206 of rasa. What pleasure can there be Ln a reference to the love-making of the highest god, which can only produce shame and horror in the mind of the reader, JUSL as would a description of the love-making of one^s own parents? Saktitiraskrtatvat means: although the love-making has been described, nonetheless, because of the genius of the poet, the heart is so engrossed in the poetry that it does not consider whether it is proper or improper. Just as when a man is genuinely courageous but happens to be fighting an improper battle, we might well laud him at the time, but would cease to do so if we consider (later) the correctness or incorrectness of his behavior." This important passage brings up the whole question of rasabhasa. For further discussion, see the section on this concept in my Aesthetic Rapture (Poona: Deccan College Silver Jubilee Series). 20. Dhvanyaloka^ p. 332: nanu yady utsahddibhdva amane kathan-oid divyamanusyady aucityaparlksa kriyate tat kriyatam^ ratyadau tu kirn taya prayojanam? ratir hi bharatavarsocitenaiva vyavahdrena divydnam apt vamanlyeti sthitih. naivam; tatraucityatikpamena sutayam dosah. tathd hy adhamappa-krtyaucityenottamaprakrteh Smgaropanibandhane kd bhaven nopahasyata. trividham prdkrtyauoityam bharate va^se 'py asti smgaravisayam. yat tu divyam aucityam tat tatranu-pakarakam eveti cet - na vayam divyam aucityam Syhgapavisayam anyatki^cid brumah. kirn tarhi? bharatavars avis aye yathottama-n^yakesu wjadisu Smgaropanibandhas tatha divydSrayo 'pi Sobhate. na oa rajadisu prasiddhagrarmja^rhgaropanibandhanam ppasiddham natakadau^ tathaiva devesu tat papihaptavyam. natakader abhineyarthatvdd abhinayasya ca sambhogaSmgara-visayasyas bhyatvat tatra parihara iti cet - na; yady abhi-nayasyaivamvisayasydsabhyatd tat kavyasyaivamvisayasya sa kena ni vary ate? tasmad abhineyapthe 'nabhineyarthe vd kavye yad uttamaprdkrte ra^ader uttamaprakrtibhir nayikabhih saha gramyasambhogavaynanam tat pitroh sambhogavamanam iva sutapam asabhyarn. tathaivottamadevatadivisayam. na ca sambhogasyhgarasya suratalaksana evaikah prakapaf^^ yavad anye ^i ppabhedah parasparappemadap^anadayah sambhavanti^ te kasmad uttamaprakrtivisaye na varnyante? tasmad utsahavad rat^v apt prakrtyaucityam anusartavyam, 21. The phrase trividham ppakrtyaucityam bharate varse ^py asti Srhgaravisayam is troublesome only if we attempt to account for the word apt. If we ignore this word, then the sentence makes sense, and belongs, not to the opponent, but to Ananda. The next phrase, yat tu divyam aucityam tat tatranupakarakam eveti cet, is of course the opponent, and his point is this: You, Anandarvardhana, have earlier claimed that there are two different standards in the case of utsaha$ namely, a human one, and a divine one (since Ananda claims elsewhere in the Dhvanyaloka that to describe superhuman feats in the case of a human hero is ill-advised), Should you also claim that there are different standards so far as the portrayal of love is considered, I am afraid that I cannot find this distinction credible. Surely divine love should be described precisely as is human love. Ananda replies by saying that he never