Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 32

20
SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
spectator through acting, and not through words.3 Rasa thus is sthayi represented by means of acting (and not denoted by words).4 As the sthāyi of the character is made the object of experience by logical tokens which, as presented not by the character himself, but by the actor by means of artificial tokens, it is the case of 'seeingz' the sthāyī as located in the actor when he is in the process of acting. But, as we have seen earlier, the actor as a particular actual man, following the particular profession of acting, is not the object of perception. The actor, as playing the role of Rāma, and only during the time he is playing that role, and in that capacity, functioning, as it were, like the carrier of Rāma's emotion, is the object of our perception.
(B) We shall now turn to the second stage in Sankuka's statement of his position, which appears while he is under attack from his critics, particularly from Abhinaya's teacher (upādhyayah), Bhatta Tauta. If rasa is said to be the imitation of sthāyī, the objector asks, to whom does it appear in that form : (a) to the spectator, or (b) to the actor, or (c) to the wise interpreter who distinguishes between reality and appearance, or (d) to Bharata ? Let us follow the polemic step by step. Some of the answers are recorded in the text as actually given by the Sankukites; and the others may be taken as answers supplied by modern Sankukaites.
Objection 1. Things perceivable by one sense can alone be regarded as imitating each other. The actually perceived drinking of one liquid can be taken to be an imitation of the perceived drinking of another liquid. But how can something accessible to one sense imitate something not available to that sense ? How can rati which belongs to the realm of the mind and is accessible to the mind alone, be imitated by bodily gestures, etc. which are. accessible to physical senses alone ?
Reply : One fails to see how this objection applies to Sankuka's theory at all, because he has not maintained that the actor's gestures, etc. imitate any mental states.
Objection 2. Only if one has experienced the original, can one recognise its imitation. But nobody has had a prior experience of Rāma's rati. How can therefore anyone claim that something is the imitation of Rāma's rati, or that the actor is imitating Rama ?
Reply : If Rāmāyana is regarded as history, and not as an epic poem which deals only with a fictional world, one does not see how this objection can be raised. No living person today can claim that he has seen Sivāji or
3. Janata: garar fa: Fereit Prats rated a grandi stareharriren and 41148419|| R. P. Kan
gle, op. cit. p. 130. 4. F20ATTESTATTETETICE T Framator suareg) Ta: Ibid.