________________
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1509 something to be an imitation or reproduction of something else, the similarity between these two is grasped first, as it is implied. They observe that there is no similarity with the mental feeling of rati or love on one hand and whatever the spectator actually observes on the stage, on the other. These two are totally different. The difference between these two is underlined by Tauta in a dārśanika style, i.e. he lays bare the difference between these two from the point of view of nature i.e. svarupatah, and visayataḥ or scope.
The 'svarūpabheda' is brought about by bhinnendriya-grāhyatva and āśrayabheda by the inherent difference in these two being perceived by different sense-organs and by their being located in different substrutum. The person or body of the nata or actor, his physical movements, the items such as crown on his head etc. which he bears on his person etc. are physical objects. Rati, krodha etc. the mental feelings are of the form of mental state or disposition (i.e. citta-vrttirūpa). Thus there is difference in nature - svarūpabheda-between the two. The apprehension of the body of the actor etc. is done by the sense-organ of sight i.e. eye. The mental feelings such as rati, krodha etc. are observed by antah-karana or internal organs, i.e. conscience. Thus, between the two there is - bhinnéndriyagrāhyarva - i.e. difference in instrumentality of their observation. Aśrayabheda or difference in location is also clear. The first stays on physicality, the other on conscience. Crown and the rest are held on the body, while rati etc. are located in the mind of Rama etc. Thus there is great difference between the original mental feelings and the reproduction on the part of the actor.
The substance of Tauta's argument is this that whatever the actor-anukartāreproduces is just gross physical. The mental feelings such as rati and the like, which are qualities of conscience i.e. antahkarana - can never be imitated or reproduced by just physical movements. So, it is useless to say that rasa is "imitation or reproduction of mental feelings.” In this argument advanced by Tauta, first it is taken for granted that the opponent takes physical presentation as Srngāra etc., and then this is refuted as reproduction of the feeling of love. So, the objector tries to improve upon the Siddhāntin's faulty observation. The objector, i.e. pūrva-pakṣin says that he does not take physical expressions as reproduction, but he takes the mental feeling of the actor, which is realised through physical expression, as imitation or reproduction of the original feeling of the character concerned, here, say, Rāma. To this, Tunta's answer is that the mental feeling apprehended in this way is simply that of the actor. How can we arrive in this case at the reproduction of the mental feelings of Rāma, when we observe only the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
