________________
954
SAHRDAYĀLOKA In yet another quotation, Dr. Raghavan takes objection to Śā.'s calling dombi and seven other types as “nộtyasya bhedāḥ”, and omitting the three viz. nātikā, toțaka and sattaka. Once again we may refer to our argument as above and say that the three are more of drama as explained above and less of dance. Śā. is clear about these art-forms. Dr. Raghavan's objection that "samvidhānakramah tāsām na kadācana bhidyate" is not a sound observation on the part of Sā. We feel exactly opposite. Yes, they differ in names quite often but by and large the type, technique and structure is the same as something having "less of abhinaya and more of dance and music.” Thus, they may be 'rasáśraya' in the end, but primarily their capacity ends in evoking a bhāva only as they are padárthábhinaya-rūpa as against the major types which are vākyárthábhinaya-rūpa. We can explain these terms differently also. As 'padártha' is but a part of 'vākyártha’ and therefore less important, so also these upa-rupakas are lesser art-forms as compared to the ten major art-forms of drama, so far as evoking of rasa is concerned. If out of the twenty, three are almost close to major types, and if out of the rest seven are nrtya forms, the other ten are to be imagined as mixed forms. If Sā. has called some as 'nrtya', they surely have the dance element as most prominent. Dr. Raghavan need not get scarred about such observations and finally these are not rules of physical sciences, like the law of gravitation. Opinion's concerning their nature can differ from the viewer's or expert's angle of vision !
Again, Sāradātanaya is very clear in taking them as uparūpakas with a bias towards dance and music. So, if he counts sandhis and acts in these varieties, there is nothing wrong for he had viewed the actual performance of all the thirty types and certainly not I or not even Dr. Raghavan could lay such a claim of viewing these art-forms being presented on the stage !
Our centention is that when we talk about these authorities such as H. or Sa. or Sāgaranandin or any, we have to be very careful about not doing any injustice to them by rash observations. They are all respected and honourable art-critics and had living traditions of art before them. They, yes all of them, are greater than modern scholars or art-critics.
We have discussed all art-forms from Sā. which are shared by him with either Abhinavagupta or Bhoja or any of his predecessor. But there are six types viz. Sallāpaka, Silpaka, Ullopyaka, Mallikā, Kalpavalli and Pārijāta not mentioned by Bhoja. We will discuss their special features as explained by Śā. B.P. IX. 8, 9 (pp. 376) defines silpaka as -
śilpakaś caturankaḥ syāc caturvṛtti-virājitah,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
