________________
123
And therefore aesthetic relish or enjoyment is not found in the actor. ... The actor is only the means for the spectator's aesthetic relish or enjoyment. This is why the actor is called a pätra (i. vessel, glass, ii. character in a drama). An ordinary vessel (e.g., wineglass) is not able to taste the wine contained in it. It is only a means to tasting the wine for some one else).6
(II) A. Bh. VI. 33, p. 292: In cur (cnsidered) opinion in aesthetic relish or enjoyment what is tasted or enjoyed is one's own consciousness which consists of a mass of bliss. How can there be any question of sorrow? Such varied permanent emotions as love, sorrow, etc., only serve to lend variety to the relish or enjoyment of the otherwise pure compact mass of) consciousness. Acting cr draiatic representation and such other activities serve in awakening the dormant permanent emotions.7
(III) A. Bh. VI. 38, p. 294 : Just as the seed stands as the root-cause a tree, even so the rasas stand as the root-cause of the bhayas........The dramatic representation of the actor which is based on the (dramatic) poem is ultimately based on the generalised (or universalised or idealised) samvit (emotion or feeling) -- not on the poet's personal emotion or feeling as it actually was but as transfigured by his poetic sensibility and creative imagination (pratibha). It is that very idealised emotion or feeling that is really speaking the rasa.... Thus the rasa existing in the poet is like the seed which is the root-cause of a tree. For the poet is just like the spectator. For this very reason it has been said by Anandavardhanācārya "if the poet is full of the erotic sentiment" etc. Therefore a dramatic poem is like a tree. The dramatic representation by the actor is like the flower, etc, The spectator's aesthetic enjoyment is like the fruit. Consequently everything is full of rasa.8
(IV) Dhvanyälokalocana 1.5, pp. 85-87 : Abhinavagupta interprets the famous incident of Kraunca-vadha narrated in the beginning of the Rāmāyano in an extra-ordinary way. The poetic utterance, "mā nişāda", etc., according to him, is not to be viewed as the expression of Valmiki's (the poet's) personal feeling of sorrow. For, if he were grieved on account of the bird's sorrow or grief then the vital statement of Anandavardhana's Kärikä (1.5) that rasa is the soul - the very essence of Kāvya (poetry or creative literature) would have no basis. For there can be no sorrow or grief in rasa which is, in Abhinavagupta's own words, sukha-pradhāna' and anandarüpapleasurable. Nor is it possible for one who is tormented by grief to engage himself in poetic creation (at the very moment of his grief). In other words,
