________________
APPENDIX-II
111
emotions/sentiments. On another view, the number is based on psychological findings about what constitutes the relatively permanent part of the structure of the human mind. Much has happened in the fields of literature and psychology since Bharata wrote; and perhaps he would have changed his views if he had known all that later critics and psychologists know about dramatic works and the human mind.
But the rasa theory also contains a part which is not restricted in like manner to a particular age. It consists of certain clusters of concepts which are very basic to the theory. I propose to discuss two such clusters, one at some length, and the other rather briefly at the end. I shall also try to show that these clusters have their counterparts in the Western critical tradition, and indicate the points where a fruitful interaction between the two traditions can take place today.
The first cluster centers round the concept of sõdhāraṇikarana (universalization). On this concept is based Abhinavagupta's triple claim that (a) the rasa experience is alaukika (sui generis), that (b) it is essentially pleasurable and that (c) the spectator does not contemplate it as something outside himself but undergoes it. Universalization can be interpreted as (i) a oneway process, from a particular to the universal which subsumes it, or as (ii) a two-way process, from a particular to the universal, and back again to a particular-the second particular not being the same as the first particular. That Abhinavagupta most probably had the second interpretation in mind is indicated by the example of Sāmba cited by Hemacandra, who follows Abhinavagupta very closely. The three stages in the process are as follows: (a) Samba worshipped the sun and was restored to good health; (b) everyone who worships the sun is restored to good health; (c) if I worship the sun, I too will be restored to good health. Subsumption of particular human beings under a common universal explains the possibility of communication between them. They have a common meeting ground in their humanity. All that is human is, at least potentially, followable/shareable by all men. This explanation can be extended to the act of watching a play. Although the characters on the stage differ from the spectator in one important respect, they have in common their human qualities. The spectator can understand and/or undergo the experiences presented on the stage because they ary universally shareable/ followable.
Sadharanikarana, as we saw, can also be regarded as a one-way process from a particular to the universal (interpretation 1). The best example of this is available in the empirical sciences. Scientists are primarily concerned with the discovery of universal laws, in the formulation of which particulars as particulars have no place. If sådhāranikarana is interpreted as a one-way process, the characters in literary works will become abstractions on account of the sadharanikarana which they undergo. It is a fact that characters answering to this description do exist in literary works; it is also a fact that some of these works are good. On the other hand, it will be wrong or say
