________________
121
presented as follows: "Rasa is the permanent emotion itself itensified by the vibhāvas, anubhavas, etc. (i.e. sättvikabhāvas). The rasa is present both in the character that is portrayed (anukarya) and in the actor who represents the character (anukarta)- Rasa is present/exists primarily in the character as has been represented by the poet in his dramatic work. When the actor, through his sustained training, discipline and art presents the character on the stage the rasa is present in him secondarily.2
Sankuka who criticises Lollata's view differs with him regarding the location of rasa. According to his view rasa is simply a permanent emotion or rather, the reproduction or refenaction of the permanent emotion of the character (say, Rama); and because it is a reproduction it is called by a different name: rasa. This reproduced permanent emotion is inferred, on the strength of the vibhāvas, anubhavas and vynthṭcaribhavas as existing in the actor (anukarta). In other words, according to Sankuka the rasa is located in the actor and actor alone. In another context (A. Bh. I., p. 292) Abhinavagupta quotes Śrisankuka: "In a dramatic performance the sensitive spectator enjoys the rasas in the actor, and then perceives the (permanent) emotion as existing in the character. In everyday life, however, prakṛti (reading emended to prakṛta-bhava) a particular bhava (emotion) leads to its corresponding rasa... "This is not true" says Abhinavagupta. For the sensitive spectator is not aware of any distinction between the character reproduced and the actor."3
The Locana commentary on the Dhvanyaloka p. 184) too criticises, Lollata's view. This criticism partly agrees with Sankuka's criticism and partly with Bhatṭanayaka's critism as recorded in Ch. I. p. 272 and p. 276: There is no rasa in the character that is portrayed, say Rama, who is removed both in space and time from the spectators. If one were to say that it is present in the actor, there would arise the difficulty, viz., the actor who would be absorbed in aesthetic rapture would not be able to follow the laya (tempo ?) and other dramatic conventions. If one were to say that rasa is present in the sensitive spectator, how could there, be aesthetic pleasure? On the contrary in Karuna-nasa the sensitive spectator would experience nothing but sorrow..".4 In this passage too, Sankuka's view regarding the location of rasa is further confirmed.
According to Bhaṭṭanayaka, rasa is perceived neither as located in oneself nor in someone else. In other words, rasa is not located in the spectator, nor in the original character that is portrayed or in the actor who plays the role of the original character. If rasa were to arise or exist in the spectator.how could there be the thrill of delight and wonder (camatkara) ? On the contrary in Karuna-rasa he would avnariann
