________________
8
THE PROBLEM OF PATĀKĀSTHANAKA
The theory of Sanskrit drama recognises Patäkästhānaka as a prominent dramatic device. The Natyaśästra defines it and distinguishes its four kinds. But as is usual with it, it does not care to add illustrations and give the reader a clear idea as to the exact nature and scope of the several varieties. The later authorities on the science of drama often repeat the NS. or give definitions in their own words and add examples. Sometimes these authorities press into service the same examples to illustrate the several varieties. Modern commentators and dramatic critics quote one or the other authority or sometimes both and leave the reader confused. The object of this paper is to examine this problem of Patäkästhanaka in its various aspects. and elucidate its exact character, scope and purpose by undertaking a critical and comparative study of the relevant passages from available texts dealing with the theory of drama.
The NS. gives the general definition of Patākāsthanaka as follows:
When instead of the thing thought of or expected, another of the same character emerges in an accidental way, it is called Patākāsthānaka.
The definition as given by the NS. is not unambiguous. It presents so serious a difficulty as to thwart a satisfactory intepretation which precisely is the 'Cintita artha' and which the 'anya artha'? From the point of view of the spectators or the character concerned the 'Cintita artha' is the immediate 'prastuta' which is dramatically less significant than the 'anya artha' the foreshadowed event relating to the 'Prastuta-while from the point of the view of the playwright it is vice versa. A parallel from the Alamkara-sastra may here be cited. In Anyokti (Aprastuta-prasarisa) the 'aprastuta' merely serves the purpose of suggesting the 'prastuta' which is highly important to the poet and which he intends to present in a decorative garb. It is thus his 'Cintita artha', and the 'aprastuta' the 'anya artha.' From the definition. of the Patakästhānaka given by the DR. it would seem that Dhanamhjaya looks at the Patäkästhanaka from the playwright's point of view. Abhinava and others, as at rule, take 'Cintita artha' as the immediate prastuta. It is difficult to say what exactly. Bharata had in mind. It is, however, more convenient to understand them from the spectator's or the character's point of view.
The expression 'agantukena bhavena' is interpreted differently: Sahakaritvena (Abhinava), by an unexpected circumstance (Apte); Dhanamjaya uses the word agantubhava in defining the Patākāsthanaka whereas, Dhanika says, it means 'bhāvinah.' Sāradatanaya introduces in his definition the expressions agantubhävena' and 'bha vyarathasya vastunaḥ' thus implicitly suggesting that agantubhäva is not the same. as 'bhavin'. The ND. omits the phrase altogether. The phrase as used by Bharata. naturally yields the meaning in an accidental way'. The word 'tallingab' is explained
