History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.56.2

c6.56.2

62 says ‘कामं सर्वोप्यलङ्कारो रसमयं निषिध्नति । तथाप्यग्राम्यतैवैनं भारं वहति भूयसा ॥’. In II. 280-292 the काव्यादर्श describes how the figure रसवद् is dependent on one of the eight rasas and they further show that Daṇḍin was quite aware of the difference between स्थायिभाव and रस. Vide काव्यादर्श I. 51, 64 also. Bhāmaha III. 6 (रसवद् दर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा ।) shows that he was aware of rasas, but did not treat them as the most essential element in poetry. He says in I. 21 that a mahākāvya should be endowed with rasas (युक्तं लोकस्वभावेन रसैश्च विविधैः पृथक्). वामन also says ‘दीप्तरसत्वं कान्तिः ।’ III. 2. 24. Both Daṇḍin (I. 31) and Bhāmaha (I. 24) leave out of account dramas (which they regard as a kind of kāvya) and refer the curious reader to other works for rules about them. It appears that in ancient times poems and dramas ordinarily were looked upon as separate compartments. Writers on Poetics did not at first include a treatment of rasas in their works. रुद्रट is the first extant writer to treat of *rasa* in a work called काव्यालङ्कार. The शिशुपालवध 14.50 (composed about a hundred years before रुद्रट) speaks of *rasas* in connection with dramas.¹ Even in Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, *rasa* is not the principal subject treated of, but it is dealt with therein because of its relation to dramatic representation.