Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c28.8

v1.c28.8

bhaṭṭa, an *anumiti-vādin*¹ in his theory of *rasa*, for Śaṅkuka’s work has not yet been recovered. Our author claims for himself originality of treatment and freedom from slavish imitation², and his omission of all references to his predecessor need not, therefore, appear strange. The only testimony of Rāmacaraṇa, an 18th century Bengal commentator on Viśvanātha³, need not be seriously considered; but it is probable that the theory developed by Mahima did not originate in himself. Ānandavardhana refutes at some length some theory of *anumāna* (pp. 201f) which attempted to explain that the suggested sense, posited by the *dhvani-theory*, can be arrived at by the process of logical inference. Mahimabhaṭṭa probably worked out systematically some such thesis (anticipated, it may be, by Ānandavardhana), as a direct rejoinder to Ānanda’s classical exposition; but there is no evidence to connect him with the theory accredited to Śaṅkuka by Abhinavagupta and others.