Rasarnavasudhakara 2.359.p1

2.359.p1

nanu nāyaka-niṣṭhasya sthāyi-prakarṣa-lakṣaṇasya rasasya sāmājikānubhava-yogyatā nopapadyate | anya-bhavasya tasyānyānubhavāyogāt iti cet satyam | ko vā nāyaka-gataṃ rasam ācaṣṭe | tathā hi-sa ca nāyako dṛṣṭaḥ śruto' nukṛto vā rasasyāśrayatām ālambate | nādyaḥ | sākṣād dṛṣṭa-nāyaka-ratyāder vrīḍā-jugupsādi-pratīpa-phalatvena svādābhāvāt | na dvitīya-tṛtīyau | tayor avidyamānatvāt | na hy asati āśraye tad-āśritasyāvasthānam upapadyate |

Now, if it be objected: “Aesthetic sentiment, defined as the climax of the durable state located in the hero, cannot be fit for the experience of the spectators, because what exists in one person cannot be experienced by another”; this is true. But who says that aesthetic sentiment resides in the hero? To explain: Does that hero become the substratum of aesthetic sentiment when seen, heard, or imitated? Not the first, because the love or other emotions of a hero seen directly have shame, disgust, and the like as their contrary result, and thus lack relish. Nor the second or third, because neither of those two exists [in actuality]. For when the substratum does not exist, the presence of what depends on it is impossible.