Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.6

v2.c84.6

of poetry. No doubt, it may be thought that they show a decided partiality to *rasa*, which would practically lead to a conclusion of its essentiality; but they could not, having regard to theoretical consistency give exclusive preference to it; for in their complete scheme of Poetics the *rasa-dhvani*, which is only one of the three forms of the unexpressed, plays as much part as the *vastu-* and *alaṃkāra-dhvani*. They had to recognise that the centre of gravity in a poem may lie in its material and its imagination, as much as in its emotional element. Abhinavagupta appears to have attached little weight to these theoretical considerations, which had restrained his predecessors from explicitly stating what they practically implied; and brushing them aside, he carries their theory to its utmost logical consequence by declaring the essentiality of *rasa* (*rasenaiva sarvaṃ jīvati kāvyam*), without which, in his opinion, there could be no poetry (*na hi tac-chūnyam*, i. e. *rasa-śūnyam, kāvyaṃ kiṃcid asti*, p. 65). He attempts, however, to explain the theoretical discrepancy by saying that the two other aspects of suggestion, concerned respectively with *vastu* and *alaṃkāra*, resolve themselves ultimately into the suggestion of *rasa*, which is in fact the essence of poetry (*rasa eva vastuta ātmā, vastvalaṃkāra-dhvanī tu sarvathā rasaṃ prati paryavasyete*, p. 27). This opinion, no doubt, influenced the view of later thinkers to a great extent; for, although Mammaṭa carefully follows the cautious attitude of the Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana, Viśvanātha, developing their theory (after Abhinava) further out of itself, pushes it to its extreme limit and builds up his own scheme of Poetics on the basis of the theory that poetry consists of a sentence of which the ‘soul’ is rasa (vākyam rasātmakam kāvyam). But we shall see that the considerations which led the Dhvanikāra and his commentator to leave their view on this point wisely unstated could not be easily put out of the way, and they are repeated substantially by Jagannātha in his criticism of Viśvanātha’s view. All later writers, however, agree in thinking that the rasa-dhvani is certainly the most important point for consideration in poetry; and even if they do not explicitly state with Abhinava that the vastu-and alaṃkāra-dhvani resolve ultimately into rasadhvani, they yet show a decided partiality to the latter element.