Kavyalankarasarasamgraha 7.46

7.46

nanu cātrāpi īrṣyāvipralambhavirahavipralambhaśṛṅgārābhyāṃ svatirodhānenopakṛtaḥ saṃbhogaśṛṅgāro nāyikāniṣṭho nibaddhastadyogācca rasavattvamalaṃ bhaviṣyati /
tathāhi 'kathamapi kṛtapratyāpattau priye'ityatra bhāge virahavipralambhapūrvakaḥ priyatamacittasāṃmukhyātmā saṃbhogaśṛṅgāraḥ sūcitaḥ /
ssvalitottara iti tu saṃjātagotraskhalitatvātpreyaso nāyikāyā īrṣyāvipralambhaśṛṃgāro nibaddhaḥ /
punaśca virahakṛśayetyādibhistribhiḥ pādairavahitthena bhāvena nāyikādhāramīrṣyā vipralambhaśṛṅgāraṃ pracchādya saṃbhogaśṛṅgāreṇa cittollāsasūcitena vākyārthasamāptiḥ kṛtā /
tathā hi---virahakṛśetyādinā pādena nāyikāgato manyuravacchādyopadarśitaḥ /
asahanasakhītyādinā tu gotraskhalitasya sakhīśrotraprāptiṃ virahavipralambhakāraṇatvenāśaṅkya dṛṣṭiparāvṛttyā sakhījanaśūnye gṛhe paridṛṣṭe yattannayakayā samullasitaṃ tadupanibandhātsaṃbhogaśṛṅgāreṇa vākyārtho nirvāhitaḥ /
tadevamatra saṃbhogasya vapralambhavādhena labdhapadabandhasyopanibandhādrasavattvamalaṅkāraḥ /
tatkathamatra niralaṅkāratoktā /
ucyate /
na khalu kāvyasya rasānāṃ vālaṅkāryālaṅkārabhāvaḥ, kintu ātmaśarīrabhāvaḥ /
rasā hi kāvayasyātmatvena avasthitāḥ, śabdārthau ca śarīrarūpatayā /
yathā hyātmādhiṣṭhitaṃ śarīraṃ jīvatīti vyapadiśyate tathā rasādhiṣṭhitasya kāvyasya jīvadrūpatayā vyapadeśaḥ kriyate /
tasmādrasānāṃ kāvyaśarīrabhūtaśabdārthaviṣayatayātmatvenāvasthānaṃ, natvalaṅkāratayā /
rasābhivyaktiśca yathāyogaṃ mādhuryaujobhyāṃ tāratamyenāvasthitābhyāmupabṛṃhito yo 'sau prasādātmā guṇastena kriyate /
ato 'tra vipralambhaśṛṅgāropakṛtasya saṃbhogaśṛṅgārasya saguṇakāvyātmatvenāvasthānaṃ, na tu kāvyaṃ prati alaṅkāratayeti yuktamidamuktaṃ niralaṅkāramapi kāvyaṃ saguṇaṃ dṛśyate iti /
evaṃ rasāntareṣu bhāveṣu rasabhāvābhāseṣu tatpraśameṣu ca vācyam /
tadāhuḥ---"rasādyadhiṣṭhitaṃ kāvyaṃ jīvadrūpatayā yataḥ /
kathyate tadrasādīnāṃ kāvyātmatvaṃ vyavasthitam //

Objection: But even here, the aesthetic relish of love-in-union, residing in the heroine, is composed, aided by its own concealment through the aesthetic relishes of love-in-separation caused by jealousy and love-in-separation caused by absence; and by virtue of its connection [with the verse], there will certainly be the ornament of 'possessing aesthetic relish' (*rasavat*).
To explain: in the phrase ‘when her beloved somehow regained his composure’, love-in-union, consisting in turning one's mind toward the beloved preceded by love-in-separation, is indicated.
In ‘after a slip of the tongue’, because the beloved had made a slip of name, the heroine's aesthetic relish of love-in-jealousy is composed.
And further, by the three lines beginning with ‘the woman, emaciated by separation’, after concealing the aesthetic relish of love-in-jealousy grounded in the heroine through the emotion of dissimulation, the completion of the sentence-sense is effected through love-in-union indicated by the blossoming of the mind.
To explain: by the line beginning with ‘the woman, emaciated by separation’, the anger residing in the heroine is shown having been concealed.
By the line beginning with ‘intolerant confidantes’, fearing that the slip of name might reach the ears of the confidantes as a cause of love-in-separation, through a turning of her glance, when the house was seen to be devoid of friends, what was rejoiced by the heroine—by the depiction of that, the sense of the sentence was accomplished through love-in-union.
Thus, because of the depiction of love-in-union which secured its footing through the sublation of love-in-separation, there is the ornament of *rasavat*.
So how can absence of ornament be stated here?
It is answered:
There is indeed no relation of ornament and ornamented between poetry and aesthetic relishes, but rather a relation of soul and body.
For aesthetic relishes exist as the soul of poetry, and word and sense as its body.
For just as a body animated by a soul is designated as ‘living’, so poetry animated by aesthetic relish is designated as having a living form.
Therefore, aesthetic relishes exist as the soul with respect to word and sense, which are the body of poetry, and not as ornaments.
And the manifestation of aesthetic relish is brought about by that quality having the nature of clarity, which is appropriately augmented by sweetness and vigor situated in varying degrees.
Therefore, here, the fact that love-in-union, aided by love-in-separation, exists as the soul of poetry possessing qualities, and not as an ornament toward poetry, makes it appropriate to say: ‘poetry possessing qualities is seen even without ornament’.
The same is to be said regarding other aesthetic relishes, emotions, semblances of aesthetic relishes and emotions, and their pacifications.
As they have said:
“Since poetry presided over by aesthetic relish and so on is described as having a living form, / therefore, it is established that aesthetic relish and so on are the soul of poetry.”