This thesis comprises an introduction, and the text of the Dasarüpa and the Avaloka thereon. In the Introduction I have given an account of the manuscripts selected and cited in the apparatus and have explained the arrangement of text and apparatus. I have also included in the Introduction an outline of the contents of the Dasarúpa and the Avaloka with some critical comments. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika have tried to revive the tätparya theory to explain the function of dhvani . The tätparya theory is arguably the most plausible alternative to the dhvani theory. While Anandavardhana holds Sentiment to be suggestion, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika consider Sentiment to be purport. A relative evaluation of the two theories in the perspective of the analogy of word -sense and sentence -sense has been made to show that the difference between these two theories is one of emphasis. The tätparya theory has been misunderstood and misrepresented by many theorists and did not receive the recognition it deserves. The tacit admission by Anandavardhana that the dhvani theory complements the view of the Mimâmsakas should ensure the rightful place of the tätparya theory in the wider background of Sanskrit poetics. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika have been influenced by Bhattanáyaka in their interpretation of Bharata's rasasütra. And Bhattanäyaka's interpretation is not very different to that of Abhinavagupta. The controversial question as to whether Dhanañjaya and Dhanika allow Säntarasa in poetry has also been discussed.
The text of the Dasarüpa with the Avaloka commentary has been based on a collation of seven manuscripts and one printed edition. If my selection of any particular reading does not seem to be justified, the reader is of course free to select another reading with the help of the critical apparatus annexed to the text and commentary.
Two other manuscripts and the printed edition by T. Venkatacharya have not been collated for this edition. An account of these materials has been given in the Appendix.