Sambodhi 2002 Vol 25

Author(s): Jitendra B Shah, N M Kansara
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 10

Vol. XXV, 2002
THE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS DARŠANAS.... If we accept that Lollata did speak of Rasa from the spectator's point of view also, we have to see then how the latter enjoyed it according to him.
As the sāmājika watches a drama, he allows himsef to forget for the nonce that he is witnessing a dramatic performance — due to the clever acting of the nata. He identifies (anusandhāna) the actor with original character (anukārya, Rama). This identification is due to the former's peculiar movements etc. (anubhāvas). He is not able to account for the various mimetic movements of the actor otherwise than by construing them as the indications of love (Rati). He does so by resorting to laksanā44 - secondary function of word (abhidheyāvinābhuta - pratitih). This avinā-bhāva is not necessarily an invariable connection like that between smoke and fire.45
Is this identification of the actor with the original character an áropa (superimposition) or a bhrama (illusion) ?
Yes, of course it is an āropa, but it is not a bhrama. It is a voluntary (āhārya) super-imposition as we have noted earlier the sāmājika suspends his consciousness of the difference between the nața (the anukarta) and the anukārya. It is due to this sort of superimposition that nătya is called a Rūpaka (rūpakam tat-samāropāt)46. This āhārya āropa is like the aropa of the moon (candra) on the face (mukha) in the illustration of metaphor : mukha-candrah udeti/ Though we know that the face is not the moon, we enjoy this Rūpaka. We cannot, however, enjoy it if we are, all the while, conscious of the rugged and
-covered surface of the moon. According to Lollața the sāmājika enjoys rasa in the same manner, of course his theory is confuted by Sri Sankuka.
From the foregoing discussion it is amply clear that Bhatta Lollata was not influenced by the Vedānta Darśana as some scholars 47 have tried to establish, by explaining 'anusaņdhāna' as super-imposition (āropa) 48, because as has been pointed out before, this aropa is not an illusion like that of a serpent on a rope.
Lollata probably drew on the Bhātta school of Pūrvamīmāṁsā, for he resorts to the secondary power of word (laksaņā) accepted by Kumārila Bhatta, to account for the mimetic movements of the actor.49 It is suggested that Lollata explained this not by lakṣaṇā but by Arthāpatti.50 Even then he was influenced by the Pūrvamīmāṁsā darśana.
Mm. Kane51 too has suggested and rightly so, that Lollata was influenced by Purvamimāṁsā.