Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.23

v2.c85.23

From the historical point of view, however, the definition is interesting, its apparent inconsistency and obscurity being a curious fact which can reasonably be explained by a reference to the views of the older schools and systems. The term *rasa* does not occur in the definition, and the fact that Mammaṭa accepts the *citra-kāvya*, which is grudgingly admitted by Ānandavardhana as a division of poetry, would indicate, as Viśvanātha points out, that Mammaṭa does not consider *rasa* to be essential. Yet he defines the *guṇas* and *doṣas* in terms of their relation to *rasa*, a procedure which is not justifiable if the essentiality of *rasa* is not admitted. On the other hand, if it is maintained that all reference to *rasa* is omitted in the definition because it is such a well known and established fact in the poetical and critical world, then the prominence of threefold suggestion and the division of poetry on its basis are hardly explicable. The *guṇas* and *doṣas* should in that case be omitted, as done by Jagannātha, from the definition, which corresponds more to the definition of Vāmana (1. 1. 1-3) ; and these two elements must be understood in the sense in which Vāmana takes them, viz., as properties of *śabda* and *artha*³. This and other discrepancies make it probable that Mammaṭa, belonging as he does to the new school, is influenced to a great extent by the views of the older schools. He accepts, no doubt, the general scheme and theory of the Dhvani school, but in trying to reconcile them with those of earlier theorists, he lands himself in hopeless inconsistencies.