Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.53

v2.c82.s1.53

as interpreted by Abhinavagupta in his *Locana* (pp. 67-8) : "If the *rasa* is perceived as belonging to another person, then it is a case of *tāṭsthya* i. e. one would not himself be personally affected by it. It is also not perceived as belonging to oneself out of poetry dealing with the deeds of heroes like Rāma. If it is perceived as belonging to oneself, then the origin of *rasa* in self is admitted. But this is not reasonable, for there is nothing there which can operate as a *vibhāva* for the audience. If it is objected that the generalised idea of the beloved (*kāntātva*), which lies dormant and awakens in us germs of latent impressions, operates in the capacity of a *vibhāva*, then how can it be applied to the description of a deity and the like? The recollection of one's own beloved does not intervene in one's consciousness. How can *vibhāvas*, like the construction of a bridge over the sea, which form the attributes of an extraordinary hero like Rāma, become generalised (in the mind of an individual spectator)? One does not recollect only Rāma's energy, because it has no resemblance (to one's own energy). The *rasa* is not perceived when one learns it from a verbal composition, because a man would learn it in the same way from the direct observation of a pair of lovers. If it is assumed that *rasa* is produced, then a man would feel disinclined