Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.29

v2.c84.29

It is clear from this brief exposition that Kuntala cannot admit as poetry a composition involving mere *svabhāvokti*, which he takes to be plain description without the requisite strikingness; and he consequently develops Bhāmaha’s indication that a kind of *atiśaya* is involved in *vakrokti-vaicitrya*. This *atiśaya*, if it is taken in the sense of the *lokāti-krānta-gocaratā* of Bhamaha’s *atiśayokti*, would imply a kind of heightened charm of expression which is *lokōttara* or dissociated from personal interests and relations. The dissociation, therefore, which is supposed in the artistic attitude involved in the relish of *rasa*¹³, is also implied in *vakrokti*; and on this point Kuntala appears to agree with the main position of the *rasa*-theorists. Kuntala also thinks that the ultimate test of this *lokōttara vaicitrya* is *tadvid-āhlāda* or pleasure in the appreciating *sahr̥daya*, who plays here apparently the same part as he does in the *rasa*-theory, or in poetic theories generally. It seems, therefore, that the exponents of the different theories approach ultimately the same standard, albeit through different avenues of thought, and agree in holding that vaicitrya or camatkāra (in alaṃkāra or rasa) must be finally subjected to the taste of the sahr̥daya.