I have patiently and profitably gone through this huge work. I could not imagine that a work so excellent, so profound, so scholarly and so enchanting in every detail could be submitted for a mere Ph.D. degree. It could well be submitted for a D.Litt. degree and I consider it much above that too. Any two chapters of this work would have earned him a Ph.D. degree of any good university.

Though the main object of his study is Abhinavagupta’s notions of hâsa, hâsya, rasa, hâsyarasa, rasâbhâsa, and hâsyâbhâsa, he has first analyzed, through several chapters, the different theories of laughter, humor, etc., offered by Western psychologists, sociologists, aestheticians and philosophers, like Hobbes, Freud, Bergson, Koestler, La Fave, Schultz, I.A. Richards, Kuiper, Gurdjieff and others. Relying chiefly on Gurdjieff, whose ‘bisociative theory’ of the S-O-R model he considers to be the best, though modified and supplemented substantially by others’ theories on various aspects (particularly, aesthetic and social) of laughter, smile, humor, wit, joke, comic, etc., he has offered an excellent bisociative theory of his own and shown, with illustrations from different aspects of life—individual (psychological), social, aesthetic, etc.—how different factors constituting the bisociation in question vary from one type of cases to another.

This by itself constitutes a full thesis, enough for a Ph.D. degree. But then, he has taken up two other (allied) subjects, viz. (i) the study of (very‑) ancient-day cultures (involving social structures) in different parts of the world, specially in pre-Vedic and post-Vedic India, and (ii) an astonishingly profound and fascinating study of Indian aesthetics worked out by Abhinavagupta, and of course, by Bharata, Mammata, Dandin, Rajashekhara, Jagannatha Pandita, Vishvanatha (Abhinavagupta’s own commentator), Anandavardhana, and others.

He has not only offered a more than full account—one better than which I cannot imagine—of Abhinava’s idea of rasa in the wider perspective of what other Indian aestheticians preceding and succeeding him, have said, he, concentrating specially on hâsyarasa (as distinct from, and yet not always very distinct from, hâsa) has, with surprisingly excellent scholarship, depth of comprehension, analysis and, above all, constructive originality, shown how far (and it is far enough) Abhinavagupta had in mind—explicitly stated or as definitely suggested—the bisociative theory, in all its phases and dimensions, that our author has developed so patiently. The crucial test, according to our author, is Abhinava’s special theories of rasâbhâsa and the role of hâsyâbhâsa in particular. All the suggestions, even casual, that Abhinava has thrown in this connection, and in other contexts also, have been developed in a manner as scholarly and analytical as of the healthiest possible imagination, by our author Shri V. Suntharalingam, showing how inevitably they lead to his own bisociative theory; not only that, he has shown how these suggestions are in perfect consonance with Abhinava’s Tantra metaphysics too.

As for the ethnological study constituting the social backbone of his theory, he tells us that in the present work there is not much space left for that. But what little he has written, especially about Vedic and post-Vedic (brahmanical) societies in India, is enough to serve as a substantial sociological account not only of laughter but also of humor, wit, the comic and hâsyarasa. It shows what abundant scholarship and perception he has in so many diverse fields of study.

Two more points and we have a full account, though only in outline, of this stupendous thesis. Naturally, in analyzing hâsyarasa he has had to concentrate largely on the role of the vidûshaka (jester?) in Indian drama. He had therefore to write a lot on this subject. The second point, more interesting, is an eye-opener to Western aestheticians: he has shown and that successfully too, that the Western aestheticians and literary critics had no clear idea of hâsyarasa, though many of them approached it closely, but confusingly enough, in their accounts of humor, wit and comic.ic literature. His poetic temper is more than evident in the excellent translations he has done of many of the lyric pieces of ‘Amarushataka’ and other Sanskrit works. His English is excellent.

The work is very definitely a solid piece of research work characterized as much by discovery of new facts as by fresh approach and interpretation. It evinces in abundance, the author’s capacity for critical examination and judgment, and the literary presentation of the thesis is not only satisfactory, it is excellent through and through. The bibliography appended is neat and thorough and the titles there are all of books and papers which he has read, as is evident from the passages and opinions he has quoted in the text of the thesis.

I recommend the thesis in the highest terms for the award of Ph.D. degree by Banaras Hindu University. Were it submitted for a D.Litt. degree, I would have recommended it in equally highest terms.