Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.13

v2.c84.13

The question, however, cannot be definitely settled so long as we get only glimpses of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s views set forth in the brief exposition and adverse criticism of Abhinava and others. We have already considered at some length Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s views regarding the origin and function of *rasa* in poetry⁶. We have seen that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka regards *rasa-carvaṇā* as the essence of poetry, but he is apparently not prepared to accept the function of *vyañjanā* as its means of manifestation⁷. Nāyaka’s propounding of his own views in opposition to those of the *Dhvanyāloka*; and the discussions of *rasa*-theory and of Bharata’s text are not altogether inexplicable, as they might have been topical in connexion with his general theory. The passage from the *Abhinava-bhāratī* cannot be taken as decisive; and I am inclined to accept the latter explanation, with which Kane also (*HAL* p. xii) appears to agree. Kane, however, does not appear to have seen this passage from the *Abhinava-bhāratī*.