Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c86.75

v2.c86.75

This incomplete development of *rasa* and its subordination must be distinguished from the cases of the opposition (*virodha*) of simultaneously existing sentiments in the same theme. It is laid down formally that some *rasas* are intrinsically inconsistent with one another, e.g., the Erotic is opposed to the Disgustful, the Heroic to the Quietistic, and so forth⁴⁴. The incongruity or opposition results in three ways, viz., (1) from identity of the exciting cause (*ālambana-vibhāva*) (2) from the identity of the subject of emotion and (3) from immediacy of succession. The incongruity in the first two cases may be removed by representing the sentiments as having different exciting causes respectively, or as existing in different subjects (e.g. in the hero and the rival hero). The last case of conflict may be removed by placing, between the two immediately succeeding sentiments, a sentiment which is not opposed to them. These are cases where two or more *rasas* stand in the relation of principal and subordinate; the term ‘subordinate’ being misleading, it is sometimes called a concomitant *rasa* (*sañcārin*), which implies that it cannot terminate absolutely in itself and at the same time is distinct from a fully developed *rasa*, as well as from a mere undeveloped *bhāva*⁴⁵. There is also no incongruity where a conflicting *rasa* is recalled or described under a comparison. All these questions properly come under the theory of propriety or *aucitya* in relation to *rasa*, elaborated by Ānandavardhana and his followers, and is ultimately based on the dictum attributed to the *Dhvanikāra* (p. 145, cf *Locana* p. 138), which lays down in general terms that the secret of *rasa* lies in conforming to the established rules of propriety.