Rasarnavasudhakara 1.524.p2

1.524.p2

tan vicāra-saham | kutaḥ ? tat kiṃ vṛtti-dharmāṇāṃ miśraṇam aikya-rūpeṇa nyūnādhika-bhāvena vā | na prathamaḥ avaiṣamyeṇa miśraṇābhāvāt | tathā miśraṇe tu miśra-vṛtti-vyaṅgyo raso' pi miśro nyūnādhikaḥ prasajyeta | vṛttīnāṃca rasa-viśeṣa-niyamasya vakṣyamāṇatvāt | nanu miśrā vṛttiḥ sarva-rasa-sādhāraṇīti cet, na | bhāratyā vṛttyā apahṛta-viṣayatvāt | mūla-pramāṇābhāvena svokti-mātratvāc ca | nāpi dvitīyaḥ | vaiṣamyeṇa vṛtti-guṇānāṃ miśraṇe yatra yad-vṛtti-pratyabhijñā-hetu-bhūtā bahavo guṇā lakṣyante tatra saiva vṛttir iti niścayāt | nanu, tatra prakaraṇādi-vaśena rasa-viśeṣa-vyaktir iti cet tarhi prastuta-rasānurodhenaiva vṛtti-viśeṣa-nirdhāraṇam apy aṅgīkartavyam eva | tathā ca bharataḥ-

That cannot withstand examination. Why? Is that mixture of the properties of the dramatic styles by way of identity or in unequal proportions? It cannot be the first, because there is no mixture without disparity; and if mixed in such a way, the aesthetic sentiment suggested by the mixed style would also run the risk of being mixed and unequal, since a specific rule connecting styles with particular aesthetic sentiments will be stated later. If one objects that the mixed style is common to all aesthetic sentiments, no, because its domain is already appropriated by the Bhāratī style, and because it is a mere assertion without any foundational source of knowledge. Nor can it be the second: for when the qualities of the styles are mixed in unequal proportions, wherever many qualities that serve as the cause for recognising a particular style are observed, it is determined that that very style is present. If one objects that a specific aesthetic sentiment is manifested there by the force of context and the like, then the determination of a specific style must also be accepted solely in accordance with the aesthetic sentiment currently treated. And so Bharata says: