - 'bindūnām') (The other reading is 'sandhīnām' - i.e. junctures.)
This "preveśaka' or intertude between two acts, should not be presented by characters of high or middle class, i.e. it should not display actions of such people. The language also should not be a refined one, i.e. used by noble characters. But it should use common (prāksta) language and common conduct. Bharata further observes that a praveśaka (NS. XVIII : 35) is -
"kālotthāna-gatir-asau vyākhyā-samrambha-kārya-visayāņām, arthā'bhidhāna-yuktaḥ
praveśakaḥ syād anekárthaḥ.” (Translation, Dr. Bhat, pp. 125, ibid) -
"A praveśaka may have many purposes. It may be intended to state a matter (artha-abhidhāna), the rise and passage of time, an explanation (of mysteriousoccurrence or action), an event (kārya, connected with main plot), or theme (visaya), connected with the next development of the dramatic action).
Bharata further observes (XVIII 36-38) that such events, the execution of which is dependent on many persons, should be revealed succinctly i.e. should be compressed by the use of iterludes (praveśakaih), or through junctures (sandhisu vā) of the play. A play, which contains many speeches in prose, which is associated with cūrna-padas i.e. with words not in compound expression and not in Sanskrit for most part, will be unsuitable as this creates hindrance in recitation (NS. XVIII. 36).
When in a play, the content of an act cannot be completed in stipulated time and when it requires long time due to multiplicity of incidents, i.e. when the

Page #469

1644
SAHRDAYALOKA
presentation being wider, such matter should be expressed by brief introductory scenes (praveśakaih sobhidhātavyah), i.e. through praveśaka-scenes the happenings are to be narrated briefly (XVIII. 37).
Dr. Bhat in a foot-note, pp. 125, explains that according to Abhinava(gupta), this rule means that of all things that could be covered in a day, only such as are beautiful for stage presentation and helpful to the purpose of the play are to be actually presented in an 'act' of a play; all other things should be relegated to more statements in the praveśakas. We may add that this shows how Bharata was keen on maintaining unity of purpose in a play. Again the 'prayoga-laksitā' of sanskrit play is noticed here.
Bharata (NS. XVIII. 38) further ordains that such scenes as are directly connected with war or battle or fight, dethronement or loss of kingdom (rajyabhramsa), death, seige of a city by an army (nagaróparodhanam) - are not to be portrayed actually in an act; i.e. they are not to be shown actually in reality (pratyaksāni tu na anke), but they are to be arranged (i.e. conveyed, samvidheyāni,) only indirectly, through praveśakas i.e. interludes.
Bharata further observes (NS. XVIII. 39) that in both 'prakarana' and 'nātaka' types of rūpakas, a hero, who is well-known, and who is prone to prosperity (abhyudayı), should not be shown as killed, i.e. his killing (vadha) is not to be enacted either in the act, i.e. directly on the stage, or even in an intertude (i.e. indirectly through information his killing is not to be accomplished).
It is further suggested (NS. XVIII. 40), that the hero's flight, i.e. running away or removal could be conveyed. Or, either his capture i.e. his being taken as a captive, or entering into a treaty (grahanam vā sandhih va) could be arranged by those who know the essence of dramatic art. All this could be in keeping with the main sentiment-yathā-rasam. This could be achieved by varied poetic constructions (kāvya-ślesair bahubhiḥ). Dr. Unni reads : "tais taih kārya-viśesaih” praveśakaih sūcayec caiva.” (pp. 580, ibid). This means the above-mentioned (i.e. apasarana, grahaņa, etc.) could be accomplished i.e. suggested by praveśakas which are rich in special devices. .
.41 suggests that for both nātaka and prakarana there should not be many characters, - na mahājana-parivāram kartavyam nāțakam prakaranam vā. This means that the hero should not be surrounded by a very big retinue. Actual number of persons playing useful role, should be just four or five, i.e. actual men of action - (kārya-purusāh) should be just four or five.
All this points to maintaing unity of purpose, or action. There should not be superfluous characters flooding the stage.

Page #470

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1645 NS. XX. 42 has interesting suggestions. It suggests -
“kāvyam go-pucchāgram kartavyam kārya-bandham āsadya, ye códātrā bhāvās te
sarve prsthataḥ kāryāḥ.” Dr. Bhat (pp. 127) translates :
"While attempting the formal construction of dramatic action (kārya-bandha) the poetic composition should be made (like) the tip of a cow's tail, and all exalted emotional states should be arranged at the end.”
Dr. Bhat explains Abhinava's stand in a foot-note here. Accordingly Abhinava mentions two opinions about the meaning of 'go-pucchāgra': (a) dramatic action which gradually tapers down towards the end; (b) the phases of dramatic development showing completion at various junctures in different acts : that is to say, some completed in the 1st or 2nd; and some only in the final act : e.g. the Madana-Mahotsava is completed in the first act of Ratnāvalī; but the episode of Bābhravya hinted in the beginning is accomplished only at the end. The events thus have varied length like the hairs in a cow's tail.
We may add that later, The N.D. seems to support this second explanation. There it is suggested that in a cow's tail some hairs are very long and hang from the beginning to the end while others go to a short, or shorter or shortest length. In the same way, in a play, the main action concerning the objective of the hero stretches from the first act to the end of the play, while other incidents are of shorter or longer duration as the case may be.
NS. XVIII. 43 observes that in all poetic compositions - "sarveşām kāvyānām”, abounding in various sentiments and emotions - "nānā-rasa-bhāva-yukri-yukta" - the experts should always delineate the Adbhuta i.e. Marvellous sentiment in the end. We will see that Viśvanātha suggests that his senior, one Nārāyana, recommended that 'adbhuta' should always be employed in a play, perhaps as the principal rasa.
It may be noted that with this Bharata's treatment of the "nataka” variety ends. He picks up prakarana and other rūpakas ending with vīthi after this. It is only in the next chapter i.e. Ch. XIX that Bharata deals with the structure of drama, i.e. with sandhis and sandhy angas. The DR. however, in the very first chapter, while dealing with the distinction between rūpaka (i.e. nārya), nrtta and nrtya, suggests

Page #471

1646
SAHRDAYĀLOKA that rūpaka is again ten-fold. These types of rūpakas evolve due to difference in theme (vastu), hero (netā) and rasa. Then the DR. first deals with vastu, which is principal and subordinate and observes that vastu, artha-praksti-s and avasthās are five each. These sets of five each, in sequence cause five junctures viz. mukha, pratimukha, etc. Thus five sandhis along with sandhyanga-s forming the structure of the drama are taken up in the beginning by the DR. We feel that this is a better arrangement. So, we will also prefer to pick up the thread from the DR. and go along with its design. For the rest of rūpaka-s i.e. for rūpaka-s beginning with prakarana and ending with vīthi, we will again start our consideration with the NS. of Bharata, followed by other works on dramaturgy such as the DR., and others chronologically. So, we will treat in the beginning the variety called the “nātaka" first, as treated in works beginning with the DR. and ending with the SD. Most of these works have dealt with the structure of the drama i.e. with the problem of dramatic theme and its treatment through sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s, along with the consideration of Nataka'. The treatment of other varieties will follow next and there we will have only to deal with their characteristics and not with the structure.
It may be noted that, of course we will follow the design of the DR., but while dealing with the structure, i.e. with junctures - sandhis and its parts - sandhyangas, we will attempt a critical and comparative study beginning with the NS. of Bharata. The ND. also has followed the pattern of the DR.
Dhananiava, the author of the DR. observes (DR. I. 4): (p. 4, Edn. Venkatacharya, Adyar, Madras, '69)
“nāryānām kintu kincit praguna-racanayā
lakṣaṇam samkṣipāmi." Dhanika observes : "...asya sāmastyena laksanam kartum kaḥ śaktaḥ. tad ekadeśasya laksanam samksepatah kriyata ity arthaḥ.”
(pp. 6, ibid) Avaloka has - “nāryānām laksanam samksipāmi” (1/4) ityuktam, kim punas tan nāryam ity āha - What is ‘nātya'? In answer to this the DR. observes : (I. 7, pp. 6, 7, ibid) :
"avasthā’nukstir nātyam rūpam drśyatayocyate, rūpakam tat samāropāt, daśadhaiva rasā”śrayam.”

Page #472

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1647
Dhanika explains that the identification by four-fold representation such as ängika etc., of the state of heroes such as dhiródātta etc. as portrayed in poetry is 'nārya'.
• “kāvyopanibaddha-dhīródāttā”dy avasthā’nukāraś caturvidhābhinayena vācikā’ngika-sāttvikā”-hārya-rūpeṇa tādātmyā” pattir nāryam.”
Dhanika explains that artful representation or identification, as it is viewed, is termed 'rūpa', like blue object etc. -
(pp. 7) "tad eva nătyam drśyamānatayā rūpam ity ucyate, nīlā”di-rūpa-vat.
The Laghuţikā explains that 'nātya’ is termed 'rūpa' or 'spectacle only metaphorically just as a blue object is also termed 'rūpa' as it is viewed. (pp. 7) - “tad eva nātyam rūpam ity ucyate. yathā nīlā"di-rūpasya drśyatvaguņa-yogaḥ, evam idam api drśyatva-gunayogād rūpam ity ucyate. yathā māņavake jvalanaśabdo gauņaḥ evam nāțyastho rūpa-śabdo’pi gauņa ity arthaḥ.”
Dhanika (pp. 7) further explains : "națe rāmā"dyavasthā"ropeņa vartamānatvād rūpakam.” As the state of Rāma is superimposed on ‘nata'. or 'actor, it is also termed “rūpaka”. Dhanika also explains that as the words 'indra', 'sakra' and 'purandara' are basically referring to one and the same deity and yet they are placed in the same case - i.e. sāmānādhikaranya' - on account of difference in activity or role, in the same way, 'nātya', 'rūpa' and 'rūpaka'though basically identical and therefore not capable of being mentioned through sāmānādhikaranya are mentioned that way because of different functions suggested by these terms.
This nārya, i.e. rūpa, i.e. rūpaka is ten-fold on the strength of the variety of rasas delineated in them. Dhanika observes : (pp. 7, ibid) - "rasān āśritya pravartamānam daśa-prakāram. 'eva' ity avadhāraṇam tu śuddhā'bhiprāyeņa nātikāyāḥ sankirnatvena vaksyamāṇatvāt.”
By "eva”, observes Dhanika, it is ascertained that rūpaka-s are ten only in number from the point of view of "pure” types. 'Nātikā' is a mixed form and this will be explained later. These ten varieties of rūpaka-s are enumerated in DR. I. 8 such as -
“nāțakam sa-prakaranam bhāṇaḥ, prahasanam, qimaḥ, vyāyoga-samavakārau vīthy ankéhāmțgā iti.” (pp. 8, ibid)

Page #473

1648
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Dhanika observes that by 'iti', no 'avad hārana' i.e. ascertainment is meant and hence possibility of other varieties being counted remains open. This doubt, observes Dhanika is removed by the following kārikā which rules out the possibility of upa-rūpaka-s or other art-forms being placed under the head or "rupaka". The DR. I. 9. (pp. 8, 9, 10) observes that 'nrtya' i.e. dance-form is different from 'rūpaka' as it is dependent on 'bhāva' and not 'rasa' as in case of ‘rūpaka.', 'nţtta' or rhythmic movement, which is a sort of lesser dance-form is quite different from these two as it depends only on ‘tāla' or tempo and 'laya' i.e. rhythm (tālah cañcat-putā"dih, layah drutā"dih), thus it has nothing to do with emotional content. So, even if all these three are "viewed” they have separate identity. The DR. I. 9 observes :
"anyad bhāvā”śrayam nộtyam nịttam tāla-layā”śryam, adyam padárthā’bhinayo, mārgo deśī tathā-param.”
Dhanika observes : “nộtyam padárthābhinayā”tmakam mārga iti prasiddham. nșttam tu deśī iti.” .
'Nộtya' is known as “mārga" as it is having "padárthābhinaya" as its soul. By this it is meant that the element of acting is less as compared to 'rupaka' which is vākyarthābhinayā”tmaka. It is more of dance than of acting. 'Nștta' is different from both ‘rupaka' and 'nětya' as it contains no emotional basis and depends only on rhythmic movements of limbs. This is termed 'deśī i.e. perhaps folk-based as against classical art. These two i.e. 'nrtya' and 'nrtta' are again two-fold being of the faster and slower variety :
"madhuróddhata-bhedena tad dvayam dvividham punaḥ, lāsya-tāndava-rūpeņa
nāțakā”dy upakārakam.” (DR. I. 10, pp. 10, ibid) Both graceful types (i.e. one each of nộtya and nștta, the slower variety) are termed 'lāsya', the other two (i.e. one each of nộtya, nștta) are termed 'tandava'. These help the cause of nātaka etc. (i.e. rūpakas in general). Nộtya helps at times in form of padárthā’bhinaya which is placed in berween where required, and nștta helps the cause of nāțakā"di as just a decorative agent. Dhanika observes (pp. 70) "nịtyasya kvacid avāntara padárthābhinaya rūpatvena, nșttasya ca sobhāhetutvena nāțakā”dau upayogah iti."

Page #474

"Dasarüpaka-Vicāra"
1649 Now, a question is raised and then solved. The question is that as artful imitation all rūpaka-s are identical, so how come the difference in ten varities is explained ? To this question, says Dhanika, the author Dhananjaya replies in DR. I. 11 (pp. 11, ibid) :
"vastu netā rasasteşām bhedakaḥ, vastu ca dvidha tatrā"dhikārikam mukhyam,
angam prāsangikam viduḥ.” The varieties of rūpaka-s stand justified from the point of view of 'vastu'-i.e. theme, 'netā', i.e. hero and 'rasa' i.e. predominant sentiment. Now 'vastu' again is principal or adhikarika and subordinate or incidental i.e. 'prāsangikam'.
Dhanika explains : (p. 11) - “pradhānabhūtam iti-vșttam adhikārikam, yathā rāmāyaṇe rāma-sītā-vrttāntah" - "story of Rāma and Sītā in the Rāmāyana is the illustration of principal theme i.e. adhikārika vastu or iti-vrtta.
The subordinate theme is illustrated in the same i.e. Rāmāyaṇa by the account of Vibhīsaņa, or Sugriva etc., for example -
"tad anga-bhūtam prāsangikam. yathā tatraiva vibhīşana-sugrīvā”di-víttāntah.” These accounts are subordinate, angabhūta, to the main story or main plot or theme.
Ādhikārika - is further explained (DR. I. 12) as that account which deals with adhikarin, the hero, who is the master of final out-come, "phala-svāmin". 'adhikara' is explained as claim or mastery over the ultimate fruit. This account pervades the whole of the composition and is therefore termed ädhikärika i.e. major or principal -
“adhikāraḥ phala-swāmyam adhikārī ca tat-prabhuḥ, tan-nirvartyam abhivyāpi vșttam syād adhikārikam.
The hero takes care of this account - "tannirvartya”. Dhanika (pp. 11) observes : "phalena sva-svāmi-sambandho'dhikāraḥ, phalaswami ca adhikārī; tena adhikārinā nirvrttam, phalaparyantatām niyamānam iti vrttam adhikarikam." . 'adhikara' or 'right means the relation of "being a master

Page #475

1650
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
himself of." 'Adhikarin' is one who is, being a master empowered to have right, or claim over something. The theme - iti vrtta - which is led to its final denoucement or final stage i.e. achievement of goal by the adhikarin, and hence his role is 'adhikārika' i.e. major or principal, and thus the theme connected with the hero's activity is 'principal.
'Prasangika' or minor or incidental theme is one played by some other character who works either solely in the interest of the other - parā'rtha - i.e. for the hero, or perhaps in this some self-interest on his part is also involved : Thus minor theme is that which is connected with other characters who are either totally self-less or partly acting also in self - interest, but both acting in the interest of the hero, no doubt. This incidental theme either stretches for a lo part in a play and is termed 'pataka', or is of a short and temporary duration and is termed 'prakarī.' 'Patākā is a metaphorical expression meaning a flag and as the patākā-nāyaka carries on his work longer, it helps to a greater extent the cause of the hero. It is like carrying a flag in an army. DR. I. 13 and 'avaloka' of Dhanika, read as (pp. 12, ibid) :
"prāsangikam parárthasya svārtho yasya prasangataḥ, patākā-prakari-bhedād dvi vidhatvam prapadyate. sā’nubandham patākā”khyam
prakari ca pradeśa-bhāk.” 'Avaloka' reads : "yasya iti-vșttasya para-prayojanasya satas tat-prasangāt svaprayojana-siddhiḥ, tat prāsangikam iti-vșttam. prasanga-nirvșteh prāsangikam.
prāsangikam api patākā-prakarī-bhedad dvividham.
dūram yad anuvartate prāsangikam sā patākā, sugrīvā"di-vșttantavat. patākāiva-a-sādhārana-nāyaka-cihna-vat tad upakāritvāt. yad alpam = dūram na anuvartate să prakarī, śrāvanā"di-vrttānta-vat."
When 'patākā' is discussed, on account of similarity in naming and pronouncing. "patākästhānaka" is also explained. These are devices that help the cause of the enhancement of the theme.
Dhananjaya then observes that the adhikārika and two-fold prāsangika make 'three' in all. These three are again either 'prakhyāta' i.e. welknown, i.e. historical

Page #476

“Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1651
theme, or 'utpădya' i.e. imagined or 'newly created' theme, or 'mixed' i.e. having portions of both 'prakhyāta' and 'utpădya'. The 'miśra' is having a number of varieties, i.e. sub-varieties and are boundless in number as the mixed has portions of the activity of divine or human characters.
The 'phala' or 'out-come' or 'goal of this theme is termed “kārya", and the three goals of human life, dharma, artha and kāma are meant by the same. This goal can be 'suddha' i.e. pure if only one of the three is aimed at. By combination of all the three, or any two of the three puruśārthas, it is else than 'śuddha'. With this DR. embarks upon the means of achieving these goals or kārya. Dhanika has a remark (pp. 15, ibid) - "tat-sādhanam vyutpadayati” - The means is explained in DR. I. 17, 18 such as -
"svalpóddisțas tu taddhetur
bījam vistāry anekadhā.” The 'seed' is manifested a little and expands in a number of ways and proportion.
"stokóddistah kārya-sādhakaḥ parastād aneka-prakāram vistāri hetu-viśeso, bīja-vad bījam” . It is termed 'bīja' or seed metaphorically, - observes Dhanika (Avaloka, pp. 15, ibid).
'Bindu' or 'drop' i.e. expansion of the theme is a sort of continuation, after a brief pause or cutting of; due to something -
"avāntarā'rtha-vicchede
bindur accheda-karanam." (DR. I. 17b) Dhanika explains as : "yathā ratnāvalyām avāntara-prayojana-ananga-pājāpari-samāptau kathā'rtha-viccheda saty anantara-karya-hetuh... bindur jale tailabindu-vat prásāritvāt.”
Dhanika explains that the term 'bindu' is also metaphorical. It is like drop of oil in water. This drop has a tendency to expand. Similarly this kārya-hetu also is a device which helps the expansion of the main theme.
These are, along with patākā. prakarī and kārva are said to be five arthaprakrti-s. By 'artha-prakrti', which is termed 'upaya' in the ND., is meant the causes of attainment of goal, explains Dhanika (pp. 16, ibid) :
“artha-prakrtayaḥ = prayojana - siddhi - hetavah.”

Page #477

1652
SAHRDAYĀLOKA DR. I. 18 (p. 16) reads :
"bija-bindu-parākā”khyaprakarī-kārya-laksaņāḥ, artha-prakstayaḥ pañca
ta etāḥ parikīrtitāḥ.” After this the DR. picks up the topic of five ‘avasthā's or 'stages of the theme.
Before we discuss this topic, we will see how the NS. of Bharata treats of the five artha-prakrtis, viz. bīja, bindu, etc.
It may be noted that in Ch. XIX (G.O.S. Edn.) of the NS., Bharata treats these topics in the following order; (i) itivṛtta, i.e. dramatic plot, vs. 1-16; (ii) pañcaavāşthas and sandhayah-junctures as found in a plot vs. 7-19; (iii) pañca arthapraksti-s, i.e. components of plot, vs. 20-30; and (iv) patākāsthānaka; plot indications or suggestive happenings; vs. 30-36; (v) sandhi-pañcakam; vs. 37-49; (vi) sandhyanga-kalpa; i.e. significance and purpose of sandhi-angas; 50-55 vs.; (vii) arthópaksepa-pañcakam; i.e. Introductory or presentation devices vs. 110-116; - and then this is followed by "daśa-rūpa-samāsah" - i.e. ten types of drama, vs. 139153; while in Ch. XVIII types of dramas are discussed.
We will follow the line of DR. and pick up from Bharata in sequence. This is for convenience in treatment and the DR. is, in our opinion, gifted with a better and more sound methodology.
So, after discussing the artha-prakrti-s in the DR. we turn to the NS. We will treat all the topics at a time in individual works on dramaturgy in sequence in a chronological order.
Itiyrtta - The NS. (XIX. i) observes that the dramatic plot has been called the 'body of the drama. Its division is imagined by means of five junctures - sandhis.
“itivșttam tu nāțyasya śarīram parikirtitam, pañcabhiḥ sandhibhis
tasya vibhāgaḥ samprakalpitaḥ.” It may be noted that 'iti-vrtta' means the same as “vastu” i.e. theme. A.bh. observes : "iti-vȚtta-śabda-vācyam tad vastu śarīram, rasāḥ punar ātmā, śarira"virbhāvakāh.” Normally five junctures are enumerated but their use - i.e. of all or less - is left to the dramatist.

Page #478

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1653
Bharata (XIX. V. 2) observes that iti-vrtta is Principal and Subsidiary - i.e. ādhikarika and prāsangika; adhikārika (XIX. 3) is that which is total action, having the capacity to lead to the achievement of desired object, or goal, i.e. phala-prāpti. The other (action) is termed subsidiary plot -
"yatkāryam hi phalaprāptyā sāmarthyāt parikalpyate, tad ādhikārikam jñeyam
anyat prāsangikam viduḥ." (U.S. 3) When the goal or fruit is caused by the plot, it is termed Principal i.e. main plot. To bring about this final achievement the incidental or subordinate plot is conceived (VS. 4).
Through the efforts of the poet, the achievement of the fruit is planned (kalpyate). This is aided by the regular activity (upāśraya) towards the desired goal (vidhi) performed by the heroes (i.e. main and other characters.) Finally comes the exaltation of fruit which ends in achievement. - NS. XIX - 5 reads as -
"kaveḥ prayatnān netņņām yuktānām vidhyupāśrayāt, kalpyate hi phala-prāptiḥ
samutkarsāt phalasya ca." After this Bharata discusses the five stages of dramatic action - pañca avasthāh. · followed by use of sandhi-s, and then five artha-prakrti-s or components of the plot. The DR. picks up the treatment of the five artha-prakrti-s or "prayojana-siddhihetavah" as explained by Dhanika first. The NS. explains this after avasthā-s. In a way when plot is explained, the explanation or mention of stages also is not illogical. But we will prefer to stick to the order as planned in the DR. So, the arthapraksti-s as explained by Bharata will be treated first. Bharata observes (vs. 20-36) that five artha-prakrti-s or components of plot are mentioned in keeping with five stages or 'avastha' of itivtta. NS. XIX 20 reads as -
iti-vștte yathā'vasthāḥ pancā”rambhā”dikāḥ smộtāḥ, artha-prakrtayaḥ pañca tathā bījā"dikā api.”

Page #479

1654
SAHRDAYALOKA The idea is iti-vrtta or theme or plot is the story of the behaviour or activity of the hero, at times helped by the efforts of minor heroes i.e. parākā-nāyaka and/or prakarī-nāyaka.
This theme, i.e. the effort of the hero is goal oriented, i.e. it aims at phala-prāpti. For this phala-prāpti the efforts of the hero and his aids are directed. They make a start, put in greater effort, then have a hope of achievemnt, then a stage is reached in the efforts when there is certainly of achievement and then the final achievement. These are five stages of efforts which are arambha, yatna, prāptyāśā, niyatāpti and phalāvacah. But for this in the beginning a seed is cast which is termed bija, which when expanded is termed bindu and this thought-element is aided by physical action or kārya i.e. activity. The activity has five stages mentioned above. So, the 'ND. terms bīja and bindu as 'cetana' or consciousness-roles, and 'karya' as a-cetana i.e. physical effort. The theme, narrating these efforts of the hero and his aid thus according to the stages of activity, is marked by five joints or junctures - sandhis. These sandhis
the plot follow the five stages of efforts i.e. avasthā-s as noted by the ND. rightly A sandhi is not the sum total of arthaprakrti and avasthā, but a sandhi is a joint or a portion of the plot arrived at through various stages of activities, avasthās. The NS. XIX. 21-36 treats of these artha-prakstis or components of the plot.
"bijam binduh patākā ca prakarī kāryam eva ca, artha-prakrtayaḥ pañca
jñātrvā yojyā yathāvidhi.” Bharata says that these are to be employed properly after knowing them. Thus it is hinted that every theme need not be graced by a patākā and, or a prakari. It is observed in the ND. that when a hero is completent enough to achieve his goal single-handed, no need of employing a patākā or a prakarī arises.
As explained by Dhanika the artha-prakstis are 'prayojana-siddhi-hetus'. That special effort which is seen partially in a manifold way later is 'bīja' or seed; (DR. I. 17a) and 'bindu' is 'continuation of this effort, after some 'break' is seen. This follows the NS. Bharata explains 'bija' (XIX. 22) as -
"svalpa-mātram samut-srstam bahudhā yad visarpati, phalávasānam yac caiva bijam tat prakīrtitam."

Page #480

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1655
Dr. Bhat translates (pp. 167, ibid)
"That which very slightly cast (through the dramatic dialogue), moves in expanding circle in many ways and culminates in fruition, that is called Bīja or Seed. ‘Bindu' is explained by Bharata (XIX. 23) as -
“prayojanānām vicchede yad a-viccheda-kāraṇam, yāvat samāptir bandhasya sa binduḥ parikīrtitaḥ.”
(Translation, Dr. Bhat, pp. 167) "That which sustains the unbroken continuity (of dramatic action) till the end of the composition, even when the means (leading to the chief object of the play) are suspended (temporarily), that is called 'bindu' or 'Drop'.
Dhanika explains that in Ratnāvali the bīja is cast under the pretext of anangapūjā. Then the flow of events stops. To re-charge the battery something happens. Sāgarikā, listens to, "udayanasyéndor ivódvikșate” and an idea flashes in her mind viz. "kaham eso so..." "Is this the same Udayana to whom my father has pledged to give me in marriage..." etc. Thus 'bindu' is further opening, expansion, of something which has come to a halt for the time-being.
'Patākā is explained by Bharata (vs. 24) as that happening, vịtta, which is in the interest of someone else (parártha) but helps the cause of the main plot (pradhānasya upakārakam). This episode is almost treated as major plot. (pradhānavac ca kalpyeta). It is a subsidiary plot which runs almost parallel to the main plot and occupies a fairly large part of the play. Patākā-s are so called metaphorically for like banners, they help to recognise the chief. These are independent episodes in the plot and they have a purpose and a fruit of their own, but these merge necessarily in the main plot as they assist the main plot developing in final fruition.
Bharata (vs. 25), explains 'prakarī as such events that are meant only for the purpose of the main plot (parārthāya eva kevalam). They i.e. prakari-s have no further continuation i.e. connected development - 'anubandha-vihữnatva.' Etymologically 'prakari is that which operates for the main plot, i.e. it achieves something conspicuously for the main plot and there is absolutely no personal interest involved in itself : "prakarșeņa svārtha-anapekṣayā karoti iti.”

Page #481

1656
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Abhinavagupta illustrates this by the role of Sri. Krisna in Venisahāra. The role of Jațāyu in the Rāma-kathā is the illustration as seen in the ND. (pp. 168, ibid) - ‘kārya' is explained by Bharata (XIX. 26) as,
yad adhikārikam vastu samyak prājñaiḥ prayujyate, tad artho yaḥ samārambhaḥ
tat kāryam parikīrtitam." Dr. Bhat translates : (pp. 169) : The total effort, which is appropriately employed by the intelligent dramatist) for the purpose of the main plot, is called "kārya' or “Dramatic Action." .
This ‘kārya' is 'itivṛttasya phalam’ as explained by Dhanika, which is of the form of three pursuits of life, viz. dharma, artha, and kāma, either taken individually or jointly. · The DR (I. 16b) has -
"kāryam trivargaḥ, śuddham
ekā’nekā'nubandhi ca." The total effort is action employed for the achievement of this goal. This is also termed kārya, which has five 'avasthās'. So, the kārya which is of the form of trivarga is the goal, to achieve which, bīja is cast, bindu operates and physical effortkārya-divided into five avasthā-s, is made. These avasthas have five sandhi-s or joints conceived as parrallel, in the plot. The sandhi-s one or many seen in 'patākā’ or subsidiary plot are termed as 'anusandhi' (NS. XIX. 28) -
(Lollara and others explain that anu-sandhi is to deal with the story of patākānāyaka - "tathā lollatā"dyās tu manyante, parárthe sādhayitavye patākānāyakasya itivștta-bhāgā anu-sandhayaḥ.]
The patākā extends upto either 'garbha' or 'vimarśa' juncture. It terminates before 'nirvahana' because the composition of 'patākā' and its construction are meant only for the main plot (vs. 29)
DR. treats of parākāsthānakas along with 'patākā'. This follows the pattern of the NS. which also picks up ‘patākāsthānakas' or suggestive happening i.e. plotindications after the treatment of patākā'.
There can be two explanations for this. The first reason is similarity in name. But this is not backed by logic. But second reason is that these suggestive devices also contribute, like 'patākā', to the cause of helping the hero in his endeavour to

Page #482

"Daśarūpaka-Vicāra"
1657 reach the goal. Again, the conception of patākā-sthānaka-s is so attractive or charming and useful that it draws our attention as is a flag. Bharata explains patākāsthānaka (vs. 30) as -
"yatrā’rthe cintite'nyasmins tallingo'nyah prayujyate, āgantukena bhāvena
patākāsthānakam tu tat. "When some matter is already contemplated (i.e. expressed or represented in the drama), another matter, having the same characteristics (or, similar to it) is suggested (i.e. employed, prayujyate) on account of accidental happening, it is pataka-sthānaka or plot-indication. (Trans. Dr. Bhat, p. 171)
Abhinavagupta explains that patākāsthānaka is iti-vṛtta, i.e. plot or a phase of plot-development. The particular happening suggests such plot-development in such a way, as a banner suggests a special place in which it is planted.
Four types of patākāsthānaka-s are explained by Bharata (vs. 31-34). When sudden wealth of meaning, full of excellence and helping the cause of the main plot occurs, it is said to be the first type of patākā-sthanaka. Words, charged with ślesadouble entendre, expressed in a poetic composition (help the cause), it is the second variety. Third type of patākāsthānaka is that when a polite conversational usage of words suggesting a future idea with the help of double entendre is used. Thus here, a concealed (līna) subject-matter is suggested, by a special device through conversation which is subtly connected. The verse (33) reads as -
"arthópakṣepanam yatra līnam sa-vinayam bhavet, ślista-pratyuttaropetam
tļtīyam idam isyate.” (NS. XIX. 33). Abhinavagupta explains 'sa-vinayam' as ·
'viseșeņa nayanam viśeșa-niścaya-prāptyā sahitam.' 'ślīstena' is explained as - "sambandha-yogena abhiprāyā’ntara-prayuktena api.”
Fourth variety occurs in the use of words in a poetic composition, conveying a double meaning. Thus su-ślistah - i.e. judicious or well-connected, or with the use of beautiful double entendre, - words are used in a poetic composition, well connected with the theme, make for this variety.

Page #483

1658
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Bharata (vs. 36) observes that action in a drama should have four (types of) patākāsthānaka-s and the dramatic action must have five sandhi-s.
"catuspatākā-paramam nāțake kāryam isyate, pañcabhiḥ sandhibhir yuktam, tāns ca vaksyāmy
ataḥ param." The 'Avaloka' on DR. I. 14 observes that, “patākā-prasangāt patākāsthānakam api vyutpādayati.” DR. I. 14 (p. 13, ibid) has -
"prastutā”gantu-bhāvasya vastuno'nyókti-sūcanam, patākāsthānakam tulya
samvidhāna-visesaņam.” (p. 13) - The Avaloka on this reads as - "prākaranikasya” bhāvinórthasya sūcana-rūpam patākāvad bhavati'ti patākā-sthānakam. tac ca tulyétivștta-tayā, tulya-visesanatayā ca dvi-prakāram-anyóktisamāsókti-bhedāt. samāsókteh sakāśād anyókter bhedāt". Thus only two varieties are hinted at in the DR. as against four in the NS. the Laghutikā explains further : tatrā"ha-samāsokteh sakāśād anyókter bhedad iti. - samāsókter vilaksanaiva anyóktih. samksipyoktih samāsóktih ity etāvati samāsóktih samāse saty api anyapratītim anyasyóktir anyóktir iti tayor bhedaḥ.
The N.S. (XIX. 37-49) treats of five junctures - sandhi-pañca-here after first treating the five stages - 'pañcā'vasthāh' - of dramatic action. The DR. also follows the same order.
In the NS., the five avasthā-s - pañcā'vasthāh - are treated at Ch. XIX. vs. 7-16 as follows:
"samsādhye phalayoge tu vyāpāraḥ kāraṇasya yaḥ tasyā’nupūrvyā vijñeyāḥ pancā’vasthāḥ prayoktņbhiḥ.” - (vs. 7) prārambhaś ca prayatnaś ca tathā prāpteś ca sambhavaḥ, niyatā ca phala-prāptiḥ phala-yogaś ca pañcamaḥ.” (vs. 8)

Page #484

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1659 Dr. Bhat translates : (pp. 163, ibid) -
Five stages of dramatic action. (7-8) :- The (mental and literary) activity on the part of the poet (lit. the cause of art-creation) for the accomplishment of the solemn fruit, of its five stages in consecutive order should be recognised by the representators (poets and directors): (viz.) Beginning or commencement, efforts, possibility of realization, ordained attainment of fruit, Accomplishment of fruit."
It may be noted that in the VS. 7, in place of 'kāraṇasya' another reading viz. "sādhakasya" is given. This should be preferred. By 'sadhakasya' is meant of 'one who strives' for the attainment of the fruit, i.e. the hero. Actually the whole effort of the hero is goal oriented and this effort passes through five stages. Even if we prefer "karanasya", the translation should be "of the hero, who serves as a cause". Dr. Bhat translates as ‘of the poet, the cause of art-creation. This sounds redundant and useless. "kārana-bhūtasya netuh vyāpārasya pañcā'vasthāh" - could be the idea and this sounds logical and reasonable.
'Arambha' is the first of the hero's behaviour which is goal-oriented. Here only 'autsukya' or curiosity about the great fruision of the seed - bīja - is termed ārambha.' So, 'prārambha' is that stage, when the engerness of the hero for the attainment of the final result is set forth in form of a seed-bīja. 'Prayatna' (XIX. 10) is explained by Bharata as -
a-paśyataḥ phala-prāptim vyāpāro yaḥ phalam prati, param cautsukya-gamanam
sa prayatnaḥ prakīrtitaḥ Prayatna or effort is striving towards the attainment of the goal, which seems to be unseen (i.e. beyond grasp). This is qualified by much expectation.
Prāpti-sambhava is the possibility of securing, or apprent ascertainment of the goal in a partial way. This is done only by the appropriate) means (bhāvamātrena).
Abhinavagupta observes : bhavati asmāt iti bhāvaḥ, upāyaḥ, tasya sahakāry antara-yogaḥ, pratibandhakavāraṇam avadhāritam.
M. M. Ghosh is of the opinion that when, slight or partial attainment of the goal is suggested by psychological state of the hero, it is prāptyāśā. The idea is that experts call that portion of the total effort as praptyāśā when mentally the hero feels slightly hopeful of achieving the goal.

Page #485

1660
SAHķDAYĀLOKA NS. XIX. 12 reads as -
"niyatām tu phalaprāptim yadā bhāvena paśyati, niyatām tām phala-prāptim
sa-guņām paricaksata.” Dr. Bhat (pp. 165, ibid) translates -
"When (the hero) is able to see the attainment of fruit definitely ordained (niyatā) on account of the important) means (already employed) (bhāvena), that is called "Niyatā phalaprāpti", or Ordained attainment of fruit, which is meritorious." This means that niyatā"pti - i.e. certainty of the achievement of fruit - consists of the absolute certainty of getting the final result. XIX. 12 observes -
"abhipretam samagram ca pratirūpam kriyāphalam, iti-vștte bhaved yasmin
phalayogaḥ sa kīrtitaḥ.” The phalayoga or attainment of the goal is where full intended result of the activity is shown in the plot
Dr. Bhat translates : (p. 165), -
"When the desired, appropriate (pratirūpa), total fruit of the action, becomes available in the (development of the) plot, that is called phala-yoga or Accomplishment of fruit."
Abhinavagupta takes note of the view of his teachers that everywhere, the plot should have the five joints or junctures since no effort is possible without various stages : upadyāyāstv āhuḥ - sarvatrétivșttam pañca-sandhyeva; na hi kiñcid api vyāpāro prārambhādy avasthā-pañcakam vina sidhyet.”
NS. XIX. 14 informs that whatever action is started by those who want to achieve a certain fruit, these stages occur in consequtive order. The putting together in a unified relation, - vs. 15 observes, of these stages having different nature individually, by bringing them into mutual connection - is said to the the cause of the fruit. This means that when these stages are made to serve jointly, they bring about the result.

Page #486

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1661
The adhikarika or principal plot which is described separately earlier, should have its beginning etc. neatly delineated, so that it runs its course into achievement of the fruit. (vs. 16).
NS. further observes that the main plot should be so woven that it has all the joints or sandhis normally, as a rule. There may be less sandhis, only if required due to some reason (VS. 17).
(VS. 18) Normally when one juncture is omitted, it is the fourth one that is dropped. In case of omission of two, the third and forth may go out. When three sandhis are omitted the second, third and fourth are out. Naturally any plot whatsoever, has to have its beginning and end and thus two junctures are a must.
Bharata (VS. 19) observes that in case of subsidiary plot, this rule does not hold; for the prāsangika-vrtta is supposed to serve the purpose of the main i.e. adhikarika-vștta. So, says Bharata -
"yad vịttam sambhavet tatra
tad yojyam avirodhataḥ.” i.e. Whatever plot i.e. events are possible in that prāsangika-vrtta, could be used without fear of any contradiction, of the main plot.
We have noticed that in the NS. the artha-prakstis are treated after the pañcaavasthās. We have examined them on an earlier occasion so, we will now proceed with the concept of junctures with their parts as treated by Bharata and then the DR.
Sandhis - and Sandhyangas :- Bharata (NS. XIX. 37) talks of the five junctures as Mukha-i.e. opening, pratimukha or progression; garbha i.e. climax or development, vimarśa or contemplation i.e. deliberation, or pause, and nirvahana or conclusion. vs. 37-43 read as -
“mukham prati-mukham caiva garbho vimarśa eva ca, tathā nirvahnam céti
nātake pañca sandhayaḥ. (37) ‘Mukha' sandhi is that portion of the plot where the seed is created. This leads to the birth of many matters and sentiments. These take shape in relation to the

Page #487

1662
SAHRDAYĀLOKA body of the plot as narrated in poetry.
“yatra bīja-samutpattir nānā'rtha-rasa-sambhavā kāvye, śarīrā'nugatā
tan mukham parikīrtitam." 38 Prati-mukha or progression is that part of the plot where the original seed which was cast in the opening (mukha), looks uncovered or in a state of flowering, but is at times marked (clearly) and at other times, as it were lost, to view. This means the real is apparently lost at times after making its appearance.
“bījasyódghāțanam yatra drsta-nastam iva kvacit, mukha-nyastasya sarvatra
tad vai pratimukham bhavet.” 40 Garbha or development is that portion of the plot, wherein the sprouting, attainment and loss of the seed, and its fresh search occur.
udbhedas tasya bījásya prāptir a-prāptir eva vā, puns cā’nveşanam yatra,
sa garbha iti sañjnitaḥ. 41 Vimarśa or contemplation or pause is that part of the dramatic action or plot where the seed sprouted in the garbha (i.e. development part) is subjected to contemplation due to (= obstacles in form of) some temptation, anger or calamity.
garbha-nirbhinna-bījārtho vilobhana krto’thavā krodha-vyasanajo vā'pi
sa vimarśa iti smrtaḥ 42 The idea is that after the flowering of seed in the development state there is marked some lack of concentration in efforts caused due to some attraction elswhere, or anger or unexpected calamity etc. This is phychological, for when one gets over-confident of achieveing some goal, a lack of concentration due to various reasons occurs.

Page #488

“Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1663
Nirvahana is that part in which proper blending of all matters takes place. These matters include mukha etc. along with seed etc. This happens when these matters reach accomplishment along with different states or emotions. This means that threads of the story containing ideas from the beginning onwards are properly knit together into a culmination. NS. XIX. 43 observes -
samānayanam arthānām mukhā”dyānām sa-bījinām, nānābhāvóttarāņām yad
bhaven nirvahanam tu tat. 43 (VS. 44) - Bharata further ordains that the producers of plays should know full well of these junctures in case of Nātaka. They also belong to the prakarana (rūpaka) as well. For other types the following may be noted.
Thus Bharata expects that the two types viz. nataka and prakarana have all the five sandhis marked in them. The other types do not have all junctures. The ND. calls these two as "pūrņa-daśā-sandhi-rupakas” and the rest are not so.
Bharata (vs. 45) further suggests that dima and samavakāra are types of - rūpaka-s having four sandhi-s each, with the omission of the fourth i.e. avamaría or vimarsa sandhi.
Vyāyoga and Thāmrga have three sandhis, with garbha and vimarśa not finding place (vs. 46). They both have kaiśiki style.
Prahasana, vīthi, (utspstika) anka and bhāna have only two sandhi-s i.e. mukha and nirvahaņa. (vs-47). Bharata observes that vīthi and bhāna and prahasana are composed in a style which lacks in kaiśiki (kaiśiki-vrtti-hīnāni).
Sandhyanga-kalpana :
After describing the number of sandhi-s that go with different types of rūpakas, Bharata (NS. XIX 49) proceeds to suggest the ideas about the limbs i.e. parts in each junctures -
evam hi sandhayaḥ kāryā daśa-rūpe prayoktrbhiḥ, punar eşām tu sandhīnām anga-kalpam nibodhata. 49

Page #489

1664
SAHRDAYĀLOKA NS. XIX 50 observes -
sandhīnām yāni vsttāni pradeśeșv anupūrvaśaḥ, sva-sampad-guna-yuktāni
tāny angāny upadhārayet. 50 Dr. Bhat (p. 175) translates -
(50) The events (of the plot), which belong to the different sandhis and which are (shown) in different places (or parts of the play), are a kind of supplement (guna) to the rich development shown in a sandhi (sva-sampad) ; They are (therefore) to be understood as angas."
Dr. Bhat has a foot-note (pp. 175) -
"Sandhi or juncture represents some definite portion of the dramatic plot or subject matter of the play (artha-bhāga-rāśi). The actual events which form a part of the plot (samvidhāna-khanda) are called the angas. The name is justified because these events make up the particular sandhi and contribute towards the ordinary development of the plot, as limbs fill up or support the body, and contribute to its excellence and charm."
The incidents that occur in particular portions of the sandhis, may become sandhyanga-s i.e. ancillaries when they are represented properly with gunas or excellences and other embellishments. Construction of suitable matter, smooth course of progression with reference to the plot, emotional fervour in representation, concealment of such matter that deserves concealment, revelation of that which deserves revelation, narration in a woderful fashion - These are the six purposes underlined in treatises with regard to the events in a juncture. These might have inspired Anandavardhana to observe rasa-dosa-s, such as akānde vicchittiḥ, etc. Bharata (XIX. 51-55 NS.) observes :
"işțărthasya racanā vșttāntasyā’nupakşayaḥ, rāgaprāptiḥ prayogasya guhyānām caiva gūhanam." - 51 āścaryavad abhikhānam prakāśyānām prakāśanam,

Page #490

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1665 angānām sadvidham hy etad
drstam śāstre prayojanam.” - 52 Dr. Bhat translates (pp. 177, ibid)
(51-52). "The purpose of the angas as seen in the śāstra-s is six-fold : constructive arrangement of the desired matter; non-loss or non-dwindling [i.e. presence and continuity] of the essential) happenings in the plot; securing attraction or pleasure for the dramatic performance; concealment of things which deserve to be concealed; narrative representation of things full of surprise and wonder; open presentation of things that deserve to be discosed."
We have observed earlier that this discussion could have inspired Anandavardhana to lay down favourable conditions that make for the suggestivity of the whole composition (= prabandha vyañjakatā)
Bharata further observes that like a person lacking in limbs getting unable of starting useful activity, so a poetic composition deficient in limbs will not be good enough for stage-production - "na prayoga-kşamam bhavet.” (VS-53)
Any composition, however lofty it may be, if lacking in limbs will fail to entertain the mind of the experts due to defective representation (hīnatvād hi prayogasya) - (VS. 54).
But a poetic composition though poor in meaning and content, i.e. though not lofty in this respect, if properly rich in limbs (samyag angaih samanvitam), on account of dazzling performance (dīptarvāt tu prayogasya) attains to great charm.
Such productions become a box-office hits. (VS. 55). The DR. I. 54 observes, after discussing the sixty-four sandhyangas :
"uktā’ngānām catuḥ-șasthiḥ,
saddhä сaisām prayojanam.” Six-fold is the purpose behind discussing the sixty four limbs of junctures. DR. I. 55 - observes (pp. 63, ibid) -
"isţárthasya racanā gopya-guptiḥ, prakāśanam, rāgaḥ prayogasya, āścaryam
vȚttāntasyā’nupakşayah.” i.e. creation of required matter, concealment of that which should be concealed, presentation of that which deserves presentation), attraction for the represented

Page #491

1666
SAHRDAYĀLOKA matter, (creation of) wonder (i.e. sense of wonder), and absence of discontinuation of the theme."
Dhanika in the Avaloka (pp. 63) observes : vivakṣitā’rtha-nibandhanam, gopyā’rtha-gopanam, prakāśyártha-prakāśanam, abhinaya-rāga-vặddhis' camatkāritvam ca kāvyasya itivịttasya vistara ity angaiḥ șaț prayojanāni sampādyanta iti. -
It may be noted that these guide-lines for making the stage-presentation successful are more relevent when the theme is historical or borrowed from ancient sources. For example Kalidāsa removed Dusyanta's unwelcome behaviour of disowning Sakuntalā till a divine voice was heard, as read in the Mahābhārata. Instead he invented the episode of the curse of Durvasas to lift the image of his hero.
After Bharata's views expressing the necessity of presenting sandhyangas for the success of presentation the NS. treats five authópaksepaka-s i.e. Introductory or presentation devices (VS. 110-116, Ch. XIX N.S.). Prior to this 64 sandhyangas are discussed in the NS. We will deal with sandhi-s and sandhyangas in greater detail later in this chapter. But here we will discuss the "Introductory Devices" first.
Arthonaksepaka-s :
NS. XIX. 110 observes that there are five Introductory or presentation devices such as -
viskambhakaś cūlikā caiva tathā caiva praveśakaḥ, ankávatāro'nkamukham
arthopakṣepa-pañcakam." Five presentation devices are - (i) viskambhaka, (ii) praveśaka, (iii) cūlikā, (iv) ankā’vatāra and (v) anka-mukha.
These are explained individually in the NS. as follows : (vs. 111): "madhyama-purușa-niyojyo
nātaka-mukha-sandhi-mātra-sancārah, viskambhakas tu kāryaḥ purohitā’mātya-kancukibhiḥ."
(Translation, Dr. Bhat, p. 179) -

Page #492

"Dašarūpaka-Vicăra"
1667 “The 'viskambhaka' or Intertude is to be presented with midling characters and occurs only in the mukha-sandhi (opening juncture of a play : It should be constructed with (such characters as) the domestic priest, minister, chamberlain.” (VS. 112) -
"buddhah sankirno vā dvividho viskambhakas tu vijñeyah, madhama-pātraiḥ śuddhaḥ,
sankīrņo nīca-madhya-krtaḥ.” Viskambhaka is two-fold such as śuddha i.e. pure wherein only middling characters participate, and "mixed”, in which both middling and low characters participate. (VS. 113) - "antar yavanikā-samsthaiḥ
sūtā”dibhir anekadhā arthópaksepanam yat tu
kriyate să hi cūlikā.” Cūlikā (= intimation) is that device wherein the presentation of certain details concerning the theme (i.e. its progress) is - done, in many different ways, by characters such as the charioteer etc., who stay behind the curtain. This means "behind - the curtain-pronouncements” make for cūlikā. VS. 114 -
"ankāntarā'nusari . . sanksepártham adhikrtya bindūnām, prakarana-nāțaka-visaye
praveśako nāma vijñeyaḥ.” Dr. Bhat translates (pp. 179) :
"The Praveśaka or Linking scene comes in the nāțaka and prakaraṇa type (of drama) between two acts, and presents a concise statement (san
) of some of the stages of plot-development (bindūnām)."
vs. 115 - “ankánta eva că’nko nipatati yasmin, prayogam āsādya bījártha-yuktiyukto jñeyo'nkávatāro'sau."
(Trans. Dr. Bhat, pp. 179) - "The Ankávatāra or Descent of Act contains the presentation of some matter connected with the seed (bijārtha-yukti) and, with reference to the stage performance, it comes right at the end of an act (ankā’nte) or an act falls right into it.”
This means that ankávatāra is almost the use of another act immediately after the previous one, as though a continuation of the main plot in transition. We will

Page #493

1668
SAHRDAYĀLOKA see that ‘anka-mukha' is the summarization of the events about to take place in the . succeeding act by male or female characters : VS. 116 -
vislistamukham ankasya striyā vā purusena vā yad upaksipyate pūrvam
tad anka-mukham ucyate. (Dr. Bhat translates : pp. 179)
"When the unconnected opening of an act is presented by a male or female character beforehand, that is called 'anka-mukha' or the opening of act.
The DR. has presented this topic in a more logical way. It observes (I. 56, pp. 64) that the theme of a play should be divided into two such as something which is only to be suggested, i.e. not presented on the stage and something that is to be directly enacted - - DR. I. 56 -
"dvedhā vibhāgaḥ kartavyaḥ sarvasyā'pīha vastunaḥ sūcyam eva bhavet kiñcit
drsya-śrāvyam athā’param.” That portion of the theme which is nīrasa i.e. boaring or not promoting aesthetic enjoyment or that which is improper for presentation is only to be
sted only, observes the DR. (1. 57a) and that which is to be seen i.e. to be presented on the stage is sweet, lofty and full of sentiments and emotions, i.e. full of emotive content that promotes aesthetic joy. (I. 57, b. DR).
The portion which is meant to be suggested is done so through five introductory devices viz. the five arthópaksepaka-s.
The DR. (I. 59, pp. 65) informs that Viskambhaka is that device which suggests parts of narration or plot that have either happened or are to happen next. This suggestion is brief and presented through (the dialogue of, or through the agency of) middling characters. -
"vștta-vartisyamāṇānām kathámśānām nidarśakaḥ, sanksepárthas tu viskambho madhya-pātra-prayojitaḥ." (DR. I. 59, pp. 65, ibid)

Page #494

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1669 As in Bharata, here also it is said to be two-fold, i.e. suddha and sankirna., When the characters are only middling or belonging to the middle and also the low order of society, respectively.
The 'Praveśaka' (DR. I. 60) is similar (tad-vad; i.e. suggesting some portion of the theme), through not dignified expression-anudāttoktya-and presented through characters of the lower strata. Praveśaka is presented only in between two acts and never in the beginning of the first act as is the case of the viskambhaka which occurs also in the beginning of the first act. Avaloka (pp. 66, ibid) observes - “ankadvayasyā’ntar iti prathamāńke pratiședha iti.”
DR. 61b observes that cūlikā is suggestion of matter through the agency of the characters that operate from behind the curtain - "antarjavanikā-samsthaih". DR. I. 62 describes 'ankā"sya' and 'ankā”vatāra':
"ankánta-pātrair ankā”syam chinnánkasyā’rtha-sūcanāt, ankávatāras tv ankánte
pāto’nkasy a-vibhāgataḥ.” Avaloka explains (pp. 67, ibid) : ankánta eva pātram ankánta-pātram. tena viślistasya uttaránka-mukhasya sūcanam, tad-vasena uttaránkā'vatāro'nkā”syam iti. - A character that appears at the end of an act is "ankántapätra." When such a character that has entered the stage at the end of a given act supplies information concerning the beginning of the next act, which otherwise would have looked disconnected with the theme, it is called the device of 'ankā"sya'.
The illustration is drawn from the Mahāvīra-carita, act II, end portion, wherein Sumantra informs some characters present that they are expected to appear before Vasiştha and Viśvāmitra who are in company of king Dasartha. Others then move to join them in the next act.
Ankávatāra is correlation of the next act brought about by the end of the earlier act, without formally bringing the same to termination. The next act just drops in i.e. starts without the formal termination of the earlier act and without the use of such correlating devices as viskambhaka or praveśaka in the beginning of the next act. The 'Avaloka (pp. 68) explains - "yatra pravista-pătrena a-sūcita eva pūrvánka-a-vicchinnárthatayā eva ankántaram āpatati, praveśakaviskambhakā"di-sünyah sonkávatārah." The illustration is cited from Malavika'gnimitra, wherein by the end of the first act the viduşaka asks the two who are

Page #495

1670
SAHRDAYĀLOKA present to inform when actually the dance-competition will start in the queen's chamber. Then he adds that only the sound of the drum itself will convey the fact. Thus by listening to the sound of the drum all the characters act accordingly and there only the second act starts. Avaloka observes : "...mpdanga-śabdaśravaņánantaram sarvāny eva pātrāņi prathamánka-prakrānta-pātra-sankrantidarśanam dvitīyánkā”dau ārabhanta iti prathamā”nkárthā’vicchedena eva dvitīyánkasya avatāraņād ankávatāra iti.” (pp. 68, ibid).
“Sandhi-s and Sandhyanga-s."
As noted earlier the dramatic theme or action i.e. plot is imagined to be divided into five junctures - sandhi-s or joints, having a number of limbs or sandhanga-s, totalling 64 in all the five sandhi-s. This division helps the course of successful presentation of the play. By success is meant that the spectators enjoy it every minute. Sandhi-s are the component divisions of the dramatic action. We have noted that Bharata does not give us a general definition of 'sandhi' but proceeds to define, as seen above, individual sandhi-s straight away.
Bharata in the same fashion enumerates the sandhyanga-s that occur in the five sandhi-s respectively. They read as -
“upakṣepaḥ parikaraḥ parinyāso, vilobhanam, yuktih, prāptih samadhānam vidhānam paribhāvanā. udbhedaḥ karanam bheda
etānyangāni vai mukhe. Twelve limbs are read in the first juncture, i.e. mukha-sandhi.
'Upaksepa' is suggestion; parikara (or parikriyā) is 'enlargement'. Parinyāsa is 'establishment.' 'vilobhana' is allurement. 'Yukti' is resolve. ‘Prāpti' is attainment. 'Samādhāna' means 'settling'. 'Vidhāna' is conflict of feeling (of pain and pleasure). 'Paribhāvanā' is surprise. 'Udbheda' is disclosure. 'Bheda' means 'division'. 'Karana' is ‘resumption. Pratimukha-sandhi has 13 sandhyangas enumerated by Bharata as -
"tathā pratimukhe caiva śrnutā’ngāni nāmataḥ. vilāsaḥ parisarpaś ca vidhūtam tāpanam tathā,

Page #496

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1671 narma narmadyutis' caiva tathā pragamanam punaḥ. nirodhaś caiva vijñeyah paryupāsanam eva ca puspam vajaram upanyāso varna-samhāra eva ca.
etāni vai prati-mukhe..." 'Vilāsa' is craving, 'Parisarpa' is pursuit. 'Vidhūta' is disinterest; “Tāpana' is
ma is pacification, 'Narama' is joke. Pragamana means 'response'. Nirodha is impediment. Paryupāsana is apology. Vajra is 'bolt'. Upanyāsa is intimation or propitation and Varnasamhāra is congregation. Thirteen limbs are enlisted under the third sandhi. The garbha'-joint such as.
...garbhéngāni nibodhata. "abhūtāharanam mārgo rūpódāharaṇe kramaḥ, samgrahaś cā’numānam ca, prarthana”ksiptam eva ca, toțakā’dhibale caiva
hy udvego vidravas tathā. etānyangāni vai garbhe.... Adbhutāharana is false statement. Mārga is statement, of truth. Rūpa means 'supposition.' or 'reflection'. Udāharana is exaggeration. Krama is comprehension of reality; progress. Sangraha is propitiation. Anumāna is inference, deduction. Prarthana is request or supplication. Aksipta (or ksipti) is revelation. Toțaka is quarrel or words of agitation. Adhibala means deceit, or outwitting. Udvega is anxiety. Vidrava is also termed sambhrama. It means flight from fear.
Avamarśa or Vimarśą sandhi has 13 angas enumerated by Bharata as - hy.avamarse nibodhata, apavādaśca samphetaḥ
sadravaḥ śaktir eva ca. vyavasāyaḥ prasangaś ca dyutiḥ khedo nisedhanam, virodhanam athā”dhānam

Page #497

UU.
1672
SAHRDAYĀLOKA cchādanam ca prarocanā.
etāny avamțśe'ngāni Limbs of the Avamaría Sandhi are : apavāda = scandal, or censure; sampheta is rebuke or wrathful words; drava is disobeying the elders, or contempt. It is also called 'abhi-drava'. Śakti is prowess. Vyavasāya is effort. Prasanga is reverence. Dyuti is excitement (through censure). Kheda is dejection or depression. Nisedhana is impediment. Virodhana is opposition. Adhāna means comprehension. Chadana is concealment; forbearance. Prarocanā is foresight; precursion. In the fifth i.e. nirvahana sandhi there are 13 sandhyanga-s. Bharata observes...
bhūyo nirvahane śruņu. "sandhir nirodho grathanam nirņayaḥ paribhāṣaṇam, (95b; XIX) dhrtih prasada Ānandah samayo hy upagūhanam, bhāṣaṇam pūrva-vākyam ca kāvya-samhāra eva ca. prasastir iti samhāre jñeyāny angāni nāmataḥ. catuḥsasthir budhair jñeyāny etāny angāni sandhișu. punar eşām pravaksyāmi
lakṣaṇāni yathā kramam. The limbs are - sandhi i.e. junction or the seed coming to fruition. Nirodha also termed vibodha means reasonable search. Grathana is assembling, hint. Niranaya is ascertainment; paribhāsana is conversation. Dhrti is conformation of reason. Prasāda is graciousness. Ananda is 'joy'. Upagūhana is surprise. Bhāşana is pacification by words. Pūrva-vākya is restatement and kāvya-samhāra is termination due to attainment of goal.
It may be noted that Bharata's concept of Sandhi-s and sandhanga-s has been accepted by later theorists almost without any major change except sometimes, somewhere the names change or the number of sandhyanga-s in a given sandhi differs. So, we feel that along with original sources this concept will be discussed in greater details with a comparative and critical approach. We may note here that

Page #498

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1673 Bhoja (Ch. XI. Śr. Pra.) has accepted Bharata's definitions of the ten rūpakas and has added two more which have been examined by us under uparūpakas in the earlier chapter on the classification of poetry. As Dr. Raghavan observes (p. 533, Bhoja's Sr. Pra.; Madras, '64) Bhoja has also discussed the structure of Drama. Bhoja has newly introduced the topic of 5 Ārambha-vidhis and has also discussed 5 arthapraksti-s, 5 avasthā-s, 5-samsthā-s, 5 samavasthās (These two are newly discussed topics in Bhoja), 5 sandhis, 5-vrttis, 5 pravrtti-s, 24-pravrttihetus - This makes for his first set of 64. Then 10 lāsyāngas, 13 vīthyangas, 16 vrttyangas 21 sandhyantara-s, 4 patākāsthānaka-s make for his second set of 64. 64 sandhyangas make for his third set of 64 and 64 laksanas make for his fourth set of 64.
It may be noted that we will discuss, following of course the original text and the great work of Dr. Raghavan, the concept of sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s in Bhoja, only after we treat sandhi-s and sandhyangas first in Bharata and Danañjaya. Hemacandra, the N.D., and The S.D. and R.S., normally follow Bharata's line. Though there is no great basic difference but Bhoja's line of thought is toed by Sāradātanaya in B.P. and so also in the NLRK. of Sāgaranandin and R.S. of Singabhūpāla to an extent. So, we will treat Bhoja and his followers separately after first dealing with the NS. of Bharata, DR. of Dhananjaya, Hemacandra, N.D. and the S.D. of Viśvanātha. We will discuss this in the light of a very enlightening research article by our guru and most respected Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, who in his "The conception of sandhi-s in the Sanskrit Drama” has done an excellent work in studying this topic in a critical and comparative fashion. But first of all as in case of Bharata so also in case of other authors, we will first take care of the original source material that covers this topic. Bhoja of course will be looked into along with Śāradātanaya and Sāgaranandin later. We start with the DR.
The DR. is under a mis-conception that a 'sandhi' is the out-come of arthaprakrti-s and 5 avasthā-s taken together respectively. This we will view later but for the present we note what the DR. has to say. The DR. (I. 22b.) observes - (pp. 19, ibid)
artha-prakstayaḥ pañca pancā'vasthāh samanvitäh - 22b and, yathāsamkhyena jāyante mukhā"dyāḥ pañca sandhayaḥ. 23a

Page #499

1674
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The Avaloka explains : "artha-prakstīnām pañcānām yathāsamkhyenā’vasthābhiḥ pañcabhir-yogād yathā-samkhyenaiva vaksyamāņa-laksaņā mukhā”dyāḥ pañcasandhayo jāyante. The Laghuţikā observes : “Bījā”dīnām artha-prakstīnām avasthābhiḥ pañcabhir
yathā-samkhyam sandhayo bhavanti. bījasya'rambhanenā’nvayo mukhasandhiḥ, bindoḥ prayatnenā’nvayaḥ, pratimukha-sandhiḥ patākāyāḥ, prāptyāśayā’nvayo garbha-sandhiḥ.
Laghuţikākāra knows that at times patākā may not figure in a play. Hence, it is observed : “yadyapy aniyatā eva patākā tathā'pi yadā patākā bhavati tadānim avasthā-parvaņā prāptyāśayā yogāt garbha-sandhir bhavati. yadā tu sā nā'sti tadānīm garbhasandhiḥ kevalā prāptyāśā bhavatī’ti evam uparyapi neyam.
This is exactly the reason why the N.D. explains that the concept of sandhi-s follows the avasthā-s and not the upāya-s or the arthaprakrti-s.
DR. however gives a general definition of a sandhi, which is not attempted by Bharata, DR. I. 23b (pp. 19, ibid) observes :
"avāntarā’rtha-sambandhaḥ
sandhir ekā’nvaye sati. (J. 23b) The Avaloka explains : ekena prayojanena anvitānām kathāmśānām avántaraikaprayojana-sambandhaḥ sandhiḥ.
This means that the concept of sandhi becomes relevant and stands to clear grasp only in view of the whole of the plot or iti-vștta. All minor parts are associated with one principal goal and these minor parts remaining absolutely tied with the one goal are interconnected among themselves to form a particular sandhi. The Laghuţikā explains (pp. 19, ibid) - yady api rūpakeșu mukhā”dyāḥ pañcā’pi sandhayo bhavanti, tathā’pi sāmānyata eva iti-vștta-mātra-gāmini jñāte hi sandhau sandhi-viśeşo jāyate." The sandhis are enumerated in the DR. (I. 24a) as -
“mukha-pratimukhe garbhaḥ
sā'vamarśo'pa-samhștiḥ.” Not even Bhoja or anyone belonging to what we have called the Mālava-school of thought, the DR. of course being a leader among the same, ever attempts

Page #500

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1675 different names of these sandhis and the number also remains the same, whoever be the author and whatever be his faith. Actually in the field of art-criticism the Indian tradition presents almost an identical design, the variety seen anywhere is due to a greater thrust on this or that point here or there. This is true even of literary criticism as well where divergence in what may be called the Kashmir school of thought and the Mālava school of thought is more vocal. But all agree in one point that all art-including litarary and dramatic-is rasa-oriented.
The DR. then proceeds to define each sandhi individually along with its sandhyanga-s. The sandhi-s, mukha, pratimukha etc. are defined in their order following Bharata as follows: mukha-sandhi (DR. I. 24b) is -
"mukham bija-samutpattir
nānārtha-rasa-sambhavā." pratimukha is -
"laksyā'laksya ivódbhedas
tasya pratimukham bhavet.” 'Mukha' is associated with the casting of 'bīja' or seed and pratimukha is connected with its sprouting, marked at times and unmarked in other moments. Garbha-sandhi is : (DR. I. 36a)
"garbhas tu drsça-nastasya bījasyā’nveșanam muhuḥ, dvādaśā'ngah, patākā syān
na vā, syāt prāpti-sambhavaḥ.” The 'bīja' which was marked or un-marked in the prati mukha-sandhi is sought after with a hope in this juncture. Avamaría (or vimarśa) sandhi is - (DR. I. 43) (pp. 45, ibid) -
“krodhenā'vamțśed yatra. vyasanād vā, vilobhanāt, garbha-nirbhinna-bījárthaḥ
so'vamarśa iti smstaḥ." This follows Bharata.

Page #501

499) is -
.
1676
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Nirvahana-sandhi (DR. I. 48b - 499) is -
"bījavanto mukhā"dyarthā viprakīrṇā yathāyatham ekárthyam upanīyante
yatra nirvahaņam hi tat." The Avaloka explains these sandhi-s as - (pp. 20, mukha-sandhi) bījānām samutpattir aneka-prakāra-prayojanasya rasasya herur mukha-sandhir iti vyākhyeyam. tena a-tri-vargaphala prahasanā”dau rasótpatti-hetor-eva bījatvam iti. asya ca bījā”rambhā’rtha-yuktāni dvādaśāngāni bhavanti." :
'pratimukha' is explained as (pp. 28, ibid) - "taya bījasya kiñcillaksyaḥ kiñcid alaksya ivodbhedaḥ prakāśanam, tat pratimukham.
garbha-sandhi is - (pp. 36, ibid) - "pratimukha-sandhau laksyā’laksya-rūpatayā stokódbhinnasya bījasya yaḥ sa-viśesódbhedapūrvakaḥ sántarāyo lābhaḥ, punar -vicchedaḥ, punaḥ prāptiḥ, punar vicchedaḥ, punaśca tasyaiv-ánvesaņam vāram vāram sónirdhāritaikānta-phala-prāptyāśātmako garbha-sandhir iti.
Avamarśa is explained by Avaloka (pp. 45, ibid) as - avamars'anam avamarśaḥ paryālocanam. tac ca krodhena vā, vyasanad vā, vilobhanena vā, bhavitavyam anenā'rthena iti (evam ?) avadhāritaikāntaphala-prāptyavasāyā" (nā" ?] tmā garbhasandhy udbhinna-bījártha-sambandho vimarsovamarśaḥ.”
Nirvahana is first only illustrated in the Avaloka (pp. 55, ibid) and then it is added - "ity ādinā draupadīkeśa-samyamanā”dīnām mukha-sandhyā”dibījānām nija-nija-sthāno'pakṣiptānām ekárthatayā yojanam."
Hemacandra in his kā. śā. only records the definitions of daśa-rūpaka quoted from Bharata. He also talks of uparūpaka-s which we have looked into earlier. He does not discuss the structure of the drama as done by Bharata and other writers. So, the discussion of his treatment of artha-prakrti-s, avasthā-s, sandhi-s, sandyanga-s etc. does not arise.
The Nātya-darpana of Rāmacandra and Guna-candra use the terms upāya, daśā and sandhi for artha-praksti, avasthā and sandhi respectively.
The ND. first observes that (ND. I. 2) the ‘abhineya kāvya' is having many varieties. Only some of these to some extent, will be treated here. This definition will be a critically considered one, say the authors : "drstam pūrva-muni-pranītanātya-laksaņa-paurváparya-parāmarśena upayuktatayā lakṣitam. evam ca svamanīşikāniräsena laksanasya upādeyarvam ukram.”

Page #502

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1677 The rūpakas enumerated by the N.D. are twelve including the ten major rūpaka-s as read in the N.S. and the D.R., added by two more, i.e. nātikā and prakaraṇī, also counted by them as major rūpakas (N.D. I. 3).
Nāțaka (N.D.I.5.) is defined as having the activity of a well-known king in its centre, having three puruṣārtha-s (i.e. dharma-artha-kāma) as its goal, and gifted with anka (act), upāya (= bīja, etc.), daśā (i.e. ārambha etc.) and sandhi (= mukha, etc.).
Types of Nayaka' or Netā' are explained in N.D. I. 6-7-8-9. 'Carita' i.e. activity or behaviour of the hero i.e. vịtta (= iti-vștta) is said to be two-fold; principal and subsidiary which may or may not find place in a given play. This two-fold 'carita' is 'sūcya', prayojya, abhyūhya and upeksya. (N.D. I. 10). N.D. I, 11 observes that 'nīrasa' and 'anucita' (i.e. not appealing to cultured taste) is to be suggested i.e. sūcya. Prayojya i.e. worthy of presentation is other than this, i.e. 'sa-rasa' and 'ucita.' 'ūhya', to be imagined, is that without imagining which things will not proceed, and that which is of positively in bad taste - jugupsita - is to be ignored - i.e. 'upekşya'.
With this ND. treats of some other varieties of theme such as that which is to be narrated aloud, that which to remain - sva-gata - i.e. at mental level only, that which is to be narrated to many on the stage but one (= janāntika), or to one only avoiding many (= apavārita), something to be presented by the device of ākāśokti, etc.
The N.D. also describes the litarary quality expected of a play. After treating these minor points the ND. I. 19, defines an act, i.e. anka as -
"avasthāyāḥ samāptir vā chedo vā kārya-yogatah, ankaḥ sa-bindur, dịśyárthaḥ
caturyāmo muhurtataḥ.” The number of acts is also laid down as five to ten in a given rūpaka (ND. I. 20).
‘anka-anibandhanīya' i.e. that which is not to be treated in an act such as the killing of the hero, etc. is described in N.D. I. 21. ‘anka-avarṇanīya' - that which can not be directly staged in an act, such as a journey to a distant place etc. is to be described through devices such as viskambhaka, etc. (N.D. I. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27).

Page #503

1678
SAHRDAYĀLOKA We must confess that even as compared to the DR., - certainly the NS. of Bharata is no match, - the ND. has presented the subject of dramaturgy adopting almost perfect design or methodology. Topics after topics are discussed as they come up naturally; the next one as it were flowering from the earlier one.
Thus, ND. I. 28 speaks of 'upāya-s' after ‘anka.' Nātaka was defined as “sā’nkopāyadaśā-sandhi", and hence after 'anka' upāya-s i.e. bīja etc. come up for discussion. One important point is that these upāya-s, called artha-prakrti-s in the NS. and the DR. are divided into "cetana" and "a-cetana." ND. I. 28 observes :
“bījam patākā prakarī, binduḥ kāryam yathā-ruci, phalasya hetavaḥ pañca
cetanācetana”tmakah.” This is very interesting. After bīja which is a-cetana, patāka and prakari are enumerated as they are "cetana" type. 'bindu' is cetana and 'kārya' is taken as 'acetana.' By yathā-ruci' is meant that these do not follow in the sequence mentioned in the kārikā, nor is their presence inevitable. This of course refers to patākā and prakarī.
The vṛtti clearly explains the position. It is observed - "upāya-svarūpa-a-parijñāne tad-visayāņām ārambhā”dīnām svarūpa-parijñāna-asambhava iti upāyasvarūpam vyutpădyate.”
This means that without grasping the concept of upāya (i.e. bīja, etc.), it is not possible to understand the concept of avasthā (i.e. ārambha, etc.) So, first upāyas are explained.
The vștti further makes very interesting reading - "yathā-ruci'iti na eşām auddeśiko nibandha-kramaḥ, sarvesam avaśyambhāvitvam vā. 'phalasya' susādhyasya hetavaḥ upāyāḥ."
The Avaloka had explained these as “prayojana-siddhi-hetavaḥ.”
ND. further observes - "iha hetur dvidhā a-cetanaś cetanaś ca. acetanópi mukhyā'mukhya-bhedad dvidha. mukhyo bījam, tanmūlatvād itareşam. amukhyas tu kāryam. cetanópi dvidhā, mukhya upakarana-bhūtaśca. mukhyo binduh, karya'nusandhāna-rūpatvāt. upakaranabhūto dvidha, (i) svārtha-siddhi yutaḥ parārtha-siddhi-paraḥ, (ii) parārtha-siddhi-paraś ca. pūrvah parākā, anyaḥ prakarī iti. atra acetana-cetanānām madhye bīja-bindvor mukhyatvam, sarvavyāpitvād iti."

Page #504

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1679
After treating the upāya-s, daśa-s i.e. arambha etc. are considered and this is followed by sandhi-nirūpana in the ND. (I. 37) - A very interesting, and of course remarkable for its clear perception is the observation in the are parts of the main plot and that they follow the daśā or avasthā-s. The DR. had blundered in its observation of a sandhi being a sum total of artha-prakrti-s and avasthās. The N.D. I. 37 observes :
“mukham pratimukham garbhā-”. -marśa-nirvahaņāny amī, sandhayo mukhya-vșttāmśāḥ
pañcāvasthā’nugāḥ kramāt." The vṛttion ND. I. 37 observes : "mukhyasya svatantrasya mahāvākyárthsyā’mśā bhāgāḥ, parasparam svarūpeṇa cā’ngaiḥ sandhīyanta iti sandhayaḥ. avasthābhih prārambhā"dibhir anugatā, avasthā-samāptau samāpyanta ity arthaḥ. avasthānām ca dhruva-bhāvitvāt sandhayo’pi nāțaka-prakarana-nātikāprakaranīşu panca'vaśyam-bhāvinah. samavakārā"dau tu viśesópādānās ūnatve'pi na dosah. kramād iti mukhādy uddeśa-krameņa avasthā-krameņa ca nibadhyante. iha tāvat prabandha-nibandhanīyo'rthaḥ avasthā-bhedena pañcabhir bhāgaiḥ parikalpyate. ekaikaśaś ca bhāgo dvādaśa-trayodaśa-ityā”di-rūpayā anga-samkhyayā vibhajyate. prāsangikavịtta-sandhayas tu mukhya-sandhy-anuyāyitvād anusandhaya eva ity uktam eva iti." '
Thus the concept of sandhis is rendered very clear in the ND. 64 anga-s are also recognised. We will consider them later, all at a time.
śāradātanaya the author of Bhāya-prakāśana (B.P. Edn. G.O.S., 68, and Edn. Dr. Agrawal. '83) does not accept this very clear and logical presentation of the N.D. and chooses to follow the master, the DR.
In the seventh chapter of the B.P., Śā. (= Śaradātanaya) first explains 'vastu' or 'itivstta', following the earlier masters. The prāsangika vastu is three-fold such as patākā, prakari and 'patākāsthānaka'. Śā. correlates the third variety with subsidiary theme and this is quite logical also. This 'patākāsthānaka' is explained by śā. (pp. 202, G.O.S., pp. 293 Agrawal Edn.) as -
“yathā patākā kasyā’pi śobhākļccihna-rūpataḥ.

Page #505

1680
SAHRDAYĀLOKA svasyopanāyakādīnām vrttāntas tad vad ucyate, sobhāyai vedikādīnām yathā puspā’kșatādayaḥ, tathā'tra varnanādis tu prabandhe prakarer bhavet, āgantukena bhāvena yad-abhivyaktikāraṇam. vastuno bhāvy avasthasya patākāsthānakam tu tat.” tat patakā-prakaryāder bhāvy avasthasya vastunaḥ sūcanópāyam evā”huḥ patākā-sthānakam budhāḥ. atītā’nāgate kārye kathyete yatra vastunā. anyā’padeśa-vyājena
patākā-sthānakam tu tat. Four - fold patākāsthānaka-s are explained after this. After this artha-prakrtis, and avasthā-s are discussed and this is followed by sandhi-s and arthópaksepaka-s. The sandhi-s are explained (Ch. 7, pp. 207, G.O.S., pp. 300, 301, Agrawal) as -
"avasthā-pañcakam hy etad artha-prakstibhis saha, nibandhanīyam kavibhir yathaivā’nyonya-samanvitam. tad anvaya-vaśād artha-prakļtīnām yathākramam, ekaikasya bhavet sandhir ekaika iti nirnayah.”

Page #506

"Dasarūpaka-Vicara"
1681 As it were "iti nirnayah" are words used to reject the view of the N.D. Or, perhaps Śā. had no access to the ND. Šā. further observes :
athā’rtha-prakrtīnām tad avasthā-pañcakasya ca, anvayo hy upasamhāra kramā"rambha-kramāśrayah." pancā'vasthā-sametā'rthaprakstīnām yathā-kramam, yathā samkhyena jāyante
mukhā”dyāḥ pañca-sandhayaḥ. In B.P., Sandhi is defined under the influence of the D.R. as -
"antaraikā'rtha-sambandhah sandhir ekā'nvaye sati, anvitānām kathāmśānām parame tu prayojane. sambandhas sandhir ityuktaḥ avāntaraika-prayojanah,
eka-kāryā’nviteşv atra · kathāmseșu prayogataḥ. avántaraika-kāryasya
sambandhah sandhir isyate. But for a moment, as it were, śā. also seems to accepts the lead of the ND., when he observes that -
“mukham pratimukham garbhaḥ sā’vamarío'pa-samhṛtiḥ,
vivakṣitóyam uddeśa-kramaḥ avasthā-kramo yatha..." This is, because the observation on the part of the ND. was absolutely logical. We, however, still feel that Sä. did not have an access to the ND. and by and large it follows the dictum of the DR., it being the representative of the Mālava tradition. We have observed earlier how indebted Sā. is to Bhoja, the mentor of the Mālava tradition.
Śā. has not treated the sandhyangas.

Page #507

1682
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The (NLRK. =) Nātaka-laksanaratna-kosa of Sāgaranandin, in our opinion is posterior to Sāradātanaya as quite often observed by us on earlier occasions, the impression that is created is that the NLRK. at a number of places, seems to give a brief summary of what Śā. narrates at length.
Sāgaranandin (= Sā.) (NLRK. Edn. Babulal Shastri, Chowkhambha skt. Samsthāna, Varanasi, '72) treats of Sandhi-s and also sandhyangas after treating vastu, avasthā, and here five avasthās following Mātrgupta are also mentioned -, arthaprakrti-s, then again itivrtta and its varieties, viz. adhikärika and prāsangika, anka, nāyaka and five devices such as praveśaka etc.
Sandhis and Sandhyanga-s follow the above mentioned topics. NLRK. (p. 45, Kā. 57) observes :
“pañca-sandhi nāțakam kartavyam. asya nāțakasya pañca sandhayo bhavanti iti niyamah-yathocyate.
“pūrņa-sandhi tu tar kāryam hīna-sandhyapi vā punah, niyamāt pūrņa-sandhis syāt
hīnasandhis tu kāraṇāt.” (57) This is a quotation from the NS. XXI/16. It allows even nātaka to have sandhis, less than five, on some special grounds.
That nātaka which is pūrnasandhi, has to be inclusive of five sandhis. If when on account of shortness of theme, there are less than five sandhi-s, it is said to be "hina-sandhi" nataka. There is also, observes NLRK, a rule in lessening sandhi-s - (pp. 46, ibid)
: yat pūrņa-sandhi tat pañca-sandhy eva kartavyam. yasya punar ākhyānavastunaḥ svalpatvād hīyate sandhis that khalu hīna-sandhiḥ syāt. tatrā’pi niyamah
Here, the NLRK. again quotes NS. XXI/17 which as seen in the NS., ordains that when it is cancellation of one sandhi, it is vimarśa, then, when two sandhis are omitted they are vimarsa and garbha and when three are dropped the second, third and forth i.e. pratimukha, garbha and vimarśa are dropped.
We may observe that the editor of the NLRK, here refers to the chowkhamba edn. (Kashi.) of the NS. So, when Ch. XXI is mentioned it is 19th of the G.O.S. But for the sake of convenience here we have mentioned the references from the NS. as identified by the editor of the NLRK in his edition.

Page #508

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1683 The NLRK (p. 46 ibid) also observes that in case of the subsidiary theme (prāsangika) which is employed only to serve the cause of the principal theme (i.e. adhikärika-vastu), if there is extention required in this theme, and if all the five sandhi-s find place in it (= prāsangika-vastu), then this rule of hīna-sandhi need not be forced upon it, - as observed in the NS. XXI-18; (Kārikā - 59, NLRK, pp. 47)
“prāsangike parārthatvān na tv eșa niyamo bhavet, yad vșttam tu bhavet kiñcit
tad yojyam a-virodhataḥ.” The NLRK. in vștti also quotes the definition of sandhi as given by Mātņgupta -
(pp. 47, ibid) - “vịttam yad tad a-virodhataḥ sandhīnām prayoktavyam. sandhiḥ parasparam kathāmśānām samghatanam. yathóktam-sandhīyante arthāh parasparam ebhir iti sandhayah yathā mukham, prati-mukham, garbhah, vimarśah, nirvahaņañ ceti. esām laksanam mātrgupta etādrśam varņayati - (NLRK. Kā. 60; pp. 47 ibid) -
"prārthanā visayautsukyam ārambho hetu-cintanam, bījam sādhyo'pagamanam
mukha-sandhāv iti trayam. 60 To have aspiration for the goal is ‘autsukya'; to think about ways and means for the attainment of the goal is "ārambha” and to turn towards the goal i.e. to obtain it partially is termed "bīja". These three are part of mukha-sandhi. (This is the view of Mātrgupta). (He is believed to have lived in the 5th cen. A.D. and was the author of an independent work on dramaturgy and is also credited by Sundaramisra, the author of Natyapradīpa, to have written a commentary on Bharata's NS., also).
NLRK. 61 (pp. 47, ibid) - quotes the definition of prati-mukha sandhi from Mātrgupta, who observes -
“lābhāḥ sādhana-sampattiḥ prasaraḥ prasștā kriyā, bīja-sādhana-sambandhaḥ iti pratimukhe trayam."

Page #509

1684
SAHRDAYALOKA The pratimukha sandhi contains three things, (i) 'labha' i.e. access to the means of securing the goal, (ii) prasara i.e. extension of activities for achieving the goal, and (iii) 'bindu' i.e. drop - meaning the seed (bīja) getting connected with the goal.
'Garbha' is explained as - (NLRK. 62 pp. 48 ibid) -
sambhogo yogyatā tatra udbhedaḥ siddhi-darśanam, mitra-sampat patākéti
trayam garbhe prakirtitam." Three things are ordained in the garbha-sandhi : (i) sambhoga i.e. enjoyment of pleasure, or being qualified (yogyatā) for the same, (ii) udbheda i.e. 'opening? This means appearance of success; (iii) patākā, i.e. assemblage of friends (for the help of the hero). The vimarśa is explained by Mātsgupta as -
"nāśaḥ kārana-vaidhuryam kiñcic chreyaḥ, sa-vighnatā, punar bījena sampartih
vimarse tritayam bhavet.” (NLRK. 63, pp. 48, ibid) Three things qualify the vimarśa, viz. - (i) nāśa or destruction. This means appearance of obstacles in the principal activity, or in the attainment of goal, or in its causes; (ii) sa-vighnatā i.e. association of obstacles in achievement of desired goal, and (iii) sampatti or achievement, meaning the obtaining of bija once again in its pure original form.
Mātrgupta explains that nirvahaņa is qualified by three things (NLRK. - 64, pp. 48, ibid) - such as -
abhipretā’rtha-sampattiḥ, siddhiḥ, sadhyasya siddhatā, prārabdhasya ca nirvāho,
bhaven nirvahane trayam. This means that the nirvahana sandhi has three things viz. (i) abhipretā'rthasampatti i.e. full achievement of the desired object, (ii) siddhi - or

Page #510

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1685 success meaning obtaining the goal, and (iii) nirvāha - i.e. reaching to the culminating point of the activity already started.
Then, the NLRK. quotes the view of certain experts who believe that the five objects such as the desired goal and others, are as follows - (i) sadhaka or one who strives to achieve the goal, (ii) sādhana i.e. the means, (iii) sadhya i.e. the goal, (iv) siddhi is achievement and (v) sambhoga i.e. enjoyment of the goal that is achieved.
All this is illustrated at length, in the NLRK, from a play named “māyāmadālasā”.
The NLRK. observes (pp. 54, ibid) that Mātrgupta has explained the nature of sandhi-s without mentioning the sandhyanga-s · "mātrguptena sanksepāt sandhyanga-nir apekşam eva idam laksanam uktam.”
Then again, the NLRK. (pp. 54, ibid) quotes the definition of - mukha-sandhi (NS. 21/37) from Bharata such as : "yatra bija-samutpattir... parikīrtitam." This we have already examined earlier. But the NLRK. adds in its prose vrtti - as follows:
"bījam nāțakasya phalabhūtasya hetuħ. bahuprakāraś cā’rthaḥ sambhavo yasyā sā tathóktā utpattir iti. kāvya-śarīram nāțakasya vastu. yatra evamvidham bījam utpadyate tan mukham. yathā bālacarite rāmāyane viśvāmitreņa rāme kathitam. rakṣo-rudhira-pānasya...
This means that the chief cause of the attainment of the fruit of a play is termed "bīja”. From this many activities or objects i.e. matters of the theme arise. By kävya-śarīra i.e. 'body of poetry is meant the structure or plot of the dramatic theme. The part or portion in which the seed is cast, is known as 'mukha-sandhi'. This is illustrated from a play called "Bāla-carita" based on the Rāma-kathā.
Another opinion of experts is quoted in the NLRK. Here it is said that on account of proximity along with bīja, bindu (= drop) also should be placed in the mukha-sandhi. The NLRK (Kā. 67, pp. 55, ibid) and the vȚtti thereon read as -
"sāhacaryeņa bījasya mukha eva hi kecana
bindum adau prakurvanti
• nāțakártha-vido janāḥ.” bija-bindū mukhe darśayitavyāv iti pakşántaram etat. But at times, they find place in sequence only - “kvacit kramasa eva nirdeśaḥ.”

Page #511

1686
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The NLRK. then quotes yet another definition of mukha-sandhi as - (NLRK. kā. 68, pp. 55, ibid)
"yasminn ākhyāna-bījasya śleşeņa cchāyayā'pi vā, kriyate kīrtanam sadbhis
tan mukham parikīrtitam." . 68. NLRK i.e. Where bīia or seed of the theme is narrated either by double-meaning words or by some other beautiful means, it is termed 'mukha' by wise people.
Thus bīja is defined and illustrated earlier, observes the NLRK. Then 12 limbs of the mukha-sandhi are enumerated as - upaksepa etc. following the NS. of Bharata. These are - Upaksepa, parikara, parinyāsa, vilobhana, yukti, prāpti, samādhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, karana and bheda. (NS. 21/53-54)
The Pratimukha Sandhi is defined after NS. 21/38. The 13 limbs here are enumerated as - vilāsa, parisarpa, vidhuta, tāpana, narma, narma-dyuti, pragamana, virodha, puryupāsana, puspa, vajra, upanyāsa and varņa-samhāra.
'Garbha' in NLRK. is again defined after NS. But the NLRK observes (vștti before - kā. 87, pp. 71) - nātakasya madhyatvād garbhah. 'Garbha' sandhi is so termed as it happens in the middle of a play. This is duly illustrated. The NLRK. also adds (pp. 72, ibid) : nāțakā"dau vastudvayam bhavati, vidhir va nised ho vā. In the theme of a play two things are possible - either vidhi or affirmation or nişedha i.e. negation. 'Vidhi' is said to be of the nature of achievement, and nişedha is of the nature of loss : tatra prāpti-rūpo vidhih, a-prāpti-rūpo nişedhah. NLRK 88 (pp. 72, ibid) observes :
"prāptirūpo yathā bījam ārabdham, rakṣasām kşayah, nītam sītā'pahāreņa.
rāmasya’vaśya-kāryatām." i.e. Vidhi or prāpti is illustrated as in the fact of the killing of demons. This is the bīja and due to this, when Sitā is abducted by Rāvana, Rāma's unavoidable task takes the form of killing all the demons.
a-prāpti-rūpa is illustrated as in the Udayana-kathā, when the hero is lost in love of Vāsavadattā, and his kingdom was attacked by enemies. But even here when Udayana did not wake up for revenge, Yangadharāyaṇa burned Lāvāņaka and under this pretext concealed Vāsavadatta.

Page #512

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1687 Then after great penance she was attained again. This is the form of garbhasandhi. (This ref. is perhaps to "Tāpasa-vatsa-rāja.”)
13 limbs of garbha-sandhi are . abhūtódāharana, mārga, rūpa, udāharana, krama, samgraha, anumāna, prarthanā, utksipta, toțaka, adhibdala, udvega and vidrava.
These are all illustrated, after explaining properly.
On vimarśasandhi, the NLRK. first observes in vrtti, before giving its definition in kā. 90 - as follows : (pp. 78, ibid).
“atha vimarśaḥ · nanu vimarśa iti ko'rthaḥ ? ucyate - garbhena sandhinodbhinnasya bījárthasya lobhakāriņa āślesanasamyukto (yo) bhavati sa vimarśaḥ. - i.e. "what is meant by the term vimarśa ? The answer is that the bijártha that was developed in the garbha-sandhi, and in that vikāsa of bījārtha, when due to pralobhana or greed additional delineation is done, it is the object of vimarsa. As is observed by Bharata Muni - (pp. 78, ibid)
"garbha-nirbhinna-bījārtho vilobhana-krto’pi vā tasya vā”śleșa-samyuktaḥ
sa vimarśa iti smstaḥ." - Kā. 90 Opion of some others is also quoted in the NLRK. (Kā. 91, pp. 78, ibid)
, “prakīrṇasyā’rtha-jātasya
vimarśad yatra samvṛtiḥ, śatror upacayo bhūyān
vimarśaḥ sa ca kathyate." i.e. Vimarsa-sandhi is that portion wherein wide-spread or dis-assembelled activities are unified (samvarana) after due thinking, and in which the strength of the enemy is felt more in the increase. Yet again someone says (NLRK. 92, pp. 78, ibid)
sampanna-rūpam yat kāryam manasy āyāti sandeham
vimarśam ke’pi tam viduḥ." i.e. Vimarśa is that in which the object (prayojana) of the activity attains to the state of perfection (sampanna-rupa), but doubt also continues concerning its perfection; that portion is Vimarsa.

Page #513

1688
SAHRDAYĀLOKA · The Vștti (NLRK. pp. 79, on Kā. 92) observes : "asya vimarśas tridhā bhavati - vilobhana-samudbhavah, krodhajah, vyasanajaś ca. - This means that vimarsa or thoughful concealment happens in three-ways - (i) due to vilobhana i.e. greed, (ii) due to krodha i.e. anger, and (iii) due to vyasana i.e. caused by some (unexpected) calamity. - This is duly illustrated.
The 13 limbs of vimarśa-sandhi are enumerated in the NLRK. as (pp. 80) - apavāda, sampheța drava, śakti, vyavasāya, prasanga, dyuti, kheda, pratiședha, virodha, adana, sadana and prarocanā.
These are duly explained and also illustrated. Nirvaḥaņa-sandhi is defined in the NLRK (Kā. 95, pp. 85, ibid) as -
"samāptiḥ samyag arthānām prastutānām mahaujasām, nānābhāvo'ttarāņāñ ca
bhaven nirvahanam tu tat.” Nirvahana juncture is that portion of the theme where in all activities that are important and of lofty stature that have been started, are led to completion or attainment of goal. The vrtti observes (pp. 86, on kā. 95) - "pūrvam prastāritānām bijā"dīnām grathanam yatra nirvyūdhatayā samāpanam tan nirvahanam ity arthaḥ." i.e. when matters such as bīja or seed, attain to completion by achievement of goal, it is said to be nirvahaņa-sandhi.
The 14 limbs of nirvahana are : artha, prathana, nirnaya, paribhāşana, dyuti, prasāda, ānanda, samaya, anuyoga, upa-gūhana, bhāsana, pūrva-vākya, kāvyasamhāra and 'praśasti'. These are explained and duly illustrated in the NLRK.
The NLRK. (pp. 90, ibid) observes : "iti catuḥśasthy angāni nāțake’vasyam kavibhiḥ kartavyāni. sammiśrāny api dvi-tri-samkhyāyuktāni antara-sandhişu bhavanty etāni rasa-bhāvā’peksayā - Two or three limbs can be simultaneously placed together. NLRK. quotes from Bharata (21/205-6) -
"yathā-sandhi tu kartavyāny etāny angāni nāțake, kavibhiḥ kavya-kusalaiḥ rasa-bhāvam apeksya ca. (Kā. 98) sammiśrāņi kadācit syus dvi-tri-samkhyā-pramāṇataḥ,

Page #514

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1689 jñātvā kāryam avasthāñ ca
sandhişv angāni nāțake." Bharata is again quoted (Kā. 100, pp. 91, NS. 20/42) to suggest that the poetic theme in a play should follow the pattern of hairs in cow's tail and thus lofty feelings (udāttā bhāvāh) should be placed at the end. Adbhuta also should find place necessarily at the end of a dramatic composition, observes NLRK (kā. 101) following Bharata. (NS. 20/43)
The NLRK. also quotes the opinion of some authorities that some calamity should also be woven by the end of a dramatic composition as for example the tcat of fire-agniparīksā of sītā. Another opinion is also quoted that a sort of summary of all activities concerning all the junctures such as mukha, etc. should be placed in the end : "aparastv āha - mukhā"di-sandhīnām rīti-phalopanyāsah ca leśato'tra kartavya iti ca. (vștti, kā. 102, pp. 92, ibid)
The NLRK. also mentions (pp. 92, ibid - Kā. 103, 4, 5a) sandhyantaras such as 21. These take place in between the 5 major sandhi-s. They are me following: "eteşām eva sandhīnām eka-vimsatipradeśā artha-vaśād bhavanti. yathā
sāma-bhedah-pradānañca, dandaś ca, vadha eva ca, pratyutpanna-matitvañ ca gotra-skhalanam eva ca. 103 sāhasañ ca bhayaś caiva dhīr māyā krodha eva ca, rajah samvaranam bhrāntis tathā herv avadhāranam. 104 dūtópadhi tathā svapnaś
citram mada iti smộtam." 105-a The NLRK observes that in view of the goal (prayoja-vaśāt) as many of these should be shown in sandhis as are possible to be accomodated - "prayojanavaśād
e pravestum śakyante tāvantah sandhişu pradarśayitavyāh. All these are illustrated. dūta' is one who carries a message and 'upadhih' means "chalanam" - deceit.

Page #515

1690
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Actually these are various devices to further the plot and make it of absorbing interest, as seen practiced by dramatists in many plays.
The NLRK. treats of four patākāsthanaka-s at this place, which others have placed in sequence of the treatment of patākā, an arthaprakrti. It is observed (pp. 100, ibid). "patākāsthānāni catvāri kāvyasya alamkārabhūtāny api nirval sandhi-varjyam kāryāņi." These are to be employed anywhere, but in the nirvahana-sandhi. These are agents of beauty - sobhāhetūni. The general definition (kā. 106) follows NS. 21/29. All types are illustrated.
After this the NLRK. treats of four vrttis, the sahaja-guņa of nāyaka, laksaņas, bhūşaņas, guna-s, nātyálamkāra-s, followed by rasa-nirūpana including bhāva, vibhāva, anubhāva, vyabhicārī and sattvika-nirūpana, and yauvanávasthā-s, the types of nāyikā-s, cestā'lamkāra, and the varieties of major forms of rūpaka-s and minor forms of rūpaka-s, i.e. upa-rupaka which also include vithy angas, anga-s of bhāņa, angas of silpaka (upa-rūpaka) and anga-s of bhānikā (an uparūpaka). By - and large the NLRK. has presented the area of dramaturgy in a lucid and clear style with illustrations from a number of plays now not available, and of course, following the NS. and also B.P. to a great extent.
The S.D. of Viśvanātha follows the Kashmir tradition of Ananda-vardhana Abhinayagupta and Mammata and is a useful work on poetics. But following the pattern of both Bhoja and the Kā. Sā. of Hemacandra, the S.D. has covered the area of dramaturgy in Ch. VI, in all its details. This is seen to an extent in Vidyānātha's Pratāpa-Rudra-Yaśobhūsana also, which has a leaning more towards the Mālava school of art-criticism. The S.D. is a major work covering the areas both of śravya
and also drsya-kavya. The sixth pariccheda is reserved for treatment of the topics concerning dramaturgy. Thus, the topics of dramaturgy that are treated in Ch. VI of the Sahitya-darpana are as follows : drśya-śrava-bheda of poetry; the former is abhineya and is termed rūpaka due to superimposition of characters; rūpaka-bheda, upa-rūpakabheda, followed by nātaka-laksana. This is followed by anka-laksana, garbhánka-laksana, and nāțaka-racanãparipāțī, pūrvaranga, vstti-s, vastuno dvaividhyam, adhikarika-prāsangika-vastu, patākāsthānam, four types; arthópaksepakas, artha-prakstis, kāryavasthā-s, sandhis, sandhyanga-s, angānām phalam, nirūpanam, vrttis, nāma-karana, ālāpócita-sabda-nirdeśa, bhāsā-vibhāga, 36 laksaņas, nātyálamkāras, muni-nirūpita-nāțaka-svarūpa followed by other forms of rūpaka-s, upa-rūpakas, and angas found in any.
Thus the S.D. runs the full course of dramaturgy. Here we will concern ourselves with sandhi-s and sandhanga-s.

Page #516

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1691 The S.D. talks of sandhi-s at VI. 74 :
"yathā-samkyam avasthābhir ābhir yogāt tu pañcabhiḥ, pañca-dhaiv etivíttasya
bhāgāḥ syuh, pañca-sandhayah." The S.D. following the clear observation of the N.D., though not mentioned by name, observes that the sandhi-s follow the avasthā-s in sequence. The S.D. does not follow the observation of the DR. that a sandhi is a sum total of artha-praktis and avasthās in sequence respectively. The sandhi-s following the avasthā-s in their order, are only five and are the portions of the dramatic theme. The definition of a sandhi is stated by Visvanātha (= V.) in these words -
tal lakṣaṇam āha - antaraikártha-sambandhaḥ
sandhir ekánvaye sati (VI. 75a). i.e. Sandhi is mutual relation of themes having a single goal -
"ekena prayojanena anvitānām kathāmśānām (= parts of the theme; themes) avāntaraika - prayojana-sambandhaḥ sandhiḥ - The types of sandhis are (S.D. VI. 75b)
mukham pratimukham garbho vimarśa upa-samhṛtiḥ iti pañca'sya bhedāḥ syuḥ,
kramāl laksanam ucyate (76 a) The definitions of these follow in due order. Mukha-sandhi (SD. VI 766, 77a) is -
"yatra bīja-samutpattir nānā’rtha-rasa-sambhavā, prārambhena samāyuktā
tanmukham parikirtitam." Where bīja or seed, the cause of many matters, rasa-s and bhāva-s, is placed along with the stage of beginning or arambha that portion of the theme is called mukha-sandhi.

Page #517

1692
SAHRDAYĀLOKA As far as the general and individual concepts of sandhi-s are concerned there is no basic difference in indian dramaturgy as a whole. - 'Pratimukha' is defined as - (S.D. VI. 77 - 78a)
"phala-pradhānópāyasya mukha-sandhi-niveśinah, laksyā'laksya ivódbhedo yatra
pratimukham ca tat.” The vrtti serves an illustration from the Ratnāvalī. In giving illustrations, V. llows the inspiration received from earlier sources such as the DR. and also Bhoja. Thus 'pratimukha' sandhi is that portion of the dramatic theme wherein the main cause of the goal, i.e. bīja, which was cast in the mukha-sandhi, sprouts in a way, at times clearly discernible and at times not so. Garbha-sandhi is explained at S.D. VI 78, b, and 79.a, as -
phala-pradhānópāyasya prāg udbhinnasya kiñcana, garbho, yatra samudbhedo
hrāsā’nveșaņavān muhuḥ - that portion in which, the upāya (= bīja) which has (been laid and) sprouted in the earlier sandhis, develops, with at times its loss and finding out again, is termed garbha-sandhi.
The vștti adds - phalasya garbhīkaraņād garbhaḥ - i.e. as the goal is placed in the womb, i.e. centre, it is termed 'garbha'. This is illustrated from the Ratnávalī.
Vimarśa' - sandhi or contemplation is the fourth portion of the theme defined in the S.D. at VI. 79 b, 80a - as
"yatra mukhya-phalopāya udbhinno garbhato'dhikah, śāpădyaiḥ sā’ntarāyaś ca
sa vimarśa iti smộtaḥ. i.e. Here the effort for the goal is more pronounced in comparision with the garbha-sandhi, but is hampered by curse and such other obstacles. This is illustrated from the Abhijñāna-Sakuntala.

Page #518

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1693 Nirvahana sandhi, i.e. denouement is defined at S.D. VI. 800, 81a, such as -
bījavanto mukhādy arthā viprakīrṇā yathāyatham, ekártham upanīyante
yatra, nirvahanam hi tat. That is nirvahana, wherein all matters such as bijā etc. of sandhi-s such as
ha etc. that lie scattered in the dramatic theme are tied together to a single principal goal in respective order. The illustration is drawn from Veni-samhāra.
Then follow the delineation of limbs or anga-s of respective sandhi-s in the S.D. VI at 81b, 82 giving the limbs of the mukha-sandhi such as, upaksepa, parikara, parinyāsa, vilobhana, yukti, prāpti, samādhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, karana and bheda making in all 12 parts. All are defined and illustrated. The angas or the pratimukha-sandhi are - vilāsa, parisarpa, vidhuta, tāpana, narma, narmadyuti, pragamana, virodha, and paryupāsana, followed by puspa, vajra, upanyāsa and varna-samhāra. These are 13. They are duly defined and illustrated by Viśvanātha. The garbha-sandhi also has 13 limbs such as - abhūta”harana, mārga, rūpa, udāharana, krama, samgraha, anumāna, prārthanā, ksipti, trotaka, adhibala, udvega and vidrava all duly defined and illustrated in the vștti - The Vimarśa sandhi has 13 limbs all duly defined and illustrated. They are - apavāda sampheta, vyavasāya, drava, dyuti, śakti, prasanga, kheda, pratiședha, virodhana, prarocanā, adāna and chādana. The nirvahana sandhi has 14 angas, all defined and illustrated by V., such as - sandhi, vibodha, grathana, nirnaya, paribhāșana, krti, prasāda, ānanda, samaya, upagūhana, bhāșana, pūrvavākyā, kāvya-samhāra and praśasti.
The S.D. observes that some anga-s in this or that sandhi are more prominent as compared to others which are simply found there. Thus in the mukha-sandhi, upaksepa, parikara, parinyāsa, yukti, udbheda and samadhāna are relatively more prominent. Similarlly in other sandhis the following are observed to be more important such as - in pratimukha, angas viz. pari-sarpana, pragamana, vajra, upanyāsa, mārga, troţaka, adhibala and ksepa, in vimarśa, anga-s such as apavada, sakti, vyavasāya, prarocanã and dana, are more predominent - ...prādhyānyam; anyesām ca yathāsambhavam sthitih. The others are accomodated with reference to the need or context. This is the opinion of some, says V. - iti kecit. V. remains non-commital in this respect.
But it is clearly observed by Viśvanātha that anga-s belonging to different sandhis may find place also in different sandhis in view of the context of rasa,

Page #519

1694
SAHRDAYĀLOKA which is having supreme importance. The S.D. (VI. 115, 116 a) observes -
"catuḥsașți-vidham hy etad angam proktam manīșibhiḥ, kūryād aniyate tasya sandhāv api niveśanam rasā'nuguņatām vīksya,
rasasyaiva hi mukhyatā.” the vrtti adds - yathā veni-samhāre trtīyānke duryodhana-karnayor mahat sampradhāraṇam. evam anyad api. yat tu rudratā”dibhiḥ “niyama eva" ity uktam tal laksya-viruddham.
i.e. - as in veņīsamhāra, act III, (sampradhāranam arthānām yuktiḥ) yukti. i.e. fixation of matters, which belongs to mukha-sandhi-is shown in the garbha-sandhi. Such other occurrences can also be noted. Rudrata had observed that there is fixed -rule-niyama eva-concerning the display of respective limbs in respective sandhis only. But this, V. observes, is against actual practice of dramatists. It i.e., Rudrata's observation, is therefore baseless.
After this V. notes the six things that result from these anga-s. Here V. follows whatever is said in this respect by earlier masters such as Bharata, Dhanañjaya, etc. He observes (S.D. VI. 116 b-119)
istārtha-racana"scaryalābho vịtānta-vistaraḥ, 116b. rāga-prāptiḥ prayogasya, gopyānām gopanam tathā, prakāśanam prakāśyānām
angānām sadvidham phalam." 117 Through the practice of these limbs six things are achieved as results - they are - (i)formation of desired matter, (ii) advantage of having woderful narration. (iii) expansion of theme, (iv) winning admiration and love for the presentation, (v) concealment of that which deserves concealment, and (vi) revelation of that which deserves revelation. Six things are thus achieved through the staging of limbs. Like a person bereft of limbs can not start new things, in the same way, poetry or script without limbs is not worthy of being staged. V. observes (VI. 119) that 'anga' or a limb has to be presented by either the hero, or his enemy or the hero of the subsidiary plot i.e. patākā-nāyaka.

Page #520

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1695 S.D. VI. 119 reads as -
sampādayetām sandhyangam nāyaka-pratināyakau, tad abhāve patākā”dyās
tad abhāve tathétarat. In the absence of patākā-nāyaka, any other character can present any anga in a play.
(Vrtti, VI. 119) - Viśvanātha observes : “prāyeņa pradhāna-puruṣa-prayojyāni sandhyangāni bhavanti. kintu, praksepā"di trayam (i.e. praksepa, parikara and parinyāsa), bījasya alpamātra-samuddistatvād a-pradhāna-purusa-prayojitam eva sādhu.” - Normally, the limbs of a juncture are to be presented by the hero only. But as bīja is manifested in very little proportion, the three angas such as praksepa, parikara and parinyāsa, are to be presented by subsidiary characters i.e. those of lesser importance. Following Ananda-vardhana's observation viz. (Dhv. III. 12)
sandhi-sandhyanga-ghatanam rasā'bhivyakty apeksayā na tu kevalayā śāstra
sthiti-sampādanecchayā.” - that sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s are to be depicted only with a purpose to manifest rasa, and not just to carry out the rule of the text-book or authority i.e. śāstra. Viśvanātha also observes - (S.D. VI. 120)
“rasa-vyaktim apeksyaiņām angānām sanniveśanam, na tu kevalayā śāstra
sthiti-sampādanecchayā.” The same illustration as cited in the Dhvanyāloka is quoted here also by V. in the vștti - “tathā ca yad venyām duryodhanasya bhānumatyā saha vipralambho darsitaḥ, tat tādņśe avasare atyantam anucitam."
V. also follows Anandavardhana and observes that (S.D. VI. 121) whatever matter from historical source which may not be contrary to the source, but if found

Page #521

1696
SAHRDAYĀLOKA extra or not required for rasa-manifestation, should be either changed or completely discarded by a good poet.
After this V. takes up such topics such as vșttis and the rest as pointed out by us earlier.
The Rasārnava-sudhākara (RS., Edn. Trivedrum, T. Ganapati śāstri, Trivendrum, 1916 A.D.) of Singabhūpala has its own identity among all the works on dramaturgy. It is written in a smooth and flowing style and covers all topics concerning dramaturgy and quotes views of the ancients. It is directly under the infulence of Dhananjaya-Dhanika and Bhoja but Ānandavardhana with the Kashmir tradition also finds ample respect in this work. The first chaptervilāsa-treats of nāțaka-laksana in general, rasa-laksana, vibhāva-lakṣaṇa and its two types, nāyaka with his qualities and all types, nāyakasahāyāh, nāyikā in three types, all types of nāyikās, nāyikāsahāyāḥ, · śộngāróddīpana-vibhāvasya cāturvidhyam, guna-s of the alambana, four types of alamkrti, tafasthaūddīpana-vibhāvas, anubhāva-lakṣaṇa, four-fold anubhāva-s under the influence of Bhoja or Mālava-school such as cittaja, gātraja, vāg-ārambha, and buddhyārambha-anubhāvas.
The second vilāsa treats of all vyabhicărins, consideration of additional vyabhicărins beyond the 33 given by Bharata, sthāyilaksanam, rati as treated in Bhoja, sthāyins as treated by Bhoja, rasa-nirūpanam, eight-fold rasa-s, topics concerning individual rasa-s, rasa-sāmkarya, rasa-virodha etc., rasā”bhāsa, etc.
The third vilāsa has-nātya-śabda-vyutpattiḥ, rūpaka-sabdā”rthaḥ, nātyasya daśa-vidhatvam, rūpaka-bhedakāḥ, netā, itivṛtta, 5 varieties of itivștta, bīja, bindu etc., pañca-kāryavasthāḥ, pañca-sandhayaḥ, sandhyanga-s 21 sandhyantara, sandhyanga-sandhyantarāņām prayoge bhedaḥ, 36 vastu-bhūşaņāni, rūpakesu nāțaka-prādhānyam, prastāvanā, etc., vastuno dvaividhyam ankávatāra-devices, anka-lakṣaṇam, prakarana, other rūpakas, language, nirdeśa-paribhāṣā, names of character etc. etc.
The R.S. has not left any topic concerning dramaturgy out of its treatment. In this it stands comparision with the N.D.
After viewing some important primary observations, we will deal with the treatment of sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s first, as read in the RS. and then deal with the types of drama in due course.

Page #522

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1697 In the first vilāsa RS. has interesting observations on the nature of drama in general. RS. (I. 57-59a, pp. 9, ibid) observes -
sāttvikā"dyair abhinayaiḥ preksakāņām yato bhavet, nate nāyaka-tādātmya
buddhis tan nātyam ucyate. 57 The apprehension of the hero, in the person of an actor, through representation such as sāttvika, etc., on the part of the spectators is termed 'nātya' i.e. drama or dramatic art.
Singabhūpāla is very clear and forthright in declaring (VS. 58) that rasa - i.e. aesthetic delight is the soul of dramatic art. Rasa is arrived at through the agency of vibhāvā”dis. Rasa is explained under the influence of the DR. RS. I. 58-59a, read as -
"rasótkarso hi nāryasya prāņās, tat sa nirūpyate, vibhāvair anubhāvais ca sāttvikair vyabhicāribhiḥ - I. 58 ānīyamānaḥ svādutvam
sthāyi bhāvo rasah smrtaḥ - 59a. Now we will turn to the Vilāsa III., which starts with the etymology of the word nātya. It is observed (RS. III. i)
tad idịśa-rasā”dhāram nātyam rūpakam ity api, natasyā’ti-pravīņasya
karmatvān nātyam ucyate. i.e. “Nātya' which is the substratum of the rasa (described earlier) of this type, is also termed rūpaka. As acting of an expert artist or actor, it is termed 'nāțya'.
It is termed 'rūpaka’ also in the fashion of rūpaka-alamkāra in which there is superimposition of lotus etc. on face etc. Here in drama, the hero is superimposed on the actor and hence it is termed 'rūpaka'.
Following the lead of the DR. and Bhoja, i.e. the Mālava school of art-criticism, the RS. also observes that 'nātya' is ten-fold and is of the nature of "vākyárthábhinaya".

Page #523

1698
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Following the general tradition of Bharata and the DR., RS. observes that nātya is ten-fold such as nātaka, prakarana, etc. This division in ten types is caused by the basic difference in rasa, the types of hero and the theme.- RS. III 3b - reads as -
rasétivstta-netāras
tat tad rūpaka-bhedakāḥ. The hero is the protector. Itivștta is the synonym of kathā-vastu. (Rs. III. 4b) Itivrtta is said to be the body of the composition and is three-fold such as welknown, imagined and mixed. With the types of divine and human characters, it is said to be five-fold by the learned.
After this bījā”di artha-prakstis are treated, including the patākāsthānaka-s, etc. Then, the arambha, etc. - kāryāvasthā-s are treated, leading to the consideration of sandhi-s and sandhyangas.
It is interesting to note that the RS. also observes that sandhi-, as held in the DR., is a sum total of artha-prakrti and avasthā.
RS. III. 26 observes : atha sandhiḥ -
ekaikasyāstv avasthāyāḥ prakstyā caika-yaikayā, yogaḥ sandhir iti jñeyo
nārya-vidyā-vicaksanaḥ.” Of course as observed in the DR. and Avaloka, RS. also says that the status of patākā is not permanent and in that case the sandhi follows the bindu or drop. Rs. III. 27 reads as -
"patakāyāsty avasthānam kvacid asti na vā kvacit patākayā vihine tu
bindum vā viniveśayet.” Following earlier authorities, especially the DR., the RS. observes that when parts of the theme are interconnected in view of the central goal, they give rise to sandhis.
“mukha-prayojana-vaśāt kathángānām samanvaye, avāntarā’rtha sambandhaḥ sandhiḥ sandhāna-rūpataḥ.”

Page #524

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1699 Sandhi is so termed as it joins the various parts or stages of the main theme or plot.
The five sandhi-s then are defined in the following karikā-s. RS. III. 29 (abc) -
mukha-pratimukhe garbhavimarśāv upa-samhștiḥ, pañcaite sandhayas teșu (29-d) yatra bīja-samudbhavaḥ nānāvidhānām arthānām rasānām api kāraṇam, tan-mukham (30, abc) tatra ca'ngāni
bījā"rambhā’nurodhatah.” The angas of the mukha-sandhi wherein the bīja is cast, which causes many matters and rasa-s, are upaksepa, parikara, parinyāsa, vilobhana, yukti, prāpti, samadhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, bheda, and karana - in all twelve. All these are duly explained and illustrated.
The prati-mukhasandhi with its 13 anga-s is explained in RS. III 38b-41(a) : They read as -
bījaprakāśanam yatra drsya’drśyā’ntaram bhavet, 38b - tat syāt pratimukham bindoḥ prayatnasyā’nurodhatah, iha trayodaśā’ngāni prayojyāni manīşibhiḥ." 39 vilāsa-parisarpau ca vidhutam sama-narmani, narma-dyutiḥ pragamanam virodhaḥ paryupāsanam. 40 puspam vajram upanyāso
varņa-samharanam tathā. 41a All these are explained and illustrated in the vṛtti.

Page #525

1700
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The garbha-sandhi with 12 anga-s is explained as - RS. III. 49b - 51a.
drstā’drspasya bījasya garbhastv anvesanam muhuḥ. 49b āprāptyāśā-patākā-'nurodhād angāni kalpayet abhūtā"haranam mārgo rūpódāharane kramah, - 50 samgrahaś cā’numānam ca toțakā’tibale tathā, udvegaḥ sambhramākṣepau
dvādaśaisām tu laksanam. 51 All these are duly illustrated in the vrtti that follows. - The RS. III. 57b - 60. a, treat of the vimarśa sandhi and its 13 engas, and read as -
"yatra pralobhana-krodhavyasanā”dyair vimțśyate, 57b bījártho garbha-nirbhinnaḥ sóvamaría itīryate prakarī-niyatā”ptyā’nugunyad atránga-kalpanam 58 apavādo'tha sampheto vidrava-drava-śaktayaḥ, dyuti-prasangau chalanavyavasāyau nirodhanam. 59 prarocanā vicalanam
ādānam syus trayodaśa 60a. These 13 angas are explained and illustrated in the vrtti.
The nirvahana-sandhi with its 14 anga-s is defined at RS. III 67-69., which read as -
mukha-sandhyā"dayo yatra vikirnã bija-samyutāh,

Page #526

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1701
mahā-prayojanam yānti tannirvahanam ucyate 67 sandhi-virodhau grathanam nirnaya-paribhāṣaṇe prasādaś ca, ānanda-samaya-kştayaḥ bhāsopanigūhane tadvat. 68 atha pūrvabhāvayujā upasamhāra-prasasti ca iti nirvahaṇasyā’ngāny
āhur amiņām tu lakṣaṇam vaksye. 69 The RS. also advises the proper usage of these anga-s saying that, the sequence of these anga-s is not to be observed compulsorily : RS. III. 75-78 read as -
rasa-bhāvā’nurodhena prayojanam apeksya ca sākalyam kāryam angānām ity ācāryaḥ pracaksate 75 keșāņcid eșām angānām vaikalyam kecid ūcire, mukhā”di-sandhişv angānām kramóyam na vivaksitaḥ 76 kramasyā'nādstatvena bharatā”dibhir ādimaiḥ : laksyeșu vyutkrameņā’pi bharatena (?) vicaksanaih 77 catuhsasti-kalā-marmavedinā singa-bhūbhujā, lakṣitā ca catuḥ sasțir bālarāmāyaṇe sphuram. 78

Page #527

1702
SAHRDAYĀLOKA With this the RS. deals with the sandyantara-s suggesting that 21 sandhyantaras' are also recommended : RS. III 79-82 read as -
mukhā"di-sandhişv angānām a-śaithilyam pratīyate, sandhyantarāņi yogyāni tatra tatraika-vimsatiḥ 79 ācāryántara-sangatyā camatkāro vidhiyate, laksya-lakṣaṇam eteșām udahrtam api sphutam. 80 sāma-dāne bheda-dandau pratyutpannamatir vadhah, gotra-skhalitam ojas'ca dhīḥ krodhaḥ sāhasam bhayam. 81 māyā ca samhstir bhrāntiḥ dūtyam herv avadhāranam, svapna-lekhau madaś citram
ityetāny eka-vimśatih.” 82 It may be noted, observes Dr. Raghavan (pp. 592), that the DR. has disposed of these sandhyantara-s, along with 36 laksana-s, as not being distinct from bhāvas and alamkāra-s. DR. IV. 84 observes :
sat-trimsad bhūşaņā”dīni sāmā"dīny ekaviņśatiḥ lakṣma-sandhyantarā’ngāni
sā’lamkāreșu teșu ca. The Avaloka reads · 'sāmaḥ bhedaḥ pradānam ca' ity evam adini sandhyantarāny eka-vimsatiḥ upamā”dişviva alamkāreșu harsotsāhādişu (bhāvesu) antarbhāvān na prthag uktāni.

Page #528

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1703 As for the treatment of this topic in the NS. of Bharata, Dr. Raghavan observes that (pp. 592, ibid) the main text of the K.M. Edn., of the NS., does not contain the supplementary list of 21 items called sandyantara-s following on the heels of the Sandhyanga-s. But the edition notes in a foot-note on p. 213, the existence of these in another recension. The Käśī Edn. (Ch. XXI), has the sandyantaras in the main body of the text on pp. 241-245, but a foot-note here points out the absence of this in another recension.
The G.O.S. Edn. (Vol. III. Ch. XIX, pp. 63) contains sandhyantaras at XIX - 106b, 107a :
"eteşām eva cā’ngānām, sambaddhānyartha-yuktitaḥ,
sandhyantarāni sandhīnām višesāstveka-vimśatih." Dr. Unni (on pp. 576, Edn. Nag Publishers, '98) reads these twenty one sandhyantara-s in the body of the text at, Ch. XXI, VS. 46-48. They read as -
sāma bhedah pradānañca dandaś ca vadha eva ca, pratyutpanna-matitvam ca gotra-skhalitam eva ca. sāhasas' ca bhayan caiva dhir māyā krodha eva ca, dūto lekhas tathā svapnaś citram mada iti dvijāḥ sandhyantarāņi sandhīnām
višeşās tve ka-vimsatiḥ. (VS. 46-48) G.O.S. Edn. reads as :
sāma bhedas tathā dandaḥ pradānam vadha eva ca . pratyutpanna-matitvam ca gotra-skhalitam eva ca sāhasam ca bhayam caiva hrir māyā krodha eva ca ojaḥ samvaranam bhrāntiḥ tathā hetvapadhāranam dūtāḥ lekhastathā svapnaḥ citram mada iti smộtam.

Page #529

1704
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA These 21 sandhyantara-s or special junctures occur between the various junctures.
Bhoja (pp. 498, Śr. Pra. Vol. II, Edn. Josyer) reads as : atha sandhyantarāny ekavimšatih tad-yathā-sāma, bhedah dandah, pradanam, vadhah, pratyutpannamatitvam, gotra-skhalitam, sāhasam, bhayam, hrih, māyā, krodha, ojah, samvaranam, bhrāntih, hetvavadhāranam, dūtah, lekhah, svapnah, citram, madah iti.
All these are illustrated fully (pp. 499-503, ibid). Regarding 'krodha' (pp. 501, ibid) - Bhoja observes - "yo'sau purusārtha-siddhi-hetuh krodha-sthayibhāvah, soyam na bhavati ity udāhrtam, puruşārtha-siddhi-hetus tu sthāyibhāvo na sandhyantaram.”
Dr. Raghavan here observes (pp. 593, ibid) - "It is correct to say that the Krodha here meant as a sandhyantara is a fleeting vyabhicārin; yet it is all the same a bhāva, and Bhoja's argument can not be pressed further. That apart, we must be indebted, in untold measure, to Bhoja for such things as the sandhyantara-s, not because these by themselves are of great value, but because these are responsible for immensely valuable quotations from such rare and now lost dramatic masterpieces as the Devicandragupta, and the Abhisārikā-vañcitaka of Viśākhadeva and the Pārtha-vijaya of Trilocana.
The enumeration and illustration of these 21 sandhyantaras run from p. 480 to p. 487 (number is different in Josyer Edn. as noted above). The names of these sandhyantara-s in the list of the Kaśī Edn. are, some of them, wrong. After Sahasa in XXI. 50 the vadha must be bhaya; in the same verse, Hirvāvadhāranam must be Hetvāvadhāranam. The list in K.M. Edn., foot-note is purer, except in the case of the last sandhyantara which is given as mada correctly in the Kāśī Edn., but wrongly as 'Manda' in the K.M. text.”
Dr. Raghavan has done some proof-reading here. But as we see it, the list in Dr. Unni's edn. is very pure.
The RS. has inherited this concept from not only Bhoia and Dhananjaya but also from Bharata. A recension containing this topic could have been available to Singa Bhūpāla.
The RS. further notes that the sandhyanga-s go with the sandhi-s, but these 21 sandhyantaras are presented without consideration of any sandhi. The RS. criticises the stand of the DR. in merging these under sandhi-s, because these are not a regular feature. The RS. (pp. 247, Kā. III. 92-96, read as -
"udbhāva-kalpanā'ngānām mukha-pramukha-sandhisu. 92b

Page #530

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1705 i.e. the birth and conception of the sandhyanga-s are with reference to the sandhis such and mukha, pratimukha etc. The anga-s are fixed with reference to individual sandhi-s but the practice of the sandhy antara-s is not limited by any sections (such as individual sandhi-s) :
pratyekam niyatarvena yojyā tatraiva kalpanā, sandhyantarāņām vijñeyaḥ prayogas tv a-vibhāgataḥ. (III. 93) R.S. further observes : : tathaiva darśanād eşām
a-naiyatyena sandhișu (III. 94a) i.e. As these sandhyantaras are seen not as fixed with sandhi-s, they could not be included in the (concept of) anga-s i.e. sandhyanga-s, which is so ordained in the DR. -
"tad eșām a-vicāreņa kathito daśa-rūpake III. 94b sandhyantarāņām angeșu nä’ntarbhāvo mato mama, sāmádyupāya dakşena sandhyā"di-guna-sobhinā. III. 95
nirvyūdham singabhūpena
... sandhyantar-nirūpaņam, III. 96a So, I, Śingabhūpāla, expert in the use of upāya-s such as 'sāma' and the like and one who am decorated by, qualities of sandhi etc. ['sāma', and 'sandhi' are used in a double sense) treat sandhyantara (separately). -
Thus “ingabhūpāla flouts the authority of the DR. in this respect and chooses to follow the tradition of treating sandhyantara as a concept, independent of sandhyanga-s.
Whatever his opinion, singabhūpāla adds grace to his treatment.
We will now turn to a comparative and critical study of the concept of sandhis and sandhyanga-s as found in major works with special help from the article of our guru Dr. V. M. Kulkarni who has attempted this study in an article printed in

Page #531

1706
SAHRDAYĀLOKA his “Studies In Sanskrit Sāhitya-Śāstra” pp. 78-108; pub. B. L. Institute of Indology, Patan (N. Guj.) 1983. The title of this article is, "The conception of sandhi-s, In the Sanskrit Drama." The subject is very interesting and Dr. Kulkarni has made valuable and critical observations, which we welcome here along with accepting our immense indebtedness to our Guru. It may be added that with all flourish shown in the "Bharata Natya Manjari", Dr. G. K. Bhat has not included the topic of Sandhyanga-s in his excellent work nor has he anything to mention about the "Sandhyantara-s either. Accepting our indebtedness to Dr. VMK. not only here, but in anything that we have thought or drafted, we will treat this topic borrowing from his article all that is acceptable to us.
karni starts with an observation that to understand the concept of Sandhi-s in the Sanskrit drama it is necessary to know what is iti-vrtta, arthaprakrti and avasthā. As we have earlier dealt with these topics in all depth we need not repeat the matter here. We will begin with the five sandhis.
Dr. Kulkarni observes that Bharata does not attempt a general definition of sandhi (= dramatic juncture) but proceeds to define each one of the five sandhis straight away. We have fully quoted earlier, from Bharata's text, and observed what he has to say in this respect. Later authorities - and we have also taken note of this while dealing with them earlier, individually - define it as, “The connection of pa of the (dramatic) story linked together by their contribution towards the same end, each part having its own secondary end.
“antaraikártha-sambandhaḥ
sandhiḥ ekā’nvaye sati." - DR. p. 6 ekena prayojanena anvitānām kathāmśānām avāntaraika-prayojanasambandhaḥ sandhiḥ - Avaloka (pp. 6) (Here all Ref.s are to the Edn.s, whatever, used by Dr. Kulkarni). A.bh. III. p. 23 has - "tena arthā'vayavāḥ sandhīyamānāḥ parasparam angaiś ca sandhaya iti samākhyā niruktā tad eșām sāmānyalaksanam.”
The DR. besides giving this definition, as also observed earlier, lays down that the five artha-prakrti-s joined to the five avasthā-s respectively give rise to the five sandhi-s beginning with Mukha (opening) etc. This views is followed by B.P., the PR. (= Pratāpa-rūdra-yaśobhūşana of Vidyānātha) and the RS. We have presented relevant references from the B.P. and the RS. earlier. Dr. V. M. Kulkarni observes, and this is a very interesting and critical observation that, in enunciating this view, the DR. had in mind the text of Bharata which lays down that like the five avasthas

Page #532

"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1707 the five artha-prakstis should be used by a dramatist. The NS. XIX. 19-20 has -
“itivịtte yathā’vasthāḥ pañca”rambhikāh smrtäh artha-prakṣtayaḥ pañca tathā bījā”dikā api. bījam binduḥ patākā ca prakarī kāryam eva ca, artha-prakstayaḥ pañca
jñātvā yojyā yathā-vidhi.” Dr. Kulkarni feels that when Bharata said that as in case of avasthās, the arthaprakrti-s are also to be used, accordingly, the DR. thought that they are to be employed together. This meaning of Yathāvidhi' must have entered the mind of Dhananjava. which was a cross misunderstanding. The faithful followers as Sāradātanava and Singabhūpāla followed the suit. But Abhinavagupta has never said such a thing. He has simply stated (pp. 31, A.bh. III) that - "artha-bhāga-rāśiḥ sandhir ity uktam, tatra sandhīnām sambandhanīyāni vrttāni samvidhāna-khandāni... angam." The definitions, of course the general definitions in the DR. as seen above, and in the BP. and NLRK. also do not reveal this. The BP. (p. 207) observes :
eka-kāryā’nviteșv atra kathāmseșu prayogataḥ, avántaraika-kāryasya
sambandhaḥ sandhir işyate. The NLRK. (p. 20) has - "sandhiḥ parasparam kathāmśānām samghatanam. yathoktam sandhīyante arthāḥ parasparam ebhiḥ iti sandhayaḥ.”
As noted above by us Dr. Kulkarni also suggests that the fact that avasthas occur in the order of their enumeration and the use of the word "yathā-vidhi” must have tempted the DR. to believe that the five arthaprakstis too, occur in the very order in which they are mentioned. The note no. 26, (pp. 83), given by Dr. Kulkarni tries to explain Abhinavagupta's position in this respect. The A.bh. says (Vol. III. p. 12) :
"jñātva yojyā yathā-vidhi iti tāsām auddeśikokrivad upanibandha-kramaniyama ityarthah." We feel that the A.bh. by “tāsām" seems to refer to the artha-prakstis and recommends that these occur in the order shown by Bharata. But this reference

Page #533

1708
SAHRDAYĀLOKA never suggests that patākā and prakari are inevitable in a play, though of course, they occur only after bīja and bindu, which is absolutely naturel. So, when Dr. Kulkarni observes in the foot-note while giving yet another quotation from the Abh.. that "Here Abhinava appears to nod”, we mean that Abhinavagupta accepts the sequence of artha-prakrtis but not the inevitableness of all of them. i.e. specially of patākā and prakari. The other reference reads as : (A.bh. Vol. III. p. 16, on NS. XIX 26, 27) : "na sarvatra prārambhādivat sarvā artha-prakstayo'pi. api tu yasya nāyakasya yenā'rtha-praksti-viśeşena prayojana-sampattir adhikā'dhikā, tad eva pradhānam; anyat tu bhavad api gunabhūtam a-satkalpam, yathā sva-parākramabahumāna-śālinām patākā-prakaryaū a-vivaksite eva. bīja-bindu-kāryāni tu sarvatra anapāyīni. tatrā'pi tu guna-pradhana-bhāvah.” So, we again assert that nowhere Abhinavagunta nor even Bharata, has given even a semblance to believe that for either of them a sandhi meant a sum total of artha-prakrti-s and avasthās. Our understanding is that even the sequence or order with reference to both patākā and prakarī is also not fixed. Bharata and others following him mention patākā first and prakarī next only because they want to suggest that patākā goes a longer way in the main theme and prakarī occupies only a shorter space. No sequence is meant; for we feel prakarī as in case of Jatāyu episode, can preceed a patākā and there may be only prakari and not parākā if the poet so chooses.
But misguided as Dhananjaya was by the term “yathā-vidhi” in the NS., Dr. Kulkarni observes, that naturally he (i.e. Dhananjaya) evolves the doctrine that each sandhi rests on an avasthā and an artha-praksti. Dr. Kulkarni observes, and we fully agree with it, that this docrine does not stand to reason, for as pointed out by the Abh. and the ND., the patākā or prakarī, or both of them, are not indispensable elements in the Nātaka if the hero is capable of attaining the object of desire without external help. Even in the absence of patākā and the prakarī we do find all the five sandhis in the drama. The definitions of the five sandhi-s as given by the NS. show that the five respective sandhi-s essentially rest on the five respective avasthā-s and the progressive development of the bīja. The DR. too, is aware of this fact, when it says that patākā may or may not occur in the garbha sandhi - "garbhas-tu... patākā syān na vā syāt prāpti-sambhavah.” Dr. Kulkarni points out in his foot-note (No. 27, pp. 84) that Haas is wrong when he translates : "(In it) there should be an Episode (patākā) or (else) there should not be prospect of success (prāpti-sambhava-prāptyāśā).” What the DR. means is this : In the garbha the patākā may or may not occur but the prospect of success - the third avastha shall occur. It may be noted that the ND. is very clear about this and observes,

Page #534

"Daśarūpaka-Vicăra"
1709 following of course the A.bh., that - "sahāya-napeksāņām nāyakānām vștte bījabindu-kāryāṇi tu traya evópāyāḥ, sahāyā'pekşāņam tu patākā-prakaribhyām anyatarayā vā saha pañca catvāro véti. (p. 47), and,
"naisām auddeśiko nibandha-kramaḥ sarveşām avaśyambhāvitvam vā. - The DR. remains silent as to the place of prakarī in the avamarśa or vimarśa. It would not, therefore, be proper to accuse the DR. of mis-interpreting Bharata. Instead, in fairness to Dhananjava, his statement - which makes each sandhi essentially rest on one avastha and one artha-prakrti-may be looked upon as a description of mechanical or ideal perfection to be wished for rather than a strict doctrine or a rule to be adhered to.
Here we disagree with out Guru, Dr. Kulkarni. Yes, we may concede that the DR. has not mis-interpreted Bharata, but unwrittingly perhaps he has mis-understood Bharata. The DR. does mean what it is exactly made out to be for not only Avaloka, but the Laghuţikā also states that (pp. 19, Adyar Edn. ibid) - "bījādīnām arthaprakstīnām avasthābhiḥ pañcabhir yogāt yathāsamkhyam sandhayo bhavanti. bijasya arambhena anvayo mukha-sandhih, bindoh prayatnena anvayah pratimukhasandhiḥ, patākāyāḥ prāptyāśayā’nvayo garbha-sandhiḥ, yadyapi a-niyatā eva patākā, tathā'pi yadā patākā bhavati tadānīm avasthāparvanā prāptyāśayā yogāt (tan nibandhana ?] garbha-sandhir bhavati. yadā tu sā nā'sti tadānīm garbha-sandhiḥ kevalā prāptyāśā bhavtīti. evam upary api neyam. But here we may suggest another solution, to defend the DR. It may be accepted that a sandhi is a sum total of both artha-prakti and avasthā, but in case when there is absence of patākā and/or prakarī we may hold that the artha-prakrti called 'bindu' continues, and when prakari is not there, patākā continues along with the next avasthā. Thus “yathāsamkhyena” also can be defended. The table can be placed like this -
table-I - bīja; bindu, patakā, prakari + ārambha + yatna + praptyāśā, niyatāpti and kārya + phalāvacaḥ.
table-II In place of both patākā and prakari let bindu continue with avastha-s in sequence, i.e. yatna, prāptyāśā and niyatāpti.
table-III In case if patākā is present and prakarī is absent, patākā will join first with praptyāśa for garbha sandhi and will join with niyatāpti for vimarśa.
table-IV In case if only prakarī is present, bindu will extend to join with prāptyāśa to form garbha and then prakari will mix with niyatā'pti for vimarśa.
Thus, use of artha-prakstis in fixed sequence - yatha-samkhyena will continue to hold good.

Page #535

1710
SAHRDAYĀLOKA But this explanation is of course not final, nor does it carry any authority but is placed before the learned like a defence-lawyer trying to defend the accused. This suggestion may be pushed aside gently by the learned. Actually the BP. prescribes that in case the patākā does not occur in the garbha the playwright should employ
bīja or the bindus in its place. "a-patāke niveśaḥ syād bindor bījasya vā kvacit." (pp. 210). This supports our conjecture.
Dr. Kulkarni further observes that the sandhis, as observed earlier, are the structural divisions of the drama which clearly and closely correspond with the avasthās in the hero's realization of his object of desire. The classification into (the five avasthā-s and) the five sandhi-s is intended to help the dramatist to achieve the unity of action or impression. The five sandhi-s are defined as follows.
That part of a play which contains the origination of bīja, the source of several incidents and sentiments and corresponds with the prārambha avasthā (Beginning) is called Mukha (opening). Abhinava gives the etymological interpretation of Mukha as follows: (NS. III. pp. 23): "prāg arambhabhāvirvan mukham ive mukham." NS. XIX 319., SD. p. 320
As regards the pratimukha the theorists differ. According to the DR (which the SD., the BP., the PR. and the RS. follow) that part of a play which represents the development of the bīja in such a way as to be perceptible and imperceptible by turns is called pratimukha (progression) . We have quoted the definitions earlier from respective sources.
Abhinava, Dr. Kulkarni observes, whom the KS (= Kā. Śa., Hemacandra) and the ND. follow, interprets the text of Bharata - [i.e. NS. XIX. 40 - bijasyódghātanam yatra drsta-nastam iva kvacit, mukha-nyastasya sarvatra-tad-vai pratimukham bhavet.]
- to mean that the part of a play which represents total manifestation of the bija that is shown in the Mukha to be seen and then veiled, as it were, by some secondary incident, is called pratimukha. Abhinavagupta notes in his commentary
Abh. - on NS. XIX. 40, Vol. III pp. 24-25) the views of other theorists, criticises them and gives his own. He interprets the text thus : "bijasyódghatanam tavat phalā'nuguņo daśā-vićeṣaḥ tad drsçam api virodhi-sannidher nastam iva pāmsunā pihitasyeva bējasyā’nkura-rūpam udghātanam... dộstam nastam iva kṛtvā tāvan mukhe nyastam bhūmāv iva bijam, amātyena sāgarikācestitam vasantotsavakamadeva-pūjādinā tirohitam nastam iva, sāgarikā-cestitasya hi bījasya iva tad acchädakam apy utsavā”di-rūpam bhūmir iva pratyudbodhakam. tasya drstanasta-tulyam krtvā nyastasya, ata eva kunkuma-bījasya yad udghātanam tat

Page #536

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1711 kalpam, yatródghātanam sarvatraiva kathābhāga-samūhe tat-pratimukham.” Abhinava gives etymological explanation of pratimukha as follows: "pratir abhimukhyena yato'tra yrttih, parānmukhatā hi drsta-nasta-kalpananidarśanam. (III. p. 25). In the word 'prati mukha', 'prati' has the sense 'favourable to'.
We may humbly say that we fail to understand how the DR. and the NS. and the explanation of Abhinavagupta differ in themselves. The words in the NS. - "bījasya, mukhanyastasya, udghātanam yatra, drsta-naştam iva kvacit” are echoed exactly in the DR - observing - "tasya (= bījasya), laksyā’laksyatayod bhedaḥ” - pratimukham bhavet."
The illustration that Abh. gives is from Ratnāvalī, wherein the bīja was as it were concealed for the time being, being covered up by the pūjā, but once again came to light on listening the word "Udayana" by Sagarikā, who was reminded of the fact that she was given, by word, in marriage to this king by her father. Thus as the bija, - seed covered as it were by earth for the time being appears as a sprout, in the same way the desire for Udayana reappears.
Dr. Kulkarni continues to explain garbha-sandhi as that part of a play which represents a further stage in development of the bīja which the hero gains and loses by turns and which he frequently searches, everytime it is lost.
It is so called as it contains the fruit as it were within itself :
phalasya garbhīkaraņād garbhaḥ - S.D. pp. 320. "prāptisambhavā”khyayā'vaşthāyuktatvena phalasya garbhibhāvāt.” A.bh. III. pp. 25.
“nāțakasya madhyatvad garbhaḥ.” NLRK. p. 30. The authorities differ regarding the definition and interpretation of the fourth sandhi avamaría or vimarśa. Bharata's text is very knotty, defying as it does, a satisfactory interpretation. Bharata has, as observed earlier : (NS. XIX. 42) -
"garbha-nirbhinna-bījārtho vilobhana-ksto’thavā krodha-vyasanajo'pi vā
sa vimarśa iti smộtaḥ." [Dr. Bhat, as noted earlier, translates - (pp. 173, ibid - "The context (or developments) of the seed which has sprouted in the Garbha (sandhi), its contemplation (vimarśa) made (necessary) on account of some temptation, or born out of anger, or calamity, - is known as Vimarśa." We feel the translation makes Bharata's concept very clear. Dr. Bhat adds in the foot-note : "Abhinava says that a review of the plot-development is taken in this sandhi, and the possibility of

Page #537

1712
SAHRDAYĀLOKA doubt about the fructification of the seed is examined. Vimarśa or avamaría also means 'an obstacle': fresh obstacles to the final attainment of fruit on account of anger, temptation, calamity or curse introduced at this stage and the way to overcome them deliberated. See Abhinava, op. (cit, pp. 26-28)]
Dr. Unni takes note of A.bh.'s observation that vimarśa and Avamarśa are synonymous. “kecid vimarśa iti pathanti, anye avamarśa iti. tatra sandehā”tmako vimarśaḥ, anye tv avamaráo vighna iti vadanti."
Dr. Kulkarni observes that Abhinava quotes different views as to the nature of Avamarśa. He himself holds that 'vimarśa' is 'sandehā”tmaka'. He argues that even after sambhāvanā (or, possibility of attainment) samsaya is possible when some unforeseen obstacle appears in the way of the achievement of desired object. The hero reflects over the new situation and realizes that he can attain the end if he surmounts a specific difficulty. He takes courage in both the hands and does his best to surmount the obstacle. This obstacle may be caused by a curse, or anger, or selfishness or temptation. - The KS. (= Kā. Šā.) literally borrows one of the passages quoted by the A.bh. to explain Bharata's definition of Vimarśa : That part of a play where the bīja about to fructify loses its progress and seems to return to its original state on account of interruption caused by the wrath of the opponent, or selfishness of the rival, or some calamity like a curse etc. - is called vimarśa. (pp. 454 - Kā. Sā.) The Viveka reads as : "bīja-śabdena bija-phalam. artha śabdena nivșttir ucyate. tena garbhan nirbhinnam, pradarśitamukham, bahirnissarañónmukham yad-bīja-phalam tasya yórthah nivrttih punas tatraiva ca praveśa iva yatra, sa vimarśa-śandhih."
The word vimarśa is here taken to mean 'vighna', the 'bija' as 'bījaphala' and ‘artha' as 'nivrtti'. The definition given by SD. is however, quite unambiguous : "That part of a play where the bīja (= lit. the principal means to the end) has developed further than in the garbha and faces some obstacle due to curse and such other reasons is called Vimarsa. (we have cited the definition earlier). The concluding part of a play where the incidents and events which occurred in the first four sandhis and which contained the bija and were distributed in due order are brought together to one end is called "nirvahana”.
In connection with the five sandhis, - Dr. Kulkarni observes further, - Jagirdar remarks that Bharata has done nothing great except coining some technical words. The five stages of development mentioned above (i.e. the five sandhis) are just the five members of a syllogism in Indian logic. (Drama in Sanskrit Literature, pp. 119) He tries to establish parallelism between them which is faulty and unconvincing, observes Dr. Kulkarni.

Page #538

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1713
The analysis of the dramatic plot into five sandhis is given by the theorists to facilitate the dramatist's task of plot-construction while that into five arthaprakstis is simply an objective one irrespective of the dramatic structure. It will thus appear that Keith is not quite correct when he remarks : "the classification of elements of the plot (i.e. artha-prakrti) is perhaps superfluous beside the junctures (i.e. sandhi-s). (Sanskrit Drama, p. 299). Abhinava, in course of his exposition of artha-prakstis, accepts the meaning of “means to the end-phalahetus" and rejects the meaning of elements or parts of the plot. He advances the following grounds for rejecting the second meaning: "anye tv āhuḥ. - arthasya samasta-rūpaka-vācyasya prakstayaḥ prakaraņā'nyavayavártha-khandā ity arthaprakstayaḥ. etac ca vyākhyānam nátiva prakstam poşayati. sandhyā"dīnām api ca artha-prakstitvam atra vyākhyāne syāt, itivȚttam eva ca samudāyarūpam. artha itivștte prakrtaya iti vaktavye arthgraham atiriktam syāt, ity avasthābhis ca tulyatā-varņam varnana-mātram syād iti kim anena.” III. p. 12.
Abhinava accepts the classification of artha-prakrti-s in the sense of "means to the end." He rejects it in the sense of elements of parts of the plot - as then the sandhis too will be artha-prakrtis. What has been said above will obviate this difficulty.
It may noted that the Avaloka (pp. 16, Adyar Edn.) observes on DR. I. 18, - "artha-prakrtayah prayojana-siddhi-hetavah."
All the five sandhi-s occur in a full-fledged drama (nāțaka, prakarana, nātika). In the Dima and Samavakāra, Vimarśa finds no place, in vyāyoga and īhāmrga both garbha and vimarśa are omitted, while in Prahasana, Vithi and Bhāņa. The pratimukha, garbha and also vimarśa find no place. In any type of drama the first i.e. mukha and the last i.e. nirvahana are positively present.
The Patāka, as we have observed earlier also, though an incidental yr having anusandhi-s which are to be less in number than the sandhi-s. The prakari being of very short duration is without any sandhi. : A.bh. observes, (pp. 48-49) - "patākā-vșttasya prādhānya-nibandhe’pi anusandhir-mukhya-vȚtta-sandhy-anugataḥ sandhir bhavati, gauņaḥ sandhir ityarthaḥ... prakaryās tu prādhānye’pi svalpavșttatvāt sandhy-anusandhi-cintaiva nā'sti."
Dr. Kulkarni refers to the opinion of Keith who remarks that even the incident is permitted on one view to have incomplete junctures. He refers here to the text of the DR. : a-sandhim prakarīm nyaset. Avaloka explains 'a-sandhi' as 'aparipurna-sandhi.': Prakarī-vṛttam tv aparipūrņasandhi-vidheyam (pp. 150, Adyar Edn.). The Laghutikā explains it as - "sandhyangānām pūrnata na bhavaty asminn ity arthah.” (pp. 150, ibid). The ND. however, is explicit on this point and denies any sandhi or anu-sandhi to prakari.

Page #539

1714
SAHRDAYĀLOKA These five sandhi-s are further sub-divided into sixty-four sandhyanga-s. Bharata observes, among other things, that a dramatist should compose a play having 64 sandhanga-s, others, however take a saner view and interpret it to mean that a dramatist should use only such of these anga-s as are essential to his purpose. We have noted how Ānandavardhana has suggested that the practice of sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s has to be rasa-oriented only (rasā'bhivyakty apeksayā) and not just to conform to theory - (na tu kevalayā śāstra-sthiti-sampādanecchayā). We have observed earlier that Śinga Bhūpāla, the author of Rs., declares that he has illustrated all the 64 sandhyangas from the Bāla-rāmāyana.
Read, R. S. III. 78 - "catussasti-kalā-marmavedinā śinga-bhūbhujā, lakṣitā ca catuh-sastir bāla-rāmāyaṇe sphutam."
The Avaloka and also the ND. and the SD. observe that six, five, four and five anga-s of the first four sandhis respectively are principal i.e. pradhāna and avaśyambhāvi - i.e. unavoidable; must. About the anga-s of the nirvahaha the ND. observes that as nothing special is said about the same, all the anga-s of the nirvahana-sandhi are pradhāna and therefore inevitable. Read ND. p. 104 : "višesā’nupādānāt sarvāny etāni pradhānāni.” Both the ND. and the A.bh. which is followed by the ND. observe that though 64 anga-s are possible, all of them need not be used in every drama. : Read A.bh. III. p. 37 - yat tū'cyate catuhsastyangasamyutam iti, tena sambhavamātram eşām uktam, na tu niyamah.”
Of course Abhinavagupta follows the observation of Anandavardhana, and even the DR. respects the same.
The Sixty four Sandhyanga-s.
Authorities on dramaturgy lay down that the dramatist should select and, if necessary, observes Dr. Kulkarni, modify the story of his play, to suit his hero or the ruling sentiment of the dramatic piece. After determining on the beginning and the end of the play, he should divide the story in five parts (sandhi-s). Which, in turn, he should split into sub-divisions (sandhyanga-s). It may be noted that though in theory 64 anga-s are recognised, as observed earlier, even theory does not expect that all the 64 should be used in every play. Thus, excepting the PR. (= pratāparūdra.) the RS. and also Dhundirāja, the commentator of the Mudrāraksasa, no other authority tries to illustrate these sixty-four anga-s from one and the same play. The illustrations are usually drawn from plays like the Ratnāvalī, the Venisamhāra and some later plays. The illustrations are cited in the A.bh. and the Avaloka, and almost accepted by later writers.

Page #540

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1715 Ikarni observes that presumably, the authors (i.e. of Ratnāvali and Venīsamhāra) were under the strong influence of the rules of the dramatic science and consciously wrote their plays in conformity with these rules. We beg to disagree; for sandhyanga-s are pointed out by commentators even in the plays of Kālidāsa also. Again, we are of the opinion that even Sri Harsa, the author of Ratnāvalī and Bhasta Nārāyana were no mean dramatists and so also was Viśākhadatta. We do not agree with the views of western writers and also of Dr. De that Ratnāvali and such other plays were just sterotype plays and that life had blown out completely from later plays that belonged to what they term as decadent period. Only prejudice can keep eyes blinded to the sterling qualities of certain plays of later times also.
The 64 sandhyangas are divided in five sandhi-s. The first - i.e. mukha-sandhi admits of 12 sub-divisions or anga-s. They are upaksepa, parikara, samādhāna, vidhāna, paribhāvanā, udbheda, karana and bheda, we will examine them individually following Dr. Kulkarni's findings as under :
(1) Upaksepa : It means sowing of the bīja-seed. In the Veni. I. 8. Bhīma emphatically denies the possibility of the Kauravas even resting in peace as long as he is alive and thus suggests the train of events to be developed later, and also the governing sentiment, viz. the 'vīra-rasa'.
(2) Parikara (= Parikriyā) - is enlarging or amplifying the bīja which is indicated earlier. Bhīma hurls defiance at his brothers who might bring about peace. He was determined to break peace as soon as it was effected (Veni. I. 10). This strengthens the idea already suggested earlier that war is inevitable. (3) Parinyāsa means describing very clearly and beyond any streak of doubt the
e play that was indicated and enlarged before. It may be noted that these three anga-s should occur in order of their enumeration, as it happens in the Venī. It may also be noted, however, that prāpti and yukti intervene parikara and parinyāsa.
(4) Vilobhana means mentioning of good qualities (possessed by the hero or the heroine). Draupadi tells Bhima that nothing is impossible for him to accomplish when he is angry and thus pays a handsome tribute to his heroic strength, and expresses confidence that he should win in the war.
(5) Yukti is establishing the propriety of a particular course adopted to achieve the ends aimed at. Yaugadhavāyana has introduced Sāgarikā to the queen, merely to put her in the way of the king so that he may see her and fall in love with her. The course of the drama is founded on the result which follows as expected by Yaugandharāyaṇa.

Page #541

1716
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (6) Prāpti - (or, prāpaņa) is attainment of happiness. The NLRK. defines 'prāpti' as "mukhā'rthasya yad upagamanam să prāptih.” (p. 26) Ghosh favours this definition when he translates the definition in the NS. as, "summing up the purpose of the opening (= Mukha).” Excepting the NLRK., all authorities read 'sukhā'rtha'. The illustration furnished in NLRK. is the same as read in the Avaloka and the SD. So, attainment of happiness either by the hero or th at a particular occurrence is illustrated from the Veni. Bhima is happy on Krishna's failure to settle the issue through peaceful negotiations. Again, Draupadī is overjoyed to hear from Bhīma that he is capable of fulfilling the vows of destroying the Kauravas etc., and that he would never be a party to any peace which Yudhisthira might effect. (Venī. I. 15)
(7) Samādhāna (ND. Samāhiti) - is the complete unfolding of the bija which earlier was only hinted at. - The A.bh. (III. pp. 30-40), the ND. (p. 62), the SD. (p. 326) paint out that the bīja which was indicated before is here developed by relating it to the hero. Venī. I. 24 clearly points out how the anger of Yudhisthira, the source of destruction of the Kurus suppressed so long, is now violently stirred and is working in all its fury against the Kurus. Yudhisthira is traditionally taken as the hero of the Venī. The Avaloka, however, cites this passage to illustrate 'parinyāsa'. This means that the approach of an individual critic also carries weight in this respect.
(8) Vidhāna is what causes both joy and sorrow. Bhīma informs Draupadi of his intention to set out to slaughter the Kurus. She is naturally glad to hear this as Bhīma would get an apportunity to avenge the insults heaped on her. At the same time, she is overcome with fear and nervousness as after all he was to participate in war and therefore, very naturally she bids him and Sahadeva too, to take care of their lives against the enemy.
(9) Paribhāvanā : Words full of curiosity or wonder, on finding something extra-ordinary constitute paribhāvanā. Draupadī, who is doubtful whether war would break out between the Pandava-s and the Kurus hears the war-drum that was being beaten loudly and repeatedly. Naturally, she is struck with wonder and asks Bhīma why it was thus being beaten.
(10) Udbheda : According to the NS., the A.bh., the ND., and SD., Udbheda is the sprouting of bīja. The A.bh. (III. p. 41) and the ND. (p. 32) particularly note that Udbheda does not mean Udghātana, which is connected with the pratimukha sandhi. (we do not find 'udghātana' in the pratimukha sandhi !). This is illustrated

Page #542

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1717 in the declaration of Bhima of his determination to kill all the Kurus and not to see Draupadi before doing it. (Veņi. I. 26).
According to the DR., it is the disclosing of something previously hidden. Sagarikā thus learns through the words of the bards that it was not the God of love whom the queen worshipped but it was Udayana, the king for whom she was destined to be a bride. As already said, it cites Veni. I. 24 also as an illustration of Udbheda.
(11) Karaņa (Karana, NLRK.) is the beginning made (by the hero or the heroine) to accomplish the object of his desire. Sahadeva and Bhīma thus announce at the close of Veni. I that they are proceeding to fight a battle against the Kurus.
The ND. sets forth the view of some theorists that Karana is the allaying of calamities. It is brought about by benediction and the like. Draupadi's benediction to Bhīma - "May bliss attend on you, as on Hari prepared for battle with the asuras”, illustrates this.
(12) Bheda means the exit of characters from the stage in pursuance of their respective ends; Bhīma thus at the end of Veni. I. addresses Draupadi, asks her not to be anxious on their (i.e. his and Sahadeva's) account as they are experts in warfare, indicates their readiness to join war and leave the stage. Thus the A.bh. and the ND. understand 'bheda'.
The DR. defines it as 'the heartening up and cites the closing position of the Veni-I. for illustration. Bhīma, here, cheers up Draupadi, who is overcome with gloom, by pointing out that the Pāņdava-s are well-versed in the art of war.
The SD. defines it as a 'breach of union'. It quotes Venī. (p. 9) where Bhīma speaks of breaking up his alliance with his brothers, as in illustration.
The ND. has yet another view expressed, which regards Bheda as the political expedient of the name whereby the adversaries standing in the way of realizing the aims of the hero are estranged.
Of these 12 subdivisions of this Sandhi, the following six must always be used viz. 1-upakṣepa, 2-parikara, 3-parinyāsa, 4-yukti, 5-udbheda and 6-samādhāna.
The Mukha Sandhi is well illustrated, observes Dr. Kulkarni, by Veni. I, where the bija is seen in Yudhisthira's readiness to declare war on the failure of Krishna's peace mission. Bhīma's eagerness to fulfill his vow of breaking the thighs of Duryodhana and braid Draupadi's hair is prominently seen in the whole act.

Page #543

1718
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA The Pratimukha-Sandhi covers 13 sub-divisions, which are -
(1) Vilāsa : It is the desire for amorous pleasures. Sāgarikā's soliloquy at the opening of Act II, Ratnāvalī, illustrates this anga. It may be noted that the Pratimukha sandhi answers the description of the Mukha as given by the DR. Here we have the joing of the bīja and armbha, according to the DR. A.bh. explains that this anga is appropriate in a love play, but in vīra-rasa-play, vilāsa is only, an utsäha, an upalaksana.
(2) Parisarpa - (ND - Upasarpana) - This means pursuing of the bija, once seen and then lost. The passage (Veni. II. 2) where the chamberlain tells of the slaying of Bhisma (the bīja of the Veni. is here seen) and of young Abhimanyu (the bīja is here lost) is an example.
(3) Vidhūta - (SD. Vihịta; RS - Vidhuta, ND. dhūnana) - This is nonacceptance, at first, of anunaya i.e. friendly persuation. Sakuntalā (Act III) asks Priyamvadā, who, on behalf of Sakuntalā, requests the king to requite Sakuntalā's love "not to detain the royal sage, who is pining on account of his separation from the ladies of his harem”.
The DR. defines it as despondency or absence of pleasure due to unrequited love. Sāgarikā's throwing away the lotus-stalks etc., intended by her friend to be a source of relief in her love-torment, illustrates this subdivision.
(4) Tāpana (torment) - is the grim prospect of a danger (NS). Tāpana is ‘not finding any means to allay the dispondency (owing to the difficulty of attaining the object of desire-SD.). The passage from Ratnāvali (Act. II. 1) Where Sagarikā says - "My love is fixed on an object beyond my reach, I am overcome with a heavy sense of shame, my soul is enslaved by passion... then is not death the only alternative ?" - illustrates this tāpana. ..
The DR. reads 'Sama' instead of 'tāpana' and defines it as the dispelling of dispondency due to difficulty of attaining the object of desire. The king's admiration of the beauty of Sāgarikā surpassed all her expectations which evoked - her comment "O heart, cheer up ! Even your desire could not go so far !” This consitutes 'Sama'.
(5) Narma consists of the use of banter. The conversation in the Ratnávali (Act II) where Susangată deliberately uses words in such a way as to apply to the king as well as to the picture-board is an example of 'Narma'.
(6) Narma - dyuti is humorous speech with a view to covering one's weakness (The NS., the A.bh., the ND.) The ND. notes that 'narma' and 'narma-dyuti' are to be used in love-plays. (p. 76).

Page #544

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1719 The coversation between the king and the Vidūsaka (Ratnāvalī, Act III), where the latter styles 'gāthā' as a vedic hymn in his attempt to hide his ignorance and excites the king's laughter is an illustration of 'narma-dyuti'.
The DR. defines it as the gratification caused by humorous remark, and illustrates it by citing a passage from the Ratnāvali (Act. II) where Sagarikā outwardly expresses her anger at Susangatä's remark that she does not give up her anger even when the king holds her by her hand.
agayana : This is the reading of the NS. Abh. remarks - "pragayanam iti rūdhi-sabdah, anye tu prajā-sabdād vici klisya-yatna-sabdena satā (?) kavinā vyutpattim klapayanti. prāgayanam iti anye parhanti. 'prāk’ iti pūrva-vacanam tato’yanam prāptiḥ, yasya uttara-vacanasya iti.” - Abh. III. 55.
The ND., which normally follows the Aibh., accepts the reading “pra-gamana”. So, Pragayana (= pragamana) is a series of questions and answers. This is best illustrated by the long passage in the Ratnāvalī (Act. II) where the Vidūsaka and the king (Susangatā and Sāgarikā as well) engage themselves in conversation starting with Vidūsaka's question as to what the verse (II. 7) is like, and ending with the stanza (II. 15) addressed to the garland of lotus-stalks. It considerably helps to advance the bija (here love) of the play.
The DR. and the SD., and all later authorities read 'pragamana' for 'pragayana'. Their definitions are, however, essentially identical.
(8) Nirodha - (V1; Virodha) (The ND. calls it ‘rodha', B.P. calls it ‘nirodha' while all the rest call it virodha'. - Nirodha (rodha, virodha) is obstructing the attainment of the desired object (by the hero and the heroine). Vidūsaka thus obstructs the union of the king and the heroine by his speech (Ratnāvali - II, 17, etc.) which is misunderstood by others.
(9) Paryupāsana is propitiating an angry person. In the Ratnāvali (Act. II, 18) where the king tries to conciliate Vāsavadattā who is offended at the sight of the picture-board (showing Sāgarika and the king side by side) we have an illustration of this 'anga'. The ND. calls it 'sāntvana'.
(10) 'Puşpa' - is a hyperbole statement (tending to enhance the bīja of the play). The king's statement in the Ratnāvalī (Act. II. 16) that Sāgarikā is Lakşmi herself etc., illustrates this sub-division. The A.bh. III. p. 46 observes : "yathā hi premavikāsi puspam bhavaty evam atrā'pi rājñā uttaróttarā'nurāgaviśesa-sūcakam vaco vikāsam asya'nurāgasya darśayati."

Page #545

1720
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (11) Vajra : is a cruel remark made to one's face. The passage in the Ratnávalī (Act II) where Susangatā pretends to be a partisan of the queen and hence not to like the affair about Sāgarikā threatens the king that she would disclose the affair
e queen is an illustration (A.bh.). The DR. illustrates it by citing the passage in the Ratnāvali (Act. II) where the queen sarcastically asks the king whether the picture of Sāgarikā by the side of the king, drawn on the board, is the work of Vasantaka and adds that the king of the board has given her headache.
(12) Upanyāsa : is a statement based on argument or reasoning (The NS., the DR., the A.bh., The N.D. and the RS.). The statement of the Vidūsaka that the bornslave (Susangatā) is a great tattler and that everything is possible in her case and hence the king should please her by a reward (Rātnāvalī, Act II) illustrates it.
According to the SD., it is conciliation (in order to remove the annoyance caused by some jest previously). The passage in the Ratnāvalī (Act. II) where Susangată asks the king not to get panicky as she played only a joke (in threatening to report the affair to the king) and cleverly suggests to him to appease Sāgarikā, illustrates this anga.
Bhoja has omitted this anga altogether. Dr. Kulkarni in the foot-note (No. 58) quotes the Editor's note, NS. III. p. 46 : “bhojena tu upanyāsángam parihstam.” Actually, we will consider Bhoja separately for he shows a number of differences. For example, (pp. 504, 505, Śr. Pra. Edn. Josyer) Bhoja observes : "pratimukhasandhāv api dvādaśāngāni. abhūtā”haraṇam, mārgaḥ, rūpam, udāharanam, karma, sangrahaḥ, anumānam, prarthanā, ākṣiptih, toțakam, adhibalam, udvega iti." We will look into a comparative table by the end of the treatment of Sandhyangas; first following the normal list as given by Dr. Kulkarni.
(13) Varņa-samhāra : (or, Varna-Samhști - ND.) is coming together of the four castes such as the Brāhmaṇas, the Ksatriyas, etc. This is the meaning as supported by the DR. and the SD. Actually this, on the face of it, sounds useless in modern context. We will ponder over the utility of recognising these anga-s in the context of modern theatre as well. The meeting of four varna-s is the meaning as seen in the DR. and the SD., as noted above and this is illustrated in the stanza in the Vira Carita III. 5. Actually some anga-s as this one, have no relevance in the context of modern theatre. Even in case of Sanskrit Drama only some have relevance with some plays having love theme, and with others having a vīra-rasa theme or theme having a design other than love-theme. The efforts of the PR., RS. and Dhundiraja to trace all the anga-s in a single play is a wild goose chase in our estimation.

Page #546

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1721 Abhinavagupta interprets "Varna' as characters (pātras) and 'Samhāra' as 'drawing together', 'close association'. He rejects the interpretation given as above as meaningless. He illustrates this anga by an incident in the Ratnāvalī (Act. II) where the king, the Vidūşaka, Sāgarikā, and Susangatā meet together.
The NLRK., however, defines it as 'varņita-arthasya-tiraskāraḥ'.
The editor (NS. III. p. 47) paraphrases it as 'ukrárthasya visayantara-prasaktyā pracchādanam'. The NLRK. cites as an example the sentence in the Ratnāvalī, where the Vidūsaka refers to Susangatā as a 'born-slave' and 'tattler' (and with a view to guarding the sectret asks the hero to win her over by a reward).
The most-important sub-divisions of this sandhi are : 1-parisarpa, 2-pragamana (praśama appears to be an error in view of the remarks of the ND. p. 69, SD. p. 35, the PR. p. 110), 3-vajra, 4-upanyāsa and 5-puşpa.
Dr. Kulkarni observes that in the Veni. the pratimukha sandhi is found to cover the second Act. The bīja of the play, namely, 'Krodha' (anger) is seen here fully developed in that the poet foreshadows that the son of Pāndu would in a short time slay Suyodhana in battle together with his kinsmen, friends etc. (II. 6), and describes the effort of Pandavas, particularly of Arjuna to slaughter Jaydratha (p. 53) and alludes to Bhīma's vow to drink the blood from the heart of Duhśāsana and break the thighs of Duryodhana (II. 28). In this act, we find the love-scene with Bhānumati which is a secondary incident. It appears to iterrupt the course of the drama. The entrance of Jayadratha's mother (and Duśśalā) who describe the important events connected with the main action such as Arjuna's vow to slay Jayadratha etc., sets the principal action in motion again. This is the 'bindu' (what maintains the continuity of the main action). This sandhi answers the description of the pratimukha as given by the DR. Here we have the combination of bindu and prayatna.
The Garbha-Sandhi has 13 (or 12. according to some authorities) anga-s or subdivisions.
(1) Abhūtā"harana - is a speech based on deceit. The Abh. illustrates this by the speech of the Vidūsaka in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where he tells the queen that the king drew his own picture on the board to refute his assertion that a man can hardly draw his own picture. The SD. quotes the passage from the Veni. (Act. III. 11) as its illustration : truthful Yudhistira proclaims that Aśvatthāman has been slain, Drona supposes that his son has fallen, but what really has happened is the death of an elephant so named.

Page #547

1722
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
The DR. cites the passage from the Ratnävali (Act. III) where Kāñcanamālā refers to the Vidūsaka's secret plot according to which Sāgarikā, disguised as Vāsavadattā is to meet the king. The ND. refers to the clever ruse used by the Vidūşaka (in the Mālavikā.) in securing the signet-ring from the queen.
(2) Mārga - is speaking out the exact truth - a pointing out of one's real purpose. A.bh. illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where the queen refuses to believe with Kāñcanamālā that it may be by accident that the figure drawn by the king resembles Sāgarikā and says that Kāñcanamālā does not understand Vidūsaka's prevarications. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III), where the Vidūsaka tells the king of his plot of bringing about his union with Sāgarikā about whose success he was quite certain.
The ND. interprets this limb thus : "paramárthasya vacanam sāmānyenocyamānam prakstā’rthena yat sambadhyate tan mārgaḥ.” and illustrates it by Mudrārākşasa III. 4-5.
(3) Rūpa : is a statement embodying doubts regarding the true nature of something, e.g. in the Kętyārāvana, Rāma not recognising Jatāyu's body, doubts whether it was the mountain with its wings chopped of by Indra, or Garuda smashed down by the Lord of the Asuras or it was Jatāyu who was lying dead. This is how the ND. defines and illustrates rūpa following the NS. and the A.bh. and with this definition rūpa does not differ in any way from the sa-sandeha alamkāra. The Abh. illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvalī (Act II. 20) which the Avaloka cites as an example of Paryupāsanā.
The DR. defines it as a remark embodying some hypothesis (vitarka). The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act. III. 9 etc.) where the king expresses his hope of being united to Sāgarikā, but finds that Vidūsaka was carrying doubts : "can it be that the queen has come to know the whole plot ?" : The NLRK. defines it as a logical argument or hypothesis having a striking sense and illustrates it by Ratnāvali III. 2: The mind is, by its very nature, fickle, and thus it should be a difficult mark to hit. How does it happen then that god of love has pierced it with all his arrows at once ?” The SD., too, cites this stanza as an example.
The ND. following the A.bh. distinguishes between Yukti, a sub-division of Mukha and this “rūpa”, as follows : "rūpam iva rūpam. a-niyato hyākāro rūpam ucyate. ... yukteh krtya-vicāra-rūpatvena, niyatā”kārāyā asya bhedah.” (p. 83)

Page #548

"Daśarüpaka-Vicāra"
1723 (4) Udāharana : (Udährti; ND.) - is an exaggerated statement. The A.bh. and the ND. quote the above passage (Ratnāvali III. 2) as an illustration of this subdivision. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali where the Vidūşaka enthusiastically remarks that the news of his meeting with Sāgarikā would delight the king more than the aquisition of the kingdom of Kauśāmbi.
(5) Krama : is a knowledge of the feelings of another (NS., A.bh. ND. & SD.) Ratnāvali III 4 where the king describes the helpless conditions of Sāgarikā on account of the extreme uneasiness deep placed in the heart, is an example of it. The Avaloka illustrates it by Ratnāvalī III. The Krama here consists in the king's love for Sāgarikā having been known to Vāsavadatta.
The DR. defines it as the acquisition of an object when it is being thought of: The passage in Ratnāvali (III. 10, etc.) which speaks of the king's meeting with Sāgarikā, who has solely absorbed his mind, illustrates this Krama. It is to be noted that here it is not real attainment as he meets real Väsavadattā in place of Sāgarikā disguised as Vāsavadattā. The example in the PR., is more appropriate. The King was thinking of the victory of Pratāparūdra when news actually came to him, declaring his complete victory.
The NLRK. defines it as “Knowledge of the future” and illustrates it by the speech of Krpa in the Veņi. III., where he says : "Aśvatthäman if invested with supreme command would be able to destroy even the three worlds, not to speak of Yudhistira's army.”
(6) Sangraha : means 'use of sweet conciliatory words and gifts'. The ND. defines it as "sāma-dānā”dih”, and comments that sāma-dāna includes, by upalaksana, bheda and danda and ādi includes deceit, magic etc. (pp. 82-83). Sangraha is taking some person on one's side, winning him over by the use of sweet words and gifts. The passage in the Ratnāvali (Act. III) where the king gives a reward of his bracelet to the Vidūsalka who assists him in the acquisition of his object of desire (= Sāgarikā) illustrates this sub-division.
(7) Anumāna : (or anumā) is an inference (of the lingin, that which possesses the linga i.e. mark) from its characteristic sign (= linga, hetu). The A.bh. illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III. 8) where the path is inferred by fragrance of flowers of the trees in the garden. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage (Act. III, 15, etc.) where the king concludes that the death of Vāsavadattā would follow from her great disappointment consequent upon his extreme love of Sāgarikā.

Page #549

1724
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA (8) Prārthanā : is invitation or request for love's enjoyment, rejoicing and festivity (NS.). Ratnāvali (Act. III. 11) where the king invites (the supposed) Sāgarikā to enjoy pleasures of love with him - illustrates this sub-division..
The ND., broadens the definition as “bhāva-yācanam”. The NLRK. defines it as "more request; entreaty". The ND. illustrates it citing a passage from the Raghuvilāsa where Räksasa disguised as Hanumar's father, requests Rāvana to forgive the various offences committed by Hanumat.
It is to be noted that the DR. does not recognise this sub-division found in the NS. The SD. takes particular care to point out that he has included the Subdivision prārthana' so that those who exclude 'praśasti' from the number of divisions of the nirvahana may still have the full complement of 64 sub-divisions. Otherwise the total number of anga-s would make 65.
(9) Akşipti - (or Akşipta, NS.; Āksepa, DR., ND., PR.; Utkşipta, NLRK.; kşipti - S.D.) is revelation or unfolding of the bīja (or germ of the plot) lying concealed in - the garbha.
"garbhasyódbhedanam yat
sā”kşiptir ity abhidhīyate, NS. ND - prāptyā”sā-'vasthā-nibaddhasya bījasya mukha-kāryópāyasya prakāśanam prakarsen"āvirbhavanam ākṣepaḥ."
Abhinavagupta calls it revelation of the innermost passion or feeling on some pretext or another. Thus the king reveals his heart before Vāsavadattā (Ratnāvalī, Act III) all the time taking her to be Sāgarikā. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage from the Ratnāvalī (Act III) where there is revelation of the bīja lying concealed in the garbha, viz. the acquisition of Sāgarikā by the king solely depends on the queen's favour.
The PR. defines it as the adoption of means for the accomplishment of the end aimed at. The object aimed at in the Pratāparudra play is the coronation of Pratāparudra and the means to attain it is the propitiation of God Ganapati.
The ND. informs us that some dramaturgists do not recognise this sub-division. The SD. defines it as .
"rahasyā'rthasya tūdbhedah kşiptih syāt.” It cites as an example, Venī. III. 14, where Krpa suggests the inner meaning that Aśvatthaman or daiva' will bring about total destruction of the subjects.
10. Totaka - (Trotaka, SD.) is a speech uttered in excitement due to anger, joy or the like. The A.bh. cites a passage from, Ratnāvalī, were Vidūsaka asks Sārikā

Page #550

“Daśarūpaka-Vicāra”
1725 to talk to the king and regale his ears with the sweet cadence of her words as his ears are grated by the harsh words of the ever-irate queen. The instance given by the Avaloka is "a scene from the Ratnāvali where Vāsavadattā having clearly perceived the king's attachment to sāgarikā orders her maid-servant to bind Vidūsaka and Sagarikā in fetters and take them away."
(11) Adhibala - (or, atibala, RS.) is a deception on others (with a view to accomplishing the object in hand). Thus in the Ratnāvalī Vāsavadattā outwits the king by disguising herself as Sāgarikā.
According to some theorists, adhibala is the opposite of totaka, but this view does not seem to be correct for then there would hardly be any distinction between it and 'paryupāsana'.
(12) Udvega - is fear arising from the king, an enemy or a robber.
When the queen outwits the king and the Vidūsaka, the latter expresses fear caused by the queen's fury. Or, when Sāgarikā is taken prisoner, she is terribly afraid of the queen as is seen in her remark that she is not allowed even to die an honorable death (Ratnāvalī, III). These are instances of Udvega.
(13) Vidrava - (sambhrama) is apprehension caused by something dreadful or frightening. The A.bh. illustrates it by the king's apprehension that Vāsavadattā would put an end to her life because of his deep love for Sāgarikā (Ratnāvalī, III. 15). Others like Sankuka define vidrava as apprehension, fear and fright. Sankuka illustrates it by a passage from Krtyārāvana (Act. VI): From behind the curtain Mandodarī cries, 'help, help !' The Pratihārī reports to Rāvana that there is uproar in the harem. Rāvana apprehends some trouble and asks the Pratihārī to find out what it is about. Here we notice 'apprehension' of Rāvana, fear and fright of the Pratihārī. The ND. too, quotes this example to illustrate vidrava.
The DR. defines sambhrama (= Vidrava) as 'fear and trembling. The ND. comments on it - The most important sub-divisions of garbha are 1-abhūtāharana, 2mārga, 3-totaka, 4-adhibala and 5-āksepa. The rest are to be employed when possible.
The Garbha-sandhi extends over the Veņi. Acts III & IV. Bhīma's speech from behind the curtain wherein he declares his intention of slaughtering Duḥśāsana who has fallen into his clutches and the speeches of Aśvatthāman that refer to
nking of Duhśāsana's blood, and certain stanzas of act IV that foreshadow the slaying of Duryodhana represent the 'prāptyāśā' (prospect of success) which corresponds to the Garbha sandhi. The quarrel between Asvatthaman and Karna helps the Pandava-s in their victory over the Gurus. From that point of view this episode may be regarded as patākā.

Page #551

1726
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The Vimarśa (or Avamaría) sandhi has thirteen sub-divisions :
(1) Apavāda - is 'the proclaiming of a fault or misdeed of another.' The ND. comprehends under it 'one's own censure.' The DR. illustrates this sub-division by a passage from the Ratnávali (Act. IV) where we are informed of the misdeed of the queen in her harsh treatment of poor Sagarikā.
(2) Sampheta - is altercation - exchange of angry violent words. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Venī. (VI. 10, 11) which reports exchange of hot words between Bhīma and Suyodhana. The SD. illustrates it by a passage in the Veni. (V. 30) where Duryodhana strongly condemns Bhīma and his brothers.
(3) Drava - (or, abhidrava, vidrava) is showing disrespect or insolence towards one's elders. Thus Yudhistira shows disrespect to Balarāma in Veni. (VI. 20), or Lava shows contempt for Rāma in Uttaracarita (V. 34).
(4) Sakti - is placating one who is angry. (NS), or 'allaying of opposition (to the accomplishment of the desired end by the hero.' DR. Abh. paraphrases the definition as 'virodhinah kupitasya samah'. The DR. defines sakti as 'virodhasamanam'. The Avaloka illustrates it by two instances, one from the Ratnávali (IV. 1) in which the King's speech shows that the anger of Vāsavadattā standing in his way of the acquisition of Sāgarikā, is pacified; and the other from Uttaracarita (VI. 11) Where Lava's opposition to Candraketu and his army is removed or allayed at the sight of Rāma. The ND. includes under Sakti complete destruction of one's enemy. It adds that some theorists recognise 'ājñā’ in place of Sakti, and define it as 'giving an order when provoked to anger, without giving due thought to the matter in question. (p. 100).
(5) Vyavasāya - is defined by the NS. as 'pratijñā-hetu-sambhavaḥ. Abh. explains it (NS. III. 91, p. 54) as - "pratijñātasya angīkstasya arthasya hetavo ye tesām sambhavah, prāptih, vyavasayah.” Thus, vyavasāya is acquisition of the means to accomplish one's undertaking. In the Ratnāvalī, the magician's entry on the stage helps Yaugadharāyana in accomplishing his desired aims. The DR. defines, it as 'mention of one's own power', and illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (IV. 8.9) where the magician mentions his supernatural power and suggests that he would show the king Sāgarikā whom he so eagerly longed to see.
(6) Prasanga • is mentioning with reverence, one's elders. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act. IV), where the declaring of Sāgarikā's parentage helps the attainment of the object of the King's desire.

Page #552

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1727 The NLRK. defines it as "giving expression to what really is aprastuta (the irrelevant). The ND. cites Veni. VI. 18, where Yudhisthira laments the (supposed) death of Bhīma, as an illustration of 'prasanga' in this sense.
(7) Dyuti : is 'rebuking'. The DR. defines it as 'threatening and hurting the feelings of others.' Wilson, Dr. Kulkarni observes, freely renders it as 'provoking to combat'. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage from the Veni (Act. VI. 6-9), where Bhīma rebukes Suyodhana and forces him to come out of the lake.
(8) Kheda is lassitude (= fatigue) arising either from mental or physical activity. The SD. illustrates it by a well-known stanza occurring both in the Malati Mādhava (IX. 12), and Uttara-Carita (III. 31) which vividly portrays Rāma's poignant sorrow at the loss of Sitā. The Abh. illustrates the physical fatigue by a passage from the Vikramórvašīyam (Act. IV. p. 166) where Pururavas, tired on account of his wanderings in search of Urvaśī says - "I am tired. So, reposing on the bank of this mountain stream I shall enjoy the breeze from its waves", etc. The D.R. and its followers do not recognise 'kheda' as a 'sandhyanga'.
(9) Pratisedha (or, Nisedha) is obstruction to the end. The SD. quotes a passage from Prabhāvati where Pradyumna is told by the Vidūsaka that Prabhāvati has been abducted by the lord of the asuras. This abduction of Prabhāvati is an obstruction in the way of Pradyumna's attaining Prabhāvati - the object of his desire. In place of 'pratiședha', the ND. substitutes samrambha'. ND. defines it as 'sakti-kīrtanam', and comments - samrambha is 'mention of one's own power in the conversation between two persons who are agitated." ND. quotes Veni. V. 33, 34 to illustrate it. It is further observed that Samrambha is found even when there is mention of one's power by one who is not agitated, and quotes. Veni. VI. 6. as an instance.
The ND. distinguishes between 'sampheta' and 'samrambha' as follows : In the sampheta we have angry speech only, whereas in the samrambha mention of 'one's own power. It is clear from ND.'s treatment of samrambha, that it comprehends under this sub-division, the two sub-divisions of the DR., namely virodhana and vyavasāya.
(10) Virodhana (= Nirodhana; Virodha) - When some obstacle suddenly arises in the way of accomplishing the object of one's desire, we have this sub-division. The SD. cites Venī. VI-1 as an example. Here Yudhisthira expresses his fear that the rash declaration of Bhima (that he would kill Duryodhana that very day or would himself commit suicide) has imperilled the lives of all Pandavas at a time when complete victory over the Kurus was just within their reach.

Page #553

1728
SAHRDAYĀLOKA From the definitions and illustrations of Pratisedha and Virodhana it is perfectly clear that there is hardly any real distinction between the two sub-divisions.
The DR. defines it as declaring one's own superior power by two persons when they are agitated - perturbed. It illustrates this sub-division by Veni. (Act V. 30-34) where Bhima and Duryodhana, who are highly excited, assert their superior strength.
(11) Ādāna : When fruition (= attainment of thing desired) is in sight, we have adāna'. The NS. XIX. 94a has -
"bīja-kāryópagamanam
ādānam iti samjñitam.” Abh. III. p. 55 - has, "bīja-phalasya samīpatā-bhavanam ity arthah.”
ND. has (p. 103) - "mukhya-phalasya darśanam ādānam." - According to the DR., it is 'a resume of the action' - "ādānam kāryasamgrahah." Dr. K. P. Trivedi thus renders it - "ādāna consists in the collection of preperations for the accomplishment of the desired object." (PR. notes, pp. 49). For the DR. the illustration is Veni. VI. 37, where the total destruction of the enemy is recapitulated.
(12) Chādana (or, Sadana, NLRK.) is a statement or speech arising from 'disgrace' and made for some purpose. The N.D. has - 'chādanam manyumārjanam'. and comments 'manyur apamāno mārjyate tat chādanam.' (p. 95). In Ratnāvalī, (Act. IV) Sāgarikā welcomes the breaking out of fire in the harem where she has been held captive as it would put an end to her sorrows. She means death caused by fire would put an end to her suffering and disgrace. In reality, however, union with the king brought about by that fire ends her sorrows.
The SD. defines it as putting up with humiliation etc. with a view to attaining the desired object and quotes Veni. V. 31, as an instance. - Arjuna here appeals to Bhīma, not to mind the ravings of Duryodhana, whose hundred brothers are killed and who is unable to do Pāņdavas any harm.
The DR. and its followers do not recognise chādana as a sub-division.
The ND. observes that some theorists recognise 'chalana' in place of 'chādana'. "The word 'chalana' is interpreted by some as 'humiliation' (this is a clear reference to the DR.) While by some others as 'sammoha' i.e. 'fainting? The abandoning of Sītā in the play 'Rāmábhyudaya' illustrates this 'Chalana' in the sense of

Page #554

"Dašarūpaka-Vicāra"
1729 'humiliation'. 'Chalana' in the sense of 'fainting' is illustrated by a passage in the Venī act. VI, 15, 16; where Räksasa gives the false news of Bhima's dealth and as a result Yudhisthira faints away.
(13) Prarocanā - is representing in advance that the desired end is accomplished, the actual accomplishment of the desired end being found in the Nirvahana. It is illustrated in the Venī. VI. 12, etc., where the braiding of Draupadi's hair and Yudhisthira's coronation are represented in advance as accomplished.
The A.bh. notes that some dramaturgists call this anga, 'yukti'. The ND. mentions a view that some define 'prarocanā' as 'a direction to honour persons with gifts etc.', and cites a passage from the Veņi. (Act. VI pp. 153-4) where Yudhisthira orders Sahadeva through his attendant to employ clever spies, etc. to whom rewards in the form of money and honour are promised, to track Duryodhana who has disappeared on hearing Bhīma's vow.
The DR. and its followers (BP., PR. and the RS.) do not recognise the three anga-s viz. kheda, Pratisedha and Chādana. In place of them they have Vidrava, Vicalana and Chalana.
Vidrava' is 'slaying, taking prisoner, and the like.' The description of the breaking out of fire in the harem, of the imprisionment of Sāgarikā and danger of her life (Ratnāvalī, Act. IV) illustrates this sub-division. As suggested earlier the ND. informs, that some recognise 'yukti', in place of 'prarocana'. Yukti is defined as 'savicchedóktih'. This definition agrees with NS. XIX. 96a, which is po addition according to Dr. Kulkarni.
Vicalana' - is 'bragging', boasting of what is done by onself. The ND. defines 'vicalana' as boasting of oneself on account of valour, family, learning, beauty, good fortune, and the like (pp. 98). This is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act IV. 19) where Yaugandharāyana proudly declares that he brought about the marriage of the king with Ratnāvalī, which in its turn, was to lead to the King's achievement of sovereignty of the world. 'Chalana' is treated above under 'chadana'.
It will be seen that the 'Vidrava' of the DR. is very much like the Pratisedha as illustrated by the SD., and chalana like chādana.
The most important divisions of the Avamaría are - apavāda, śakti, vyavasāya, prarocan, and ädāna. A careful scrutiny of the sub-divisions of the avamaría shows that 'virodhana' creates a serious obstacle in the way of hero's attaining his desires. This obstacle however, brings out the best in the hero and ce success is guaranteed (niyatā"pti). The subdivisions like vyavasāya, dyuti, śakti, prarocanā and ādāna bear out the truth of this statement.

Page #555

1730
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
The Vimarsa or avamaría extends over Venī. V and a considerable portion of act VI (upto stanzā no. 37). Act V informs us of Karna's death and that Asvatthaman, who seeks reconciliation is received coldly by Duryodhana. Act VI. informs us of Bhīma's rash vow that he would kill Duryodhana that very day or himself commit suicide, and of the disappearance of Duryodhana. This imperils the lives of the Pandavas at a moment when victory was within reach. Thus Bhīma's rash declaration and Duryodhana's disappearance form a serious obstacle in the way of the attainment of the ends aimed at. It, however, later informs us that Duryodhana is found and that Krsna sends message to Yudhisthira to commence festivities in expectation of Bhīma's victory over Duryodhana. This represents "certainty of success", which corresponds to the vimarśa sandhi. Cārvāka, a Rākşasa, deliberately gives Yudhisthira and Draupadī the false news of the death of Bhīma. Out of grief they both resolve on death. For a moment all hope seems to have been lost but Bhima, with his body all covered with blood, appears on the scene and certainty of success is guaranteed.
'Prakarī in true sense, is not found in these two acts, which constitute vimarsa. It has been already pointed out that prakari is not an essential element of Vimarsa. The Abh. illustrates it by the doings of Kulapati in Krtyā-rāvana and of Lord Vasudeva in the Venī. But Krsna's doings are not confined to this part only.
The Cārvāka episode, strictly speaking, cannot be called a prakarī. For, Cārvāka appears on the scene with the express intention of duping the Pandavas. The playwright introduces the character of Cārvāka towards the end of the play, most probably with a view to creating the marvellous sentiment in accordance with the dictum - "nirvahane kartavyo nityam hi raso'dbhutas tajñaih." N.S. XVIII. 94b. The incident of the cārvāka may however, be regarded as a prakarī, in a very loose sense in as much as it serves to bring out the deep affection and love of Yudhisthira and Draupadi for Bhīma.
The Nirvahana (or Upa-samhāra or Samhāra) has 13 (or. 14) sub-divisions :
(1) 'Sandhi' - is coming up again of the bija that was indicated in the mukha sandhi. The NLRK. has artha' in place of sandhi and artha is defined as - "pradhānā’rtho'pakṣepah arthah."
The illustration of Sandhi is given from the Ratnāvali. Vasubhūti and Bābhravya seeing Sāgarikā who has been rescued from fire, strongly believe that she must be the princess Ratnāvalī. Thus what was stated in the Mukha sandhi about the bīja is here repeated. Or, in the Veni. (Act. VI) Bhīma, with his hand smeared with

Page #556

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1731 Duryodhana's blood and about to tie up Draupadi's locks asks her whether she remembers the vow he tad taken that he would braid her hair only when the insult to her was avenged. Thus the braiding of Draupadi's hair, the bīja of the play, is again alluded to here.
(2) Nirodha (or Vibodha) is seeking for the end aimed at. Thus Bhima in the Veni (Act VI) who has been embraced affectionately by Yudhisthira after the annihilation of the Kurus asks Yudhisthira to release him for a moment as he has yet to braid Draupadi's hair. Yudhisthira permits him to go so that poor Draupadi can bind up at last her locks. This sub-division is designated by NLRK. as 'anuyoga'.
(3) Grathana : is 'referring to a purpose held in view throughout.' Thus Bhīma reminds Draupadi that she had been forbidden by him to tie up her dishevelled hair, as he had vowed to do it himself for her, when he had slain those who had subjected her to the indignity of untying her braid of her.
(4) Nirnaya - is a narration to one's experience (with reference to the end or purpose). The speech of Bhīma (Veni. VI. 39) which is addressed to doubting Yudhisthīra illustrates this sub-division, for Bhima here describes his triumphant success in slaying Duryodhana and annihilating the Kurus and the acquisition of sovereignty over the world.
(5) Paribhāsaņa - is a speech censuring oneself by admitting one's faults. The speeches of Ratnávali and Vasavadattā at the close of the play where they censure themselves for their own improper behaviour illustrates this sub-division.
The DR. and its followers define it as 'talking (of persons) with one another.' Their illustrations are, however, of the same kind given above. It is, therefore, clear that ordinary conversation is not meant by these theorists.
(6) Dyuti - is pacifying of anger, jealousy, etc. The speech of Yaugandharāyana at the close of the play Ratnāvalī, where he discloses his whole plot and pacifies Väsavadattā's anger and jealousy towards Sagarikā and secures Sāgarikā for the king illustrates this sub-division.
The DR. and its followers substitute Kști for dyuti' and interpret it as (i) substantiation or confirmation of the result attained, or (ii) conciliation of each other (by the hero and the elder queen, who was earlier opposed to his acquisition of Sāgarikā) on attaining the object of one's desire. Krti, in the first sense, is illustrated by Krsna's address to Yudhisthira where he says that Vyāsa, Vālmīki and others have arrived for his coronation (Veni. VI. 24); "krti' in the second sense is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act IV) where, on attaining Ratnāvalī, the king and Vāsavadattā try to conciliate each other.

Page #557

1732
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The ND. mentions the view of some that, 'dyuti' is 'persuation of a person who is already under your control but is unwilling to act up to your advice.' It is illustrated by a passage in the Mudrārāksasa, where Rākṣasa is persuaded to accept ministership by Cāņakya.
(7) Ananda is the 'attainment of one's desire'. The king in the Ratnávali is happy at the acquisition of Ratnávalī, and Draupadi in the Veņi., at the braiding of her hair by Bhīma.
(8) Samaya - is end of all misery or misfortune. The union of Vāsavadattā and Ratnāvali as sisters at the end of the play puts an end to their sorrows and sufferings.
(9) Prasāda is waiting upon (the hero or heroine) with a view to conciliating the anger of the offended person. Yaugandharāyana who did not till the last moment take the king into his confidence regarding his plot requests him to forgive him, for what was done by him, without informing him (= the king). This speech of the minister illustrates 'prasāda'. The ND. names this subdivision as 'Upāsti'.
(10) Upagūhana - is the experience of something wonderful. In the Rāmab ayudaya, Sītā repudiated by Rāma enters fire. The God of fire brings her out safe. At this moment, all those present on the occasion are struck with wonder. This is Upagūhana. The ND. calls it by the name 'parigūhana'.
(11) Bhāṣaņa - is speech accompanied by sweet words (śāma), gift and the like (NS.). The ND. quotes a passage from the Mrcchakarika, where Sarvilaka, at the instance of Āryaka, confers favours on Carudatta, Vasantasenā etc. to illustrate this sub-division.
The DR. defines it as, 'the attainment of honour and the like', and illustates it by a passage from the Ratnāvalī (Act. IV. 21) where the king proudly refers to various achievements such as the acquisition of Sāgarikā and the like.
(12) Pūrva - vākya is uttering words which were earlier used in the mukhasandhi. The ND. illustrates if by a passage from the Mudrārāksasa (VII. 17) where Cāņakya says : "Let the bonds of all except those of horses and elephants be untied, I only having made good my vow, will tie up my tuft of hair", as it contains words which he had earlier uttered in the Mukha.
Other theorists define it as the foreseeing of the object of one's desire. Thus in the Ratnävalī, Yaugandharāyana says to Vāsavadattā, “Do as you please in the case of Sāgarikā, your sister." In this speech Vāsavadattā foresees the Karya, the union of the king and Sagarikā.

Page #558

"Daśarūpaka-Vicāra"
1733 (13) Kāvya-samhāra is 'obtaining a boon' (by the hero etc.). When some very important character in a play says to the hero etc., "what further can I do for you?" We have this sub-division. This anga invariably precedes 'prasasti'. With this 'anga', as the objects of one's desire are attained in this sub-division, the play proper comes to its end.
(14) 'Praśasti' is a prayer for peace to the king and the country and other good things. Veni. VI. 46 illustrates it : "May people live the full span of man's life free from misery and illness... May single-minded devotion to you prevail in the world, O Purusottama; may the king be loving towards the world.”
With reference to the sub-divisions of the Nirvahana, the ND. observes that all of them are very important as no specific rule is laid down regarding their comparative importance. But it says, further on, in the course of treatmen these angas that (1) Sandhi, (2) paribhāṣā, (3) Bhāṣaṇa (4) Kavya-samhāra and (5) Prasasti may be employed in the concluding part of the play. It adds that excepting sandhi, nirodha, grathana, pūrvabhāva, kāvyasamhāra and prasasti, the rest of the sub-divisions may be used, if need be, in other parts of the drama.
Usually, nirvahaņa covers a little portion only of the last act in a drama. The "Kārya' is embodied in the closing portion and this final sandhi corresponds to 'phalā"gama' stage of the action. The BP. (p. 205) observes :
"sādhanatvād hi bījasya pratamam tad upaksipet, sādhyatvād eva kāryasya sarvā’nte tat prayojayet. a-vicchedāya raced bindum
madhye tayor api.” The portion in the Venī. beginning with the Chamberlain's identifying of Bhīma, (p. 192) to the end of Act VI, constitutes nirvahaņa. The Kārya in the present case is the slaying of Duryodhana. This Kārya is embodied in Act. VI. 37, where Bhīma informs us that he has fulfilled his terrible vow (of slaying Duryodhana that very day). Veņi. VI. 42 comprises phalā”gama as the braiding of Draupadi's hair, is shown here to be accomplished.

Page #559

1734
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Observations on the Number. Names and Definitions of the Sandhyangas : (p. 104. Dr. Kulkarni)
Dr. Kulkarni has done a marvellous job in putting this section in his article. He observes :
It is easy to dismiss these subdivisions of the sandhi-s on the ground that to follow their description "would be to exhaust any patience except Hindu", or that, “The definitions and the classifications are without substantial interest or value." The study of these sub-divisions however, reveals the theorist's distinct power of subtle analysis of the variety of dramatic incidents (interpreted broadly enough to cover mental processes as well as external events) which the sanskrit drama presents. The dramatic incidents enumerated as sixty-four, really speaking, 'have no limits except those of imagination and dramatic effect.' This is the remark which the ND. makes : (p. 101) - "sarvasandhisv api matántarāni, vrddhóktarvad, bhanitibhedād, vaicitryasya rañjakatvāc ca, pramāṇāny eva. ata eva sarvasandhişv api anga-sankhyākaranam udāharana-param drastavyam iti.”
All the authorities agree that the number of the sub-divisions of the mukha, pratimukha, the avamarśa and the nirvahana is 12, 13, 13 and 14 respectively. The NS., as interpreted by Abhinava, The NLRK., the ND., and the SD. give 13 subdivisions of the garbha, whereas the DR, the BP., the PR. and The RS. give 12. The total number of the sub-divisions according to the DR. and its followers is 64, which agrees with their total number given by the NS. The total number of the subdivisions as enumerated by Abhinava and his followers, comes to 65. The DR. and its followers make the total 64 by omitting one sub-division of the Garbha called "prārthanā". Abhinava and his followers arrive at the total 64 by excluding 'praśasti'. (The last sub-division of the nirvahana) which is of the nature of benediction, and like nandi cannot be regarded as a part of dramatic story. This point of view stands to reason as with the 13th sub-division of the nirvahana named kāvya-samhāra', the play proper comes to its end.
The names, definitions and interpretations of the anga-s, barring some exceptions are essentially the same. The two angas, karana and bheda of the Mukha are variously interpreted. Vidhūta, tāpana, (sama is recognised instead of it by the DR.), narmadyuti, upanyasa, and varna-samhāra, - these sub-divisions of the pratimukha are differently interpreted and illustrated by various theorists. The
-division "pragayana" of the sandhi is called 'pragamana' in the DR. The nature of the two is essentially the same. Rūpa, Krama, āksipti (utkşipta, āksepa) and abhibala - the sub-divisions of the garbha are variously interpreted. Vidrava of the

Page #560

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1735 NS. is called 'sambhrama'. by the DR., and the 'prārthana' of the garbha is not recognised by the DR. Instead of Kheda, Pratisedha and Chādana of the avamaría in the NS., The DR. gives drava, vicalana and Chalana. Chādana of the NS. and chalana of the DR. are essentially the same as is clear from their definitions and interpretations. The remaining two of each group have nothing in common except that they belong to the same sandhi. Vyavasāya, prasanga, virodhana, chādana and prarocanā of this avamarśa are differently treated by different theorists. The two angas, - nirodha and dyuti of the nirvahana given by the NS. are called vibodha (virodha) and krti by the DR. But their definitions and interpretations are nearly the same. The pūrva-vākya of the nirvahana (NS.) is called "pūrva-bhāva” by the DR. The interpretations of the Abh., and the DR. regarding it differ. Although some of the sub-divisions such as kheda (= śrama), udvega, vitarka vidrava (sambhrama) are of the nature of transitory feelings, they are so described with a view to impressing on the mind of the dramatist that they aught to be used, if the occasion demands, for developing particular rasa-s etc.
The A.bh. III. p. 55 reads - yady api śram'odvega-vitarka-lajjā-prabhịtayo vyabhicāri-varge pūrvam uktās tathā'py ete saty avasare’vaśyaprayojyāḥ prāg uktaprayojanártha-siddhaye, te prthak-prayojanatvāt sandhyangatveno’ktā mantavyāḥ.
The ND. (p. 97) almost repeats this : “yady api śramo'dvegavitarkā”dayo vyabhicāri-madhye laksayisyante tathā'pi rasa-višesa-pustyartham sandhyangā'vasarépi laksyanta iti.”
The ND. observes, elsewhere, that the 'Sandhyangas' should be regarded as of the nature of the dominant emotions, the determinants, the consequents and the transitory feelings : "angāni ca sthāyi-vibhāvā’nubhāva-vyabhi-cāri-rūpāņi drastavyāni.” (p. 115). (This means that like gunas, alamkāra-s, laksana-s or any other concept these sandhanga-s are also meant for the cause of effecting rasaexperience.]”
Dr. Kulkarni further observes (pp. 106) that - A scrutiny of the definitions of certain sub-divisions, e.g. sangraha and bhāsana shows that they overlap. The A.bh. III. p. 59 observes : yadyapi tad arthe’pi sangrahākhyam idam angam uktam tathā'pyatra sthāne'vasyam prayoktavyatām khyāpayitum punar upādānam śabdántarena ca." - The same examples are cited by different authorities to illustrate different angas. This phenomenon can easily be explained if we remember that their definitions of those anga-s differ. The names and definitions of some anga-s which differ from the NS. are satisfactorily explained by the fact that various authorities had different versions of the NS. before them when they wrote

Page #561

1736
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Even the presentation of these in the G.O.S. and one in Dr. Unni's edn. differ, as could be seen by our full references to these as given above.] Most of these variant readings are noted in the foot-notes to the NS. Lastly, these sub-divisions of the five sandhis appear to be derived by an analysis of plays with love or the heroic sentiment as the ruling motive, especially the former. This is clean from the names and definitions of sub-divisions in the pratimukha such as, vilāsa, vidhūta, sama (for tāpana), narma and narma-dyuti. It is, therefore, a case of misdirected ingenuity to say that all sub-divisions of the sandhi-s are present in the Mudrārākşasa which is wholly a play of political intrigue and in which the element of śộngāra is totally absent.
a clearly adds that in a play based on the Vira' sentiment 'vilāsa', by 'upalaksana' stands for 'utsāha'. 'Narma' and 'narma-dyuti' sub-divisions are to be employed in plays with love as principal sentiment as is rightly observed by the ND (p. 76). So these anga-s as understood by the NS. cannot occur in plays like the Mudrārāksasa.”
The observations made by Dr. Kulkarni are not only critical and analytical but also absolutely sound. With great respect for Dr. Raghavan, we will go to observe later that, he has also made useful suggestions while studying Bhoja's position which also we will look into later, but Dr. Raghavan's achievement in this direction is not of the same class or standard as that of our Guru Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, though of course, it is not mean by itself.
We will first present, - in view of our close first hand study of the topic as revealed by all the useful quotations from relevant texts as given by us earlier and also in view of what Dr. Kulkarni has observed - the following neat conclusions concerning the sandhvanga-s :
(1) The Sandhyanga-s, like the concepts of alamkāra-s, laksana-s and even guna-s to an extent, are only accidents' and not 'essentials' of both drama and also poetry (as will be observed by Bhoja.).
We have included guņa-s also in the list because even the guņa-s are not absolute ‘nitya' dharma-s as they are made out to be. Anandavardhana has observed that normally ‘ojo-guna' is associated with the vīra rasa. But in the verse viz. "yo yah śastram bibharti...” from the Veni., even in the absence of ojas, and simply by the presence of prasāda the suggestion of vīra-rasa is effected. So, the sandhyanga-s are more of accidents then of essentials with reference to both drama and poetry.

Page #562

“Daśarūpaka-Vicāra”
1737 (ii) The Sandhyanga-s are used in a play with the sole objective of rasadelineation, the principal rasa could be any, either śộngāra, or vīra, as illustrated by all theorists led by Abhinavagupta, or any other rasa. Aesthetic enjoyment or rasa-experience is the sole object of any art and the poetic and the dramatic art are no exceptions. So, the sandhyanga-s are also means-only means, and just one among many - to effect rasa-experience. The avaloka explains them along with sandhi-s as, “prayojana-siddhi-hetavah. For us this 'prayojana' is one and only and it is rasa-experience for the Sāmājika. Abhinavagupta had explained that in Bharata's observation viz., “kāvyártho rasaḥ” the word 'artha' stands for 'prayojana' and not abhidheya. -
[Abh. : artha sabdah prayojana-vācī (natv abhidheya-vācī)] :
Thus the sole 'prayojana' of any art, including the art of drama is “rasa”. Sandhyangas are therefore meant for rasa-effect only.
(iii) The numbers in a given sandhi varies. The names also vary.
(iv) At times different names carry the same idea or concept and at times the same name works for different concepts.
(v) For us, an attempt therefore to trace all the sandhyanga-s in a single play is foolhardy. We denounce Dhundirāja and Vidyānātha (PR.) and Singa-bhūpāla as. only mad-caps.
(vi) As observed by Dr. Kulkarni theorists have tried to trace sandhyangas from plays with love or heroism as central theme. We may add that in view of the other types of drama as recognised by Indian theory, such as the Bhāņa, Prahasana, Ihāmțga, samavakāra, etc., not to mention any number of upa-rūpaka-s, and to this other varieties of poetry also could be added, - the number of Sandhyangas is bound to swell. And why think of the Sanskrit heritage only. Taking into account the plays written to-day in all Indian languages and also in English, French or any other modern foreign language, and also taking into account the "absurd theatre", the number and varieties of the sandhyanga-s is bound to swell beyond any imagined limits, as the intension for their use is simple, clear and just one - to make a dramatic piece relishable. Elsewhere we have attempted to show that no art, and certainly not the poetic and dramatic arts, can have any other goal except effecting rasa-experience, which understood in its most catholic sense covers up everything. After all these Sandhyangas are only various devices to add colour and beauty to a play or poetry; they are agents of beauty and newer and newer devices, like innumerable varieties of dhvani can be arrived at in this form also by artists with

Page #563

1738
SAHRDAYĀLOKA newer and newer vision. Like hundred thousand daffodils, or like hundredthousand varieties of dhvani, the sandhyanga-s also can be as many, yes, accidental of course, but a device or source of beauty to be sure.
(vii) The Sandhyanga-s by and large also should be termed alamkāra-s or beautifying agents as is indicated by the great Dandin - (Kavyādarśa, II. 367, pp. 312, Edn. B.O.R.I.) When he observes :
“yac ca sandhyanga-vștiyangalaksaņā”dy agamántare, vyāvarņitam idam ca iştam .
alankāratayāiva naḥ." Thus all sandhis, and all sandhyangas, yrttis and vrtiyanga-s, laksanas and other concepts are alankāras or beautifving devices for us. -
The "prabhā" (pp. 312) observes : "yacceti". sandhayah mukha-pratimukhe - garbhaḥ sā'vamarśotha samhștiḥ iti pañca. tesam angāni-upaksepah, parikarah, parinyāso, vilobhanam, iryādīni catuhsasthi-samkhyakāni. vịttayaḥ -
"śrngāre kaiśikī vīre sātvaty ārabhati punaḥ, rase raudre ca bībhatse
vsttiḥ sarvatra bhārati.” iti. niyata-sthānāś cataśrah, tāsām angāni-narma-tat-sphūrjatas sphoța-tadgarbhaiś catur angikā, ity ādīni sodaśa. laksaņāni bhūsaņā'ksara-samghātā"dīni sat trimsat. ādinā nāryālamkārā"dīnām grahaņam, etat sarvam āgamántare bharatamuni-pranīta-nātyaśāstre vyāvarņitam, vistāreņa kathitam. tad idam nah alamkāratayaiv estam. tatra keşāmcit svabhāvā”khyānā”dau antarbhāvaḥ, kesām cit bhāvike iti yathāyatham visayā'nurodhena jñatavyam.”
(viii) These Sandhyanga-s therefore are wider in scope so as to include even vibhāvā"di-s, and other things also as also observed by the Nārya-darpana which presents a more balanced, mature and more logical approach to concepts of dramaturgy as compared to the DR., not to talk of the B.P., NLRK. or RS. The ND. has very interesting observations such as -
"sarva-sandhīnām ca angāni itivṛtta-a-vicchedártham upādīyante. itivṛttasya avicchedaś ca rasa-pustyarthah. vicchede histhāyyā"destrutitarvāt kutastyo rasā”svādah ? tato rasa-vidhānaikatānacetasaḥ kaveḥ prayatnántara-anapekşam

Page #564

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1739 yad angam uijsmbhate, tad eva, upanibaddham sahrdayānām hrdayam ānandayati. angāni ca sthāyi-vibhāva-anubhāva-vyabhicāri-rūpāņi drstavyāni. amīsām ca sva-sandhau sandhyantare ca yogyatayā nibandhaḥ. yogyatām ca rasaniveśaika-vyavasāyinah prabandhakavayo vidanti, na punah sabdárthagrathanavaicitrya-mātrónmadişnavo mukta [ka]-kavayaḥ.
tena ekam apy angam rasa-poșakatvād ekasminn api dvis trir vā nibadhyate. yathā venisamhāre sampheta-vidravau punah punar darsitau vira-raudra-rasāv uddīpayatah. ratnāvalyām ca vilāsah punaḥ punar ukraḥ śrngāram ullāsayati. atah param api nibandhas tu vairasyam āvahatīti.
tathā anga-dvayena sādhyam yadi ekena eva siddhyati tad ekam eva nibadhyate. yatha Śrī. bhimadeva-sūnoh vasunāgasya krtau pratimániruddhe parikarárthasya upakṣepeņa eva gatarvāt na tannibandhaḥ.
evam anga-trayenā'pi. yathā bhejjala-viracite rādha-vipralambhe rāsakānke parikara-parinyāsayor upaksepenaiva gatatvān na tan nibandhah. evam parasparā’ntarbhāve catur ango’pi kvā'pi sandhir bhavati.”
This means that all the limbs of all the junctures are employed only with an aim of the continuation of the theme or plot. Continuation of the theme has nourishment of rasa as its goal. If there is non-continuation or break, the (delineation of) sthāyins etc. will break up and in that case how can rasa he relished ? [What follows now in the ND. seems to be directly under Anandavardhana's influence.) So, for a poet who was focussed only on rasadelineation, only that anga is to be used which delights the hearts of the sensitive souls. The anga-s are to be viewed as sthāyin-s, vibhāva-s, anubhāva-s and vyabhicārin-s. (This either means that anga-s are to be treated and respected as sthāyin-s etc., or that they also serve as, or stand for sthāyin-s, etc.) These limbs are to be employed not only in the respective junctures they belong to, but also in other sandhi-s as well. following propriety. This means the sandhyanga-s are not weded to respective sandhi-s only in the fashion of a Hindu marriage ! What propriety is, is known to the great rasa-oriented poets who compose big compositions, and is not known to poets who pride only over small compositions having the beauty of pleasant delineation of word and sense only.
So, observes the ND., even a single anga, due to its capacity to nourish rasa, can be employed even twice or thrice in a single sandhi. The example is the Veni. in which, Sampheta and Vidrava are employed again and again and make for the suggestion of vīra and raudra rasa-s. Similarly in the Ratnāvalī, 'Vilāsa' is the limb,

Page #565

1740
SAHRDAYĀLOKA employed again and again, which takes care ngāra-enhancement. But employment beyond this (= beyond the line of propriety and effectiveness), makes for an ebb in rasa-experience.
Again, if one limb can secure an effect that is caused by the employment of two anga-s, then only one is to be employed. In Vasunaga's Pratimániruddha, 'Upaksepa' removes the necessity of another anga, viz. Parikara. This is the case with a group of three also. In Rādhāvipralambha, a Rāsakā’nka, composed by Bhejjala, both parikara and parinyāsa are rendered useless by just the employment of 'Upaksepa'. Thus, when angas are accommodated mutually in one another, at times a sandhi is seen to have four anga-s only.
(ix) The ND. is of the opinion that the 21 sandhanga-s' (i.e. the sandhyantaras) such as sāma, bheda, etc., enumerated by others are also rendundant as some of them are of the form of sandhyanga-s, some such as 'mati' etc. are of the form of vyabhicārins, some like dūta, lekha, etc. are of the form of itivrtta, still others can be accommodated under 'upaksepa' etc. So the ND. finds it futile to attempt their separate definitions.
Thus the employment of sandhanga-s along with their individual concepts entertain a variety in approach by theorists and one feature emerges in common that whatever their form, they are just beautifying devices, alamkāras so to say, which when employed with a view to rasa-nourishment only, add colour to the composition like upamā of Kālidāsa, and tend to become an integral portion of a composition, but otherwise they tend to be a burden only in the hands of poets without imagination.
(x) As Bhoia says this sandhyanga-s are formed in any form of literature,
Bhoja : We will now look into what Bhoja has to say about the sandhanga-s. We treat Bhoja separately as he has always something different and fresh to convey, though here in case of the Sandyanga-s he chooses to follow the N.S., as will be observed by Dr. Raghavan, the greatest authority on Bhoja. We will also quote
m Dr. Raghavan at length and as done earlier, will pass dissenting note if any, of course showing due respect to Dr. Raghavan. First we will quote from Bhoja's Ss. Pra. the relevant lines treating the sandhyangas.
Bhoja has counted in all three sets of '64', and third of them forms the enumeration of 64 Sandhyanga-s that read as follows:
Vol. II Śr. Pra. pp. 504 (Edn. Josyer) reads as follows, beginning with the aims or purpose behind the concept of 'sandhyanga' - accepted from Bharata :

Page #566

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1741 atha trtīyā sandhyanga-catussastir ity ācakṣate -
sandhīnām yāni vrttāni punar uktāni pūrvaśaḥ, su-sampad-guna-yuktāni tānyangāny aparādhayet. (G.O.S. NS. XIX. 50 with variant) iştārthasya racanā, vstāntasyā’nupakşayaḥ, anurāga-prayogasya guhyānām ca nigūhanam. āścaryavad adbhikyānam prakāśyānām prakāśanam, angānām şad-vidham hy etad drstam śāstre prayojanam. anga-hīno naro yaśca naivā"rambha-ksamo bhavet, angahīnam tathā kāryam na prayoga-kşamam bhavet. (NS. XIX. 53, G.O.S.) kāvyam pada-vihīnā’rtham samyag angaiḥ samanvitam [dīptatvāt tu prayogasya] śo] bhām eti na samśayah. (XIX. 55) udāttakāryam yat tatra syād angaiḥ parivarjitam, hīnarvād hi prayogasya
na satām rañjayed manaḥ. (XIX. 54) [The NS., G.O.S. Edn. has shown certain readings in the foot-notes, pp. 33, Vol. II, which are accommodated in Bhoja's text.)
The next verse, XIX. 56, shown in [ ] by the editor is read in the body of the text by Bhoja. It reads as -
"tasmāt sandhi-prayogeșu yathākāvyam yathā-rasam,

Page #567

1742
SAHRDAYĀLOKA kāryāny angāni tesām tu pravibhāgah pradrśyate.” (pradarśyate) - NS. XIX. 56 "āksepaś ca parīkarma parinyāso vilobhanam, yukih Präptih samādhānam vidhānam paribhāvanā. (NS. XIX. 57)
udbhedaḥ kāraṇam bhedaḥ.” With this Bhoja stops quoting from the NS. and just enumerates the anga-s of all the sandhi-s in prose - (pp. 504, 504, ibid) These lines read as -
“mukha-sandhau dvādaśāngāni. = The anga-s of mukha-sandhi, twelve in number, are enumerated (as above). For 'upaksepa' and 'parikara' the verse quoted -above in Bhoja reads "ākṣepa' and 'parikarma', though while treating them individually he again gives the names as, 'upakşepa' and 'parikara' and quotes the definitions read exactly in the NS.
So, Bhoja proceeds - vilāsaḥ, parisarpa, vidhūta, tāpana, narma, narmagarbhaḥ, narma-sphotah, narma-dyutih, paryupāsanam, puspam, vajram, varņasamhāra iti - pratimukha-sandhāv api dvādaśāngāni (For narma-garbha, narmasphoța, the NS. has pragayaņam and ‘nirodha'.]
But in the treatment with illustrations Bhoja follows the NS. Bhoja has 'praśamanam' for 'pragayanam'. 'Nirodha' is also treated by Bhoja. It seems that 'narma-sphoța' and 'narma-garbha' are misplaced here by Josyer, the editor.
Bhoja reads further - "abhūtā”haraṇam, mārgaḥ, rūpam, udāharanam, kramam, samgrahaḥ, anumānam, prärthanā, āksiptiḥ, toțakam, adhibalam, udvega iti.
[We should add 'vidravah' after 'udvegah' and before 'iti', to make for 13 limbs of the garbhasandhi, following the NS. Bhoja has different names or readings in the explanation and illustrations that follow - Thus he has 'samksipti' for āksiptiḥ, satyam for mārgah, and he adds 'vidravah' at the end, which is not read above as 13th anga.)
Bhoja proceeds - "vidravaḥ”... Actually this should have been read before 'iti' garbha-sandhau trayodaśāngāni.
Bhoja has - 'vidravaḥ, then - "apavādaḥ samsphotaḥ (for samphetaḥ, NS.) śaktiḥ, vyavasāyaḥ, prasangaḥ, kāntiḥ, khedaḥ, pratiședhaḥ, virodhanam, ādānam

Page #568

“Daśarūpaka-Vicāra”
1743 sadhanam, prarocanā iti vimarsa-sandhāv api trayodaśangani. (NS. has 'vidravah' after 'sampheța'. Bhoja reads it in the beginning.
For ‘kāntiḥ' NS. has 'dyutih' which is read in his further treatment by Bhoja.
Bhoja reads : "višeşanam, dyutih, prasādaḥ, ānanam, samayaḥ, upagūhanam, bhāṣaṇam, pūrva-vākyam, vākya-samhāraḥ, praśastir ityādi, nirvahana-sandhau caturdaśāngāni.
Bhoja has an interesting remark at the end - (pp. 505) - saisā sandhyangacatussaștir nāțakā"dişu mahākavyā"dișu ca pūrņa-sandhyā"dişu nibandhanīyāni.
prati-sandhi ca yāny angāni pathitāni tāyatām eva kramena nibandhah kārva ity esa pracurah prayogah, samvidhāna-vaśāc ca, nyūnádhika-bhāvena, vyutkramena ca prayoga ity etad apy avagantavyam iti.
It may be noted that while attempting definition of individual sandhyanga, Bhoja follows, mostly, the sequence and definitions as given in the NS. At times variants read in the foot-notes in the NS. are read by Bhoja in the body of his text. This we will try to clear in the comparative table to be given by us at the end of this treatment. One thing emerges clearly that Josyer has not taken care to correlate the names of sandhyanga-s read in Bhoja first in enumeration and then in definitions and illustrations.
Dr. Raghavan has ignored the '54 - text of the G.O.S. while publishing his magnum opus "Bhoja's Śr. Pra.", for reasons best known to him, for it is absolutely clear that the G.O.S. Edns present better readings and better foot-notes showing variants, as compared to the edn.s of the NS. consulted by Dr. Raghavan. This is very sad. The G.O.S. Edn. was available to Dr. Raghavan but he chose to ignore the same to his own disadvatage.
Now we will quote from Dr. Raghavan at length, but a most interesting and comparative study of Bhoja and the A.bh. has to be attempted by us in near future, but not at this moment. We will try to indicate something in this direction in the table showing comparative details later.
Dr. Raghavan writes : (pp. 593; Bhoja's Śr. Pra., ibid) - (We do not know which edn. Dr. Raghavan is referring to. We have only Josyer's Edn. with us. But we will keep the page numbers as mentioned by Dr. Raghavan as they are while quoting from him) :
"The Sixty-four sandhyangas : Bhoja deals with the 64 sandhyanga-s on pp. 490-524. The section opens with a few verses on the Sandhyanga-s in general, their

Page #569

1744
SAHRDAYĀLOKA nature and purpose, all culled from the same context in Bharata (Kaśī Edn. Ch. XXI. 52-58). The text of Bharata itself gives the sandhyanga-s as 64 and it is this number of 64 that is responsible for Bhoja making up a regular set of three other '64-s'. The definitions of all these 64, of each in a single line in an Anustubh, is taken from Bharatal and all the illustrations are either from the Ratnāvalī or from the Venīsamhāra, most often, the angas are illustrated from both these dramas.
[foot-note 1, on pp. 593, Raghavan, reads as - “Regarding the total number of Sandhyanga-s, there is a discrepancy to which Dr. J. K. Balbir, drew my attention, viz. that though Bharata mentions the Sandhyanga-s as sixty-four, he actually enumerates and defines sixty-five. The Abhinavabhārati notes this and say
(p. 526, Vol. II. Madras MS. - that Prarocană of the Vimarsa sandhi or the very last, 'prasasti of the Nirvahana, is left out by writers to solve this difficulty. The Daśa-rūpaka leaves out 'Prarthanā' from the Garbha, and the Natyadarpana notes the view that some consider 'Prarthana' from the Garbha, and the Natyadarpana notes the view that some consider 'Prarthana' as a later introduction (p. 85). The Sahityadarpana also refers (VI. 98-99) to those who leave out either prārthanā or Praśasti. Bhoja in his Śr. Pra, keeps all of these, but omits 'upanyāsa' of the Pratimukha. (Vol. II. p. 502).] [It may be noted that in the list quoted above by us from Josyer, there is no space for 'upanyāsa', in the pratimukha-sandhi, having 12 limbs. 'Upanyāsa' in the name of ‘upaksepa' figures in Mukha in the NS., and Bhoja called it ‘āksepa' in the enumeration and then 'Upaksepa' while giving definition and illustration. We do not know what text was before Dr. Raghavan. Again, we are surprised to read that Dr. Raghavan required some Dr. Balbir's help to know about the discrepancy. Had he looked into the A.bh., it would have been clear without the help of any assistant.].
Dr. Raghavan continues : "The Sandhyanga-s are very well explained by Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the NS. and to an extent, in his Locana on the Dhvanyāloka also. It has been pointed out in my contribution on Laksana, how Bharata takes the text of drama as kāvya, poetic expression, and how this significant expression kāvya means that the Lakşaņas, Gunas, Alamkāras, and Sandhyanga-s belong as much to Śravyakāvya also. While speaking of the sandhyang-s also, Bharata uses the word kāvya at a number of places -
“anga-hīnam yathā kāvyam
na prayoga-kşamam bhavet.” (XXI. 55) "kāvyam yad api hīnártham, uddātam api yat kāvyam.” (XXI. 56, 57, etc.)

Page #570

“Daśarūpaka-Vicara”
1745 The Sandhis or the junctures form the various stages of the coming together of the five Arthaprakrti-s and five avasthās. (Dr. Raghavan seems to follow here the wrong equation advanced by the DR. If only he had looked into the ND. he would have changed his view.] Any action or event must pass through these five avasthas, whether it be common worldly activity, or action in a novel, poem or drama. An activity as such must necessarily have a beginning, a development, an impediment, a set-back (The last two may not be there always, and mention of worldly activity is not needed here, for it is consideration of a play, an art-form.], success over obstacles, redoubled force and final fruision. Bharata says of the avasthă-s -
sarvasyaiva hi kāryasya prārabdhasya phalárthibhiḥ, yathā’nukramaśo hy etāḥ
pancā’vasthāḥ bhavanti hi. See Locana on Dhv. pp. 149-150. Bhoja realises this and holds these Sandhyañga-s etc., as common to drama and poetry. He says of all the four sets of '64' - angas dealt with in the 12th Chapter that, -
"udāhrtā nāțaka-nātikā"dau iyam catuh-sasți-catusţayi yā, rasā’virodhena nibandhanīyā kathāsu kāvyesy ca să mahadbhiḥ."
(pp. 553, Vol. II. Śt. Pra.) (pp. 564, Edn. Josyer Edn.) Of the sandhyanga-s in particular, he says on p. 491 (pp. 505, Josyer Edn.)
“Saisā sandhyanga-catussaștih; nāțakā"dișu, mahākāvyā”dişu ca pūrnasandhyā"disu nibandhanīyāni, pratisandhi ca yāny angāni.”
[We may note that the ND. is perhaps prompted to call the four i.e. nāțaka, prakarana, nātikā and prakaraṇī, to be “pūrņa-daśā-sandhīni rupakāņi, seeking inspiration from Bhoja.]
At the end of the S.K... (p. 647), Bhoja takes a muktaka verse on love and shows how even a small event and a mere idea has these five stages of Mukha, etc. The verse taken is -
"katham api kịta-pratyāsattau priye skhalitóttare."

Page #571

1746
SAHRDAYĀLOKA On p. 458, Vol. II, XII, Bhoja says in his Śr. Pra. (= pp. 485, Josyer Edn.)
ete tu sandhayaḥ kāryāḥ nāțakeșu prayoktpbhiḥ, tathā prakaraneșv evam kathāsv ākhyāyikāsu ca mahākāvyesu campūșu
tathaivā”khyānakesu ca. On p. 573-4 Vol. IV. Śr. Pra. Bhoja says that he will. illustrate the five sandhis by a single sloka and he does so with the same ve krta...." etc.
Bhoja realises that all these are after all means to delineate Rasa and that these are not ends by themselves, to be introduced with zest and loyalty to the text of - Bharata, when he says in the end, “rasā’virodhena nibandhanīyāḥ” (of course,
under Anandavardhana's influence). It is not laid down that all these 64 and all of them in the same order, should be seen to be present in dramas of all kinds. Says Bhoja briefly on p. 406 - (pp. 505, Josyer Edn.) - “prati-sandhi ca yāny angāni pathitāni tāvarām eva kramena nibandhah kāryah ity esah pracurah prayogah. Samvidhānaka-vaśāc ca nyūna'dhika-bhāvena vyutkramena ca prayoga ity etad avagantavam. iti."
Bharata himself gives the caution and says : These are the anga-s and the poet must utilize them with his eye on rasa and bhāva; he may have all of them sometimes or he may omit one or two or three; he must introduce them in accordance with the purpose on hand and the situation.
ityetāni yathā-sandhi kāryāṇy angāni rūpake, kavibhiḥ kārya-kušalaih rasa-bhāvam aveksya tu. sarvangāni kadācit tu dvi-tri-yogo na vā punaḥ, jñātvā kāryam avasthām ca, yojyāny angāni sandhișu. N.S. XXI. p. 206-7.

Page #572

“Dasarūpaka-Vicāra”
1747 Anandavardhana pays special attention to this point (already mentioned by us earlier) while speaking of prabandha-rasa-dhvani and rasaucitya ini uddyota III. He says : Sandhi-s and sandhanga-s are to be harnessed for the main object of developing the theme or rasa; they are not to be adhered to with the sole idea of devotion to Bharata's text.
"sandhi-sandhyanga-ghatanam rasābhivyakty apekṣayā, na tu kevalayā śāstra
sthiti-sampādanecchayā.” Dhv. III. 12. Anandavardhana explains this point on pp. 148, and 150 and cites counterexample of the Venisamhāra introducing Vilasa' inappropriately for the sake of following faithfully all that has been given in the text as anga-s. Vilāsa, as such, like 'narma' belongs to kaisikī vịtti and Srngāra-Nățaka-s. In those drama-s such angas will occur not once, not in the only one place where they have been enumerated, but often. In plays of fight such anga-s of arabhati as sampheta and vidrava will occur often, these will have no place in plays where they are not needed to develop the theme and rasa. Therefore, it does not hold good that sandhyanga-s are only so much as 64 in number; Bharata's list must be taken as indicating what the angas are, all possible situations and incidents are not exhausted by these. Though this point as such has not been pressed expressly by any writer, it has been pointed out by most dramaturgists that some anga-s may be left out and that the order of these may be otherwise also, changed to suit the needs of the dramatists. [Actually we have already indicated this in our observations earlier and we may quote Dandin, though observed in another context by him but also applicable here, that, “kas tān kārtneyena vaksyati ?”). In the above given quotation from Bhoja's Śr. Pra., we find Bhoja saying that the general rule is that all anga-s appear at their given places in the same order; but it must be understood that contexts need, not only omission of some, but also a change in the order. It must also be pointed out here that one anga will appear more than once, if need be. Udbhata did not realise this and seems to have said that the anga-s of the sandhis must appear in their given places. Abhinavagupta says in his A.bh.
"tena yad udbhața-prabhịtayaḥ angānām sandhau krame ca niyamam āhuḥ, tad uktā"gama-viruddham eva." - Vol. II. pp. 514, Mad. MS. [It is surprising that
navan does not look into the printed A.bh. in the G.O.S. Vol.s.; Sad.) (Same is the case with 'Locana').

Page #573

1748
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The point is found emphasised more elaborately in an anonymous MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental Ms. Library giving some excellent treatment of topics of dramaturgy. The work is well acquainted with the A.bh. It says: .
"eşām ca angānām muninā laksane ya upāttaḥ kramaḥ sa kavibhiḥ nibandhane na upādeyah. yat punar udbhata-prabhrtayah angānām sandhau krame ca niyamam āhuh, tad bharata-mata-viruddham eva. tathā hi, “sampradhāranam arthānām yuktir ity abhidhiyate” iti yan mukha-sandhau pañcamam angam tat sarvesu sandhisu tāvan nibandhayogyam. na ca tathā niveśyamānam a-drsta-dosakrt. na ca laksye na drśyante. Veņīsamhāre hi prathame’nke mukha-sandhau nibaddhā...
tathā tộtīye’nke garbha-sandhau ca droņa-vadhe vștte duryodhana-karnayoh mahati sampradhāraṇe nibaddhā... na cā’tra prītivyutpattyoḥ kṣatiḥ. pp. 56-57, R. 5171, Mad. Ms.
Thus, some of the anga-s pertain to more sandhi-s than one in which they are given; in the same sandhi also, some may occur again, that it, anga-s can appear wherever necessary. The niyama or rule of the given order does not apply to these cases. But the author realises that there are certain major anga-s that can neither be left out in any kind of play nor can be possibly changed to other places. As for instance, the first anga of the first sandhi, Upaksepa, the sowing of the seed, cannot appear anywhere else except in the beginning nor can it disappear altogether. The MS. says further -
kānicid angāni svarūpa... (ni) yamabhāñji. yathā upaksepah mukha sandhāv eva, prathamam eva ca. na hy anuksipte vastuni kiñcid api śakya-kriyam.
It further says that some can be omitted :
eșu ca kānicit avaśyayojanīyāni, kānicit tu upeksyāņi. yat tu 'catuh sastyangasamyuktam' iti munivacanam, tena sambhava-mātram eşām darśitam.
Above all sandhyanga-s are not 64 only. The fact that a supplementary list grew up under the name sandhyantara, such as, sāma, bheda, etc., shows that the incidents are too infinite to be exhausted by 64 items.
The annonymous MS. then points out the intimate relation between the sandhyanga-s and Bhāva and Rasa (p. 58). Such anga-s as prasāda and ananda are directly related to bhāva-s; narma and narma-dyuti pertain as anga-s to the Kaisiki vrtti which is inseparably fused with the śrngāra rasa. Similarly we find sampheta and vidrava of the ārabhati vrtti, adhibala, a vīthy anga, prarocanā an anga of the bhārati vrtti among the sandhyanga-s.

Page #574

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1749 In my contribution on Laksana referred to previously, I have dealt with the relation between the sandhyanga-s and the laksana-s, of how certain writers hold the laksaņas to be similar to sandhyanga-s and how, as a matter of fact, some of the laksana-s are identical with some sandhyanga-s, even as there are laksana-s which are identical with bhāva-s and alamkāra-s."
With this we end our long quotation from Dr. Raghavan. As noted above, as compared to Dr. Kulkarni's thorough and painstaking, critical observations, Dr. Raghavan's presentation to us, seems lesser. He has not even taken care to look into Bhoja's treatment of individual laksanas with illustrations from various plays. We will however now attempt to give a table of sandhyanga-s along with the mention of which author recognises which, and in what name, along with definitions cited from all authorities and also critical comparative remarks, if any Dr. Kulkarni has done a marvellous job and we will just make a modest attempt to supplement the same in our table :
It may be noted that we will take the NS. (G.O.S. Edn.) for the enumeration and order of Sandhyanga-s as the base and look into the DR., Śr. Pra., N.D., B.P., PR., NLRK, RS. and the S.D. - on the chronological order relying on Dr. De's “Sanskrit Poetics”.
A Comparative and Critical table of the Sandhyanga-s i Mukha-Sandi :
(1) Upakṣepaḥ : This is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., B.P., PR.; NLRK; RS., S.D.;
N.S. defines it as : “kāvyárthasya samutpattiḥ upaksepa iti smộtaḥ.” (p. 38, Ch. XIX. G.O.S. Ed. śloka - 69b.) DR - bījanyāsa upaksepaḥ - (I. 27, a; p. 20 Adyar Edn.)
Śr. Pra. “kāvyárthasya samutpattir upaksepa iti smstaḥ.” (Śr. Pra. XII. pp. 505, Josyer Edn.)
This is from the NS. -
Normally Bhoja quotes exactly from the NS., however, on pp. 504, in enumeration the reading is - "āksepaś ca parīkarma... etc.”
ND. “bījasyo’ptir upaksepah” - (I. 43, pp. 108, Edn. Delhi Uni. Delhi, Viśveśvar Pandit)
BP. - "bījanyāsa Upaksepah” - (pp. 208, line 12, G.O.S. Edn.)

Page #575

1750
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA This follows DR. Normally DR. is followed by BP. PR. - "bījanyāsa upaksepah” - (pp. 78, Madras Edn. Edn. Sastrigal) This follows DR. & BP. (Nāțaka-prakarana.)
NLRK. - "tatra kävyárthótpattir upakṣepa).” (pp. 56, Kārikā 71, Edn. Chowkhambhā SKT. Samsthan, Babulal Shukla)
RS. : “upakṣepastu bījasya sūcanā kathyate budhaiḥ." (III. 32b) (Edn. Trivendrum, T. Ganapati Shastri)
SD. “kāvyā’rthasya samutpattir (S.D. VI. 83, p. 360, Edn. Chaw. Skt. Sam. With 'Lakşmi ţikā)
kāvyárthasya samutpattiḥ upakṣepa iti smộtaḥ."
(2) Parikaraḥ : This is recognised by NS., DR. Śr. Pra., ND., BP. PR., NLRK, RS. and SD.
NS. "yad utpannā’rtha bāhulyam jñeyaḥ parikaras tu sah.” (pp. 39. XIX. 70a) DR. - 'tad bāhulyam parikriyā” (pp. 21, I. 27) The enumeration uses the term 'Parikaraḥ', but the definition has, “pari-kriyā”. Śr. Pra. "samutpannártha-bāhulyāj jñeyaḥ parikaras tu saḥ.” (pp. 505)
The enumeration has “parıkarma”, the definition has, “parikarah.' - This is not verbetim from the NS., but it is almost the same.
ND. - "svalpa-vyāsaḥ parikriyā” (pp. 109, I. 43)
Kā. I. 41, in enumeration uses the term 'parinyāsa', and definition reads ‘parikriya'.
B.P. - 'tad-bāhulyam parikriya' - (p. 208, line 12) B.P. has 'parikara' in the enumeration, but 'parikirya' in the definition. This follows DR., verbetim.
PR. "bījasya bahūkaranam parikarah.” (pp. 78) NLRK. "samutpanne’rthe yad artha-bāhulyam sa parikaraḥ.” (pp. 57).
This is followed by a quotation from the NS., as noted by the Editor. They do not mention G.O.S. Edn. They follow the Chow. Edn.
"samutpannārtha-bāhulyam jñeyaḥ parikaras tu saḥ." (NS. XXI. 65)

Page #576

"Dasarūpaka-Vicāra"
1751 This is read exactly so in the śr. Pra, which also seems to follow the same, i.e Chow. Edn.; NS.
RS. - “Parikriyā tu bījasya bahulīkaraṇam matam.” (pp. 216, III. 33)
The RS. reads ‘parikarah' in the enumeration and reads 'parikriya' in the definition. This almost reads like the DR.
SD. "samutpannártha-bāhulyam jñeyah parikarah punah.” (VI. 83 pp. 360) This follows the NS. (Chow. Edn.), as read in the śr. Pra., & NLRK.,
(3) “Parinyāsaḥ" - is recognised by - NS., DR., Sp. Pra., N.D., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. - "tan nispattiḥ parinyāsaḥ” (XIX. 706, p. 39) DR. - "tan nispattiḥ parinyāsaḥ." (I. 27; pp. 21), This is from NS. śr. Pra, “tan nispattiḥ parinyāso vijñeyaḥ kavibhiḥ sadā.” (pp. 505, Ch. XII) This follows the NS., DR. ND. - "viniscayah parinyāsaḥ.” (I. 43; pp. 109) This is the same as above, termed differently. B.P. - "tan nispattiḥ parinyāsaḥ.” (pp. 208, live 13) This follows the NS., DR. PR. “bīja-nişpattiḥ parinyāsaḥ." (pp. 78) NLRK. - "tanniņpattiḥ parinyāso vijñeyaḥ kavibhiḥ sadā.” (Kā. 73, pp. 58) This is NS., Śr: Pra., etc. RS. - "bīja-nişpatti-kathanam parinyāsa itīryate.” (III. 33; pp. 217) ‘kathnam' is added and explained in the illustrations. SD. - 'tannispattiḥ parinyāsaḥ.” (VI. 83, pp. 361; This is NS.)
(4) Vilobhana - is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS., & SD.
NS. "guņa-nirvarnanam caiva vilobhanam iti smệtam." (XIX. 71, pp. 39) DR. - "guņā”khyānād vilobhanam” (1. 27; pp. 21) This is almost the NS. Śr. Pra. - "guna-nirvarnanam caiva vilobhanam iti smstam.” (pp. 506, Ch. XII.) This follows the NS.

Page #577

1752
SAHRDAYĀLOKA ND. "vilobhanam stuter gārdhyam.” (I. 44; pp. 115)
Vịtti has-stuter gunavad etad iti ślāghātaḥ prastute krtye gardhyam abhilāşasthīrīkaranam vilobhanam.
The ND. has placed 'vilobhana' not at no. 4 as done by the authorities quoted above, but at No. 7.
BP. "guņā”khyānam vilobhanam" - (pp. 208, line 13) This follows DR. PR. - "bīja-guna-varṇanam vilobhanam.” (pp. 78) NLRK. “guna-nirvarnanam yat tu vilobhanam iti smộtam.” (Kā. 74; pp. 59) This is NS. XXI. 66, Chow. Edn. This is also read in the Śr. Pra. RS. - “nāyakā”di-guņānām yad varṇanam tad vilobhanam.” (III. 34; pp. 217) SD. - "guņā”khyānam vilobhanam.” (VI. 83; pp. 361)
The A.bh. (pp. 38, Vol. II. G.O.S.) reads as - tad etad upaksepā”dyangacatuskam prāyaśo mukha-sandhau bhavati. uktenaiva na paurvāparyena bhavati. ānantarya niyamas tu nā'sti, na sandhyantarāņām sāmā"dīnām madhye'nupraveśāt. tad etad āhuḥ muniḥ - "kāvyárthasya samutpattir” ityā"dinā, “vilobhanam iti smstam” ityantena: tatra vșttāntena upaksayaḥ sarvesām prayojanam uktam. parikarasya prayojanam iştā'rthasya racana'pi."
It may be noted that the ND. has placed this ‘anga' at no. 4, and this challanges A.bh.'s observation that Bharata wants the first four only in the order suggested by him. But the ND. explains its placement in the vrtti (pp. 115) with the remark - "idam parinyāsā'nantaram eva nibadhyate. sandhyantara-sādhāranyāya coktakramenóddeśah." . i.e. Actually this 'anga' is placed after 'parinyasa' only, but here it is placed at no. 7, only to suggest that this 'anga' appears also in other sandhis. This means that anga-s upto 'karana' are associated only with the mukha-sandhi alone, while the next six anga-s as enumerated in the ND. also appear in other sandhis too. Thus ND. observes that the first six anga-s as enumerated in it, viz. upaksepa, parikara, parinyāsa, samadhāna (samāhiti), udbheda and karana are part of mukha-sandhi alone (ca etāny atraiva); and vilobhana, bhedana, prāpaņa, yukti, vidhāna and paribhāvanā, - these six appear in other sandhi-s too - "sarvasandhişv amūni syūh” - Thus, the dictate of Bharata and the explanation of the A.bh. are not actually flouted by the ND., but it has a better logic for the placement of 'vilobhana' at no. 7.

Page #578

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1753 (5) Yukti : This limb is read in - NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK. RS. and SD. NS. (XIX. 71b; pp. 39) -
"sampradhāraṇam arthānām yuktir ity abhidhīyate." DR. (I. 28; pp. 22) -
sampradhāraṇam arthānām yuktiḥ - This follows the NS. Śr. Pra. - (XII. pp. 506) -
"sampradhāranam arthānām yuktir ity abhidhīyate." This is NS. XIX. 71b. ND. - "Yuktiḥ krtya-vicāraṇā” - (I. 45; pp. 119)
This is placed at number ten. The sources consulted earlier have all placed it at no. 5. ND - vịtti explains - “vicāraṇā, guna-dosa-vivekataḥ kārya-paryā”locanam." B.P. - (pp. 208, line 14) -
“sampradhāraṇam arthānām
yuktir ity. abhidhīyate.” This follows the NS., DR and Śr. Pra. Actually the DR. and its followers, who we choose to call the Mālava school of Aesthetics, also normally follow the NS. Bharata's dictate is hardly challanged or over-ruled. PR. (pp. 78, nāțaka-prakaraņa)
"bījā’nukūla - samghatana-prayojana-vicāro yukti).” The PR. after enumerating the anga-s of the mukha-sandhi (kā. 9) observes : "...anvarthäni yathäkramam.” Kumārasvāmin, the commentator observes (pp. 77): anvarthānī'ti - na prthak laksaņā’pekṣā iti bhāvaḥ. (9). tathā’pi mandabuddhyanugrahártham upakṣepā”dīnām krameņa lakṣaṇam pratijānīte. yathākramam eşām iti. kanțaka-sodhanam anga-laksanānām yathāyogam udāharana-pradeśa eva karisyāmaḥ mithaḥ prayoga-kramo na vivakṣitaḥ iti vaksyāmah.” NLRK. (pp. 59; Kā. 75)
"arthānām sampradhāraṇam yuktih." This follows the NS., DR., etc. NLRK. quotes NS. (XXI - 67 Chow.)

Page #579

1754
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA "sampradhāraṇam arthānām yuktir ity abhidhīyate.” RS. (III. 34; pp. 217) -
"samyak prayojanānām hi nirnayo yuktir isyate.” SD. (VI. 83; pp. 362) -
"sampradhāraṇam arthānām yuktiḥ..." - This follows the NS. (6) Prāpti : is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. and SD.
It is also termed "prāpāna". NS. (XIX. 72a; pp. 39)
"sukhárthasyā’bhigamanam
prāptir ity abhi-samjñitā." . DR. (I. 28; pp. 22) "...prāptiḥ sukhā”gamaḥ.” śr. Pra. (pp. 506, Ch. XII) -
“sukhárthasyópagamanam prāptir ity abhidhīyate.” ND. calls it “prāpaņa” and places it at no. 9; (pp. 117, I. 45.]
“prāpaņam sukha-samprāptiḥ.” BP. (pp. 208, line 15) - 'Prāpti' is read after 'samādhāna? here. -
- “prāptiḥ ko’pi sukhā”gamaḥ.”
ko'pi' is added in the DR. definition. PR. (pp. 78) - "bīja-sukhā”gamaḥ prāptiḥ.” The mukha-sandhi has direct relation with 'bīja', and hence the PR. correlates 'bīja' in all definitions of all 'angas' of the mukha-sandhi. It places “bīja” in the beginning of all definitions. NLRK. (pp. 60, Kā. 76) -
“mukhyártha yad upagamanam sā prāptiḥ.” This is supported by a quotation from the NS. (XXI. 67. chow.) :
“mukhyárthasyópagamanam prāptir ity abhidhīyate.” It may be noted the the G.O.S. reads “sukhárthasya”, but gives “mukhyárthasya” as a variant in the ft. note, no. 6, pp. 39 - "bha. - mukhyárthasyópa...."
The NLRK. follows this second reading.

Page #580

"Dasa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
RS. (pp. 218; III. 35)
"prājñaiḥ sukhasya samprāptiḥ präptir ity abhidhiyate."
Naturally 'prajñaiḥ' refers to Bharata, Dhananjaya and such others.
SD. (pp. 362, VI. 84) -
"prāptiḥ sukhā"gamaḥ."
(7) 'Samādhāna' is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. It is termed "Samāhiti" by the ND.
NS. (pp. 39, Ch. XIX. 72b) -
"bījā'rthasyo'pagamanam
samādhānam iti smṛtam."
The Abh. (pp. 39, 40) observes: "yasmin bījam tad idānīm pradhananayaka'nugatatvena samyag ähitam bhavatīti (samādhānam).
DR. (I. 28; pp. 23) -
"9
"bījā"gamaḥ samādhānam..."
The Avaloka gives illustrations from the Ratnavali and the Veņi. After citing Veņi. (I. 21; Cañcad-bhuja. etc.), it observes - "ity anena vemīsamhāra-hetoḥ punar upādānāt samādhānam.
Śr. Pra. (pp. 507, Ch. XII) -

"bijárthasyópagamanam samādhānam iti smṛtam.'
This is NS. -
ND. calls it 'Samāhiti', and places it at no. 4. (pp. 105, I. 43).
"punar nyāsaḥ samāhitiḥ."
-
1755
""
Vrtti reads samkṣipyópakṣiptasya bījasya spaṣṭatā-pratipādanártham punar nyāso bhaniti-vaicitryam, samyag á samantāt dhānam poṣaṇam samāhitiḥ - i.e. The seed that was cast in 'upakṣepa' in a breef way is re-told here to place it more effectively, i.e. to speak about the same (again); samyag = well (laid), ā- samantāt = in a more perfect way casting of the seed is said to be "samādhāna".
BP. (pp. 208, line 15) - has 'samādhāna' placed before "prāpti".

Page #581

1756
SAHRDAYĀLOKA - "bījā”gamaḥ samādhānam." This follows the DR. PR. (pp. 78) -
"bīja-sannidhānam samādhānam" NLRK. (pp. 61; Kā 77) -
“bījárthasyópagamanam
yat tat samādhānam.” NS. XXI. 68 (Chow. Edn) is quoted in support. This reads like G.O.S. Edn. XIX. 72b., as quoted above. RS. (pp. 218; III. 35) -
“bījasya punar adhānam
samadhānam ihócyate.” - SD. (pp. 363; VI. 85) -
“bījasyā”gamanam yat tu
tat samadhānam ucyate.” This follows the Chow. Edn. NS. reading, as quoted exactly in the NLRK. (8) Vidhāna :
This is read in the NS., DR. Śr. Pra. ND., BP., PR. NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (pp. 40; XIX. 73a) -
“sukha-duḥkha-kȚto yórthas
tad vidhānam iti smstam." Abh. : “vyāmiśratayā sukha-duḥkhe abhidhīyete yatra iti (vidhānam)” - (pp. 40). DR. (I. 28; pp. 24) -
“vidhānam sukha-du-kha-krt” . Avaloka illustrates it from Mālatīmādhava (I. 32) and veni. I. 26. It observes : ...ity anena mālaty avalokanasya anurāgasya samāgama-hetor bījasya anugunyena eva madhavasya sukha-duhkhakārivāt vidhanam iti..." and also, (after veni..." iti samgrāmasya sukha-duḥkha-hetutvāt vidhānam iti.” śr. Pra. (Ch. XII. pp. 508) -
"sukha-duhkā’nvito yórthas tad vidhānam iti smrtam.'

Page #582

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1757 This is NS. (G.O.S.) as quoted above. ND. reads ‘vidhāna' at no. 11. (pp. 120; I. 45)
"vidhānam sukha-duḥkhā”ptiḥ." vrtti adds (pp. 120) : dvayoh sukha-duḥkhayoh ekatra anekatra vā pātre
prāptih.”
This means attainment of happiness and unhappiness either with reference to the same character or with reference to many.
"eka-pătre sukha-duhkhayoh prāptih” is illustrated from Mālatīmādhava - "yad vismaya-stimita.” etc.: "ity anena sā’nurāga-mālaty-avalokanān mādhavasya sukha-duhkhā”ptih.”
The other variety, viz. 'anekatra' is illustrated from the Tāpasa-vatsarāja; - "drstim prema-bharā"lasām"... etc. - ND. observes (pp. 121) · atraca vāsavadattāyāh pravāsā bhyupagamăd duhkham vatsarājasya ca a-vidita-pravāsavịttāntasya sukham."
BP. It reads “paribhāva” (= paribhāvanā) ahead of vidhāna which is defined as - (pp. 208; line 16) -
"vidhānam sukha-duḥkhakrt.” This is DR., as quoted above. PR. (pp. 78) -
"bīja-sukha-duhkha-hetur vidhānam.” NLRK. (pp. 61, Kā. 78) -
"sukha-duhkha-krto yórthas
tad vidhānam..." - This is NS. (G.O.S.) It quotes NS. (Chow. XXI. 68) as - (pp. 62)
"sukha-duhkhā’nvito yórthas tad vidhānam iti smstam." RS. (III. 36; pp. 219) -
“sukha-duḥkha-karam yar tad vidhānam budhā viduḥ.” SD. (VI. 85b; pp. 364) -
"sukha-duhkha-krto yórthas
tad-vidhānam iti smộtam.” This is NS. (G.O.S.)

Page #583

1758
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (9) Paribhāvanā - (also, “paribhāvah" - DR. & BP.) This is read in NS., DR., Śļ. Pra.,
ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (pp. 40; XIX. 73b) -
“kutūhalottarā”vego
vijñeyā paribhāvanā." Abh. (p. 40) observes :
kutūhaleti kautukena jijñāsā’tiśayena vyāmiśro :
yaḥ āvegaḥ sā paribhāvanā; kim etad iti." DR. (I. 29; pp. 25) -
“paribhāvo'dbhutā”veśaḥ” Śr. Pra. : (pp. 508, Ch. XII)
"kutūhalottarā"vedhah
proktā tu paribhāvanā." This is NS. But "āvedhah” follows a variant noted in ft.noot 3, pp. 40, G.O.S. Edn. ND. reads this as the 12th anga. (pp. 122; I. 45) -
"vismayah paribhāvanā.” Vrtti almost follows the Abh. When it reads (pp. 122) : jijñāsā’tiśayena ‘kim etad' iti kautukā’nubandho vismayah, paribhāvanā.
BP. reads it before 'vidhana'. It has, (pp. 208, line 16)
“paribhāvo'dbhutā”veśo, vidhānam... This follows the DR. PR. (pp. 78) : "bīja-visayā” scaryā”veśaḥ paribhāvanā.” NLRK. (pp. 62; Kā. 79b) -
"kutūhalā'ntarā"dāyi syād arthah paribhāvanā." The editor calls this to be NS. 21, 69; i.e. Chow. Edn. RS. (pp. 219; III. 36b) -
"ślāghaiś citta-camatkāro
guņā”dyaiḥ paribhāvanā.” SD. (pp. 364; VI. 86a)
“kutūhalottarā vācaḥ
proktā tu paribhāvanā.” This closer to the Śs. Pra., which has a NS. reading, different from the G.O.S.

Page #584

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1759 (10) Udbheda :
This is recognised by the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (pp. 41; XIX. 74a) -
“bījárthasya praroho yaḥ
sa udbheda iti smộtaḥ.” The Abh. illustrates it from the Veni., and observes (pp. 41) : na ca idam udghātanam yena pratimukham bhavet, api tu śatruksayā"rambham bījasyā”nkurah kurukulódghātanena vina'pi praroha-matram anusthānā'nugunyāt; bhūmi-samślosa iva bējasya." DR. (pp. 26; 1. 29)
"udbhedaḥ gūdha-bhedanam -”. Śr. Pra. (Ch. XII; pp. 509) -
[bījárthasya] ..... praroho yaḥ
udbhedaḥ sa tu kīrtitah.” [bījárthasya) is added by us from the NS. (G.O.S.), as read above. Josyer could have himself done this.
ND. reads this at no. 5. (pp. 112; I. 44;)
“svalpa-praroho udbhedaḥ..." The vștti reads : (pp. 112) - āmukhántaram uptasya svalpa-prarohaḥ, kiñcit phalánusthānánukulya-pradarśanam dhānyasya ucchūnatā iva "udbhedaḥ”.
ND. vrtti (p. 112) further adds - bījasya udghātanam ankura-kalpam, udbhedah punar ankura-kalpād udghāțanād bhūmi-nyasta-dhānyóchūnateva prācīnā’vasthā ity ayam mukha-sandher evā'ngam. na punar-udghāța-rūpatvāt pratimukhasandheh.
BP. - 'Udbheda' is treated after 'karaṇa' in BP. - (pp. 208; line 17b) -
"udbhedo ghudha-bhedanam." This follows the DR., which has disclosing of something previously hidden as ‘udbheda'.
PR. also has the same observation as the NS. (pp. 78) - “guậha-bīja-prakāśanam udbhedah.”
da.

Page #585

1760
SAHRDAYĀLOKA NLRK. (pp. 63, Kā. 80) -
“bījā’rthasya praroho yaḥ
sa udbheda iti smrtaḥ." The editor identifies this as NS. 21/69; (Chow. Edn.). But it reads the same in the G.O.S. Edn. (XIX. 74a) also. RS. (pp. 219; III. 37a)
"udghāțanam yad bijasya
sa udbhedah prakirtitah.” This follows the NS. SD. (pp. 365; VI. 86b)
"bījā'rthasya prarohaḥ syād udbhedaḥ... (11) Karaņa - is read in NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. - Śr.
Pra. calls it “Kārana”. NS. - (pp. 41; XIX. 74b).
"prakrtā'rtha-samārambhah
karaṇam nāma tad bhavet.” The Abh. (p. 41) has a ft.note : "anye tu vipadām samanam karanam āhuḥ." DR. (I. 29; pp. 27) - has,
karanam prakstā”rambhaḥ... This follows the NS. śp. Pra. (pp. 509, Ch. XII) has “Kārana” for “Karana'. It reads as -
"prakrtā'rtha samā”rambham kāranam paricaksate." ND. places 'Karana' at no. 6; (pp. 124; 1. 44)
“karanam prastuta-kriyā.” The Vștti has - "avasarā’nuguṇasya arthasya prārambhaḥ karanam.” BP. (pp. 208; line 17) has,
“karaṇam prakstā”rambhaḥ.” This follows the DR. PR. - reads it at no. 12; (pp. 78); - "bījā’nuguna-prastuta-kāryā”-rambhaḥ karanam.” ND.'s influence can be read.

Page #586

"Dasa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1761 NLRK. (pp. 63; Kā. 81) has -
“prakrtā’rtha-samā”rambhaḥ karanam...” This follows the NS. RS. - 'Karana' is placed as no. 12. (pp. 220; III. 37) It reads as - “prastutā’rtha samā”rambham karaṇam paricaksate.” SD. (pp. 365; VI. 86b; 87a)
karaṇam punah, prakṛtā’rtha-samā”ramthah.” This follows the NS. (12) Bhedaḥ - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (pp. 41; XIX. 75a) has,
"samghāta-bhedanártho yaḥ
sa bheda iti kīrtitaḥ." Abh. reads (pp. 41) : "pātra-samghātasya yan nija-prayojan'opaksepena niskramaṇasiddhaye bhedanam prakaraṇam iva, sa bhedaḥ sarvatrā’nke’ntarbhāvi vastūpāyā”tmā bhedaḥ, sa sandhyantaraika-viņśatau vaksyate.” Dispersing of characters is 'bheda'.
DR. (pp. 27, I. 29) has -
"...bhedaḥ protsāhandād bhavet.” This is different from the NS. This means "heartening up”. Śr. Pra. (pp. 509; Ch. XII) - has
"samghāta-rūpa-bhedo yah
sa bheda iti kīrtitah.” This follows the NS.
ND. - has 'bhedana' for "bhedaḥ”. It is read at No. 8. But it explains it after the NS. as
(pp. 116; Kā. I. 44) - "bhedanam pātra-nirgamaḥ. But the ND. gives another opinion also - (vștti; pp. 117) - "anye tu bhedam protsāhanam āhuḥ.” There is a third view also · (pp. 117) - "anye tu samhatānām pratipaksāņām bijaphalotpatti-nirodhakānām viślesakam bheda-rūpam upāyam 'bhedanam'. manvate. - Here 'bheda' is one of the expidents, meaning to cause a divide among enemies.
BP. (pp. 208; line 18) - has “bhedaḥ protsāhanā” This follows the DR.
PR. (pp. 78): “bījā’nuguņa-protsāhanam bhedah”. This is read as no. 11. The illustration (pp. 109, 110) explains that 'bheda' means parting of characters. It adds - "etesām madhye upaksepa-parikara-parinyāsa-yukty-udbheda-samādhānānām āvaśyikatvam."

Page #587

1762
SAHRDAYĀLOKA NLRK. (pp. 63; Kā. 82) - has -
"samghātena militā'rthasya bhango bhedah." This follows the NS. RS. (pp. 220; III. 37b) - reads it as no. 11 -
“bījasyódbhedanam bhedo
yad vā samghāta-bhedanam.” sprouting of the seed and also parting of characters make for 'bheda' in RS. SD. (pp. 365; VI. 87a) -
"bhedaḥ samhata-bhedanam.” Here it is parting of company, illustrated by Bhīma's statement in which he seems to desert his brothers. The SD. also quotes another opinion :
“kecit tu, “bhedaḥ protsāhanā” iti vadanti. This refers to the DR. The Laxmī tīkā reads - (pp. 365) -
"prakārántarena lakṣayatām matam darśayati - 'kecid iti'. dasarūpa-kārā” . daya ity arthaḥ. “kartavyam prati prakarseno'tsāhótpādanam bhedah” iti vadanti.
Anga-s of the Pratimukhasandhi (1) Vilāsa - This is accepted by the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS and SD. • NS. (p. 42; XIX. 76a)
"samīhā rati-bhogárthā
vilāsa iti samjñitaḥ.” DR. (p. 29; I. 32) -
"raty arthéhā vilāsaḥ syād" - This follows the NS. Śr. Pra. (p. 510; Ch. XII) - The editor, Josyer should have taken care to add (-1) or (samī) in the text. This follows the NS. :
"[samī] hā ratibhogārthā vilāsaḥ parikīrtitah." ND. The ND. has 'vilāsa' at no. 1, but it gives a different order and even the names differ. The ND. [(pp. 123) (kā. I. 46, 47)] reads as - (46) "vilāso dhūnanam rodhaḥ sāntvanam varna samhștiḥ
narma narmadyutis tāpaḥ syur etāni yathāruci.”
V the NS.:

Page #588

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1763 (47) puspam pragamanam vajram upanyāsópasarpanam,
pancā'vaśyam athā'ngāni pratimukhe trayodaśa.. Thus, dhūnana', 'rodha', 'sāntvana' are new names. We will see if the concepts coincide with any from the NS. We have 'tāpa' for 'tapana'. 'pragamana' is for 'pragayana'. 'Nirodha' is for 'rodha' of ND. The last five have to be there in this sandhi, observes ND.
N.D. observes : "yathā-ruchi iti vrtta-vaicitryā’nurodhena atra bhavanti, na bhavanti ca. puspā’dīni punaḥ pañca avaśyam pratimukha-sandhau bhavanty eva. trayódaśā’py etāni pratimukha eva sutarām nirbandham arhanti. In their employment, order is not to be observed. "uddeśya kramaś ca nibandheșu nā’pekşanīyaḥ iti."
ND.-Vilāsa (pp. 124; I. 48) -
"vilāso nr-striyor īhā.” The desire of man and woman to get together is termed 'vilāsa'.
BP.-It is observed, pp. 209, lines - 5, 6 that "samāgamecchā bījam tu, dịśyā’dịśyatayā sthitam, bindu-prayatnā'nugamād angānyasya trayodaśa. The anga-s are enumerated exactly after the DR., BP., - vilāsa - is “rati-ceștā vilāsaḥ syād
dampatyor nava-sangame.” PR. - also follows, or quotes from, the DR. in enumerating the 13 angas here. PR. Vilāsa (p. 78) : “sambhoga-visaya-manoratho vilāsaḥ.” NLRK. - Follows the NS. in giving names. Vilāsa - is, samīhā ratibhogā'rthā 'vilāsaḥ” this follows the NS. RS. follows the DR. It defines vilāsa (p. 220, III. 41) as -
"vilāsaḥ sangamā’rthastu
vyāpāraḥ parikīrtitaḥ.” SD. follows the NS. - Vilāsa is,
“samīhā ratibhogárthā vilāsa iti kathyate.”

Page #589

[drsta
1764
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (2) ‘Parisarpa' - is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK. NS. (pp. 43; XIX. 76b)
“dộsta-nastā’nusaranam parisarpa iti smrtaḥ.” DR. (pp. 29; I. 32) - "drsta-nastā’nusarpanam.”
Śr. Pra. (pp. 510, Ch. XII). Josyer should have looked into the NS. and added accordingly.
-saranam parisarpah.” ND. calls it "upasarpana" and places it at no. 13. The last five among the 13, viz. puspa, pragamana, vajra, upanyāsa and upasarpaņa have to be employed in the pratimukha and the first eight are to be employed at the poet's will. But all these are necessarily to be employed in this sandhi and not elsewhere -
Upasarpaņa - is, “nastéstéhā’nusarpanam.” The recollection of the ista (= desired) which was lost, makes for 'upasarpana'. BP. (p. 209, line 11) -
"parisarpastu bījasya dssta-naștā’nusarpaņam” This follows the DR. PR. - (p. 78) - "drsta-nasta-padárthā’nusaraṇam parisarpaḥ.” NLRK. - “prathamam drsțasya paścān nasțasya anusaranam parisarpaḥ.”. RS. (p. 221; III. 42)
“pūrvóddistasya bījasya tv anka-cchedā”dinā tathā
nașțasyā’nusmộtiḥ śaśvat parisarpa iti smstaḥ.” SD. “ista (dộsta-vi) nastā’nusaranam parisarpaś ca kathyate." (3) Vidhūta - is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS., & SD. NS. (p. 43; XIX. 77a)
“krtasyā’nunayasyā”dau vidhūtam hy aparigrahaḥ”. DR. (p. 30; I. 33) - "vidhūtam syād aratiḥ."
ND. calls it dhūnana', (p. 127, I. 48). This is placed at no. 2. - "dhūnanam sāmny anādarah." i.e. disrespecting i.e. not accepting words that try to pacify; i.e. pursuance.
BP. (p. 209, line - 12) - “vidhūtam aratir yūnos suratā’prāpti-sambhavā.” PR. (p. 78) - "anista-vastu-viksepo vidhūtam.
NLRK. - "ādāv anunayasya kệtasya a-parigraho vidhutam." We read 'vidhuta' for 'vidhūta' here.

Page #590

“Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1765 RS. (p.221; III. 43) -
“nāyakā’der ipsitānām arthānām anavāptitaḥ,
aratir yā bhavet taddhi vidvadbhir vidhutam matam." 'vidhura' is read for 'vidhūta'. SD. (pp. 367; VI. 90b) : “krtasyā’nunayasyā”dau vidhutam tv aparigrahah."
This is NS., as above. but here we read 'vidhuta’ and not 'vidhūta'. (4) Tāpana :
This is read in NS., RS., NLRK. & SD. DR. BP. & PR. have 'śama'. NS. (p. 43; XIX. 77b) - "apāya-darśanam yat tu,
tāpanam nāma tad bhavet." The editor, NS., has a ft.-noot (p. 43) - "kecit tu tāpanasthāne śamanam pathanti; a-rateh samanam athava anunaya-grahanad arater nigrahah samanam. We read 'sama' in DR. and its followers. The ft.-note 3 (p. 34) also has - ms-da’'samanam'.
DR. - reads 'sama' for 'tāpana' and defines it as, “tac chamaḥ, śamah.” (p. 31; I. 33)
Avaloka has - tasyah a-rater upaśamah samah. ND. has tāpa - "apāya-darśanam tāpah." śr. Pra. - (p. 511; XII Ch.) - has, frodhah' (p. 128; kā. I. 48), defined as "rodhoratih"; vrtti has - artih khedo vyasanam ista-rodhad rodhah." Due to hindrance with reference to the desired object, unhappiness caused is 'rodhah”.
BP. has sama; following the DR. It is defined as (pp. 209, line 13) - "yūnor araty upaśamah
sama ity ucyate budhaih.” PR. (p. 78). - "aratyupaśamanam śamah." following the DR.
NLRK. has tāpana' following the NS. and the śr. Pra. “apāya-darśanam yat tat, tāpanam” (p. 67, Kā.85) .
RS. has śama, following the DR. (pp. 222; III. 44) - "a-rateḥ śamanam tajñāḥ śamam āhur manīsinah." SD. - has tāpana, (p. 368, VI. 91). "u(a)pāyadarśam yat tu tāpanam nāma tadbhavet” - This follows the NS.
The reading is faulty. It should be corrected from 'upāya' to 'apāya', following the NS.,

Page #591

1766
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (5) Narma - is accepted by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (P. 44; XIX. 78a) -
“kriļā’rtham vihitam yat tu, hāsyam narméti tat smộtam." DR. (p. 31, J. 33) has - “parihāsa-vaco narma”.
Śr. Pra. - following NS., observes (p. 511; Ch. XII). “kridā-vilobhanā’rtham ca hāsyam narméti kirtitam."
ND. (p. 133; I. 49) - "krīdāyai hasanam narma." BP. (p. 209, line 14) follows the DR. - "parihāsa-vaco narma." PR. (p. 78) - 'parihāsa-vacanam narma."
NLRK. treats 'narma' and 'narmadyuti' together. (p. 68; Kā. 86). It observes. narma-purastād vaktavyam. krīdā-vilobhanā rtham hāsyam narma-dyutiḥ.
The direct statement conveying a light joke is 'narma' and if such 'narma’ employed in a jokular vein also becomes a source of attraction, 'narma-dyuti'.
RS. (p. 222; III. 45) - “parihāsa-pradhānam yad vacanam narma tad viduh."
SD. (p. 368, VI. 91) - "parihāsa-vaco narma.” (6) Narmadyuti - is mentioned by the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK.,
RS. & SD. NS. - (pp. 44; XIX. 78b)
"dosa-pracchādana'rtham tu hāsyam narma-dutih smrtā” A.bh. observes : (p. 44). doso yenóktena pracchādayitum isyate tasyā’pi hāsya-jananatvena narma ca sutarām dyotitam bhavatīti narma-dyutih."
DR. (pp. 32; I. 33) - “...dhỉtis tajjā dyutir matā.” Avaloka has... dhștir narmajā dyutir iti darśitam.
śř. Pra. (pp. 512; Ch. XII) - "dosa-pracchādanártham tu hāsyam narma-dyutiḥ smrtā.”
ND. (p. 135; I. 49) - 'dosā” vịttau tu tad dyutiḥ.” The vrtti (p. 136) adds : "ete ca narma-narmadyutī ange käma-pradhānesu eva rūpakeșu nibandham arhataḥ."
BP. (p. 209, line 14) follows the DR. and observes - "dhịtis tajjā dyutir bhavet.” PR. (p. 78) - "anurāgódghātanótthā prītir narma-dyutih.” NLRK. - see 'narma', above.

Page #592

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1767 RS. - (p. 222; III. 45b) : "krodhasyā’pahnavā’rtham yad hāsyam narma-dyutir matā."
This follows the DR. SD. (pp. 368; VI. 91) - "dhịtis tu parihāsajā” - narma-dyutiḥ.
This is closer to the BR. (7) Pragayaņa - also, “pragamana”. This is accepted by NS., DR., Śs. Pra., ND.,
BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 45; XIX. 79a) - has,
"uttaróttara-vākyam tu bhavet pragayanam punaḥ. The editor has a ft-note : 'anye tu'pragamanam' iti, 'pra-samanam' iti ca pathanti.
We have noted above what the A.bh. has to say. DR. (p. 33; I. 34) has 'pragamanam' -
"yathóttarā vāk pragamanam." Avaloka illustrates this, quoting a dialogue from Ratnāvali (II) and observes : ...ityantena rāja-vidūsaka-sāgarikā-susangatānām anyonya-vacaneno'ttaro'ttarā’nurāga-bījódghāțanāt pragamanam iti.”
śr. Pra. (p. 512; Ch. XII) - "uttaróttara-vākyam tu bhavet praśamanam ta thā.” Here we read 'praśamana'. ND. (p. 140, I. 50) has “pragamaḥ”.
“pragamaḥ prativāk-śreņih." This is read as no. 10. The Vștti has - "praśnapratipanthinī vāk, prativāk"; tasyah śrenih. apakarsato dve prativacane, utkarsato bahūnyapi." i.e. menimum two answers and maximum any number of answers are given in this.
BP. (p. 209, line 15) : “yukróttaram pragamanam.” PR. (p. 78) : "uttaróttarair vākyair anurāga-bīja-prakāśanam pragamanam.” NLRK. (p. 68; kā. 86) - "uttaróttara-vākyam pragamanam." RS. (p. 223; III. 46) : tat tu pragamanam yat syād uttaróttara-bhāṣaṇam.”
SD. (pp. 369; VI. 92): ....pragamanam vākyam syād uttaróttaram.” (8) 'Nirodha'; (also-'virodha) is recognised by the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD., NS., (p. 45; XIX 79b) :
"yā tu vyasana-samprāptiḥ. sa nirodhaḥ prakīrtitah.”

Page #593

1768
SAHRDAYĀLOKA DR. (p. 33; I. 34) has, “hita-rodho nirodhanam.” Śr. Pra. (p. 512; Ch. XII.) : "sukhānām sanniveśo yaḥ
sa nirodhaḥ prakīrtitaḥ.” ND. reads it at no. 3. - as 'rodhaḥ - We have treated it under 'tāpana'. BP. (pp. 209; line 15) : "nirodhah syān nirodhanam.” PR. (p. 78) has 'virodha', explained as -
“chadmanā hitā”gamana-nirodhanam virodhanam.” NLRK. (p. 69) (Kā. 86) has 'virodha'
"virodho vyasana-prāptih." (9) Paryupāsana - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND. (calls it sāntvana); BP., PR.,
NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 45; XIX-80a) - "krddhasyā’nunayo yas tu bhavet tat paryupāsanam.” DR. - has “paryupāsti)”; (p. 34; I. 34)
“paryupāstir anunayah.” Śr. Pra. (p. 513, Ch. XII) - "kruddhasyā’nanuyogastu bhavet tat paryupāsanam." ND. calls it sāntvana; it reads it as no. 4.
(p. 130; kā. 48): "sāntvanam sāma." -
vrtti adds : kruddhasya anukulam. BP. has "paryupāstih” like the DR.
(p. 209, line 16) : “anunītih paryupāstiḥ.” - PR. (p. 78) has - “istajanā’nunayaḥ paryupāsanam.”
NLRK. (p. 69; Kā. 87) : “kruddhasya anunayah paryupāsanam.” This follows the NS.
RS. (p. 223; III. 47) : "rustasyā’nunayo yaḥ syāt paryupāsanam īritam.” SD. (p. 370; VI. 92; 93a) - ...“kruddhasyā’nunayaḥ punaḥ, syāt paryupāsanam.”
This follows the NS. - : (10) Puspa - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra:, ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 46, XIX. 80b) : "visesavacanam yat tu
tat puspam iti samjñitam." DR. (p. 34; kā. I. 34) - "puspam vākyam, višesavat.” This follows the NS. Śr. Pra. (p. 513, Ch. XII) - "višeşa-vacanam yat tu tat puspam iti samjñitam." This is NS.

Page #594

“Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1769 ND. (p. 138; I. 49) : “puspam vākyam višeşavat.” BP. (p. 209, line 16) : “puspam sāti(nu)śayam vacaḥ." PR. reads 'puspa' after 'vajra'.
(pp. 78) : “anurāga-prakāśana-viśistavacanam puspam." NLRK. (p. 70; Kā. 86) : “višeșa vacanam puspam" - This follows the NS. RS. - (p. 223) (III. 47) : “yad višeşā’bhidhānā’rtham puspam tad iti samjñitam."
SD. (p. 370; VI. 93) : "...puspam viśeșa-vacanam matam”. (11) Vajra' - is read by the NS., DR., śř. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS., & SD.
NS. (p. 46; XIX. 81a): “pratyakşa-rūkşam yad vākyam vajram tad abhidhīyate.” DR. reads it after “upanyāsaḥ.” vajra (p. 35; I. 35) is - vajram pratyakşa-nişthuram”.
śp. Pra. (p. 513; Ch. XII) : “pratyakşa-rūkşam yad vākyam tad vajram iti kīrtitam." ND. reads 'vajra’ at no. 11. -
(p. 141, I. 50) - “vajram pratyakşa-karkasam.” BP. (p. 209; line 17) “pratyakşa-nişthuram vajram.” PR. (p. 78): “pramukha-nişthura-vacanam" NLRK. (p. 70, kā. 86) - "rūkşa-prāyam vacanam vajram.” RS. - (p. 124); III. 48) : “vajram tad iti vijñeyam sākṣãn nisthura-bhāṣaṇam.”
SD. (p. 370; VI. 93) - "pratyakşa-nisthuram vajram.” (12) Upanyāsa - This is not read by Bhoja. All others read it. NS. (p. 46 XIX. 81b) - "upapatti-krto yórthaḥ
upanyāsaś ca sa smstaḥ.” The foot-note 2 - has - bh. - sopāyavacanam yat tu sa upanyāsa ucyate." DR. (p. 34; I. 35) has, “prasādanam upanyāsaḥ."
Śr. Pra. does not read this ‘anga'. ND. - 'upanyāsa' is read at no. 12.
(p. 143, I. 50) “upapattir upanyāsaḥ.” The Vștti observes : kamcid artham vidhātum ya upapattir yuktiḥ, sa upanyāsah."

Page #595

1770
SAHRDAYĀLOKA BP. (p. 209; line 17) - "upanyāsaḥ prasādanam.”
This follows the DR. and then NS. PR. (p. 78) - "anurāga-hetu-vākya-racanā upanyāsaḥ. NLRK. (p. 71, Kā. 86) : "upapatti-krto yórthaḥ sa upanyāsaḥ..." This is from NS. is RS. (pp. 124, III. 48b) : "yuktibhiḥ sahito yórtha upanyāsaḥ sa ucyate.” This is closer to the ND. SD. (p. 370; VI. 93) : “upanyāsaḥ prasādanam"
This follows the DR. (13) Varņa-samhāra' (= Varna-samhști, ND.) All sources read it..
NS. (pp. 47; XIX. 82a) : “cāturvarnyópagamanam varņa-samhāra isyate.”
Abh. observes (pp. 47) : cāturvarnya-śabdena pātrāni upa-laksyate. tena yatra pātrāni prthak sthitāny api dhaukyante sa varnasamhārah. upādhyāyās tv āhuh - iha vīra-pradhāne tāvan nāyaka-pratināyakau tat-sacivau ca pradhānatvena varnyante iti varņāḥ, kāma-pradhānépi nāyako nāyikā, tat-sacivau ca iti." "atra caturņām ekibhāvah prayogasya, istasya racanā, prakāśye prakāśanam ity api prayojanāni. yattu brāhmanādi-varna-catustayamelanam iti tad a-phalatvāt anādrtyam eva." This suggestion, which is rejected by A.bh. is accepted by the DR. and the SD.
DR. (p. 35, I. 35) : "cáturvarnyopagamanam varna-samhāra isyate.”
The Avaloka quotes - "parisad iyam..." from Mahāvīra-carita and explains it as an assemblage of Brahmins, Ksatriya-s, etc. ... (pp. 36): "...ity anena rsikşatriyā'mātyā"dīnām samgatānām varṇānām vacasā rāma-vijayā”śamsinah paraśurāma-durnayasyā'droha yācñ.-dvārena udbhedanād varņa-samhāra iti.
śr. Pra. (p. 513, Ch. XII) : “varņitā’rtha tiraskāro varṇasamhāra ucyate.” This is taken up by the NLRK., as we will go to observe.
ND. (p. 131; I. 48): "pātraugho varna-samhstih.” This follows Abh., and the NS. · The vrtti reads "prthak-sthitānām pātrāņām oghaḥ, kāryártham mīlanam. varnyante iti varnāḥ, teşām nāyaka-pratināyaka-nāyikā-sahāyā"di-pātrāņām samhịtir ekatra-karaṇam."
BP. (p. 209; line 18) : "varņa-samhāra ity ukto nānā-jātīya-sangamah.”
This follows the DR. The BP. further observes (lines 20, 21) - “paurvāparyam bhavennarma-dyutyante vidhutā"dike, vilāsā"deh pradhānatvam netrā"di-vasato bhavet.”

Page #596

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicăra"
1771 PR. (p. 78) also follows the DR. & BP.
"caturvarņa-nirvarnanam varņa-samhāraḥ." - It further observes : eteșām madhye parisarpa-pragamana-vajró-panyāsa-puspāņām prādhānyam.”
NLRK. (p. 71, Kā. 86) - "varnitasya arthasya tiraskāro varņa-samhāraḥ.” This follows the śr. Pra.
RS. (p. 224; III. 49a) - "sarva-varnopagamako varņa-samhāra ucyate.”
This follows the DR. The illustration is drawn from the Vira-carita and it is observed..."...ityantena hara-capa-dalana-visayatayā, kartstayā anumantstayā stotrtayā ca rāghavaviśvāmitra-paura"di-parāmarsena brāhmana-ksatriya"divarṇānām samgrahaņād varņa-samhāraḥ - .
SD. (p. 371, VI. 94a) - cāturvarnyópa-gamanam varņa-samhāra-isyate.” This follows the DR., BP., PR., & RS.
The Angas of the Garbha-sandhi - They are 13, as follows; (1) Abhūtāharaṇam - This is accepted by the NS., DR., Śş. Pra., ND., BP., PR.,
NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 47, XIX. 82b) - "kapatápāśrayam vākyam abhūtāharaṇam viduḥ.” * This is a speech based on deceit. DR. (p. 37, I. 38) - "abhūtāharaṇam chadma."
Śr. Pra. (p. 514, Ch. XIII) "abhūtāharaṇam tatsyād vākyam yat kapatā”śrayam.”
ND. (pp. 159; I. 55) calls it “a-satyā’harana." - "asatyā”haraṇam chadma.” This is read as no. 12. The ND. takes āksepa, adhibala, mārga, a-satyā”harana and totaka as five principal anga-s of garbha-sandhi.
BP. counts 12 anga-s, with the omission of 'prārthana'. This follows the DR. which also omits 'prārthana' and has only 12 anga-s for garbha-sandhi.
BP. (p. 210; line 20) has - "abhūtāharaṇam chadma.” This follows the DR.
PR. also has 12 anga-s of garbha-sandhi and follows the DR. & BP. in the omission of "prārthanā.”
PR. (p. 79) - has, “prastutópayogi-chadmā"caranam abhūtāharaṇam.”
NLRK. (p. 73, Kā. 89) has 13 angas and follows the NS. in mentioning "prārthanā".
P. 73 has - ‘abhūtódāharaṇa' defined as “kapatā”śrayam vacanam abhūtódaharanam."

Page #597

1772
SAHRDAYĀLOKA RS. - also (p. 225, Kā. III. 9-51, 52a) has 12 angas following the DR., BP., etc. and omits "prarthanā”.
abhūtāharaṇa (III. 52a) is - "abhūtāharaṇam tat syāt, vākyam yat kapatā”śrayam." SD. (p. 372, VI. 944, 95) has 13 anga-s and follows the NS. -
"tatra vyājā”śrayam vākyam
abhūtāharaṇam matam.” (VI. 96a) (2) Mārga : This is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS.
& SD. NS. (p. 47, XIX. 839) : "tattvártha-vacanam caiva mārga ity abhidhīyate." DR. (p. 37, I. 38): "...mārgas tattvártha-kīrtanam." This follows the NS.
śr. Pra. (p. 514, Ch. XII) The Śr. Pra. (p. 504, 5) does not read vidrava' and yet observes that the garbha-sandhi-angāni are 13. But on p. 518, we read 'vidrava.' So obviously Vidrava' is left out on p. 504-5, and it is a mis-print.
But on p. 514, śr. Pra., in place of 'mārga' we read 'satyam.' - "tattvárthavacanam caiva satyam ity abhidhīyate."
ND. (p. 158, I. 55) has, “mārgas tattvártha-samsanam." - The vrtti observes : "paramārthasya vacanam sāmānyenócyamānam prakstā’rthena yat sambadhyate tan mārgah.”
BP. (p. 210, line 22) - "tattvártha-kīrtanam mārgaḥ..." PR. (p. 79) : “tattvárthā’nukīrtanam mārgaḥ." NLRK (p. 74; Kā. 89) - "vāstavā’rtha-kathā mārgaḥ.”
SD. (p. 372; VI. 96) - "tattvártha-kathanam mārgaḥ.” (3). Rūpa - is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 48; XIX. 83b) : "citrā’rtha-samavāye tu vitarko rūpam ucyate."
The editor has a foot-note (p. 48) - "citrā’rtho vākya-samyogo rūpakam iti pāthe, rūpakam samsayasya tarkena cchedanam iti kecit. anye tu citrā'rtham eva vaco rūpakam iti manyante."
DR. (p. 38; I. 39) : “rūpam vitarkavad vākyam."

Page #598

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1773 Śs. Pra. (p. 515 Ch. XII) : “citrā’rtha samavāye tu tac citram rūpam isyate." ND. reads "rūpa' at no. 2.
(p. 147; I. 53) - "rūpam nānārtha-samsayaḥ.” The Vștti reads (p. 147) : nānārūpāņām arthānām samsayo'navadhāraṇam rūpam iva rūpam. a-niyato hy ākāro rūpam ucyate. mukha-sandhyangat yukteḥ krtya-vicāra-rūpatvena niyatākārāyā asya bhedaḥ -
BP. (p. 210; line 22) - “rūpam sandehakrd vacaḥ.” p. 211 - line 1 - dvitrā’rtha samavāye tu vitarko rūpam ucyate.”
PR. (p. 79) : vitarka-pratipādana-vākyam rūpam. NLRK. (p. 74) - 'citrā’rtha-samāyukto vitarko rūpam." RS. (p. 226; III. 52d) : “rūpam sandehakrd vacaḥ.”
SD. (p. 373; VI. 96d) : “rūpam vākyam vitarkavat.” (4) Udāharana - (udāhști; DR., ND. PR.)
This is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 48; XIX. 84a) - "yat sā’tiśayavad-vākyam tad udāharaṇam smộtam."
Abh. observes : (p. 48) - loka-prasiddha-vastv apeksayā yat sā’tiśayam ucyate utkarşam āharati ity udāharanam.
DR. (p. 39; I. 39) : “...sótkarşam syād udāhrtiḥ...” śr. Pra. (p. 515; Ch. XII) repeats the NS. expression.
"yac cātiśayavad vākyam tad udāharanam smộtam.” ND. (p. 150; I. 54) - "...udāhștiḥ samutkarşaḥ.”
"loka-prasiddha-vastv apekṣayā yaḥ samutkarşaḥ samutkrstórthaḥ sa utkarşā"haraņād udāhṛtiḥ.”.
(p. 151, Vrtti). This follows the A.bh. BP. (p. 211; line 2) : “yattu sā’tiśayam vākyam tad udāharaṇam bhavet.” PR. (p. 79) - calls it 'udāhști' in the definition
“prastutótkarşā bhidhānam udāhști).” NLRK. (p. 74) - “sātiśayam vacanam udāharaṇam” RS. (p. 226; III. 53a) : “sótkarşam vacanam yattu tad udāharanam matam.” SD. (p. 373; VI. 79a) : "udāharanam utkarşayuktam vacanam ucyate.”

Page #599

1774
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (5) Krama - is recognised by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 49; XIX. 84b) : "bhāva-tattvópalabdhis tu krama ity abhidhīyate."
.bh. (p. 49) : "bhāvasya bhāvyamānasya vastuno bhāvanā’tiśaye satyūham prati bhāvanā”dibalāt syāt yā paramárthópalabdhiḥ sā kramah.” DR. (p. 39; I. 39b) - has two opinions.
“kramaḥ samcintyamānā”ptir
bhāvajñānam athā’pare.” śr. Pra. (p. 515) : "bhāvatattvópalabdhistu krama ityabhidhīyate.” For ‘krama', 'tama' is read here, through misprint. :
ND. (I. 54) : “kramo bhāvasya nirnayah.” - vrtti adds : bhāvasya parábhiprāyasya, athavā bhāvyamānasya arthasya ūha-pratibhāvā"divaśān nirnayo yathávasthita-rūpaniścayaḥ kramah buddhis tatra kramate, na pratihanyate ity arthāt.” BP. (p. 211, line 3) quotes from the DR. -
“kramaḥ sañcintitā’rthā”ptir bhāva-jñānamathā’pare." PR. (p. 79) - "samcintitártha-prāptiḥ kramaḥ.” NLRK. (p. 75) - “bhavisyat-tattvópalabdhiḥ kramah." RS. (p. 226; III. 53b) - "bhāvajñānam kramo yad vā cintyamānā’rtha-sangatih.”
SD. (p. 374; VI. 97b) - “bhāva-tattvópalabdhis tu kramaḥ syāt..." (6) Sangraha - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 49, XIX. 85a) : "sāma-dānā”di-sampannaḥ samgrahaḥ parikīrtitaḥ." DR. (p. 40; I. 40). "samgrahah sama-danóktir..." Śr. Pra. (p. 516): (Ch. XII) : samadānártha-sampannaḥ samgrahaḥ parikīrtitaḥ." ND. reads it as no. 1 . (p. 145, I. 53a) : “samgrahaḥ sāma-dānā”dih."
The vștti observes : sāma-dāne danda-bhedayor upalaksanam. ādi-sabdena māyéndra-jālā"di-samgrahah."
BP. (p. 211, line 4) : "samgrahaḥ sāma-dānóktih." This is DR.
PR. (p. 79) - “prastutópayogi-sāmadāna-vacanam samgrahaḥ." - The editor has a foot-note - “prastutópayogi-samādhānavākyam iti pāțhántaram.”
NLRK. (p. 75) “sāma-dānā”di-yuktam vākyam samgrahaḥ." RS. (p. 227; III. 54a) - "sangrahaḥ sāmadānártha samyogah parikīrtitah.” SD. (p. 374; VI. 97, 98a) - ...sangrahaḥ punaḥ sāma-dānártha-sampannaḥ.”

Page #600

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1775 (7) ‘Anumāna' - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. and SD.
NS. (p. 49, XIX. 85b) : “rūpánurūpa-gamanam anumānam iti smộtam.”
Abh. (p. 69) observes : “rūpyamānena pratyaksā"dy upalabhyamānena rūpasya vyāpakasya avinābhāvino gamanam jñānam anumānam niscayā”tmakatvād ühaḥ, upāyāyukter anyatvāt.”
DR. (p. 40. I. 40) : ...abhyūho lingato’numā. Śr. Pra. (p. 516; Ch. XII) : “rūpánurūpa-gamanam anumānam iti smstam.” ND. (p. 148; I. 53b) : “anumā niscayo lingāt.”
vștti observes : (p. 148) - "lingād hetor nāntarīyakasya lingino niscayo’numānam. niscaya-rūpatvena ca ūha-rūpāyā yukter bhidyate.”
BP. (p. 211, line 4) "...abhyūho lingato’numā." PR. (p. 79) - "lingad abhyūhanam anumānam." NLRK. (p. 75) - “rūpasyā’nugamanam anumānam. rūpyate iti rūpam vastu." RS. (p. 227; III. 54 b) : “arthasyā’bhyūhanam lingād anumānam pracakșate."
SD. (p. 375; VI. 98a) : “...lingād ūho’numānatā.” (8) Prärthanā - is recognised by the NS., Śr. Pra., ND., NLRK., SD.
NS. (p. 50, XIX. 86a) : “rati-harsotsavānām tu prārthanā prārthanā bhavet.”
DR. does not read this anga. It has only 12 anga-s of the garbha-sandhi. This is an effort not to exceed the total of 64 engas.
śr. Pra. (p. 516; XII. Ch.) has - "abhyarthānāparam vākyam prārthanétyabhidhīyate."
ND. reads it at no. 4. (p. 149; I. 53) : “prārthanā bhāva-yācanam.”
vịtti reads - "bhāvānām sādhyaphalócitānām ratiharşa-utsavā"dīnām yācanam prarthanā.”
BP. (p. 211) does not read 'prārthanā'. PR. (p. 79) also does not read 'prārthanā'. These two go with the DR. NLRK. (p. 75) reads this after NS. -
"abhyarthanā-yuktam vacanam prārthanā.” RS. also does not read this anga.

Page #601

1776
SAHDAYĀLOKA SD. (p. 375; VI. 98) reads it following the NS. -
“rati-harsotsavānām tu prārthanam prarthanā bhavet.” It adds in the vștti - (p. 376) : idam ca prārthanā”khyam angam. yammate nirvahane bhūtāvasaratvāt prasasti-nāmā'ngam nā'sti tanmatánuśārena uktam, anyathā pañca-sasthisamkhyatva-prasangāt.” (9) Akşipti - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS., & SD.
This is also termed "āksipta” in the NS., Aksepa in DR., & ND., utksipta in NLRK., and kşipti in the SD. - Śr. Pra. calls it “samkṣipti”
NS. (p. 50, XIX. 86b): "garbasyódbhedanam yat sā āksiptir .ity abhidhīyate.” The foot-note 2 has - "bh. - yat tu tam ākṣepam vidur budhāḥ.” DR. reads it as no. 12 (p. 44; I. 42b) : "garbha-bīja-samudbhedādākṣepaḥ parikīrtitaḥ.”
Avaloka observes : (p. 45) : etāni dvādaśa garbhángāni prāptyāśāpradarśakatvenopanibandhanīyāni. eşām ca madhye abhūtāharana-mārga-toțakaadhibalā”ksepāņām prādhānyam. itareşām yathā-sambhavam prayoga iti sā’ngo garbhasandhir uktah.”
Śr. Pra. (p. 517, Ch. XII) : “garbhasyódbhedanam yat tu samkṣiptir iti gīyate.” ND. calls it ‘ākṣepa’ and reads it at no 9. ND. (p. 155, I. 540) : "ākṣepo bīja-prakāśanam."
Vịtti reads · "prāptyāśā’vasthā-nibaddhasya bījasya mukha-kāryopāyasya prakāśanam prakarșeņa āvirbhāvanam āksepah.”
BP. (p. 211, line 8) also reads it at no. 12, like the DR. - "garbha-bījasamutksepād aksepah parikīrtitah.” This follows the DR.
PR. also reads it as no. 12, after BP. & DR. (p. 79) - "istárthópāyā’nusaranam āksepaḥ." Vịtti adds : eteşām madhye abhūtāharana-mārga-totakád hibalā”ksepāņām prādhānyam.” NLRK. (p. 76) calls it “utkşiptam”.
"bījódbhedanam utkşiptam." RS. (p. 228) also reads it at no. 12, after DR. and calls it 'āksepa' - (p. 228, III. 57a) : "garbha-bīja-samutkṣepam ākṣepam paricakṣate.”
SD. (p. 376, VI. 99) calls it ‘ksipti' and defines it as - "rahasyā’rthasya tad bhedaḥ kṣiptiḥ syāt...",

Page #602

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1777 (10) Totaka - is read by the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. and SD.
NS. (p. 51, XIX. 87a) : “samrambha-vacanam caiva toțakam tv iti samjñitam.”
Abh. (p. 51) observes : "āvega-garbham yad-vacanam tat totakam. sa cā'vego harşāt, krodhāt anyato'pi vā. bhinatti yato hrdayam tatas totakam.”
DR. (p. 41; I. 40) : "samrabdham toțakam vacaḥ.”
The DR. also observes : "grantha'ntare tu-totakasyā'nyathābhāvam bruvate'dhibalam budāh. & also, "samrabdha-vacanam yattu totakam tad udāhrtam."
Śr. Pra. (p. 517, Ch. XII) : sambhāva-vacanam caiva toțakam samudāhịtam.” ND. places it at No. 13; (p. 160; 1. 55) -
"totakam garbhitam vacah.” Under the influence of the A.bh., the vștti adds - "krodha-harsā"di-sambhūtā"vega-garbhitam vacanam, toțayati bhinatti hệdayam iti totakam."
BP. has totaka, (p. 211; line 6): "samrambha-yuktam vacanam yat tat toțakam
ucyate."
PR. (p. 79) - “roșa-sambhrama-vacanam toțakam.” NLRK. (p. 76) “samrabdha-vacanam toțakam.” RS. (p. 227, III. 55a) : “sa-samrambham tu vacanam sangirante hi toțakam."
SD. (p. 376; VI. 99): "...tro(to)țakam punaḥ, samrabdha-vāk..." (11) Adhibala (= atibala; RS.) is read in all the nine sources (i.e. from NS. to SD.)
NS. (p. 51; XIX. 87b). : "kapatenā'tisandhānam bruvate'dhibalam budhāh.” DR. (p. 41; I. 40) : "adhibalam abhi-samdhih”
Śr. Pra. (p. 517, Ch. XII) : “kapațasthā'nyathābhāvam bruvate’dhibalam budhāḥ."
ND. (p. 156; I. 55) - "adhibalam balā"dhikyam."
vrtti reads - "paraspara-vañcana-pravrttayor yasya buddhi-sāhāyā"di balā"dhikyena yatkarma itaram abhisandhātum samartham tatkarma balavisaye adhika-bala-yogād adhibalam."
BP. (p. 211; line 5) : "cestayā’nyā’tisandhanam vadanty adhibalam budhāḥ." PR. (p. 79) - "ista-janā’ti-sandhānam adhibalam." NLRK. (p. 76) : “kapațasya anyathākaranam adhibalam." RS. (p. 227, III. 55b) : “budhair atibalam proktam kapațenā’ti-vañcanam.” RS. reads "atibalam". SD. (p. 376; VI. 99d) : "adhibalam abhi-sandhicchalena yah.”

Page #603

1778
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (12) "Udvega" - is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 51; XIX 88a) : "bhayam nặpā’ri-dasyúttham udvegah parikīrtitaḥ.” Abh. has - 'ari' (ādi) śabdān nāyikā"di." DR. (p. 43; 1. 42) "udvego'rikrtā bhītiḥ.” . Śr. Pra. (p. 518; XII) “bhayam nộpā”di-janitam udvegas samprakīrtitaḥ.”
ND. reads it at no. 7., (pp. 152; I. 54) : “udvego bhīḥ.” Vịtti - "caura-n;pa-arināyikādibhyo bhayam udvegaḥ”.
BP. (p. 211, line 7) : "udvego’rikrtā bhītiḥ.” This follows the DR. PR. (p. 79) : "apakāri-janād bhayam udvegah.” NLRK, (p. 77) : “nặpati-janita-bhayam udvegah.” RS. (p. 228; III. 56a) : "satru-corā”di-sambhūtam bhayam udvega ucyate.”
SD. (p. 377; VI. 100a) : “nộpā”di-janitā-bhitir udvegah parikīrtitaḥ.” (13) Vidrava (also, sambhrama) -read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR.,
NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 52; XIX. 886) - “sankā-bhaya-trāsa-kệto vidravaḥ samudāhstaḥ." The foot-note has - 1-bh. - "nộpáribhaya-samyuktaḥ sambhramastv abhisamjñitaḥ.”. DR. calls it 'sambhrama'. (p. 43; I. 42) : 'śankā-trāsau ca sambhramah." Śr. Pra. (p. 518, Ch. XII) : “šankā-bhaya-trāsa-ksto vidravaḥ samudāhstaḥ." ND. reads it at no. 8; (p. 154; I. 54) : dravaḥ śankā.'
Vịtti reads : "bhaya-trāsa-kāriņo vastuno yā sankā apāya-kārakatvasambhāvanā, sa dravati ślathi-bhavati hrdayam anayā iti dravah.” - upanatam bhayam udvegah. tat-sambhāvanā tu vidravah."
BP. (p. 211; line 7) : “sankā-trāsau ca sambhramah.”
PR. (p. 79): "sankā-trāsau ca sambhramah." These two follow the DR. in naming and defining this anga.
NLRK. (p. 77) - sankā-bhaya-trāsa-krto vidravah.”
RS. (p. 228); III. 56b): "satru-vyāghrā”di-sambhūtā śankā syāt saiva sambhramaḥ."
SD. (p. 377; VI. 100b) : sanka-bhaya-trāsa-krtaḥ sambhramo vidravo mataḥ.”
The PR. observes (p. 79) :. eteșām madhye abhūtāharaṇamārgatoțakā’dhibalā’pekṣāņām prādhānyam."

Page #604

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicăra"
1779 Anga-s of the Vimarśa-samdhi are 13 - as follows : (1) Apavāda - is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., RS., NLRK. and SD.
NS. (p. 52; XIX. 89a) : "doșa-prakhyāpanam yat tu sópavāda iti smstaḥ.” DR. (p. 46; I. 45) : “dosa-prakhyā’pavādaḥ syāt.” Śr. Pra. (p. 519; Ch. XII) : 'dosa-prakhyāpaņam yat syāt sópavādaḥ prakīrtitaḥ.” ND. (p. 164; I. 58) : “apavādaḥ parīvādaḥ.” Vịtti reads : “parīvādaḥ sva-para-dosódghattanam."
The ND. (p. 161) counts drava, prasanga, sampheta, apavāda, chādanam, dyutiḥ, khedaḥ, nirodha and samrambha - as first nine which are subsidiary to the four major or principal that are, śakti, prarocanā, dāna and vyavasāya. The Vștti (p. 161) observes : “dravā”dīni nava prayojanam apeksya gaunatayā badhyante. śaktyādīni catvāri punaḥ prādhānyena.
BP. (p. 211, line-19) "dosa-prakhyā’pavādaḥ syāt.” PR. (p. 80) - "dosa-prakhyāpanam apavādah." NLRK. (p. 80) - "tatra dosa-prakhyāpanam apavādah.” RS. (p. 229; III. 60b) : “tatrā’pavādo doşāņām prakhyāpanam itīryate."
SD. (p. 378; VI. 102a) - "dosa-prakhyā pavādaḥ syāt.” (2) Smpheta - is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 53; VL. 89b) - “roșa-grathita-vākyam tu samphețaḥ parikīrtitaḥ.” DR. (p. 47; I. 45) : “sampheto roșa-bhāṣaṇam.". Śr. Pra. (p. 519; XII) reads it as “samsphoța".
“roșa-grathita-vākyam tu samsphoța iti kīrtitam." . * ND. reads it as no. 3. (p. 163; I. 58) - "samphețaḥ krodhajam vacaḥ.” - Vịtti has - "parasparam krodhajanmóttara-pratyuttara-rūpaḥ samlāpaḥ samphetaḥ."
BP. (p. 211; line 19) : “sampheto roșa-bhāṣaṇam." PR. (p. 80) - “rosa-bhāṣaṇam samphetaḥ.” NLRK. (p. 81) : “roșa-grathitam vākyam samphețaḥ.” RS. (p. 229; III. 61a) : dosa-samgrathitam vākyam samphetam sampracakșate.” RS. has "dosa” for “roșa”. SD. (p. 378; VI. 102) : "sampheto roșa-bhāṣaṇam."

Page #605

1780
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (3) Drava - (also vidrava, abhidrava) is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR.,
NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 53; XIX. 90a) - "guru-vyatikramo yas tu sa dravaḥ parikīrtitaḥ.”.. DR. reads it after 'vidrava'. (p. 48, I. 45d) : "dravah guru-tiraskrtiḥ.”
DR., BP., PR. & RS. do not recognise kheda, pratisedha, and chādana as read in the NS. 'vidrava' of DR. is like 'pratised ha' and 'chalana' is like 'chādana'.
Śr. Pra. (p. 520; XII th.) : "guru-vyatikramo yas tu sa dravaḥ parikīrtitaḥ." This follows the NS. ND. places "drava" at no. 1. (pp. 161; I. 57) -
"dravaḥ pūjya-vyatikramah.” BP. (p. 211; line 20) also reads it after 'vidrava' as in DR. and defines it after DR. It has the same sandhyanga-s as read in the DR. "dravah guru-tiraskrtih.”
PR. (p. 80) : "gurutiraskrtir dravah.” PR. follows the DR. NLRK. (p. 81); - "guruvyatikramo dravah.”
RS. (p. 230; III. 62a) reads it after 'vidrava' as in the DR. - "guru-vyatikramam prāha-dravam tu bharato munih."
SD. (p. 379; VI. 103b) - "dravo guru-vyatikrāntiḥ śokā”vegā”di-sambhavā.” (4) Śakti is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 53, XIX. 90b) : “virodhi-praśamo yaś ca să śaktiḥ parikīrtitā.” DR. (p. 49. I. 46) : "virodha-samanam śaktiḥ.” Śr. Pra. (p.520, Ch. XII) - "virodha-praśamo yas tu să śaktih parikīrtitā.” This is NS. ND. (p. 172; I. 60a) : “kruddha-prasādanam sakti).”
Vrtti has - "kruddhasya prasādanam anukūlanam buddhi-vibhavā"di-Śaktikāryatvena sāśaktiḥ. yadi vā kruddhasya dvişataḥ prakarșeņa sādanam vināśanam śaktiḥ.”
BP. (p. 211; line 21) - 'virodha-samanam saktiḥ.” RS. (p. 80); “virodha-samanam śaktiḥ.” NLRK. (p. 82) “virodha-prasamaḥ śaktiḥ.” RS. (p. 210; III. 62b) - "utpannasya virodhasya śamanam śaktir ucyate.” SD. (p. 380; VI. 104) -
"...saktiḥ punar bhavet. virodhasya praśamanam."

Page #606

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1781 (5) Vyavasāya is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 54; XIX. 91a) : "vyavasāyaś ca vijñeyaḥ pratijñā-hetu-sambhavah.”
Abh. : pratijñātasya angīkstasya arthasya hetavo ye, teșām sambavaḥ, prāptivyavasāyaḥ."
DR. (p. 51; I. 47a) : "vyavasāyaḥ sva-śaktyuktiḥ.” Śs. Pra. (p. 521; XII) “vyavasāyaś ca vijñeyaḥ pratijñā-hetu-sambhavaḥ.” ND. reads it at No. 13; (p. 177, I. 60) -
"vyavasāyo'rthyahetuyuk.” Vịtti - "yug” iti yojanam yuk. arthanīyaphalasya hetus tadyogo vyavasāyaḥ.” BP. (p. 212, line 1) : “vyavasāyaḥ sva-śaktyuktiḥ.” PR. (p. 80) : “pratijñā-hetu-samślistam vākyam vyavasāyaḥ.” NLRK. (p. 82): "pratijñā hetu-samślistam vākyam vyavasāyah.” RS. (p. 231, III. 65a) - "vyavasāyaḥ sva-sāmarthya-prakhyāpanam udīryate."
SD. (p. 379; VI. 103) : 'vyavasāyaś ca vijñeyaḥ pratijñā-hetu-sambhavah.” (6) 'Prasanga' is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 54; XIX. 91b) : “prasangaś caiva vijñeyah gurūņām parikīrtanam.” DR. (p. 50; I. 46) reads it at no. 7. - “gurukīrtanam prasangah." śr. Pra. (p. 521; XII) “a-prastutā’rtha-kathanam prasangah parikīrtitaḥ.” This is different from the NS. and also DR. ND. (p. 162; 1. 58) reads it at no. 2 -
"prasango mahatām kīrtiḥ." BP. (p. 211, line 22) follows the śr. Pra, and observes - . : "a-prastutártha-kathanam prasanga iti kathyate.” PR. (p. 80) : "guru-kīrtanam prasangaḥ.” NLRK. (p. 83) also follows the śş. Pra. & B.P. -
“a-prastutā’rtha-khyāpanam prasangah.” RS. (p. 231, III. 63, 649) : has something different. -
"prastutártha-pragamanam prasangaḥ parikīrtitaḥ." This is exactly opposite of Śr. Pra., BP. & NLRK. But it again says : "prasangam kathayanty anye gurūņām parikīrtanam."
This follows the NS., DR. etc. SD. (p. 380; VI. 104): "...prasango guru-kārtanam.”

Page #607

1782
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (7) Dyutih - read in NS., DR., śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 54; XIX. 92a) : "vākyam adharşa-samyuktam, dyutis taj-jñair udāhrtā.” Abh. - ādharșo nyakkāraḥ, tena samyuktam. DR. (p. 49; I. 46) reads it at no. 6 -
"tarjánódvejane dyutih.” - śr. Pra. (p. 522, XII) “vākyamādharşa-samyuktam dyutis taj-jñair udāhịtā.” ND. - reads it at no. 6 (p. 167, I. 59) -
"tiraskāro dyutih.” Vịtti adds : tarjanódvejane dyutim kecid icchanti. apare tu tarjanā”rsane dyutim manayante. tad etan mata-dvayam api arthā'bhedāt samgrhītam. evam anyad api sāksāt pāramparyeņa vā nyakkāra-param vākyam dyutir eva.” (pp. 167).
BP. (p. 211, line 21) - “tarjanódvejane dyutih”. PR. (p. 80) : "tarjanódvejane dyutih.”
NLRK. (p. 83) : tarjanā ādharsanā. adhiksepakstam vākyam dyutih."- dur uktipariņāmā āhutir atra abhimatā.
RS. (p. 231, III. 63a) : "dyutir nāına samuddistā tarjanóttejane budhaiḥ.”
SD. (p. 379, VI. 104a) : "tarjanódvejane proktā dyutih.” (8) kheda - is read in all sources except in DR., BP., PR. & RS. They do not read
pratişedha and chādana also. NS. (p. 54; XIX. 92b) : “manaśceștā-vinispannaḥ śramaḥ kheda udāhịtah."
śř. Pra. (p. 522; Ch. XII) defines it exactly after the NS. - “manaścestāvinişpannaḥ śramaḥ khedaḥ udāhstah”. ND. reads it at no. 7. (p. 167; 1. 59) -
“khedah oramah kāya-manodbhavah.” NLRK. (p. 83) - “manócestā-samutpannaḥ śramaḥ khedah."
SD. (p. 381; VI. 105a) : “manaścestā-samutpannaḥ śramaḥ kheda iti smstah.” (9) Prateședha not read in DR., BP., PR., & RS. NS., Śr. Pra., NLRK. & SD. read it. It is also termed ‘Nişedha'. ND. replaces 'pratiședha' by 'sambhrama'.
NS. (p. 55, XIX. 939) : “īpsitártha-pratīghātaḥ pratiśedhaḥ prakīrtitaḥ.” Śr. Pra. (p. 623, XII) same as NS.
ND. - has 'samrambha' in place of 'pratiședha' (p. 171, 1. 59) : “samrambhaḥ sakti-kirtanam."

Page #608

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1783 Vịtti has · samrabdhānām uttara-pratyuttareņa ātmaśakti-bhāsaņam samrambhaḥ."
This has nothing to do with 'pratiședḥa' of the NS. ND. observes that, “asamrabdhasyā’pi drśyate."
ND. also observes that : “samphețe krodhena bhasana-mātram, samrambhe tu bala-kīrtanam ity anayorbhedah."
The ND. is very clear that all anga-s in a given sandhi should be taken only as stray instances causing beauty. There are differences in angas in all samdhis, from the point of view of beauty involved, from the point of view of views of the seniors (vrddhas, i.e. Bharata etc.) and also from the angle of expression. So, in all sand his the anga-s are given in view of various illustrations only. There is nothing fixed concerning their number or naming : (p. 175; Vịtti) - "sarva-sandhişv api matántarāni vrddhóktatvāt, bhaniti-bhedāt, vaicitryasya rañjakatvāc ca pramānāny eva, ata eva sarva-sandhişvanga-samkhyā-karanam udāharana-param iti.” NLRK. (p. 84) follows the NS. and observes :
“īpsitártha-pratīghātaḥ pratiședhaḥ.” SD. (p. 382, VI. 105b) follows the NS. :
“īpsitártha-pratīghātaḥ pratiședha itisyate.” (10) Virodhana (also nirodhana; virodha)
All sources accept this. NS. (p. 55; XIX. 93b) : “kāryátyayópagamanam virodhanam iti smệtam.” The foot-note 2 has - bha. "uttaróttara-vākyam tu virodha iti samjñitaḥ.” da. - "virodhanam tu saņrambhāt uttaróttara-bhāṣaṇam." :
The Abh. reads ‘nirodhana'. DR. calls it “virodhanam”; (p. 52; I. 14) -
"samrabdhānām virodhanam." Śr. Pra. (p. 523, XII) follows The N.S. -
“kāryātyayópagamanam virodhanam iti smộtam.” ND. (p. 161); calls it ‘nirodha', but reads 'virodha' on p. 168, 1. 59 and explains it as : "virodhah prastutajyānih.” Vịtti - prastutasya kāryasya jyāniḥ atyayo virodha iva "virodhah". The ND. adds : "anye tu kheda-virodhau na manyante. vidravavicalane tu pathanti. tatra vidravah bandha-vadhā'dhy avasāyā"dih. ...atra svagunā"viskaranāt vicalanam iti.

Page #609

1784
SAHRDAYĀLOKA BP. (pp. 212, line 3) : “samrabdhānām avajñā yā tad virodhanam ucyate. PR. (p. 80) : “krodha-samrabdhānām anyónya-viksepo nirodhanam.” NLRK. (p. 84) "kāryātyayópagamanam virodhanam". RS. (p. 232, III. 65b) : "virodhanam nirodhóktiḥ śabdānām ca parasparam.”
SD. (p. 382; VI. 105) : “karyatyayópagamanam virodhanam iti smộtam.” (11) Adāna - is accepted by NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD. NS. (p. 55; XIX. 94a) “bīja-kāryópagamanam ātānam iti samjñitam.”
“Atāna" is the same as "ādāna." DR. reads it at no. 13. (p. 55; I. 48) :
“...ādānam kārya-samgrahah.” Śr. Pra. (p. 524; XII) : “bīja-kāryópagamanam ādānam iti samjñitam.”
ND. (p. 177; I. 60) : "phala-sāmipyam ādānam.” Vrtti - "mukhya-phalasya darśanam ādānam."
BP. (p. 212, line 6) : "ādānam kārya-samgrahaḥ.” PR. (p. 80) - "kārya-samgraha ādānam."
NLRK. (p. 84) - "bīja-karyópagamanam ādānam.” i.e. collection of actions that form the seed, or availability of means is "ādāna”.
BP. (p. 232; III. 66) : ādānam kārya-samgrahah.”
SD. (p. 384; VI. 106) “kārya-samgraha ādānam.” (12) Chadana (also, sādana). DR., BP., PR., & RS. do not accept this. ND. observes that some accept "Chalana” for 'Chādana'. NS. (p. 55; XIX. 94b) - "apamāna-krtam vākyam
kāryártham cchādanam bhavet.” Abh. observes (p. 55, 56) : "vākyam iti tad artho laksyate. karotiḥ bahumāne vartane, tena dusto'pyartho'pamānena bahumatīkstah. tad apamānakalankā'pacaranācchādanam iti." DR. has 'chalana' in place of 'chādana'. (p. 51; I. 46) :
"chalanam câ'vamānanam.” Dr. Kulkarni's observations as quoted earlier may be looked into once again.
Śr. Pra. (p. 505) mentions 'sādhana' which could be 'sādana'. But then this is not treated later and after 'ādāna' we read 'prarocana' (p. 524, Ch. XII)

Page #610

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1785 ND. (p. 165, I. 58) “chādanam manyu-mārjanam” . Vịtti - “manyur apamāno yena mārjyate tat chādanam.” ...anye tu - kāryártham a-sahyasyā’pyarthasya sahanam chādanam ā-mananti.
...Canye tv asya sthāne cchalanam avamānana-rūpam āhuḥ. apare tu chalanam sammoham icchanti. "
Thus a number of differences are noted with reference to this anga. BP. (p. 212, line 1) has "chalanam că’vamānanam." PR. (p. 80) has 'calana' - "upamānam tu calanam.” NLRK. (p. 85) has 'sādanam'.
"apamāna-krtam vākyam sādanam.” RS. (p. 231, III. 64) : "avamānā”di-karanam kāryántam chalanam viduḥ.” SD. (p. 384; VI. 106, 7): "...tad āhuś chádanam punaḥ
kāryártham apamānā”deḥ sahanam
khalu yad bhavet." (Read Dr. Kulkarni's comments as given earlier). (13) Prarocană is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 56; XIX. 95a) : “prarocanā tu vijñeyā samhārā’rtha pradarśinī.”
Abh. (p. 56) : “samhriyamāṇasya nirvāhyamāṇasya arthasya darśikā prakarșeņa rocata iti prarocanā."
DR. (p. 53, I. 47) : “siddhā”mantranato bhāvidarśikā syāt prarocanā.” Śs. Pra. (p. 524; Ch. XII) : “prarocană ca vijñeyā samhārā’rtha-pradarśanī.” ND. (p. 175; I. 60): "bhāvi-siddhiḥ prarocanā.”
Vrtti - “nirvahaņa-sandhau bhāvino’rthasya siddhiḥ, siddhatvena upakramanam, prakarșeņa rocyate dīpyate’nayā rūpakā'rtham iti prarocanā.”
BP. (p. 212, line 5) : "āmantraṇam yat sādhyasya siddhavat sā prarocanā.” PR. (p. 80) “siddhavad bhāvi-śreyah-kathanam prarocanam.” NLRK. (p. 85) (Kā. 94b) : “prarocană ca vijñeyā samhatā’rtha pradarśinī.” This follows the NS. & Śr. Pra., verbetim. RS. (p. 232; III. 66a) : “siddhavad bhāvinórthasya sūcanā syāt prarocanā.” SD. (p. 383; VI. 106a) : “prarocanā tu vijñeyā samhārā’rtha-pradarśinī.” This follows the NS., Verbetim.

Page #611

1786
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The Abh. (NS., p. 56) has some further observation : "yuktir ity anye vyavaharanti. atra uddeśa-kramatyāge yat keșāmcit angānām laksanam tat krama-a-niyama-sūcanárthárthaḥ. anena pāțha-viparyāsena yat-kaiścid uddeśasya anyathā-pathanam, tad-granthakāra-āśaya-a-parijñāna-kstam.
kecid atra anyatamam angam na-ādhīyate, dvādaśāngam eva etat-sandhim āhuḥ.
anye tu trayódasángatve’pi - asya nirvahaņa sandhāv api prasakter itivịttántarbhūtatvena gañanam anyāyyam iti trayodasángatvāt catuhsasti-samrūpām samarthayante.
The DR., BP., PR. & RS. do not recognise the three anga-s viz. kheda, pratiședha and chādana. These three are replaced by vidrava, vicalana and chalana. They are read as -
Vidrava - DR. (p. 47, I. 45) - "vidravo vadha-bandhā”diņi. BP. (p. 211; line 20) “vidravo vadha-bandhā”diḥ.” PR. (p. 80) : "vadha-bandhā"dikam vidravah." RS. (p. 230; III. 61a) : “virodha-vadha-dāhā'dir vidravaḥ parikīrtitah.” “Vicalana" - DR. (p. 54, I. 48) : "vikatthanā vicalanam.” BP. (p. 212; line 6) - "vikatthanā vicalanam." PR. (p. 80) : "sva-guņā"vişkaraṇam vicalanam." PR. (p. 80) : “sva-guņā”vişkaraṇam vicalanam.” RS. (p. 232, III. 66b) : "ātmā"lābād vicalanam." “Chalana" - DR. (p. 51; I. 46) "chalanam cā'vamānanam." BP. (p. 212; line 1) "chalanam cā’vamānanam." PR. (p. 80) has 'calanam' defined as - "upamānam calanam.” This is a new anga. RS. - (p. 231; IV. 64b) : “avamānā”di-karaṇam kāryántam chalanam viduḥ.”
See also Dr. Kulkarņi's observations as quoted earlier. It may be noted that there are a number of differences in the avamarśa-sandhyanga-s and this is also noted by the Abh. as seen above. ND. also observes (p. 178) : “kecid anyatamāngā’nangīkāreņa dvādaśangam eva ekam sandhim icchanti. evam garbhasandhim api. etāny avamaría-sandhes trayodaśāny angāni.”

Page #612

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1787 Anga-s of the Nirvahaņa-sandhi are 13, as follows : (1) Sandhi - is read in all the sources consulted by us, except NLRK.
NS. (p. 57; XIX. 97a) : “mukhabījópagamnam sandhir ity abhidhīyate.” DR. (p. 56; I. 51) : “sandhir bījópagamanam.” Śs. Pra. (p. 525) "camūr (mukha) bījópagamanam sandhir ity abhidhiyate.”
'camūḥ' seems to be a mistake. ND. (p. 179; I. 62) : sandhir-bīja-phalā”gamaḥ.”
Vịtti - “mukha-sandhau nyastasya prārambhā’vasthā-visayīkstasya bījasya udghātaunmukhyādyair vikāraiḥ phale, phalā"gamā”vasthāyām āgamanam dhaukanam sandhiḥ."
BP. (p. 212, line 18) “sandhir bījópagamanami”. This is DR.(see above). PR. (p. 81) : “bījópaśamnam sandhiḥ.” NLRK. (p. 86) has “arthah” for 'sandhi' -
“tatra pradhānā’rthópaksepaḥ arthaḥ.” RS. (p. 233; III. 70a) : "sandhir bījópagamaḥ.”
SD. (p. 385; VI. 109) - “bījópagamanam sandhiḥ.” (2) Nirodha - is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 57, 98a XIX) “kāryasyā’nveṣaṇam yuktyā nirodha iti kīrtitaḥ. DR. (p. 57; I. 51) calls it “vibodha”.
"vibodhaḥ karya-mārganam." śr. Pra. (p. 525; XII) : 'anyasya' (This should read “kāryasya)
"anyasyā’nvesanam yuktyā
nirodha iti kīrtitah.” The illustration from Ratnāvalī is also read in the DR. and the A.bh. ND. (p. 179; I. 63) : “nirodhaḥ kārya-mīmāmsā.”
Vịtti explains : nastasya kāryasya yuktaye yad anveṣaṇam tan niruddha-vastuvişayatvān nirodhaḥ.”
BP. also reads 'vibodha', after the DR. (p. 212; line 18) : "vibodhaḥ kāryamārganam.”
PR. (p. 80, 81) reads "virodhah” for 'vibodhaḥ. “kārya-mārganam virodhaḥ.”

Page #613

1788
SAHRDAYĀLOKA NLRK. calls it "anuyoga” and reads it at no. 9. “yukta-kāryā’nvesanam anuyogah."
Name given is different; the concept is the same. RS. - also calls it 'virodha'. (p. 233; III. 70) : “kāryasyā’nveṣaṇam virodhaḥ syāt.” SD. (p. 385; VI. 109) calls it 'vibodha'.
"vibodhaḥ kāryamārganam." Thus for this sandhyanga we have four names such as ‘nirodha', 'virodha', 'vibodha' and 'anuyoga'. (3) Grathanam : read in NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 57; XIX. 98b) : "upaksepas tu kāryāņām grathanam parikirtitam.” The foot-note 7 - reads (p. 57) : bha. - prasavam nāma tad bhavet. DR. (p. 57, I. 51) - "grathanam tad upaksepah.” śr. Pra. (p. 525, XII) : "upakṣepast tu kāryāņam grathanam parikīrtitam.” ND. (p. 180; I. 63) “grathanam kārya-darśanam."
Vịtti : “kāryam mukhya-phalam. grathyate sambadhyate vyāpāreņa mukhyaphalam anena iti grathanam."
BP. (p. 212, line 19) : “grathanam tad upaksepaḥ." tacchabdaḥ kārya-vācakaḥ.” PR. (p. 81) : “kāryópakṣepanam grathanam." NLRK. (p. 86) : “kāryāņām bahūnām upaksepo grathanam." RS. (p. 234; III. 71): "grathanam tad upaksepah.”
SD. (p. 386; VI. 110) : "upanyāsas tu kāryāņām grathanam..." (4) 'Nirņaya' is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 57, XIX. 99a) : “anubhūtā’rtha kathanam nirņayaḥ samudāhstaḥ.” Abh. - "pramāņa-siddhasya vastunaḥ kathanam ity arthah.” DR. (p. 58, I. 51) : "anubhūtā”khyā tu nirnayah.” śp. Pra. (p. 526, XII) : “anubhūtā’rtha-kathanam nirņayaḥ samudāhstah.” ND. (p. 181; I. 63) : “nirņayo'nubhava-khyāti).”
Vrtti (p. 81) reads : jñeye’rthe sandihānam apratipadyamānam vā prati, yad anubhavasya, anubhūtasya arthasya nirnayártham kathanam tat jñeya'rthanirnayāt nirnayah.”

Page #614

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1789 BP. (p. 212, line 20): “nirņayasty anubhūtā”khyaḥ punaḥ punar itīritah.” PR. (p. 81) : “bījā'nuguņa-kārya-prakhyāpanam nirnayah." NLRK. (p. 87): 'anubhūtā’rtha-kathanam nirnayah." RS. (p. 234; III. 70) : “...syād anubhūtasya nirnayaḥ kathanam.” SD. (p. 386; VI. 110, 111a) :
“...nirņayaḥ punaḥ” anubhūtā’rtha-kathanam.” (5) 'Paribhāṣaṇa' is read in the NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 58) (XIX. 99b) - “parivāda-krtam yat syāt tad āhuḥ paribhāṣaṇam.” DR. (p. 58; I. 52) : “paribhāṣā mitho jalpaḥ.” Śr. Pra. (p. 526; XII) : “parivāda-krtam yat syāt tad āhuḥ paribhāsaņam.” ND. (p. 182, I. 63) “paribhāsā sva-bhāṣaṇam.” Vịtti - "svā’parādhódghattanam paribhāṣā.” (p. 182)
BP. (p. 212, line 21) - It follows the NS. verbetim in place of the DR. and also calls it ‘paribhāsaņa'. DR. & ND. call it “pari-bhāṣā”. BP. reads : “parivāda-kặtam yat syāt tad āhuḥ paribhāsaņam. BP. also reads : “paribhāṣā mitho jalpaḥ."
PR. (p. 81) : “mitho jalpanam paribhāsā.” This follows the DR. only terminology differs, not the concept...
NLRK. (p. 87) - “parivāda-kstam paribhāṣaṇam." RS. (p. 234; III. 71a) - paibhāṣā tv anyonyam jalpanam athavā parivādah.”
SD. (p.. 387, VI. 111) : “...vadanti paribhāṣaṇam parivāda-krtam vākyam.” (6) Dyuti - (Krti) - is read in NS., Śr. Pra.; Kști - for dyuti is read in DR., ND., BP.,
PR., RS., SD., NLRK. has “dyuti.” NS. (p. 58; XIX. 100a) : “labdhasyā’rthasya śamanam dyutim acakşate punaḥ.”
Abh. (p. 58): sāmarthyāt praśamanīyasya krodhāder arthasya prāptasyā’pi yat praśamanam să dyutih. - DR. (p. 60, I. 53) reads “kstiḥ”.
- “krtir labdhā’rtha-samanam.” śr. Pra. (p. 527) - “īrsyā-kopa-praśamanam dyutim ācakṣate budhāḥ.” The reading "irşyā...” follows foot-note. 3. (p. 58, NS.)
- “pa - "īrsyākopópaśamanam."

Page #615

1790
SAHRDAYĀLOKA ND. also reads "kşti”. (p. 184; I. 64) : “kştiḥ kṣemam"; Vrtti - “labdhasya paripālanam kşemah.”
This is a new concept. Vịtti also reads - "anye punar asya sthāne prāptasya prātikulya-samanam dyutim āhuḥ.” - This is a reference to the NS. view. BP. follows the DR. (p. 213, line 2) -
"krtir labdhā'rtha-samanam
tat sthirī-karanam tu vā.” PR. (p. 81) : "labdha-sthirikaranam kṛtiḥ.” The BP. & PR. seem to be closer to the ND. NLRK. (p. 87) : “īrșyā-kleşópaśamanam dyutiḥ.” This follows the alternate reading as given in the NS., noted as above. RS. has 'kști' (p. 235, III. 72b). “kstir atha labdhártha-susthirīkaraṇam.” This is closer to BP. & ND...
SD. also has 'kşti' - "...labdhártha-samanam krtiḥ.” (7) Ānanda - is read in all sources. NS. (p. 58; XIX. 100b) : "samāgamas tathā’rthānām
änandaḥ parikīrtitaḥ." Abh. : arthitasya tathā iti prakāraśataiḥ prārthitasya samyag a-punarviyogavad yad āgamanam tad ānada-hetutvād ānandaḥ."
DR. (p. 59, I. 52) : "ānando vāñchitā”vāptih”, śr. Pra. (p. 527; XII) : “samāgamas tathā’rthānām ānandaḥ parikīrtitah.” ND. (p. 186; I. 64) : "ānando vāñchitā”gamaḥ.”
Vịtti - "prakāraśatair vāñchitasya arthasya sāmastyena agamaḥ prāptiḥ, ănanda-hetutsad ãnandah.”
BP. (p. 213, line 1) : "ānando vāñchitā"vāptiḥ." PR. (p. 81): “vãichitārtha präptir anandah.” NLRK. (p. 88) : “võichitārthaogamah ănandah.” RS. (p. 235, III. 72a) : “abhilaşitā’rtha-samāgamam anandam prāhur ācāryāḥ.” SD. (p. 287) (VI. 112) "...ānando vāñchitā”gamaḥ."

Page #616

“Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1791 (8) Samaya - is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 59, XIX. 101a) : "duḥkhasyā’pagamo yas tu samayaḥ sa nigadyate." DR. (p. 60, I. 52) - “...samayo duḥkha-nirgamaḥ.” Śr. Pra. (p. 528, XII) “duḥkhasyópaśamaś caiva samayótha nigadyate.” ND. (p. 187, I. 64) : “samayo duḥkha-nirvāsaḥ.” Vịtti - “duḥkha-nirgama-yuktaḥ kālaḥ, samayaḥ.” BP. (p. 213, line 1) : “samayo duḥkha-nirgamaḥ.” PR. (p. 81): "duḥkha-praśamanam samayaḥ.” This is slightly different from NS. & others RS. (p. 235, III. 72b) : “samayo duḥkhā’pagamaḥ.”
SD. (p. 287, VI. 112) : “samayo duḥkha-niryānam.” (9) Prasāda is read in all sources. ND. terms it "upāsti”.
NS. (p. 59, XIX. 101b) : “suśrūṣādy upasampannaḥ prasādah prītir ucyate.” DR. (p. 59, I. 52) : “prasādaḥ paryupāsanam.” Śr. Pra. (p. 527, XII) : “suśrūsādy upasampannaḥ prasāda iti kīrtitaḥ.” ND. (p. 183; I. 64) terms it “upāsti” (= upāsanā), “sevā upāsti.” Vịtti - (p. 183) : "sevā para-prasatti-hetur-vyāpāraḥ.” - "That activity which pleases others.” BP. (p. 212, line 22) - “prasādaḥ paryupāsanam.” PR. (p. 81) : “paryupāsanam prasādah.” NLRK. (p. 88): "suśrūṣā”dy upapannā'rthaḥ prasādah.” RS. (p. 234, III. 71b) : śuśrūsā”di-prāptam prasādam āhuḥ prasannatvam.”
SD. (p. 387, VI. 112) : "śuśrūṣā"diḥ prasādaḥ syāt.” (10) Upagūhana : read in NS., DR., Śr. Pra., ND., BP., PR., NLRK., RS. & SD.
NS. (p. 59, XIX 102a): "adbhutasya tu samprāptiḥ upagūhanam isyate.”
DR. (p. 61, I. 53b) treats 'pūrvabhāva' and 'upagūhana' together : "kāryadrsyadbhutaprāpti pūrvabhāvópagūhane."
Avaloka (p. 62) has “kāryadarśanam pūrva-bhāvaḥ” “adbhuta-prāptiḥ upagūhanam."
śr. Pra. (p. 528, XII) : "adbhutasya ca samprāptiḥ bhavet tad upagūhanam."

Page #617

1792
SAHRDAYALOKA ND. (p. 187) terms it ‘parigūhana', and also (I. 64) - "adbhutā”ptiḥ parigūhana', and also 'upagūhana'.
Vịtti (p. 188) - "vismaya-sthāyi-bhāvā”tmakasya adbhuta-rasasya prāptir upagūhanam."
BP. (p. 213, line 4) also treats, 'pūrva-bhāva' and 'upagūhana' together in the same terms as the DR. :
“kāryadssty adbhutaprāptiḥ pūrvabhāvópa-gūhane." PR. (p. 81) : "adbhutā’rtha-prāptir upagūhanam.” NLRK. (p. 89) : "adbhuta-prāptir upagūhanam.”
RS. (p. 236, III. 73a) terms ‘upagūhanam' as ‘upagūờha' “upagūdham adbhutaprāptih."
SD. (p. 388, VI. 112, 113) : "....tad bhaved upagūhanam, yat syâd adbhutasamprāpti).” (11) Bhāṣaṇa - is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 59, XIX. 102b) : “sāma-dānā”di-sampannam bhāsaņam samudāhstam.”
Abh. (p. 59) : yadyapi tadā’rthépi samgrahākhyam idam angam uktam tathā’py atra sthānévaśyam prayoktavyatā khyāpayitum punar upādānam śabdántarena ca."
DR. (p. 61, I. 53) - “mānā”dyūptiś ca bhāsaņam.” This is a different sense then the one taken by NS. Śs. Pra. (p. 528, XII) : “sāma-dānā”di-sampannam bhāṣaṇam bruvate budhāḥ.” ND. (p. 190, I. 65) : "bhāsaņam sāma-dānóktih.”
Vịtti - sāmno vacanam, dadataś ca vacanam. ābhyām upalaksaņa-paratvāt priyam hitam ca gļhyate.”
BP. (p. 213, line 3) : “mānā”dyarthasya samprāptir bhāşeti paribhāșyate.” PR. (p. 81) - “prāpta-kāryánumodanam ābhāsaņam." NLRK. (p. 89) - "sāma-vādā"di-sampannam bhāṣaṇam bhāṣaṇam." BP. (p. 235, III. 73) : “bahumānād výākhyānam bhāsaņam.” SD. (p. 388; VI. 113) :"..sama-dānā”di bhāsaņam."

Page #618

“Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1793 (12) Pūrvavākya - is read in NS.,
NS. (p. 60, XIX. 103a) : “pūrva-vākyam tu vijñeyam yathóktā’rthapradarśanam."
DR. treats it as 'pūrva-bhāva' with upagūhana. See. no. 10. See also Dr. Kulkarņi's observations as quoted earlier. Śs. Pra. (p. 529, XII) : “pūrva-vākyam tu vijñeyam
yathóktā”ksepa-darśanam.” This reading follows the NS. (foot-note 1 - "punar vākyam - ...yathóktā”ksepadarśanam."
ND. (p. 191, 1. 65) calls it “pūrva-bhāvah” and defines after the DR. - “prāgbhāvaḥ krtya-darśanam.” The ND. suggests that this 'anga' is different from 'pūrva-vākya'. (Vrtti., p. 192 : “mukha-sandhy ady-ukta-vākya-sadrśa-vākya darśanam pūrvavākyam angam asya sthāne kecid amananti.” This clearly refers to the NS.
BP. (p. 213, line 4) also treats “pūrva-bhāva” with 'upagūhana', after the DR. See no. 10.
PR. (p. 81) has - "ista-kārya-darśanam pūrva-bhāvaḥ.” This also follows the DR., BP. NLRK. (p. 89) has - "bījódghāganam pūrvavākyam.” This follows the NS. RS. follows the DR. (p. 236, III. 73b) :
“tad upakramana-kāryasya
syād drstih pūrva-bhāvas tu.” SD. follows the NS. (p. 388, VI. 113) :
“pūrva-vākyam tu vijñeyam
yathóktā'rthópa-darśanam." (13) "Kāvyasamhāra' is read in all sources.
NS. (p. 60, XIX. 103b) - "vara-pradāna-samprāptiḥ kāvya-samhāra isyate.” DR. (p. 62, I. 54) - “varā”ptiḥ kārya-samhāraḥ." śr. Pra. (p. 529, XII) : "vara-pradāna-samprāptiḥ kāvya-samhāra isyate." ND. (p. 193, I. 65) : “varecchā kāvya-samhāraḥ.”
Vịtti (p. 193) observes : “īpsitam dātum abhilāso varecchā. taj janito "bhūyaḥ kim te priyam upakaromi’ iti praśna ity arthaḥ sa ca grahitari a-pratīcchati,

Page #619

1794
SAHRDAYĀLOKA praticchati ca sampādayitur bhūyasim icchām darśayitum nibadhyate. tatra sati sarvasminn eva īpsite sampanne prastutam kāyyam eva samhriyate iti "kavyasamhāraḥ.” The vȚtti notes at the end. : (p. 195) : “idam angam avaśyam nibandhaniyam praśastināntarīyakatvāt, iti.”
BP. (p. 213, line 5) : “vara-pradāna-lābhā'diḥ kārya-samhāra ucyate.” PR. (p. 81) : “kāryā’rthópa-samhștiḥ samhāraḥ.” NLRK. (p. 90): "varapradāna-samprāptiḥ kävya-samhāraḥ." .
RS. (p. 237, III. 74-a) : “dharmā’rthādy upagamanād upasamhāraḥ krtárthatākathanam..."
SD. (p. 389, VI. 114) : “varapradāna-samprāptiḥ kāvya-samhāra isyate.” (14) Praśastiḥ. This is read in all sources. Read Dr. Kulkarni's observations as quoted above. - NS. (p. 61, XIX. 104a) : “n;pa-deśa-praśāntiś ca praśastir abhidhīyate."
DR. (p. 63, I. 54) : “prasastiḥ śubha-samsanam.”
Śr. Pra. (p. 505) mentions 'praśastyā”dir ityā”di' but does not treat the same at the end.
ND. (p. 195, I. 65) : "praśastiḥ śubhaśmsanā.”
Vịtti observes : (p. 196) : iyam cā’vaśyam nibandhanīyā. tathā iti-vșttántarbhūtā céyam. tenásyāḥ prthag ganane catușașțir api anga-samkhyā bhavati.
BP. (p. 213, line 6) : “praśastir vīrya-vijaya-mangalā”di-praśamsanam. PR. (p. 81) : "śubha-samsanam praśastiḥ.”
NLRK. (p. 90): “nrpa-dvijāti-gavā"dīnām śivā’vadhāraṇa-pūrvam kāvyasya avadhāraṇam praśastiḥ."
RS. (p. 237, III. 74b) : bharataiścarā'carāņām āsīrāśamsanam prasastiḥ syāt.” SD. (p. 389; VI. 114b) : "npa-deśā”di-śāntis tu prasastir abhidhīyate."
With this the treatment of the 64 sandhyangas is over. We have already taken note of the six-fold purpose of the Sandhyanga-s earlier. The fact remains that these sandhyanga-s deal more with accidents rather than with essentials and broadly speaking, as they add to the beauty of a dramatic composition, they may be termed "alamkara-s” in the wider sense of the term, as suggested by Dandin.

Page #620

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1795
Types of drama We will now turn our attention to the characterstics of the ten major types of drama - the daśa-rūpaka and will also furnish definition-cum-description as given by the NS., DR., ND., BP., NLRK., RS. and SD. Normally there is hardly any difference seen in the concepts. So, first we will try to present the concepts that are seen as common to almost all sources and at the end we will read definitions from selected sources to complete our chapter of classification of poetry, here "daśa-rūpakavicăra" or "nätaka-nirnava." . We will deal with the ten major types of drama here. Hemacandra and Bhoja quote from the NS. So, they are not treated separately. (1) NĀȚAKA :
The Nāțaka depicts an event or events in the life of a prince who is of a noble lineage (prakhyāta-vamso rājarșih). Nāțaka deals only with the past and not with present or future. The poet, for dramatic effect prefers the presentation of certain events and rejects or modifies others to suit his purpose of 'rasa'. He may even add imagined events to suit the high profile of his hero.
The hero has to be a distinguished historical figure such as Udayana of Kauśāmbi, or a figure from tradition such as Agnimitra, or hero from the epics such as the Rāmāyana or the Mahābhārata, or Purānas.
Abhinavagupta observes that the distinction may be in form of a quality of the hero, or of the action or of the place of action. The ND. takes these three as interdependent. The BP., SD. and some others observe that the nataka should have a hero who is of "dhīródātta" type only. Others feel that the nāyaka can be dhīra-lalita' also. Hemacandra however feels that one and the same hero may look as belonging to different types with reference to context. Dhanika also feels it this way. The hero is again expected to be a saintly prince - "rājarși”. Thus he has qualities of a balanced view, devoutness of character etc. 'Rāja' means a ‘ksatriya', as explained by the ND. SD. observes that the hero of a nātaka should also be a mortal, a divine or a pseudodivine person. But Bharata wants him to be a human being.
As for the plot, place and nature of the hero, the motive and the sentiments prevailing as principal, Bharata suggests that the nātaka should end with the achievements of the purusárthas viz. dharma, artha and kāma. The activities of the hero should keep in centre various kinds of prosperity (nānā-vibhūti). These several vibhūti-s include dharma, artha, kama, which bring in wealth and pleasure. This is the main motif of the dramatic action. Thus Bharata holds that nātaka should

Page #621

1796
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
contain elements of prosperity-riddhi and enjoyment - vilāsa. Abhinavagupta explains 'riddhi' as acquisition of kingdom, conquest over foes, etc., and pleasure includes all sensual enjoyments and pursuit of fine arts.
The determination of the object of hero's pursuit leads to the central point viz. the rasa that should be principal. With 'artha' and 'kāma' in centre, the sentiment will be 'vīra' or 'srngāra' as principal. Other sentiments can be subsidiary to these. Bharata holds that a nāțaka is full of a number of activities and displays diverse sentiments and feelings. Nāțaka is rich in different behaviour-patterns or vịtti-s with reference to the various sentiments and emotions presented.
The nāțaka should have its theme or plot divided into five to ten acts (ankas) with various sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s properly displayed.
The definitions of 'nātaka' as read in some of the major sources are as follows:
NS. of Bharata - (The śļ. Pra. & Hemacandra accept the NS. verbetim) : • (Ch. XVIII. 10-12) :
"prakhyāta-vastu-visayam prakhyātódātta-nāyakam caiva, rājarși-vamśya-caritam tathaiva divyā”śrayópetam. nānā-vibhūtibhiryutam rddhi-vilāsā”dibhir guṇaiścaiva, anka-praveśakā”dhyam bhavati hi tan nāțakam nāma. nļpatīnām yac caritam nānā-rasa-bhāva-cestitam bahudhā, sukha-duḥkhótpatti-kstam
bhavati hi tan nāțakam nāma." Dr. Bhat (p. 115, Bharata-nātya-mañjarī) observes in foot-note 4, : “The expectation about a well-known plot and exalted type of hero is natural. Aristotle's prescription of tragic drama is similar. Heroes like Rāma, Krsna, Udayana, Dusyanta fulfil the peculiar requirement. The divine characters are used in the nātaka form only in smaller episodes (patākā or prakarī) as, for example, the divine Bhagavati Ambā in the Nāgānanda. The reason, Abhinava explains, is that devacarita' is not very suitable for dramatic representation intended for human

Page #622

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1797 appreciation; if it is connected with vipralambha, karuņa, adbhuta, it will not differ very much from human emotions; besides, the gods have no unhappiness or misery; human response thus is difficult to be obtained. Types like Dima, Samavakāra, which use heroic themes, are alone proper for divine characters."
The DR. - The DR., as done in the NS. also, has treated the whole structure of the drama as seen earlier by us. However, it talks of 'nātaka' in the beginning of the third flash. DR. observes : (III. 1)
“prakstitvād athā’nyeşam bhūyo-rasa-parigrahāt, sampūrņa-lakṣaṇatvāc ca pūrvam nāțakam ucyate.” Then DR. III. 22-27 observe - esām anyatamenā’rtham pātram cā’kşipya sūtrabhịt. - 21b. prastāvanánte nirgacchet (sūtradhāraḥ) tato vastu prapañcayet. 22-a tatra, abhigamya-guņair yukto dhīródāttaḥ pratāpavān - 22b. kīrtikāmo mahótsāhas trayyās trātā mahīpatiḥ prakhyāta-vamśyo rājarșiḥ divyo vā, yatra nāyakaḥ. - 23 tat prakhyātam vidhātavyam vrttam atrā'dhikārikam, yat tatrā’nucitam kiñcin nāyakasya rasasya vā - 24 viruddham tat parityājyam anyathā vā prakalpayet. ädyantam evam niścitya, pancandhā tad vibhajya ca - 25

Page #623

1798
SAHRDAYĀLOKA khandaśaḥ sandhi-samjñāns tān vibhāgān api khandayet. catuḥsașțis tu tāni syuḥ angānity aparam punaḥ. - 26 patākā-vșttam apgūnam ekā"dyair anu-samdhibhih angāny atra yathālābham
abhisandhim prakarīm nyaset. - 27 etc. DR. then goes on to define or explain ‘anka' i.e. act, etc. We will look into the same when we take up the ND. which has a more methodical, mature and scientific presentation.
ND. - In the first viveka the ND. treats of "nātaka", with all its topics. Thus ‘anka', 'viskambhaka etc.' 'upāya-s i.e. bīja”, etc. daśā i.e. avasthās, sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s are treated in the first chapter. The topics connected with nataka, or rūpaka in general follow like flowers and fruits following buds. The presentation reminds us of the great Vāgdevatāvatāra Mammata, who has given chapters treating different topics as mentioned in the definition of ‘kāvya'.
The ND. also follows the same technique. The definition of nataka follows after first (ND. 1/3) enumerating the types of major rūpakas that are twelve - in the opinion of the authors. Nāțaka is defined as (ND. I. 5) -
“khyātā"dya-rāja-caritam dharma-kāryártha-sat-phalam, sā’nkopāya-daśā-sandhi
divyángam tatra nāțakam." The Vștti reads : "khyātā"dya-rājasya caritam yatra ity anyapadārthaḥ. iha khyātatvam tridhā nāmnā, ceșțitena, desena ca. kauśāmbyām caritam vatsarājena eva rañjakam. caritam api vatsarājasya, kausāmbyām vāsavadattā-läbhā"dikam eva. vāsavadattā lābhā"dikam vatsarājasya kauśāmbyām eva.
carita-khyātatvam ca pradhāna caritā’pekṣayā. tatas tad anuyāyīni rañjakatvā'rtham akhyātāny api caritāni kriyante. tena bahusu rāma-prabandhesu sītā-haraņā”nayanópāyānām' yuddhānām gauņa-pātrāņi. apareșām ca bhaạitivišesā"dīnām bhedépi na virodhah.

Page #624

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1799
ādyéti pūrvah, tena vartamāna-bhavisyator nirāsah. kavină hi ranjanā'rtham kiñcit sad apy upeksyate, kiñcid asad apy adriyate, vartamāne ca netari, tatkāla prasiddhi-bādhayā rasahāniḥ syāt. pūrva-mahāpuruşa-cariteșu ca a-śraddhānam syāt. bhavisyatas tu vrttam caritam api na bhavati, 'caryate sma caritam' iry atītanirdeśāt.
‘rajā'iti ksatriya-mātram, na punar abhişikta eva. rāma-jīmūtavāhana - pārthā"dīnām anabhişiktānām api darśanāt. ksatriyo martya eva, tena na devanetộkam nātakam ity uktam bhavati, nātakam rāmavad-vartitavyam na rāvanavat ity upadeśaparam. devatānām tu durupapādasya apy arthasya icchāmātrata eva siddhir iti taccaritam aśakyā'nusthānatvān na martyānām upadeśayogyam. tena ye divyam api netāram manyante na te samyag amamsata iti.
nāyikā tu divyā’pi bhavati yathā urvaśī. pradhāne martyacarite tac caritantarbhāvāt. upadeśā'narhaprāya-vrttatvena dīpta-rasatvenaiva ca samavakārā”dau divyo'pi netā na viruddhyate. caritam ity ācaritam, na tu kavibuddhi-kalpitam. bāhulyā’peksam caitat, tena alpam kim api rañjakam kalpitam api na dosāya iti.
dharma-kāma-arthā vyasta-samastāḥ sat pradhānam phalam yatra. mokşas tu dharma-kāryatvāt gaunam phalam. santo’cira-bhāvitväd vartamānā vā dharmaartha-kāmāḥ phalam. tena bhāvi kāmārtha-phalatvād āgamā na nāțakam.
tatra dharma-phale nāțake dayā-dama-dāna-nyāya-prāyam drsta-phalam ca rājyādy abādhayā netuś caritam vyutpădyate. na punaḥ sarva-sanga-parityāgam krtvā vratam ācaritam ity āmuşmika-phalam eva. sākṣād-dssta-phalārthi hi lokaḥ.
kāmaphale ca divya-kula-strīsambhoga-sangitaka-kāmacāra-upavanavihāraprāyam. artha-phale ca satrūccheda-sandhi-vigrahā"di-rājya-cintā-prāyam iti.
'sānka' iti anka-upāya-daśā-sandhibhir-vaksyamānaiḥ saha vartate. 'divyāngam' iti divyam devatā anyo'pi ca uttamaḥ pradhānasya netur angam, sadhāyah, patākāprakari-nāyaka-laksaņo yatra. divyo hi netā eva virudhyate na punaḥ sahāyah atyanta-bhaktānām eva nāma devatāh prasīdanti iti devatā"rādhana-purah-saram upāyā’nusthānam ādheyam iti vyutpādanártham divyo’py angatvena kāryaḥ.
tatra devata yathā nāgānande gaurī. uttama-prakrtir yathā rāma"diprabandheșu sugrīvā”dir iti. yad vā divyāni anavadyāni angāni vaksyamāṇāni upaksepā"dīni yatra.
tatra iti nirdhāraṇā’rthaḥ abhineya-samudāyāt pradhāna-puruṣārtha-pravṛttavineya-rājā"di-vyutpädana-gunena nāțakam nirdhāryate. nārakam iti nātayati vicitram ranjanāpraveśena sabhyānām hrdayam nartayati iti nāțakam.

Page #625

1800
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA abhinavaguptas tu namanā’rthasyā’pi națer nāțaka-sabdam vyutpādayati. tatra tu ghatāditvena hļsvā bhāvaś cintyaḥ.”
yady api kathā”dayo'pi śrotr-hțdayam nātayanti tathā’pi ankopāyādīnām vaicitrya-hetūnām abhāvāt na tathā rañjakatvam iti na te nātakam. tathā nātakam pradhāna-puruṣārtheșu rājñām tad-anga-bhūtānām ca bahūnām vyutpādakam iti katipaya-vyutpādakāni prakaraņā"dīny api na nātakam iti.”
The definition and analysis are more perfect and scientific as compared to other sources of dramaturgy.
We will not quote everything from the BP., but the BP. has mentioned five special types of drama which need mention. The reference from BP. to this effect reads as -
In the VIII. th Ch. Śāradātanaya begins with the enumeration of 30 types of rūpakas, which include what we call upa-rūpaka-s also, which are discussed earlier (Ch. X). Then he comes to nāțaka and talks of the number of 'anka-s' in nătaka and prakarana. Then after dealing with topics connected with nāțaka in general he comes to the five-fold classification of nātaka from the point of view of Subandhu. It may be noted that Sā. has recorded a number traditions not mentioned in other sources. The five-fold nātaka is explained on pp. 238 (line 15) - 241 (line 4). This reads as :pp. 238 (line 15) :
subandhur nātakasyā’pi lakṣaṇam prāha pañcadhā, pūrņam caiva praśāntam ca bhāsvaram lalitam tathā samagram iti vijñeyā nāțake pañca jātayaḥ (line 17). pūrņasya nāțakasyā’sya mukhādyā pañca sandhayaḥ. udāharaṇam etasya krtyārāvanam ucyate. praśānta-rasa-bhūyiṣtham praśāntam nāma nāțakam. (line 20) nyāso nyāsa-samudbhedo bījóktir bīja-darśanam,

Page #626

• 1801
"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
tato'nuddista-samhāraḥ praśānte pañca sandhayaḥ." (line 22) (p. 239, lines - 1-22) sāttvatī-vșttir atra syād iti drauhinir abravīt. svapnavāsavadattā"khyam udāharanam atra tu. ācchidya bhūpāt sa-vyasanā devī māgadhikā-kare nyastā, yatas tato nyāso mukha-sandhir ayam bhavet. nyāsasya ca pratimukham samudbheda udāhịtah, - 5 padmāvatyā mukham vīksya višeşaka-vibhūșitam. jīvatyāvantikety etat jñātam bhūmibhujā yathā, utkanthitena sódvegam bījoktir nāma-kīrtanam. ehi vāsavadatte kva kva yāsīty ādi drśyate, sahā'vasthitayor ekaprāptyā’nyasya gavesaņam 10 darśana-sparśanālāpair etat syād bīja-darśanam. "cira-prasuptaḥ kāmo me viņayā pratibodhitaḥ tām tu devīm na paśyāmi yasyāḥ ghoṣavati priya.” kim te bhūyaḥ priyam kuryām

Page #627

1802
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
iti vāg yatra nocyate, tam anuddista-samhāram ityāhur bharatā"dayaḥ - 15 mālā-nāyaka-siddhyangaglānis tasyāḥ pariksayaḥ mātrā'vaśisţa-samhāre bhāsvare pañca-sandhayaḥ. ekasminnāyake khyāte tat-sāmānya-pratāpa-vān, yadi syāt pratipakşaś ca sā māleti prakīrtitā. yathā hi candraguptasya na(ca)ndanaḥ prati-pūruṣaḥ. 20 nāyakam chalayitvestasiddhir yā paripanthinaḥ eşā nāyaka-siddhiḥ syān māriceneva rāvaṇaḥ.” - 22 (p. 240; lines 1-22) - garbhasyāngair vimardādidarśanam glānir isyate. kapibhir vāridhim uttīrya lankā-vestanam eva tat. pariksayo'tra nohā"dir nāyakasya ripor balāt sa nāgapāśa-bandhā'di rāma-lakṣmaṇayor iva. mātrā'vašista-samhärasandhir ekam tu nāțake - 5 śatrubandīkrta-strīņām tasya śatror vadhād atha.

Page #628

1803
"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
tat-parīksā-sthitir mātrā' vasistam iti kathyate, yathā sītā-parikseva rāvaņā’nantare krtā. bhārati-vștti-bhūyistham vira'dbhuta-rasā'śrayam bhāsvaram nātakam bāla-rāmāyaṇam idam yathā. - 10 lalitam kaisikīvșttiśrngāraika-rasa"śrayam, urvaśī-vipralambho'tra tad udāharaṇam yathā (lines 11-12) vilāso vipralambhaś ca viprayogo viśodhanam, uddistā’rtho’pa-samhāro lalite pañca-sandhayaḥ. (lines 13-14) vilāso nāyakā”dīnām yathartu rati-sevanam - 15 yathā śrī-vatsa-rājasya vasantotsava-varnanam. īrsyayā chandato yūnoh vipralambhaḥ prthak-sthitiḥ, yathā hi vatsa-rājasya devyā vāsavadattaya vipralambhas tu sāpā"di vatsarā’ntam asangatih, yathā śarmişthayā devyā yayāter vārșa-parvaṇaḥ. - 20

Page #629

1804
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA parivāda-bhayād dosaśodhanam syād visodhanam. - 22 (p. 241 lines 1-5) - yathā hi vikramórvaśyām uddistārthopa-samhștiḥ, urvašīyam ciram gehe saha-dharma-cari tava bhavatv iti'ndra-sandeśaḥ tām pūrūravasam prati. sarva-vștti-vinişpannam sarva-laksana-samyutam, samagram tat pratinidhiḥ
mahānāšakam ucyate. - 5 Then it is recommended by the same source (i.e. Subandhu) that certain sandhyanga-s are mendatory with reference to a certain type, such as (p. 241, lines - 6-15)
upakṣepah parikaraḥ parinyāso vilobhanam, etānyangāni kāryāņi sarva-nāțaka-jātiņu. yuktih präptih samādhānam vidhānam paribhāvanam. etāny avaśya-kāryāņi praśānte nāțake budhaiḥ - ājñā'pavādaḥ samphetaḥ prasango vidravas tathā - 10 samgrahaś ceti sāngāni samyag yojyāni bhāsvare. virodham pranayam caiva paryupāsanam eva ca, pūşpam vajram ca badhnīyād

Page #630

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1805
avasyam lalite sudhīḥ. sarvesam yatra rūpāni drśyante vividhāni ca nāțakam nịtta-cārākhyam tat samagram itīritam. - 15 The NLRK. Kā. 9, 10, 11 - (p. 5) read as - prakhyāta-vastu-visayam prakhyātódātta-nāyakam, rājarși-vamśa-caritam tathā divyā”śrayotthitam. - 9 nānā-vibhūti-samyutam rddhi-vilāsā”dibhir gunair yuktam, anka-praveśakādhyam
bhavati hi tan nāțakam nāma." These are quoted from the NS. XVIII. 15-16. The NLRK. quotes further from the NS. - . .
"nrpatīnām yac caritam nānārasa-bhāva-cestitair bahudhā sukha-duḥkhótpatti-kstam
vijñeyam nāțakam nāma. The NLRK. accepts definitions from the NS. as is done by Bhoja. So, we will not quote any further beyond this, from these sources. The BP. follows the lead of the DR. and the NS. yet the drafting changes at times without difference in contents. RS. (pp. 264; 130-134) :
atideśa-bala-prāpta-nāšakángópa-jīvanāt anyāni rūpakāni syur vikārā nāțakam prati. - 130 ato hi laksanam pūrvam nātakasya'bhidhīyate divyena vã mãnuşena dhāródättena samyutam. - 131 (divine or human hero is allowed) - śộngāra-vīrā’nyatara-pradhāna-rasa-samśrayam khyātétivṛttasambaddham sandhi-pañcaka-samyutam. - 132
una

Page #631

1806
SAHRDAYĀLOKA prakrtyavasthā-sandhyanga-sandhyantara-vibhūşanaiḥ patākāsthānakair vstti-tadangaiś ca pravṛttibhiḥ. - 133 viskambhakā”di-samyuktam nāțakam tu trivargadam
tadetannāțakārambha-prakāro vaksyate mayā.” · 134 After discussing topics related to nāțaka, the author quotes an opinion of Bharata suggesting that the nātaka has to be resorted to for the removal of all unhappiness. In the types such as pūrna, etc. (as noted in BP. by Sā., given by Subandhu) - Singabhūpāla declares his lack of faith as they are not so charming and not supported by Bharata. Then RS. proceeds to define 'prakarana' etc. (pp. 285). The verses (p. 285) read as - tathā ca bharataḥ -
"dharmártha-sādhanam nāryam sarva-duḥkhā'panodakst, äsevadhavam tad șsayas tasyotthānam tu nātakam." - iti. nāțakasya ca pūrņādi- i bhedāḥ kecana kalpitāḥ teşām nā'tīva ramyatvād a-parīksā-ksamatvataḥ - 213
muninā’nādệtatvāc ca, tān uddestum udāsmahe.” The SD. defines nāțaka as - (pp. 321; VI. 7-11)
"nātakam khyāta-vșttam syāt pañca-sandhi-samanvitam, vilāsardhyā"di-gunavad yuktam nānā-vibhūtibhiḥ. - 7 sukha-duḥkha-samudbhūti nānā-rasa-nirantaram, panca"dikā daśa-parās tatránkāḥ parikīrtitāḥ. - 8 prakhyāta-vamśyo rājarșir dhīródāttaḥ pratāpavān, divyo'tha divyā'divyo vā guņavān nāyako mataḥ.. 9

Page #632

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1807 eka eva bhaved angi śộngāro vīra eva vā, angam anye rasāḥ sarve kāryo nirvahane'dbhutaḥ. - 10 catvārah pañca vā mukhyāh kārya-vyāppta-pūruşāḥ, go-pucchāgra-samagram tu
bandhanam tasya-kirtitam - 11 (p.322) Then ‘anka and other topics are discussed. We will now quote definitions of prakarana from the NS. DR., ND.. RS. & SD. NS. (XVIII. 44-53)
“nāšaka-laksanam etat mayā samāsena kīrtitam vidhi vat prakaranam ataḥ param aham laksanayuktyā pravaksyāmi. 44 "yatra kavir ātma-śaktyā vastu-śarīram nāyakam caiva, autpattikam prakarute prakaraṇam iti tad budhair jñeyam." - 45 yad anārşam athā”hāryam kāvyam prakarotyabhūta-guna-yuktam, utpanna-bīja-vastu prakaranam api tad api vijñeyam." - 46 “yannāțake mayóktam vastu śarīram ca vṛtti-bhedāśca, tat-prakaranépi yojyam sa-lakṣaṇam sarva-sandhișu.” . 47 vipra-vaņik-sacivānām purohitā’mātya-sārthavāhānām caritam yannaikavidham jñeyam tat prakaranam nāma". - 48 nódātta-nāyaka-krtam, na divyacaritam, na rājasambhogam bāhya-jana-samprayuktam tajjñeyam prakaranam tajjñaiḥ.” - 49 dāsa-vita-śreşthi-yutam veśa-stryupacāra-kāranopetam, manda-kula-strījanam kāvyam kāryam prakarane tu. - 50 saciva-śreșthi-brāhmaṇa-purohitámātya-sārthavāhānām gphavārtā yatra bhaven na tatra veíyánganā kārya." - 51 yadi-veśa-yuvati-yuktam, na kulastrī-sangamo’pi syāt, atha kulajana-prayuktam, na veśa-yuvatir bhavet tatra." - 52 yadi vā kārana-yukryā veśa-kula-stri-krtopacăraḥ syāt a-vikȚta-bhāsā"cāram tatra tu pāțhyam prayoktavyam.” - 53

Page #633

1808
· SAHRDAYĀLOKA Dr. G. K. Bhat translates : (pp. 129, ibid).
(44) I have duly mentioned in brief, the characteristics of the nāțaka so far. I will now explain the prakarana with its characteristics.
(45) (The play) in which the poet builds up by his own (creative) power the dramatic plot (vastu), the elaborate (dramatic) construction (śarīra), and the hero, so that the composition appears to be inventive (or original, autpattika), that is to be known by the wise as prakarana.
(46) The poetic composition not based on the (works of) the ancient sages (anārsam), imaginatively produced (āhārya), consisting of unprecedented qualities with the seed and the plot invented, which (a poet) makes is also to be known as prakaraña.
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : "an-ārsa" - The ārsa kāvyas are Mahābhārata, Rāmāyana, the Purāhas; omitting these, a poet may draw on folk-legends as contained in the Brhatkathā.
Ahārya - mentally conceived, the plot may be derived from the works of earlier poets, but adapted to suit the dramatic construction with necessary modifications, alterations, etc.)
(47) - "Whatever I said in the context of nāțaka, regarding the dramatic plot, elaborate construction, and varieties of styles, all that with its characterstics is to be used in the prakarana, only these are to be used in all junctures (sandhi) of dramatic construction.
(48) The varied life and conduct of a brahmin, merchant, counsellor (saciva), domestic priest, accredited minister, leader of caravan, (presented in dramatic form) are to be known as 'prakarana'.
(49) (A play) which has no exalted hero, which does not show the life and conduct of Gods, nor the love-union of a king, and which contains men from the outside (i.e. servants not associated with royal haram) is to be known by the experts as "prakarana”.
(50) In a prakarana, the poetic construction should comprise servants, vița, the chief of the merchant guild, and incidents occasioned by the behaviour of a courtesan or the fallen actions (manda carita) of a woman of noble family (or the actions of a woman of doubtful (manda) family).
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note here, under v. 50 - (p. 131, ibid) : “As contrasted with the nātaka, built with a king-hero the prakarana uses servants in place of kañcukin, vita for vidūsaka, śresthin for minister, etc. The courtesan as the main character makes the prakarana a love-play full of śộngāra.

Page #634

"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1809 ‘Manda-kula-carita' may mean both, the immoral behaviour of a noble woman, or the actions of a woman of low family. Though examples are not found in the extent sanskrit plays. See Abhinava - op. it. pp. 431-432.
(51) In (a prakarana) where domestic happenings and accomplishments connected with counsellor, head of the merchant-guild, brahmin, domestic priest, minister and leader of caravan are presented, no courtesan should be introduced (as a dramatic character).
(52) If it contains a courtesan, union or meetings with a woman of noble family will not be shown, on the contrary, if it employs a woman of noble family, a courtesan should not be present (simultaneously) there.
(53) If, however, out of some dramatic necessity (kāraṇa-yuktyā) a formal meeting (upacāra) of a courtesan and a noble lady has to be used (in a scene), the dramatic dialogue there should be used without distortion of language and behaviour.
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : (p. 131, ibid) : “This according to Abhinava, means that respectable ladies will use sauraseni, the coutesan sanskrit; ladies will behave with usual courtesy, the courtesan according to her usual ways. The Bhāvaprakāśana (p. 242), however, gives the rule : "bhāșate prakstam veśyā sanskrtam kula-nāyikā.") The DR. (p. 154; I. 39-42) reads as :
"atha prakarane vșttam utpădyam loka-samśrayam, amātya-vipra-vanijām ekam kuryāc ca nāyakam.” - 39 dhīra-praśāntam sopāyam dharma-kāmärtha-tatparam. śesam nāțakavat sandhipraveśaka-rasā”dikam. - 40 . nāyikā tu dvidhā tatra kulastrī gaṇikā tathā, kvacid ekaiva veśyā, kvā'pi dvayam kvacit. - 41

Page #635

1810
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
kulajā”bhyantarā bāhyā veśyā nåtikramo'nayoḥ, ābhiḥ prakaraṇam tredhā
sankirnam dhūrta-sankulam." . 42. ND. II. 1-4 :
"prakaranam vanig-vipra saciva-svamy-a-sankarāt, manda-gotránkanam divyā’nāśritam, madhya-cestitam. - 1 : dāsa-śreşthi-vitair yuktam kleşā”dhyam, tac ca saptadhā, kalpy-éna-phala-vastūnām eka-dvi-tri-vidhanatah - 2 kulastri-grha-vārtāyām panyastrī tu viparyaye, vițe patyau dvayam tasmăt eka-trimśatidhā'py adaḥ.” - 3 atrā”kalpyam, purā klrptam yad vā'nārşam a-sad-gunam. śeșam nāțakavat sarvam
kaiśiki-pūrņatām vinā. - 4 RS. (p. 285; III. 214b - 218 a) -
yatrétivșttam utpadyam dhīra-śāntaśca nāyakaḥ, 214b rasaḥ pradhānaḥ śặngāraḥ śesam nāțaka-vad bhavet. tat tu prakaranam śuddham dhūrtam miśram ca tat tridhā. - 215 kulastri-nāyikam śuddham mālati-madhavā"dikam, ganikā-nayikam dhūrtam kāmadattā”hvaya”dikam. - 216

Page #636

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1811
kitava-dyūtakārā"di-vyāpāram tv atra kalpayet, miśram tat kulajā-veśye kalpite yatra nāyike - 217 dhürta-buddha-kramopetam
tan-mrccha-katikā"dikam, - 218a SD. (p. 434, 5; VI. 224b - 227b)
"bhavet prakaraṇe vșttam laukikam, kavi-kalpitam, - 224b śrngāro'ngi, nāyakas tu vipro’mātyo’thavā vanik, såpāya-dharma-kamārtha-paro dhira-praśāntakah.” · 225 nāyikā kulajā kvā'pi veśyā kvā’pi, dvayam kvacit, tena bhedās trayas tasya tatra bhedas trtīyakah." - 226 kitava-dyūta-kārā”di
vita-cetaka-sankulah.' - 227a Samavakāra is defined in the NS. (XVIII. 63-77) -
: "devā’sura-bīja-krcaḥ
prakhyātodātta-nāyakaś caiva, tryankas tathā trikapatas tri-vidravaḥ syāt tri-śrngāraḥ. - 63 dvādaśa-nāyaka-bahulo hy astādaśa-nādika-pramāņaś ca, vaksyāmy asy'āńka-vidhim yāvatyo nāļkā yatra. - 64 ankas tu sa-prahasanah sa-vidravaḥ, sa-kapataḥ, sa-vīthikah, dvādaśa-nādī-vihitaḥ prathamaḥ kāryaḥ kriyopetaḥ." - 65

Page #637

1812
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
kāryas tathā dvitīyaḥ samāśrito nāļikā-catasras tu, vastusamāpana-vihito dvi-nādikaḥ syat třtīyas tu. - 66 nāļi-samjñā jñeyā mānam kālasya yan mūhūrtā'rdham, tan nāļikā-pramāņam yathoktam ankeșu samyojyam. - 67 yā nādketi samjñā kāla-vibhāge kriya'bhi-sampannā, kāryā ca să prayatnād yathākramena eva śāstroktā.” - 68 anko'nkastv anyárthaḥ kāvya-bandham āsādya, artham hi samavakāre hy a-prati-sambandham icchanti." - 69
yuddha-jala-sambhavo vā vāy-vagni-gajendra-sambhrama-ksto vā,
nagarópa-rodhajo vā vijñeyo vidravas trividhah." . 70 vastu-gata-krama-vihito daiva-vaśād-vā paraprayukto vā, sukha-duḥkhotpatti-krtas trividhaḥ kapaço’tra vijñeyaḥ - 71 trividhaścā’tra vidhijñaiḥ prthak-prthak-kārya-yoga-vihitā’rthah, śộngāraḥ kartavyo dharme cárthe ca, kāme ca. - 72.

Page #638

“Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra"
1813 yasmin dharma-prāpakam ātmahitam bhavati sādhanam bahudhā, vrata-niyama-tapo-yukto jñeyo'sau dharma-origārah. - 73 "arthasyeccha-yogād bahudhā caivā'rthato'rtha-śrngārah, stri-samprayoga-visayeșv arthā'rthā vā ratir yatra." - 74 kanyā-vilobhana-krtam prāptau strī-pūmsayos tu ramyam vā, nibhịtam sāvegam vā yasya bhavet kāma-śộngāraḥ.” - 75 ușnig-gāyatry adyāny anyāni ca . yāni bandha-kuțilāni, vịttāni samavakāre kavibhis tāni prayojyāni. - 76 evam kāryas taj-jñair nānā-rasa-samśrayaḥ samavakāraḥ, · vaksyāmy ataḥ param aham
lakṣaṇam īhāmsgasyā’pi. - 77 Dr. Bhat translates : (p. 135, 137, 139, 141) :
(63) Its theme is made from the conflict of) gods and demons; its hero has to be well-known and exalted; it should have three kinds of deception, three kinds of flight or excitement, and three kinds of love.
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : "Abhinava points out that gods are naturally exhaulted as compared to ordinary men. But among the gods too some like Brahma are quiet, some like Nộsimha are bold and terrible. For this type of play, the hero has to be a god well-known from old mythology and not a deified person. The three subjects or contents - kapața, vidrava and śặngāra - are to be used in each of the three acts.]

Page #639

1814
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
(64) It should have twelve leading men and its duration (of performance) is to be eighteen nāļikā-s. I will explain the arrangement of the act according to the number of nāļikā-s alloted to it."
[Dr. Bhat adds a foot-note : "Abhinava mentions two opinions : 12 nāyakas in every act, or four in every act. (The principal hero, villain and their assistants). The total coming to 12. The measure of nāļikā is explained further in VS. 67.]
(65) - The first act (of Samavakāra) is to have comic laughter, flight or excitement, deception and vīthi; its dramatic action, will run to 12 nādis.
(Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : (p. 137) - "Saprahasana" implies, according to Abhinava, that kāma-śrngāra is to be used in the first act because that alone is capable of evoking laughter. (See, op. cit. p. 437). Vithi is explained further in VS. 112-115.)
(66) · The second act should be similarly constructed but will have four nädikas; and the third act which is to show the conclusion of the plot will be two nāļikās in duration.
(67) The term 'nādt (or nädikā) is to be known as a measure of time and equals half a muhārta. (muhūrta = 48 minutes; nādi or nadikā = 24 minutes, 2 nāļīs = 48 minutes; 4 nādīs = 1 hr. and 36 minutes; 12 nādīs = 4 hrs., 48 mts.)
(68) The term “nādikā” which, in the division of time, has been given (as the duration) for dramatic action should be carefully put to practice according to the śāstra rule and with due order (of the three acts and their prescribed duration).
(69) The poetic form should be resorted to and every act in the Samavakāra) should be composed to have different content (or topic). They (the experts) desire the content in the Samavakāra to be not closely knit together -
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : sam-properly, i.e. not very closely (connected); avaslightly; kāra-what is made, i.e. the dramatic action. The etymology shows that the dramatic plot in Samavakāra is not too much but slightly connected. 'Prati' means 'access'; "a-(prati)" negates any excess of connection. Both thus show that the ‘Samavakāra' is rather a loosely built play. This may be due to the fact that its theme is triple : deception, flight, and love woven round the basic conflict; the phases of which are to be presented in each of the three acts, all the three in the first act, deception and flight in the second, and fulfilment in the third. The loose structure of the play also suggests that it must have been a very early type : This is bourne out by the fact that when the Natya-veda was created and handed over to Bharatamuni, the first play that he produced was "Amrta-manthana", a 'samavakāra' and 'Tripura-dāha' a Dima. See NS. Ch. IV. 2-4; 9-11.)

Page #640

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1815
[We beg to differ. At least when Bharata wrote his NS., all the major types and some minor types were being staged before him, for quite long, i.e. a tradition of centuries, otherwise the codification could not have been possible. Prof. Dolararai Mankad (Types of Drama) suggested that one-act plays-bhāna-could have been the oldest.
We do not accept this either, for these are only hypotheses not supported by facts. At least for Bharata ten types and two minor types were a living tradition. We can not surmise that this or that type was the first to evolve. It was a rich heritage that came down to Bharata and he passed it over to his posteriors. This is a logical stand.]
(70) - The flight (for excitement) is three fold : (a) arising out of battle or flood (jala), (b) cãused by storm (vāyu), fire or havoc of a lordly elephant, and (c) born out of the seige of a city.
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : Abhinava explains that Vidrava is a terrific calamity from which people try to run away in fright. He classifies this as (a) - caused by inanimate factors : like flood, storm; (b) caused by animate factors; like a loose elephant, and (c) caused by both animate and inanimate factors; like war, seige, or fire, op. cit. p. 439]
(71) The threefold deceit in this context (atra) is to be known as (a) that which - has been brought by a calculated plan (vastu-gata) and involving (on the part of the innocent victim), worry about means (krama) for counteracting it); (b) which has been deliberately employed by another (to avenge an offence given), and (c) which occurs due to adverse fate (or accident). It causes the advent of happiness or misery.
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : See Abhinava, op. cit. p. 439. The difference between 'vastu-gata' and 'para-prayukta' is that in the former a person is an innocent victim of the Kapata, in the latter the victim is guilty, his own action has invited the 'Kapata.'
(72) In this (Samavakāra) the experts who know the rules should employ threefold love as connected with different kinds of actions : that in relation to religious duty, that prompted by material gain, and that inspired by passion (or sexual desire).
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : "The locative in dharme, arthe, kāme indicates that these are the causes or the results of śrngāra presented in the Samavakāra. Normally, the gods being self-sufficient, these puruşārthas do not concern them but

Page #641

1816
SAHRDAYĀLOKA only such divine beings as Gandharva, Yaksa, etc. But if Gods were delineated with human emotions these arthas can be easily used. Another possibility is that these artha-s may be achieved through the assistance or instrumentality of God; for instance, the love of Siva and Parvati is an illustration of dharma-śrngāra, as the union is brought about by the Gods for destroying the demon Tāraka through the son born of this union, Indra's passion for Ahalyā will be illustrating kāma-śrngāra. See Abhinava, op. cit pp. 439-440.)
(73) When it becomes an instrument to achieve, in many ways, one's religious duty and one's own welfare through the practice of (religious) vows, prescribed rules, and austerities, it is known as dharma-śrngāra.
(74) - The artha-śrngāra results from artha, due to the desire for (acquiring) wealth in many ways : Here the love in matters of union with woman is prompted by the motive of wealth (arthártha).
(75) The love (yasya=śrngārasya) which is caused by the seduction of a maiden, or which takes a delightful form (ramyam) when a man and a woman meet each other, and (the affair) is carried on either secretly (nibhrtam) or with open impetuousness, (that is) kāma-śrngāra.
(76) The metres which have an uneven structure like Uşnik, Gāyatrī, etc. are to be used by the poets in the Samavakāra.
[Dr. Bhat reads in a foot-note : “Bandhakuțila” refers to visama (uneven) and ardha-sama (semi-even) metres. Abhinava refers to Udbhata according to whom Uşņik and Gāyatrī are not to be used, but the long metres like Sragdhara are to be used.]
(77) In this way, the experts should construct the samavakāra based on many sentiments. - I will now proceed to define the character of īhāmrga. The DR. defines samvakāra as (pp. 162, I. 626-68a) :
“kāryam samavakāre syād āmukham nāțakā"di-vat. - 62b khyātam devā'suram vastu nirvimarśāstu sandhayaḥ, vșttayo manda-kaisikyo netāro deva-dānavāḥ. - 63

Page #642

1801
"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
tato'nuddişğa-samhāraḥ praśānte pañca sandhayaḥ.” (line 22) (p. 239, lines - 1-22) sātrvati-vrttir atra syād iti drauhinir abravīt. svapnavāsavadattā"khyam udāharanam atra tu. ācchidya bhūpāt sa-vyasanā devi māgadhikā-kare nyastā, yatas tato nyāso mukha-sandhir ayam bhavet. nyāsasya ca pratimukham samudbheda udāhrtah, - 5 padmāvatyä mukham vīksya vićeșaka-vibhūșitam. jīvatyāvantikety etat jñātam bhūmibhujā yathā, utkanthitena sódvegam bījoktir nāma-kīrtanam. ehi vāsavadatte kva kva yāsīty ädi dịśyate, sahā'vasthitayor ekaprāptyā’nyasya gaveṣaṇam 10 darśana-sparśanālāpair etat syād bīja-darśanam. "cira-prasuptaḥ kāmo me viņayā pratibodhitaḥ tām tu devīm na paśyāmi yasyāḥ ghosavati priya.” kim te bhūyaḥ priyam kuryām

Page #643

1802
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
iti vāg yatra nocyate, tam anuddista-samhāram ityāhur bharatā”dayaḥ - 15 mālā-nāyaka-siddhyangaglānis tasyāḥ pariksayaḥ mātrā'vašisța-samhāre bhāsvare pañca-sandhayaḥ. ekasminnāyake khyāte tat-sämänya-pratāpa-vān, yadi syāt pratipaksaś ca sā māleti prakīrtitā. yathā hi candraguptasya na(ca)ndanaḥ prati-pūruṣaḥ. 20 nāyakam chalayitveștasiddhir yā paripanthinaḥ eșā nāyaka-siddhiḥ syān māriceneva rāvanah.” - 22 (p. 240; lines 1-22) - garbhasyāngair vimardädidarśanam glānir isyate. kapibhir vāridhim uttīrya lanka-vestanam eva tat. pariksayo'tra nohā"dir nāyakasya ripor balāt sa nāgapāśa-bandhā"di rāma-lakṣmaṇayor iva. mātrā'vaśista-samhārasandhir ekam tu nāțake - 5 śatrubandīksta-strīņām tasya śatror vadhād atha...

Page #644

1803
“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
tat-parīkņā-sthitir mātrā vasistam iti kathyate, yathā sītā-parikseva rāvanā'nantare krtā. bhāratī-vștti-bhūyistham vīrā'dbhuta-rasā'śrayam bhāsvaram nāțakam bāla-rāmāyaṇam idam yathā. - 10 lalitam kaisikīvșttiśộngāraika-rasā”śrayam, urvašī-vipralambho'tra tad udāharanam yathā (lines 11-12) vilāso vipralambhaś ca viprayogo visodhanam, uddistā’rtho’pa-samhāro lalite pañca-sandhayaḥ. (lines 13-14) vilāso nāyakā"dīnām yathartu rati-sevanam - 15 yathā śrī-vatsa-rājasya vasantotsava-varṇanam. īrsyayā chandato yūnoḥ vipralambhaḥ prthak-sthitih, yathā hi vatsa-rājasya devyā vāsavadattayā vipralambhas tu śāpā"divatsarā’ntam asangatiḥ, yathā śarmisthayā devyā yayāter vārșa-parvaṇaḥ. - 20

Page #645

1804
SAHRDAYĀLOKA parivāda-bhayād dosasodhanam syād viśodhanam. - 22 (p. 241 lines 1-5) - yathā hi vikramórvaśyām uddiştārthopa-samhștih, urvašīyam ciram gehe saha-dharma-carī tava bhavatv iti'ndra-sandesah tām pūrūravasam prati. sarva-vștti-vinişpannam sarva-laksana-samyutam, samagram tat pratinidhiḥ
mahānāțakam ucyate. - 5 Then it is recommended by the same source (i.e. Subandhu) that certain sandhyanga-s are mendatory with reference to a certain type, such as (p. 241, lines - 6-15)
upakṣepaḥ parikaraḥ parinyāso vilobhanam, etānyangāni kāryāni sarva-nāțaka-jātișu. yuktih präptih samādhānam vidhanam paribhāvanam. etāny avaśya-kāryāņi praśānte nātake budhaiḥ - ājñā’pavādaḥ samphetaḥ prasango vidravas tathả - 10 samgrahaś ceti sāngāni samyag yojyāni bhāsvare. virodham pranayam caiva paryupāsanam eva ca, pūspam vajram ca badhnīyād

Page #646

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1806 avaśyam lalite sudhīḥ. sarvesām yatra rūpāņi drśyante vividhāni ca nāțakam nștta-cārākhyam tat samagram itiritam. - 15 The NLRK. Kā. 9, 10, 11 - (p. 5) read as - prakhyāta-vastu-visayam prakhyātódātta-nāyakam, rājarși-vamsa-caritam tathā divyā”śrayotthitam. - 9 nānā-vibhūti-samyutam rddhi-vilāsā”dibhir guņair yuktam, anka-praveśakādhyam
bhavati hi tan nāšakam nāma." These are quoted from the NS. XVIII. 15-16. The NLRK. quotes further from the NS. -
“nộpatīnām yac caritam nānārasa-bhāva-cestitair bahudhā sukha-duḥkhótpatti-krtam
vijñeyam nāțakam nāma. The NLRK. accepts definitions from the NS. as is done by Bhoja. So, we will not quote any further beyond this, from these sources. The BP. follows the lead of the DR. and the NS. yet the drafting changes at times without difference in contents, RS. (pp. 264; 130-134) :
atideśa-bala-prāpta-nātakángópa-jīvanāt anyāni rūpakāni syur vikārā nāțakam prati. - 130 ato hi lakṣaṇam pūrvam nāšakasyā’bhidhīyate divyena vã mãnusena dhāródättena samyutam. - 131 (divine or human hero is allowed) - śộngāra-vīrā'nyatara-pradhāna-rasa-samśrayam khyātétivṛttasambaddham sandhi-pañcaka-samyutam. - 132

Page #647

1806
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
prakrtyavasthā-sandhyanga-sandhyantara-vibhūşanaiḥ patākāsthānakair vịtti-tadangaiś ca pravrttibhiḥ. - 133 viskambhakā"di-samyuktam nāțakam tu trivargadam
tadetannāțakārambha-prakāro vaksyate mayā.” · 134 After discussing topics related to nataka, the author quotes an opinion of Bharata suggesting that the nāțaka has to be resorted to for the removal of all unhappiness. In the types such as pūrņa, etc. (as noted in BP. by Śā., given by Subandhu) - Śingabhūpāla declares his lack of faith as they are not so charming and not supported by Bharata. Then RS. proceeds to define 'prakarana' etc. (pp. 285). The verses (p. 285) read as - tathā ca bharataḥ -
"dharmártha-sādhanam nātyam sarva-duḥkhā'panodakrt, āsevadhavam tad rsayas tasyotthānam tu nātakam." . iti. nāļakasya ca pūrņādibhedāh kecana kalpitāh teşām nā'tīva ramyatvāde a-parīksā-kşamatvataḥ - 213
muninā’nādstarvāc ca, tān uddestum udāsmahe.” The SD. defines nāțaka as - (pp. 321; VI. 7-11)
“nāțakam khyāta-víttam syāt pañca-sandhi-samanvitam, vilāsardhyā"di-gunavad yuktam nānā-vibhūtibhiḥ. - 7 sukha-duḥkha-samudbhūti nānā-rasa-nirantaram, pañcā"dikā daśa-parās tatránkāḥ parikīrtitāḥ. - 8 prakhyāta-vamśyo rājarşir dhīródāttaḥ pratāpavān, divyo’tha divyā'divyo vā guņavān nāyako matah. - 9

Page #648

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1807 eka eva bhaved angi śộngāro vīra eva vā, angam anye rasāḥ sarve kāryo nirvahane'dbhutaḥ. - 10 catvāraḥ pañca vā mukhyāḥ kārya-vyāppta-pūrušāḥ, go-pucchágra-samagram tu
bandhanam tasya-kīrtitam - 11 (p.322) Then ‘anka' and other topics are discussed. We will now quote definitions of prakarana from the NS.. DR., ND.. RS., & SD. NS. (XVIII. 44-53)
“nāțaka-lakṣaṇam etat mayā samāsena kīrtitam vidhi vat prakaraṇam ataḥ param aham laksanayuktyā pravaksyāmi. 44 “yatra kavir ātma-śaktyā vastu-śarīram nāyakam caiva, autpattikam prakarute prakaranam iti tad budhair jñeyam.” - 45 yad anārsam athāhāryam kāvyam prakarotyabhūta-guna-yuktam, utpanna-bīja-vastu prakaraṇam api tad api vijñeyam.” - 46 “yannātake mayóktam vastu śarīram ca vṛtti-bhedāśca, tat-prakaranépi yojyam sa-lakṣaṇam sarva-sandhișu.” - 47 vipra-vanik-sacivānām purohitā’mātya-sārthavāhānām caritam yannaikavidham jñeyam tat prakaraṇam nāma”. - 48 nódātta-nayaka-krtam, na divyacaritam, na rājasambhogam bāhya-jana-samprayuktam tajjñeyam prakaraṇam tajjñaiḥ.” - 49 dāsa-viţa-śresthi-yutam veśa-stryupacāra-kāraṇopetam, manda-kula-strījanam kāvyam kāryam prakarane tu. - 50 saciva-śreșthi-brāhmaṇa-purohitámātya-sārthavāhānām gļhavārtā yatra bhaven na tatra veśyánganā kārya.” - 51 yadi-veśa-yuvati-yuktam, na kulastrī-sangamo’pi syāt, atha kulajana-prayuktam, na veśa-yuvatir bhavet tatra." - 52 yadi vā kāraṇa-yuktyā veśa-kula-stri-kstopacāraḥ syāt a-vikrta-bhāṣā”cāram tatra tu pāțhyam prayoktavyam.” - 53

Page #649

1808
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Dr. G. K. Bhat translates : (pp. 129, ibid) -
(44) I have duly mentioned in brief, the characteristics of the nataka so far. I will now explain the prakarana with its characteristics.
(45) (The play) in which the poet builds up by his own (creative) power the dramatic plot (vastu), the elaborate (dramatic) construction (śarīra), and the hero, so that the composition appears to be inventive (or original, autpattika), that is to be known by the wise as prakarana.
(46) The poetic composition not based on the (works of) the ancient sages (anārsam), imaginatively produced (āhārya), consisting of unprecedented qualities with the seed and the plot invented, which (a poet) makes is also to be known as prakaraṇa.
(Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : "an-ārsa" - The ārsa kāvyas are Mahābhārata, Rāmāyana, the Purāhas; omitting these, a poet may draw on folk-legends as contained in the Brhatkathā.
Ahārya - mentally conceived, the plot may be derived from the works of earlier poets, but adapted to suit the dramatic construction with necessary modifications, alterations, etc.)
(47), "Whatever I said in the context of nāšaka, regarding the dramatic plot, elaborate construction, and varieties of styles, all that with its characterstics is to be used in the prakarana, only these are to be used in all junctures (sandhi) of dramatic construction.
(48) The varied life and conduct of a brahmin, merchant, counsellor (saciva), domestic priest, accredited minister, leader of caravan, (presented in- dramatic form) are to be known as 'prakaraña'.
(49) (A play) which has no exalted hero, which does not show the life and conduct of Gods, nor the love-union of a king, and which contains men from the outside (i.e. servants not associated with royal haram) is to be known by the experts as "prakarana".
(50) In a prakarana, the poetic construction should comprise servants, vita, the chief of the merchant guild, and incidents occasioned by the behaviour of a courtesan or the fallen actions (manda carita) of a woman of noble family (or the actions of a woman of doubtful (manda) family).
(Dr. Bhat has a foot-note here, under v. 50 - (p. 131, ibid) : "As contrasted with the nātaka, built with a king-hero the prakarana uses servants in place of kañcukin, vita for vidūsaka, sresthin for minister, etc. The courtesan as the main character makes the prakarana a love-play full of śrngāra.

Page #650

(53)
"Daśa-rūpaka-Vicāra”
1809 'Manda-kula-carita' may mean both, the immoral behaviour of a noble woman, or the actions of a woman of low family. Though examples are not found in the extent sanskrit plays. See Abhinava - op. it. pp. 431-432.
(51) In (a prakarana) where domestic happenings and accomplishments connected with counsellor, head of the merchant-guild, brahmin, domestic priest, minister and leader of caravan are presented, no courtesan should be introduced (as a dramatic character).
(52) If it contains a courtesan, union or meetings with a woman of no family will not be shown, on the contrary, if it employs a woman of noble family, a courtesan should not be present (simultaneously) there.
f, however, out of some dramatic necessity (kārana-yuktyā) a formal meeting (upacāra) of a courtesan and a noble lady has to be used in a scene), the dramatic dialogue there should be used without distortion of language and behaviour.
(Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : (p. 131, ibid) : “This according to Abhinava, means that respectable ladies will use saurasenī, the coutesan sanskrit; ladies will behave with usual courtesy, the courtesan according to her usual ways. The Bhāvaprakāšana (p. 242), however, gives the rule : “bhāşate prakrtam veśyā sanskrtam kula-nāyikā.”]: The DR. (p. 154; I. 39-42) reads as :
"atha prakarane vșttam utpădyam loka-samśrayam, amātya-vipra-vanijām ekam kuryāc ca nāyakam.” - 39 dhīra-praśāntam sópāyam dharma-kāmārtha-tatparam. śeșam nāțakavat sandhipraveśaka-rasā”dikam. - 40 nāyikā tu dvidhā tatra kulastri gaņikā tathā, kvacid ekaiva veśyā, kvā'pi dvayam kvacit. - 41

Page #651

1810
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
kulajā"bhyantarā bāhyā veśyā nátikramo'nayoh, ābhiḥ prakaranam tredhā
sankirņam dhūrta-sankulam." - 42 ND. II. 1-4 :
"prakaranam vanig-viprasaciva-svāmy-a-sankarāt, manda-gotránkanam divyā’nāśritam, madhya-cesțitam. - 1 dāsa-śreşthi-vitair yuktam klesa"dhyam, tac ca saptadhā, kalpy-éna-phala-vastūnām eka-dvi-tri-vidhānataḥ - 2 kulastri-gpha-vārtāyām panyastri tu viparyaye, vite patyau dvayam tasmåt . eka-trimśatidhā'py adaḥ.” - 3 atrā"kalpyam, purā klrptam yad vā'nārşam a-sad-gunam. śesam nātakavat sarvam
kaisiki-pürnatām vinā. - 4 RS. (p. 285; III. 214b - 218 a) -
yatrétivṛttam utpadyam dhira-śāntaśca nāyakaḥ, 214b rasaḥ pradhānaḥ śộngāraḥ sesam nātaka-vad bhavet. tat tu prakaranam śuddham dhūrtam miśram ca tat tridhā. - 215 kulastrī-nāyikam śuddham mālatī-madhava”dikam, ganikā-nāyikam dhūrtam kāmadattā"hvaya"dikam. - 216

Page #652

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1811
kitava-dyūtakārā”di-vyāpāram tv atra kalpayet, miśram tat kulajā-veśye kalpite yatra nāyike - 217 dhúrta-buddha-kramopetam
tan-mrccha-katikā”dikam, - 218a SD. (p. 434, 5; VI. 224b - 227b)
"bhavet prakarane vșttam laukikam, kavi-kalpitam, - 224b śộngāro'ngī, nāyakas tu vipro'mātyo'thavā vanik, sápāya-dharma-kāmārtha-paro dhira-praśāntakaḥ.” - 225 nāyikā kulajā kvā’pi veśyā kvā’pi, dvayam kvacit, tena bhedās trayas tasya tatra bhedas trtīyakaḥ.” - 226 kitava-dyūta-kārā”di
vița-cetaka-sankulah.' - 227a Samavakāra is defined in the NS. (XVIII. 63-77).
"devā'sura-bīja-krtah prakhyātodätta-nāyakaś caiva, tryankas tathā trikapaļas tri-vidravaḥ syāt tri-śộngāraḥ. - 63 dvādaśa-nāyaka-bahulo hy astādaśa-nāļikā-pramanaś ca, vaksyāmy asy'ānka-vidhim yāvatyo nāļkā yatra. - 64 ankaş tu. sa-prahasanah sa-vidravaḥ, sa-kapațah, sa-vīthikah, dvādaśa-nādī-vihitah prathamaḥ kāryah kriyopetaḥ.” - 65

Page #653

1812
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
kāryas tathā dvitīyaḥ samāśrito nāļikā-catasras tu, vastusamāpana-vihito dvi-nāļikaḥ syat tļtīyas tu. - 66 nādi-samjñā jñeyā mānam kālasya yan mūhūrtā’rdham, tan nadikā-pramānam yathoktam ankeșu samyojyam. - 67 yā nādketi samjñā kāla-vibhāge kriya'bhi-sampannā. kāryā ca să prayatnād yathākramena eva śāstroktā.” - 68 anko'nkastv anyárthaḥ kāvya-bandham asadya, artham hi samavakāre hy a-prati-sambandham icchanti.” - 69
yuddha-jala-sambhavo vā vāy-vagni-gajendra-sambhrama-kpto vā,
nagarópa-rodhajo vā vijñeyo vidravas trividhaḥ.” - 70 vastu-gata-krama-vihito daiva-vaśād-vā paraprayukto vā, sukha-duḥkhotpatti-krtas trividhaḥ kapaço’tra vijñeyaḥ - 71 trividhaścā’tra vidhijñaiḥ prthak-prthak-kārya-yoga-vihitā’rthaḥ, śrngāraḥ kartavyo dharme cárthe ca, kāme ca. - 72.

Page #654

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1813
yasmin dharma-prapakam ātmahitam bhavati sādhanam bahudhā, vrata-niyama-tapo-yukto jñeyo'sau dharma-śrngāraḥ. - 73 "arthasyeccha-yogad bahudhā caivā’rthato'rtha-śộngāraḥ, strī-samprayoga-visayeșy arthā'rthā vā ratir yatra." - 74 kanyā-vilobhana-kstam prāptau strī-pūņsayos tu ramyam vā, nibhrtam sāvegam vā yasya bhavet kāma-śộngāraḥ." - 75 uşnig-gāyatry kdyāny anyāni ca yāni bandha-kuțilāni, vịttāni samavakāre kavibhis tāni prayojyāni. - 76 evam kāryas taj-jñair nānā-rasa-samśrayaḥ samavakāraḥ, vaksyāmy ataḥ param aham
laksanam Thāmrgasyā’pi. - 77 Dr. Bhat translates : (p. 135, 137, 139, 141) :
(63) Its theme is made from (the conflict of) gods and demons; its hero has to be well-known and exalted; it should have three kinds of deception, three kinds of flight or excitement, and three kinds of love.
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : "Abhinava points out that gods are naturally exhaulted as compared to ordinary men. But among the gods too some like Brahma are quiet, some like Nșsimha are bold and terrible. For this type of play, the hero has to be a god well-known from old mythology and not a deified person. The three subjects or contents - kapața, vidrava and śộngāra - are to be used in each of the three acts.)

Page #655

1814
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
(64) It should have twelve leading men and its duration (of performance) is to be eighteen nāļikā-s. I will explain the arrangement of the act according to the number of nädikā-s alloted to it."
(Dr. Bhat adds a foot-note : "Abhinava mentions two opinions : 12 nāyakas in every act, or four in every act. (The principal hero, villain and their assistants). The total coming to 12. The measure of nādikā is explained further in VS. 67.)
(65) - The first act (of Samavakāra) is to have comic laughter, flight or excitement, deception and vīthi; its dramatic action, will run to 12 nādis. .
[Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : (p. 137) - "Saprahasana” implies, according to Abhinava, that kāma-śrngāra is to be used in the first act because that alone is
pable of evoking laughter. (See, op. cit. p. 437). Vithi is explained further in VS. 112-115.)
(66) - The second act should be similarly constructed but will have four nådikās; and the third act which is to show the conclusion of the plot will be two nāļikās in duration
(67) The term 'nādi (or nādikā) is to be known as a measure of time and equals half a muhārta. [muhurta = 48 minutes; nādī or nāļikā = 24 minutes, 2 nādīs = 48 minutes; 4 nādis = 1 hr. and 36 minutes; 12 nādīs = 4 hrs., 48 mts.]
(68) The term "nādikā” which, in the division of time, has been given (as the duration) for dramatic action should be carefully put to practice according to the śāstra rule and with due order (of the three acts and their prescribed duration).
(69) The poetic form should be resorted to and every act in the Samavakāra) should be composed to have different content (or topic). They (the experts) desire the content in the Samavakāra to be not closely knit together -
(Dr. Bhat has a foot-note : sam-properly, i.e. not very closely (connected); avaslightly; kāra-what is made, i.e. the dramatic action. The etymology shows that the dramatic plot in Samavakāra is not too much but slightly connected. ‘Prati' means 'access'; "a-(prati)" negates any excess of connection. Both thus show that the ‘Samavakāra' is rather a loosely built play. This may be due to the fact that its theme is triple : deception, flight, and love woven round the basic conflict; the phases of which are to be presented in each of the three acts, all the three in the first act, deception and flight in the second, and fulfilment in the third. The loose structure of the play also suggests that it must have been a very early type : This is bourne out by the fact that when the Natya-veda was created and handed over to Bharatamuni, the first play that he produced was “Amrta-manthana", a 'samavakāra' and 'Tripura-dāha' a Dima. See NS. Ch. IV. 2-4; 9-11.)

Page #656

“Dasa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1815 [We beg to differ. At least when Bharata wrote his NS., all the major types and some minor types were being staged before him, for quite long, i.e. a tradition of centuries, otherwise the codification could not have been possible. Prof. Dolararai Mankad (Types of Drama) suggested that one-act plays-bhāna-could have been the oldest.
We do not accept this either, for these are only hypotheses not supported by facts. At least for Bharata ten types and two minor types were a living tradition. We can not surmise that this or that type was the first to evolve. It was a rich heritage that came down to Bharata and he passed it over to his posteriors. This is a logical stand.)
(70) - The flight (for excitement) is three fold : (a) arising out of battle or flood (jala), (b) caused by storm (vāyu), fire or havoc of a lordly elephant, and (c) born out of the seige of a city.
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : Abhinava explains that Vidrava is a terrific calamity from which people try to run away in fright. He classifies this as (a) - caused by inanimate factors : like flood, storm; (b) caused by animate factors; like a loose elephant, and (c) caused by both animate and inanimate factors; like war, seige, or fire, op. cit. p. 439]
(71) The threefold deceit in this context (atra) is to be known as (a) that which has been brought by a calculated plan (vastu-gata) and involving (on the part of the innocent victim), worry about means (krama) for counteracting it); (b) which has been deliberately employed by another (to avenge an offence given), and (c) which occurs due to adverse fate (or accident). It causes the advent of happiness or misery.
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : See Abhinava, op. cit. p. 439. The difference between 'vastu-gata' and 'para-prayukta' is that in the former a person is an innocent victim of the Kapata, in the latter the victim is guilty, his own action has invited the ‘Kapața.'
(72) In this (Samavakāra) the experts who know the rules should employ threefold love as connected with different kinds of actions : that in relation to religious duty, that prompted by material gain, and that inspired by passion (or sexual desire).
[foot-note by Dr. Bhat reads : "The locative in dharme, arthe, kāme indicates that these are the causes of the results of Śrngāra presented in the Samavakāra. Normally, the gods being self-sufficient, these purusārthas do not concern them but

Page #657

1816
SAHRDAYALOKA
only such divine beings as Gandharva, Yaksa, etc. But if Gods were delineated with human emotions these arthas can be easily used. Another possibility is that these artha-s may be achieved through the assistance or instrumentality of God; for instance, the love of Siva and Pārvati is an illustration of dharma-śrógāra, as the union is brought about by the Gods for destroying the demon Tāraka through the son born of this union, Indra's passion for Ahalyā will be illustrating kama-śrngāra. See Abhinava, op. cit pp. 439-440.)
(73) When it becomes an instrument to achieve, in many ways, one's religious duty and one's own welfare through the practice of (religious) vows, prescribed rules, and austerities, it is known as dharma-śrngāra.
(74) · The artha-śrngāra results from artha, due to the desire for (acquiring) wealth in many ways : Here the love in matters of union with woman is prompted by the motive of wealth (arthártha).
(75) The love (yasya=śộngārasya) which is caused by the seduction of a maiden, or which takes a delightful form (ramyam) when a man and a woman meet each other, and (the affair) is carried on either secretly (nibhịtam) or with open impetuousness, (that is) kāma-śộngāra.
(76) The metres which have an uneven structure like Usnik, Gāyatrī, etc. are to be used by the poets in the Samavakāra. • [Dr. Bhat reads in a foot-note : "Bandhakuțila” refers to visama (uneven) and ardha-sama (semi-even) metres. Abhinava refers to Udbhața according to whom Uşnik and Gāyatri are not to be used, but the long metres like Sragdhara are to be used.]
(77) In this way, the experts should construct the samavakāra based on many sentiments. - I will now proceed to define the character of Thāmsga. The DR. defines samvakāra as (pp. 162, I. 626-68a) ;
"kāryam samavakāre syād āmukham nātakā"di-vat. - 62b khyātam devā’suram vastu nirvimarśāstu sandhayaḥ, vịttayo manda-kaisikyo netāro deva-dānavāh. - 63

Page #658

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1839 (107) - The prahasana should be composed to include any aspects of vīthi as are deemed proper. I will now explain the characteristics of Bhāņa.
Characteristics of Bhāna. .
[Dr. Bhat adds : (foot-note) : Bharata does not prescribe the number of acts for Prahasana. Abhinava mentions an opinion that a suddha prahasana is a one-act, the Sankīrṇa, on account of the provenance of courtesans etc. will have many acts.)
DR. (p. 159, III. 54-56) reads as, tadvat prahasanam tredhā śuddha-vaikyta-sankarai). (śuddham) - pāşandi-vipra-prabhști-ceta-ceți-vițā”kulam. (54) cestitam veșa-bhāsahihiḥ śuddham häsya-vacónvitam, (vikstam.) kāmukā"di-vaco-veraih sanathe kañcukai-tāpasaiḥ. (55) vikstam, samkarāt vīthyā sankirna (harta-samkulam. rasastu bhūyasā kāryaḥ sadvidho hāsya eva tu." (56) ND. (p. 230-232, II. 18-20) has - vaimukhyakāryam vīthyangi khyāta-kaulīna-dambhavat, häsyāngi bhāna-sandhyanka-vștti-prahasanam divdhā. (18) nindya-pākhandi-viprāder aslīlásabhya-varjitam, parihāsa-vacah-prāyam śuddham ekasya cestitam. (19) sarkīrņam uddhatā"kalpa bhāsā"cāra-paricchadam bahūnām bandhaki-ceta-veśyādīnām vicencitam.” (20) RS. (p. 290, III. 268, b.; - 278, 279; pp. 297) "vastu-sandhyanka-lāsyānga-vịttayo yatra bhāņavat tridhā śuddham kirņam vaiktam ca tacca prahasanam." (268b) śuddham śrotriya-vākyāder vesa-bhāsādi-samyutam. (278) ceța-ceți-jana-vyāptam kīrṇam laksyam nirūpyatām, ānanda-kośa-pramukham vaikstam tad udáhrtiḥ. (279) SD. (p. 449, 450; VI. 264-268) reads as - bhāņavat-sandhi-sandhyanga-lāsyāngānkair vinirmitam, bhavet prahasanam vȚttam, nindyānām kavikalpitam. (264) atra nā”rabhati nā’pi visambhaka-praveśakau, angi hāsyarasas tatra vīthyangānām sthitir na vā. (265)

Page #659

1834
SAHRDAYĀLOKA tapasvi-bhagavad-vipra-prabhștişvatra nāyakaḥ, eko yatra bhaved dhrsto hāsyam tacchuddham ucyate. āśritya kañcana janam sankīrņam iti tadviduḥ. (266) vịttam bahūnām dhțstānām sankīrṇam kecidūcire tat punarbhavati dvyankam athavaikānka-nirmitam." (267) vikstam tu vidur yatra șandha-kañcaki-tāpasāḥ bhujanga-cāraṇa-bhata-prabhrter veșa-vāg-yutāḥ.” (268) “idam tu sankīrṇena gatārtham iti muninā přthan noktam.” 'Bhāņa’ is defined in the NS. (XVIII. 108-11) as - "ātmā’nubhūta-samsī para-samśraya-varṇanā-viseșastu . vividhāśrayo hi bhāṇaḥ, vijñeyastv eka-hāryaś ca. (108) paravacanam ātmasamstham prativacanair uttarottaraarathitai) ākāśa-puruṣa-kathitaiḥ angavikārain abhinayaiśca. (109) dhārta-vița-samprayojyo nānāvasthántarātmakaścaiva ". ekánko bahu-ceștaḥ, satatam kāryo budhair bhāṇaḥ. (110) bhāṇasyā’pi hi nikhilam laksanam uktam tathā"gamānugatam, vīthyāḥ samprati nikhilam kathayāmi yathākramam viprāḥ. (111) DR. Bhat translates : (pp. 151, 152, ibid) ..
(108) The Bhāņa is to be known as (a play) acted by one character, and it has a varied basis : (a) that which narrates one's own experiences, and (b) that which particularly describes some one else's. (Dr. Bhat reads in a foot-note, here - "Etymologically, Bhāna is so called because the representation is carried to the audience by a single character; "ekena påtrena haraniyah, sāmājika-hrdayam prāpayitavyaḥ arthaḥ yatra", also, because the speeches of characters absent on the stage are voiced here by a single character: "ekamukhena eva bhānyante uktimantaḥ kriyante a-praviştāḥ api pătra-viśeşāḥ yatra." - See Abhinava, op. cit. p. 449.]
(109) - (And this latter is done) by (conveying) the speech of the other addressed to oneself by means of replies (prativacana), connected in (a series of questions and) answers, as (if) they are given by an imaginary person (ākāśa-puruṣa), and by means of gestures of the limbs and by (other forms of) acting.
(110) The Bhāna is to be presented through the (single character of) dhūrta or vita and is to comprise his various conditions. The wise should always construct the Bhāņa as depicting varied activities but having (only) one act.

Page #660

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1835 (111) The entire character of Bhāņa has been explained by me as it has come down by tradition (āgama).
Now, O Brahmins !, I will state in due order the whole character of vīthī. (Prof. D. R. Mankad feels that 'Bhāna' was the first type to evolve. Dr. Bhat earlier argued for Samavakāra, on the strength of Bharata's mentioning. But Bharata has also mentioned a dima. Actually a play is supposed to entertain both "devas” and 'asuras” alike, i.e.of people of various tastes at a time. In this context Bharata has cited the illustration of 'Samudra-mathana'. We feel that we should not rush to conclusions as is done either by Prof. Mankad or Prof. Bhat. Actually, as suggested by us elsewhere, acting and narration are two sides of a coin and evolve naturally. We can not say whether the minor popular art-forms were predecessors to classical major or not, and we are grateful to tradition (= āgama, as Bharata uses the world) for that. It is no use rushing to conclusions.]
DR. has Bhāņa discussed (pp. 158; III. 49-51) as follows : bhāņas tu dhūrtacaritam svā’nubhūtam pareņa vā yatropavarņayaed eko nipunaḥ pandito vitaḥ- (49) sambodhanokti-pratyuktī kuryād ākāśa-bhāṣitaiḥ sūcayed vīra-śțngārau śaurya-saubhāgya-samstavaiḥ. (50) bhūyasă bhāratī vịttir ekánkam vastu-kalpitam, mukha-nirvahane sā’nge lāsyāngāni daśā’pi ca. (51)
It may be noted that the DR. also takes note of the rasas, bhārati-vrtti, and also "lāsyāngāní”. This suggests that a lot of music and dance must have been associated with this form. Thus 'bhāna' could be viewed as a minor-art-form also. The lāsyāngāni are enumerated in the DR. II. 52-53, as follows.
geyapadam sthita-pāthyam āsīnam puspa-gandikā, pracchedakas trigūdham ca saindhavākyam dvigūdhakam (52) uttamottamakam caiva ukta-pratyuktam eva ca, lāsye daśa-vidham hyetad anga-nirdeśa-kalpanam. (53) ND. (p. 229, II. 16, 17) reads as - bhāṇaḥ pradhāna-śộngāra-vīro mukha-nirvāhavān, ekā’nko daśa-lāsyāngaḥ, prāyo lokā’nurañjakaḥ. (16) eko vito vā dhūrto vā veśyādeḥ svasya vā sthitim, vyomoktyā varņayed atra vṛttir mukhyā ca bhāratī. (17)

Page #661

1836
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA RS. (p. 287, III. 232b-237) - has svasya vā’nyasya vā vịttam vițena nipunoktinā. (232b) śaurya-saubhāgya-samstutyā vīra-śíngāra-sūcakam, buddhikalpitam ekā’ngam mukha-nirvahaņeritam. (233) varnyate... (234) bhaved ākāśabhāṣitam. (235) lāsyā'ngāni daśaitasmin samyojyānyatra tāni tu, geyapadam sthita-pāțhyam āsīnam puspagandhikā, (236) pracchedakas trigudham ca saindhavākhyam dvighādhakam uttamottamakam cā’nyad ukta-pratyuktameva ca. (237)
The B.P. (Ch. VIII) describes lāsyāngāni elaborately by defining each one of them. The RS. also accepts the same.
SD. (p. 435, VI. 227b-230) has - bhāṇaḥ syād dhūrta-carito nānā’vastāntarā"tmakaḥ. (227b) ekāňka eka evā'tra nipunaḥ pandito vitaḥ, range prakāśayet svena anubhūtam itareņa vā. (228) sambodhanokti-pratyukto kuryād ākāśa-bhāșitai). sūcayed vīra-śộngārau śaurya-saubhāgya-varṇanaiḥ. (229) tatretivșttam utpadyam vsttiḥ prāyeņa bhārati mukha-nirvahane sandhi lāsyā’ngāni daśā’pi ca. (230) Vithi is read in the NS. at (XVIII 112-126) : sarva-rasa-laksaņā”dhyā yuktā hy angais trayodaśabhiḥ, vīthi syād ekā’nkā, tathaika-hāryā dvihāryā vā. (112) adhamottama-madhyamābhir yuktā syāt prakrtibhih tisrbhih. uddháryakāvalagitā'va-spandita-nāly-asatpraläpāś ca. (113) vākkely atha prapanco mțdavā’dhibale chalam trigatam, vyāhāro gandaś ca trayodaśārgāny udāhstāny asyāḥ. (114) atha vīthi samproktā, lakṣaṇam eşām pravaksyāmi. (115a) padāni tvagatārthāni ye naraḥ punarādarāt, (115b) yojayanti padair anyais tad uddhātyakam ucyate. (116a)

Page #662

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicăra"
1837
yatrā'nyasmin samaveksya kāryamanyat prasādhyate, (116b) tac cā'valagitam nāma vijñeyam nātya-yoktņbhiḥ. (117a) äksipte'rthe tu kasmiścicchudhā'śubha-samutthite, (117b) kausalyād ucyatényórthas tad ava-spanditam bhavet. (118a) hāsyenopagatā’rtha-prahelikā nāliketi vijñeyā. (118b) mūrkha-jana-sannikarse hitam api yatra prabhāşate vidvān na ca gļhyatésya vacanam vijñeyo'sat-pralāpósau. (119) (120) eka-dvi-prativacanā vākkelī syāt-prayogésmin. (120a) yad asadbhūtam vacanam samstava-yuktam dvayoh (120b) ekasyà câ'rthahetoh, sa hāsyajananah prapancah syāt. (121a) yat kāraṇād guņānām dosīkaranam bhaved vivāda-krtam, (121b) dosa-gunīkaranam vā tan mțdavam nāma vijñeyam. (122a) paravacanam ātmanaśca uttarottara-samudbhavam dvayor yattu, (122b) anyónyā’rtha-viseșakam adhibalam iti tad budhair jñeyam. (123a) anyā’rtham eva vākyam chalam abhi-sandhāna-hāsya-rosa-karam (123b) srutisārūpyād yasmin bahavórthā yuktibhir niyujyante, yad häsyam a-hāsyam vā tattrigatam nāma vijñeyam. (124) pratyakşa-výttir ukto vyāhāro hāsya-leśárthaḥ. (125a) samramba-sambhrama-yutam vivāda-yuktam tathā'pavādakstam, (125b) bahuyacanā’ksepa-krtam gandam pravadanti tattvajñāḥ. (126a) Dr. Bhat translates (pp. 153-159) :
(112-113a) - The vīthi should have one act; it has the character of all the sentiments and it comprises 13 aspects (lit. limbs); it is to be acted by one or two characters; it may include three kinds of dramatic characters (prakrti), high, middling and low. (113b, 114, 115a) - The thirteen limbs of the vīthi are stated (as follows) : uddhātyaka, avalagita, ava-spandita, nālī, asat-pralāpa, vāk-keli, prapanca, mệdava, adhibala, chala, trigata, vyāhāra, ganda.
I have spoken about the vithi. I will now explain the characterstics of these (thirteen aspects) (115b-116a). When dramatic characters (lit. men) connect words, (uttered) out of due respect (but) not understood in their (correct) meaning, with other words (not intended by the original speaker) that is called uddhātyaka - (Thrusted interpretation.)

Page #663

1838
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (Dr. Bhat adds a foot-note : Abhinava's example is of a verse where the character asks questions and states his answers. The verse, ordinarily will be an example of parisamkhyā alamkāra.]
(116b-117a) - Something connected with another context (serves) to accomplish some other result, that is to be known as Avalagita (Transferred connection) by the designers of drama.
(Dr. Bhat) (foot-note : The example is Ratnāvalī II. from Vidusaka's - "api sukhayati te locanam... to V. 11)
(117b-118a) - When a certain matter (artha) which has been stated (āksipta) from which good or evil may arise (unintentionally) is skilfully interprete another meaning, that will be Ava-spandita, (ominous suggestion).
(Dr. Bhat - "The example is Venīsamhāra I. 6. ("satpaksā madhura-girah...") and the sūtradhāra's comments on his assistant's remarks.
(118 b) When a riddle-like (enigmatic) reply is followed by laughter, that is to be known as Nālikā (or Nalī. riddle and laughter).
[Dr. Bhat : cf. Ratnāvali II. after V. 15 (from jassa kide āgadā... upto cittaphalakāsya') , lines 1-5.]
(119) That is 'Asat-pralāpa' (Incoherent chatter) [Where the statement or question and the reply both are inconsistent) - where the statement made by a learned man in the presence of fools, although beneficial, is not accepted.
[Dr. Bhat adds : See Abhinava, op. cit. p. 456, for the example. The alternative reading is quite clear :
"a-sambaddham ca yad vākyam, a-sambaddham tathottaram, a-sat-pralāpas tac caiva vithyām samyak prayojayet."]
(120a) In this representation (of Vithī), the vākkeli (sportive speech, Repartee) is a single or twofold reply. (120b-121a) - A statement which is untrue but which looks like mutual praise of two, which is intended in the interest of one (of the two), and which evokes laughter, will be 'prapanca' (comic exposure).
[Dr. Bhat : cf. Ratnávali II, after VS. 15, from the king's speech - “katham aham ihasthah bhavatyā jñātah”, upto 'devie nivedaissam' and the gift of ornament. Abhinava, op. cit., p. 456).
(121b-122a) - When as a result of hot dispute (vivāda) the merits (of one) are made to look like faults, on the basis of definite cause, or the faults are turned into merits, that is known by the name 'mțdava'. (crushing.)

Page #664

“Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1839 (Dr. Bhat - The name 'mrdava' implies the idea or crushing, like earth, the view of the rival and establishing one's viewpoint. cf. Venisamhāra, III. 22, as an instance of 'dosasya guni-karana' and III. 39, as of 'gunasya doșīkarana', in the altercation between Aśyatthāman and Karna.]
(1226-123a) - When the words of another person as well as one's own, in the course of mutual dialogue, lead to the strengthening (qualifying) of the meaning of both (speakers), that should be known by the wise as 'Adhibala' (special strengthening).
[Dr. Bhat-foot-note - The example is Nāgānanda, I. 5, to I. 7., lines 1-9.]
(123b) A statement which really carries an altogether different meaning, employed to cause deception, laughter and anger, is 'chala'. (Deception, Irony)
[Dr. Bhat - According to alternative reading "Having first tempted by means of
ditional replies, by those very replies, (now) shown to be meaningless, exactly opposite is done, that is chala.” Abhinava's example is, "kassa va na hoi roso... where the clever sakhi represents the tooth-marks on the lip of the nāyikā as due to smelling of a lotus that has a bee, in order to conceal her wanton act of love.]
(124) - The statement in which many meanings are employed by clever means, due to similarity of sounds, that whether laugh-evoking or not, is to be known as “Trigata” (Tiriple or multiple import).
[Dr. Bhat : Apperently this 'trigata' is different from the 'trigata', 'three-men's talk', which is an item in the pūrva-ranga. The instance is Vikramorvašīya IV. 56. "sarva-kşitibhrtām nātha...", where due to the mountain echoes, the question asked by Pururavas, becomes, when heard back, an affirmative answer, with slight adjustment of syntax. The yukti' is usually kāku.]
(125-a) - Things (which are to be visualized in the coming future) are spoken as actually taking place. This is vyāhāra - (varied representation), which is meant to convey amused laughter (hāsya-leśa).
[Dr. Bhat : Abhinava's instance is Ratnāvali II. 4 - (uddāmotkalikām....) where the magic blossoming of the king's favourite flowering tree is visualised as causing defeat and jealous anger of the queen.
Abhinava says - ‘pratyaksa-śabdena bhāvī pratyaksaḥ ucyate.' - Vyāhāra is so called because “vividhaḥ arthaḥ abhinīyate yena”, op. cit. p. 458.]
(1256-126) The theoreticians speak (that to be) ganda (Dramatic coincidence) which is due to agitation, confusion, quarrel, reviling (apa-vāda), and caused by

Page #665

1840
SAHRDAYĀLOKA (unexpected) words, (lit. tossing, āksepa) (though) the many (connected) words (previously uttered) have come to a proper break (āksepa).
[Dr. Bhat - foot-note - "Bahu-vacana-āksepa-krta - The elaborate translation follows the interpretation of Kohala given by Abhinava. The illustration is, Venisamhāra II. 23 & ff.
(paryāptam eva karabhoru mamo-ru-yugmam” bhagnam... bhagnam...).
Thus, the prescription for ten types of drama has been all mentioned by me in accordance with their characteristics.
It may be noted that like sandhyanga-s, and sandhyantaras, these ‘angas' also make for beautification in a play and should therefore be taken as "alamkāras”in the wider sense of the term.
DR. (p. 163, III. 686-69) : reads - vīthi tu kaiśikī-vșttau sandhyangā’nkais tu bhāņavat (686) rasaḥ sūcyas tu śộngāraḥ, sprśedapi rasāntaram, yuktā prastāvanākhyātair angair uddhātyakā”dibhiḥ. (69) evam vīthi vidhātavyā dvyeka-pātra-prayojitā. (70a)
Avaloka : (p. 163) : vīthīvad vīthi mārgaḥ. angādīnām upapattiḥ bhāṇavat kāryā, viseșatas tu rasam śrngāro' paripūrņatvād bhūyasā sūcyaḥ. rasāntarānyapi stokam sparśanīyāni. kaisiki vrttir iha rasaucityād eva iti. śesam spastam.
The ND. (p. 240-270; Kā. II. 28-36) : reads as - ND. sarva-svāmi-rasā vīthi tv ekānkā dvyeka-pātrikā, mukha-nirvāha-sandhiḥ syāt, sarva-rūpopayogini. (28)
[Vịtti-sarvesām rūpakāņam nāțakā"dīnām vakroktyā-di-samkula-trayodaśāngapraveśena upayogini vaicitryakārikā. ata evā’nte lakṣitā.]
vyāhāro'dhibalam gandaḥ prapañcāstrigatam chalam, asat-pralăpo vākkeli nālikā mrdavam matam. uddhātyakāvalagite athāvaspanditam smộtam, bhāratī-vștti-vartīni vīthyangāni trayodaśa. (29-30) anyārthā bhāvidssțir vā vyāhāro hāsya-leśā-gīḥ mitho jalpe svapakşasya sthāpanā-'dhibalam balāt. (31)

Page #666

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra”
1841 gando'kasmād yad anyártham prastutā’nugatam vacaḥ prapañcaḥ sastavam hāsyam mitho mithaika-lābhakrt. (32) trigatam sabda-sāmyena bhinnasyā’rthasya yojanam, vaco'nyártham chalam hāsya-vañcanā-roșa-kāraṇam. (33) asatpralāpas tarvena hitam yannā'vagamyate, praśnottaram tu vākkelī hāsyā vāk-prati-vāg api. (34) hāsyāya vañcanā nālī, vyatyayo guņadosayoḥ, mrdavam. parasparam syad udghātyam gūậhabhāṣaṇam. (35) taccāvalagitam siddhiḥ kāryasyā’nya-mișeņa yā,
svecchoktasyányathākhyānam yad avaspanditam tu tat. (36) RS. has Vithi (pp. 290; III. 265-268a) -
sūcya-pradhāna-śộngārā mukha-nirvaḥaņā’nvitā eka-yojyā dvi-yojyā vā kaiśikī-vștti-nirbharā. (265) vīthyanga-sahitaikánkä vīthi'ti kathitā budhaih asyām prāyeņa lāsyángadaśakam yojayenna vā. (266) sāmānyā parakīyā vā nāyikā'trā'nurāgiņi vīthyanga-prāya-vastutvān nocitā kulapālikā. (267) laksyam asyās tu vijñeyam
madhavivithikā"dikam. (268a) The RS. enumerates the vīthyanga-s along with āmukhā’ngāni, at III. 164 - 166 such as -
kathitāny āmukhángāni vīthyangāni pracakṣmahe āmukhe’pi ca vīthyām ca sādhāranyena sammatā. (164)

Page #667

1842
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
vīthyanga-samprathā teşām vīthyām āvaśyakatvataḥ, uddhyātakávalagite prapanca-trigate chalam. (165) vākkelyatibale gandam avasyandita-nālike,
asatpralāpa-vyāhārau mặdavam ca trayodaśa. (166) The description of these is the same as read in earlier sources. SD. (p. 440; VI. 253-256) reads as -
vīthyām eko bhaved ankah kaścid ekótra kalpyate, ākāśa-bhāsitair uktais citrām pratyuktim āśritaḥ. (253) sūcayed bhūri-śộngāram kiñcid anyān rasāņ prati, muka-nirvahane sandhi
arthaprakrtayókhilāḥ. (254) "kaścid uttamo madhyamódhamo vā, śộngārabahulatvāc că'syāḥ kaiśiki-vrttibahulatvam.
asyās trayodaśāngāni nirdiśanti manīșinah, uddhyātyakā’valagite prapancas trigatam chalam. (255) vākkelyadhibale gandam avasyandita-nālike, asatpralāpa-vyāhāra
mặdavāni ca tāni tu. (256) The SD. vrtti observes : etāni cángāni nāțakā"dișu sambhavanty api vīthyām avaśyam vidheyāni, spasta-tayā nāțakā”dişu vinivistānyapīhódāhrtāni. vīthīva nānā-rasānām cā’tra mālā-rūpatayā sthitatvād vīthi iyam.”
With this the daśa-rupaka-vicāra is completed.
It may be noted, as said in the preface - "namaskaromi”, that no doubt we have drawn upon reliable and respectable sources, especially in the area of historical survey so to say, i.e. where the views of the mīmāmsaka-s, naiyāyika-s and vaiyakaranas are discussed, - but, to be honest, we have verified with the original

Page #668

"Daśa-rupaka-Vicāra"
1843 as far as possible, and then only accepted. With the material dealing with alamkāraśāstra proper, i.e. with Bharata, Bhāmaha and the rest, we have tried to think in an original way as prompted by the grace of our gurus - Prof. R. C. Parikh, Prof. R. B. Athavale, and Prof. Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, who at the age of 87+, even today guides us to newer and newer insights. All great names, Dr. Raghavan included, are consulted on occasions and all this is clearly recognised, but we have tried to re-evaluate the findings of these great scholars also. So, at the end of Vol. I., completed with the grace of the Divine, we may say : .
"Aum pūrņam adaḥ, pūrņam idam pūrņāt pūrņam udacyate, pūrņasya pūrņam ādāya
pūrņam evā’vašisyate." - iti śivam - “That (= the reliable source] is perfect, This [the material presented before you]
is perfect. From [the source which is) perfect the perfect is drawn. After (drawing] perfect [material] from perfect [source] only the perfect (which is placed in your hand) remains.
Aum śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ, śāntiḥ. · Aum Mā Aum.
Aum Namaḥ śivāya śubham bhavatu - 20-7-03, Sunday
[Aşādha-krsna-saptamī)

Page #669

Select Bibliography
Abhidhā-vștta-Mātřkā-Mukula;
Edn. Dr. R. P. Dwivedi, Chow. Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi, '73. Agni Purāņo'ktam-Kāvyā'lamkāra Šāstram - Edn. Parasnath Dwivedi; '85. Alamkāra-sekhara- Keśava Mishra.
Nir. Sā. Edn. Bombay, '26 . Alamkāra-Sarvasva-Ruyyaka; Edn.
Prof. Dr. R. C. Dwivedi; Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi.-65 (also
Edn. Dr. Janaki) Atharva-Veda (AV). Trans.
Hymns of the AV.-Maurice Bloomfield; SBI, Vol. XI. Bhāvaprakāśana-Sāradātanaya;
Edn. O. I. Baroda, '68. also Edn. Dr. M. M. Agrawal Pub. Chow. Surabharati
Prakashan, Varanasi, '83. Bharata- Nātya-Mañjari
Edn. B. O. R. I. Pune. '75,
Dr. G. K. Bhat. Buddha-Carita- Ašvaghosa;
Edn. Haraprasad Sastri.
Bibliotheka Indica, A. D. 1910. Candrā"loka; Jayadeva; Edn.
Bharatiya Vidya Prākasan, Delhi, 1992; also Edn. with Ramā Tika. also Ed. With Paurnamsī, Skt. Comm.; Chow. Skt. Sr. Office, Varanasi '64.

Page #670

Select Bibliography
1845 Daśa-rūpaka; Dhanañjaya, With 'Avaloka' Comm., Dhanika, - Edn.
The Adyar Library Series, Vol. 97. 1969; Prof. T. Venkatacharya. also Edn. (Hindi) Dr. Bholashankar Vyas, Chow. Vidya
Bhavan, Chowk, Benares, '55. Dhvanyā”loka; Anandavardhana; with Comms; Locana, Bālapriyā and
Divyañjanā; Kashi Skt. Sr. Granthamala; No. 135, pub.
Chow., Skt. Sr., office, Benares City, 1940. also Edn.
Dr. Tapasvi Nandi, with Locana and “Cinmayi Țikā (Guj.); Saraswati Prakashan, oriental Research Sr., Vol. II,
Ahmedabad; '97-'98. also Edn. With Locana & Tārāvati (Hindi Comm.), Ramsagar Tripathi.
Pub. Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, '64. (Vol. s I & II) also Edn.
K. Krishnamoorthy, Pub. Karnatak Uni; Dharwad, '74. also End.
With Locana & Kaumudi Comm., Edn. KSRI, Madras, MM.
Prof. S. Kuppususwami Sastri, '44. also Edn.
With Dīdhiti Comms; Chow. SK. Sr., Benares. '53. also Edn.
Prof D. R. Mankad, Guj. Uni. Ahd. 1969. also Edn.
(Hindi) Viśveśvarajee Ekāvalī;
Vidyādhara; With Comm. Taralā of Mallinātha, Edn. Trivedi;
Bombay Skt. Sr., Bombay, 1903; Kālidāsa-Granthāvalī- Edn.
Dr. R. P. Dwivedi, Varanasi: Edn. 2nd. Kāvyā'lamkāra- Rudrața; with Comm. Namisādhu; also Hindi Comm. Prakāśa;
Edn. Chow. Vidyabhavan, Sri Ramdev Shukla, Varanasi, '66. Kāvyā'lamkāra Edn. Kedarnath Sharma, Patna; Kāvyā'lamkāra; Bhāmaha, Edn. with Udyāna-vrtti: D. T. Tatacharya Siromani.
Tiruvadi, '34; Edn. C. Sankara Rama Shastri, Madras: '56
Bāʻlamanorama Series; No. 54. Kāvyā’lamkāra-Sāra-Samgraha-Udbhata Edn. second, B.O.R.I. Poona '82, With
Laghuvṛtti of Pratīhāre'ndurāja. also Edn. With Vivști; O.I. Baroda, '31. . also Edn. With Laghuvștti; Nir. Sā.-Bombay, '28.

Page #671

1846
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Kāvyā'lamkāra-sūtra-vrtti, Vāmana; with Comm. kāma-dhenu; Bechan Jha
Edn. Chowkhamba Skt. Series; '71, Varanasi. also Edn.
Dr. Rewaprasad. Kāvā'lamkāra-sūtra-Vrtti; Vāmana;
Edn. Prof. Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi, '71, Varanasi; also Edn.- Benares Skt. Sr., Under Thibaut's Supervision, No.
140; Benares; '40. Kāvyā’nuśāsana; Vāgbhata II.
Edn. Nir. Sā., Bombay. '15; Kāvyā'nuśāsana-Hemacandra;
Edn. 2nd., Prof. R. C. Parikh and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni; Bombay, '70, also, End. in Vol.s I & II Prof. Parikh and Prof. R. B. Athavale; Bombay. '38. also Edn. Tapasvi Nandi, Pub. L. D. Inst. of Indology, Ahd.
2000 A.D., Kāvyā"darśa- Dandin; Edn. Dr. D. K. Gupta, Delhi, '76. Kāvyā”darśa; Dandin; Edn. B.O.R.I. Poona, with Comm. Prabhā, R. Reddi;
1970, Second End.; Kāvyamīmāmsā- Rājasekhara; Edn. Dalal; G. O. S., Baroda, '24
also Edn.-With Madhusūdani,
Chow. Edn. '34 Varanasi; Kāvya-Prakāśa; Mammata; with Comm. Jhalkikar, B. O. R. I. Poona. 1921;
also End. Jyotna Mohan, Vol. I-V Nag Pub., Delhi, '95
(With all major Comm.s) also Edn
Tapasvi Nandi, With Comm. Sāradīpikā of Gunaratna Gani.
Vol.s I & II. Pub. Guj. Uni. Ahd. '76. also Edn.
Sivprasad Bhattacharya, With Comm. Viveka, '59. Kāvya-Prakāśa-Khandana
Siddhicandra,
Edn. Prof. R. C. Parikh, Singhi Jain Grantha Mala, '53. Mahābhāșya, Patañjali
Edn. Keilhorn, Third End. K. V. Abhyankar, Poona, '62.

Page #672

Select Bibliography
1847 Mahābhāsya, Patañjali; Vol.s I-III
Edn. Keilhorn, BSS., 1906. Nāțaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-Kośa.
-Sagara-Nandin; Edn. Prof. Babulal Shukla Sastri, Chow. Skt. Sansthan, Varanasi,
'72. Nātya-Šāstra;- Bharatamuni; (with Abhinava-bhārati)
Edn. G.O.S. Vol. I. '59 & '92 (K. Krishnamoorthy) Vol. II. Edn. 2001, (Dr. V. M. Kulkarni & Dr. T. S. Nandi) Vol. III. Edn. 2003 (,,,,
& Vol. IV Edn. '64-Kavi. Nātya-śāstra; Vols. I-IV, Edn. N. P. Unni Nag Pub, Delhi; 1998;
Edn. Dr.T. S. Nandi; (Chs. I-III & VI with Abh.) Saraswati Research Praakāśana series; Vol. IX Ahd., '94-95 Edn. B. H. U., '71, with Skt., Hindi Comm., Madhusudan
Shastri. Nāțya-Šāstra; Hindi Abh.; Edn. Deptt. of Hindi, Delhi Uni.; Delhi, '60,
Ācārya Viśveśvara.
Uni; Delhi, '60, Ācārya Viśveśvara. Nātyaśāstra; Edn. R. S. Nagar, Parimal Pub., Vol. 5. I-IV; Delhi ('87, '88,
'88, '84) also, Edn. with Skt. Hindi Comm. Madhusūdan Shastri-B.H.U.
'71 & '75. Nātya-darpaņa- Rāmacandra & Guņacandra; Edn. G. O. S. Vadodara, '29.
and also (Hindi) Edn.- Acarya Visvesvara, Deptt. of Hindi,
Delhi Uni., Delhi-'91. Nirukta of Yāska; With Durga's Comm., Edn. Bhadkamkar H. M. & R. G. BSS. 73,
85, Bombay Vol. I, 18, Vol. II 42 Also Trans. L. Sarup. Pratāpa-rudrīya Or Pratāpa-rudra-Yaśo-bhūsana-Vidyānātha
Edn. With Ratnāpaņaa Comm. of Kumārasvmin. S. Chandrasekhara Sastrigal, Madras, 1914.

Page #673

1848
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Rasārņava-sudhākara-singa-Bhūpāla; Edn. Anathasayana,
T. Ganapati Sastri, Trivendrum 1916 A. D. Rasagangādhara; Jagannātha; with Comm. Nāgeśa; Nir. Sā. Edn., Bombay, '47,
also, Edn. Kāvyamala; 1888;
also, Edn. with Comm. Candrikā, - Chowkhamba Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi, 1955;
also Edn. in two Vols., Prog. R. B. Athavale,
Pub-Uni. Book Production Board, Guj. state, Ahd.; '72 & '74. Rasa-Tarangiņi- Bhanudatta
Edn. Grantha-ratna-mālā, '87-88. also, Edn. with Hindi Trans, etc. Pub. Munshiram Manoharlal
N. D. '74. Sāhitya-darpaņa; Viśvantha;
With Lakşmī-Comm.; Edn. Chow. Skt. Samsthana; Varanasi, '85 (fouth Edn.) also Edns. with other important Skt. Comm.s., Kusuma-priyā,
Rucirā, etc.Spřgāra-Prakāśa; Bhoja; Vol. I-IV.
Josyer, Mysore, '55. Sarasvatīkaņķhābharaṇa; Bhoja; Nir-Sā., Edn; Bombay, '34, With Comm. of
Ramasīmha, & Jagaddhara; The Linguistic speculations of the Hindus -
Edn. Uni. of Calcutta, 33. Dr. Dr. P. C. Chakravarti The Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar -
Pub. Uni. of Calcutta, 30, Dr. P. C. Chakravarti Trivendrum Plays- Ascribed to Bhāsa; Edn. Prof. Deodhar Poona. Vāgbhatā’lamkāra-Vāgbhata;
Edn. M. S. Uni. Vadodara, Guj. Deptt.; '75; and also, End. with Simhadevagan'i's Comm., Chow. Vidyabhavan, Varanasi,
'57. Vakrokti-Jīvita-Kuntaka; Edn. K. Krishnamoorthy, Karnatak Uni., Dharwad; '77;

Page #674

Select Bibliography
1849 Vakrokti-Jīvita-Kuntaka; (Hindi) Edn. Viśveśvara- Atmāram & Sons; Delhi; '55. Vștti-Vārtika- Appayya Dixita
Edn. Prof. Avasthi, Indu Prakashan Delhi, '77; Vrtti-Vārtika-Appayya Dixita;
Edn. Prof. Avasthi, Induprakāshan- Delhi. '77. Vyakti-Viveka; Mahima Bhatta; with Vyākhyāna; and Madhusūdani-Vivrti;
The Chow. Skt. Sr. Benares, '36., Haridasa, Skt. grantha Mala; Vol. 121, also, Edn. Prof. Dr. Revaprasad Dwivedi, Varanasi, '64.
OTHER REFERENCES A Study of Mahimabhatta's Vyakti-Viveka
Prof. C. Rajendran; Calicut, 91. Bhoja's śộngāra-prakāśa-V. Raghavan, Edn. '63. Madras; "Glimpses of Ancient Indian Poetics”
Edn. Pandey & V. N. Jha; Pub. Shri Garib Dass Oriental
Series, Delhi. History of Skt. Poetics, P. V. Kane. Indian Theories of Meaning
. Dr. K. K. Raja; The Adyar Library and Research Centre,
. Madras, Edn. '69. Kāvya-Prakāśa of Mammața,
Edn. Prof. A, B. Gajendragadker, Bombay, '42. Kāvyaprakāśaśa-Mammața,
Or Poetic Light (Vol. I & II) Dr. R. C. Dwivedi, Pub. Motilal.
Banarasidass, '67, '70; Delhi. Mīmāmsā' or the Vākya-śāstra of Ancient India; Prof. G. V. Devasthali.,- Vol. I.
Edn. Book - sellers' Publishing Company, Bombay, '58. Origin and Development of the Theory of Rasa and Dhvani in
Sanskrit poetics,-Dr. T. S. Nandi Pub. Guj. Uni. Research Pub. series. Guj. Uni.-Ahmedabad. '73.

Page #675

1850
SAHRDAYĀLOKA 'Outline of Abhinavagupta's Aesthetics."
Dr. V. M. Kulkarni Ahmedabad. '98. śānta-rasa & Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics
Masson, Patwardhan.
B. O. R. I. Poona '69. Sanskrit Poetics.- S. K. De. (History of)., Calcutta '60 (2nd Edn.)
Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyaya Some Aspects of Rasa-theory
V. M. Kulkarni- B. L. Inst. (Delhi) '98. Studies In Indian Sāhityaśāstra.
Edn. Prof V. M. Kulkarni.
B. L. Inst.; Patan (N. Guj.) '98. Studies In Indian Sāhityaśāstra.
Edn. Prof. V. M. Kulkarni.
B. L. Inst., Patan (N. Guj.) '83. The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta
R. Gnoli, 2nd Edn. Chow. Skt.
Sr. Office, Varanasi, '68 The Contribution of Panditarāja Jagannatha to Sanskrit Poetics.
(Vol.s, I & II); Dr. P.Sri. Ramachandrudu; Pub. Nirajana
Publishers and Book-sellers, Delhi. 7; '83 Word-Index to Vākyapadiya of Bhartrhari- (also V. P.)
End. Dr. Saroja Bhate, Poona- Eastern Book Linkers,
Delhi, '92. Appayya Dixita- Kavi ane Alamkārika; Dr. B. D. Pandya, Pub. Guj. Uni., Ahd. '74
in Gujarati.

Page #676
290 650 185 360 135 120 220 180 L. D. Series : Latest Publications 126 Acarya Ramcandra and Gunacandra's Dravyalankar with auto commentary, Ed. Muni Shri Jambuvijayaji P.P. 29+251 (2001) 127 Pracina Madhyakalina Sahitya Sangraha (Mohanlal Dalichanda Desai-Laghukruti) Ed. Prof. Jayanta Kothari P.P. 14 + 746 (2001) 128 Sastravarta Samuccaya of Acarya Haribhadra Suri with Hindi translation Notes & Introduction by Dr. K.K.Dixit P.P. 272 (2001) 129 Temple of Mahavira Osiyaji - Monograph by Dr. R.J.Vasavada P.P. 30+ Plates 61 (2001) 130 Bhagwaticurni - Ed. Pt. Rupendra kumar Pagariya P.P. 120 (2002) 131 Abhidha - Dr. Tapasvi Nandi P.P. 84 (2002) 132 A Lover of Light amoung Luminaries : Dilip Kumar Roy Dr. Amrita Paresh Patel P.P. 256 (2002) 133 Sudansana-cariyam - Dr. Saloni Joshi P.P. 8 + 110 (2002) 134 Sivaditya's Saptapadarthi with a commentary by Jinavardhana Suri Ed. Dr. J. S. Jetly P.P. 24 + 96 (2003) 135 Paniniya Vyakarana - Tantra, Artha aura Sambhasana Sandarbha Dr. V. M. Bhatt P.P. 88 (2003) 136 Kurmasatakadvayam, - Translation with select Glossary - Dr. V. M. Kulkarni Introduction by Dr. Devangana Desai P.P. 85 (2003) 137 Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts Vol. V 138 Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts Vol. VI 139 Mahavira's Words - Translation from the German with much added material by W.Boll'ee and J. Soni 140 Vyakarna Mahabhasya Of Bagavad Patanjali Gujarati Translation with Critical Notes by Dr. P.R.Vora - P.P. 6 +58 + 652 (2004) Our Forthcoming Publications - Haribhadra Suri's Yogasataka - Sambodhi Vol. XXIX 110 65 900 700 600 600 For Personal & Private Use Only