Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.35

v2.c82.s1.35

Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa appears to have been one of the earliest formulators of such an explanation. His work is unfortunately lost, and very little can be gathered from the brief review of his opinion in Abhinavagupta’s commentary on Bharata¹⁹, which is copied more or less by all subsequent writers who deal with Lollaṭa’s views²⁰. But it is clear even from this summary exposition by an adverse critic that Lollaṭa, in explaining Bharata’s sūtra, took the vibhāva as the direct cause (kāraṇa) of rasa, which therefore is an effect (anukārya or utpādya), and the term niṣpatti of Bharata should be explained as utpatti or puṣṭi. The rasa, found in characters like Rāma, is attributed to the actor, who imitates the characters in form, dress and action, and thereby charms the spectator. Mammaṭa and his followers make this interpretation of Lollaṭa’s view more clear by saying that the permanent mood or sthāyin is directly connected (mukhyatayā vṛttyā = sākṣāt sambandhena) with the hero like Rāma, but it is recognised as existing in the actor through a clever imitation of the original character, this imitation being apparently the source of the charm to the spectator. The rasa, therefore, resides in the hero, but it is not clear how a mental state which belongs to the hero can be transferred to the actor, and how the spectator can be charmed by a feeling which does not exist in him. The spectator’s mere apprehension of the feeling imitated by the actor cannot produce even a semblance of the original feeling and consequent delight in the mind of the spectator; otherwise such a delight would be brought about even on witnessing a love-affair in the ordinary world, as distinguished from the world of poetry²¹. It is