History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.90.1

c6.90.1

उद्भट; दण्डी, रुद्रट and प्रतीहारेन्दुराज may also be held to belong to this school. It is not to be supposed that they were unaware of the theory of *rasa*. Vide p. 341 above. उद्भट defines 'रसवत' as 'रसवदर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिसदयम् । स्वशब्दस्थायिसञ्चारिविभावाभिनयास्पदम् ॥' (IV), in which he refers to the technical terms स्थायिभाव, विभाव, सञ्चारि (or व्यभिचारि) भाव and in the next verse names the nine *rasas*. दण्डी also defines रसवत and ऊर्जस्वि and says 'मधुरं रसवद्वाचि वस्तुन्यपि रसस्थितिः ।' (I. 51). He is quite aware of the eight *rasas* and their स्थायिभावs 'इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम्' (II. 292); 'प्राक् प्रीतिर्दर्शिता सेयं रतिः शृङ्गारतां गता' (II. 281): vide also काव्या० II. 283, 285, 287. रुद्रट says 'तस्मात्तत्कर्तव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा रसैर्युक्तम्' (XII. 2). These writers were well aware of the existence of *rasa*, but they had not found out how to apply the theory to *kāvya* in general. To them *alaṅkāras* seemed to be the most important part in *kāvyas*, so much so that they made *rasas* subordinate to *alaṅkāras* and defined such figures as रसवत. भामह and दण्डी hardly made any distinction between अलङ्कारs and *guṇas*. Both भामह and दण्डी regard भाविक as a *guṇa* ('भाविकत्वमिति प्राहुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुणं' III. 52 and काव्यादर्श II. 364); while दण्डी regards the ten गुणs as *alaṅkāras* when the word is used in a wide sense (काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलङ्कारान् प्रचक्षते ।...काश्चिन्मार्गविभागार्थमुक्ताः प्रागप्यलङ्क्रियाः ।' II. 1 and 3).