________________ . 87 Exception to this dosa (p. 80, 1. 26): 1 When the Rasa sought to be delineated is already established, the mention of foils (badhya) is not objectionable. The illustrations are: (i) (p. 80, 1. 19). kva karyam Sasa-laksmanah kva ca kulam bhuyo 'pi drsyeta sa dosanam prasamaya me srtam aho kope 'pi kanta mukham kim vaksyanty apakalamsah kstadhiyah sva pne 'pi sa durlabha, cetah svasthyam upaih, kah khalu yuva dhanyo 'dharam dhasyati ? // Here the contrary vyabhicaris work as foils to Srngara, the pertinent sentiment, hence bring it to a bolder relief. The other ill. is (p. 80, 1. 24):3 (ii) The description of the advice of the second young ascetic to Pundarika, who was deeply in love with Mahasveta. Such a contradiction is objectionable either when the contrary Rasa becomes naturally subordinate to the main as in (p. 81, 1. 4) : "bhramim aratim alasa-hrdayatam" or when it is artificially subordinated to it as in (p. 81, 1. 11): "pandu ksamam vadanam hrdayam sarasam etc." Here 'paleness' (panduta) etc. are common to the sentiment of Love-in-separation as well as to consumption (ksetriya-roga). The other ill: is (p. 81, 1. 11): " kopat komala-lola-bahu-latika.pasena baddhva dudham etc./" Here 'tying tightly etc. are the anubhavas of Raudra yet not objectionable to Srngara on account of the suggested Metaphor which is 1. Dhvanikarika III. 20. (P. 365). 2. This ill, is borrowed from Dhvanyaloka (P. 367). Mammata also borrows the same (vide K. P-P 373). The words, taralgt ga yata arg etc. (P. 80, 1. 19) are borrowed by the original from Locana,"377 fe faanirge Afaencot...97791 area*HTH द्वन्द्वशो भवन्ती, पर्यन्ते तु चिन्ताया एव प्रधानतां ददती परमास्वादस्थानम् / " (P. 177). Viveka seems to differ from Abhinava and points out that this is an ill. of the exception to the rivalry of वार and शृङ्गार and not the ill. of भावशबलता. 3. The original borrows from 620 : ar gog i BFT Anaai afa safaATTEETTET fgaragrapartidariauid (P. 368).