Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.17

v2.c84.17

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka thus postulates a function of *bhoga*, beyond those of *abhidhā* and *bhāvakatva*, inherent in poetry, in order to explain the working of *rasa*. He seems to imply that the *rasa*, which the *dhvani*-theorists would take as the suggested emotional sense of poetry, is, in his opinion, purely *sva-saṃvedya* and therefore transcending definition. In other words, he belongs to that class of objectors to the *dhvani*-theory regarding whom the Dhvanikāra says that they do not deny *dhvani* but think that its essence lies beyond the province of words (i 1c). In a verse attributed to Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka by Abhinava (pp. 15, 11) and Jayaratha (p. 9), he speaks of *kāvyāṅgatva* and not *kāvya-rūpatā*⁸ of what is known as *dhvani*; a statement, which would indicate that having assumed the concept, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s object was to establish an explanation different from that of the *dhvani*-theorists. Ruyyaka thinks that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka would regard what is called *vyaṅgya-vyāpāra* to be an element (*kāvyāṃśatva*) and not an essence of poetry, being reached by the bold utterance of the poet (*prauḍhókti*). In this sense, the *kavi-karman* or act of imagination on the part of the poet (indicated by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, as Jayaratha points out, by the word *vyāpāra*), which makes *śabda* and *artha* subservient to itself, is the most important thing in poetry; a view which approximates Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s theory to that of Kuntala, who makes *kavi-karman* the source of *vakrokti* in poetry.