Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

SR No.: 006967
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 134
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 49

ABHINAVAGUPTA ON THE ALAUKIKA NATURE OF KASA
7
(xv) A. Bh. I., p. 3 : Drama is indeed different from every wordly thing (laukika-padärtha-vyatiriktam); it is altogether different from (vilaksanam), imitation (anukara), reflection (pratibimba), picture (alekhya), similitude (sādrsya), superimposition (aropa), identity, poetical fancy, dream, tricks, magic, and the like. It is fit to be cognised by one's own perception which is of the nature of aesthetic relish; and this cognition is altogether different (bhinna-vrttanta) from the well-known kinds of knowledge; right perception, error, doubt, lack of determinate knowledge, and lack of identity. It is truly of the nature of rasa (aesthetic experience).27
(xvi) A. Bh. I., p. 35 : Abhinavagupta explains the above passage with examples while commenting on Bharata's Nāțya-Śāstra,) 1.107, p. 35: To explain : Here, that is in drama, (literally, in the Natyaveda) those who are seen (on the stage-playing the roles of the gods and the demons) are not the real gods and the demons. With regard to them there arises neither the cognition of identity nor of similitude, as in the case of twins; nor of error (mistaken knowledge), as in the case of a mother-of-pearl for silver, nor of superimposition, as when one says : "This man from the country called Balhika (part of modern Punjab) is a bull"; nor of a poetical fancy, as when one says " Her face is like the moon"; nor of a copy, as in the case of a picture or a clay-model etc.; nor of an imitation, as in the case of a disciple who cleverly imitates his teacher when reproducing his explanation; nor of a sudden creation, as in magic (indrajala); nor of an appearance by employing mäyă (tricks), as in the case of a sleight of hand, etc. In all these cases, as there is no sädhärani-karana and the spectator is quite indifferent he cannot have the aesthetic pleasure or experience.28
er:
(iii) न हि तेषां (काव्य) वाक्यानाममिष्टोमादिवाक्यवत् सत्यार्थप्रतिपादनद्वारेण प्रवर्तकत्वाय प्रामाण्यमन्विष्यते, प्रीतिमात्रपर्यवसायित्वात् । प्रीतेरेव चालौकिकचमत्काररूपाया व्युत्पत्यजत्वात् ।
-Locana, p. 455 ' 'Note :- Abhinavagupta quotes the view of an earlier writer: सामाजिकानां हि हकफलं नाटयं न शोकादिफलम्।।
-A. Bh. I. p. 289 "The sole purpose of drama is joy and that it never creates sorrow."
From the passages cited above it would seem that Abhinavagupta would agree with
this view. 27. तत्र नाटयं नाम लौकिकपदार्थव्यतिरिकं तदनुकार-प्रतिबिम्बालेख्यसादृश्यारोपाध्यवसायोत्प्रेक्षास्वप्नमायेन्द्रजालादि
विलक्षणं तद्-ग्राहकस्य सम्यग्ज्ञान-श्रान्तिसंशयानवधारणानध्यवसायविज्ञानमिन्नवृत्तान्तास्वादनरूपसंवेदनसंवेचं वस्तु रस-स्वभावमिति वक्ष्यामः।
-A. Bh.I. p.35 28. तथाहि-तेषु न तत्वेन धीः। न सादृश्येन यमलकवत् । न भ्रान्तत्वेन रूप्यस्मृतिपूर्वकशुक्तिरूप्यवत् । नारोपेण
सम्यग्ज्ञानवाधानन्तरमिथ्याज्ञानरूपम् । न तदध्यवसायेन गौर्वाहीकवत् । नोत्प्रेक्ष्यमाणत्वेन चन्द्रमुखवत् । न तत्प्रतिकृतित्वेन चित्रपुस्तवत् । न तदनुकारेण गुरु-शिष्य-व्याख्याहेवाकवत् । न तात्कालिकनिर्माणेन्द्रजालवत् । न युक्तिविरचिततदाभासतया हस्तलाघवादिमायावत् । सर्वेष्वेतेषु पक्षेष्वसाधारणतया द्रष्टुरौदासीन्ये रसास्वादायोगात् ।
-A. Bh. I p. 35