Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2: Volume 2

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2

Language
English

Contents

Volume 2

Front matter

v2.c75.1

BY

v2.c75.2

SUSHIL KUMAR DE M. A., D. LITT., READER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DACCA

v2.c75.3

IN TWO VOLUMES

v2.c75.4

VOL. II

v2.c75.5

LUZAC & CO.

v2.c75.6

46, Great Russell Street, London W. C.

v2.c75.7

Printed by Mr. Nalin Chandra Paul B.A. at the Calcutta Oriental Press, 107, Mechuabazar St., Calcutta.

v2.c75.8

All rights reserved by the author Indian price Rs. 8/- ; foreign price 10s. 6d.

v2.c75.9

BY

v2.c75.10

SUSHIL KUMAR DE M. A., D. LITT., READER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DACCA

v2.c75.11

IN TWO VOLUMES

v2.c75.12

VOL. II

v2.c75.13

LUZAC & CO.

v2.c75.14

46, Great Russell Street, London W. C.

v2.c75.15

VOLUME II

v2.c75.16

SYSTEMS AND THEORIES

v2.c75.17

TO

v2.c75.18

DR. L. D. BARNETT

Preface

v2.c76.1

Circumstances beyond my control have somewhat delayed the publication of this volume. Apart from the delay due to my remoteness from the place of printing, I could devote to it such time as could be spared from more regular duties; but in the interest of the work itself, I should have been glad if the delay had been longer and given me an opportunity of making it fuller in some parts than it actually is.

v2.c76.2

An attempt was made in the first volume to settle a working Chronology and indicate the original Sources of Sanskrit Poetics; the present volume is concerned with the more difficult task of tracing the development of the Systems and Theories. While I could not ignore the content in investigating the growth of the discipline, I thought it more useful to lay stress on the essentials of the doctrines and omit minor details, my object having been more historical than expository. I could not, for instance, give in this volume a technical analysis of individual rhetorical "figures", with which the Alaṃkāra-śāstra is traditionally and popularly associated; but I have dealt with the general doctrine of poetic figures, in so far as they are not mere tickets of nomenclature but positive agents in the production of stylistic beauty or aesthetic pleasure. The study of analytical rhetoric, apart from its value as a formal discipline, may be regarded as pedantic and futile, but Sanskrit Alaṃkāra-śāstra possesses a speculative interest by involving, besides mere Rhetoric, a great deal of what is known as Criticism, Aesthetics or Poetics ; for it was almost impossible for the Ālaṃkārikas, concerned as they were with form and technique, not to busy themselves with the general phenomena of literature or theorise on general principles. My omission, again, of all consideration of such peculiar development of the rasa-theory as we find in Vaiṣṇava devotional works may be criticised, but my concern here is not with bhakti-rasa but with ālaṃkārika rasa, although I have referred in passing to this erotico-religious application of the theory in Rūpa Gosvāmin's Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi.

v2.c76.3

For a similar reason of historical and general treatment, greater emphasis has been laid on the earlier writers who cover the more creative periods of the discipline ; of later writers, who show in the main an excessive dependence on their predecessors, only typical names have been selected with a due regard to their historical as well as intrinsic importance. It is hoped, however, that no important writer or his work has been overlooked. The dramatic theories, the omission of which has already been explained in the preface to the first volume, form an allied but indeed a totally distinct subject, which is reserved for a more detailed treatment, if possible on a future occasion, than what could have been practicable within the limited scope of this work. In spite of these and other limitations, I venture to think that I have been able to make out a case for (if not actually write) a *history* of Sanskrit Poetics, and apply, however tentatively, the historical method to an important but comparatively neglected branch of Sanskrit speculative literature.

v2.c76.4

I take this opportunity of thanking critics and reviewers who have accorded a generous welcome to the first volume, as well as make renewed acknowledgments to those scholars who have made helpful suggestions, among whom my special thanks are due to Prof. Jacobi, Dr. Barnett and Prof. Sovani. Some minor errors and misstatements in the first volume—inevitable where there are so many details—are corrected, and some new materials added, at the end of this volume.

v2.c76.5

Little did I expect when I had the privilege of associating the first volume of this modest work, on its dedication-page, with the name of Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, who took a personal interest in it from the beginning, that he would not live to see its completion. I cannot make an adequate acknowledgment of all that I owe to him, nor need I dwell here on the roll of his public services, so untimely closed; but I recall with gratitude and affection the debt which I, with many other students of this and past generations in Bengal, owe to this departed friend and patron of higher education and research in this country.

v2.c76.6

University of Dacca December 15, 1924. } S. K. Dé

Contents

v2.c77.1

II. Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Rudraṭa ... 41 III. Daṇḍin and Vāmana ... ... 95 IV. Lollaṭa and Others ... ... 135 V. The Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana... 175 VI. Abhinavagupta and the Reactionary Systems ... ... 224 VII. Mammaṭa and the New School ... 268 VIII. Later Writers on Rasa ... ... 325 IX. Writers on Kavi-śikṣā ... ... 356 Additions and Corrections to Vol. I ... 376 Additions and Corrections to Vol. II ... 386

Abbreviations

v2.c78.1

(in addition to those used in Vol. I)

v2.c78.2

*HAL* = Kane's History of Alaṃkāra Literature, prefixed to his ed. of Sāhitya-darpaṇa, 2nd. ed. Bombay, 1923.

v2.c78.3

*GIL* = Winternitz's Geschichte der indischen Literatur, Vol. iii, Leipzig 1922.

v2.c78.4

*BSOS* = Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London.

I. From The Beginnings To Bhamaha

v2.c79.1

Of the unknown beginnings of Poetics as a discipline, our enquiry in the preceding volume¹ has indicated that we can only make a few surmises, by implication, from the oldest surviving works on the subject, from stray references in general literature, from the elaboration of similar ideas in other disciplines, and from the fully developed *kāvya*-style which would warrant the pre-existence of some doctrines of Poetics regulating its art and usage.

v2.c79.2

¹ See Vol. I pp. 1-22.

v2.c79.3

Apart from such surmises, the sixteenth chapter of Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* gives us for the first time an outline of Poetics which is probably earlier in substance, if not in date, than the earliest existing *kāvya*. In this chapter, one meets with a developed dogma, if not a theory, of Poetics which enumerates four poetic figures (*alaṃkāras*), ten excellences (*guṇas*), ten defects (*doṣas*), and thirty-six characteristics (*lakṣaṇas*) of poetic composition. These apparently constituted the principal contents of the discipline as it existed at a very early period, which may be taken, in the absence of other data, as the first known period in the history of Sanskrit Poetics.

v2.c79.4

It is proper to note in this connexion that in the *Nāṭya-śāstra*, Bharata is principally concerned with Dramaturgy and allied topics², and deals with Poetics in so far as it applies to the theme in hand. In later poetic theories, Dramaturgy is taken as a part of the discipline of Poetics, and the drama is accordingly considered as a species of the *kāvya*. But there are reasons to believe that in older times Dramaturgy and Poetics formed separate disciplines, the former being probably the earlier in point of time, as well as in substance. We have seen³ that the existence of *naṭa-sūtras*, which were presumably works in the *sūtra*-style on the histrionic art, was known even in the time of Pāṇini; but there is no reference, direct or indirect, to such *alaṃkāra-sūtras*, and indeed the term Alaṃkāra itself in the technical sense was unknown in early literature. The earliest surviving works on Poetics, on the other hand, do not include a treatment of the theme of Dramaturgy which, having been a study by itself, was possibly excluded from the sphere of Poetics proper. Both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, no doubt, speak of *nāṭaka* as a species of *kāvya*, but they refer to specialised treatises for its detailed treatment⁴. Vāmana, the next important writer on Poetics, shows indeed an unusual partiality towards the drama (i. 3. 30-32), but even he did not think it proper to devote any special attention to it. Among later writers, it is not until we come to the time of Hemacandra, Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha, when the science was already entering upon a period of critical elaboration and summing-up of results, that we find special chapters dealing with the topic of Dramaturgy. Of these late writers, Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha explicitly refer to and summarise the Daśarūpaka, a recognised work on the dramatic art; while the encyclopaedic Hemacandra, who professes a great admiration for Bharata and his commentator Abhinavagupta, deals with the subject rather summarily, referring the reader to the standard works of Bharata and Kohala.

v2.c79.5

² An outline of the different chapters of Bharata's *Nāṭya-śāstra* is given in Winternitz *GIL* iii pp. 7 f, in Kane *HAL* pp. vi-vii.

v2.c79.6

³ Vol. I p. 21.

v2.c79.7

⁴ *Kāvyādarśa* i 31, *Bhāmahālaṃkāra* i 24. The word *anyatra* in Daṇḍin is interpreted by the commentators as referring to Bharata.

v2.c79.8

It seems, therefore, that the school of Dramaturgy had an existence separate from the orthodox school of Poetics. It is thus not surprising that Bharata should set apart, as he does, a chapter of his work for dealing with the ornaments of Poetry, so far as they apply to the drama (nāṭakāśraya). In his discussion of the guṇas and doṣas in their application to the drama, he expressly designates them as kāvya-guṇas and kāvya-doṣas (xvi 92, 84) respectively; and with reference to the alaṃkāras he says kāvyasyaite hyalaṃkārāḥ (xvi 41) ⁵, making it clear at the same time that he considers them only as embellishments of the dramatic speech.

v2.c79.9

⁵ Cf also verses 104, 110. Bharata uses the word kāvya many times here, as in other chapters, to signify the drama, but we must bear in mind that his conception of poetry is dramatic and justifies such employment of the term kāvya. But in this chapter he appears to

v2.c79.10

Bharata opens this chapter on Poetics with the discussion of what he calls the lakṣaṇas (lit. characteristics), which appear to be partly formal, partly material elements of poetry⁶. But these elements appear so important to Bharata that he devotes a considerable part of this chapter to their definition, and the whole discipline appears to have received from them the designation of Kāvya-lakṣaṇa referred to in xvi 17⁷. It is not very clear from Bharata’s treatment as to what position these lakṣaṇas should occupy in a formal scheme of Poetics; but the func-

v2.c79.11

⁶ The number of these lakṣaṇas, as given in verses 1-3 and dealt with in verses 5-40, is thirty-six; but in verse 4, the reading of the printed text (ed. Kāvyamālā) is ṣaḍviṃśad etāni which should be ṣaṭtriṃśad etāni, as also indicated by Abhinavagupta’s reading and by Bharata himself in xv 167b. In the first three verses, which are defective in the printed text, read (as indicated by Abhinavagupta’s commentary) cākṣara-saṃhati°, śobhābhimānau, guṇānuvādō’tiśaya°, ākhyāna-yacñā-parti°, pṛcchā-dṛṣṭānta°. These emendations can also be gathered from Bharata’s own treatment of the individual lakṣaṇas. These verses are also quoted from the Abhinava-bhāratī by Rāghavabhaṭṭa on Sakuntalā, where the printed text (p 20, ed. N. S. P. 1922) requires similar emendations. Read also in Bharata xvi 6: yatrālpair akṣaraiḥ kliṣṭair vicitrair upavarṇitam.

v2.c79.12

⁷ See Vol. I p. 36, footnote 1.

v2.c79.13

imply a distinction between the kāvya and the nāṭaka as species of composition.

v2.c79.14

tion of most of these is assigned in later Poetics to *alaṃkāras* or *guṇas*. Daṇḍin mentions them summarily (ii 366) under *alaṃkāras* in the wider sense, along with *saṃdhyanga* and *vṛttyanga* which belong properly to the drama, and refers to *āgamāntara* (interpreted by Taruṇavācaspati as alluding to Bharata) for their treatment. So does Dhanañjaya (ed. N. S. P., iv 84); while Viśvanātha (ed. Durgāprasāda, vi 171-211, pp. 316-332) takes them in connexion with the drama, calling some of them *nāṭyālaṃkāra* (dramatic embellishment), and is at the same time of opinion that although some of them are properly included under *guṇa*, *alaṃkāra*, *bhāva* and *sandhi*, they require a particular mention inasmuch as in the drama they are to be accomplished with some care (p. 332). In later literature, the *lakṣaṇas*, which linger conventionally in Dramaturgy, entirely disappear from Poetics proper. This phenomenon would probably indicate not only the fact that the *lakṣaṇas* were strictly proper to the drama, but also the conclusion that what were in the infancy of Poetics, considered so important as to deserve separate treatment and to be differentiated from the *guṇas* and the *alaṃkāras*, were with the growth of critical insight, assigned to the *guṇas* and *alaṃkāras* themselves, to whose sphere in ultimate analysis they were thought properly to belong⁸.

v2.c79.15

⁸ For instance, *āśīḥ* is one of the *lakṣaṇas* of Bharata, Bhāmaha mentioning it rather doubtfully as an *alaṃkāra* with the remark: *āśīr api ca keṣāṃcid alaṃkāratayā matā* (iii 54). In Daṇḍin ii 357 (as well as in Bhaṭṭi),

v2.c79.16

From lakṣaṇas Bharata goes on to the more interesting topic of kāvyālaṃkāras or poetic figures. It appears from his treatment that only four such poetic figures were known and recognised in his time, viz. upamā (simile), rūpaka (metaphor), dīpaka (lit. illuminator⁹) and yamaka (repetition of words or syllables similar in sound). The upamā is subdivided into four kinds, according as the object compared (upameya) or the standard of comparison (upamāna) is one or many¹⁰, Bharata expressly making use of these technical terms. From another standpoint, five varieties of upamā are distinguished and illustrated, viz. (1) praśamsópamā (2) nindópamā¹¹ (3)kalpitópamā (4) sadṛśī upamā and (5) kiṃcitsadṛśī upamā¹², according as these qualifications it is already established as an alaṃkāra. It is significant that Kuntala finds fault with those who regard it as an alaṃkāra.

v2.c79.17

9 It is difficult to translate some of these terms, for there are no equivalents for them in European Rhetoric, and therefore attempts at such translation are as a general rule avoided here. The poetic figure dīpaka may be generally explained as a figure in which two or more objects, some relevant and some irrelevant, having the same attributes, are associated together; or, in which several attributes, some relevant and some irrelevant, are predicated of the same object. It is called dīpaka or the "illuminator" because it is like a lamp which, when employed for illuminating one object, illuminates others.

v2.c79.18

10 viz., (i) ekasya ekena (ii) ekasya anekena (iii) anekasya ekena (iv) bahūnāṃ bahubhiḥ.

v2.c79.19

11 Read nindā ca instead of nitambā in the text

v2.c79.20

12 Abhinavagupta notices the reading asadṛśī.

v2.c79.21

apply to the *upamāna*. Bharata is apparently unaware of the finer shades of distinction (grammatical or otherwise) introduced later on into the treatment of *upamā* by Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhaṭa, or of its comprehensive definition given by Vāmana; but the very fact that the idea of comparison was even by this time analysed thus far shows a considerable amount of speculation on this point¹³. Bharata’s first two kinds, however, are criticised by Bhāmaha (ii 37), but accepted by Daṇḍin without question (ii 30-31); while the name, if not the idea, of the third kind lingers in Vāmana iv. 2. 2. Of *rūpaka* and *dīpaka*¹⁴ no sub-varieties are mentioned, and possibly these were comparatively late inventions. Of *yamaka*, on the other hand, ten sub-species are elaborately defined and illustrated¹⁵, a number exceeding even that given by Bhāmaha. It would appear that in the earlier stages of Poetics, what in later authors is known as a *śabdālaṃkāra* (of which the artifices of *yamaka* in particular seem to have found the greatest favour) received a more elaborate treatment¹⁶, although the process repeats itself in comparatively modern decadent authors who delight in such external poetic devices. The later distinction between *śabdālaṃkāra* and *arthālaṃkāra* is not referred to by Bharata¹⁷, as also by Bhāmaha; but Bharata uses the word *śabdābhyāsa* with reference to *yamaka*, which term might have suggested, as Abhinava’s commentary on this point indicates, the later classification, which is implied for the first time by Daṇḍin’s treatment.

v2.c79.22

¹³ This figure is certainly one of the most ancient, and the idea of it was not unknown to Yāska (see Vol. I pp. 5-6).

v2.c79.23

¹⁴ Nobel (*Beitraege zur aelteren Geschichte des Alaṃkāraśāstra* p. 10, footnote 4) doubts if *samprakīrtitam*, which is unintelligible in the context, is the correct reading in xvi 55. Abhinava’s commentary on this verse runs thus: *nānā ye śabdāntara-vākya-padātmanas teṣām adhikaraṇārthānām āśraye arth’aorthatā (?) yeṣām tathābhūtānāṃ sākāṅkṣāṇāṃ teṣām ākāṅkṣā-pūrakam kriyā-guṇa-jātyādi tad dīpakam*. In the light of this remark, may not the emendation *sampradīpakam* be likely?

v2.c79.24

¹⁵ Most of the names of these varieties have survived in Bhaṭṭi, Daṇḍin and other writers; but they are in most cases differently defined. See Vol. I, p. 54 footnote 2.

v2.c79.25

¹⁶ as in Bhaṭṭi, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Rudraṭa, the *Agni-purāṇa* and Bhoja among older authors. Bhāmaha gives only five varieties, and Udbhaṭa is the only old writer who altogether omits its treatment. This figure, as Bharata’s elaborate treatment would show, must have been very early comprehended, e. g., in *Rāmāyaṇa*, Sundarakāṇḍa v 15-17, in Rudradāman inscription of the 2nd century A. D. Possibly it was favoured as a not unlikely substitute for rhyme, which is nearly absent in earlier Sanskrit and which probably originated from *anta-yamaka* in later literature. But Mammaṭa and later writers, following perhaps the dictum of Ānandavardhana (on ii 16 f) that *yamaka*, in order to be really poetical, requires a special effort on the part of the poet, and is in no way accessory to *rasa*, allude to it but dismiss it in a few words. As critical insight into the aesthetic requirements of poetry grew, the number of such figures as depended for their appeal chiefly on clever verbal arrangement, as well as their treatment in Poetics, naturally dwindled, although *yamaka* itself (as well as *anuprāsa*) played a much larger part in later decadent poetry. Bhoja, with an inaccuracy characteristic of later writers, speaks of tricks like *murajabandha* as having been *bharata-kathita*!

v2.c79.26

¹⁷ Abhinava, however, reads into Bharata such a distinction, and in his *Locana* p. 5, he says : *cirantanair*

v2.c79.27

After the *alaṃkāras*, comes the treatment of ten *doṣas* (xvi 84f) and ten *guṇas* (xvi 92f), which seem to have constituted the orthodox number of faults and excellences of poetic composition. We shall have occasion to deal with the doctrine of *guṇa* and *doṣa* in connexion with the *rīti*-theorists, who for the first time take it up seriously; but it may be pointed out here that Bharata’s enumeration and definition of individual *doṣas* and *guṇas* do not exactly correspond to those of his nearest successors. Except keeping to the conventional number of ten (although Bhāmaha introduces an eleventh fault from the standpoint of logical correctness¹⁸ and a list of ten intrinsic poetic faults in a different context, as he also mentions only three poetic excellences), both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin do not appear to have accepted implicitly this part of Bharata’s teaching.

v2.c79.28

¹⁸ With the exception of the eleventh fault, Daṇḍin is not only in complete agreement with Bhāmaha but really follows the latter’s enumeration and definitions almost literally. This point will be discussed later. See also Vol. I p. 68.

v2.c79.29

The faults mentioned by Bharata are :

v2.c79.30

*hi bharata-muni-prabhṛtibhir yamakôpame śabdârthâlaṃkāratvenéṣṭe.*

v2.c79.31

i. *gūḍhārtha* = circumlocution or periphrase (*paryāya-śabdābhihitam*¹⁹), ii. *arthāntara* = digression into irrelevant matter (*avarṇyasya varṇanam*²⁰), iii. *artha-hīna* = incoherence (*asambaddha*), or multiplicity of meaning (*aśeṣārtha*), iv. *bhinnārtha* = (a) rusticity or want of refinement (*asabhya* or *grāmya*), or (b) changing the desired sense by another sense (*vivakṣito'nya evārtho yatrānyārthena bhidyate*),

v2.c79.32

19 This phrase in Bharata cannot mean "expression by means of a synonym", for it would then be difficult to differentiate this *doṣa* from *ekārtha* given below. Possibly this is the fault which appears in later writers as the figure of speech known as *paryāyokta* (= roughly, circumlocution or periphrase as a poetic figure). It is apparently so explained by Abhinavagupta. It is possible that later rhetoricians perceived that periphrase might sometimes be an ornament of expression, and thus analysed it into a poetic figure; and this may be taken as an instance in point of the process by which poetic figures multiplied themselves in later speculation.

v2.c79.33

20 Abhinava takes it in the sense of description of matters which should not be described in words (*śabdenāvarṇanīyam api varṇitam*), and rejects the sense of *aprakṛta-varṇanam*. We are, however, inclined to prefer the sense of *digression* rejected by Abhinava. The defect *vācyūvacana*, mentioned by Mahimabhatta (p. 100), would possibly be this *doṣa* of Bharata. This seems to be the fault in Māgha i 43. Abhinava regards the *sva-śabda-vācyatā-doṣa* of *rasa* and *bhāva* as included in Bharata's *arthāntara doṣa*, although it is not clear whether Bharata himself regarded this *sva-śabda-vācyatā* to be a *doṣa* at all.

v2.c79.34

v. *ekārtha* = tautology (*ekārthasya abhidhānam*), vi. *abhiplutārtha* = aggregation of complete lines without merging them into a complete sentence (*yat padena samasyate*²¹), vii. *nyāyād apetam* = defective logic (*pramāṇa-varjitam*), viii. *viṣama* = defective metre (*vṛtta-doṣa*), ix. *visamdhi* = disjunction in which the words are not well knit²², x. *śabda-hīna* = use of ungrammatical words (*aśabdasya yojanam*²³)

v2.c79.35

²¹ Abhinava explains : *abhiplutārtham yathā—sa rājā nīti-kuśalaḥ saraḥ kumuda-śobhitam | sarva-priyā vasanta-śrīḥ grīṣme mālatikāgamah || iti; atra pratipadam arthasya parisamāptatvād abhiplutārtham, eka-vākyatvena nimajjanābhāvāt.*

v2.c79.36

²² It is difficult to understand what Bharata means by the definition *anupratiṣṭhāśabdam yat*. The most likely emendation (for which I am indebted to Prof. Sovani) would be *asupratiṣṭhaśabdam yat*. Abhinava's explanation is not clear owing to the unfortunately defective state of our MS at this point ; but Abhinava apparently means by *samdhi* or *samdhāna* compactness, congruity, or merging, i. e. where the words are well knit.

v2.c79.37

²³ *aśabda* = *apaśabda*, Abhinavagupta.

v2.c79.38

But the faults discussed by Bhāmaha are (ch. iv) : i. *apārtha* = absence of complete sense²⁴, ii. *vyartha* = incongruity with the context, iii. *ekārtha* = tautology (Bhāmaha noting that others call it *punarukta*, which well-known term is apparently unknown to Bharata), iv. *sasaṃśaya* = ambiguity, v. *apakrama* = violation of syntactical regularity, vi. *śabda-hīna* = use of words not approved by correct usage (grammatical), vii. *yati-bhraṣṭa* = deviation from the rules of metrical pause, viii. *bhinna-vṛtta* = use of long or short syllables in the wrong place in a metre, ix. *visamdhi* = disjunction of euphonic liaison when it is necessary, x. *deśa-kāla-kalā-loka-nyāyāgama-virodhi* = inconsistency with regard to (a) place (b) time (c) the fine or mechanical arts (d) worldly usage (e) logic (f) *āgama* (= *dharma-śāstra*²⁵ i. e. codes of law or jurisprudence).

v2.c79.39

²⁴ Both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin say *samudāyārtha-śūnyam yat*, and this incompletion of the total sense arises, they explain, from the non-satisfaction of the natural expectancy of words in a sentence (*ākāṅkṣā*), a point already dealt with by the grammarians and mīmāṃsakas.

v2.c79.40

²⁵ *āgamo dharma-śāstrāṇi, loka-sīmā ca tat-kṛtā | tad-virodhi tadācāra-vyatikramaṇato...* || says Bhāmaha himself in explanation (iv 48).

v2.c79.41

Bhāmaha also adds another fault to these ten, viz., the *doṣa* which arises from a faulty logical proposition (*pratijñā*), a faulty middle term (*hetu*), and a faulty logical illustration (*dṛṣṭānta*); but this blemish is treated separately in the next chapter (ch. v), being interesting to Bhāmaha from the standpoint of the logic of poetry. In another context, while discussing the general characteristics of poetry (i 37f), Bhāmaha mentions ten other defects which a poet should avoid, viz., i. *neyārtha* = farfetchedness, when the sense does not follow from the logical order of words but has to be guessed out from the general intention, ii. *kliṣṭa* = obstruction of the sense, iii. *anyārtha* = disappearance of the sense, iv. *avācaka* = inexpressiveness, when in the expressed words the sense does not appear to be openly dominant, v. *gūḍhaśabdābhidhāna* = use of difficult expressions, vi. *ayuktimat* = impropriety, e.g. making clouds messengers in poetry, vii. *śruti-duṣṭa* = expressly indecent ²⁶ viii. *artha-duṣṭa* = implicitly indecent (later writers calling it *aślilatva*), ix. *kalpanā-duṣṭa* = difficult conception (?), where in the alliance of two words an undesirable sense is produced, x. *śruti-kaṣṭa* = unmelodious or harsh in sound ²⁷.

v2.c79.42

²⁶ Bhāmaha’s text is obviously corrupt on this point. But the distinction between *śruti-duṣṭa* and *śruti-kaṣṭa* of earlier writers is explained by Abhinava in his *Locana* p. 82.

v2.c79.43

²⁷ The examples given of this fault are words like *ajihladat* (Bhāmaha), or *adhākṣīt*, *tṛṇedhi* (Abhinava *Locana* loc. cit.).

v2.c79.44

As to how these two different series of ten faults are to be distinguished, Bhāmaha says nothing ; but it is conceivable from his treatment that the latter concerns the inner nature or essence of poetry, while the former mentions only such defects as are more or less external. A glance at these two lists of faults, given by Bharata and Bhāmaha respectively, will at once shew that while some of Bhāmaha’s faults correspond generally to Bharata’s in name or in substance, Bhāmaha in his elaborate treatment is certainly ahead of his predecessor. It is also noteworthy that Bhāmaha lays down, in his discussion of the last named fault of śruti-kaṣṭa, the general proposition (i 54) that a particular combination or arrangement sometimes makes even defective expressions allowable ; in other words, a fault sometimes is converted into an excellence. Bharata, on the other hand, regards as we shall see, all guṇas or excellences to be mere negations of doṣas or faults.

v2.c79.45

After dealing with the doṣas, Bharata speaks of the guṇas or excellences of composition which are also enumerated as ten in number²⁸. He states summarily at the outset (xvi 91) that the guṇas are the negations of the doṣas (guṇā viparyayād eṣām), an opinion which is indeed extraordinary in view of the fact that later writers like Vāmana (ii. 1. 1-3) rightly consider guṇas in a theory of Poetics to be positive entities, of which the doṣas are the negations known by implication. It appears, on the other hand, that guṇas like mādhurya and audārya, mentioned by Bharata in xvi 91 and 92, are not really, as defined by himself, negations of any particular defect discussed by him. Jacobi’s explanation²⁹ is probably right that Bharata’s description of the guṇas as negations of the *doṣas* is in conformity with the commonsense view of the matter, for it is not difficult for one to seize upon a fault instinctively and realise its substance, while an excellence cannot be conceived so lightly unless its essence is comprehended by differentiating it from a more easily understood fault. The *guṇas*, according to Bharata, are the following : i. *śleṣa* = coalescence of words, connected with one another through the aggregate meaning desired by the poet, and consisting of a subtlety which is in appearance clear but in reality difficult to comprehend³⁰. ii. *prasāda* = clearness, where the unexpressed sense appears from the word used through the relation of the easily understood word and sense³¹.

v2.c79.46

²⁸ Abhinava reads kāvyasya guṇāḥ, and not kāvyārtha-guṇāḥ in xvi 92.

v2.c79.47

²⁹ In Sb. der preuss. Akad. xxiv, 1922, p. 223.

v2.c79.48

³⁰ Abhinava notes an alternative reading *vicārōpahatam* instead of *vicāra-gahanam*. Hemacandra (p. 196) and Māṇikyacandra (*Kāvyaprakāśa-saṃketa*, ed. Ānandāśrama, 1921, p. 191) remark : *svabhāva-spaṣṭam vicāra-gahanam vacaḥ śliṣṭam iti bharataḥ*. Abhinava thinks that this excellence corresponds to Vāmana’s *artha-guṇa śleṣa*.

v2.c79.49

³¹ Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra explain : *vibhakta-vācya-vācakāyogād anuktayor api śabdārthayoḥ pratipattiḥ prasāda iti bharataḥ*. Jacobi proposes (*ZDMG* lxiv, p. 138, contd. fn.) to read *mukhya* instead of *mukha* in the text, and thinks that Bharata’s *prasāda* corresponds to Daṇḍin’s *samādhi*. But Abhinava reads *sukha* and explains : *sukhayati, na prayatnam apekṣate yaḥ śabdārthaḥ*. Perhaps by this *guṇa*, Bharata means to imply some kind of sly hint (*anukta artha*), transparent from the words used (such as we find, e. g., in the figure *mudrā* in *Candrāloka*, ed. Jivānanda, v 139, and *Kuvalayānanda*, ed. N. S. P., 1917, pp. 146-7), which may

v2.c79.50

iii. *samatā* = evenness, which is easy to understand and in which there is no redundance of expression nor excess of *cūrṇapadas*³². iv. *samādhi* = superimposition (*samadhāna*) of something special or distinguishing in the sense³³.

v2.c79.51

³² The *cūrṇapada* is defined by Bharata himself in XVIII 50b, 51. Cf also Vāmana I. 3. 22, 24 where *cūrṇa* is the name given to a kind of prose which contains short compounds. Commenting on this passage in Vāmana, Gopendra Tippa Bhūpāla interprets the word as: *cūrṇapadena upacārād vyasta-pada-samāhāro lakṣyate, tena vyasta-pada-bahulaṃ cūrṇam*. Vāmana himself in his *vṛtti* gives two characteristics, viz., *adīrgha samāsa* and *anuddhata pada*, short compounds and soft vocables. Referring to Vāmana's *śabda-guṇa* of the same name in III. I. 12., and trying to approximate it to Bharata's *samatā*, Abhinavagupta remarks: *śabdānāṃ samatvāt samaḥ, cūrṇapada-samāsa-racanā yatra sā sātiśayā na bhavati,......dīrgha-samāso'pyatyanta-samāsaś ca viṣamatā, tad-viparyayeṇa samatā, upakrānta-mārgûparityāga-rūpêtyuktam*.

v2.c79.52

³³ Abhinava explains: *yasyârthasya abhiyuktaiḥ pratibhānâtiśayavadbhir viśeṣo'pūrvaḥ svôllikhita upadadhate sa samāhita-manaḥ-sampādya-viśeṣatvād artho viśiṣṭaḥ samādhiḥ*. In the second line of the text Abhinava reads

v2.c79.53

correspond partly to the metaphorical mode of expression included by Vāmana in his peculiar definition of *vakrokti* (IV. 3. 8), or comprised by later writers under *lakṣaṇā* or *upacāra*. Referring to Vāmana's definition of *artha-guṇa prasāda* as *artha-vaimalya* (III. 2. 3), Abhinava seems to support our suggestion when he says *so'rtho vaimalyâśrayo'pi vaimalyam upacārāt*, thus attempting to approximate Bharata's *prasāda* to Vāmana's *artha-guṇa* of that name.

v2.c79.54

v. *mādhurya* = sweetness, where a sentence heard or repeated many times does not tire or disgust³⁴.

v2.c79.55

vi. *ojas* = strength, which consists in the use of varied and dignified compounded words, having letters agreeable to one another³⁵.

v2.c79.56

vii. *saukumārya* = smoothness, where an agreeable sense is realised by means of agreeably

v2.c79.57

parikīrtitaḥ (and not parikīrtyate), and takes *arthena* as referring to the word *samādhi*: *samādhi-śabdasya yo'rthaḥ parihāra-lakṣaṇas tena parikīrtitaḥ paritaḥ samantād ākrāntyā uccāraṇe sampannaḥ sa samādhiḥ*. This explanation of *sampanna* is probably given to make the definition correspond to that of Vāmana's *ārohāvaroha-kramaḥ samādhiḥ* (III. i. 13); for Abhinava goes on explaining *ākrāntyuccāraṇe ārohāvaroha-krama eva*, the *āroha* and *avaroha* depending, as he discusses in detail, on *uccāraṇa*. Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra explain Bharata's definition simply as *arthasya guṇāntara-samādhānāt samādhir iti bharataḥ*.

v2.c79.58

34 Abhinava reads *śrutam* and *vākyam* instead of *kṛtam* and *kāvyam* in the printed text; and this is supported by what Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra say with regard to this excellence of Bharata.

v2.c79.59

35 Abhinava reads *bahubhiḥ* (instead of *vividhaiḥ*) and *sānurāgaiḥ* (instead of *sā tu svaraiḥ*), explaining the latter reading thus: *yatra varṇair varṇāntaram apekṣate tatra sānurāgatvam*. Hemacandra, however, attributes a somewhat different and otherwise unknown definition to Bharata, viz., *avagītasya hīnasya vā śabārtha-sampadā yad udāttatvam niṣiñcati tad oja iti bharataḥ*, and Māṇikyacandra says to the same effect.

v2.c79.60

employed metres and well-connected euphonic conjunctions³⁶. viii. *arthavyakti* = explicitness, which describes the nature of things, as they appear in the world; by means of well known predicates³⁷. ix. *udāra* = exaltedness, where there are superhuman sentiments, varied feelings, and the Erotic and the Marvellous moods³⁸.

v2.c79.61

36 The "agreeable sense" (*sukumārātha*), which corresponds to the *aniṣṭhurākṣara-prāyatā* of Daṇḍin's *guṇa* of this name, or to the *ajaraṭhatva* or *apāruṣya* of Vāmana's twofold *saukumārya*, implies probably the avoidance of disagreeable or inauspicious (*amaṅgala*) statements. Thus instead of *mṛtaḥ*, one should say *kīrtiśeṣaṃ gataḥ*. It is on this ground that theorists after Mammaṭa object that this is no *guṇa* but a negation of the *amaṅgala doṣa*, which some writers include in the fault known as *aślīlatva*.

v2.c79.62

37 The text is obviously corrupt. Abhinava reads *suprasiddhābhidhāyinā*, instead of *suprasiddhā dhātunā ca* which is unintelligible. Read also *loka-dharma* instead of *loka-karma*. Hemacandra explains : *yasminnanyathā-sthito'pi tathā-sthita evārthaḥ pratibhāti. so'rthavyaktiḥ*. He also points out that this *guṇa* of Bharata corresponds to Vāmana's *artha-guṇa arthavyakti* (defined as *vastu-svabhāva-sphuṭatvam* III. 2. 13), and would be equivalent to the poetic figure *jāti* or *svabhāvokti* of Daṇḍin and others. Mammaṭa p. 583 : *abhidhāsyamāna-svabhāvoktyalaṃkāreṇa vastu-svabhāva-sphuṭatva-rūpārthavyaktiḥ svīkṛtā*, but Viśvanātha would include it in *prasāda-guṇa*.

v2.c79.63

38 The implication of *adbhuta rasa* in this excellence, and the characteristic that it deals with *divya-bhāva* indicate a certain *utkarṣavān dharmaḥ*, causing wonder, such as Dandin's *udāra* would contain. See the illustration of this *guṇa* given by Hemacandra p. 199. The inclusion of the x. *kānti* = loveliness, which delights the ear and the mind, or which is realised by the meaning conveyed by graceful gestures (*līlādi*³⁹).

v2.c79.64

³⁹ *līlādi* = *līlādi-ceṣṭā*, Abhinavagupta. This would be comprehended by the *dīpta-rasatvam* of Vāmana’s *artha-guṇa kānti*.

v2.c79.65

It will be noticed from this enumeration that in some cases it is difficult to see what Bharata means exactly by a particular *guṇa*, and that the classification is by no means exhaustive nor free from overlapping. On the other hand, most of the *guṇas* can be taken as approximating roughly to the individual *śabda-guṇas* and *artha-guṇas* elaborated by Vāmana and other later theorists. The development of the *guṇa*-doctrine is intimately connected with the central theory of the *rīti*-school and will be dealt with later ; but it may be pointed out here that although the definitions of the individual *guṇas*, as given by Bharata, do not correspond exactly to those of later writers, there can be no doubt that here we have for the first time a definite statement, if not a proper theoretic treatment, of the doctrine. The disagreement between different theorists with regard to the definitions of individual *guṇas* is a notorious fact in the history of Sanskrit Poetics, and one need not therefore be sur-

v2.c79.66

*śṛṅgāra* and *adbhuta rasas* makes this *guṇa* of Bharata correspond partly to Vāmana’s *artha-guṇa kānti*. But Daṇḍin adds : *ślāghyair viśeṣaṇair yuktam udāraṃ kaiścid iṣyate*. There is no reference in Bharata to such ‘praiseworthy epithets’, although Hemacandra says : *bahubhiḥ sūkṣmaiś ca viśeṣaiḥ sametam udāram iti bharataḥ*. In the *Agni-purāṇa* 346, 9, however, we read : *uttāna-padatau dāryam yutam ślāghyair viśeṣaṇaiḥ*, which might be a direct echo of Daṇḍin.

v2.c79.67

prised that later authors give us definitions which do not agree with those of Bharata. To Bharata, again, the relation of the *guṇas* to *rīti*, as elaborated by Vāmana, or to *rasa*, as first clearly enunciated by the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, was probably unknown. So was also Vāmana's distinction between *śabda-guṇa* and *artha-guṇa*, although Bharata's *guṇas* are mostly of the nature of *artha-guṇas*, and some of them can be interpreted (as done by Abhinavagupta) as constituting *śabda-guṇas* as well. But the number and nomenclature of the *guṇas*, as well as the substance of some of them, as outlined by Bharata, are conventionally adhered to by all later writers, excepting Bhāmaha who, as we shall see, was a radical thinker in this respect, until we come to the Dhvanikāra and his followers who gave a new interpretation to the *guṇa*-doctrine. It is also important to note that Bharata takes the *guṇas*, as well as the *doṣas* and *alaṃkāras*, to be subservient to the purpose of awakening *rasa*, which is taken as the principal business of the drama. In this he anticipates and probably influences the view of the Davanikāra and his school who, as we shall see, borrow Bharata's idea of *rasa* from the case of the drama and apply it to that of poetry.

v2.c79.68

It has been noted above that Bharata makes all these elements, the *lakṣaṇa*, *guṇa*, *doṣa* and *alaṃkāra*, subordinate to the principal purpose of awakening *rasa* in the drama. These elements constitute what he calls vācika abhinaya (defined in viii 6, 9), which is dealt with in chapters xiv-xx and which forms an important factor, the anubhāva (vii 5), in calling forth the rasa. Hence Bharata expressly considers (xvi 104 f) the question of their employment in relation to rasa. It is necessary, therefore, to consider here briefly Bharata’s teachings regarding rasa⁴⁰, which is dealt with in the Nāṭya-śāstra, chapters vi and vii⁴¹.

v2.c79.69

⁴⁰ The question has been dealt with briefly in my article on the Theory of Rasa in Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Commeration Volume, Orientalia, vol. III, and also in Sovani’s article on the Pre-dhvani Schools in Sir R. G. Bhandarkar Comm. Vol.

v2.c79.70

⁴¹ In some other chapters Bharata deals with the cognate topics of the nāyaka and nāyikā and their adjuncts and emotional states, which will be referred to in their proper place below (ch. viii).

v2.c79.71

It must be observed at the outset that rasa does not appear to be Bharata’s principal theme, and that it is discussed only in connexion with his exposition of dramatic representation with which he is principally concerned. It is not surprising, therefore, that Rājaśekhara, probably following some current tradition, should regard Bharata as an authority on rūpaka (drama) rather than on rasa, and mention one Nandikeśvara⁴² as the original exponent of the rasa-doctrine, which, if Rājaśekhara is right, Bharata must have borrowed and worked up into his dramaturgic system. That the rasa-doctrine was older than Bharata is apparent from Bharata’s own citation of several verses in the āryā and the anuṣṭubh metres in support of or in supplement to his own statements; and in one place, he appears to quote two āryā-verses from an unknown work on rasa⁴³.

v2.c79.72

⁴² See Vol. I p. 2, fn 2.

v2.c79.73

⁴³ *atrūrye rasa-vicāra-mukhe*, ed. Kāyamālā p. 67. The line is wanting in Grosset's edition. Keśava Miśra, a comparatively recent writer of the 16th century, speaks of one *bhagavān Śauddhodani* who, according to him, was a *sūtra-kāra* on *rasa*: but the opinions of this otherwise unknown writer (see Vol. I, p. 262), as recorded by Keśava Miśra, do not deviate materially from the conventional views of those later writers of the new school who admit the essentiality of *rasa*.

v2.c79.74

The idea of rasa, apart from any theory thereon, was naturally not unknown to old writers; and Bharata's treatment would indicate that some system of rasa, however undeveloped, or even a Rasa school, particularly in connexion with the drama, must have been in existence in his time. But the bearings of this doctrine on poetry were seldom discussed, and the importance of rasa as one of the essential factors of poetry was indeed naively understood but was not theoretically established⁴⁴. As Dramaturgy was in the beginning a separate study, from which Poetics itself probably took its cue, the *rasa*-doctrine, which sprang up chiefly in connexion with this study, confined its activity in the first stage of its development to the sphere of dramatic composition and exerted only a limited influence on poetic theories⁴⁵. The importance of this dramaturgic *rasa*-system must have been somewhat overshadowed by the early dominance, in Poetics proper, of the Alaṃkāra and Rīti systems, whose traditions are carried on by the two earliest writers on Poetics, Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, both of whom allow a very subsidiary place to *rasa* in their scheme; but at the same time the comparative antiquity of such a *rasa*-system in connexion with the drama, going back to a time even earlier than Bharata, cannot be doubted.

v2.c79.75

⁴⁴ We get the first definite exposition, as we shall see, of the idea of *rasa* and its relation to poetry in the works of the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana: and its importance in poetry, as distinguished from the drama, was probably understood from that time. Māgha in some verses (see Vol. I pp. 63, fn 3; also p. 344) shows himself conversant with some *theory* of *rasa*: but it is to *nāṭya-rasa* (such as described by Bharata) rather than to *kāvya-rasa* that he appears to refer. It is not maintained that older Sanskrit Poetry was devoid of *rasa* or that the earlier poets never possessed any idea of it: but it is suggested that the theory of *rasa* was not critically set forth, nor its aesthetic importance in poetry properly understood until

v2.c79.76

⁴⁵ That the doctrine of *rasa* was originally associated with dramaturgy and later on applied to Poetics is clear from the tradition which survives even in very late writers, and makes them not only discuss the theory directly in connexion with the drama (e. g. Viśvanātha) but even borrow the illustrations mostly from dramatic poetry. Abhinava speaks of the *kāvya* as *loka-nāṭya-dharmi-sthānīya*, and says: *nāṭya evā rasaḥ, kāvye ca nāṭyamāna eva rasaḥ kāvyārthaḥ*.

v2.c79.77

The oldest known exponent of this system is Bharata, from whom spring all later systems and theories such as we know them, and whom even the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana came into the field. The presence of *rasa* is such a familiar fact in Sanskrit Poetry as well as in comparatively modern Sanskrit writers on Poetics that one is apt to lose sight of this fact of historical importance.

v2.c79.78

Ānandavardhana himself (p. 181), in applying the rasa-theory to Poetics, names as his original authority. It is necessary for this reason to take into account Bharata’s doctrine of nāṭya-rasa as the original source of the doctrine of kāvya-rasa elaborated in later Poetics. But long before the new interpretation of the relation of rasa to poetry, given by the Dhvanikāra and authoritatively established by Mammaṭa, was dominant, Bharata’s views on rasa appear to have been discussed in some detail in dramaturgic systems with the result that divergent theories came to prevail under the names of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and others, all of whom are supposed to have been commentators on Bharata’s text⁴⁶, or at least to have taken Bharata as their starting point. With Bharata, therefore, we arrive at a distinctly definite landmark in respect of the rasa-doctrine.

v2.c79.79

⁴⁶ See Vol. I pp.37f. It is not yet clear whether all these writers were really commentators on Bharata as they are reputed to have been. At least in the case of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, it is extremely doubtful if his lost Hṛdaya-darpaṇa was at all a commentary on the Nāṭya-śāstra. See below ch. vi.

v2.c79.80

It is worth noticing, however, that although all theorists take Bharata as their starting point and build up their own theories round his authoritative, if somewhat meagre text, Bharata himself, like all old masters, is tantalisingly simple in his statements; for the subject does not appear to have yet been brought into the realm of scholastic speculation. Bharata’s work is encyclopaedic in its scope, but its primary theme is the drama and its conception of poetry dramatic, a view which perhaps inspired Vāmana’s partiality towards dramatic composition already alluded to, and which is concisely put by Abhinavagupta by saying *kāvyam tāvad daśarūpātmakam eva*. In such a composition *rasa*, according to Bharata, should be predominant, and there are numerous passages which clearly indicate that there can be no sense of poetry, in his view, without *rasa*⁴⁷. Although Bharata does not enter into technicalities, he seems to be of opinion that the *vibhāvas* and the *anubhāvas*, which later theory takes to be essential factors, call forth or evolve *rasa*; but he is not clear to as what this process of evolution exactly is. He takes the *bhāva* as the basis of *rasa* and explains it generally as that which brings into existence the sense of poetry through the three kinds of representation, viz., through gestures, words, and internal feelings (*vāg-aṅga-sattvópetān kāvyārthān bhāvayantīti bhāvāḥ*). This *bhāva*, which consists of an emotional state of the mind, reaches, when permanent and not transitory, the state of *rasa* through the elements known as *vibhāva* and *anubhāva*. A *vibhāva* is explained thus: *vibhāvo nāma vijñānārthaḥ, vibhāvyante'nena vāg-aṅga-sattvābhinayā ity-ato vibhāvaḥ*. The term *vibhāva*, therefore, is used to connote knowledge or cognition, and is explained generally as denoting that which makes the three kinds of representation capable of being sensed. In the same way, the *anubhāva* is explained as that which follows upon and makes the three kinds of representation actually sensed. The third element of *rasa*, the *vyabhicāri-bhāva*, consists of accessory emotional facts which help and strengthen it, and is etymologically explained as *vi abhi ity-etāvupasargau, cara gatau dhātuḥ, vividham ābhimukhyena rasān carantīti vyabhicāriṇaḥ*. As to what relation these elements bear to *rasa* and how this state of relish is brought about, Bharata simply lays down in a cryptic formula : *vibhāvānubhāva-vyabhicāri-saṃyogād rasa-niṣpattiḥ*, a formula which, in spite of his own explanation, is so ambiguous with respect to the exact significance of the terms *saṃyoga* and *niṣpatti* that a great deal of controversy has centred round their interpretation, giving rise to a number of theories about *rasa*. Bharata’s own explanation, if it can be called an explanation, is that just as a beverage is accomplished through various seasoned articles and herbs, so the permanent mood (the *sthāyi-bhāva*), reinforced (*upagata*) by various *bhāvas*, attains the state of *rasa*; and it is so called because its essence consists in its taste or relish (*āsvādyatvāt*), this being the etymological meaning of the word *rasa*⁴⁸. He also explains⁴⁹ that the *sthāyi-bhāva* is the basis of *rasa* because it attains, as it were, mastery or sovereignty among forty-nine different *bhāvas* mentioned by himself⁵⁰.

v2.c79.81

⁴⁷ e. g. *na hi rasād ṛte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate*, ed. Grosset p. 87 = ed. Kāvyamālā p. 62. Cf. also vii 7.

v2.c79.82

⁴⁸ ed. Grosset p. 87=ed. Kāvyamālā p. 62. It is curious that all the terms which describe the essence of *rasa*, such as *rasanā*, *carvaṇā*, or *āsvāda*, refer etymologically to the physical pleasure of taste.

v2.c79.83

⁴⁹ ed. Grosset p. 102, ll, 7-19=ed. Kāvyamālā p. 70, ll. 13-22.

v2.c79.84

⁵⁰ viz., 8 *sthāyi-bhāvas*, 8 *sāttvika bhāvas* and 33 *vyabhicāri-bhāvas*.

v2.c79.85

which naturally rest upon it as being presumably the principal theme or the mood in the composition in question.

v2.c79.86

Nothing definite can be concluded from all this except that, in Bharata’s opinion, the *sthāyi-bhāva* or the principal mood in a composition is the basis of *rasa*, the essence of which consists in *āsvāda* or relish by the reader or spectator, while the *vibhāva*, *anubhāva* and the *vybhicāri-bhāva* awaken this state of emotional realisation or ‘relish’ in the reader’s mind. But this explanation by its very ambiguity or vagueness taxed the ingenuity of theorists and commentators, its general trend anticipating theories like the *utpatti-vāda* of Lollaṭa and the *anumiti-vāda* of Śaṅkuka, and special terms in the passage in question like *vyañjita* and *sāmānya-guṇa-yoga* suggesting specialised doctrines like the *vyakti-vāda* of Abhinavagupta and the *bhukti-vāda* of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.

v2.c79.87

The original outlines of the theory, however, are accepted as fixed by Bharata. It is practically admitted on all hands, on semi-psychological considerations of poetry, that the *rasa* is a state of relish in the reader of the principal sentiment in the composition, a subjective condition of his mind which is brought about when the principal or permanent mood (*sthāyi-bhāva*) is brought into a relishable condition through the three elements, the *vibhāva*, the *anubhāva* and the *vyabhicāri-bhāva*, exhibited in the drama. Of these elements, the first two are important, the *vyabhicārin* being only concomitant or accessory. Bharata’s explanation of these terms is rendered with greater precision by his followers. By the *sthāyi-bhāva* in poetry and drama are meant certain more or less permanent mental states, such as Love, Grief, Anger or Fear. This permanent mood, constituting the principal theme of a composition and running through all other moods like the thread of a garland, cannot be overcome by those akin to it or those opposed to it, but can only be reinforced. Those elements which respectively excite, follow and strengthen (if we may use these expressions) the *sthāyi-bhāva* are in poetry and drama known as *vibhāva*, *anu-bhāva* and *vyabhicāri-* (also called *sañcāri-*) *bhāva*¹, corresponding in ordinary life (as opposed to the extraordinary world of poetry) to the mundane causes and effects (*laukika kāraṇa* and *kārya*). Deviod of technicalities, a *vibhāva* may be taken as that which makes the permanent mood capable of being sensed, an *anubhāva* as that which makes it actually sensed, while a *vyabhicāri-bhāva* is that which acts as an auxiliary or gives a fresh impetus to it. In the case of Love as a permanent mood, the stock-examples given of a *vibhāva* are women and the seasons; of *anubhāva*, glance and embrace; of *vyabhicārin*, the transient subordinate feelings of joy or anxiety. Now Bharata says that the reader is enabled to realise or relish as *rasa* the permanent mood of a composition through a certain correlation of these elements with the permanent mood, the correlation taking place apparently for the purpose of manifesting it and bringing it to a relishable condition. The question, therefore, arises, to which Bharata himself gives no definite solution, viz, what relation these elements bear to *rasa*, or in other words, how do they bring about this subjective condition of relish in the reader's mind, the solution depending, as we have noted above, upon the explanation of the two much-discussed terms *saṃyoga* (lit. correlation) and *niṣpatti* (lit. consummation) in the original *sūtra* of Bharata. This is the central pivot round which all later theories move, and we shall take it up again in their connexion below (ch. iv).

First 116 of 1,253 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)