Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.67

v2.c83.67

³⁴ Abhinava says (p. 231): *yadīha—‘viśeṣo guṇātmā’ (Vāmana i. 2. 3) guṇāś ca rasa-paryavasāyina evéti hyuktaṃ prāg guṇa-nirūpaṇe ‘śṛṅgāra eva madhuraḥ’ (Dhva. ii 8, p. 79) ityatreti*. Vāmana has laid down that the *rīti* is nothing more than a particular arrangement of words (*viśiṣṭa-pada-racanā*) and that the essence of this particularity of arrangement consists in the *guṇas*. The nature and scope of the *guṇas*, therefore, determine those of the *rīti*. Now the Dhvanikāra has pointed out in ii 8 f how the the three *guṇas*, viz. *mādhurya* (in *śṛṅgāra*), *ojas* (in *raudra*) and *prasāda* (in all the *rasas*) contribute to the development of the *rasas*; and his remarks regarding the *guṇas* apply to the *rīti*, which need not be taken separately. Roughly speaking, his three *guṇas* correspond, therefore, to the three *rītis* of Vāmana. Ānandavardhana speaks of the *guṇas* as having *saṃghaṭanā-dharmatva* (p. 5), but this is probably only giving an exposition of the view of Udbhaṭa who, according to Abhinavagupta (p. 134), had held that the *guṇas* are *saṃghaṭanā-dharmāḥ*. He might mean, as Mammaṭa