________________
SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
argument. For at that stage it was not made clear why the rati in the actor, aroused as rati is commonly aroused, should be called 'imitated' rati. It will now be objected that if the spectator knows that the vibhāvas, etc. in the case of the imitator, are unreal, how can, with the help of unreal logical tokens, real rati be experienced/inferred? Smoke and mist resemble each other; so do fire and red flowers. Although one can legitimately infer the existence of fire from the existence of smoke, it is not legitimate to infer the existence of red flowers (which resemble fire) from the existence of mist (which resembles smoke). In the same way, one cannot legitimately infer from artificial vibhāvas, etc., which resemble real vibhāvas, etc., the existence of imitated rati, which resembles real rati.
Reply : The whole attack on Sankuka's position seems to be based on the non-recognition of the variety of seeing which we have called 'seeing,'. The view attributed to Sankuka appears to be as follows :
Diagram 3
Relation of Imitation.
Rati
(Imitated) Rati
In Rama
In the Actor
Relation of Inference
Relation of Inference or Imitation
L Rāma's Vibhāvas
Anubhāvas, etc.
Actor's imitated Vibhāvas,
Anubhāvas, etc.
But if the concept of 'seeingz is accepted Sankuka's view can be represented as follows:
Rama's Rati
Diagram 4
Actor's Rati
Relation of Inference
Rāma's Vibhāvas, etc.
Actor's Vibhāvas,etc.
Relation of Imitation
