Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c8.s1.8

v1.c8.s1.8

It is apparent, therefore, that the *Hṛdaya-darpaṇa* was not a commentary on Bharata, but a metrical treatise in the *anuṣṭup* metre, dealing with the question of *dhvani*, and incidentally with the question of *rasa-dhvani*. No doubt, Abhinava in his own commentary on Bharata, as well numerous other later writers taking their cue from Abhinava, criticises at some length Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s theory of *rasa*, along with those of Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka and with special reference to Bharata’s particular *sūtra* on the subject; yet Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka is nowhere mentioned directly as a commentator on the same text. It is probable that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s peculiar theory of *rasa* (which, however, bears a resemblance to Abhinava’s own) called for a special refutation in the hands of this champion of the *dhvani*-theory, because Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka denied the expressive function of *dhvani* and attempted to explain the concept by postulating the function of *bhogīkaraṇa*. But there is no definite indication to shew that this theory of *rasa*, being a corrollary to Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s general theory of expression, was not incidental to his main thesis, directed towards the demolition of the new idea of the *dhvani* and establishment of another explanation of the fact of Suggestion (*dhvani*). This may be the reason why Śārṅgadeva, in his enumeration of Bharata’s commentators before his time, omits the name of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.¹