The book, further, introduces the ideas of anubhavas, and vibhavas illustrating the theory of rasa discussing the opinions and commentaries of later Indian poeticians starting from
Anandavardhana to V.
This includes
Anandavardhana's famous Dhvanyaloka (ninth cent.), which analyzed literary emotions by trying to explain, in Pollock's words, how "an emotion can come to inhabit the literary work" (Pollock 2010: 145).
(Source: The Dhvanyaloka of
Anandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta , Harvard University Press, 1990)
Lawrence focuses particularly on Abhinava's reformulations of
Anandavardhana's theory of the suggestion (dhvani) of aesthetic sentiments (rasa) by the formal structures of literature, and Bhatta Nayaka's conception of aesthetic sentiments as universalizations (sadharamkarana) of ordinary human emotions.
This position remains central to the idea of Dhvani and it is remarkable on the part of
Anandavardhana (6th Cent A.) to have developed such a thesis that takes into consideration the appropriate transformation, proportional signification, simultaneous cognition, modelised applicability and finally positional changes of each of the categories, constructs, and primary as well as secondary models of an artistic situation.
Take for example the notion of `suggested sense' (dhvani), which is basic to Sanskrit poetics from
Anandavardhana (ninth century?).
He does help us tremendously, however, by discussing the matter in terms of presuppositions rather of schools (though the mimamsa specifically, being a text-oriented tradition, does get its share) or of individuals (though Abhinavagupta and
Anandavardhana, the author of the Dhvanyaloka, who has become quite popular of late, are also used as points of departure for the arguments).
(As some of what people consider realistic will vary across cultures, this is another indexical law.) Thus, for example, the ninth-century Indian theorist,
Anandavardhana, wrote that the beauty of a work is harmed when 'in a passage dealing with a king who is a mere human ...
(Harivijaya, v), this Maharastri kavya rendering of the theft of the Parijata tree was so popular that it became a regular point of reference for such theorists as
Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, and, especially, Bhoja in his Srngaraprakasa and Sarasvatikanthabharana (Harivijaya, 1-7).