Text 4.46

ननु भगवतः पर-देवतात्वात् तद्-रतिः सर्वत्र भावः स्यात्. मैवम्, तस्माद् एव तस्य भावक-चित्तानुसारित्वात्. यद् आह स्वयम् एव “ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस् तथैव भजाम्य् अहम्” इति, अत एव रसात्मकत्वं तस्य श्रूयते “रसो वै सः” इति.

nanu bhagavataḥ para-devatātvāt tad-ratiḥ sarvatra bhāvaḥ syāt. maivam, tasmād eva tasya bhāvaka-cittānusāritvāt. yad āha svayam eva “ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathaiva bhajāmy aham” iti, ata eva rasātmakatvaṃ tasya śrūyate “raso vai saḥ” iti.

Someone might think, “Since the Lord is the topmost devatā, in every instance affection (rati) for Him is bhāva (and not rasa).” That is wrong since, precisely because He is God, He follows the heart of someone who has the bhāva. He Himself said it: ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃs tathaiva bhajāmy aham, “I serve them in the same way they take shelter of Me” (Bhagavad-gītā 4.11). Therefore it is heard from the scriptures that He consists of rasa (sheer relishment): raso vai saḥ, “He is rasa” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7).

Commentary:

The text is entirely by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. According to him, deva-viṣayā rati can become rasa. His statement is valid so long as it involves Bharata Muni’s definition of rasa (4.8). However, Mammaṭa’s system is different: Any kind of rati, except the sthāyī of śṛṅgāra, is always called bhāva.

Govinda Ṭhakkura explains Mammaṭa’s methodology:

tathā cārthaḥ, ratir iti sthāyi-bhāvopalakṣaṇam, devādi-viṣayety apy aprāpta-rasāvasthopalakṣaṇam. tena devādi-viṣayā sarvā kāntādi-viṣayāpy apuṣṭā ratir hāsādayaś cāprāpta-rasāvasthāḥ prādhānyena vyañjito vyabhicārī ca bhāva ity avadhātavyam,

“The term rati is indicative of sthāyi-bhāva. The word devādi-viṣayā (whose object is the Lord, etc.) is indicative of the fact that it does not reach the state of rasa. Consequently, the following is to be understood. The word bhāva denotes either: (1) a devādi-viṣayā rati (affection for the Lord, and so on, 4.47) (bhakti, etc.), (2) a kāntādi-viṣayā rati (affection between lovers) (Rūpa Gosvāmī calls this madhura-rati) which is not enhanced to the level of rasa (śṛṅgāra-rasa), (3) a sthāyi-bhāva, such as hāsa, which has not reached the level of rasa, or (4) a vyabhicāri-bhāva which is implied in terms of being prominent” (Kāvya-pradīpa 4.35-36).

In the thirteenth century, Vopadeva classed bhakti as a type of rasa proper (Muktā-phala). Rūpa Gosvāmī expounded upon that. Sanskrit poetics became perfect in this way, because in Mammaṭa’s system, any rasa in the scope of bhakti would have to be classed as the rasavat ornament and so on (5.3). For instance, Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha criticized Mammaṭa’s example of adbhuta-rasa (Commentary 4.36) by stating that bhakti is predominant therein, consequently the adbhuta-rasa is second-rate.^[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Jagannātha comments: tatredaṃ vaktavyam—pratīyatāṃ nāmātra vismayaḥ parantv asau kathaṅkāraṃ dhvani-vyapadeśa-hetuḥ? pratipādya-mahā-puruṣa-viśeṣa-viṣayāyāḥ pradhānī-bhūtāyāḥ stotṛ-gata-bhakteḥ prakarṣakatvenāsya guṇī-bhūtatvāt. […] itthaṃ casya rasālaṅkāratvam ucitam (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM pp. 42-43).