Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources c8.s1.7

c8.s1.7

of other technical terms of the Rasa-śāstra, which often indicate shades of meaning or concepts for which it is sometimes difficult to find a modern equivalent. Such terms have been translated or explained, as far as possible, in accordance to their actual definitions in the texts. The question whether Bhakti is Rasa or Bhāva is more or less academic, but it has been discussed at some length by Jagannātha in his Rasagaṅgādhara (ed. Kāvyamālā, 1913, p. 45). In the opinion of orthodox rhetoricians, it is devādi-viṣayā rati and therefore a Bhāva, and not a complete Rasa. Some advanced thinkers, however, would admit the Vātsalya, Preyas, Śraddhā, and even Bhakti as a Rasa; but this admission was probably made in later times through the influence of Vaiṣṇava theory itself. Jagannātha, one of the latest writers, however, represents the general orthodox attitude. He adds further that, being based on Anurāga or attachment, Bhakti cannot, as some maintain to the contrary, be comprehended in Śānta Rasa. Replying to this, Jīva Gosvāmin (Prīti-sandarbha, ed. Prangopal Gosvami, Calcutta B.E. 1337, p. 673-74) remarks that the phrase devādi means "ordinary gods" and does not apply to the supreme Kṛṣṇa; and that Bhakti, along with its Vibhāvas etc., is in its own nature alaukika, and therefore conforms to the rhetoricians' requirements (yat tu prākṛta-rasikai rasa-sāmagri-virahād bhaktau rasatvam neṣṭam, tat khalu prākṛta-devādi-viṣayam eva sambhavet.....tathā tatra kāruṇādayaḥ svata evālaukikādbhutarūpatvena darśitā darśitāś ca). Madhusūdana Sarasvati also discusses this question in the same strain in his Bhagavad-bhakti-rasāyana (ed. Benares 1927), ii. 75-80, but he adds that Bhakti as a Rasa is svānubhava-siddha and therefore incapable of direct proof.