Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.26

v2.c80.26

late, agree in emphasising the necessity of study and experience. Both Bhāmaha (i 5) and Daṇḍin (i 103-4) acknowledge *pratibhā* which is said to be natural (*naisargikī*) or inborn (*sahajā*); and Vāmana puts it into a formula that in *pratibhā* lies the seed of poetry, and defines it (1.3.16 *vṛtti*) as an antenatal capacity of the mind ¹⁰ without which no poetry is possible, and if possible, it is only ridiculous, a dictum which is almost literally copied by Mammaṭa who, however, uses the more general term *śakti* ¹¹. Abhinavagupta (*Locana* p. 29) defines it as intelligence (*prajñā*), capable of fresh invention (*apūrva-vastu-nirmāṇa-kṣama*), its distinguishing characteristic being the capacity of creating poetry possessed of passion, clarity and beauty (*tasya viśeṣo rasāveśa-vaiśadya-saundarya-kāvya-nirmāṇa-kṣamatvam*); and he quotes the authority of Bharata (vii 2) who designates it as the ‘internal disposition’ of the poet (*antargata bhāva*). This agrees with the definition of *pratibhā* as *prajñā nava-navollekha-śālinī*, given in a verse cited anonymously by Hemacandra, but attributed by Kṣemendra (*Aucitya-vicāra* ad *śl*. 35) to Abhinava’s guru, Bhaṭṭa Tauta; and it is recognised as canonical by later writers, to whom Abhinava and Mammaṭa were the final law-givers, but who sometimes add that it is *lokôttara* and capable of producing an indefinable charm variously termed *vaicitrya*, *vicchitti*, *cārutva*, *saundarya*, *hṛdyatva* or *ramaṇīyatvā*.