Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c69.16

v1.c69.16

may be realised by putting emphasis on their (1) *dharma* (inherent characteristic) (2) *vyāpāra* (operation) and (3) *vyaṅgya* (suggestiveness). In the first case, the *dharma* may proceed from *alaṃkāra* and *guṇa* (i.e. *rīti*). In the second case, the *vyāpāra* may consist of *bhaṇiti-prakāra* or *bhogīkaraṇa*. Thus we get five standpoints associated respectively with the names of Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Kuntala, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Ānandavardhana. This classification, though very significant, is obviously overlapping and historically incorrect. The *vyañjanā*, it may be objected, which is taken as one of the bases of differentiation, is admittedly as much a *vyāpāra* as *bhaṇiti* postulated by Kuntala. Besides, Kuntala, as a matter of fact, developes Bhāmaha’s idea of *vakrôkti* as *bhaṇiti-vaicitrya*, and therefore may be properly included among those who put emphasis on *alaṃkāra*. Similarly Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka describes *bhoga* as a peculiar function (*dharma*) or process by which *rasa* is said to be realised; and therefore he is in reality an exponent of the *rasa*-theory as an interpreter of Bharata’s dictum.