Studies in Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001580
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 352
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Epistemology, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 237

219
Studies in lodian Philosophy
consists of words, similarly this language consists of Vibhāva (i.e. set of actors and environment), Anubhāva (ihe expressions connected with acting which again is of three varieties, Vācika, Angika and Sättvika) and Vyabhicāribhāva (mental, bodily and organic states, poses and movements ). Bharata thought that such Nātya - language patterns would be of eight types and classified them under different Rasas like Srrgāra, Vira etc.
I have stated that any art can be conceived as having three stages, SI, S2 (or Ds) and S3. I have also stated that Si is mental and is concerned with the states of the artist's or poet's mind. I have further said that the stages of the poet's mind are given a concrete form in S2 (or Ds2). I have also suggested that Si is what Bharsta thought to be Sthāyl. bhāva. Now it may be objected here that this analysis, though adequate for arts like 'Readable poetry' or painting or sculpture is not adequate for Nālya. The art of Natya, unlike other arts, is concerned with a set of four different kinds of persons-(1) the dramatist, (2) the stage director, (3) the actor and (4) the person who is played by the actor. Each one in its turn tries to express what he conceives in his mind and so a problem arises : whose mental state it is that is manifested in 'Ds2'? In other words what is SI, is it concerned with the mental states of the dramatist, as I have earlier suggested, or with the stage director, (3) the actor of (4) or the person, the person who is being played ? In Abhinavabhārati, a lot of discussion has been centred round the pro. blem, the problem of location of Sthayibhāva, as it is called, and the theories of Bhatta Lollața and Sankuka, at least, as they are represented by Abhinavagupta, have contributed considerably to carry the discussion on wrong path.
It is true that in Nāļya, each of these four agents in a sense contribute to the manifestation of Ds2'. 'Ds2' is in some sense mentally conceived by the dramatist, the stage director and also in most cases the actor. But to locate si, in either the stage director, or the actor or the real hero is based on certain misconception. The mistake lies in the fact