________________
838
SAHRDAYĀLOKA range nātyam iti vyapadeśaḥ. etad uktam bhavati) yathā ca gātra-viksepárthatve samāne'pyanukārā"tmatvena nộtyād anyan nșttam, tathā vākyárthábhinayā”tmakān nāțyāt padárthábhinayā”tmakam anyad eva nrtyam iti."
The difference is here brought out by Dhanika who holds that nộtya is "āngikabahula" and nātya is sāttvika-bahula; the former has concern more with physical movements and only some feelings, the latter has more psychological activity and is rasa-based. Rasa for Dhananjaya-Dhanika is collected through tātparya sakti and is therefore here termed as vākyárthábhinaya-rūpa or perhaps by padárthábhinayarūpa is meant a minor type and vākyárthábhinayarūpa suggests the major type. Thus rūpaka and uparūpaka could be understood here. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 538, ibid) - "Therefore, the tātparyavādin, and mainly the Dasarūpaka and the Avaloka on it, are responsible for introducing this new nomenclature and terminology to distinguish the major and the minor dramatic varieties. Väkyárthábhinaya and padárthábhinaya are not phrases born in the Kashmiria tradition represented by Abhinavagupta." Dr. Raghavan here gives a foot-note in which he concedes that even Abhinavagupta uses such terms as padártha and vākyártha, but observes that they are not in the sense used by the Avaloka. But we feel that even the Dhv. uses these terms with a shade of meaning closer to major and minor senses quite often when rasa is described as 'vākyártha' at many places and bhāvas as padártha.
Be it as it is, but the DR. and the Avaloka use these terms to distinguish between major and minor forms of stage performances. We have called them art forms in genral with the former having anukarana and therefore rūpana as its soul with acting as its medium, and the latter having primarily the suggestive movements of limbs i.e. dance as its medium, with some impression of acting also. There is no imitation like as it is in drama proper. So the upa-rūpakas are art-forms, varieties of performing art and not rūpaka or drama proper.
Bhoja also seems to follow the phraseology of the DR. and Avaloka to distinguish between major and minor art-forms, i.e. the rūpakas and the uparūpakas. But Bhoja does not suggest that he accepts the views of the DR. in this respect. This strengthens our earlier observation that these terms viz. padárthábhinaya and vákyārthábhinaya need not be taken as trade-marks of the DR. and Avaloka only as Dr. Raghavan suggests, but actually their roots and practice were still older, perhaps even older than Anandavardhana. Even Anandavardhana (pp. 170, Edn. K. Kris.) observes : na ca rasesu vidhy anuvādavyavahāro nā’stīti śakyam vaktum, teşām vākyárthatvena abhyupagamāt...
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
