Samipya 1991 Vol 08 Ank 01 02

Author(s): Pravinchandra C Parikh, Bhartiben Shelat
Publisher: Bholabhai Jeshingbhai Adhyayan Sanshodhan Vidyabhavan

Page 52

Reconsideration of Sri Sankuka's Views on rasa-nispatti
Tapasvi Nandi
Śri Sankuka is one of those acaryas whose views on rasa-realization have been quoted by Abhinavagupta while commenting on the rasasütra of Bharata (NatyaJastra, Ch. VI rasadhyayah). Here we will attempt a reconsideration of Sri Sankuka's views.
Sri Sankuka disagrees with Lollata and is not inclined to take rasa as an intensified mental state (Upacitaḥ bhavah), but for him rasa is an imitated mental state, which is later inferred by the connoisseur (samajika) in the artist (nata) who is taken to be the character such as Rama and the like. The actor or artist, holds Śankuka, successfully imitates the original character and his experience. This imitation by the artist is artificial and unreal, but it does not seem to be so to the spectators, who forget the difference between the artist and the character, on account of artful presentation by the former (vastu-saundarya-balat), and inferentially experience the mental state of the character. This experience involves two steps on the part of the samajika. First of all he takes the artist to be a character, say Rama, Duşyanta, etc. This cognition on the part of the samajika, Śri Šankuka explains, is a unique form of cognition which is neither real (samyak), nor unreal (mithya), and also neither of the form of doubt (Sathsaya) nor of comparision (Sadriya). Śrt Sankuka explains this unique cognition which is peculiar to the field of art only, on the analogy of 'citra-turaga' or painted horse. After this, the artist who is cognised as this or that character by the spectator, artfully imitates the character. The presentation is 80 charming that the spectator artfully infers the feelings of the character. This anukṛtaanumita-bhava is rasa for Śrr Śankuka.
Thus, Sri Sankuka seems to be the first known critic who divorces art-experience from the normal work a day world experience, and co-relates it with the connoesseur. However, Abhinava's master Tauta finds fault with Sankuka's theory of anukṛtianumiti. The main thrust of Touta's argument seems to be that the effect of imitation is bound to be ridiculous, causing laughter and mockery and that it cannot have any connection with aesthetic experience. If Inference also cannot be said to cause pleasure: 'laukikanumane tu Ra rasata' ?-Observes Abhinavagupta later on.
However, it should be carefully noted that in ordinary partance we have to resort to inference to realize somone else's feelings. We can only infer someone else's
481
Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Sanskrit, School of Languages, Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad
[Samipya: April, '91-March, 1992