Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology

Page 31

SANKUKA-A DEFENCE
retains these capacities in some ways they are, according to the rules of the concept seeing a play', to be ignored; e. g. Caitra as Caitra knows that the crown he wears is not made of gold; the Rāvana he 'kills' is not really there and is not really killed. But Caitra is not supposed to act on what he knows as Caitra; he is expected to act on what he knows as Rāma or Cārudatta. If he feels any emotions as Caitra, they are to be ignored. His ontological status being temporarily suppressed, his actions, emotions, etc. are ascribed to Rāma or Cărudatta. This is inevitable because play-acting is logically based on the temporary suppression of the actor's existence/ actuality and its temporary projection on to the character.
With the help of the above two diagrams we can pose the problems again. What does the spectator see? What variety of seeing is this? What does he make of the relation between Caitra and Rāma ? If seeing an actual physical object' is called 'seeingi', the spectator cannot be said to be concerned with 'seeingı' Caitra, for he is not interested in Caitra as an actual individual, nor to be 'seeingı' Rāma, for the latter does not have the necessary SpaceTime location in order that 'seeingi' may become possible for the spectator in the theatre. The possibility of seeingı' Cārudatta just cannot arise because he is fictional. That the spectator sees someone cannot however be denied. The only alternative that remains to be considered is that of 'seeing Caitra as Rāma'. This may be called 'seeingz' to distinguish it from 'seeingi' Caitra as Caitra, or Rāma as Rāma. The spectator does not say that he sees, Caitra as happy/happy Rāma'; nor does he 'see, that Caitra himself is Rāma', nor again does he 'see, that Caitra is not happy Rāma'; he does not also say that'he sees, Caitra and Rāma as resembling each other'; he is not in doubt whether he sees, Rāma. Seeing, is not involved at all. The spectator just takes Caitra as the happy Rāma. The perception relevant here is not of the variety of seeingı' but that of 'seeingz', the only variety of seeing that is in accordance with the rules of the concepts of “play-acting'/' seeing a play'.
The sthiyi of the character is made the object of the experience of the