Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.40

v2.c82.s1.40

also argued that this cause-and-effect theory of Lollaṭa cannot satisfactorily explain the relation of the *vibhāvas* etc. to the *rasa*. An effect may exist even when its efficient cause is destroyed; but as the life of the *rasa* is circumscribed by the exhibition of the *vibhāvas*, it disappears when the latter disappear, a fact which goes to prove that the *rasa* must not be taken as an ordinary *laukika* effect²². Again, the cause and the effect cannot be contemporaneous; if the *rasa* is supposed to be an effect, its relish cannot be, as it actually is, contemporaneous with the appearance of the *vibhāvas*. Hence Viśvanātha remarks (p. 86) that if the *rasa* is an effect, having for its cause the perception of the *vibhāvas*, then at the time of the relish of *rasa* the *vibhāvas* would not be perceived; for we do not find the simultaneous perception of a cause and its effect. The perception of the touch of the sandalwood unguent and the perception of the pleasure produced thereby cannot take place simultaneously, however rapidly the one may succeed the other.