1. A Study of Abhinava Bharati of Bharatas Natya Sastra and Avaloka of Dhanajaya Dramatical Principles Manjul Gupta

A STUDY OF ABHINAVABHARATI ON Bharata's Nātyasāstra and AVALOKA ON Dhananjaya's Dasarūpaka DRAMATURGICAL PRINCIPLES. Manjul Gupta

A STUDY OF ABHINAVABHĀRATI

ON

BHARATA'S NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA

AND

AVALOKA ON

DHANAÑJAYA'S DAŚARŪPAKA

DRAMATURGICAL PRINCIPLES

'Nāṭyam bhinnarucer janasyā bahudhāryekam samārādhanam'

(Drama is, verily, a common form of entertainment for the people of diverse tastes)

Kālidāsa

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī

on

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

and

Avaloka on

Dhanañjaya's Daśarūpaka

(Dramaturgical Principles)

Dr. Manjul Gupta

Gian Publishing House

29/6 SHAKTI NAGAR • DELHI-110007 • INDIA

GIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

29/6 Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007

© 1987, MANJUL GUPTA

ISBN 81-212-0086-5

Printed in India

Published by Mrs. Gayatri Garg for Gian Publishing House,

Delhi and Printed at Mohan Printing Corpn. (Composing at

M Gupta Printers, E-2/16 Shastri Nagar), Delhi.

FOREWORD

I happened to be one of the examiners of Dr. Smt. Manjul Gupta’s studied thesis on ‘A Comparative Study of the Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka’ in 1980. It is gratifying that it is going to be printed.

In the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy the place of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra is unique by its antiquity (not later than 3rd cent. A.D.) by being pioneer work in the field as well as by the thoroughness with which the subject is mooted out in it. But unfortunately many commentaries written thereupon are lost as is seen from the first extent commentary called Abhinavabhārati by the famous Kashmirian polymath, Abhinavagupta (between 975-1015).

It is happy coincidence that Dhananjaya, Abhinava’s contemporary from Malva presents an abridged and practical manual on the dramaturgy based on the great compendium viz. the Nāṭyaśāstra.

Just as the Nāṭyaśāstra is unintelligible without the Bhārati, the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya is as well unintelligible without Avaloka, a commentary by the author’s brother Dhanika.

An exhaustive comparative study of the commentaries—Bhārati and Avaloka was a long-felt desideratum. Dr. Smt. Manjul Gupta has applied herself for the first time to fill up this gap by her sincere effort in the form of the present work.

She has scientifically presented a comparative and critical study of the following dramaturgical principles in the light of the above two commentaries :–(i) the plot with its 5 avasthas, 5 arthaprakṛtis and 5 sandhis (Chapters 4 and 5), (ii) the hero and the heroine with their types (Ch. 6), (iii) the problem and varieties of rasa (Chs. 7 and 8) and (iv) the vṛttis or styles (Ch. 9).

(vi)

In the concluding chapter she has presented valuable observations on the success of Dhananjaya in presenting a revised abridgement of the prolific Nāṭyaśāstra.

Her observations regarding the contribution of the commentaries—the Bhāratī and the Avaloka are also critical and unbiased.

I hope her study proves fruitful to the students of dramaturgy.

A.N. JANI

PREFACE

The present book is largely based on the findings of my thesis which I had presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Punjab University, Chandigarh. Its importance lies in the fact that it critically treats the two famous commentaries of Abhinavagupta and Dhanika written respectively on the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata and Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya.

The earliest and the most important authority available on Sanskrit Dramaturgy is the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata. After Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, the second important work on dramaturgy that stands as a landmark in the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy is the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya. While making the critical estimation of Sanskrit drama, this latter work is often referred to and followed by most of the critics—Indian as well as western, on account of its concise nature. Dhananjaya has claimed that he has abridged and presented in concise form the Principles of Dramaturgy as propounded by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra. The Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya is inseparable from the Avaloka commentary of Dhanika, known to be his younger brother. Normally his commentary faithfully elucidates the views propounded by the author of Daśarūpaka.

Between the period of Bharata and Dhananjaya, if there had been written any work on the Dramaturgy, it is not extant at present. However, various commentaries were definitely written on the Nāṭyaśāstra which, though not extant now, have been referred to by Abhinavagupta in his famous commentary entitled ‘the Abhinavabhāratī’. At places he simply refers to the views of commentators by adding ‘Kecitvāhuh’, nevertheless, in the context of Rasa he specifically mentions the names of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.

Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra is so far removed from our time that at places the meanings of Bharata’s text can only be conjectured.

(viii)

Even the famous commentary of Abhinavagupta is also removed from Bharata by about seven to eight hundred years. His elucidations have not been accepted by Dhananjaya and Dhanika. Not only that, they have even deviated from Bharata in regard to some points in their works, such as Arthaprakrtis, Arthopaksepakas, Patakāsthānakas, Sandhis etc.

Again while writing their commentaries on the NŚ of Bharata and on the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya, Abhinavagupta and Dhanika, in order to explain the application of the Dramaturgical Rules, have supplied examples mainly from two works the Ratnāvalī of Śriharṣa and the Venīsamhāram of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa. Of course, sometimes Abhinava does give examples from the Tāpasvatsarājam and the Kṛtyārāvaṇam and Dhanika from the Udāttarāghavam and Vīracaritam. Often the plays quoted by them like Kṛtyārāvaṇam, Rāmābhyudayam, Udāttarāghavam etc. are not extant to-day.

However, it is strange to note, when there existed a great number of dramas written by such renowned poets as Bhāsa, Sūdraka, Kālidāsa, Viśākhadatta, Bhavabhūti and others and these were produced in a period intervening between Bharata and Dhananjaya, why did Abhinava and Dhanika not choose to illustrate the application of Dramaturgical Rules from those dramas? This seems to lead us to the conclusion that either there was no firm tradition or the playwrights did not slavishly follow it.

This study was therefore, undertaken to examine the two commentaries in detail and to arrive at a correct appraisal of the Dramaturgical Rules of Sanskrit Drama as propounded by Bharata and Dhananjaya and the nature of divergences that exist between their views.

I also take this opportunity to thank all those concerned who have helped me directly or indirectly in carrying out the present work.

First and foremost I am deeply indebted to Dr. Jaidev Vidyalankar, Professor and Head, Deptt. of Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit, MD University, Rohtak. He has been a constant source of inspiration to me. He enlightened me with his mature views, deep insight and invaluable suggestions whenever I approached him for consultation. He has ever been a beacon light, a guiding lamp to me. Words are just insufficient to express my heart-felt gratitude

(ix)

for him. Although very affectionate and kind-hearted, yet he is a hard task-master and does not accept anything below the mark.

Pt. Ramji Upadhyaya, formerly professor and Head of the Deptt. of Sanskrit, Sagar University, Sagar, one of the learned examiners of my thesis made some invaluable suggestions which I have tried to incorporate in my present work and I am very thankful to him.

My special thanks are due to Dr. A.N. Jani, formerly professor and Head of the Deptt. of Sanskrit and Director of Gaekwad Oriental Series, Baroda, also the winner of the certificate of Honour from the Govt. of India, who most benignly consented to write a foreword for my book and who was also one of the learned examiners of my thesis. I cannot state in words the co-operation and the contribution of my family members who forebore with difficulties for my sake.

Most of all I am grateful to M/s Gian Publishing House without whose assistance this book would not have seen the light of the day though I have been pondering over it for a considerable time.

Nothing is perfect in this world, like other things this work must have its own faults. The book is in the hands of learned Scholars, their comments and valuable suggestions would be most welcome.

MANJUL GUPTA

Deptt. of Skt , Pali & Prakrit

Maharshi Dayanand University,

Rohtak

ABBREVIATIONS

Abh. Bh.

Abhinavabhāratī

Abh. S.

Abhijñānaśākuntalam

AV.

Avaloka

B.

Book

BP.

Bhāvaprakāśa (Bhāvaprakāśana)

CHHD.

Contributions to the History of Hindu Drama

DR.

Daśarūpaka

DSL.

Drama in Sanskrit Literature

Ed.

Edition

GOS.

Gaekward Oriental Series

HIL.

History of Indian Literature

HSP.

History of Sanskrit Poetics

JOR.

Journal of Oriental Research

K.

Kārikā

LPSD.

Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama

MB.

Mahābhāṣya

MBH.

Mahābhārata

Ms.

Manuscript

MSS.

Manuscripts

ND.

Nāṭyadarpaṇa

NLR.

Nāṭaka Lakṣaṇa Ratnakośa

NŚ.

Nāṭyaśāstra

OIB.

Oriental Institute Baroda

OUP.

Oxford University Press

Ratn.

Ratnāvalī

SD.

Śahityadarpana.

SKD

The Sanskrit Drama

SS.

Śrautasūtra

Su.

Sūtra

VS.

Veṇīsamhāra

अभि.

अभिनवगुप्त

अभि. भा.

अभिनव भारती

अव.

अवलोक

अभि. शा.

अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तलम्

का.

कारिका

गो.

गायकवाड ओरियण्टल सीरिज

च. प्र.

चतुर्थ प्रकाश

तृ. प्र.

तृतीय प्रकाश

द. रू.

दशरूपक

द्वि. प्र.

द्वितीय प्रकाश

ध.

धनञ्जय

ना. शा.

नाट्यशास्त्र

ना. द.

नाट्यदर्पण

नालकौ.

नाटकलक्षणरत्नकोश

पूष्ठानि

प्र. प्र.

प्रथम प्रकाश

भ.

भरत

रत्न.

रत्नावली

वेसं.

वेणी संहार

CONTENTS

Page

Problem of the Thesis

vii—ix

Abbreviations

xi—xii

Chapter I —Introduction

1—14

Chapter II

Part I —Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, its Authorship, Date, Recensions and its commentators

Part II —Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya and Dhanika’s commentary entitled Avaloka

15—41

Chapter III —Essential Elements of Sanskrit Drama

42—49

Chapter IV —The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

50—89

Chapter V

Part I —Plot (Vastu or Itivrtta) I

Part II —Plot II

90—186

Chapter VI —Nāyakah : Hero (Characterization)

187—213

Chapter VII

Part I —Rasa (Sentiment)I

Part II —Rasa (Sentiment)II

214—286

Chapter VIII —Vṛttis (Styles)

287—317

Conclusion

318—322

Select Bibliography

323—327

Index

329

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT DRAMA

The origin and development of Sanskrit drama is not a new issue.

The problem has been discussed by various scholars including Western as well as Indian scholars.

The wise have taken great pains to go deep into the problem at home and abroad.

The well-known author Keith has discussed it at great length showing all pros and cons in his book ‘The Sanskrit Drama’.

Rather we may say that the whole of his book is devoted to tracing the origin and gradual development of Sanskrit drama, then passing into decadence.

Besides A.B. Keith, German scholars, like Oldenberg, Pischel, Prof. Hillebrandt, Prof. Lüders, Sten Konow, have contributed a lot in discussing the problem, and reaching at different conclusions, they have propounded their own theories.

The problem has been a complex one engaging endeavours of many scholars.

As this is not our field, we shall not go into much details about it.

The problem has been discussed variously, we shall limit ourselves just to a brief account of the facts accepted all over.

The first well-arranged work that we find on Sanskrit dramaturgy is the Nāṭya-Śāstra of Bharata.

And in it the dramaturgy has been discussed so elaborately, touching all aspects and not leaving a single one that it presupposes the existence of some theoretical works, already written, in whatever form they may have been.

As theory presupposes practice, it can be very well inferred that there must have been dramatic works written of all forms on

2

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

which Bharata based his magnicious work—the Nāṭyaśāstra. But the works, either manuals written on dramaturgy, or plays, preceding Bharata have been lost to us in the labyrinth of time.

Bharata1 himself has shown the divine origin of drama. According to Bharata the Nāṭyaveda was created by Brahmā, when the gods prayed to Brahmā to have a thing of enjoyment which will be visible and audible because the other vedas did not allow the right to Śūdras and women; the need for the veda belonging to all castes was felt. The fifth Veda containing all the Śāstras, arts and with history was made. It contained the elements of four vedas. Its text or recitation was adopted from Rgveda and song from Sāmaveda, and the representations from Yajurveda and sentiments from Atharvaveda.

Scholars have tried to see the origin of Sanskrit drama; (1) In the dialogue hymns of the Vedas, (2) In the religious activities accompanying sacrifices, (3) In secular activities, (4) In the possible foreign influence. General aspects of the problem may be summed up in the two following broad questions :

(1) Was the origin of the ancient Indian drama religious or Secular ?

(2) Were the Indo-Āryans its originators or their predecessors were so ?

According to M. Ghosh2 an approach to the first question may begin with a consideration of the testimony of anthropology which shows that a close relation of dance, song and drama with religious rites exists among peoples of different countries. For example, in Greece and in Mexico we find some dances of religious character to be intimately connected with the origin of drama. Hence it may be assumed that in India too, religion might have played a part in the origin of this art. The Kātyāyana Śrautasūtra3 compiled probably about 600 B.C. seems to give support to this assumption.

From this work we learn that dance, song and instrumental music were prescribed in connection with the Pitṛmedha rites and dance only was prescribed for the Atirātra and Sātrāyana sacrifices. As dance, song and instrumental music are the three most essential elements of the Hindu drama, Kātyāyana’s testimony seems to be very valuable in this regard. And it is due to the religious association of drama that the Indian tradition has given the status of the Veda to the earliest work on the subject. There are other evidences besides of a close connection of drama with religion. For example, dramas and dramatic scence of Kerala, which undoubtedly have

Introduction

their origin in remote past, are performed exclusively in honour

of Bhagavatī, the mother goddess. The Bengali folk drama called

Yātrā owes its name to different Yātrās or festivals held

in honour of Kṛṣṇa, a member of the Hindu Trinity. The

association of Śiva, another member of the Hindu Trinity, with

dance and drama, is equally manifest from his epithet of Naṭar ja.

Brahman, the remaining member of the Hindu Trinity is also

associated with drama. All these may be said to show more or

less conclusively that the Hindu drama is religious in origin.

We seem to have in Mahābhāṣya4 evidence of a stage5 in

which all the elements of drama were present; we have acting in

dumb show, if not with words also; we have recitations divided

between two parties. We hear of Naṭas who not only recite but

also sing. We cannot absolutely prove that in Patañjali’s time the

drama in its full form of action allied to speech was present, but

all its elements existed and a primitive form may be accepted.

That form, from the express mention of the subjects of the dramatic

exhibitions, we may deduce to have been of the nature of a

religious drama. In the Kamsavadha, is the refined version of an

older vegetation ritual in which the representative of the outworn

spirit of vegetation is destroyed. Both in the Greek and the

Sanskrit drama the essential fact in the contest is the existence of a

conflict. For the religious origin of drama, a further fact can be

adduced, the character of the Vidūṣaka. Another religious element

may be conjectured as present in the Vidūṣaka, the reminiscence of

the figure of Śūdra who is beaten in the ceremony of the purchase

of soma. Keith holds that its association with religion is to be

seen in the legend of Kṛṣṇa, place occupied by Śiva, part of

Rāma, and in the attitude of Buddhists towards it). The evidence

is conclusive on the close connection of religion and the drama,

and it strongly suggests that it was from religion that the decisive

impulse to dramatic creation was given. He has also refuted the

theory of secular origin of drama and of puppet play propounded

by Pischel.

In the opinion of Winternitz6 the oldest ballads or dance

songs of this type were, however, such in which stories of gods and

demigods were narrated on the sacrificial and festive occasions,

since as in the case with the people of other countries, so also in

India, the drama has its deepest root in the religious cult. Already

in the Vedic ritual texts several kinds of ceremonies are described,

that can straightway be designated as a type of drama. In the

post-vedic age dramatic performance got associated with Indra's

festival celebrated at the close of the rainy season and more

particularly with the cults of gods Viṣṇu (Kṛṣṇa and Rāma) and

Śiva. Exactly in the same manner, as the numerous data regarding

the folk-lore prove, dance and mimic have been inseparably

connected with one another among the people, mostly also as

constituent parts of religious or magical ceremonies. The

terminology of the drama further proves that in India, too, such

dances were at the root of dramatic performance. The common

word for drama in Sanskrit is ‘Nāṭaka’ in neuter and the same word

in the masculine has exactly the same meaning of Naṭa ‘actor’,

whilst Nāṭya means ‘Mimic’ or dramaturgy and ‘nāṭayati’ conveys

the sense of mimic representation. All these words go back to

the root ‘naṭ’ a Prākrit form of the root nṛt ‘to dance’. The fact

that literary dramas begin with the introductory prayer, Nāndī goes

to prove that this mimic dance and the dramatic performance; that

originated from it, constituted an essential element of the religious

cult.

As against this some scholars, however, have stressed on the

possibility of its secular origin. Weber Albrecht7 writes in his

history that it has been uniformly held hitherto that the Indian

drama arose, after the manner of our modern drama, in the middle

ages, out of religious solemnities and spectacles and also that

dancing originally subserved the religious purposes, but in support

of this latter assumption, I have not met with single instance in the

Śrauta or Grhya Sūtras. Taking the support of Bharata R.V.

Jagirdar8 writes, it is interesting to note that everything connected

with drama is associated with lower castes. Not only the Art and

the advocates, but even the first patron of drama was an anti-vedic

if not a non-Āryan king. King Nahuṣa is spoken of as the first patron

of drama in the mortal world. From the foregoing discussions it

seems likely that Sanskrit drama has least to do with religion or

religious rites, that it is the work of people treated as anti-vedic,

if not as non-Āryan, fiends and that its origins are to be sought in

the interests of the lower castes. He draws the conclusion that it

was thus the post-epic Sūta and not the puppet shows that originated

dramatic representation, the recitation of the epic and not that of

religious hymns is the Bhārati stage, the recitation of the Sūta and

the Kuśīlavas, the Sāttvati stage; in the Kaiśiki stage, the dancer

Introduction

Naṭī was introduced; the Ārabhaṭī is the final mode of ‘full dress’ staging and from its beginning to its death, Sanskrit drama took its hero from the Sūta and the epics that he recited and never, never from the religious lore or from the host of Vedic Gods. There is still a third view which would see alike matters sacred and secular, connected with the origin of drama.

Now we come to the second question—its origin, whether Pre-Āryan origin or Indo-Āryan origin?

M. Ghosh9 asserts that it may be considered quite legitimate to ascribe the origin of the dramatic art to the very old predecessors of the Āryans. And he supports the assumption on the fact that Śiva, who plays the most important part in the creation of the drama has been considered to be originally a pre-Āryan deity. Viṣṇu, is indeed, an Āryan deity by name, but in his purāṇic character is to be sharply distinguished from his vedic name-sake.

The Pūjā, again, figuring prominently in the various rites prescribed in connection with the building of a play-house and with the propitiation of the gods of the stage, strengthens the assumption about the pre-Āryan origin of drama. It seems to be clear that the Hindu drama came out from religious rites associated with some pre-Āryan deity—Śiva or Viṣṇu.

In the opinion of Som Benegal10 it can perhaps be affirmed with as much certainty as denied that forerunners of Indian drama were pre-Āryans and that Āryans took at least some of the extant forms and traditions and gave them their own unique fashion and concept. When the historic man appears on the scene, he is already possessed of sufficient civilization and culture to be able to refine this dramatic rudiment into a strong and vigorous art. This seems substantiated by excavations and discoveries made at various sites of Indus and Ganges valley civilizations, which show dance practiced well over five thousand years ago, and persisting down pre-history and history as dance and drama themes through Vedic, Epic and Classical epochs.

There must have been interaction and amalgamation, fusion and synthesis between many blends of culture. Keith11 writes ‘when we leave out of account the enigmatic dialogues of the Ṛgveda we can see that the Vedic ritual contained within itself the germs of drama as is the case with practically every primitive form of worship’. The ritual did not consist merely of the singing of songs or recitation in honour of the gods, it involved a complex

6

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

round of ceremonies in some of which there was undoubtedly present the element of dramatic representation, that is, the performers of the rites assumed for the time being, personalities other than their own. In the Mahāvrata we find elements which are of importance as indicating the materials from which the drama might develop. There are, however, nothing but elements here and we have reasonable certainty that no drama was known. We have not the slightest evidence that the essential synthesis of elements and development of plot, which constitute a true drama, were made in the Vedic age. On the contrary there is every reason to believe that it was through the use of epic recitations that the latent possibilities of drama were evoked and the literary form created’. Though origin of Hindu drama may be dated before Pānini, when rituals connected with Śiva might have gradually give rise to this art, we do not possess any definite idea about the time when such an event occurred. Some scholars have discovered the beginning of drama in the Vedic age, while others would like to date this much later. We find mention of Naṭa-Sūtras in Pānini.12 who is now generally believed to have flourished about 500 B.C. The mention is to Naṭa-Sūtras, text-books for Naṭas ascribed to Śilālin and Kṛśāśva. But Keith13 is prejudiced and he wants to see a full-fledged representation and he writes that we are, here, as ever in no position to establish the meaning of Naṭa, which may mean no more than a pantomime. He regards Pānini’s date to be most probably 4th century B.C. and does not accept Naṭa as denoting drama. Weber14 has written that these Sūtras have not been explained in Bhāṣya, so may be, they do not belong to Pānini.

M. Ghosh15 divides the kinds of dramas discussed in the Nāṭya-Śāstra into five distinct types :

1. One act plays in a monologue, Bhāṇa

2. One act plays with one or two characters, Vīthī.

3. One act plays on different kinds of subject matter and more characters, Vyāyoga, Prahasana , and Utsṛṣṭikāṅka.

4. (a) plays with three loosely-knit acts and many characters, Samavakāra,

(b) plays with four such acts and many characters, Ḍima and Īhāmṛga.

5. Plays with five to ten well-knit acts and many characters. He writes that it is possible that each of these took

Introduction

quite a long time to develop. On the basis of this it may be possible to infer that some kind of drama existed long before Pāṇini.

Dasgupta16 writes in his history, we cannot trace any drama in the vedic literature, but hints of the nature are found in dialogues. It is possible that there were dramatic spectacular shows of a religious character in the Vedic age. From this Prof. Von Schroeder drew the elaborate theory that the drama developed in the Vedic atmosphere of dancing, singing, soma-drinking out of the dialogues and monologues. Hertel lent support to the view that dialogues were like mystery plays and hymns had in them the seeds of drama. Admitting the importance of epic recitation, the prevalence of songs and dances had much to contribute to the development of drama, Dasgupta further gives his view, saying, ‘in our view there were two schools of dancing and acting, one of Śilālin and the other of Kṛśāśva. There were dramatic schools in which there were teachers who taught pupils the art of acting and dancing. These teachers were called Śaubhikas. Patañjali’s17 Bhāṣya settles the question that there was a stage, when the Naṭas and the Granthikas played, and that their performance included vocal speeches. In Patañjali we have the decisive evidence that by the second century B.C. there were actually the stage or Raṅga where the Naṭas imitated the actions of the legendary heroes and that their performances included prose speeches at least. Dasgupta and S.K. Dey, therefore, conclude that dramas were probably in existence in the 5th or 6th century B.C. There is not only Kamsavadha drama referred to by Patañjali but also Bālibandhana.

They further maintain, ‘our own position in the matter is that secular pantomimic dances associated with songs were, in all probability, held mostly on religious occasions and with the growth of religious legends these were associated with plots drawn from those legends. We also know that at the time of Patañjali the Naṭas played on the stage with their wives called Naṭa-bhāryā or Naṭī.

Moreover, Nāṭya existed in the time of Pāṇini, is evident that he himself derived the word in his rule.

Again the Kāmasūtra18 of Vātsyāyana is placed in the 2nd century B.C. by Schmidt. This work refers to ‘gītam,’ ‘vādyam’, ‘nrtyam’ and ‘nāṭakākhyāyikā darśanam’. We have evidence here, that Vidūṣaka, Piṭhamarda and Viṭa were real characters in

8

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

social life in the second century B.C. and were not merely dramatic invention.

But Winternitz19 is of the opinion that in Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya, in the Epics—the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa—in the text of old Buddhist literature and in the Kauṭilya Arthaśāstra, we hear about reciters, singers, dancers and itinerant musicians of all types and of their shows and performance; but a literary drama and performance of any real drama are not attested in any of these earlier works. For the first time we come by a definite evidence of a literary drama in the Harivaṃśa, of which the time is wholly uncertain; and in the Buddhists Sanskrit texts of the first century A.D. Now the probability that the Buddhists, first of all, introduced the drama into literature is almost excluded. Rather we must assume that the secular Sanskrit drama that belonged to ornate court poetry preceded the Buddhist Sanskrit dramas of the first century A.D. We, need not, however, go back to an age earlier than the first century B.C. or beyond the first century A.D. During this period there were many cases of Greek influence on India. Hence, it is probable that during this age numerous germs of development of a literary drama, that had existed in India from the earliest times, attained maturity under the influence of Greek mimes.

The term Naṭa occurs in Mahābhārata.20 In the Śānti and Anuśāsana Parvans there is an allusion to dramatic artists. In Rāmāyaṇa21 we hear of festivals and concourses where Naṭas and Nartakas delight themselves, in another passage, the term, ‘Vyāmiśraka’ denotes plays in mixed languages. But Keith22 does not accept them as the certain evidence of the early existence of drama and he appears to be prejudiced because when Naṭas are mentioned as delighting they must be doing it by acting, not by mere singing and that acting might not be a full form of drama, but it was drama alright in its form. He maintains, while the epics cannot be said to know the drama, there is abundant evidence of the strong influence on the development of the drama exercised by the recitation of the epics. The term Bharata which is an appellation of the comedian in the later texts, attests doubtless the connexion of the rhapsodes with the growth of the drama. The Bharatas must be the rhapsodes of the Bharata tribe, whose fame is great in the early history of India, whose special fire is known to the Ṛgveda.

Introduction

The term ‘Kuśilava’ is apparently derived from the Kuśa and Lava of the Rāmāyaṇa.

He is of the view that the balance of probability is that the Sanskrit drama came into being shortly after, if not before, the middle of the second century B.C., and that it was evoked by the combination of epic recitations with the dramatic moment of Kṛṣṇa legend. The drama which was nascent in Patañjali’s time must be taken to have been one in which Sanskrit was mingled with Prākrit in the speeches of the characters. The epic racitations must have been in Sanskrit; but to be popular, and as Nāṭyaśāstra in its tale of the origin of the art recognises both its epic and popular characteristics, the humble people must have been allowed to speak in their own language.

Showing the origin of Indo-Āryan drama, M. Ghosh23 writes, the first available dram!, in a finished form of the type V, being written by Aśvaghoṣa, probably in the first century A.C., the origin of the Indo-Āryan drama may be dated 1100 B.C. Another fact, which points to the high antiquity of this drama appears to be the very prominent position of old Indo-Āryan (Skt.) in the dramatic literature. Now there is ample evidence to prove that from about 600 B.C. the old Indo-Āryan already changed distinctly to middle Indo-Āryan which is another name of Prākrit in a wider sense. Hence the origin of Indo-Āryan drama probably occurred much before 600 B.C.

Though it may be assumed that the worshippers of Śiva developed from their ritual song and dance a monologue play possibly in a non-Āryan language, it is not clear how the speakers of Indo-Āryan adopted this art from and developed it into a drama with two actors. The custom of reciting the epic is very old. After this, recitation was in vogue for sometime, the reciter or Sūta gradually took the aid of an actor or actors to represent more vividly the events of the story he was to describe. He recited only the most significant portion of a narrative in separate small instalments, and at the intervals of such recitations actors appeared and represented dramatically, through improvised speeches in accompaniment of gestures, the contents of what he uttered. As organised dialogues and co-ordinated scenes were yet to be invited, the reciter had to introduce characters who entered the stage and to point out the link between their talks to each other. It was probably due to this function that the reciter was called the Sūtradhāra.

Another name for Sūtradhāra was Granthika which meant one who worked in connexion with a Grantha, i.e. recited from it. The epic, Mahābhārata may be placed at least in its shorter form, roughly at about tenth century B.C., and the drama of a very crude type arose probably one century earlier. Though the Hindu drama was in all likelihood of pre-Āryan origin, the contribution of the Āryan tribes towards its development was perhaps not inconsiderable. The name of the Vṛttis may also be said to point to some Indo-Āryan tribes which played a prominent part in developing the ancient Indian Drama. The fact that available dramatic literature is written exclusively in Indo-Āryan (Sanskrit and Prākrit) may well be the basis of this assumption.

Mankad,24 like M. Ghosh believes in the gradual development of Nāṭya types from Nṛtya types and Nṛtya types from primitive Nṛtta types. He mentions the characteristics of the first drama to be (1) It was entirely in Sanskrit, (2) It was descriptive in nature, (3) It was monologous in form (4) and secular in matter. There must be four distinct periods of evolution; (1) when the Nāṭya types were represented by simple forms requiring only one actor and one act. (2) Nāṭya required many actors but only one act. (3) Less complicated types with many actors. (4) Full-fledged Nāṭya and Prakaraṇa types.

Thus we find that many theories have been propounded all reaching their own conclusions. While some have traced its origin in the dialogue hymns of Ṛgveda, others have sought it in the pre-Āryan deities. Some relate it with religious rituals and solemnities, while others take it to be secular in origin emerging out of popular mimes. Some accept plausibility of Greek influence over it, while others deny it. Some take first drama to be in Sanskrit, others in Prākrit. But the whole thing is very uncertain and complex. The uncertainty is caused by the fact the dramatic literature pertaining to the period before Aśvaghoṣa and Bhāsa is lost. It is possible that writing of plays rested with professional playwrights solely, attached to individual theatrical groups. Every theatrical party zealously guarded the use of its successive pieces from their rivals. Under these circumstances plays had little chance of outliving the time of their first production. As the vogue of a particular play changed, it came to be altogether lost. Among the different types of dramatic poetry and among the most prominent characteristics of the Indian drama, we find traces partly

Introduction

of the primitive religious ballads or dance songs and partly those

of the popular mimus. Bharata himself recognised the two

elements in the origin of drama. On the one hand, he recognises

divine origin, on the other hand, he also pleads for the popular

cause which can entertain anybody. In Sanskrit drama we find

Sanskrit side by side with the Prākrit, religious or semi-religious

poetry and the popular entertainment. While in Nāṭaka, religious

or semi-religious ballad poetry is stronger that have mytho-

logical or epical themes, the influence of popular drama holds

ground more in Prakaraṇa. The Prahasana and Bhāṇa must have

sprung up from popular pieces.

Of course, the rudimentary elements of Sanskrit drama may

be found in Ṛgveda, and this fact is mentioned by Bharata,25 when

he says that recitation or text was adopted from Ṛgveda. But

drama does not consist of mere text, to be a drama in real sense,

it should have music, representation and sentiments, and Bharata

mentions the adoption of these three elements from other three

vedas. Bharata set it his mission to bring drama to the status of

a veda, perhaps, to raise it in the eyes of higher castes; probably

upto his time, drama was regarded as somethiug worth contempt,

to be avoided. And this view would have prevailed because of the

loose morals of the actors. Bharata redeemed drama from this

contempt and made it a higher art, a vehicle of all psychological

states and actions.

As stated earlier, origin of drama is not our field. We are,

rather, concerned more with the Dramaturgical principles or

theory of drama. Suffice it to say that Sanskrit drama originating

from the primitive ballad poetry and including elements of popular

dance and music, passing from its rough form came to be a fully

developed and perfect form in the mighty hands of Bhāsa, Aśvaghoṣa

Śūdraka, Kālidāsa, Viśākhadatta and Bhavabhūti etc., and, then,

degenerated into the hands of lesser play-wrights, and became

stereotyped. It combined the two cultures in itself, the Pre-Āryan

and the Āryan and also fused religion with the secular themes.

Drama, in general, may be said to have sprung from two causes,

each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of

imitation is implanted in man from childhood; and no less univer-

sal is the pleasure felt in things imitated. Sanskrit drama must

have originated like other arts due to this very fact that man

instinctively wants to imitate and reproduce what he observes, and

he gains pleasure in his creation. And the theory of imitation accepted by all the dramatic theoreticians, in one way or the other, pinpoints this fact.

REFERENCES

1. महेन्द्रप्रमुखैदेवै:ुक्त: किल पितामह: । क्रीडनीयकमिच्छामो दृश्यं श्रव्यं च यदभवेत् ॥ न वेदगव्यहारोड्यं संश्राव्य: शूद्रजातिषु । तस्मात्सृजापरं वदं पञ्चमं सार्ववर्णिकम् ॥ एवं सङ्कल्प्य भगवान् सर्ववेदानुसंमृरन् । नाट्यवेदं ततश्चके चतुर्वेदाद्रूपसम्भवम् ॥ जग्राह पाठ्यमृग्वेदात्सामभ्यो गीतमेव च । यजुर्वेदादभिनयान् रसानार्थवर्णादपि ॥

भरत, नाट्यशास्त्र, अ. 1, का. 7-13

2. Ghosh M., Contributions to the History of the Hindu Drama, Pub. Calcutta (1958), pp. 1, ff.

3. Kātyāyana, Śrautatasūtra, Pub. Acyuta Granthamala, Kashi, 21.3.11 ‘Nṛttagītavāditravacca.’

4. पतञ्जलि, पतञ्जलमहाभाष्य नटस्य शृणोति, प्रनृत्यस्य शृणोति I. 4.29 ; अगासीन: II. 4.77 ; नटस्य भुक्तिम् II. 3.67 ; लिखितो स्त्रीपुंसयो:जनि भूंकुसे तापु प्रसज्यते IV. 1.3.

5. Keith A.B., The Sanskrit Drama, O.U.P. (1954) pp. 36 ff, 49 ff.

6. Winternitz. M., A History of Indian Literature. Trans. by Subhadra Jha, Vol. III., Part I. Pub. Motilal Banarasidass (1977), pp. 203, 206, 207, 210.

7. Weher Albrecht, the History of Indian Literature, trans. by John Mann and Theodore Zachariae, Pub. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series (1961) second period pp. 196 ff.

8. Jagirdar R.V., Drama in Sanskrit Literature, Pub. Popular Book Depot, Bombay (1947) pp. 33 ff, 41,

Introduction

9. Ghosh M., CHHD, pp. 4, 71-1 ff.

10. Benegal, Som, A Panorama of Theatre in India, Popular Prakashan, pp. 4 ff.

11. Keith A.B., SKD, O.U.P. pp. 23 ff, 25ff.

पाराशरयशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः ।

कर्मन्द कुशाश्वादिभिः ।

छन्दोगौ कूथिक याज्ञिक अहःवूचनताच्छ्यः ॥

पाणिनि अष्टाध्यायी, 4-3-110. 111, 4-3,129.

13. Keith A.B., SKD, p. 31.

14. Weber Albrecht, The History of Indian Lit. Trans. by John Mann and Theodore Zachariae, p. 197.

15. Ghosh M., CHHD pp. 8 ff.

16. Dasgupta. S.N. and De S.K., A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical Period, Vol. I, Pub. University of Calcutta (1947), Editor's Notes pp. 631, 634, 637, 639, 642, 644 ff.

17. Patañjali, MB., iii 1.26, ‘Gaccha hanyate kamsah,’ ‘gaccha ghānīṣyate kamsah,’ 1.4.29, ii 4.77.

18. गीतं वाद्यं नृत्यम् आलेख्यम् विशेषकच्छेद्येथम्,

नेपथ्य प्रयोक्ता:................नाटकाश्रयिकादर्शनम्................

इति चतुःषष्टि संगवितः कामसूत्रस्यावयवविन्यः ।

वात्स्यायन कामसूत्र, चौखम्बा संस्कृत सीरीज,

बनारस, (वि. स. 1986), 1.3.16. 1.4.42 ।

19. Winternitz M., HIL, Vol. III Pt. I, p. 220.

20. कोकिलस्य वराहस्य मैरोः शुन्यस्य वेष्टनः

नटस्यभक्तितिमित्रस्य यच्छूरे यस्तत्समाचरेत् ।

शान्ति पर्व, 12.140. 21

कृषि गोरक्ष्यमप्येको मैष्यमन्येड़प्यनुष्ठिता: ।

चौराश्चान्ये नृता न्ये तथान्ये नटनर्तकाः ।

अनुशासन पर्व 13, 33, 12

21. नाराजके जनपदे प्रभूत नटनर्तका ।

उत्सवाइच समाजाइच वर्धन्ते राष्टृवर्धनाः ।

तव्यमानं समज्ञाय वयस्या: प्रियवादिनः ।

आयासं हि विनेष्यन्तः समायां नकिरे कथा: ॥

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

वादयन्ति तथा शान्ति लासयन्त्यपि चापरे।

नाटकान्यपरे प्राहुरहस्यानी विधानि च।

वाल्मीकि रामायण, कल्याण बम्बई (शक् 1857)

भाग 1, 2.67. 15, 2.69. 3, 2.1.27

22. Keith AB., SKD, pp. 28 ff, 45 ff.

23. Ghosh M., CHHD, pp. 9 ff, 11, 12 ff.

24. Mankad D.R., The Types of Sanskrit Drama, Pub. Urmi Prakashan Mandir (1935) pp. 148, 164.

25. Bharata, N.S. 1.17. Supra, Ref. I.

CHAPTER 2

PART I

BHARATA'S NĀṬYAŚĀSTRA, ITS AUTHORSHIP, DATE, RECENSIONS AND ITS COMMENTATORS

AUTHORSHIP

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra is the first eponymous work of Dramaturgy that is available to us at present. Of course it does not exclude the possibility of other existent works and Treatises on Dramaturgy preceding it which are now lost to us because of the cruel hands of time ; we find only some stray quotations from them in the later works, but which are entirely out of our access today. Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra presupposes the Principles of Dramaturgy, laid down for the guidance of actors, and the assumption is limelighted by the fact that Bharata mentions traditional Āryās in his work.

As has already been shown earlier that we find mention of Natasūtras in Pānini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, books of rules for Naṭas compiled by Śilāli and Kṛṣāśva. Now we may take them as the earliest textbooks of Indian drama or as the rules for the guidance of dancers or perhaps pantomimes, taking Naṭa to denote a dancer or pantomimist. True, according to the myth¹ of Nāṭyaśāstra it was Brahmā, who produced the more mundane Nāṭyaveda consecrated to the drama, but this veda is not current among men.

K.S. Rāmāswāmi Śāstrī and Yadugiri Yatirāja, Swāmi of Melkot write in their introduction to Bhāvaprakāśa,² that on looking into the nature of this Nāṭyaśāstra, where the dramatic Rasas are exhibited in a fully developed state, it can be surmised

that after Vālmīki the theory of Rasa was regularly applied only to

the dramatic compositions of ancient writers, and that Bharatas, who

preceded the author of present Nāṭyaśāstra, composed a number of

rules for the guidance of actors and the play-wrights. Brahmā

taught the Nātyaveda to Bharatas who composed certain works

which were later known as the Nāṭyaśāstra. The original Nāṭya veda

was a work of encyclopaedic nature and for that reason Bharatas

had to compose several digests of it, in order to help the professional

actors.

The extent Nāṭyaśāstra in six thousand granthas is said to be

a summary of another preceding work which consisted of twelve

thousand granthas. This theory is corroborated from the works of

Ādi-Bharata and Vrddha-Bharata which are now lost; secondly

Dhanika³ and Abhinavagupta style the author of this Nāṭyaśāstra

as Ṣaṭsahasrikāra and quotations of many Ārya verses belonging to

earlier works and authors are found in the 6th and 7th chapters of

the Nāṭyāśastra. Abhinavagupta also mentions the view of certain

previous authors who held that present Nāṭyaśāstra was written by

the followers of Bharata to prove the superiority of the Nāṭyaveda

introduced by Brahmā over those of Sadāśiva and Bharata. He

does not subscribe to this view and calls the inventors of this story

as Nāstikas. The views of Sadāśiva and Brahmā are explained in

the Bhāvaprakāśa regarding the origin and nature of the Rasas.

On these grounds it can be said that when it was found necessary to

summarise the original Nāṭyaśāstra because of its encyclopaedic

nature, the present Nāṭyaśāstra was composed.

The same view is supported in the preface to the First Edition

of Nāṭyaśāstra, vol. 1 and Second Edition. As the learned scholar,

M.R. Kavi writes that the author of this work has Bharata or

simply ‘muni’, the sage. It is known as ‘Sūtra’ as it embodies

principles set out in a very concise form. It appears to be an

epitome of an earlier work called dvādaśasahasrī. The larger work

is now only in part available. Both these works seem to have been

based upon a still older one called Nāṭyaveda which forms one of

the four Upavedas, extending over thirty-six thousand ślokas

written by Brahmā himself. Dvādaśasahasrī is simply called

Ādi-Bharata and is in the form of a dialogue between Pārvatī and

Śiva. We have fragments of both Brahma Bharata and Sadāśiva-

bharata.

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

About the authorship of Nāṭyaśāstra, the view of P.V. Kane is worth looking into. P.V. Kane writes that the two questions that are rather puzzling and difficult of solution arise, viz. what is the original Nāṭyaśāstra and who is the author ? The striking features of the extant Nāṭyaśāstra are : there are prose passages, there are ślokas and Āryās described as 'Ānuvamśya,' several verses are introduced with the words 'Sūtrānubaddhe Ārye bhavataḥ.' He infers the conclusion that it is quite possible that the original kernel of the Nāṭyaśāstra was in mixed prose and verse.

From 'Anuvamśya' it follows that the verses cited as 'ānuvamśya' had already been composed and had been traditionally handed down from father to son or from teacher to pupil in relation to Dramaturgy and were included in the Nāṭyaśāstra but that they were not the composition of him who composed the Nāṭyaśāstra.

As regards the words 'Sūtrānuviddhe' it may be said that such verses are the composition of the author himself. On 'Atrāryāḥ' may be said that they were not composed by Bharata himself, he only inserted them at the proper places. Discussing the date of different parts of Nāṭyaśāstra and which will be discussed later in detail, he surmises about the authorship of present Nāṭyaśāstra that one may say that at least sometimes before the 3rd or 4th century A.D. there was a recast made by one man in which were included prose passages in sūtrabhāṣya style, ancient Āryā verses and ślokas together with kārikās composed by the recaster. About its authorship many difficulties arise.

Long before Abhinava's day there were people who held that the first six verses of chapter 1 were composed by a pupil of Bharata and that questions and answers in the body of the work also were composed by a pupil and the text by Bharata. But the view has been discarded by Abhinava giving the plea that there is no evidence for holding composite authorship and authors very often employ the third person for themselves.

It appears that Nandī (Nandikeśvara) had according to some MSS, something to do with Nāṭyaśāstra. It also appears that Kohala's work influenced the redactors of the Nāṭyaśāstra. About the question of Ādi-Bharata and Bharata, Kane writes that some commentators of Sanskrit dramas quote verses from both Ādi-Bharata and Bharata.

For example, Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary Arthadyotanikā on the Śākuntala quotes verses from Ādi-Bharata and from Bharata. It is to be noted that when quoting from Bharata he often makes a reference to the chapter and then quotes a verse or verses, but in the case of

Ādi-Bharata he merely quotes a verse or verses but refers to no chapter. It is possible that Rāghavabhaṭa had two separate MSS of which one was called Ādi-Bharata and the other Bharata, though many passages were common to both. It is, generally, comparatively later writers that make a distinction between Ādi-Bharata and Bharata. In other branches of literature also the same work is styled sometimes Bṛhad or Vṛddha. It is possible that two different MSS of Bharata containing different numbers of verses were styled Ādi-Bharata and Bharata. Dhananjaya and Dhanika and Abhinavagupta have not subscribed to the view of this distinction though close association of Bharata with Śiva and Brahmā is shown in their works.

In the Nāṭyaśāstra itself the word Bharata is used in the sense of actor. It is very difficult to say who the author of the original kernel of the Nāṭyaśāstra was. Holding the first five chapters as later additions, Kane gives his view that it is not possible to say who the author of prose passages and the versified chapters about abhinaya, daśarūpaka and other closely allied subjects was. When the first five chapters were added it was easy to say that Bharata-muni who had access to the heavenly world as well as the mundane world was the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra. It is quite possible that some one who had mastered the traditional lore of the histrionic art and was well-disposed to bharatas (actors) put together most of the present Nāṭyaśāstra, and in order to glorify the tribe of bharatas passed it on as the work of a mythical hero. Traditional verses and mention of others in the Nāṭyaśāstra support the view that it was not the work of a single author done in a century. Rather a single man compiled all the available material on Nāṭya in his book called the Nāṭyaśāstra. It included the Sūtras that were made from time to time for the guidance of actors and play-wrights and producers.

Date of Nāṭyaśāstra

Like other works, to decide the date of the Nāṭyaśāstra has been a complex problem. Various dates have been ascribed to it. Its date has wavered with the dates of Kālidāsa, Bhāsa Aśvaghoṣa and Śūdraka. Unless their dates are decided and which is difficult, the date of Nāṭyaśāstra cannot be decided with certainty. Besides, one thing should be kept in mind that frequent additions have been

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

made to the Nāṭyaśāstra and there are substantial discrepancies in

the MSS of the work.

M. Ghosh8 writes in his introduction that the scholars, during

the last one hundred years, examined the work to ascertain its date

and their labours were not fruitless. In his view, the first important

contribution in this regard was made by Paul Regnaud who after a

critical study of the rhetoric and the metrics of the work concluded

that it might go back to 100 B.C. Next should be mentioned

Haraprasāda Shāstrī, who on the strength of certain data assigned

it to be placed in the second century B.C. But on the basis of

Prākṛta passages Jacobi placed it in in the 300 A.C. Ghosh then made,

variations in his opinion about its date. First, in 1933, he concluded

that the work existed in 200 A.C. and might even go back to 100

B.C. But when his second Vol. of Nāṭyaśāstra was completed in

1956, he thought that it might go back even to 200 B.C. His idea

about the date again underwent a change, after he had revised

the critical edition of Vol. 1 and finally came to believe that the

antiquity of the work could still be pushed upwards and it was most

probably written in the fifth century B.C. To support it he has

given some major points on the basis of which he reached the final

conclusion. We will not go into the detail but look at them

surpassingly.

1. Its vocabulary of the Sanskrit points to a period between

500 and 300 B.C. Quite a large number of words used in

it became totally forgotten or are found only in very old

works.

2. Metres used in the Nāṭyaśāstra lack in many cases Sandhis

and allow hiatus in places of internal yati, show the vedic

tradition carried on.

3. Consideration of the figures of speech shows it to be

earlier than Aśvaghoṣa (100 A.C.).

4. A comparison of the mythological elements of Nāṭyaśāstra

with that in Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata shows that these

are similar.

5. The author of N.S. mentions an Arthaśāstra. Then Bhāsa

once mentions the Nāṭyaśāstra.

M. Ghosh again discusses whether it should be assigned

to Maurya period (324-336 B.C.) as geographical data seems to

point in this direction. On the basis of areas mentioned for the

production of styles, he concludes it to be written in 500

20

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

B.C. As it mentions Śākya-śramaṇas it cannot be assigned to a date much prior to the Mahāparinirvāṇa of Buddha. In the opinion of Keith9 it appears clearly to be based on the examination of a dramatic literature which has been lost, eclipsed by the more perfect dramas of Kālidāsa and his successors. The Prākrits recognised by the Nāṭyaśāstra are clearly later than those of Aśvaghoṣa and more akin to those found in Bhāsa ; again Nāṭyaśāstra recognises the use of Ardha-māgadhī, found in these two dramatists, but not later, while like them, he ignores the Mahārāṣṭri of the later dramas. He further points out that allusion to N.S. by Bhāsa10 shows, it is most probable that both he and Kālidāsa had knowledge of the prototype of the present text. Thus there is nothing to contradict the date thus vaguely indicated by Jacobi in his introduction to Bhāvisattakahā, which is suggested to be third century.

Here, Keith seems to have based his arguments on vague facts, because only fragments and not the full play of Aśvaghoṣa have been recovered. He wrote his play mainly in Sanskrit. Moreover, in Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra only names of prākrits have been recounted. Those may be later additions. So it cannot be said with certainty that Aśvaghoṣa preceded Bharata. It is still yet uncertain in Sanskṛit literature who preceded whom. On the other hand chances are likely that Aśvaghoṣa followed Kālidāsa. So Keith's view appears to be prejudiced as he has based it on certain things which are themselves vague.

P.V. Kane11 expresses his view that it is a very difficult task to say what the original Nāṭyaśāstra contained. If a very tentative theory may be advanced, then, it may be stated as follows. The present 6th and 7th chapters, 8-14 dealing with Abhinaya of various kinds, movements and gaits, chapters 17-35 were put together at one time. The prose portions in the 6-7 chapters and Āryā verses, probably taken from older Ācāryas were probably composed about 200 B.C. and were taken up into the work when other chapters were composed. It appears that the first chapter of the present Nāṭyaśāstra, and probably the next four were added some centuries before the 5th A.C., as Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti and Dāmodaragupta refer to the legend of Bharata being the promulgator of Nāṭyaśāstra. That most of the chapters now found were in existence from at least the 3rd or 4th century A.C. follows from several considerations.

Bharata's Natyasastra

Abhinavagupta who wrote his commentary about 1000 to 1030 A.C., notes several interpreters of the N.S. He quotes Udbhata and Sankuka. So, at least in the 8th century A.C. the principal chapters of the N.S. were in existence. We can push them a century or two before Udbhata. Then accepting the first half of the 5th century as the date of Kalidasa it follows that the present Natyasastra existed at least a century or two earlier than 400-450 A.C., i.e. in the 3rd or 4th century, if not earlier. Kalidasa12 has mentioned Bharata as the sage and in his time the legend of regarding Bharata as 'Muni' has gained ground. It follows then that quite sometime must have elapsed for Bharata to become so renowned at the time of Kalidasa that the later mentioned eight Rasas enumerated by him with great respect.

In the drama called Sariputtaprakarana, fragments of which had been recovered by Prof. Luders, there is remarkably close coincidence between its technique and that of the Natyasastra. In the present state of our knowledge the only work which could have been drawn upon by Asvaghosa must be deemed to be the Natyasastra. Then as stated earlier, Kane is of the view that some-time before the 3rd or 4th century A.C., there was a recast made under one hand. P.V. Kane13 quotes Prof. Levi's view who tried to establish that Natyasastra of Bharata was composed about the times of the Indo-Scythian ksatrapas, some of whom like Nahapana and Castana are styled Swamin and Bhadramukha in their inscriptions. But Kane shows its hollowness and gives his own conclusion that before 300 A.C., there existed a work on Natyasastra ascribed to Bharata and dealing with the Rasa theory and Dramaturgy in general. Although he does not agree with several things that M. Ghosh has written in placing Natyasastra between 100 B.C. to 200 A.C. yet the date that Ghosh arrives cannot be far from the truth in his view.

The upper limit of the Natyasastra cannot be fixed with any certainty. Though the N.S. mentions Visvakarmā on architecture and house, a Purana, Purvacaryas, Kamasutra, Kamatantra, Brhaspati, Narada, Tandu, Pasupatas, Sabara, Abhira, Dravida and Saka, but all these details cannot lead to any certain inference about the date of Natyasastra. They only make it probable that the present N.S. is not much older than the beginning of Christian era. The lower limit can be indicated with more certainty. Taking the examples from Kavyaprakasa, Anandavardhana, Kutanimata, Bhavabhuti, Bana, Kalidasa, Yajnavalkyasmrti, and Saptaśati of

Sātavāhana, from Fleet's Sanskrit and old Kanarese inscriptions, Kane asserts that the Nāṭyaśāstra cannot be assigned to a later date than about 300 A.C. Bhāsa's plays which have been regarded as earlier to Kālidāsa, do not strictly follow the rules of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra. From this it follows that upto the time of Bhāsa, Nāṭyaśāstra had not become such a binding authority.

S.N. Sāstri14 writes in his introduction that the date of Bhāsa, as is recognised by all the historians, has to be put between the third century B.C. and third century A.C. If the date of Bharata be accepted during the 3rd century, A.C., as he assigns him a period to be circa 2nd century B.C. to 5th century A.C., then the plays of Bhāsa must have developed without the guidance of Bharata and Kālidāsa was guided to a large extent by Nāṭyaśāstra.

But as we know that the date of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Aśvaghoṣa etc. is uncertain it is also uncertain who preceded whom. In that condition the date of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra cannot be fixed unless and until the date of Kālidāsa and Bhāsa is decided. We can only say as much that the present Nāṭyaśāstra cannot be assigned to a later date than 300 A.C. and there is the possibility of its being earlier.

Recensions

In Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra we find changes in the text at many places and no two MSS are alike. M.R. Kavi,15 the editor of the first edition of volume 1, writes that though no two of them taken at random fully coincide in their readings, an examination of all of them convinces that there are two recensions of the text. For the sake of convenience we may call them A and B. A recension seems to be of later origin, closely fostered by the sphoṭa school of Kashmirian critics, to which Abhinavagupta and his preceptors, Tota, Utpaladeva and Bhaṭṭendurāja belong.

The earlier recension, which we call B, seems to have been followed by the Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya school of literary critics, represented by Saṅkuka and his predecessors, Lollaṭa, Udbhata, etc. All the copies obtained in the Telugu, Tamil, Kanarese and Malayalam districts, with the exception of two in the last named country, represent the earlier recension, while the edition of Kāvyamālā, their original copy, obtained from Ujjain by the Baroda state, and the two copies in the Library of Mahārājā of Bikaner represent A recension. One may call the earlier recension southern and the later northern.

Bharata's Nātyaśāstra

Both the recensions seem to have been used according to the commentaries available. Dhanañjaya used A Recension when he quoted from Bharata in his Daśarūpa but Bhoja of the same period used B text in quotation the same passage in his Śṛṅgāraprakāśa.

B recension seems to be more ancient but in it several portions according to the different schools of Nandin and Kohala had been interpolated here and there long before Abhinavagupta. The chief tests that differentiate the two recensions are that:

1. In A sets about 40 verses are omitted as mere interpolation at the end of the fifth chapter, while B sets give them.

2. The ninth chapter in A sets is divided into two chapters (9th and 10th) in B and thus the numbering differs thenceforth.

3. The 14th and 15th chapters in A dealing with prosody for the stage introduce later terminology of Piṅgala, while the B sets merely equate the measure of a line in short and long syllables of laghu and guru.

4. The definitions in the sixteenth chapter are given in Upajāti metres and in a certain order in A but they are given in Anuṣṭubh metre and in a reverse order in the 17th chapter of the B sets.

5. The subject matter of the 26th chapter in A is found in the 35 chapter in B sets.

6. 36 chapter in B sets is divided into two chapters 36 and 37 in A sets, or even as 38th in one of the copies of A recension.

The edition in Kāvyamālā series represents A set while the French Edition (1 to 14) has combined the two sets by adding the excess from B to the A recension of Poona and Bikaner MSS. Chapters published by Hall and other European scholars represent the older or B recension.

M. Ghosh16 also mentions its two recensions as the chapters dealing with Nāṭyagunas and Alaṅkāras have forty ślokas differently worded in the two recensions. He writes in his introduction, ‘as the text of the N.S has been available in two distinct recensions, selection of readings involved some difficulty. After the most careful consideration the translator has thought it prudent to adopt readings from both the recensions, whenever such was felt necessary from the context or for the sake of coherence.’ P.V. Kane17 also agrees with M.R. Kavi and writes that the MSS and editions do

24

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

not agree as to the number of ślokas in each chapter, about the number of chapters and also about their places in the book. This shows that the text of Nāṭyaśāstra is unsatisfactory and has been tampered with in almost every chapter.

It becomes clear from Abhinavagupta's Abhinavabhāratī that he knew the two recensions of N.S. as he writes that who read sāntarasa, in their view, its form is stated and then he writes 'sthāyibhāvān pasatvamupaneṣyāmah' in the old texts after 'permanent states will be carried to sentiment' characteristics of sāntā are read At the beginning of the 15 chapter on metres he notes that there were two recensions.

Besides the difference in the text of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra about Vṛtti, aṅgās of Vīthi show that there were two recensions.

But K.S. Ramaswami19 Sāstrī refutes the view of two recensions in his preface to second edition. He writes that after an examination of all the different manuscripts collected from the North and South for this purpose it has not been definitely possible for us to conclude that there existed two distinct recensions, to be called either the northern and southern or the earlier or the later based on the differences of the readings. It is difficult to get convinced that there could be distinct recensions in the śāstric works of all India importance such as the Dharmasāstras, the Arthasāstras, the Kāmasāstras, the Nāṭyaśāstras and other philosophical works and Bhāṣya of Patañjali, Śabara, Saṅkara and others. Bharata's work also like these śāstric and philosophical works, seems to have been preserved with a certain amount of uniformity in the Northern and Southern manuscripts. It is indeed possible to find differing recensions among such works as Itihāsas and Purāṇas which are traditionally inherited and handed down by oral recitation. The sūtas, the Māgadhas and the learned Paurāṇikas used to recite the epics in different parts of the country and therefore, it is understandable that reciters might have added to or subtracted from the originals to suit each occasion and given rise to various recensions. But there is no likelihood of such recensions in the case of works of śāstric importance. No doubt there are scribal errors, additions, and interpolations in different MSS but these can be easily detected and eliminated. Moreover, the Nāṭyaśāstra, also known as Nāṭyaveda seems to have been preserved all over India in one recension only in the same manner as all other vedas and śāstras have been preserved. It is true that

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

there were many commentators of the N.Ś. during the period ending with 11th century A.D. Also true that there were many independent treatises on dramas composed by eminent authors such as Kohala, Rāhula, Dattila, Harṣa, Nandikeśvara, Vārtikakāra and others. It is possible, therefore, that some commentators of the N S. might have effected some changes in the text to suit their own methods of interpretation and some scribes might have mixed up portions of other later writers with the text of the N.Ś. These seem to be some of the possible reasons for the differences existing in the MSS of the N.Ś. today. The textual additions at the end of the 5th and 6th chapters seem to have been made from the works of later writers and from the commentaries of the N.Ś. The portion dealing with the śānta rasa in the text of the N.Ś. and the commentary on it by Abhinavagupta seem to have been added by lovers of śānta rasa, beginning from Udbhata in the 8th century A.D. to Abhinavagupta in the 11th century A.D. Moreover, the manuscripts collected from the South and the North and collated by him do not disagree in such disputed parts. The Śānta-Rasa section of the text is found only in the Trivandrum manuscript but it is omitted in the three other, the Madras and the northern manuscripts. The interpolated portion at the end of the 5th chapter is found only in the Madras manuscript, while the manuscript from Trivandrum and the other manuscripts from North India make no reference at all to this portion. The section of the commentary where great efforts are made by Abhinavagupta to establish the Śānta-Rasa in teeth of strong opposition is also found only in the manuscript of palace Library of H.H. the Mahārājā of Travancore. Ramaswami concludes his argument thus, 'It is, therefore, obvious that there is no wide divergence among the variants of the manuscripts of the N.Ś. which may warrant for the division of the text into two recensions, southern or northern or earlier and later, so far as the first seven chapters are concerned. Many variants of the text, noted down in the foot notes on each page, indicate some minor changes of the text, either introduced erroneously by the scribes or purposefully by some scholars who must have handled the MSS of the N.Ś. at a later stage'.

We ca 1 only say this much without committing on either side that the MSS and editions do not agree as to the number of ślokas in each chapter, about the number of chapters and also about their places in the book, The text of Nāṭyaśāstra is unsatisfactory

26

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

and has been tampered with in almost every chapter. The problems

of the text of Nāṭyaśāstra, its authorship and its date will remain

puzzles and matters of conjecture till the earlier dramatic works

such as those of Kohala, Nandikeśvara and the commentaries of

Udbhaṭa and others are discovered.

Bharata's Nāṭyashāstra and Its Commentators

Various commentaries were written on the N.Ś. of Bharata by authors

like Kohala, Dattila, Drauhini, Rāhula, Harṣa and others. The

works of these authors are not available to us, except some quota-

tions embodied in some later works. We come to know about them

from the works Sangītaratnākara of Śārṅgadeva and the Abhinava-

bhāratī of Abhinavagupta. The other commentators of N.Ś. are said

to be Bhaṭṭodbhaṭa, Lollaṭa, Mātrgupta, Śrīśaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭanāyaka,

Abhinavagupta, Bhaṭṭayantra and others. We come to know

about the view of these authors through the quotations20

found in the Abhinavabhāratī. Besides these, there might have

been other commentators whose views have been quoted by

Abhinavagupta by saying 'according to some', 'according to others',

and the teachers of Abhinavagupta referred to as 'our Upādhyāyas

or our teachers'. Among the commentators of N.Ś. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa

preceded Śrīśaṅkuka and the former's view about Rasa has been

criticised by the latter. In the absence of their works it cannot be

said with certainty whether they wrote their commentaries on the

whole of the N.Ś. or on the parts of it, or wrote as the independent

works in which were discussed the views of Bharata. Besides

these we find allusions21 made to Kīrtidhara, Ṭīkākāra or Ṭīkākṛta

Harṣavārtika and to some authors on drama in Abhinavabhāratī.

The views of Bhaṭṭodbhaṭa and Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa have been quoted

in other works also, for example the view of Udbhaṭa22 about

Vṛtti has been quoted by Dhananjaya in his Daśarūpaka and by

Śāradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśam. Among the above mentioned

commentators, Kohala23 is one whose relation with the N.Ś. is not

very clear. Kohala has been mentioned as one of the hundred sons

of Bharata. His views have been oft quoted by Abhinavagupta.

He is mentioned in the same breath as authority on dancing in

Dāmodaragupta's Kuṭṭanīmata.

K.S. Ramaswamy24 opines that apart from these commentators

there were many other authors in Kashmir, who wrote standard

works on literary criticism and who were also well-versed in the N.Ś.

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

of Bharata. They were Bhāmaha, Vāmana, Udbhāṭa, Ānandavardhana of Dhvani School, Bhaṭṭa Tauta, Vāmanagupta, Mahimabhaṭṭa, Kuntaka, Rudraṭa, Kṣemendra, Rājānaka Mammaṭa, Tilaka, Rucaka, Maṅkhaka and Jayaratha. These literary critics flourished in Kashmir during a period ranging from the 7th to the 14th century A.D.

Moreover, we find treatment of Nāṭya, Nṛtya and Rasa in Agni purāṇa, and of Nṛtta, Nāṭya and Abhinaya in Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇā. But in the opinion25 of M. Ghosh and Kane these two works are later to Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata as the treatment of Agni purāṇa depends considerably on the N.Ś. There is literal borrowing from it as well as paraphrases of some of its metrical passages. Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa closely follows the N.Ś. of Bharata, though in certain matters such as the number of Rūpakas and Rasas it differs from it.

Abhinava Bhāratī

The most famous and the most erudite commentary that we find on the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata is Abhinavabhāratī of Abhinavagupta. We come to know about many lost works and old authors from this commentary. We find the commentary, ‘Abhinavabhāratī’ given with the text of Bharata in the three volumes of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra in Gaekwad Oriental Series K.S. Ramaswami26, the editor of the revised ed. of the first volume writes in his preface that the manuscripts of Abhinavabhāratī also were not available upto the year 1915 A.D. The party, for search of MSS appointed by the Madras Government was able to discover the Abhinavabhāratī, from some private libraries of Malabar. Unfortunately the two MSS of Abhinavabhāratī are found highly imperfect and fully corrupt in their contents Many reputed scholars such as Drs. Sushil Kumar De and Manomohan Ghosh, Prof. Mm. S. Kuppaswami Shastriar, Drs. A. Sankarana, V. Raghavan of Madras, Shri M.R. Kavi, and many others have tried their best to improve the commentary. Hemacandra in his Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka has incorporated verbatim the famous text of Abhinavagupta dealing with the Rasa portion and the process of aesthetic enjoyment stated in the Abhinavabhāratī in the 6th chapter of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra Śārṅgadeva in the 7th chapter of his Saṅgītaratnākara has versified some prose portions of the Abhinava’s commentary on the description of 108 Karanas. Dr. S.K. De has reconstructed the entire Rasa

28

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

section of the 6th chapter. Dr. Raghavan has reconstructed the Rasa section and Śānta Rasa section in particular. In spite of all the efforts of these eminent scholars, there remained a number of places where the text of Abhinavabhāratī does not yield a sensible and satisfactory construction which agrees with the context, due to scribal errors requiring corrections and filling up the lacuna. Uncertainty of the sentences and ambiguity of views have continued to remain in many places. Ramaswami further states that everyone who undertakes the work of editing or reconstructing the imperfect MSS of Abh. Bh., should before correcting the manuscript, necessarily bear in mind that Abhinavagupta has introduced many improvements and new thoughts into the systems of Sanskrit Literary criticism. All the later writers beginning with Mammata in the 11th cent. and ending with Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja in the 17th cent. have held hin in very high esteem. Secondly, he has rejected the views of earlier thinkers and commentators on the Nāṭyaśāstra such as Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and Bhaṭṭanāyaka. Thirdly, every reconstructor of the work of Abhinavagupta should necessarily be conversant with his style in writing the commentary. He was a very able commentator, who had the capacity to explain in a best suitable manner, the text without any ambiguity or confusion. He has invariably constructed every sentence of his text so well as to convey rational and appropriate sense beyond our expectation. He has clarified satisfactorily every doubt which is likely to arise in the mind of every thinking man who may attempt to understand the text. About the Śānta Rasa portion of the commentary, Ramaswamy is of the view that the Śānta Rasa portion of the N.Ś. has been inserted in one ms. only as if a genuine part of the N.Ś. and also commented upon either by Abhinavagupta or by someone else who was conversant with his views on the Śānta Rasa through his statements, contained in the Dhvanyālokalocana. It is also very difficult to believe that the great Ācārya Abhinavagupta might have himself commented upon it. But the method of writing, advancement of arguments, references to other writings of his own and quotations from the works of great authors do suggest it as one of the genuine writings of Abhinavagupta. However, this is possibly a separately, written small discussion on the Śānta Rasa and does not appear to be a commentary on the passages of N.Ś. in question. M.R. Kavi27 explains in his preface that no complete copy of the commentary in a single volume has been hitherto discovered. The commentary is available in several places in part only and these

Bharata's Nātyaśāstra

make up two continuous sets almost complete excepting the commentary on chs. 7 and 8. These two sets differ in readings, but the differences are due to erroneous deciphering of a scribe or to an intelligent suggestion of a missing word or letter where insects had damaged the leaf. However the set A closely follows Hemacandra who quoted in extenso from this work in his Kāvyānuśāsana and B set differs in several places and is generally less correct. With the aid of Nṛttarathāvali and Saṅgītaratnākara which closely follow Abhinavagupta, the proper connection of missing links in the commentary was traced and some lacuna were filled up by (Kavi's) own commentary. The originals are so incorrect that even if Abhinava descended from heaven and saw the MSS he would not easily restore his original reading. It is in fact an impenetrable jungle through which a rough path has now been traced. Kavi further makes it clear that Abhinavagupta under the sublime teachings of his master, Bhaṭṭa Tota has fixed the limits of Nāṭya and rejected such matter as strictly belongs to the province of music and dancing arts. He criticizes his previous commentators in the light of his own theory whenever they have overstepped the boundaries of Nāṭya and fallen into the allied grounds. His conception of Nāṭya is very liberal and aesthetic but it rejects all musical dramas. His text slightly differs from that of the others which he points out or criticizes. It is the difference in interpretation that gave rise to various recensions.

Abhinava's text ends with Ch. XXXVII while most of the others end after XXXVI. The apparent reason for extension of the number seems to be the introduction of the 36 tattvas one for each chapter by Abhinava and the commentary of the 37th is headed by the verse indicating anuttaram dhāma of Pratyabhijñā school. Abhinava maintains in a high degree the Vedic and aesthetic aspects of Nāṭya, viewing it from a psychological perspective, while others mix them up to produce only the pictorial effect. This is about the text.

Now to come to the commentary, 'Abhinavabhāratī' and Abhinavagupta. Abhinavabhāratī represents the erudition of the close of the tenth century. Abhinavabhārati of Abhinavagupta along with the commentary of Dhanika will be our main basis. The time of Abhinava's Abhinavabhārati and that of Dhanañajaya's Daśarūpaka is not much for apart. Abhinavabhārati was written after the work of Bhaṭṭanāyaka, as becomes evident from the fact that Bhaṭṭa nāyaka has been quoted by

30

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Abhinavagupta. The date circa A.C. 975-1015 has been ascribed to the Abhinavabhārati of Abhinavagupta. Abhinava's commentary is the best on Bharata's N.Ś. Abhinava has explained difficult and vague portions of N.Ś. But at places he gives his own interpretations28 not found in Bharata's N.Ś. As we will take his commentary in detail later, just to point out here may be taken his interpretation of Arthaprakṛtis and his dividing them into two broad categories as animate and inanimate and dividing the vidras found in the samavakāra likewise. Sometimes he stretches his imagination too far. Sometimes he criticises Bharata also, as for example, about the use of sthāyibhāva in ‘dṛṣṭānta’ presented by Bharata to illustrate the production of Rasa. Sometimes he does not give his own view as about Avamarśa Sandhi29 (Ch. 19). In the view of Ghosh30 although like any other work of this class, it professes to explain the text, it is not always an adequate help for understanding the several difficult passages of the N.Ś. This drawback is considerably due to its defective text tradition but there is still another reason. It is probably because he wrote the commentary with a view to help scholars of his time, whose knowledge on many things relating to the Indian drama, theatre and general literature, he could easily assume. However, his commentary sometimes falls short of our needs. But inspite of these limitations his commentary is indispensable. Whenever he has to explain any theory or problem concerning the dramatic art or general aesthetics, he does it very exhaustively by quoting all available views on the same and often cites examples from a vast number of dramatic and other lost works. Often he sums up the discussion in a masterly fashion. One thing that we find remarkable in his commentary is that he often criticizes and makes fun of the Sāṅkhya views, as is seen in his commentary on the production of Rasa (Ch. 6, p. 276). At many places the commentary of Abhinavagupta is tinged with his philosophical thought, for example in the sixth Chapter on Rasa.

To be brief, throughout we have depended upon the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata published in G.O.S. and available in three volumes with the Abhinavabhāratī, commentary of Abhinavagupta given below the text of Bharata. Between the period of first G.O.S. ed. of N.Ś. and the second, two new editions, complete in 36 chapters were out, one from Benaras in 1929 and the other from Bombay in 1943. The First edition of Volume I containing chapters from 1 to 7 was published in year 1926 and the second revised ed.

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

in 1956. Vol. II containing 8 to 18 chapters was published in 1954

from Oriental Institute Baroda and the Vol. III containing chapters

19 to 27 in 1954, the Vol. IV containing chapters 28 to 37 in 1964.

Besides, M. Ghosh published the critical text of Nāṭyaśāstra in two

volumes and his translation in English in two volumes. We have

not perviewed all the chapters of Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata or

Abhinava's commentary thereon but have mainly considered those

topics which were relevant to the Dramaturgical Principles and were

in accordance with the subjects found in Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya.

PART II

DAŚARŪPAKA OF DHANANJAYA

AND

DHANIKA'S COMMENTARY AS AVALOKA

DĀSARŪPAKA

As we have stated earlier, our problem deals mainly with the

Abhinavabhāratī of Abhinavagupta and Avaloka of Dhanika. The

commentaries cannot be studied without works on which they were

written. So the study of commentaries necessarily enjoins the

study of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and Dhananjaya's Daśarūpaka.

Bharata's N.Ś. is encyclopaedic in nature and it includes topics

other than dramaturgy proper. Bharata has written upon the

allied topics31 of Nāṭya, too, like music, dance, Alankāra, stage,

construction, metres, prosody.

When Bharata's N.Ś. proved too elaborate for use, necessity

for short compendium was felt and which was fulfilled to a large

extent by the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya. In his Daśarūpaka32

Dhananjaya claimed to follow Bharata precisely stating that his

work is the concise form of Bharata's Nāṭya-veda in his own words.

We shall see how far Dhananjaya is justified in his claim? Did he

exactly follow Bharata or some other work or to what extent did

he follow Bharata and how did he interpret Bharata's text ? Some

of the differences that we find in the works of Dhananjaya and

Bharata are due to the differences in the readings of the Natyasastra

itself. G.O.S. eds. have mostly followed the text adopted by

Abhinavagupta, and his text differed from the texts used by others,

as this very fact has been carefully shown by M.R. Kavi33 in his

introduction of the second volume of N.S. Vithyāṅgas are given in

Abhinava's text in Ch. XVIII so also in G.O.S. ed. in the same chap.

under the treatment of Vithi itself, while in one of the texts, that

is, in bha MSS it is given in Bharativrtti in Ch. XX, and perhaps

Dhananjaya followed the same recension as he gives Vithyāṅgas

in his Dasarupaka in discussing Bharativrtti.34 Abhinava reads

the Lasyaṅgas35 in the Sandhyaṅga, Ch. XIX, and Dhananjaya

defines them in the treatment of Bhana. This shows that Dhananjaya

followed a different MS than that used by Abhinavagupta, though

according to M.R. Kavi36 both Dhananjaya and Abhinavagupta

followed A set.

After Bharata's Natyasastra some works were written upto

the time of Dhananjaya but they were more or less on poetics in

general. The works written between the interim period concen-

trated their attention upon poetry and incidentally touched upon

the principles of Dramaturgy. Only Rasa was touched upon by

almost all the Canonists. The works written in between on

dramaturgy are not available, so after Bharata's N.S. Dasarupaka

marks the second Hall mark in the field of dramaturgy proper and

like Bharata's N.S. It has been followed and quoted by the later

writers, playwrights, critics and commentators widely. Because of

its conciseness, it has been preferred to Bharata's N.S. by some

of the Western scholars. The greatest characteristic of Daśarupaka

is that it is compact and deals only with the topics relevant to

Dramaturgy or Natya only. No extraneous material is available

there.

Authorship of Dasharupaka

The Dasarupa or Dasarupaka a Treatise on the ten forms of drama,

one of the most important works on Hindu dramaturgy was

composed by Dhananjaya, son of Visnu, in Malava in the last

quarter of the tenth century A.D., during the reign of Vakpatiraja

II or Munja (974-95). The monarch's name is given by Dhananjaya37

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

in his concluding stanza. As is evident the work takes its name from the ten primary forms of drama which constitute the subject matter of Ch. XVIII (G.O.S. ed.) of Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and it also brings in a few other relevant matters scattered over other parts of the N.S.

Scope and Importance of the Dasharūpaka

Haas38 writes in his introduction that in the Dasarūpa Dhananjaya presents, in the form of a brief manual, the Rules of Dramatic composition originally laid down in the great compendium of Hindu dramatic science, the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra. That monumental work, although regarded as authoritative and even invested by tradition with the character of semi-divine revelation, was altogether too cumbersome for ordinary use and had the additional disadvantages of diffuse and a somewhat unsystematic arrangement.

From the point of view of the dramatist, particularly, it was unsatisfactory, since the purely dramaturgical portions were submerged in a mass of histrionic and general prescriptions. While Haas, Keith and M. Krishnamachariar praise39 for this, M. Ghosh40 regards it as a shortcoming. He writes ‘but Dhananjaya carried too far the work of his abridgment and left out quite a number of important matters. The special stress which he lays on the literary aspect of drama by his exclusion of its histrionics and other technical sides, very clearly indicates the general decadence of the study of the subject at the time. It becomes clear from

the above statement that M. Ghosh regards histrionics etc. as the essential parts of dramaturgy and hence he gives this view. Otherwise Dhananjaya was not alone in following the Dramaturgical Principles. Even Abhinavagupta, as becomes clear from M.R. Kavi's41 introduction, has fixed the limits of Nāṭya and rejected such matter as strictly belongs to the province of music and dancing arts. Even the passages which were said to possess wider significance to include graces and flourishes in gīta and Nṛtya, were explained by Abhinava to apply only to Nāṭya.

Dhananjaya adheres for the most part to the terminology and definitions of Bharata, except to a little extent in the classification of heroines and treatment of Śṛṅgāra. As we will show further, the other variations and deviations between the two works are not of any special significance and are few in number. Often the variations found in Dhananjaya are largely due to differences

found in Bharata's original MSS. But there was a basic difference in their approach to the subject, it cannot be denied and this is seen in their treatment of plot and Hero. The excellence of Dhanañjaya's presentation and its convenient form gave the Daśarūpaka a prominence that it has retained to the present day. As a compact exposition of the dicta of the Bhāratīya Nāṭyaśāstra, it largely superseded that work, which seems to have become rare with the passage of time. And if there were other works on dramaturgy, they have been eclipsed by the Daśarūpaka of Dhanañjaya. Its importance is further attested by the numerous citations42 of its rules, and allusions to them in later rhetorical and dramaturgical treatises and in the commentaries on the Sanskrit plays. For example in Pratāparudrīya we find quotations from Daśarūpa, and the Sāhityadarpana not only refers to the Daśarūpa, and criticises some of its statements but bases its treatment of dramaturgy to a great extent on Dhanañjaya's work and repeats verbatim or with minor variations a large number of its sections.

Style and Method of Treatment

In style the Daśarūpaka is extremely condensed and avoids all formulaic 'padding' except where it is absolutely required by the meter,43 for example 'atha Lakṣaṇam', 'Lakṣaṇam Ca Praṇīyate'. In many cases, however, brevity is attained at the expense of clearness, and not a few definitions would be absolutely obscure44 except for the help to be derived from the commentary and the parallel passages that are to be found in other dramaturgical and Rhetorical treatises. This is especially the case where only a single word is used to explain the meaning of a technical term, as often happens in Book I, in the treatment of dramatic structure. To illustrate we may take his definition of Paryupāsti, 'Paryupāstir-anunayah', his definition of Abhūtāharaṇa, 'Abhūtāharaṇam Chadma', his treatment of Arthaprakṛtis, his definition of Bindu, his statement about the killing of the principal hero, about the variety of Nāṭikā etc. In his definitions of technical terms Dhanañjaya occasionally resorts to the etymological45 explanations, on the supposition that the root of a word or its component parts will give a satisfactory idea of its meaning and application. As a typical example may be cited the treatment of the word 'Ādhikārika, in book 1. Analytic in the character is the definition of the term 'Vyabhicārin, other examples of etymological interpretation are

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

also found at places. Fondness for minute and often futile classification and subdivision is in evidence throughout the work but is best exemplified in the classification of Hero and Heroines, of the Erotic sentiment, of the Vastu.

Subject matter

Four books of Daśarūpaka treat respectively, of the subject matter; the first with plot, i.e. Vastu, the second with the Hero (Netā), heroine and other characters, in other words characterisation, the language and Diction of the drama, and the styles of procedure, the third with prologue, and different forms of drama; and lastly the fourth with the sentiment (Rasa) and its constituents and its production. Thus, roughly, we may say that according to Dhananjaya the essential Dramaturgical principles are Vastu or plot, Netā or characterisation, Language and Diction and styles of procedure, the prologue and introduction of the play; and the sentiment.

AVALOKA COMMENTARY AND OTHER COMMENTARIES

As the Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra is intelligible in the light of Abhinavabhārati of Abhinavagupta, in the like manner, Daśarūpaka is intelligible only in the light of its running commentary, Avaloka. In most of the MSS the Daśarūpaka is accompanied by a Sanskrit commentary, in prose, entitled, ‘Daśarūpāvaloka’ or examination of the Daśarūpa. The Avaloka commentary is ascribed to Dhanika, son of Viṣṇu and an officer of king Utpalarāja who is none other than Muñja, the patron of Dhananjaya. Dhanika was probably Dhananjaya's brother unless as some say Dhanika and Dhananjaya are one. The identity of the two writers is suggested by the fact that later writers ascribe passages of the Daśarūpa itself to Dhanika and that without the commentary the work is in a sense incomplete. Haas has also cited this view of others and also refers to Wilson's theatre of Hindus and Levi's journal Asiatique. He writes further, ‘but on the other hand there are in the commentary a number of indications of a difference in authorship. For example, Dhanika gives two possible interpretations of the text of ‘Sukhārtha’ and in ‘tyajyām āvaśyakam na ca’ his explanation seems to read a technical meaning into an apparently simple line. In place of ‘bhedaih’ used by Dhananjaya, Dhanika uses ‘aṅgāni’. As both declare themselves as sons of Viṣṇu, it may be concluded

36

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

that Dhanika, the author of Avaloka was some contemporary of Dhanañjaya and was his brother, who collaborated in the production of the work.

In the opinion50 of A.B. Keith and George C.O. Haas, the Avaloka commentary might have been completed after Muñja's death, approximately towards the end of the tenth century as the work contains a quotation51 from Padmagupta's 'Navasāhasāñka-carita' which was written after 995 A.D. in the reign of Sindhurāja. Dhanika often quotes stanzas52 of his own in Sanskrit and Prākṛta in his commentary, as illustrations of Dhanañjaya's definitions, and from the seven couplets quoted in his commentary it appears that he composed a treatise on poetics, entitled Kāvyanirṇaya, of which nothing further is known.

Although professedly an aid to the understanding of the text, the commentary leaves much to be desired and is not nearly so helpful as the average work of its kind. Sometimes, it explains a very simple and clear statement, often on the other hand, it does not clarify obscure words and phrases and whole sections are occasionally dismissed with the single word 'spaṣṭam'. Even where Dhanañjaya's definitions of technical terms are illustrated by means of examples from Sanskrit literature, the absence of further explanation sometimes leaves the exact meaning in doubt. Though the charge of Haas is true to a certain extent and as we will show further in our respective chapters, Dhanika sometimes confuses the matter, and sometimes he does not offer any explanation where he ought to, especially this is the case in Book 1, yet his commentary is indispensable and it helps us a lot in understanding the meaning of Dhanañjaya's otherwise short and pithy sentences.

Sometimes we could not even guess the meaning of Dhanañjaya if Dhanika would not have offered us help. The real merit of Dhanika's Avaloka lies in the occasionally lengthy discussions of disputed and obscure points as in the Book four on sentiments and in his collection of illustrative quotations, many of which are valuable in obtaining a clear conception of the principles of Sanskrit Dramaturgy. In his explanation of rules, stated by Dhanañjaya, Dhanika not only refers to scenes and situations of the principal Sanskrit dramas but also quotes such passages as will serve to illustrate the matters under discussion. He quotes not only from dramatic works but also from other fields of literature, particularly from the sententious poetry and the so called Kāvya productions

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

like that of Māgha and Kālidāsa. Occasionally also he corroborates his statements by an excerpt from the Bhāratīya Nāṭyaśāstra or some other technical work. Some of the quotations occur more than once, being used as illustrations of two or sometimes three, different statements. Besides referring to actual dramatic works, Dhanika makes mention also of legends and stories on which plays were based.

OTHER COMMENTARIES

There are other commentaries53 also by Nṛsimha; Bahurūpamiśra, Pāṇi or Devapāṇi, by Kṣonīdhara Miśra and Kūrvīrāma. As we are not concerned with these, we won't go into their details here.

Edition of Daśarūpa

The earliest ed. of the Daśarūpa is that of Fitzedward Hall, published in 1865 in Bibliotheca Indica. After Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara's ed. in 1878, another reprint of Hall's text prepared under the supervision of Kashinath Pandurang Parab was published by Nirṇaya Sāgar Press of Bombay in 1897. Haas published his Daśarūpa with transaliteration of the text and notes in 1912. We have depended on Daśarūpaka of Dhanañjaya with Avaloka, commentary of Dhanika; the Chawkhamba Sanskrit Series ed. 1967, which is edited by Dr. Bhola Sankar Vyāsa. The number of the Kārikas and page numbers refer to this ed. only. We have also consulted the Daśarūpa ed. by George C.O. Haas, published by Motilal Banarasidass, 1962.

One point should be borne in mind at the outset that while we do not know the literature and the authority on which Bharata's rules were set, in the case of Dhanañjaya we know that he had before him the best dramatic literature of Sanskrit available upto that time. So his views must have been modified by looking at the plays available at his time. As both the works, Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra and Dhanañjaya's Daśarūpa cannot be understood completely without the help of their commentaries, and as Abhinavagupta's Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka of Dhanika render immense help in understanding the respective works on which they are written, the need for their comparative study arose. Both the commentaries are somewhat contemporaneous. So also it becomes essential to study them comparatively and to know how far both the commentators differed in their views and their approach. We

have tried to ascertain how successfully, they commented, how they deviated from their originals, and how they differed. As the study of commentaries would have been incomplete without the text, we have also tried to look how far Dhanañjaya followed Bharata, what innovations he made, and where he deviated from his declared source,

REFERENCES

1. Bharata NŚ, G.O.S., Oriental Institute Baroda, Vol. I. Second Revised ed. (1956), Ch. I., 1,4,7,15-19, Supra Ref. Int. 1.

2. Śāstri, K.S. Ramaswamy and Yadusviri Yatirāja Swāmi of Melkot, Introduction to Bhāvaprakāśana, G.O.S., ed., Oriental Institute Baroda (1930) pp. 18, 31 ff.

3. Dhanika, Avaloka, Vidyābhavan Sanskrit Granthamālā, Chowkhamba Vidyābhavan, Varanasi (1967) Book IV, p. 184.

4. अन्ये तु व्याख्यन्तं ग्रन्थं कर्हिचिच्छ्रृण्वयो व्याख्यरचत् । तच्च्वासत् । एकस्य ग्रन्थस्यनेकवक्तृसुन्दरंमञ्जयत्वे प्रमाणाभावातु। न तु मुनिविरचितमिति यदाहुस्तस्माद्गुरुभ्योऽध्यायासस्तत्प्रत्युक्तम् ।

अभिनय, अभिनवभारती, अ. 1, पृ. 8, 9

5. Śāradatānaya, Bhāvaprakāśana, G.O.S. Oriental Institute, Baroda, (1930) pp. 287, 152.

6. Kavi M.R., Preface to First ed. of N.S. Vol. I, in second revised ed. (1956) pp. 57 ff.

7. Kane, P.V., The History of Sanskrit Poetics, An Introduction to Sāhityadarpana of Viśvanātha, Pub. NirnayaSāgar Press (1951), Part I, pp. 14. ff, 22 ff.

8. Ghosh, M., Introduction to the Nāṭyaśāstra ascribed to Bharatmuni, Vol. I, Translated into English, Manisha Granthalaya, Calcutta (1967), pp. ILIX ff.

9. Keith, A.B., SKD, O.U.P. Reprint (1954), pp. 291 ff.

10. Bhāsa, Avimāraka, Act II,

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

11. Kane, P.V., HSP, Part I, pp. 18 ff.

12. मुनिना भरतेन यः प्रयोगो भवतीष्वष्टरसाश्रय प्रश्यूक्तः ।

कालिदास, विक्रमोर्वशीयम्, श्लो. 2, 17

13. Kane, P.V., HSP, pp. 39. ff. 45.

14. Sāstri, S.N., Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, Chawkhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi (1961), Introduction, p. viii.

15. Kavi, M.R., Preface to First, ed. Vol. I pp. 59. ff., Intro. to Vol. II, pp. viii ff.

16. Ghosh, Manomohan, Introduction to his ed. of Nāṭyaśāstra, Vol. I. (1967) p. XXIX, Introduction to English Trans. of N.Ś., Vol. I, p. XXIII.

17. Kane, P.V., HSP, p. 10.

18. Abhinavagupta, Abhinavabhāratī, Ch. 6, pp. 332, 339, Ch. 15, p. 252.

19. Śāstri, K.S. Ramaswamy, Preface to Second ed. & Vol. I, pp. 10 ff.

20. Abhinavagupta's Abh. Bh., Bhaṭṭanāyaka referred to on pp. 5, 276 in Vol. I, 298 in Vol. II; Śaṅkuka quoted on pp. 66, 74, 102, 214, 215, 272, 284, 292, 297, 303, 317 in Vol. I, 436, 411, Vol. II, 28, 147, 150 in Vol. III,

Udbhata quoted on pp. 264, 70 in Vol. I, pp. 451, 441 in Vol. II, pp. 28, 36 in Vol. III; Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa quoted on pp. 206, 264, 272, 277, 298 in Vol. I, pp. 196, 415, 436, 423, 452 in Vol. II, p. 17 in Vol. III, Bhaṭṭayantrā, p. 206 in Vol. I.

21. Ibid, Kīrtidhara, quoted on p. 206 in Vol. I, Ṭīkākrta pp. 317, 327, Vol. I, pp. 3, 176 in Vol. II, Harṣavārtika p. 206 in Vol. I.

22. Dhananjaya, D.R., II, 61, Śāradātanaya, BP, p. 12.

23. Kohala, mentioned in N.Ś. of Bharata 1.26, quoted in Abh. Bh, pp. 25, 47, 101, 171, 180, 182, 264 in Vol. I, pp. 26, 55, 130, 133, 142, 144, 146, 151, 155, 416, 434, 452, 458, 459, 407, 421, in Vol. II pp. 72, 287, in Vol. III, in Kuṭṭanimata of Dāmodaragupta, 81, ‘Katamat quoted katamallāgname prosthāna kā ca nartaki bhadrā.

Viṭakhaṭaka kā nṛtyati Kohalabharatoditakriyayā’.

24. Śāstri, K.S., Ramaswamy preface to N.Ś. Vol. I, (1956) p. 17.

25. Ghosh Manomohan, Int. to N.S. Vol. I ed. by him, p. XIII, Kane, HSP, p. 67.

26. Śāstri, Ramaswamy K.S. preface to N.S. Vol. I, pp. 18 ff, 25 ff, 53 ff.

27. Kavi, M.R. Pref. to First ed. Vol. I. pp. 62 ff. Int. to Vol. II (1934) pp. VIII, XV.

28. Abhinavagupta, Abh. Bh. Ch. 19, p. 12, Ch. 18, p. 439.

29. Ibid., Ch. 19, pp. 26 ff.

30. Ghosh Manomohan, Int. to N.S. Vol. I. pp. XLVII ff.

31. Bharata, N.S. Chapters 3, 4, 14, 15, 16.

32. Dhananjaya D.R. Book I, 4, 5. ‘Tasyārthas tatpadais tena saṅkṣipya kriyate añjasā.

33. Kavi M.R., Int. to N.S. Vol. II, (1934) pp. IX ff, XI ff.

34. Dhananjaya, D.R., Book III 12-21; Abhinavagupta, Abh. Bh. Ch. XVIII, p. 453.

35. Abhinavagupta, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, pp. 68 ff; Dhananjaya, D.R., Book III, pp. 52, 53.

36. Kavi M.R., Preface to First ed. Vol. I. p. 60.

37. विष्णो: मुतेनापि धनञ्जयेन विद्वद्मनोरागनिबन्धहेतु:, आविष्कृतं मु' जमहीशगोष्ठी वेदगद्यमाजादशरुपमैतत् ॥ धनञ्जय, द. रू., प्र. प्र., 4, 86

38. Haas, George C.O., Int. to the Daśarūpa, Pub. Motilal Banarasidass (1962), p. XXI.

39. Haas, Ibid., pp. XXVI ff; Keith A.B. SKD, p. 292. Krishnamachariar, M., History of Classical Sanskrit Literature (1937) p. 746.

40. Ghosh M., Int. to N.S. Vol. I. ed. by him p. XIIII.

41. Kavi M.R., Int. to Vol. II, p. VIII.

42. Pratāparudrīyam, ed. by C. Śankara Rama Śāstri, Mylapore, Madras (1950) quotes D.R. on pp. 72-75, 81-82, 88, 92, Viśvanātha, S.D. ed. Durgaprasada, Nirṇaya Sāgar Press, Bombay (1936), quotes D.R. at pp. 294, 295. ‘Yaduktam Dhanikena’, criticizes D.R. on p. 102 in his commentary.

43. उद्भेदभेदकरणान्यन्वर्थान्यथ लक्षणम् । उद्भेगसंभ्रमाक्षेपाः: लक्षणं च प्रणीयते । धनञ्जय, द. रू. प्रथम प्र. 1-25, 36, 1-37, 38

Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra

44. पर्युपास्तरणुनयः । अभूताहरणं छद्म । अवान्तरार्थविच्छेदे बिन्दुरच्छेदकारणम् । नाधिकारी वघं क्वापि त्याज्यमावश्यकं न च । स्त्रीप्रियंचतुरङ्कादिमेदकं यदि चेष्यते । धनञ्जय, देसरूपक, प्र. प्र., 1-34 व, 1-38 व, 1-17, 3-36, 3-44 ।

45. अधिकारः फलस्वाम्यमधिकारी च तत्प्रभुः । विशेषादाभिमुख्येन चरन्तो व्यभिचारिणः । घ. द. रू. प्र. प्र., 1-12, 4-7

46. Viśvanātha, S.D., Supra, Ref. 12.

47. Haas G.C.O., Int. to Daśarūpa p. XXXIII.

48. 'सुखार्थः अप्रयासावाप्तधनः सुखप्रयोजनो वा' अधिकारत्नाकरवधं प्रवेष्टकादिना न सूचयेत, आवश्यकं तु देव पितृकायदिविष्यमेव क्वचिदकुर्यात । प्ररोचना वीथी प्रहसनडिमुखानि चास्यामङ्गानि । धनिक, अवलोक प्र. प्र, 113, 168, 150

49. Dhananjaya, D.R. 4.86 'Viṣṇoḥ sutenāpi Dhananjjayena' Dhanika, AV. p. 74, 'Iti Śrīviṣṇusūnordhanikasya'.

50. Keith A.B SKD, p. 293; Haas, Int. p. XXXIII.

51. चित्रवर्तिन्यपि नृपं तत्वावेशेन चेतसि । व्रीडार्धव लितं चक्रे मुबेन्दुमवशौ सा । पद्मगुप्त, नवसाहिसङ्कचित अवलोक , ट्रि.प्रकाश, पृ 129

52. Dhanika, AV., pp. 77, 84, 94, 100, 123, 124, 126, 127, 294 ff.

53. Haas, Int. p. xxxii, Krishnamachariar, History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 746; Kane, P.V., HSP, Pt. I p. 237; Raghavan V., Journal of Oriental Research (JOR), Madras, Vol. VIII (1934), p. 321.

CHAPTER 3

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF SANSKRIT DRAMA

In the Greek theory of Drama or Western theory of drama, Aristotle1 mentioned six parts of a Tragedy which determine its quality – namely ; Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle and song. Now these six parts were accepted as the six elements of drama.

In Sanskrit Dramaturgy we do not find any express mention of the essential elements of drama. Dhananjaya2 mentions three elements, namely, Vastu, Netā and Rasa in his Dasarupaka which distinguish a kind of play from the other kinds. These three elements were accepted as the essential elements of a play. We do not find any consensus of opinion about the elements of drama either in Western theory or Sanskrit theory. Roughly, plot, characterisation, Dialogue, Moral or Message and the stage direction are accepted as the elements of a drama.

Though in the works of Sanskrit Dramaturgy the essential elements of drama have not been enumerated, yet we may infer them from the plays in practice and the treatises of Bharata and Dhananjaya.

The first element to be noted about drama is that it is to be represented on the stage. It is visible3 and this distinguishes it from other forms of poetry. This fact has been equally stressed by Bharata and Dhananjaya, as Bharata writes, ‘we desire that type of entertainment which will be visible and audible both’. In the words of Dhananjaya ‘It is called Ruppa because it is seen’.

The second point to be stressed is that drama should have the element of entertainment.4 To please is its basic purpose, and this is verified by Bharata and Dhananjaya both. We see that every

Essential Elements of Sanskrit Drama

43

type of play whether it is serious or comic, supernatural or realistic, entertains us. This element of pleasing the audience has been in consideration of every play-wright.

Let us now regard Nāndī as the first essential element of Sanskrit drama, because no Sanskrit play begins without offering a prayer to gods and asking their blessings. We may say, rather, almost all the plays begin with an invocation to gods in one way or the other. It is also confirmed by the statement of Bharata,5 when he writes ‘first I have made Nāndī consisting of words of blessings, having eight pādas. Nāndī (Benediction) is so called because it must always include the blessings of gods, Brahmins and kings. It should be recited in medium tone, consisting of eight or twelve pādas.

We may take up the second essential element to be introduction. Before the actual commencement of the subject-matter of the play, an introduction is found in almost all the plays, though it may be very brief or lengthy. It may be composed by the poet or the Sūtradhāra. In introduction a brief account of the poet, and his work is given ; the subject-matter is suggested figuratively by employing the aṅgas of Vīthī or the talk between the actors. In introduction the curiosity of the audience is aroused. Bharata gives elaborate rules for introduction in his discussion of Pūrvaraṅga. In the opinion6 of Bharata and Dhanañjaya, after the performance of ceremonies of Pūrvaraṅga, another Actor, in the manner and dress alike to Sūtradhāra enters the stage and makes proper introduction for establishing the play at hand. He is in the form of divine or mortal or both as suited to the subject-matter of the play ; he pleases the audience with the sweet worded stanzas, and, then, after lauding the poet and his work, he hints at the subject-matter in hand in various ways, and, then, he goes out after introducing the play at hand. This applies not only to Sanskrit dramas but other dramas also. We find prologue in Western dramas too.

The third essential element we may take to be that the subject-matter in Sanskrit dramas is broadly divided into two: (a) to be represented on the stage, (b) to be indicated. It is not possible to represent all the matter on the stage. There is some portion of the story in each play, knowledge of which is essential for the link of the story. There are some incidents which have either happened in the past or distant lands, and it is not possible to show them all on the stage. Then there are some actions essential but not good

enough to be shown on the stage. All such matter is indicated by various devices. In Sanskrit dramaturgy, Arthopakṣepaka8 is the technical name to indicate all such extraneous matter. To indicate the matter, Viṣkambhakas and Praveśakas or five kinds of Arthopakṣepakas are used. Bharata and Dhananjaya both have given rules about the matter to be indicated9 and ways of indicating it. The most essential fact about this is that death10 of the hero is never shown in Sanskrit plays. Besides Sanskrit plays, in Western drama also, techniques were employed for the matter to be indicated.

The matter to be directly shown was divided into Acts.11 Whatever was interesting, leading to sentiment, involving Hero and his actions, or persons related to him, sweet, and having Bija and Bindu, was shown into Acts as Bharata and Dhananjaya have mentioned this and we find this in plays also. All the characters made their exit at the end of the Act. In English the plays are divided into acts and scenes, and the characters exit at the end of the Act.

The next most essential element, and without which no play can be constructed, is plot or the subject-matter. Aristotle gave it the top priority. In Sanskrit also, it was regarded as the body of the drama. And in the plot there are three essential elements, without which no drama will be complete. In a play, Avasthās12 are very essential ; every action of the play, leading to the attainment of final aim, must have these five stages in the order narrated, both in the views of Bharata and Dhananjaya. These Avasthās are five in number ; Beginning, Effort, Possibility of attainment, Certainty of attainment, and the attainment of the Phala. In the short plays all the avasthās may not be found for example in the one act plays of Bhāsa like Urubhaṅga and Dūtavākyam all the five avasthās are not available. But then Bhāsa has not strictly followed Bharata.

Another essential element of the play is Arthaprakrtis. Though their number is stated to be five, yet all may not be present in a play. But the Arthaprakrtis will be there alright. These Arthaprakrtis13 stated by Bharata and Dhananjaya include Bīja, Bindu, Patākā, Prakarī and Kārya. Patākā and Prakarī may not be found in every play but Bīja and Kārya will essentially be present in each play. Arthaprakrtis are the means in realising the object of the phala.

Essential Elements of Sanskrit Drama

45

After these two, Sandhis are the third essential element of the plot of the play. A play is divided into Sandhis following the stages. Though Sandhis14 are stated to be five, but plays may be lacking in them, and not having all the complete Sandhis, due to necessity of the play. Bharata and Dhanañjaya state five Sandhis : Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha, Vimarsa and Nirvahana. Mukha and Nirvahana are found even in one act plays. Thus these three—Avasthās, Arthaprakrtis and Sandhis are the basic elements of the plot of a play, though there may be variation in their number, and yet a play without them would be incomplete.

After plot comes the characterisation. It is also one of the most essential elements of a drama. A plot presupposes characterisation because the story of Vastu involves the characters. Plot consists of incidents and incidents cannot occur in vacuum, so characters are developed to make a story come to life. In Sanskrit ‘Hero’ includes all the characters, it should be understood to mean characterisation. ‘Hero’ includes heroine, her assistants, messengers, his assistants and his retinue. In Sanskrit there are imagined three15 varieties of characters depending them on the three fold human nature, i.e., (a) Uttama or Best (b) Madhyama or middle and (c) Adhama or low. In Sanskrit dramas we find a large variety of characters. Dhanañjaya regards ‘Netā’ as the distinguishing element of the play. In modern western plays much importance has been given to characterisation.

After characterisation, we come to the foremost essential element of the Sanskrit drama and that is Rasa or sentiment. In Sanskrit theory and practice its importance has been fully recognised. Its force has been accepted by western critics also. It holds a unique position. Rasa or sentiment is the soul or core of a play. It is rather the first principle of Sanskrit drama, and about it Bharata16 says ‘No Artha’ proceeds without Rasa. In seeing the enactment of a play, the spectator feels a sort of delightful aesthetic experience, unique in itself, under the influence of which his soul is elevated from the mundane reality of the world, and his soul relishes an experience totally different from the worldly experience. We may define it, roughly, as the emotional impact on the mind of the spectator. There are generally recognised eight sentiments in Sanskrit Dramaturgy but there may be more. Each play has one sentiment dominant in it and the other subservient to it. The sentiment17 depicted in the play is aroused in the heart of the

spectator, through the configuration of Vibhāvas, (Determinants),

Anubhāvas (consequents) and Vyabhicārins (Transitory psychological states).

The permanent psychological states, present in almost all

human beings, play a vital role in the arousal of the sentiment.

Now the arousal of the sentiment is mainly dependent upon

the successful production of the play. The production is closely

related with Vṛttis. The Vṛttis are the modes of behaviour or

styles of procedure. There are recognised, generally, four Vṛttis,18

namely Sāttvatī, Bhāratī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī in Sanskrit

Dramaturgy. A play may have any one of these Vṛttis or may have

more than one. The Vṛtti in the play will be dependent upon

its respective sentiment in the play. So as sentiment or Rasa

is the most important element of the drama, in the like manner,

Vṛtti becomes also an important essential element of the play, as it

is closely allied with sentiment.

On the one hand, Vṛtti is related with the sentiment, on the

other hand, it is closely related with the four types of representa-tion,19 recognised in Sanskrit Dramaturgy. In Sāttvatī, the Sāttvika

Abhinaya is prominent ; in Bhāratī, the representation of words or

Vācikābhinaya is prominent ; in Kaiśikī, the Āhāryābhinaya is

prominent and in Ārabhaṭī the āṅgika or the representation of

limbs is dominant. All these four Vṛttis consist of the representa-tion of words and limbs. With the help of four types of Vṛttis and

the stage, and these two elements help in the enjoyment of the

play and in the enjoyment of its important element, i.e., Rasa.

After these, comes the element of dialogue or speech.

Dialogue or speech is an essential element of the drama, because it

is through speech that the characterisation finds its expression. In

Sanskrit Dramaturgy and Drama, there are various modes20 of

speech. Dhananjaya21 has divided all the subject-matter of the play

into three, keeping in view the element of speech. This three-fold

division is ‘audible to all, audible to the limited and not audible.’

The speech audible to certain persons is again of two kinds,

Janāntika and Apavārita. There is a slight difference between these

two. In Janāntika22 a particular position of the hand is made,

called tripatākā. In Sanskrit drama, there is also another popular

technique of speech, often used in dramas called, ‘Ākāśabhāṣita’ or

‘speech made in the void or vacuum’. In this technique a character

utters questions and answers supposing another character to be

Essential Elements of Sanskrit Drama

present but not really present, and the speaker is shown as facing the sky. 'Inaudible or 'aśrāvyam' is that speech which a character utters to himself and which is not supposed to be heard. This 'Svagatabhāṣaṇa' or speaking to oneself is essential to reveal the inner thought or emotion or certain idea passing through the mind of the character concerned, and so the dramatist has to resort to this technique. We also find this mode of speech employed in English and other Western dramas in the form of soliloquy. In the element of speech we may include the text or recitation23 of the play. In Sanskrit dramas both the 'Saṃskṛta' and 'Prākṛta' recitations are used in the plays as the need be. In dialogue or speech of the characters Sanskrit dramas freely employ prose and verse equally well. Although not so much important, yet we may include modes of address also in speech.

After speech last but not the least important element is Bharata-Vākya or the concluding stanza of the Sanskrit drama. Though we do not find any separate mention of it either in the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata or in the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya, yet it is mentioned as a subdivision23 of the last segment, i.e., the Nirvahana Sandhi, in which a wish for the well-being of the nation, or the people, is expressed. We find almost every Sanskrit play ending with Bharatavākyam or 'Praśasti'; resembling to it is found the epilogue in Western plays.

So in brief we may say that, Prologue or Prastāvanā, including Nāndī, Prarocanā and Āmukha, division of subject matter into two, Acts and Arthopakṣepakas or in other words, worth representation and not worth representation, Plot or Vastu including Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and Sandhis, Netā or characterisation including all types of characters, Rasa or sentiment, and related with it Vṛttis and Abhinaya or representation, speech or dialogue and the Epilogue including Kāvyasaṃhāra or attainment of phala and Praśasti, the prayer for the general well-being, are the essential elements of Sanskrit drama. Without them a Sanskrit drama seems to be incomplete. Though not expressly mentioned in any work of Sanskrit Dramaturgy as such, yet they may be regarded as the elements essentially present in Sanskrit drama, and these elements include the essential elements of Western drama also.

48

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

REFERENCES

1. Aristotle, Poetics, translated by S.H. Butcher, entitled Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts, IV ed., Book IV, 1450, pp. 25 ff.

2. Dhananjaya, Dasarupaka, B.I.K. II ‘Vastu Netā Rasas-teṣām bhedakah’.

3. Bharata, N.S., Supra, Int. Ref. I Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I., k. 7 Rūpam dṛśyatayocyate.

4. Bharata, N.S., Ch. I, k. 11, 114.

5. पूर्व कृतो मया नान्दी हूँ याशोर्वचचनसंयुता । अष्टांगपदसंयुक्ता विचित्रा वेदनिर्मिता । आशीर्वचनसंयुक्ता नित्यं यसमात्प्रयुज्यते । देवद्विजनृपादीनां तन्मानानन्दीति संज्ञिता ॥ सूत्रधारः पठेत्तत्र मध्यमं स्वरमाश्रितः । नान्दी पठ्येतदौषं स्यात्ततो नाट्यमवलोक्यते ॥

भ., ना., शा., अ. 1, का. 56, 57: अ. 5-का. 24, 104

6. Bharata, N.S., Ch. V, k. 162-169 ; Ch. XX, k. 30, 31 Dhananjaya, D.R., Book III, 2-8, 21, 22

7. द्वेधा विभागः कर्तव्यः सर्वस्यापीह वस्तुनः । सूच्यमेव भवत् किंचिद् दृश्यश्रव्यमथापरम् ॥

घ., द. रू., प्रथम प्रकाश, 56, 57 ।

8. अर्थोपक्षेपकैः सूच्यं पंचभिः प्रतिपादयेत् । विष्कम्भचूलिकांकास्यांकोतारतम्रवेशकैः ।

घ., द, रू., प्र. प्र., का. 58

9. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 26, 35-38, Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 59-63, B. III, 34, 35.

10. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 39, Dhananjaya, D.R., B. III 36a.

11. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 13-25, Dhananjaya, D.R., B. III 30-31, 36-37.

12. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 19

संशये फलयागे तु व्यापारः कारणस्य यः । तस्यानुपूर्व्या विज्ञेया पंचावस्था: प्रयोक्तृभिः ॥

Essential Elements of Sanskrit Drama

49

प्रारम्भरच प्रयत्नश्च तथा प्राप्तेशच संभवः ।

नियतता च फलप्राप्तिः फलयोगश्च पंचमः ॥

भ. ना. शा., अ-19-7, 8

13. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XIX, 20-21, Dhananjaya, D.R., B.I, 18.

14. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 22-24.

पूर्णसंधिश्च कर्तव्यं हीनसंध्यापि वा पुनः ।

नियमात् पूर्णसंधि स्याद्धीनसंध्यथकारणात् ॥

भ., ना. शा.,अ. 19, का 17, 37

15. समासतस्तु प्रकृतिस्त्रिविधा परिकीर्तिता ।

पुरुषाणामथ स्त्रिॊणामुत्तमाधममधयमा ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 24-का. 1

ज्येष्ठमध्याधमत्वेन सर्वेषां च त्रिरूपता ।

तारतम्यादथाक्तितानां गुणानां वात्तिर्भाविता ।

घ., द. रू. प्र. 1, का. 45, 46

16. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, p. 272 ‘Na hi resādr̥te Kaścidarthah pravartate’.

17. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, p. 272, Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 7, B. IV, 1

18. तद्यापारात्मक वृत्तिश्चतुर्था ।

घ., द, रू., द्वि. प्र. 47-62

नाट्यवेदसमुत्पन्नावागंगाभिनयात्मक

एकमेता बध्र्द्वेता वृत्तयो नाट्यसंश्रया ।

भ, ना. शा., अ. 1, का. 41, 42, अ. 20, 24-74

19. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. VIII, 9-10

20. Ibid, N.Ś., XXV, 86-94

21. Dhananjaya D.R., B. I, 63-67

22. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XIV, 5 ; Dhananjaya, B. II, 64-65.

23. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XIX, 104 ‘Nr̥padeśapraśāntiśca praśastirabhidhīyate’. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 54, ‘Praśasti śubhaśaṃsanam’.

CHAPTER 4

THE TEN FORMS OF SANSKRIT DRAMA

Bharata1, the earliest extant author on Sanskrit Dramaturgy, uses the word ‘Daśarūpavikalpanam’, while discussing the divisions of Sanskrit drama into ten forms. This seems to have inspired Dhananjaya, the next important author in the line, to designate his treatise as ‘Daśarūpakam’.

Abhinavagupta2, the famous exponent of Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, takes the compound ‘Daśarūpavikalpanam’ as a genitive Tatpuruṣa one and explains it ‘Daśānām Rūpakānām Vikalpanam’, including under the term ‘Daśarūpa not only the matter which is to be presented on the stage but also the works which contain that matter. In his opinion the view of those persons who take ‘Daśarūpam’ to mean Kāvyam and who try to exclude other forms and interpret it as the assumption of characters etc. is just being laborious. Other forms arising out of the combination of major ten forms, such as Rāsaka, Toṭaka, Saṭṭaka etc. mentioned by Kohala can be understood as subdivisions on the model of Nāṭikā and need no separate mention.

The term ‘Rūpa’3 used in Daśarūpavikalpanam and Daśarūpakam has been explained by the commentator of Bharata and the author of Daśarūpakam identically. In their opinion it signifies the visibility of the subject matter However, Dhananjaya4 goes one step further and explains the term Rūpaka to signify a thing where the visibility of the object to be witnessed by the audience is imposed or assumed by the characters, and, therefore, the works depicting that subject-matter are named as Rūpakas. While explaining the statement of Dhananjaya, Dhanika5 concludes that the terms ‘Nāṭyam’, ‘Rūpam’ and ‘Rūpakam’ are synonyms and refer to one and the same thing. These three terms also indicate the nature of the actions included therein.

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

Of course the view of Abhinavagupta is most logical and convincing. Rūpa means the matter which is seen by the eyes and the works containing that matter are called Rūpāṇi or Rūpakas. Dhanañjaya and his followers may be held right in holding Rūpaka6 to be assumption only to this extent that as the matter which is seen, is represented by the actors, so the works containing that matter and represented by the actors are called Rūpakas. But it is only a subsidiary reason. The main reason in calling them Rūpakas is that they consist of the matter which is seen. We shall now deal with the number of the dramatic forms which has been mainly restricted to ten by the earlier dramaturgists. Bharata does not provide any reason for limiting Rūpakas to number ten. After describing two major forms, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, he describes Nāṭikā which is a combination of the chief characteristics of the two major forms in a much abridged form. Despite this the number with regard to the major forms remains the same. It can safely be concluded by this treatment of Bharata that there might arise other minor forms as a result of the combination of major ones but they are not to be treated as independent forms.

Abhinavagupta7 referring to the views of others about the number of Rūpakas who had tried to raise it, finally discards their views and abides by the dictum laid down by Bharata. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika are strict about it holding it to be tenfold only in its pure form as Nāṭikā is a mixed form. Following Bharata, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika also discuss Nāṭikā while enumerating the ten forms of the Rūpakas8. The ten forms have been distinguished from Dombi, Śrigadita etc. which are supposed to be based on the emotional states (Nrtyam) by Dhanañjaya. Dhanañjaya9 maintains Nrtya (Pantomime), based on emotional states, as quite different and in his view Nrtya and Nrtta are the auxiliaries in a Nāṭaka. Keith10 approves the same view when he writes that further light is shown on the nature of drama (Nāṭya) by the discrimination of it from dance (Nrtta) and mimetic art (Nrtya) which united with song and speech serve to make up the drama. The dance is based on time and rhythm, the mimetic art is concerned with representing the feelings or emotions (bhāva) while the essence of the drama is the sentiment which it evokes in the spectator, a fact which places it on a higher plane than either of its handmaidens. But there may be dramas in which these auxiliaries take first place, and on this fact is based the distinction between the primary forms and the secondary

forms, i.e. Uparūpakas. Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Aṅka, Vyāyoga, Bhāṇa, Samavakāra, Vīthī Prahasana, Ḍima and Īhāmṛga are ten11 primary forms.

Having recounted the names of ten forms Bharata12 proceeds to discuss the essential constituent elements of these forms. He regards Vṛttis as the mother of all poetic works, from which the ten kinds of representational compositions are evolved with respect to their production. In his own words just as the musical notes (Svara) constitute scales (grāmas) due to the śrutis together with their Jātis, so the varieties of plays come into existence due to varieties of styles. The two major kinds, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa are made up of all the styles and they include varieties of situation. The other eight forms, Bhāṇa, Samavakāra, Vīthī, Īhāmṛga, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, Vyāyoga, Ḍima and Prahasana should not include the graceful style.

Abhinavagupta13 criticizes the views of those who apply this statement to Daśarūpa only and not to other poetical works. Abhinava maintains that although Vṛttis are like mothers of all poetic compositions, whether representational or non-representational, yet recognising their representational ability, the plays are said to be caused by Vṛttis, as they are made directly visible to the eyes. He further elaborates that to denote the peculiar characteristic it is stated that just as the Grāmas differ in music from the other Grāma, though the notes are common, because of their prominence, shortness, completeness or incompleteness, similarly Vṛttis being prominent or otherwise in the ten forms, one kind of play differs from the other kind. And the distinction of the Rūpakas is based on Vṛtti, being either complete in its aṅgas or lacking in them. From Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa having complete Vṛttis and their aṅgas, are imagined other kinds of Rūpakas, lacking in Vṛttis or their aṅgas. The Rūpakas not narrated, here, may also arise. The particular ten Rūpakas, arising out of the Vṛttis are discussed here just to set the example. While Bharata and Abhinava accept Vṛttis as the basis of distinction of the forms of drama, Dhananjaya and Dhanika hold Vastu, (subject matter), Netā (Hero) and Rasa (sentiment) as the elements14 which distinguish one form of drama from its other forms. We shall now take up for our discussion the ten primary forms of drama one by one.

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

53

NĀṬAKA

The foremost among the ten primary forms is Nāṭaka15.

It is a full-fledged drama. Bharata16 mentions its chief characteristics to be :

1. that its subject matter or Vastu is Prakhyāta, i.e. well-known far and wide.

2. Its Hero or Nāyaka is Prakhyāta, i.e. well-known and Udātta, i.e. exalted.

3. It deals with the character of the persons born in the family of royal seers and having divine protection.

4. It consists of many achievements, and properties of wealth, love etc.

5. It is rich in Acts and introductory scenes.

6. It deals with the behaviour of kings, caused by their joys and sorrows, consisting of actions variously revealing many sentiments and psychological states.

7. In Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa there are five to ten Acts.

8. In a Nāṭaka Praveśakas or introductory scenes are employed for many purposes. Bharata also states the rules about the breaking up of the Acts in a Nāṭaka.

9. Battle, Loss of a Kingdom, death, siege of a city and such like things are not to be directly shown on the stage, they should be indicated through Praveśakas.

10. The death or killing of the leading Hero should not be devised either in Act or introductory scene, either his flight or capture or negotiation should be depicted.

11. In his opinion a Nāṭaka or Prakaraṇa should not contain a large number of attendants, in accordance with the sentiment. The men of action should be four or five and the action of the drama should be like the tip of a cow’s tail, all the exalted situations should be placed at the end.

12. The last segment, Nirvahaṇa in all dramatic compositions should always contain the Marvellous sentiment.

This is in brief how Bharata has described the Nāṭaka. We shall now discuss the views of Abhinavagupta in this regard. In the light of Abhinava’s17 interpretation Nāṭaka depicts the subject-matter traditionally or mythologically well-known, which signifies

the character, the action and the place. The word exalted ‘Udātta’ should be understood to mean a Hero suitable for the Heroic sentiment and, therefore, all the four types of heroes, i.e. Dhīralalita, Dhīraprasānta, Dhīroddhata and Dhīrodātta should be understood by it. He does not accept the view of those, who, on the basis of Bharata’s statement made at another place that Gods should be known as Dhīroddhata, kings as Dhīralalita, chieftains of army and chief ministers as Dhīrodātta, business men and Brāhmaṇas as Dhīraprasānta, consider Dhīralalita as the only fit Hero for the Nāṭaka. Abhinava forwards the argument that Janaka etc. or Rāma etc. are not Dhīralalita but Dhīrodātta and Bharata’s general rule mentioned there about the three kinds of nature should not be applied in case of the special rule which clearly mentions Udātta and well-known person, born in royal family as the Hero of the Nāṭaka. His further view is that the divine should not be described as the leading Hero in a Nāṭaka, rather divine should be given subsidiary roles as Patākā hero or Prakari Hero. In the case of divine, being the Hero, the draw-back will be that there will be difficulty in the mutual communication or rapport of the heart of the spectator. Though the heroine may be a divine one, like Urvaśī, because in that case, incidents involving her, are covered by the incidents of the Hero. In his opinion, the ultimate phala of a Nāṭaka should not be depicted as renouncing all and taking to asceticism. He provides the plea for the depiction of the actions of the kings because it impresses upon the audience a feeling of submission, through the manifold actions reflected in the histrionic representations of the actors. In his opinion, whatever causes distaste and obstructs the cognition of enjoyment should not be described in a Nāṭaka, and this is the reason that the behaviour of the contemporaries is not a fit subject for portrayal. Abhinava does not attach much value to the view of those persons who distinguish between the types of death and suggest that a particular type of death can be shown on the stage In his own view death is equal in every situation and is not fit to be represented on the stage. Explaining the statement of Bharata, he widens the scope of ‘Mahājanaparivāra,’ including under it the action performed by many persons, or causing averse feelings in many persons. He has also quoted various interpretations of the ‘tip of the cow’s tail’ phrase, some taking it to mean beginning with subtle events, others meaning by it some actions to be finished in the

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

55

beginning, some going upto Pratimukha, some upto Avamarśa and some reaching upto the end.

While in Abhinava's view gods are not fit to be the leading heroes of the Nāṭaka, in the opinion18 of Dhananjaya and Dhanika,

in the principal plot of the Nāṭaka which is well-known, the hero may be a great king born in a renowned family or may be a god (Divya). Moreover, in the view of Dhananjaya the Hero of a Nāṭaka is endowed with attractive qualities, is exalted (Dhīrodātta), glorious, eager for fame, a preserver of three Vedas, a ruler of the world, and has great energy.

Dhananjaya regards Nāṭaka as the root (Prakṛti) of other dramatic forms. In his view, after determining upon the beginning and end and its division into five parts, the sandhis should be broken into small sections.

Those Aṅgas should be employed which are not inconsistent with the main plot. Though Bharata has not mentioned any rules about the sentiment, Dhananjaya, in mentioning them, becomes more assertive.

One sentiment either the Heroic or the Erotic, should be the principal sentiment, and it should be furthered by means of consequents, determinants, the permanent state and the transitory states, occasionally taken up and dropped.

Neither the subject-matter should be made disconnected too much by the excess of sentiment, nor the sentiment be overwhelmed with matters relating to the subject-matter or its embellishments.

Dhananjaya follows Bharata in recommending Marvellous sentiment in the conclusion, and in forbidding unpleasant situations to be represented on the stage.

He also abides by Bharata in the exclusion of the death of the leading Hero, but he adds, whatever is necessary should not be left, which is interpreted by Dhanika as that the killing of the leading hero should not be indicated through Praveśakas also and the offerings to gods, ancestors etc. should be done somewhere, if necessary.

Dhananjaya and Dhanika followed Bharata in respect to the description of Acts etc.

Though it is not mentioned by Bharata but in the line of Abhinava, Dhananjaya makes it a rule that whatever in it (i.e. in the original story) is at all unsuited to the character of the hero or inconsistent with the sentiment is to be omitted or to be arranged in some other way.

To take Dhanika, as for example the killing of Vālin by deception is left out by Māyurāja in Udāttarāghava ; in Mahāviracarita, when he comes to kill Rāma, inspired with the love of Rāvaṇa, is killed by the later and thus devised otherwise.

Or to take a better example, Kālidāsa in his Abhijñānaśākuntala envelops

the forsaking of Śakuntalā with the curse of Durvāsā, thus exalting the character of the Hero, and not putting the blame upon him.

When we scrutinise the precepts of Bharata and Dhananjaya and their commentators, one fact is limelighted that a commoner has no place to be the Hero of a Sanskrit Nāṭaka. Kings were recommended to be the heroes of a Nāṭaka, because they being above us, the common level, their joys and sorrows appeal more to the heart. Persons, belonging to a higher rank, raise us from our common level and ordinary life, and liberating the audience from the sordid reality take them to the realm of poetry.

It is also right that the Hero of a Nāṭaka should be well-known and belonging to the past, because, then, the undesired feelings like jealousy etc. do not arise, which may in the case of heroes belonging to the present time. Most of the Sanskrit Nāṭakas follow the precepts of Bharata about the subject-matter and the hero. For example, all the three heroes in the Nāṭakas of Kālidāsa are well-known and exalted.

In the Nāṭakas of Bhavabhūti, Rāma is the Hero who is a super-human being, rather a god incarnated in human form.

We find that in Sanskrit a Nāṭaka is the most complete form of drama. It is comprised of five Sandhis, Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis. In addition, it also contains Episodes, Episodical incidents, Episodical indications, appropriate to the plot. It employs subdivisions of Sandhis and many other embellishments.

In it all the sentiments, psychological states and actions find their way of expression. Its heroes are generally exalted, but there may be other kinds of heroes also. It deals with the character of kings, known far and wide, for their bravery, good qualities, and lineage.

It is divided into Acts at least having five in number, conforming to five Sandhis. The matter not presentable is indicated through explanatory devices. Finally a Nāṭaka is complete in Vṛttis and other things.

PRAKARANA

Bharata19, distinguishing Prakaraṇa from Nāṭaka, mentions that in a Prakaraṇa a poet devises (Prakurute) an original Vastu and Hero by his own intellect and works up its elaboration. In it a playwright constructs a plot with an original seed and a hero not coming out of Ṛṣis works to carry on the action. Whatever has been narrated about the subject-matter, phala, Vṛttis and their varieties

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

in respect of a Nāṭaka, is equally to be applied to the Prakaraṇa also. Another factor distinguishing it from Nāṭaka it that varied exploits of Brāhmaṇas, merchants, ministers, priests, officers of the king and leaders of caravan are depicted in it. He emphasises the fact that it does not have an exalted hero, nor it contains the divine character, nor the enjoyment of pleasures by a king and is mainly concerned with the men outside (the royal palace). A play of this type should include slaves, Viṭa and head of the banker's guild and should contain incidents arising from the attendance of courtezans as well as exploits of women of good family not very well-known. He uses the term ‘Mandakulastrīṇām’ which has been interpreted differently. In the family circle and discussion of family matters of a minister, head of banker's guild, Brāhmaṇa, priest, leader of caravan, a courtezan should not be present. If a prakaraṇa is having a courtezan as the heroine, her meeting with the women of good family should not be devised, and if having good women, then courtezans should not be there. Thus Bharata forbids the encounter of the two, but he modifies the rule and states, if out of necessity, their meeting occurs, then their language and manners should be kept undistorted. In Prakaraṇa, Viṣkambhaka should be employed by middle characters, adopting sanskritic speech and should be concise in matter like Praveśaka.

In Abhinava's20 opinion the final object or the ultimate aim and the story leading to that aim is devised by the poet's inventive power. In it the story may be taken in its crude form, from other previous works, but the poet presents it more beautifully and skillfully with the help of his imagination. He follows Bharata in not commending an exalted hero for a Prakaraṇa and in his view, Brāhmaṇas etc. should not be depicted enjoying the pleasures appropriate to kings. He brings out the contra-distinction of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa more clearly when he writes that there is a slave in lieu of Kañcukin, viṭa in place of Vidūṣaka, Śreṣṭhi instead of Amātya. It contains the Śṛṅgāra caused by a courtezan and in it the actions of women born in good family are depicted in a small measure. He refers to the interpretation of his teachers also who take ‘Mandakulastrīṇām’ to mean the conduct of women born in mandakula (middle class), i.e., good families not very well known. In his opinion where the family matter, i.e. part of the Itivrtta dealing with human object related to minister etc. is discussed, there a courtezan should not

be shown as the heroine. But in the case of Viṭa etc. as the heroes she can be the heroine in domestic matters also. He also excludes the meeting of the two. Thus two kinds of pure Prakaraṇas having women of good family as the heroines and having courtezans as the heroines are mentioned in the case of Śreṣṭhī, minister etc. It is Saṅkīrṇa or mixed in the case of Viṭa etc. as it contains both a courtezan and woman of good family as the heroine. Abhinava makes Bharata's statement about their encounter more clear. In his view if the meeting of both is to be depicted, then both should be depicted with their appropriate language and conduct, as for example, the language of woman of good family is uncontaminated Saurasenī and Sanskrit, is that of the courtezan; the behaviour of respectable ladies is modest, while in a courtezan it is contrary. He accepts twentyone varieties of Prakaraṇa.

Both²¹ Dhananjaya and Dhanika in line with Bharata, accept the action of the Prakaraṇa to be invented and taking place on earth and its hero to be either a minister or Brāhmaṇa or a merchant who is self controlled and calm, undergoes misfortune and has virtue, pleasure and wealth as his chief objects. All the rest, Sandhis, Praveśakas, Rasa etc. are as in the Nāṭaka. Dhanika adds that in Prakaraṇa the success of the object should be impeded with calamity.

In Dhananjaya's view the heroine of the hero in a Prakaraṇa may be of two kinds, the woman born in a good family and a courtezan. In some plays only the woman of good family is the heroine, in some the courtezan, and in some others both may be the heroines. The woman of good family stays indoors, so she is Ābhyantarā. i.e. she is the heroine at home; courtezan stays outside the home, so she is Bāhyā or public, and the two should not cross each other. Bharata and Dhananjaya perhaps mean to say that in a Prakaraṇa a woman of good family is the heroine at home, and outside the home a courtezan is the heroine and the two should not cross their boundaries. Depending upon the heroines, the Prakaraṇa becomes of three kinds, the Saṅkīrṇa (mixed) variety of Prakaraṇa abounds in rogues. Dhanika takes for the example of these three types, Taraṅgadattā, Puṣpadūtikā and Mṛcchakaṭikā.

Thus see that by the consensus of all, the Hero of a Prakaraṇa is not of the exalted type and the subject-matter is devised by the poet's own imagination, or renovated, making it more powerful. The subject-matter being invented, a Prakaraṇa deals with the behaviour and conduct of middle class characters. In contrast

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

59

to Nāṭaka, it is not based on realistic grounds, rather it is a drama based on realistic grounds. No divine characters are to be presented in it. It deals with the human objects of worldly persons. Its heroine may be a woman of good family, or a courtesan or both. Generally, the two do not encounter each other, even if they do, they resort to their respective conduct and language. In other respects like Sandhis etc., if follows the laws of the construction of the Nāṭaka. It offers a larger variety of characters. We may agree with the views of Keith that Prakaraṇa is a bourgeois comedy, a comedy of manners, of a rank below royalty.

NĀṬIKĀ

Following the sequence enumerated before by Bharata, there ought to come the description of other forms of Rūpakas, but Bharata after describing Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa discusses Nāṭikā as it arises from the combination of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. Bharata, after stating that the playwrights should make another kind of play, either well-known or devised as the case may be with the combination of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, mentions the chief characteristics of Nāṭikā. In his opinion, it is distinct from the two—the Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa. Its plot should be invented; the hero should be a king. It should be based on an incident relating to music or affairs of the harem. It contains an abundance of female characters, has four acts, graceful gestures as its soul, well arranged constituents, many dances, songs and recitations and love's enjoyment. It should also be known to contain royal manners, anger and its pacification and pride, and should have hero, his queen, female messengers and the attendants as its dramatis personae.

Abhinava agrees with Bharata and adds that it is arranged in Kaiśikī style and all the four aṅgas of Kaiśikī are completely well arranged in it. The enjoyment of love and the attainment of kingdom is the main phala in it. If the king's behaviour is depicted in respect to other heroines, then the anger, its pacification, cheating etc. should be depicted as pertaining to the first heroine. Female messengers are common to both (i.e. king and his queen). All other Sandhis and their aṅgas are like before, meaning like Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. Here Abhinava deviates from Bharata as the latter does not say anything about Sandhis.

Abhinava quotes others' views too. In the view of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa as quoted by him Nāṭikā has six padas. Śrīśanikuka enumerates it to be of eight kinds, because the queen and the maiden become of four kinds on the basis of well-known and not well-known and the two types of maidens, belonging to harem and music. In Ghaṇṭaka's view, this much is dependent on Nāṭaka that the hero should be a king, not that he must be well-known, hence due to that twofold difference other eight types become sixteen. Some others opine that its Vastu, being invented is taken from Prakaraṇa, its Hero, being the king, is taken from Nāṭaka. In the opinion of some Nāṭikā differs from Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. Nāṭaka may be taken to denote the 'Rūpakamātra'–that is to be represented, to show delicacy in it, it is termed in female gender. Thus, there may be Prakaraṇikā also, prominent in Kaiśikī where business-men of the guild etc. may be the Hero. Unlike his usual manner Abhinava is silent here and does not defy the above views of others, so it may be inferred that he broadly accepted the many divisions.

Dhanañjaya25 defines the Nāṭikā for the purpose of disposing of the other kinds of drama that are mixed. Dhanika26 writes in his Avaloka that some people by a fallacious interpretation of Bharata's statement, accept Prakaraṇikā also, but that is wrong because its definition and characteristics have not been stated by Bharata. Moreover, there is the absence of distinction, because the characteristics of the two are common and the Vastu, Rasa and the Hero in Prakaraṇikā are not different from Prakaraṇa. Nāṭikā has been defined to show the rule that among the mixed plays, Nāṭikā should be devised. In Dhanañjaya's view, in a Nāṭikā Vastu is taken from the Prakaraṇa and the hero is taken from the Nāṭaka who is renowned and Dhīralalita; the principal sentiment is the Erotic with its various characteristics. Dhanañjaya may be said to follow Bharata as the latter has mentioned its Vastu to be invented, and its Hero a king and its having the characteristics of both Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. Though Bharata has not expressly mentioned that its Hero should be renowned and Dhīralalita, but elsewhere he has accepted a king to be Dhīralalita and Dhanañjaya mentions it expressly. Dhanika elaborates the point that the invented subject-matter is the characteristic of the Prakaraṇa, well-known king as the hero is the characteristic of the Nāṭaka. In the view of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, if on the basis of the

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

number of females and the Acts to be employed in a Nāṭikā, the divisions are considered, then this would lead to innumerable varieties, and, therefore, it is advisable to limit the form of Nāṭikā to one only. Dhanika opines that by mention of it in feminine gender, abundance of women is justified in it, and its having four Acts is also justified because of the presence of Kaiśikī Vṛtti and the number of its aṅgas, and also because Āramarśa is scanty in it. Then Dhananjaya mentions its special points to be that the elder queen is experienced, born of a royal family, grave, proud, and the meeting of the hero with another heroine is with difficulty and under her control. The heroine to be attained is like the queen, i.e. born of a royal family etc., and is inexperienced, divine in beauty and very attractive. The heroine comes near the hero because of her relation with the harem and the like; through hearing and seeing her, newly awakened passion of the hero arises in her in its regular stages; the hero in it is apprehensive through the fear of the queen. In the view of Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Nāṭikā contains four acts having four aṅgas of Kaiśikī, each Act appropriately having the subdivisions of Kaiśikī. In mentioning the special points Dhananjaya cannot be said as deviating from Bharata. What Bharata has mentioned in general that it contains the behaviour and the manner of the kings, Dhananjaya elaborates that, making them special characteristics of the Nāṭikā. Dhananjaya's description of Nāṭikās seems to be influenced by the examples of Harṣa's Nāṭikās. It appears that when he mentioned the characteristics of Nāṭikā, he had, obviously, before him the plays like Ratnāvalī and Priyadarśikā.

Of course, looking impartially, the description of Nāṭikā after Prakaraṇa among the ten major forms of drama, seems some what out of place and its name has not been mentioned when the names of ten forms have been counted. M. Ghosh27 may be held right in his assumption in taking Nāṭikā as an interpolation, because Haas8 also thinks its description out of place amidst the ten forms of drama. It becomes proved from Bharata's39 own statement also when he says ‘I have spoken briefly the characteristics of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, next, now, I speak of Samavakāra with its characteristics’. But if it is an interpolation, it must have been inserted long before, because Abhinava has defended its description and has commented upon it. Abhinava and Dhanika hold the view that its description is to show other mixed plays. Thus,

Nāṭikā, while combining the characteristics of the two major forms, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, is distinct from them. It has generally the king as the hero who is well-known, the story is either invented or innovated, and it contains generally queens and maidens. Queens are jealous and first, but ultimately they sanction the nuptial of the maiden with the Hero. It abounds in anger, its appeasement, intrigues, songs and dances and soft representation. It has for its object the attainment of a maiden accompanied with the gain of the kingdom. We may call it a Romantic comedy.

SAMAVAKĀRA

Bharata30, now, discusses Samavakāra. In his view a Samavakāra should have exploits of gods and asuras as its subject-matter and its Hero a well-known and exalted. It is to consist of three Acts presenting three kinds of deception, three kinds of tumultuous action and three kinds of love. It abounds in twelve heroes, i.e. the number of heroes may reach twelve, and its duration is eighteen Nāḍikās. Bharata further discusses its arrangement of Acts and the distribution of Nāḍikās. The first Act should have a duration of twelve Nāḍikās (4 hours and 48 minutes) and should contain laughter, excitement, deception and Vīthī The second Act should also be similar having a duration of four Nāḍikās (one hour thirty six minutes), and the third Act should contain the conclusion of the subject having duration of two Nāḍikās (48 minutes). By Nādikā he means the half of a Muhūrta. The duration of Nādikā should be employed in the production of Acts in accordance with the Śāstra. He, further, elaborates that in composing such a play, the different Acts should be made to have different objects and these objects should be loosely related. Now he defines three kinds of excitement, three kinds of deception and three kinds of love. Excitement of three kinds may be caused by battle or flood (lit. water), storm (wind) or fire, and elephant at large, or by the siege of the city. The three kinds of deception that create joy or sorrow may be due to a devised plan, acts of gods (Daivavaśād), or that brought about by the adversaries. Three kinds of love to be presented through different actions are: that in relation to Dharma (duty), that related to Artha, i.e. actuated by material gain, and that related to Kāma, i.e. actuated by passion. When sticking to duty one's desired well-being is accomplished in many ways by regular austerities, it is to be known as Dharmasṛṅgāra. Artha Sṛṅgara

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

is of various kinds because of its love for the gain of the different objects. Kāmaśṛṅgāra includes the education of a maiden and also gentle or excited love affair of a man with a woman. The metres, as stated by Bharata; to be used in Samavakāra have been interpreted differently. Following the simple interpretation Uṣṇik, Gāyatrī and other metres, complex in construction are to be employed in Samavakāra, while according to others they should not be used, Sragdharā etc. should be employed. Thus in the view of Bharata a Samavakāra should be composed having many sentiments.

Abhinavagupta31 pleads for the taking up of Samavakāra. In his view, sequence is not for the purpose of counting and this sequence has been broken by the description of Nāṭikā. As in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, there is abundance of production, so it is in Samavakāra because of the representation of ‘Trivarga’ (i.e. three human objects). Other forms of plays do not contain means leading to Trivarga as they are one Act plays, Dima has four Acts, but it has been described afterwards, its reason will be discussed later on. As the Samavakāra produces ‘Trivarga’ and contains many acts like Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa, so its description with all its characteristics is appropriate after describing Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa. Abhinava further opines that the term Prakhyāta has been used to exclude the gods and asuras who are not very well-known and who are described in story-books like Bṛhatkathā etc. and through imagination. Although gods are violent in comparison to man, yet in comparison to themselves on the basis of prominence of gravity (Gāmbhīryam), they have been stated to be exalted and the like. In his view each Act of the three Acts contains Vidrava etc., three in number. He refers to the difference of opinion about ‘twelve heroes’ mentioned by Bharata. In the opinion of some, each act contains twelve heroes, while in the view of others, there are four persons in every Act, Hero, his antagonist and their assistants, and thus they become twelve in three Acts and the number twelve is to denote the characters collectively, Abhinava follows Bharata in the arrangement of three Acts. He etymologically defines Samavakāra as the play where the object is scattered and connected. And the Acts in it are not interrelated to each other. He adds of his own accord, while interpreting three kinds of tumult, that three kinds of tumult include, tumult caused by inanimate, caused by the other, i.e. animates and caused by both. Water and wind are stated to exemplify the tumult caused by the inanimates. Elephant exemplifies

64

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

the tumult caused by the animates, and the siege of a city serves as the example of the tumult caused by both. His interpretation of the three kinds of deception is also somewhat new. He interprets the ‘Vastugatakramavihita’ deception as the deception wrought by intellect only, which is produced at the time when the agent who is to reap the fruit thinks over the ways and means and acts upon them, and in the process is deceived by the deceiver. But where the deceived person is himself guilty that deception is used by others. The third is caused by ‘daiva’ where it does not cause somebody’s joy and other’s sorrow and where the both (hero and the enemy) are equally engaged in phala but one is progressing, the other decreasing. Explaining the three kinds of Śṛṅgāra Abhinava adds that by the use of the locative case in ‘Dharme’, ‘Arthe’, ‘Kāme’, the cause and effect of three kinds of Śṛṅgāra is mentioned. Thus where in the attainment of the heroine Dharma is either the cause or the result to be attained, that is Dharmaśṛṅgāra. Thus should be considered in the case of Artha and Kāma also. By Śṛṅgara is meant the object of Śṛṅgāra. The doubt may be posed, how the desire for Artha is found in gods. In the opinion of some, it is possible in Gandharvas and Yakṣas etc., in the view of others gods may have the desire for that which is worth desiring.

Abhinava provides the reasons for its lack of Kaiśikī. Samavakāra lacks in Kaiśikī as it does not contain songs, dance etc. To support this statement, he refers to the view of his teachers, that Kaiśikī cannot be said to be present merely because of the presence of Kāma, as it is not possible in the persons of terrible nature. Abhinava concludes that persons of devout nature, devotees of gods get delight out of this type of production and the persons of not very keen intellect, like women, children and fools are enraptured by the depiction of tumult etc.

In the view of Dhanañjaya32 and Dhanika, Āmukha should be done in Samavakāra in the manner of a Nāṭaka. Its vastu (subject-matter) is well-known, belonging to gods and asuras and it contains all the sandhis except Vimarśa. It has all the Vṛttis but Kaiśikī faintly developed. Dhanañjaya also mentions its twelve heroes, to be well-known and exalted, all of them attaining their Phala separately. It contains all the sentiments with much of the Heroic, as in the churning of the ocean. In its three Acts it presents three kinds of deception, three kinds of love and three kinds of excitement. Dhanañjaya follows Bharata in this respect and in mentioning

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

its sandhi etc., but he differs from Bharata when he mentions its twelve heroes to be well-known and exalted, and having separate object, because Bharata is silent over this point. Morcover, it does not become clear either from Bharata or Dhananjaya or Abhinava- gupta whether each Act is to present three kinds of deception, three kinds of love and three kinds of excitement, or each act should present one kind of love, one kind of tumult and one kind of deception.

Dhananjaya deviates from Bharata in the arrangements of Acts. While Bharata mentions first Act having Prahasana, Vidrava, deception and Vithi, and is silent over sandhis to be employed in it, Dhananjaya mentions two sandhis in it (First Act). Bharata has defined Nādikā as half of the Muhūrtā, and Abhinava has used the term Ghatikā in place of Nālikā, Dhananjaya defines Nālikā, as consisting of two ghatikās. He, following Bharata, also mentions briefly three kinds of deception : caused by the nature of the object, by supernatural acts (daiva) and by enemies. He further mentions in brief, the three types of Vidrava, resulting from the siege of a city, from a battle, violent winds, fires and the like. He agrees with Bharata in mentioning the three kinds of love. He forbids Bindu and Pravesaka in it, while Bharata is silent. In his view, one may employ angas of Vithi in it, as in the Prahasana, according to one's requirements.

In Dhanika's33 opinion, which is akin to that of Abhinava, this type of play is called samavakāra, because various themes or objects are strewn in it. Dhanika contributes a lot in making the point clear that in each Act of it only one type of Vidrava should be employed out of the three Vidravas. i.e. three Vidravas should be properly divided into three Acts, each Act having one of the Vidravas, so in the like manner should be employed three śṛngāras and three deceptions.

Finally, we find that dividing three kinds of excitement into as caused by animates, inanimates and both, is Abhinava's own contribution. It is not supported either in Bharata or in Dhananjaya. Dhananjaya has followed Bharata to a large extent and has not deviated from him in important points. We may say that Samavakāra is a kind of supernatural drama, abounding in inhuman characters, having a well-known story and twelve heroes. It is marked by three Acts, properly divided into Nādikās, containing three types of deception, śṛngāra and excitement. It is loosely

66

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

connected. It is also clear from Abhinavagupta’s statement that persons of superior intelligence will not gain much pleasure in it. It appears that this type of drama was not very popular, because no old specimen of it is available, except Amṛtamanthana or Samudramanthaṇa. M. Ghosh34 expresses his view that Samavakāra was not a play of the regular type and belonged to a very early stage of evolution of Indian drama. Keith35 also supports the assumption, when he writes that the supernatural drama Samavakāra is described obviously on the basis of a single play, the Amṛtamanthaṇa.

ĪHĀMṚGA

Now Bharata36 discusses the characteristics of Īhāmṛga. In his view, it has as its heroes divine males who are implicated in fights about divine females. It should be constructed with a well-arranged plot and should be convincing. It is to abound in vehement persons and to have its construction dependent on feminine anger which is to give rise to commotion (Samkṣobha), excitement (Vidrāva) and angry conflict. The Īhāmṛga should be a play with well ordered construction in which the plot of love is to be based on causing discord among females. Carrying them off and oppressing. All that are to be made available in the Vyāyoga (which will be defined further), its characters, styles and sentiments should be brought in the Īhāmṛga also except that Īhāmṛga is to have the connection with divine females, i.e. it is to include the goddesses as its female characters. Bharata further prescribes that when persons intent on killing are on the point of killing, their battle should be avoided or pacified on some pretext.

In the opinion of Abhinavagupta37 divine persons are as its heroes, and by entrance of divine persons it should not be understood that it is loosely-knit like Samavakāra, as Bharata has used the word ‘well-knit’ and well arranged plot. The phrase ‘Vipratyayakārakaḥ’ employed by Bharata admits of two interpretations and has been explained by Abhinava to mean the composition lacking in elements to produce mutual confidence. However, M. Ghosh38 understands the compound to mean that the plot should be convincing. Here everything, like anger, āvega and other discords, is related with the females. Bharata has not mentioned that its Acts should be like Vyāyoga but Abhinava39 adds length of the Act himself. He takes ‘Kārya’ to mean Act. Therefore, he prescribes,

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

it should have one Act like Vyāyoga and twelve characters. He also gives its Etymological interpretation that where action like that of a deer pertains to the attainment of woman only, that is Īhāmṛga. As a deer is pursued and is hard to attain, in the like manner effort to attain a woman is depicted who is hard to win.

Although Bharata has not mentioned the type of Vṛtta in it, according to Dhananjaya,40 its plot is mixed, i.e. partly legendary and partly invented ; it is divided into four Acts and has three Sandhis. The Hero and the opponent of the Hero may be either divine or human, without restriction ; both should be renowned and vehement (dhīroddata), the latter committing improper acts by mistake. Bharata has not mentioned that Hero and anti-hero may be divine or human without restriction, nor he mentions them to be well-known. He simply mentions its hero to be divine one. In Dhananjaya’s view one should also present, though only to a slight extent, the semblance of love on the part of one who tries to obtain a divine woman against her will by carrying her off or some such means. He also agrees with Bharata in mentioning the avoidance of battle at the climax and in its having three sandhis. Dhanika41 like Abhinava, explaining the term Īhāmṛga writes that this kind of drama is called Īhāmṛga because here the Hero pursues a woman as unattainable as a gazelle (Mṛga).

Thus, we see that the play of Īhāmṛga type may have divine or human Hero and anti-hero. Its subject-matter is mixed, consisting both of legend and invention. While Bharata is silent about the number of Acts to be employed in such type of drama, Abhinava on the model of Vyāyoga, suggests the number of Acts to be one. However, Dhananjaya prescribes four Acts without mentioning any authority. It has six radiant sentiments, three Vṛttis and three Sandhis, Mukha, Pratimukha and Nirvahana. Battle in it is prevented at its climax. Here, all the actions are related to a divine female who is unattainable and it owes its name to this very fact. No old specimen of this type is extant.

DIMA

Next Bharata42 takes up Dima. As stated by him, the Dima should be constructed with a well-known plot and its Hero should be well-known and exalted. It is to have four Acts only, and all the sentiments except Erotic and the comic and a plot with exciting sentiments and various psychological states.

incidents such as an earthquake, fall of meteors, eclipse of the Sun or Moon, fighting in battle and personal combat and angry conflict. It should also abound in magic, deceit and jugglery. It has gods, demons, rākṣasas, bhūtas, yakṣas, piśācas and nāgas in abundance. It is abundant in sixteen heroes and is rich in Sāttvati and Ārabhaṭī styles. Thus, it should be composed carefully having many psychological states to support it, and having four sandhis except Avamarśa. Abhinavagupta13 opines that in Dima all other things are like Nāṭaka, the only difference is that here Sandhis and sentiments are incomplete in comparison to Nāṭaka, and except śṛṅgāra and Hāsya, in the six sentiments present, there is the possibility of Sānta. He takes Dima, Dimba, Vidrava as synonyms, and because of their combination it is called Dima. It has variegated beauty because of the presence of all the psychological states. Abhinava defends the discussion of Dima at this place, giving the weak reason that though Dima ought to be described after Nāṭaka as it has well-known plot and well-known, exalted hero like the Nāṭaka, but to exclude Praveśaka etc. which are found in Nāṭaka, it has been described here, taking it away from the relevant context. Abhinava's view does not appear to have the support of Bharata, as the latter nowhere mentions that it should have all the things like Nāṭaka, and he is silent about the Praveśaka etc. to be employed in it.

Dhanañjaya44 mostly abides by Bharata in mentioning the Characteristics of Dima. In Dhanañjaya's view, the sixteen heroes consisting of gods, demons, yakṣas, etc. are very vehement, while Bharata has not mentioned their nature and he has mentioned the Hero of the Dima as well-known and exalted. Dhanañjaya also mentions its main sentiment to be Raudra, prominent in justice. Like Abhinava, Dhanika45 also defines it etymologically, taking 'Dima Saṅghāte'. This type of play is called Dima because it involves the procedure of injuring on the part of the hero, Dima being equivalent to Saṅghāta 'injuring'. Moreover, quoting Bharata, Dhanika writes that Muni Bharata has himself shown that its plot should be like that of Tripuradāha.

In Keith's46 view, it is clear that the type is described on the basis of inadequate material ; it may represent a popular form of entertainment which did not attain full recognition. The origin of the name is unknown, for no root 'dim', 'to wound' is found in the language though Dhanika asserts its existence.

Thus, Dima is a play more akin to Nāṭaka, in having a well-known plot and well-known Hero. It is full of Ārabhaṭī and

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

69

Sāttvatī Vṛttis with their sub-divisions. The radiant six sentiments are found in it excluding Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya, and hence it is devoid of Kaiśikī Vṛtti. Only Bharata has mentioned a Dhīrodātta and well-known Hero in it, while most of the later47 dramaturgists like Śāradātanaya, Viśvanātha, Rāmachandra and Guṇachandra, including Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, accept sixteen heroes to be haughty and vehement. And these later dramaturgists accept Raudra (Furious) as its predominant sentiment, based on justice, and other sentiments subservient to it. It is a play of four Sandhis and four Acts having the duration of four days.

VYĀYOGA

Next Bharata48 comes to Vyāyoga. According to him the Vyāyoga should be constructed by experts with a well-known hero as its basis and containing a small number of female characters and having the duration of one day only. Many males are to take part in it as in Samavakāra, but it is not to have the latter's length, for it is to have one Act only. Then it should not have the divine personages as its Hero but a sage like king.49 Here, we find different readings of the text and different interpretations of it. It should include battle, personal combat, challenge and angry conflict. Thus a Vyāyoga should be composed with a plot having exciting sentiments, and three Sandhis except Garbha and Avamarśa.

Abhinava50 has rather confused the statement by concluding that neither a god, nor a king nor a sage should be made heroes in this type of play. In his view, it is called Vyāyoga because men are engaged in the exercise of battle in it.

Dhanañjaya51 mentions that a Vyāyoga should have a well-known subject and should have men (as principal characters) well-known and vehement. Dhanañjaya deviates from Bharata in mentioning its characters to be vehement because the latter has not mentioned their nature. In other respects, like Sandhis sentiments, Acts and their duration etc. Dhanañjaya follows Bharata. Like Abhinava, Dhanika52 also gives its etymological interpretation that it is called Vyāyoga as many men are employed in it, but etymologically it may be explained in both the way as many men disagree and many men are employed in it. As sentiments contain Vṛttis, it should be inferred that here vṛttis other than Kaiśikī are found. Thus, Vyāyoga is a military spectacle in which the Hero is well-known, but the divine personage is excluded from it. It contains many

70

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

characters and exciting sentiments and a few women characters. We find its old specimen in Bhāsa's 'Madhyamavyāyoga'.

UTSRṢṬIKĀṄKA

Now we shall take up the Utsṛṣṭikāṅka.

As defined by Bharata,53 the subject matter in it is to be usually well-known, sometimes only it may be otherwise ; and it is to have male characters other than divine. It should abound in Pathetic sentiment, it will treat women's lamentations and despondent utterances at a time when battle and violent fighting has ceased. It should include bewildered movements of the mourners and it must be devoid of Sāttvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Kaisikī styles. This means, then, that only Bhāratī will prevail in it.

Abhinavagupta54 justifies the discussion of Utsṛṣṭikāṅka after Vyāyoga, because it has been stated that the result of the Raudra should be known as Karuṇā ; Utsṛṣṭikāṅka has Karuṇa dominant in it. So, it is described after Vyāyoga which has Raudra dominant in it. Interpreting Bharata, Abhinava explains it etymologically that as it is characterised by the lamenting women whose life is to depart, so it is called Utsṛṣṭikāṅka. It is called Aṅka because of its Vṛtta. It lacks in divine characters, because of the abundance of Karuṇa, as Raudra, Bhayānaka and Bībhatsa may be found in the divine personages but not Karuṇa.

While in the opinion of Bharata the plot of Utsṛṣṭikāṅka is generally well-known, only sometimes imagined, in the view of Dhananjaya55 one should develop a well-known subject by means of the imagination. He mentions its heroes to be ordinary men. Its Sandhis, vṛttis with their sub-divisions are those of a Bhāṇa (which will be discussed later on). A battle is to be presented by means of a speech and likewise ultimate victory or defeat. In the opinion of Dhanika,56 it has been termed Utsṛṣṭikāṅka just to distinguish it from the Act found in a Nāṭaka.

Thus, according to later57 theory, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka has the common persons for its hero not divines as prohibited by Bharata. It is one Act play having Karuṇa as prominent and Bhāratī style, consisting of only Mukha and Nirvahana sandhis and is characterised by the lamentations of women and descriptions of battle etc. Its subject-matter may be well-known or invented. It is discriminated from the Act of a normal drama. It is not represented by any early play only Śarmiṣṭhayayāti is cited by Viśvanātha,

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

71

PRAHASANA

Bharata discusses Prahasana dividing it into two ; that it should be known of two kinds, pure and mixed. Their characteristics are mentioned separately. First the pure kind of Prahasana is taken. The Prahasana is pure when it contains comic disputations by Śaiva Gurus, ascetics, Brāhmaṇas and others and abounds in jocular remarks by persons of low class (Kāpurusa) and all this gives uniformly to the plot a realistic picture of the language and conduct of all these in passages describing their psychological states. The Prahasana is mixed where courtezans, servants, eunuchs, vīṭas and dhūrtas and unchaste women appear with their immodest appearance, dress and movements Some popular topic of scandal or incident hypocrisy should be introduced in Prahasana through the disputations of dhūrtas and vīṭas. It should include the sub-divisions of vīthī, in accordance with its requirement.

In Abhinavagupta's59 view, Prahasana of both kinds has the comic sentiment predominant, and he adds that though it contains men of low taste in relation to jocular statements, even then language and conduct are not false or obscene and in its parts of the story contain transitory psychological states. In other words when the plot deals with the character of one person only, whose conduct being improper is to be laughed at, that is pure Prahasana. But where it contains courtezans etc., and the construction is rough and through the medium of one the character of many courtezans is laughed at, it is called saṅkīrṇa (mixed), as it describes the mixed character of many to be laughed at through one. Abhinava quotes others views that according to others the behaviour of persons, naturally to be laughed at among the civilized circle, as being othewise than the cultured is called Saṅkīrṇa and the play containing that behaviour of those persons, who are pure by nature like ascetics etc. but become objects of fun because of impropriety in relation to others, is termed ‘Śuddha’ or pure. As Bharata has not mentioned any rule about the Act in a Prahasana, in the opinion of some, the pure has one Act and the mixed has many or more than one dependent upon the number of incidents of the courtezans. Others take it to be of one Act as it is described in context of one Act plays. While Bharata accepted two types of Prahasana, in the view of Dhananjaya, Prahasana is of three types : Śuddha (Pure), Vikṛta (Impure) and Saṅkīrṇa (mixed) Dhananjaya differs a little

from Bharata, in the treatment of pure and mixed Prahasana. Besides Brāhmaṇa etc. mentioned by Bharata in the pure Prahasana, Dhananjaya includes slave servants and viṭa in it, which have been mentioned by Bharata in the mixed type. Dhananjaya and Dhanika give the reason of mixed Prahasana that it is so called because of its admixture of the Vīthī and its aṅgas and it is filled with rogues. Dhananjaya and Dhanika define the Vikṛta Prahasana as one, which contains eunuchs, chamberlains, ascetics with the speech and dress of the lovers and the like. In Prahasana the sixfold comic sentiment is to be employed. It may be inferred from Dhananjaya's statement that it contains one Act as Bhāṇa is one Act play and Prahasana resembles that.

Thus, Prahasana has every sign of popular origin and vogue. It appears to be one Act play having predominantly comic sentiment. It consists of two Sandhis—first and the last and it should be in Bhārati Vṛtti. One type of Prahasana deals with the matter in which persons use their real language and dress, while in the other type, they leave their original nature and act as lovers. It has broadly two varieties, and the third variety mentioned by Dhananjaya may be included in these two, Śuddha and Saṅkīrṇa. Vīthyaṅgas may be employed in it as per requirement.

BHĀṆA

According to Bharata's description Bhāṇa is a kind of monologue to be acted by a single character, and it is of two kinds : that recounting of one's own feelings and that describing of some one else's acts. The Bhāṇa which is to include somebody else's words addressed to oneself should be acted by means of replies in course of conversations with an imaginary person (Ākāśabhāṣita) along with the movements of limbs and representations. It should be acted by a Dhūrta or a viṭa, containing different conditions of them. It consists of one Act and many incidents.

In explaining Bhāṇa Abhinavagupta62 simply accepts Bharata and follows him.

Dhananjaya,63 too, follows Bharata and mentions that it is a kind of Rūpaka in which a single, clever and shrewd Viṭa describes roguish exploits, engaged in by himself or someone else. Dhananjaya does not mention dhūrta, while in the view of Bharata either a dhūrta or a viṭa presents the matter. While Bharata has mentioned its having a variety of substrata, in the view of Dhananjaya, he, i.e,

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

Viṭa should indicate the Heroic and the Erotic sentiment by means of descriptions of prowess and of beauty. Bhāratī Vṛtti is abundant, and the Vastu is invented in one Act, the sandhis are Mukha and Nirvahaṇa in it and there are ten aṅgas of Lāsya also. In its manner of presenting the matter, Dhananjaya is in line with Bharata. The former also denotes the names of ten aṅgas of Lāsya which Bharata has not included.

We find that though Bharata has not stated the sentiment, Vṛtti and nature of the Plot and ten Lāsyaṅgas, yet later theory recognises ten Lāsyaṅgas in it, namely Geyapada, sthitapāṭhya Āsīna, Puṣpagandhikā, Pracchedaka, Trigūḍa, Saindhava, Dvigūdaka, Uttamottamaka and Uktapratyukta. Later theory also accepts Vīra and (wrongly) Śṛṅgāra sentiments as to be indicated only in it and the prominence of Bhāratī style, the subject matter invented and Mukha and Nirvahana sandhis. While in the opinion of some a clever viṭa narrates the experience of himself or others, in the opinion of some others viṭa or a dhūrta does so. Dhananjaya defining Bhāṇa has stated 'Sūcyed Vīraśṛṅgārau Sauryasaubhāgya-saṁstavah.' Here although Ramji Upādhyāya objected that there is scope for Vīra and Śṛṅgāra as both the sentiments are related with the Uttamaprakṛti. But this objection is not very valid as both the rasas are just to be indicated and not to reach their full culmination and a viṭa can indicate them certainly when describing them in the form of one's own experience or the other's experience.

By the consensus of all it is one Act play, represented by a single actor through the employment of speeches, made in the air. It seems to be an early form of drama (and it might have originally been introduced as an interlude to give comic relief or to produce laughter).

Vīthī

Lastly we come to Vīthī ! As defined by Bharata, Vīthī should have one Act and is to be acted by one person or two. It is rich in all sentiments and consists of thirteen aṅgas. It is to include characters of superior, the middling or the inferior type.

Udghātyakam, Avalagitam, Avaspanditam, N lī, Asatpralāpa, Vākkeli, Prapañca, Mṛdavam, Adhībala, Chalam, Trigāṭam, Vyāhāra and Gaṇḍa, these are its thirteen aṅgas which we will take up later on.

In the view of Abhinavagupta,66 Vīthī is mentioned last of all because of being made of all sentiments and due to its limited nature. It can be briefly produced and its aṅgas may be employed in any play (composition) from Nāṭikā onwards. He understands by ‘ekāhāryaiḥ’ to be represented through the speeches in the void, and ‘dvihārya’, through the beauty of the statements and their replies.

In the view of Dhananjaya67 Vīthī is in Kaiśikī Vṛtti and here he contradicts his former statement where he accepts it as an aṅga of Bhāratī Vṛtti. In his opinion Vīthī resembles Bhāṇa in its sandhis, sub-divisions and Act. This means it should have one Act and Mukha and Nirvahana sandhis. Erotic sentiment is to be indicated which may touch other sentiments also. The statement can be interpreted in other way also that Erotic sentiment is to be indicated but one should touch on other sentiment as well. It also contains the aṅgas, narrated in the context of Prastāvanā like Udghātyaka etc. Thus Vīthī is to be arranged, with the employment of one character or two. Except mentioning it into Kaiśikī Vṛtti, in other respects he follows Bharata. Bharata has not mentioned its Vṛtti while discussing it but has accepted it as the part of Bhāratī Vṛtti while discussing Vṛttis. Moreover in his former statement Bharata has accepted Vīthī Samavakāra, Īhāmṛga, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, Vyāyoga, Bhāṇa and Dima lacking in Kaiśikī Vṛtti.

In Dhanika’s68 opinion Vīthī receives its name because it is like a Vīthī, i.e. ‘Mārga’ or ‘Paṅkti of aṅgas’. The particular sentiment Śṛṅgāra, being incomplete is to be indicated abundantly, other sentiments should be little touched upon. Kaiśikī Vṛtti is mentioned because of its appropriateness to the sentiment.

Except Bharata and Abhinavagupta, other69 theoreticians include Kaiśikī Vṛtti in it.

Now we come to the aṅgas. The term aṅga in this respect can be understood variously such as ‘type’, divisions, ‘elements’. One thing is to be noted here that while Bharata discusses these aṅgas in the context of Vīthī, Dhananjaya has discussed them when discussing Āmukha as division of Bhāratī Vṛtti. Now, we shall take them one by one.

Udghātyaka

In Bharata’s70 view, when in order to explain ‘Padas’ men connect words of obscure meaning with words other than these intended by

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

75

the speaker it becomes Udghātyaka. Abhinava,71 rather, modifies the statement of Bharata and defines it that words having meaning asked in question-form are employed otherwise in answer forms through their synonyms, and that group of answers is Udghātyaka. Dhanañjaya's definition resembles much with the interpretation of Abhinavagupta and the example supplied by him. Dhanañjaya72 accepts two kinds of Udghātyaka. It is a series of successive words (synonyms) whose meaning is hidden or of question and answers, where there is mutual conversation.

Avalagitam

In the opinion of Bharata,73 where a different purpose is achieved in addition to the one for which the action is initiated by merging one into other, that is known as Avalagitam. Abhinava's interpretation agrees with that of Bharata. Like Udghātyaka Dhanañjaya74 accepts two kinds of Avalagitam. In the first part of his definition, he follows Bharata, but differs a little in the later part. Both the kinds of Avalagitam mentioned by him, can be very well included in the definition of Bharata. According to Dhanañjaya, in it a different matter is carried out because of a simultaneous occurrence or there is a different turn in the matter in progress.

Avaspanditam

Bharata75 defines it that when in the matter arisen from auspicious or inauspicious, the other meaning is conveyed with cleverness, that is Avaspanditam. Abhinava76 interprets it that ‘Subhāśubha’ denotes fate. Therefore, when some inauspicious sense arises accidentally, and with a desire to conceal that the answer is given having another sense with expertness, that is Avaspanditamas it conveys the inner sense like the throbbing of the eye. To explain it, he takes the example from Veniśamhāra (1.6) where the meaning accidentally arises that sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra are falling. There the answer is given, the calamity should be avoided and that swans are coming on the earth. Bharata's definition is superficial, and his mention of auspicious and inauspicious things coming up, on consideration, would turn out that only inauspicious sense is to be suppressed by using the wit. While Dhanañjaya,77 who regards sentiment to be the essential feature of a drama, improves upon Bharata's definition and mentions that because of sentiment—a

76

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

particular psychological state, if something comes out, it is to be presented in another form, by the poet (using his skill) Dhanika has cited a very appropriate example from Chalitarāma to explain Dhanañjaya's definition.

Nālikā

Bharata, Abhinaya, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika all agree in regarding Nālikā as an enigmatical78 remark that gives rise to laughter.

Asatpralāpa (Incoherent Chatter)

There are found variants79 in the definitions of Asatpralāpa in the Nāṭyaśāstra. According to the commonly accepted reading, Bharata's definition would be that when to a foolish person, a learned man speaks the right words involving his well-being, but his words are not listened to, it is an instance of Asatpralāpa. Abhinava accepts it and simply explains it. Dhanañjaya80 accepts another reading of Nāṭyaśāstra in which incoherent talk is done. In his opinion, then, Asatpralāpa consists of incoherent chatter suited to the answers. Dhanika81 states that this is not the rhetorical fault called Asaṅgati which consists in lack of coherence, but it is the incoherent talk of persons who are just awakening, drunk, insane or childish. Actually, it is prattling about the matter not relevant in both the senses.

Vākkeli

In the words of Bharata82 Vākkeli arises from a single or two-fold reply. In the view of Abhinavagupta83 there is one answer of the two in it and the use of 'dvi' (two) is to denote many, therefore, the entire group of question-answer may be accepted by it. Dhanañjaya84 defines it in two ways. It arises from stopping short in it, i.e. in a speech, or from replying two or three times. Dhanika85 explains the first part of the definition clearly that 'asya' means sentence which is not complete.

Haas86 observes rightly that the term 'Vākkeli', literally 'speech play' is appropriate only to the second of the two varieties mentioned, i.e. speech and counter speech. Thus, it is a series of questions and answers or speech and counter speech, producing comic effect, in the later87 theory.

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

77

Prapañca

Bharata88 defines that when comic and untrue words purporting to be the mutual praise of two persons are uttered in the interest of one person, it is Prapañca. Abhinava accepts it and illustrates it with the example from Ratnāvalī. Dhananjaya agrees with Bharata, while Dhanika89 adds in his commentary that the mutual praise through false matter, i.e. expertness etc. in the women of others and so on is Prapañca.

Mṛdavam

According to Bharata90 when due to an altercation, one represents another's merits as demerits by showing cause for it and vice versa, it is called Mṛdavam. Interpreting it etymologically, Abhinava91 accepts its meaning as crushing because by crushing other's side one's own side is protected. Dhananjaya92 following Bharata gives its simplified definition that in Mṛdavam demerits are considered as merits and merits as faults.

Adhibala

Bharata93 defines that when somebody else's words and those of one's ownself, in course of a dialogue, lead to their mutual modification, it is outvying or Adhibala. Abhinava also agrees with Bharata and states that it is so called because in mutual dialogue one tries to outdo the other by making his stand firm. Dhananjaya is also in line with Bharata, but he simply defines it in concise words as a dialogue of two persons in emulation, each of which outdoes the other in his remarks.

Chala

In the words of Bharata,94 the speech having another sense causes deception, laughter and anger and that is called chala. Abhinava agrees with Bharata in his explanation. There is another variant95 in the MSS of Nāṭyaśāstra according to which when after alluring one by replies, something opposite is done through those very replies being considered meaningless, it is Chala. Dhananjaya's96 definition of Chala corresponds with the definition given in the latter reading. In his view, it arises from deceit that misleads by means of unfriendly words that seem friendly. Later97 authors, generally, take it in the sense of deceiving

the other by means of words though unfriendly yet having the semblance of friendliness.

Trigātam

According to Bharata,98 in which several meanings are attached with devices because of similarity of sound, and which may be comic or not comic, should be known as Trigātam. According to Abhinava's99 interpretation 'Śrutisārūpyād' means because of similarity of words, and the word 'Bahavah' implies in question-answer form; words can be used through various devices like Kāku etc. 'Tri' is used to denote many, i e. more than one. Abhinava also adds that in a sentence the main answer applies to many common questions. Here, the special point is that the question is the answer.

Dhanañjaya100 follows Bharata but he does not mention comic or non-comic as is done by the latter. Dhanañjaya adds that this is declared to be a conversation of a triad of actors and the like in the Pūvarāṅga (preliminaries).

In Keith's101 opinion it seems to denote guesses made at the cause of a sound, which in its character is ambiguous. We find other variants also of this term interpreted differently but they have not been commonly accepted.

Vyāhāra

Bharata102 defines it as the speech uttered vividly, bordering on the comic sense. Abhinava103 understands by 'Pratyakṣa' the future happening. Dhanañjaya,104 deviating a little from Bharata, defines it as a remark made for someone else causing laughter and desire.

Gaṇḍa

In the view of Bharata105 Gaṇḍa occurs, according to the wise, due to excitement, confusion, quarrel, reviling and many people's abusive words. In the words of Abhinavagupta106 Gaṇḍa is like Gaṇḍa as it contains the matter to happen. It is a sentence, little incomplete. He quotes Kohala's view, that at the end of the related sentences, disjoining at the 'pada' which appears as joined or related is Gaṇḍa.

Abhinava cites for example, the speech of Kañcukin and

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

Duryodhana in the second Act of Veṇisamhāra about the breaking of the banner.

In the opinion of Dhanañjaya107 it is a separate matter suddenly mentioned that has some connection with the matter in progress. Dhanañjaya deviates from Bharata and is more in line with Abhinava and Kohala as quoted by Abhinava. Thus, Gaṇḍa is related with the matter in hand uttered suddenly and in incomplete sentences.

Thus, when these thirteen divisions of Vīthī, or majority of them are employed in a series in a composition, the resultant form would be a Vīthī type of Rūpaka.

Abhinava108 has tried to show the difference of these aṅgas from Lakṣaṇa and figures of speech, because all the three have got beauty of expression. Vīthī, a series, is intolerant of other's answer, and it contains beauty of expression in the form of statements and counter-statements in reply, because of this fact it is different from Lakṣaṇa and Alaṅkāra as their form is not limited to utterance. Concluding Vīthī Abhinava writes that Vīthī contains thirteen aṅgas, and as it conveys all the sentiments, so due to their prominence, its Hero may be belonging to the best, middle or low type. A person of low nature cannot be the Hero, alright, but what about Prahasana and Bhāṇa? Where comic sentiment is dominant, the Hero will be low because the Hero is principally related with the phala of the subject-matter or the story. Moreover, as an attendant, he can be depicted in any Rūpaka without restriction.

Thus, Bharata has discussed, briefly, the characteristics of the major forms of dramas. There are other varieties also dependent upon these, called Uparūpakas. Viśvanātha mentions eighteen kinds of Uparūpakas, including Nāṭikā in them. As Bharata and Dhanañjaya have described these ten forms only, so we have restricted ourselves to them only. Besides, there are mentioned by Bharata and Dhanañjaya ten sub-divisions of Lāsya, in reference to Bhāṇa which may be useful in a play.

Therefore, in the view of Dhanañjaya,109 after observing in this manner, the series of definitions of the ten forms of drama, considering one's subject-matter and examining the works of the poets, one may produce without effort a literary work that has

rhetorical embellishments, eloquent and pleasing words and slow metres.

We see that in these ten major forms, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa contain all the sandhis, Vṛttis and Arthaprakṛtis and Avasthās. Ḍima and samavakāra contain only four sandhis; Vyāyoga and Īhāmṛga contain three sandhis, Vīthī, Prahasana, Bhāṇa and Aṅka, are one Act plays having only two sandhis—the first and the last, mainly having Bhāratī Vṛtti. Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa are the full-fledged forms of drama.

REFERENCES

1. वर्त्तेऽप्यष्टाभ्यां विप्रा दशरूपविकल्पनम् । नामतः कर्मतश्चैव तथा चैव प्रयोजगतः ॥ भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, 1

2. रूप्यते प्रत्यक्षीक्रियते योग्यस्तद्वाचकत्वाद्वाच्येनि रूपाणि दशानां रूपाणां विभाग: कल्प्यतेऽस्मादिति । दशरूपविकल्पनं सूत्रं तेनायं पष्टि-समास: दशरूपर्मिति ।.................उक्तव्यास्याने तु कोह्लादिलक्षितवोट्ट-कसटटकारसादिसंग्रहफलं नाटिकाया: उदाहरणस्वादिति । अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18, पृ. 406 क्रमश:

3. Bharata, N.S. Ch. 18 K.I; Abhinavabhāratī, p. 406, Rūpyate Pratyakṣikriyate’ Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I, 7, Rūpam dṛśyatayocyate.

4. Dhananjaya, D.R., B.I, 7, Avasthānuḳtīr nāṭyam. Rūpakam tatsamāropāt.

5. रूपकं मुख्यचन्द्रादिवत् इत्येकस्मिन्नर्थे प्रवर्त्तमानस्य शब्दस्य 'इन्द्र: पुरन्दर: शक:' इति वत्प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमभेदो दर्शितः । धनिक, अव. पृ. 4

6. Viśvanātha, Kavirāja. Sāhityadarpaṇa, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay (1936) Ch. VI, 1. It is called Rūpaka because of the assumption of characters in an actor; Bhāvaprakāśa, G.O.S. ed., Oriental Institute, Baroda, p. 180; Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, Hindi Nāṭya-darpaṇa. University

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

81

Press, Delhi University (1961), ch. I, Sū. I, p. 12; Keith, A.B., SKD. O.U.P. (1954), p. 296. A poem appeals to the ear only, a drama is also a spectacle to delight the eyes; hence the term Rūpa or Rūpaka as applied generally to the drama, for Rūpa primarily denotes the object of vision; though the Indian tradition gives the artificial explanation that Rūpaka denotes a drama because the actors are credited with different parts.

7. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XVIII, p. 408.

8. दशघैव रसाश्रयम्

धनंजय, द. रू., 1-7, 8

रसानाश्रित्य वृत्तिमानं दशप्रकारकम् । एतद्यवधारणं शुद्धाभिप्रायेण । नाटिकाया: संकीर्णत्वेन वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् ।

धनिक, अव., पृ 41

9. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. I, 9-10. Dhanika, Avaloka, p. 5 ff.

10. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 296; Sāradātanaya, B.P., p. 180, 221.

11. नाटकं सप्रकरणमको व्यायोग एव च । भाण: समवकारश्च वीथी प्रहसनं डिम: ॥ ईहामृगश्च विज्ञेयो दशमो नाट्यलक्षणे ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, 2, 3

नाटकं सप्रकरणं भाण: प्रहसनं डिम: । व्यायोगसमवकारौ वीयथ्यंककेहमाग इति ॥

धनंजय, द. रू., अ. 1, 8

अभिनेयस्य काव्यस्य भूरिभेदभृत: कियत् । नाटकं प्रकरणं च नाटिका प्रकरणयथ । व्यायोग: समवकारो भाण: प्रहसनं डिम: । श्रंक ईहामृगो वीथी ।

रामचन्द्र गुणचन्द्र, नाट्यदर्पण, विव्वोक 1. सू, 2-4, पृ 13

12. Bharata, N Ś., Ch. XVIII, 4-9.

13. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XVIII, p. 408 ff.

14. Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I, 11, ‘Vastu Netā Rasas teṣām bhedakaḥ’; Dhanika, Avaloka, p. 7.

15. The modern scholars explain that the term ‘Nāṭaka’ is derived from the/Nat., a Prakritism of/Nrt accepted into

Sanskrit with its enriched meaning.

16. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XVIII, 10, 12, 28, 29, 38.

17. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XVIII, pp. 411-429.

18. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. III, 1, 22-38, Dhanika, Avaloka, pp. 147, 163-169.

19. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XVIII 45-56.

20. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XVIII, p. 429.

21. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. III, 39-42. Dhanika, Avaloka, pp. 169, 170.

22. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 345.

23. अनयोन्यच वन्धयोगादन्यो भेद: प्रयोकृतृभि कार्य: । प्रख्यातस्त्वतरतो वा नाटकयोगे प्रकरणो वा ॥ भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, का. 57-60

24. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XVIII, p 435 ff.

25. स्त्रीप्रायचतुरङ्कादिमेदकं यदि चेष्यते ॥ एकदिङ्मुखादिमेदेनानन्तरुपता । धनंजय, द. रू., तृतीय प्रकाश, 43-48

26. अत्र केचित् 'अनयोन्यच............इत्यमुं भारतीयं श्लोकं 'एको भेद : प्रख्यातो नाटिकाख्य इतरस्त्वप्रख्यातः प्रकरणिकासंज्ञो नाटीसंज्ञया द्वे काव्ये आश्रिते' इति व्याचक्षाणा: प्रकरणिकामपि मन्यन्ते तदसत् । उद्देशलक्षणयोरनभिधानात् । धनिक, अव., पृ, 171, क्रमश:

27. Ghosh Manomohan, The Nāṭyaśāstra, Eng. Trans. Ch. XX, p. 362. Description of Nāṭikā given here has been rightly suspected as an interpolation, for Keith is rejecting it for such suspicion.

28. Haas George C.O., the Daśarūpa, Eng. Trans., p. 96, K. 46, strictly speaking description of Nāṭikā does not come within the scope of this work, which is limited by its title to the ten principal forms of drama. The Nāṭikā, deserves notice, however, because of its frequent occurrence.

29. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XVIII , 62.

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

30. Ibid., 63-76.

31. उद्धेशतावदत्त न परिगणनार्थ:। तेनास्य प्राधान्यानाटिकया च विच्छिन्नोऽस्मादूदूशक्रम:।....................प्रत्येकं विविधास्तत्र प्रत्येका विद्रववादयस्त्रय:।....................त्रिविध्र इत्युक्तं तत् तुयं वक्तव्यमचेतन-कृतमन्यकृतमनयकर्त वा। धर्मेर्दथे काम इंत सप्तम्या कार्यत्वं कारणत्वं चोच्यते। एवं श्रद्धालवो देत्वाभक्ता: तद्देवयात्रादावनेन प्रयोजन।नुगृहीयन्ते निरनुसन्धानहृदया स्त्री बालमूर्खाश्च विद्रववादिनाहृतहृदया क्रियन्त।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18, पृ. 436

32. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. III, 62-68.

33. समवकीयंतेस्सिमन्नर्थ इति समवकार:।....................वोररुचंगी, श्रृंगभूता: सर्वे रसा:। प्रत्येकं च यथासंख्यं कपट: नगरौपरोधयुद्धवाताग्न्यादि-विद्रवाणां मध्य एकैको विद्रव: कार्य:। धर्मार्थिकामश्रृंगाराणामेकैकश्रृंगार: प्रत्येकमेव विधातव्य:।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 179

34. Ghosh Manomohan, The Nāṭyasāstra, Vol. I, Eng. Trans., Ch. XX, p. 364.

35. Keith, A.B., SKD., p. 346.

36. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 78-82.

37. विगतानि प्रत्यकारणानि विश्वासहेतवो यत्र

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18 पृ. 441 ऋमात्

38. Ghosh M., The Nāṭyaśāstra, Eng. Trans. Ch. XX, p. 366.

39. कार्यशब्देनांक उच्यते। तेनैक एवांक: नायकास्तु द्वादश समवकारातिदेशेन व्यायोगे तल्लभात्। ईहा चेष्टा मृगस्यैव स्त्री मात्रार्था यत्र स ईहामृग:

अभि., अभि. भा., अध्याय 18. पृ. 442

40. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. III, 72-75.

41. मृगवदलस्यां नायिकां नायकोऽस्मिन्निहते इतीहामृग:

धनिक, अव., पृ. 181

42. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 83-88, Ch. XIX, 45.

43. नाटकतुल्यं सर्वमन्यत्केवलं सन्धीनां रसानां चासमप्रता। डिमो डिम्बो विद्रव इति पर्याय:, तद्योगदयं डिम:। नाटकादनंतरं डिमलक्षणं यदप्युक्तं तथापि तद्गतप्रवेशकादिसंभवनिराकरणार्थं तत्प्रकरणादप-कृष्णस्याभिधानम्

अभि., अभि. भा., अध्याय 18. पृ. 443 ऋमात्

44. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. III, 57-60.

45. 'डिम सङ्घाते' इति नायकसङ्घातव्यापारात्कत्वादिडिम:। एतच्च

84

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

'इदं त्रिपुरदाहे तु लक्षणं ब्रह्मणोदितम् । ततस्त्रिपुरदाहरच डिमसंज्ञः प्रोज्जितः'। इति भरतमुनिना स्वयमेव त्रिपुरदाहेतिवृतस्य तुल्यत्वं दर्शितम् ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 177

46. Keith, A.B., SKD. p. 347.

47. Rāmacandra, Gunacandra, Nātyadarpana, Sū. 134, p. 233, Śāradātanaya, BP., p. 247. Viśvanātha, SD. Ch. VI, 241-244.

48. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 90-93, Ch. XIX, 46.

न च्च दिव्यनायककृतः कार्यो राजर्षिनायकनिबद्धः ।

युद्धनियुद्धघर्षण संघर्षकृतरच कर्तव्यः।

भ., ना. श., अ. 18, 90-93, अ. 19, 46

49. Ghosh, M., Eng. Trans. N.S. Ch. XX p. 368. It should have a royal sage as its hero; Keith, SKD, p. 347, also mentions its hero a god or a royal sage. Viśvanātha, S.D. Ch. VI, 233. Its hero is either a royal sage or divine. Saradatanaya, B.P., p. 248 Gods or royal sages, three, four or five not more than ten.

50. ननु प्रस्थातृनायकसंबन्धेन किमत्र गुहीतमिति व्रतिप्रसंग शमयति । चामिनक्रमः। दिव्येर्देवैः नृपः ऋषिभिश्च नायकः न निवद्धव्योऽयं भवतीत्यर्थः

अभि., अभि. भा., अध्याय 18, पृ 444

51. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. III, 60-62.

52. धायोजयन्तेऽस्मिन् बहवः । पुरुषा इति च्यायोगः । वृत्त्यात्मकत्वाच्च रसानामवचनेsपि कैशिकी रहितेरवृत्तत्वं रसवदेव लभ्यते ।

धनिक, अव., पृ 178

53. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 94-96, Ch. XIX, 47.

54. उत्क्रमणीयां सृष्टिं जीवितं प्राणाः यासां ताः उत्कृष्टिकाः शोकयन्त्रः स्रियास्ताभिरंकित इति तद्युक्तः । अयं च करुणरसाहुल्याददेवदेवैर्वियोगः रौद्रवीभत्स भयानक संबन्धो इहु च दिव्ययोगे भवत्यपि न तु करुणयोगः ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18, पृ 445

55. Dhananjaya, D.R., B III, 70-72.

56. उत्सृष्टिकांक इति नाटकान्तर्गतां कथयवचेधेदार्थम् ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 180

57. Viśvanātha, S.D., Ch. VI, 250-252 Śāradātanaya, B.P. p. 251.

58. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XVIII 101-107.

59. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XVIII, p. 447 ff.

60. Dhanañjaya, D. R. B. III, 54-56, Dhanika, AV., p. 175 ff.

61. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XVIII, 107-110.

62. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XVIII, p. 449 ff.

63. Dhanañjaya D.R. B. III, 49-51 , Dhanika, AV. p. 174.

64. Viśvanātha, S.D. Ch. VI, 227-230 Rāmacandra, Gunacandra, N.D., Sū. 129-130, Śāradātanaya, B.P., p. 244, Keith, SKD, p. 348.

65. सर्वेरसलक्षगाढ़या युक्ता हू यद्गैस्वर्योगद्रभिः । वीथी स्यादेकांका तथैकहार्या द्विहार्या वा ॥ अध्योमोत्तममध्येाभिर्युक्ता स्यात्प्रकृतिभिस्तिसृभिः । उद्भात्यकावलगितावस्पन्दिततनालस्यतत्प्रलापाश्र्च ॥ वाक्केलयथ प्रपंचो मदवाक्यवले छलं त्रिगतम् । व्याहारो गण्डश्च त्रयो दशांगान्युुदाहृतान्तस्याः ॥ भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, 112-114

66. अथ सर्वान्तसर्वरससमयत्वादविततस्वभावत्वाच्च संक्षेपेण शक्यव्युत्प- त्तिदापिनीत्वेन । प्रधानमतत्वात्तदंगानां च नाटिकादिभाणान्तसमस्त- रूपकोपजीवत्वाद वีथी लक्ष्यति । एकहार्यरिस्यैकाश्रभाषितै । द्विहार्यैति उक्तिप्रत्युक्तिवचैचित्रयेणेत्यर्थः । abhi., अभि. भा., अध्याय 18, पृ 452

67. वीथी तु कैशिकीवृत्तौ सन्ध्यंगांकैस्तु भाणवत् ॥ रसः मुख्यस्तु शृंगारः स्पष्टोदपि रसान्तरम् । युक्ता प्रस्तावनाव्यतीरंगोद्भास्याद्याकादिभिः ॥ एवं वीथी विधातव्या द्वयेकपात्रप्रयोजित । धनंजय, द. रू., तृतीय, प्र० 68-70

68. वीथीवदवीथी मार्गः शृंगानां पवित्रवा भाणवत्कार्या । विशेषस्तु रसः शृंगारो परिपूर्णत्वाद भूयसा सूच्यः, रसान्तराण्यपि स्तोकेन स्पर्शनीयानि । कैशिकी वृत्ति रसौचित्यादेव । धनिक, अव., पृ० 180

69. Viśvanātha, S.D. Ch. VI, 253-254, follows Daśarūpaka, Śāradātanaya, B.P., pp. 230, 251, accepts its prominent Rasa to be Śṛngāra and Kaiśikī Vṛtti. He gives its specimens Bakulavithī and Indulekhā etc.

70. पदानि त्वगतार्थानि नरा पुनरादरात्‌ । योजयन्ति पदैरन्यैस्तदुद्धृत्यमुच्यते ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, का. 115, 116

71. पदान्यर्थगतानि प्रश्नरूपाण्यादरात्कृतानि पर्यायैः पदान्तरैरुत्तररूपैः नरासुधियो योजयन्ति । तदुत्तरपदसमूहात्मकमुद्धृत्यात्मकम् ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अध्याय 18, पृ. 454

72. गूढार्थपदपर्यायमाला प्रश्नोत्तरस्य वा । यत्नान्यैरुच्यं समालापो द्वैविध्यादात्यं तदुच्यते ।

ध., द. रू., तृतीय 14 अ पृ. 13. 14 अ

73. यत्रान्यरसिमन् समावेश्य कार्यमन्यत्प्रसाध্যতे । तच्चावलगितं नाम विज्ञेयं नाटचयोगतुभिः ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 18-116, 117

74. यत्रैकल समावेशात्कार्यमन्यत्प्रसाध्यते ॥ प्रस्तुतेऽनन्यत्र वाडन्यस्यातत्च्चावलगितं त्रिधा ।

ध., द. रू., तृतीय प्र०, 14, 15 अ

75. आक्षिप्ते तु क्सिम्नुञ्चिच्छ्लुनाश्रुसमुत्थिते ॥ कौशलादु च्यतेनन्योऽर्थस्तदवस्पन्दितं भवेतू ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, का. 117, 118

76. श्लाभाष्यं देवं तेनाबुद्धिपूर्वकं कुतश्चिदर्थे आक्षिप्तेऽपि कौशलात्तत्प्रच्छ- दने च्छया यन्त्रोप्तदन्योऽर्थ उच्चयते तदवस्पन्दनादिवदन्तर्गत- सूचनोयसंभवात् । यथा ‘सपत्नक्षय मधुरगिरः प्रसाधिताच्चा मदोद्धतारम्भा । निपतन्ति धार्तराष्ट्राः कालवशान्मेदिनोपप्लुढे ।’

अभि., अभि. भा., अ 18, पृ. 455

77. रसोक्तस्यानन्यथा व्याख्या यत्रावस्पन्दितं हि तत् ।

ध. द. रू. तृ. प्र., 19 अ. धनिक अव., पृ. 159

78. हस्येनोपगतार्थ प्रहेलिका नालिकेति विज्ञेया । परवितारणकारि यदुत्तरं, अतएव हस्ययुक्ता सा नालिका प्रणालिका व्याजेत्यर्थः ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 18, 118

अभि., अभि. भा. अ. 18, पृ. 455

सोपहासा निगूढार्था नालिकैव प्रहेलिका ।

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र., 19, धनिक. अव., पृ. 159

79. मूर्खं जनसन्निकर्षे हितमपि यत् प्रभाणते विद्वान् । न तु च गृह्यतेsडसवचनं विजेयोऽस्यालापोऽवरोधः ।

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

ग्रादौ असंबद्धं च यथाक्रमसंवद्धं तथोत्तरम् ।

असत्प्रलापस्तच्चैव वीथ्यां सम्यक् प्रयोजयेत् ।

असंबन्धं तु बन्ध-प्रलापिताज्ज्वचनं गृही यत्नतः श्रेयो ।

स जेयोडसत्प्रलापस्तु । यदद्भुतं वचनं स जेयोसत्प्रलापस्तु ।

गायकवाड संस्कादित ना. शा. अ. 18 का. 119, पृ. 455

80. असम्बद्धकथाप्रायोगसत्प्रलापो यथोत्तरः ।

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र., 20

81. ननु चासम्बद्धार्थत्वेऽसंगतिनामवाक्यदोष उक्तः ।

तन्न उत्सन्नायितमदोनमादशैवादीनामसम्बद्धप्रलापित्व विभावो ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 160

82. एकद्रिप्रतिवनाबाक्केली स्वात्प्रयोगेऽस्मिन् ।

भ. ना. शा. अ. 18, 120 अ

83. एकं द्वयो प्रतिवचनमस्याम् । द्विग्रहणमनेकोपलक्षणम् । तदमनासर्वप्रश्नो-

त्तरवर्गः स्वाकृतः ।

अभि., अभि. मा., अ-18, पृ. 456

84. त्रिनिवृत्यास्य वाक्येली द्विस्वः प्रत्युक्तितोदपि वा ।

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र., 17

85. अस्येति वाक्यस्य प्रकान्तस्य साकाड्क्षास्थ विनिवर्त्तन वावकेली द्विस्त्ववा उक्तिप्रत्युक्तयः ।

धनिक, अव., पू, 157

86. Haas Dasarūpa, Eng. Trans. p. 87.

87. Viśvanātha, S.D. Ch. VI, 259. Sāradatanaya, B.P., p. 231.

88. यदसद्भूतं वचनं संसतवयुक्तं द्वयोः परस्परं यत् ।

एकस्य चार्थहेतेः स हास्यजननः प्रपंचः स्यात् ।

भ., ना. शा., अ-18, का. 120, 121 अ

89. असद्भूतेनार्थोन पारदार्यादिनिपुणप्रादिना याडन्योऽन्यस्तुतितः स प्रपंचः ।

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र. 15 धनिक, अव., पृ. 155

90. यत्कारणाद्गुणानां दोषीकरणं भवेद्विवादकृतम् ।

दोषगुणीकरणं वा तन्मूदवं नाम विज्ञेयम् ।

भ., ना. शा., अ-18, का. 121, 122

91. मृद्वारम्भाति मृदनं मृदुपरपक्षमेदनं स्वपक्षमदान रक्षार्थकृत् ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ 18, पृ० 457

92. दोषा गुणा गुणा दोषा यत्र स्युमूदवं हि तत् ।

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र., 21 अ

88

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

93. परवचनमात्रंश्चोत्तरोत्तरसमुद्भवं द्वयो यैतु ॥

अन्योन्यार्थविशेषकमधिबलमिति तद्बुधैर्ज्ञेयमु ।

भ., ना. शा., अ 18, का., 122, 123

अन्योन्यवाक्याधिक्योक्तिः स्पर्धयाडधिबलं भवेत् ।

घ., द. रू., 3-18 अ

94. अन्यार्थमते बाक्यां छेदनोक्तिसंघटनमहोय्यरोपकम् ।

भ., ना, शा., अ-18, 123

95. यत्रादौ प्रतिवचनैविलोभयित्त्वा परस्पराकारः । तत्रैवार्थंवहि

नैविपरीतः ।

गायकवाड सीरीज,अ-18, पृ० 457

96. प्रियभिरप्रियैर्वाक्यैविलोम्य छलनाच्छलम् ।

घ., द. रू., नू. प्र., 17 अ

97. Viśvanātha, S.D., Ch. VI, 258-259, follows D.R., but quotes the definition of Bharata of ‘chala’ quoting it as others, Sāradātanaya, BP, p. 231.

98. श्रुतिसाम्याद्यसमन्व बहवोऽर्था युज्यन्तेऽभियुज्यन्ते ।

यद्वास्यमहास्यं वा तत्रिगतं नाम विज्ञेयम् ।

भरत, ना. शा. अ 18, 124

99. श्रुतिसाम्यादिति शब्दस। रुप्याद बहव इति प्रश्नप्रतिवचनस्य स्वभावा

यत्र नियुज्यन्ते युक्तिभिरिति काकादीना तथा्वोपपत्तिभिः ।

त्रिशव्दोनेकेऽपलक्षणम्, अनेकर्थगतमतिति त्रिगतं वाक्ये मुख्यमुत्तम-

नेकप्रनसाधारणम् इह तु य एव प्रश्नस्तदेव प्रतिवचनमिति विशेषः ।

अभि., अभि., भा., अ.-18, पृ० 458

100. श्रुतिसाम्यादनेकार्थयोजनानं त्रिगतं द्विह ।

नटावकृततयालापः पूर्व रंगे तदिष्यते ॥

घ.,द. रू., तू. अ., 16

101. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 328.

102. प्रत्यक्षवृत्तिरुक्तो-व्याहारो हास्यलेशार्थः ।

भ. ना. शा., अ. 18, का. 125 अ.

103. प्रत्यक्षशब्देन भावी प्रत्यक्ष उच्यते । तदयमर्थः भाविनि प्रत्यक्षेऽर्थे

दैववशाद वृत्तियंस्य स व्याहार/विविधोऽर्थ्यस्मिनीयते येन ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18, पृ० 458

104. अन्यार्थमेव व्याहारो हास्यलोथकरं वचः ॥

घ., द. रू., तू. प्र., का. 20 अ

The Ten Forms of Sanskrit Drama

89

105. सरम्भसंभ्रमयुक्तं विवादयुक्तं तथापवादकृतम् ।

बहुवचनाक्षेपकृतमू गण्डं प्रवदन्ति तज्ज्ञाः ।

भ., ना. शा., अं. 18, 125, 126 अ

106. द्विगण्ड वगण्ड: ईपदसमाप्तवचनं तथा च कोहल: 'वचसां' संबन्धानामन्ते

यत्स्यात्पदे त्वसंबन्ध: ।

संबन्धमिवाभाति हि तद् द्विगण्डो नाम वीथ्यंगम् ॥ अननेपदसमाप्तिरेव दर्शिता 'भर्तृ भैमेन मरुता भवतो रथकेतनम्' ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अः18, पू० 458, 459 ।

107. गण्ड: प्रस्तुतसंवन्धभिन्नार्थ सहसोदितम् ॥

ध., द. रू., तृ. प्र., 18

108. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XVIII, pp. 454. 459.

109. इत्यं विचिन्त्य दशरूपकलक्ष्यमार्गैरालोक्य वस्तु परिभाव्य कविप्रबन्धान् ।

कथ्यादिग्रन्थनवदलकृतिभि: प्रबन्धं वाक्यैरुदारामधुरै: स्फुटमनोहरौत्तै: ॥

ध., द., रू., तृ. प्र., 76

CHAPTER 5

PART I

PLOT : VASTU OR ITIVṚTTA

We shall now discuss, first of all plot, one of the basic elements of Indian drama. Sentiment (Rasa) may be the soul of a play, but it is only through its plot that the sentiment gets nourishment. The Plot consists of the subject-matter that is to be described in the play or in other words, it is the story of the play on the basis of which a play is constructed. According to Aristotle, the Plot is the first principle, rather the soul of a tragedy, while according to Bharata it is not the soul; it is the body of the play. Dhananjaya has also accepted the subject-matter, the Hero and the sentiment as the elements on the basis of which Dramas in Sanskrit are classified. So, let us first describe the Plot as is understood in Sanskrit dramaturgy.

Bharata1 uses the term Itivrtta or sometimes ‘Vastu’ for the plot, while Dhananjaya2 uses the term Vastu. Now the problem is; Are the two terms synonymous and denote the same thing or are they separate and why this divergence came in the two terms ? Let us look closely into the matter. ‘Vṛttam’, in general, would mean what has happened and Itivrttam would mean, ‘it happened in this way.’ The subject-matter, that has happened, appeals more and is more probable than what may happen. Previously, the sources of Sanskrit plays were, generally, the two great epics: the Ramayana and the Mahabharata which described the incidents of the great heroes of the past. Hence, the use of the term Vṛtta for the Plot. As the story could not be presented in the same raw

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

form, it was adapted, modified and beautified, in the manner suited to the needs of the play. Therefore, the term ‘Itivrtta, was used. While ‘Vastu’ means the subject-matter in its raw form and it may consist of the present matters also. Hence ‘Vastu’ is a wider term. This appears quite a plausible reason that later in Sanskrit Dramaturgy, the term, ‘Vastu’ was more commonly used than ‘Itivrtta.’ The two words—Itivrttam and Vastu have been used as synonyms, generally, denoting the subject-matter or Plot of the story. In defining the subject-matter of a Nātaka, Bharata3 uses the term ‘Prakhyātavastu’, in the definitions of Prakarana, Nāṭikā, D̥ima, Prahasana, Utsr̥ṣṭikānka, the term, ‘Vastu’ is used. But when Bharata describes the constituents of the plot, he uses the term Itivrttam. So the only difference that we find between the two terms may be that ‘Vastu’ denotes the story or subject-matter in the raw form and ‘Itivrttam’ in the refined form, when it has been adapted in a play. However, Bharata has also used the word ‘Vastu’ for the well-arranged plot.

Abhinavagupta4 takes the two terms as synonymous when he explains the term ‘Itivrttam’ meaning by it the matter that is to be represented, thus refined and beautified by the poet. Dhanañjaya has also not made the difference between the two. Dhanañjaya,5 while mentioning the three distinguishing elements of the plays, uses the term ‘Vastu’ and also applies it when he describes the division of the plot. Then he uses the term ‘Vr̥ttam’ and ‘Itivrttam’, when he defines defferent kinds of plays in his third Book. Dhanika6 has not made any remarkable contribution in this field. He just defines ‘Vastu’ as to be described i.e. ‘Varnanīyam’. Dhanañjaya has just reversed the use of these two terms from Bharata.

As we see there is no great difference between the two terms and the dramaturgists have used them synonymously, so we will take the two terms as synonyms, generally, denoting the subject-matter of a play, i.e. Plot and which is an aggregate of all the incidents and episodes depicted in the play.

Division and Construction of the Plot

The order adopted here for discussion will be to take up the arguments of Bharata, first of all, followed by those of Abhinavagupta and then those of Dhanañjaya, Dhanika and others. According to Bharata7 the Plot has been called the body of

the drama. It is known to be divided into Five Sandhis (segments). Then the Plot (Itivrtta) should be devised into two: one should be Ādhikārikam (Principal) and the other Prāsangikam (subsidiary). Bharata, next, defines the Principal kind of Plot. An assemblage of acts which are constructed with a view to the attainment of Phala (result), is to be known as the Principal Plot (Ādhikārikam).

Acts other than these constitute a subsidiary Plot (Prasangikam). The attainment of the object and its exaltation, which the ingenuity of the play-wright plans by means of the associated characters (lit. heroes) acting in a regular manner constitute the Principal plot on account of an attainment of the result. Anything (incident) mentioned for helping the Principal is called the subsidiary plot (Prāsangikam). In short, in Bharata's view that part of the subject-matter will be termed principal which deals with the Principal Attainment of the leading character, and the other part of the story, auxiliary in that attainment will be termed as subsidiary Plot (Prāsangikam).

In the view of Abhinavagupta8 the ‘Itivrttam’ should be devised by the poet into two only and by the use of ‘Ca’ Bharata means that the poet should devise the plot in Prakaraṇa. Explaining Bharata, Abhinava writes that it is not by nature that one is Principal and the other subsidiary. This division is made by the poet. When the poet has made one plot Ādhikārika, the other will be subsidiary and this is indicated by the word ‘dvidhā’. A collection of events is divided into two parts; it is just like one plot having two branches. It becomes clear that a poet chooses a story, he makes some portions in it principal and other incidents subsidiary to it.

Abhinavagupta, further, explains the Ādhikārika and the Prasangika plot. Ārambha (to be defined further) consisting of knowledge, desire, effort and action, in the Phala principally to be attained, is called Ādhikārika Itivrtta. As for example, in the Principal Plot there is no employment of another effort other than the one which remains wedded with it to fulfil the desire connected with the means that are to be proclaimed and the achievement of the final Result, likewise in the subsidiary plot there is always the absence of another effort.

Abhinavagupta, next, has defined Prāsangikam. In his words Prasakti (association) is Prasaṅga, and derived from that will be termed Prāsangika, or as it is inserted for the attainment of Principal Phala, so that is Prasaṅga and the plot consisting of that

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

associated incident will be Prāsangika. Though Bharata has not mentioned whether the subsidiary plot is of one form or of many kinds, yet Abhinava has raised this point in his commentary and he maintains that all the subsidiary plot is of one form and refutes the view of those who think that Prāsangika may be of many types, depending upon the association of other powers or not having their association. As he states that the varieties of Prāsangika narrated by Ṭīkākāra, are not accepted by our teachers and he accepts their view. He, further simply explains the statement of Bharata without adding anything new. Bharata and Abhinavagupta have divided the plot into two, namely, Ādhikārikam and Prāsangikam and they have not broken the subsidiary plot further. They have discussed Patākā and Prakari in the context of Arthaprakṛtis.

In conformity with Bharata, Dhananjaya* also divides the subject-matter into two. According to to him also Vastu is twofold and in these two, the Ādhikārikam is the Principal and the subsidiary is called Prāsangikam. In the opinion of Dhanika,10 the matter, which is described as Principal, is Ādhikārikam like the episode of Rāma and Sītā in Rāmāyaṇa, and the matter, described as subordinate to the main is Prāsangikam like the episode of Vibhīṣaṇa and Sugrīva etc. in the Rāmāyaṇa. The Dhananjaya has defined Ādhikārikam, first defining Adhikāra. In his words Adhikāra is the possession of the desired result (Phala) and the possessor of that result is called Adhikārin, the incident related to him is called Ādhikārikam. According to Dhanika's commentary, Adhikāra is connected with the possessor of Phala and the possession of Phala is Adhikāra, so the Plot, leading to the attainment of Phala by the possessor or possession, is Ādhikārikam. Like Bharata and Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya and Dhanika have also related the Principal Plot with the attainment of Phala.

After Ādhikārika Dhananjaya defines Prāsangika. Prāsangikam is for the purpose of another person by means of which one's own purpose is incidentally furthered. Dhanika just explains Dhananjaya and adds that it is called Prāsangikam as it ends with the Prasanga (context).

Bharata's definition of the Prāsangikam is very clear in itself. Bharata has simply stated that the Vṛtta other than that dealing with the principal phala is termed Prāsangikam and this Ānuṣangikam is described to help or support the principal plot.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika divide the subsidiary plot again into two. When it is continuous, i.e., it is with Anubandha it is called Patākā (Episode) and when it is of short duration, that is, limited to a short extent, it is Prakari. According to Dhanika, the Prasañgikam, which follows upto greater extent, is Patākā like the episode of Sugriva, and which is short, is Prakari like the incident of Sramanā.

Next Dhanañjaya and Dhanika have defined Patākāsthānaka, and again they come to the division of the plot.

Dhanika, prior to the Kārikā of Dhanañjaya, comments that the three-fold plot, Ādhikārika and two kinds of Prasañgikam is again threefold. As Dhanañjaya has put, that threefold plot is also threefold depending upon the classification into ‘Prakhyāta’ (legendary), the ‘Utpādya’ (invented) and the Miśra’ (mixed). The legendary is derived from the history etc., the invented (Utapādya) is devised by the poet, the mixed is from the combination of these two in accordance with a classification into gods, mortals and the like. Thus the plot becomes ninefold.

This will be according to Dhanika’s commentary. Dhanañjaya has further divided it on the basis of characters either having divine or mortal or both. It is further divided into two, some to be indicated and the other visible and audible. This is further declared to be of three kinds with regard to the dramatic conventions (Nāṭyadharma) : audible to all, audible to the limited, not audible.

If we compare Dhanañjaya and Dhanika with Bharata and Abhinavagupta we find that Bharata has not divided the plot thus. To avoid confusion and to be systematic and rational, Bharata has divided the whole Itivrtta only into two ; the principal and the subsidiary. Bharata has neither directly mentioned the two kinds of subsidiary plot, nor he has refuted like Abhinava who says that subsidiary plot is only of one kind everywhere. On the other hand Dhanañjaya has accepted plot or Vastu as the first important element among the three elements that distinguish the ten kinds of play from each other. So his treatment of the Plot is done keeping this fact in view. This is the basic difference between Bharata and Dhanañjaya in treating the constituents of drama. Dhanañjaya’s classification of the Vastu is wider keeping in view all the aspects of the plot. Therefore, he has first divided plot into two in accordance with Bharata. Next he has divided it keeping in view the source

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

95

of the story, the characters, the portrayal and the dramatic con-

ventions. He has covered all the possible classification of the Plot.

Although Bharata has not mentioned Patākā and Prakarī as the

two kinds of subsidiary plot and has discussed them under

Arthaprakṛtis and Dhananjaya has accepted them as the two kinds

of subsidiary plot, they may be accepted so, as they also constitute

the part of the plot related with the subsidiary characters, who help

the principal characters in attaining the main object and serving

the principal purpose, fulfil their own objective, too, incidentally.

Finally, we may say that all have accepted the division of the

plot into two, the principal one (Ādhikārikam) and the subsidiary

one (Prāsaṅgikam). Principal plot consists of the main incidents,

connected with the attainment of the main phala by the Hero and

the subsidiary plot deals with the incidents connected with the main

incidents of the plot.

Five Avasthās or Stages

Next, in the view of Bhārata,11 the exertion of the hero, (i.e. one

who strives) towards the object to be attained is known to have

five Avasthās occurring according to their due order. These five

stages enumerated are : ‘Prārabha’ (beginning), ‘Prayatna’ (effort),

‘Prāpti sambhava, (possibility of attainment), ‘Niyata-Phala-Prāpti’

(Certainty of attainment) and ‘Phalayoga’ (Attainment of the object).

Bharata defines each of them in the following manner.

‘Arambha’ (Beginning)

The part of the play, which merely creates a curiosity about the

attainment of the great object, with reference to the Bīja, is called

‘Arambha’.

‘Prayatna’ (effort)

Hero’s striving towards the object, when the same is not in view

and (his steps) exciting curiosity about, it is called ‘Prayatna’.

‘Prāpti-Sambhava’ (Possibility of Attainment)

When the attainment of the object is slightly suggested by some

psychological state (bhāva), it is to be known as the ‘Prāpti-

sambhava’.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrttia

'Niyataphala-prāpti' (Certainty of Attainment)

When the hero visualises, due to a psychological state (bhāvamā-trena), a sure attainment of the object, it is called Niyata-phala-prāpti, attended by virtue or accompanied by virtuous happenings (Saguna).

'Phala-Yoga' (Attainment of the object)

When a suitable result of the intended actions is achieved in full at the end of the events of a play, it is called 'Phala-yoga'.

Thus, in Bharata's opinion these are the five successive stages of every action begun by persons who strive for results.

In Abhinavagupta's12 view, the stages of the action, both belonging to words and mental effort, should be depicted in due order, by the poets. And in the Kārikā of Bharata (19.8) words 'Ca' and 'tathā' denote that the successive order must be followed.

He also interprets each of them.

In his view, Prārabbha is that stage, in which there is keen curiosity and zeal for the Bīja, which serves as a means in the attainment of the great phala befitting to its hero. Here, the hero acts with a keen desire and curiosity thinking that by this means, this object will be attained. Abhinava adds that Prārabmha Avasthā may be depicted of the hero, of his minister, of the heroine, of the anti-hero or of the Providence (Daiva). This is a new contribution of Abhinavagupta. While Bharata said that mere eagerness of the 'Bija' for the great attainment of the phala is Phalārambha, Abhinava has explained it clearly.

In interpreting 'Prayatna', he agrees with Bharata and writes that striving towards the attainment of the object with great eagerness, analysing and trying to find out the means for the attainment when the same is not in view, is 'Prayatna'. In this stage there is anxiety, desire to find out the means and to act for the attainment of the object.

In his definition of 'Prāpti-Sambhava' Bharata has used a pada 'Bhāvamātrena' to indicate the psychological state, Abhinava explains this compound by splitting it into two words 'bhāva' and 'mātra'. By 'Bhāva' he takes the means (of attainment) and by 'Mātra', he includes the accessories of the means and the removal of the obstacles in the attainment of final object. It would thus, mean that when a partial attainment of the particular phala is suggested

by the achievement of its means only, then, there is Prāptisambhava. Here, at this stage, there is only the possibility of attainment, not the certainty. This is the third stage of the hero (Lit. doer, Kartuḥ) which consists of the capability for possible attainment, characterised by the presence of impossibility.

In interpreting ‘Niyatāpti-Avasthā’, he, rather, confuses the issue by offering two contradictory interpretations of the word ‘Sagunām’ used in Bharata’s definition. On the one hand, he suggests that this Avasthā is secondary in nature which is absolutely against the conception of Bharata. Bharata has not anywhere stated that these Avasthās may be primary or secondary. On the other hand, Abhinava interprets ‘Saguna, Sahagunena, Darśanena Vartate’, i.e. which has the special characteristic of being visualised. He does not accept the view of those who interpret ‘niyatām’ as doubtful. In Niyatāpti, there is certainty of success because of the removal of obstacles, but actual attainment is not there. At this stage the attainer clearly sees that the means adopted will definitely lead to the final success.

In the view of Abhinava ‘Phalayoga’ is that part of the plot in which the hero attains the phala in its entirety which was desired by him and which was proper for him. This ‘phala’ is not like ‘Vidhphala’ which is described as requiring another phala like heaven etc. to be gained at another time. But this ‘phala’ of the play in its entirety does not require another phala. He, further, elaborates that it is not necessary that all these stages should directly involve the Nāyaka, because even the stages, pertaining to the ministers etc., result ultimately in the attainment by the hero. By quoting the stanza of Ratnāvalī ‘Prārambhe’ smin Svāminaḥ Siddhihetau’, he illustrates his point. In the same play (Ratnāvalī) the stages, related to the minister Yaugandharāyana, ultimately lead to the hero’s attainment of the phala. Thus, Abhinava has widened the scope of Avasthās and made Bharata’s point more clear. A doubt may be posed about the possibility of these stages in the case of attainment controlled by fate. He removes the doubt by stating that though in the play, where the phala is controlled by fate, the hero does not endeavour, even then he attains the phala. Wherever there is ‘phala’, there must be these five stages. The hero, as he attains the ‘phala’, becomes ‘phalārthī’.

While Bharata’s description of five stages is in proper sequence, Dhananjaya has first discussed five Arthaprakrtis, and

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

then Dhanika states, another group of five stages is now described. Of course in his treatment of Avasthās Dhananjaya does not differ from Bharata. In line with Bharata, he also states the five stages of the action which is set on foot by those that strive after a result. He terms them ; Ārambha, Prayatna, Prāptyāśā, Niyatāpti and Phalāgama. Now we shall view these stages as discussed by Dhananjaya13 and Dhanika.14 Dhananjaya defines Ārambha, in brief, as the mere eagerness for obtaining the more important phala. In Dhanika's view 'this I perform' this much exertion, the mental effort is Ārambha, as may be illustrated from Ratnāvalī where the Ārambha of the action of Vatsarāja, whose success depends upon the minister, is shown through Yaugandharāyaṇa when he states 'Prārabhe' smin Svāmino Vṛddhihitau etc.' While Abhinavagupta has made this clear in his commentary that this stage may pertain to anyone—the hero or the heroine or the minister, Dhananjaya and Dhanika do not make it clear to whom this eagerness pertains.

In his definition of 'Prayatna' also Dhananjaya does not differ from Bharata and accepts it as the exertion attended with great haste when that (phala) has not been attained. Agreeing with Dhananjaya and Abhinava, in Dhanika's view too, the particular effort directed towards the seeking and employing the means for the attainment, when the same is not in view, is 'Prayatna'. Dhanika as usual illustrates it from Ratnāvalī, when Sāgarikā devises her meeting with Vatsarāja through painting etc.

Dhananjaya defines 'Prāptyāśā', the third stage, as the possibility of succeeding in attainment, with means at hand, but also with fear of failure. Dhanika has illustrated this from Ratnāvalī when the device of meeting through change of dress etc. is present, but there is also the fear of Vāsavadattā's arrival, as Vidūṣaka expresses the doubt 'if Vāsavadattā does not come like the sudden gust of wind.'

Although Bharata did not mention like Dhananjaya that there is fear of obstacle, yet it may be taken as implied when the former mentions that a little gain is devised, not the complete gain. The difference between the two is that Dhananjaya makes it more clear that there is hope of succeeding because of the presence of means, but also the fear of obstacles, while Bharata has not mentioned it clearly and his term 'bhāva' is ambiguous. But Abhinava has

100

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

mentioned this fact in his commentarya. Dhananjaya may be said to follow Bharata.

In Dhananjaya's view certainty of attainment or Niyatāpti is the assurance of succeeding because of the absence of risk. Here, the word 'āpti' is very appropriate as it denotes that there is not the complete success actually attained, but it becomes certain that the hero will gain the 'phala' by these means. Dhanika, agreeing with Dhananjaya comments that the attainment of phala has been assured in the favour of one and he illustrates it from Ratnāvalī when king realises that there is no other way out except pleasing the queen. It becomes certain that the queen will be pleased and she will be no more a hurdle. But the lines quoted by Dhanika to illustrate Niyatāpti occur prior to the lines quoted by him to illustrate Prāptisambhava, in the play. Here we find a little difference between Bharata and Dhananjaya. While in Bharata's view hero visualises this stage through 'bhāva' and it is 'Saguna', Dhananjaya has not used these words. While Bharata's definition is ambiguous, Dhananjaya's is clear, and we may say that he has improved upon Bharata.

In Dhananjaya's view Phalāgama is the accomplishment of the entire 'phala' as it arises, Dhanika has not thought it necessary to explain. He has simply stated that as for example in Ratnāvalī Nāṭikā, the attainment of Ratnāvalī and of universal sovereignty (Cakravartitva) by the king.

Bharata is comprehensive in his definition and he has made it clear that 'phalayoga' is that stage when the entire phala is attained which is complete, appropriate and suited to the hero and which is as was desired. Abhinava has also made the point very clear in his commentary that it is complete in the sense it does not need any other result and the word 'Abhipreta' denotes that even the stages belonging to the minister etc., actually result in the attainment of the Hero. On the other hand Dhananjaya is concise in his definition. The word, 'Yathoditah' used by him may be interpreted in two ways : first as arisen, which will mean as the result has arisen, according to the action, and it is more appropriate than the other which would mean 'as uttered' and that will create contradiction as Dhananjaya has not previously mentioned it. We find a drawback in Dhanika's commentary also. He has not supplied any commentary here, which he ought to have done.

Thus, we find that Dhananjaya has not deviated much about

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

the stages from what Bharata stated. He has followed Bharata to a large extent. Abhinavagupta has made additions to make the view of Bharata more clear. He has added his own interpretation while discussing the Ārambha-Avasthā’, the ‘phalayoga-Avasthā’ and has properly shown the ambiguity of Bharata’s definitions by bringing out two interpretations of ‘Saguṇa’ and ‘Splitting ‘Bhāvamātreṇa’ into two in ‘Niyataphala-prāpti Avasthā’.

Finally, we may say that the view of Bharata about five Avasthās is comprehensive and all inclusive. The main action must necessarily have a beginning and an end. But as these two stages cannot coalesce, so as to endure the interest in the action, the beginning and end must be intervened by obstructions, efforts for their removal, success of such efforts and consequently the ultimate success in the undertaking.

These five stages are essential for any action in the successive order and they may be illustrated from Abhijñānaśākuntala of Kālidāsa.

The first stage of Ārambha which consists of mere eagerness and zeal begins in the case of Duṣyanta from the statement ‘well I will see her’ and of Śakuntalā from the statement, ‘seeing him, I feel something against the feeling suited to the hermitage’.

The second stage of Prayatna, which consists of eager efforts to discover all sorts of means for the end when the same is not in view, begins when Duṣyanta says to Vidūṣaka. ‘I have been recognised by some hermits. Then think, on what pretext we can go again to the Āśrama’.

The third stage of Prāptyāśā, which consists of attaining possibility of attaining the object but at the same time is fret with chances of failure, may be taken pertaining to the fourth and fifth acts, as there is the possibility of attaining the phala and there is impossibility of attaining the phala due to the presence of obstacle in the form of course.

The fourth stage of Niyatāpti arises when all impediments that stand in the way of begetting success are removed and the ‘phalārthi’ visualises the certainty of success. This is present in the sixth act of Abhijñānaśākuntala because all the obstacles in the way of union of Śakuntalā with Duṣyanta have been removed with the attainment of the ring that was lost.

The fifth stage Phalayoga is when all efforts of the hero, his counter-part and assistants are crowned with success and bear the result of total acquisition of the desired object and the dramatic action reaches its apex of fulfilment.

102

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

This stage will be found in the last Act of every play. It is present in the seventh Act of Śākuntala as there is final union of Duṣyanta with Śakuntalā.

Thus, we see that an 'Avasthā (stage) is a significant psychological phase of the mind and five Avasthās are related with the psychological or mental state of the Nāyaka throughout the whole action of the play. This division of the plot into five Avasthās is psychologically based.

Arthaprakṛtis (Elements of the Plot)

Bharata has mentioned five Arthaprakṛtis after stating five Avasthās. Now these five Arthaprakṛtis give rise to some problems: as for example, what is the necessity of these in a plot ? How they differ from Avasthās and what is the relation of these with the Five Avasthas ? We will discuss these problems, gradually, with the views of important author. First, we will take up the view of Bharata.

Bharata16 states that as the five stages Ārambha etc. have been described in the 'Itivṛtta', in the same manner there are stated five Arthaprakṛtis, Bīja etc. in the plot. In other words, the five stages of the plot such as Ārambha etc. have five means of attaining objects of the Plot. Bīja (seed), Bindu (Expansion) Patākā (Episode), Prakarī (Episodical incident) and the Kāryam (Denouement) are the five elements of the plot, which should be reckoned and applied in a proper manner. Bharata defines each of the Arthaprakṛtis.

Bīja

That, which scattered in a small measure, expands itself in various ways and ends in fruition is called the Bīja of the plot. Bīja, put in the beginning of the play in a very small measure, ultimately results in the attainment of the phala.

Bindu

That, which sustains the continuity till the end of the play even when the chief object of the play is (for the time being) suspended, is called the Bindu. Viewing the definition of Bharata more closely, we can say that when all the purposes have stopped, i.e. the purposes or the means previously introduced by the play-wright

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

have come to an end and the story comes to a halt and does not proceed further, then the cause that helps in resuming up the story and pushes it onwards is called Bindu. It is Bindu as it becomes the linking point, connecting the story with the previous purposes. It maintains the continuity of the main story upto the final attainment of the phala, so it extends upto the end of the play. As a result, it may occur more than once. Of course, in the definition of Bharata, the word 'Prayojanānām' is not clear in itself. It is used in plural in genitive case. It may mean the means or the Upāyas of the main phala, (as is taken by Abhinavagupta) or may mean the subsidiary aims or the purposes adopted by the playwright or should it be taken to mean sixfold purposes as Rāgaprāpti etc. mentioned in the context of Sandhyangas. But it appears out of context here. Its first interpretation seems to be more appropriate.

Patākā

The subsidiary Vṛtta, which is introduced in the interest of the principal one and is treated like it, is called Patākā. It supports the cause of the main Bharata does not mention directly that Patākā serving the interest of the other, (i.e. principal) serves its own purpose too, but it may be inferred from his statement about Prakarī. Though Bharata has introduced Anusandhī, a topic intimately connected with Patākā, after describing the five Arthaprakṛtis, it is more logical to treat that here, so that its character and relation with Patākā could be understood clearly. Anusandhī is another segment, connected with Patākā itivrtta. Bharata has not supplied any details about it. It is Abhinava who discusses its relevance which we shall take up at a proper place.

Prakarī

In the view of Bharata, when the result of an event is presented for the purpose of another only (i.e. principal plot) and it has no continuation (anubandha), it is termed Prakarī. Thus Prakarī has no aim of its own to serve.

The difference between Patākā and Prakarī is that Patākā has continuity, it lasts longer, it benefits the principal plot, but at the same time it may fulfil its own purpose, so has been said that it should be devised like the main. On the other hand Prakarī's sole purpose is to serve the interest of the principal plot, it is of short duration, having no continuity. The common point between the two is that

both are introduced in the play to support the principal plot

or to assist in the final attainment of the leading hero.

Kāryam

The efforts, made for the purpose of the principal, introduced in

a play by the experts, are called Kāryam. To be more clear,

Kāryam is the whole action begun leading to the ultimate gain.

Bharata further states about the Arthaprakṛtis that among

these elements that, which has others for its support and to which

the rest are taken as subordinate, should be made prominent and

not the remaining ones. Obviously, the statement of Bharata is

not very clear in itself. We may interpret it thus, out of these,

the means that help the hero most in realising success should be

made prominent and the other subsidiary.

On the close examination of Bharata's definitions of Avasthās

and Arthaprakṛtis we find that while the five Avasthās pertain to

the principal plot, five Arthaprakṛtis include subsidiary plot also.

The other difference to be noted is, while five Avasthās are to be

employed in due order as stated, there is no such rule given about

Arthaprakṛtis. Arthaprakṛtis may be used at will and as suited

to the nature of the play. While the action of every play consists

of five Avasthās, in the case of five Arthaprakṛtis it is not necessary

that all should be present. While all the Avasthās are joined

together in a play for the attainment of the phala, among five

Arthaprakṛtis one may be made prominent and the other subservient

to it.

In the view of Abhinavagupta17 ‘Upāya’ or the means have

not been known till now. To show the material which consists

of means, helpful in the attainment of phala, five Arthaprakṛtis

are introduced. Abhinavagupta throws light on the importance

of Arthaprakṛtis and their part played in a play. As

there are stated five Avasthās of the ‘Ādhikārika itivrtta’, in the

same way, Arthaprakṛtis are also stated, five in number. If we

do not describe these Arthaprakṛtis, then, the nature and pattern

of the means will not be known; and without their knowledge the

five Avasthās as Prārambha etc. will not be actually realised and in

the absence of five Avasthās, principality (Ādhikārikatva) of the

plot will not be known. Bharata has used the compound

Arthaprakṛtayah. Now the problem arises, what is this Artha,

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

and what is meant by Prakrtis? This compound can be interpreted18 differently. Abhinavagupta19 takes Artha to mean phalam or in other words, Arthah is phala, Prakrtis of that Phala are its means (Upāyāḥ) and these means are the causes or instruments in the realization of phala (phalāhetavaḥ). To quote him in actual words 'Yatrarthah phalam tasya Prakrttayah Upāyāḥ Phalāhetavaḥ Ityarthah'. Abhinavagupta further divides these Arthaprakrtis into two, animate and inanimate. Inanimate is again divided into two and in them which are important means, the first, is Bija and the other is Kārya which ought to be done or applied. The animate is also divided into two, main and subsidiary. Subsidiary means are again of two kinds; first with its own interest, while serving the Principal, the other only for Principal's interest. In these animate means, the first, and important one is Bindu, the second is Patākā with its own interest when serving the other's purpose, the third is Prakari, which is present only for the purpose of others. By these five means, the complete phala is attained. They should be employed in the proper manner and should be used in the same order as enumerated. In the opinion of Abhinava, if by the Artha, in the compound 'Arthaprakrtis', is understood, the entire plot, then, every single incident or event like the performance of sandhyā etc., or every part of it like Sandhis etc. will also be included in this, and the cause for this could be termed Arthaprakrti, thus it, would make the sense vitiated due to the fault of 'Ativyāpta' which is undesirable. He, then, interprets each of these Arthaprakrtis in his own manner. In his view, the cause, that put in a small measure, spreads in many ways by all means and which leads to the end, i e. attainment of phala, is Bija. Above all means Kārya is its ultimate point where it has to reach, as for example, in Ratnāvali, putting of Sāgarikā in the harem, at the time of Vasantotsava, its serious purpose is not realised, results in the phala. Though Bharata has not mentioned, yet in Abhinava's view, the Bija is of various kinds, somewhere it is only as a means, somewhere as a phala only, somewhere it is both, somewhere is as the obtaining or material cause, somewhere is as returning from the obstacles, somewhere is both. Depending upon its object, whether it belongs to hero or anti-hero or others, it also varies. In Abhijñānaśākuntala Bija is 'phala-type', because it is expressed in the blessings of saints as the attainment of a sovereign son by the king. Phala is called Bija as it can exist only with its cause,

After Bīja he takes up Bindu. In his view when the causes, by which phala is attained, are delinked, because there are some other issues to be inserted owing to the requirements of the plot, then, the point of indicating the link, relating to the main Hero, and which will take towards the attainment of phala, is Bindu. This indication of the link acts as a source in attaining the phala. Though he, too, has not explained the ‘Prayojanas’ or means, yet he shows the importance of Bindu and its range. Bindu’s range like Bīja, is upto the proper attainment of phala. He states that unless and until the discovery of the link about the main hero to recover all the means is done, uptil, then, the whole of the animate and inanimate means are useless, because all the previous prayojanas are delinked and the story has come to a halt. Now that element comes which leads the story. To illustrate his point Abhinava has taken the example of Tāpasavatsarāja, in which the discovery of love towards Vāsavadattā is shown in every Act through the statement of the king. It is the action of the living beings, indicator of the main, obliging the causes, and itself the most important cause. On account of its applicability throughout, it is termed Bindu like the drop of oil. Abhinava also marks the difference between Bīja and Bindu that while Bīja (unfolds) itself, beginning from the Mukhasandhi, Bindu comes after that. Both extend to the whole plot of the play. He defines Patākā as the part of the plot, which, even being present to fulfil the aim of another, i.e., principal Hero, fulfils its own purpose. In other words, the character of Patākā, benefitting the principal hero attains his own aim also. Therefore, it has been said by Bharata that it should be made like the principal one. Animate, indicator, Patākā’s success benefits the main success. For example, Sugrīva, Vibhīṣaṇa, etc., while benefitting Rāma etc. and in return themselves also being benefitted by Rāma etc., accomplish the fame and glory of the principal Hero. Abhinava refers to the view of old theoreticians, also, in whose opinion useful in the knowledge of propriety and impropriety, it signifies the fame and glory of the principal hero, like emblemed flag and for this reason it is termed Patākā. Abhinava writes about Anusandhi that it is right that Anusandhis being subservient to principal have not been counted, separately, because if we accept five sandhis in it, taking the support of the statement that ‘Patākā, should be devised like the main’, then, there will be separate counting of five Arthaprakṛtis too in Patākā.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

It is not possible that there would be another Patākā in the complete description of Patākā. He refutes the view of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa etc., who think that in serving the other's interest, the parts of the plot belonging to Patākā nāyaka are Anusandhis. When it has been stated that five stages belong to everyone, no purpose is served in repeating it by the name of Anusandhi. The success of Patākānāyaka should be described upto the extent where Patākā itivrtta ends. When the phala of the Patākānāyaka has been attained and he is employed in the main phala; it is called Patākā by its previous existence, not mainly. It is said that it should end at Garbha or Avamarṣa because if its phala is extended upto Nirvahana then, the interest of the principal will not be served, as the two situations of benefitting and being benefitted cannot exist at the same time. Abhinava does not accept the view of those persons who take 'ā' used in Bharata's statement in 'Maryādā' (limit). He holds that there is the utility of Patākā in Vimarsa sandhi which mainly deals with reverting the downfall, because the person, recognisant of the favour, tries to revert the downfall. And there Patākānāyaka fulfils the purpose of another even when serving his own end.

About Prakari Abhinava simply explains the statement of Bharata. For its example may be taken Kulapati in Kṛtyārāvana and God Kṛṣṇa in Veniśaṃhāra. It is termed Prakari because it highly neglects its own purpose.

In interpreting Kāryam, by the word 'Prajñaiḥ' he understands the animate beings, that is, principal hero, Pataka Hero, Prakari Hero. The Vastu, that is presented, is indicated to be accomplished in the form of phala by the principal hero, Patākā hero and Prakari hero and is termed Kāryam because it is accomplished by the animates. This Vastu—phalaprayojana—is the phala of formerly adopted main cause called Bīja, and it is complete. 'Ārabhat' thus, Ārambha means all the auxiliary group of Kārya including Dravya, Guṇa Kriyā, the whole artha. 'Samyak' means that the animates leading to it are full of three powers of sovereignty, advice and fortitude. Then Kārya includes the action consisting of the dominated region, wealth, fort etc. and all the stratagems like Sāma etc. This Kārya is denoted in the beginning through the main cause called Bīja.

Interpreting the statement of Bharata about the prominence of these Arthaprakṛtis, Abhinava concludes that all the five

Arthaprakrtis may not be present everywhere in the manner five Avasthās are. The means or Arthaprakrtis that helps the hero most in realising his success is the main for him, and others though present are subsidiary, and so like not present as for example, Patākā and Prakarī in the case of Heroic Nāyakas who are proud of their energy. Bīja, Bindu and Kārya are present everywhere. Even in them is found the distinction of main and subordinate. The second doubt if they should be present in the same number with Avasthās and Sandhis is removed by the statement that among these three–Sandhi, Avasthā and Arthaprakrti, that which is properly connected with the other should be made prominent in the Nāṭaka. The Arthaprakrti that helps quickly in the attainment should be described mainly and largely and the other which is described subsidiarily in the main success, if proves beneficial in some part, should be made prominent there As for example, in Tāpasavatsarāja in the attainment of Vāsavadattā, Bindu is important, in the attainment of kingdom of Kauśāmbī Prakarī and Patākā are important.

Abhinavagupta has made a real contribution in his commentary. He raises some problems and tries to answer them satisfactorily. He provides the best commentary on the text of Bharata, though at places he deviates from him. Authors of Nāṭyadarpana, later, accepted the view of Abhinava about the Arthaprakrtis but they changed the order of these Arthaprakrtis and used the term ‘Yathāruci’ in place of ‘Yathāvidhi’. They accept the use of Patākā and Prakarī as optional.

Now we shall take up the view of Dhananjaya and Dhanika. While Bharata has described the Arthaprakrtis in a very systematic manner and Abhinava has tried to explain almost every point about these Arthaprakrtis in his commentary, in Daśarūpaka20 these Arthaprakrtis are described in a very haphazard manner without supplying any answer to the problems arising about them. Dhananjaya and Dhanika have been discussing the Vastu and now without discussing the importance and place of Arthaprakrtis in a play and their relation with Avasthās, they first take up the Kārya which is taken as synonymous to phala, as Dhanika says what is the phala of the itivrtta and, then, Dhananjaya directly comes to Kāryam. In Dhananjaya’s view, the Kāryam consists of three objects of human existence, and it is either śuddha (pure, unmixed with the other) or it may be related with one or more.

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛtta

just explains this that Trivarga means Dharma, Artha and Kāma, i.e., virtue, wealth and pleasure. Now the question arises, Dhanika has accepted Arthaprakṛtis as the causes or means in the success of principal aim, as he states, ‘Arthaprakṛtayah—Prayojanasiddhihetavah’. Then how can kāryam which is taken as synonymous to phala, be an Arthaprakṛti and at the same time phala also ? Obviously, Dhananjaya and Dhanika do not provide us any clue. Dhanika further states, now the source of that Kārya is explained. He regards the Bīja as the means or sādhana of that kāryam and then Bīja is discussed.

Dhananjaya defines Bīja that cause of that (kāryam) is Bīja manifested as very small, but expanding in manifold ways. He does not differ from Bharata in his definition, except that, while Bharata has clearly mentioned that Bīja ends into the attainment of phala, Dhananjaya is concise and has not mentioned this fact, though it may be taken as implied when he calls Bīja the Hetu of kāryam, because the cause will lead to its effect. Dhanika elaborates the statement of Dhananjaya and illustrates it from Ratnāvalī. The particular cause is Bīja just like a seed. As the seed develops gradually into a tree and bears fruit, so the Bīja develops into Kārya and bears fruit in the end. In Ratnāvalī the action of Yaugandharāyaṇa, which is the cause of attainment of Ratnāvalī by Vatsarāja and which is accompanied with the favourable fate, is put after prelude in Viṣkambhaka in the speech of Yaugandharāyaṇa.

Like Abhinavagupta, Dhanika also accepts its manifold variety depending upon its being either the cause of the great Kārya, i e., ultimate kāryam or subsidiary kāryam or the like.

Dhananjaya next discusses Bindu. Dhanika calls Bindu as another name given to ‘avāntarabīja’. ‘Avāntarabījāsya sañjñāntaramāha.’ Thus instead of explaining, Dhanika confuses this vital Arthaprakṛti by terming it as another name of subsidiary cause. Dhananjaya’s definition is vague and the compound can be interpreted in many ways. The definition of Bindu given by Dhananjaya runs thus ‘Avāntarārthavicchede Binduraccheda Kāraṇam’. Now we may interpret it as, Bindu is the cause of linking when the main Artha is delinked by subsidiary incidents. This interpretation is supported by the example given by Dhanika. If we take this interpretation we face the question, subsidiary prayojanas are to strengthen the main story not to disrupt it. The other interpretation

110

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

may be, when the subsidiary Artha, i.e. aims are broken, Bindu is the cause of linking them. Another interpretation will be, when the main Artha is delinked from the subsidiary artha, Bindu is the cause of linking the two. Another interpretation is, when the secondary matter is interrupted, the cause of its being resumed is Bindu. But this may be the most unconvincing interpretation, as the secondary matter even if blocked will not affect much if the main story proceeds. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika have not explained the meaning of Artha whether they take Artha to mean plot or the main story or the phala or issue. This definition is very vague and it does not become clear. Bindu connects what with what and what is the difference between Bindu and sandhi, because sandhi also connects the main parts of the story. Here, Dhanika's commentary gives a poor performance and is deficient, while Abhinavagupta has explained Bindu very clearly in his commentary. It is also not clear whether Bindu will be one or many. Dhanika has illustrated Bindu from Ratnāvalī, when the worship of Anañga which was a subsidiary 'am being over, the story is broken, the cause of

another Kārya, Vaitālika reads the praise of Udayana and hearing it Sāgarikā says ‘this is the king to whom I was bestowed by the father’. Now we see that the main story was broken after the worship of Anañga, it could not proceed further. To further the story Vaitālika reads the praise of Udayana and then the story proceeds. This praise by Vaitālika serves as Bindu. Then according to Dhanika it is Bindu like the drop of oil in water. As drop of oil spreads so Bindu joins the broken end with the other end by spreading. While Bharata has made it clear that Bīja and Bindu extend upto the end of the play, Dhanañjaya does not mention the extent of Bīja and Bindu. Though Dhanika has done it by defining it like the drop of oil in water which is also defined so by Abhinava. Dhanañjaya just recounts the names of five Arthaprakṛtis and does not describe Patākā and Prakarī, here, to avoid the repetition as he has already discussed them in the context of subsidiary plot. In another context about Nāṭaka, Dhanañjaya speaks about Patākā and adds its one more special characteristic that it has to contain Anusandhis.

We find that Dhanañjaya's treatment of Five Arthaprakṛtis is not very clear and is haphazard, too. He has not given proper scope and importance to these Arthaprakṛtis. Dhanañjaya has not made it clear what is meant by Artha nor has thrown any light on

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

the problem of their relation with the Avasthās and the utility of these Arthaprakrtis in a play. He has termed Bīja as the hetu or cause of kārya, but what about other prakrtis, are they also the causes ? Obviously, he is silent about them. Then he has not discussed Patākā and Prakarī in the context of Arthaprakrtis, it means he did not think them important enough to discuss as Arthaprakrtis. While Bharata has mentioned that these Arthaprakrtis should be reckoned and applied in a proper manner as the need arises, Dhananjaya omits this fact. Bharata has also discussed their relative importance, in stating that the Arthaprakrtis, helping the hero most in the realisation of success should be made prominent and the other subsidiary. Dhananjaya has not given any such rule about their importance. We can only say this much that while Bharata's treatment of Arthaprakrtis is inclusive of all the points and is systematic, Dhananjaya has omitted much which makes his treatment of Arthaprakrtis unsatisfactory. Dhanika's commentary on Arthaprakrtis also proves to be insufficient and confusing at times.

In comparison to Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Abhinava, as we have seen, has taken up every problem, related with Arthaprakrtis and has tried to answer them quite satisfactorily. Another difference between them is that while Dhananjaya and Dhanika have accepted kārya as consisting of Trivarga and either simple or mixed, Bharata and Abhinavagupta have not made any such distinction. Bharata and Abhinava take kārya in its wider aspect inclusive of all the actions and efforts introduced during the play for the attainment of the Phala.

Finally, we see that authorities are not of one view about the Arthaprakrtis. Some take Artha in the sense of Plot or Vastu of the play and others in the sense of phala. Without committing ourselves, we can say with Bharata that these Arthaprakrtis are also essential in a Plot and they are found in the itivrtta just as five Avasthās are found in the itivrtta of the play. We may accept them as the five elements of plot which serve as the means by helping in the realisation of the ultimate aim of the play like five Avasthās. They differ from ‘kāryāvasthā’ in this respect that while every action has got five stages in the successive order, one leading to the other, all the Arthaprakrtis may not be equally important in a play, and they may not occur in the order narrated. All of these may not be present in a play. For example a play

may not necessarily have Patākā or Prakari. They may be applied as the manner dictates. They may be regarded as the causes or sources of phala in the sense that as the plot is related with the main phala, these Arthaprakrtis ultimately lead to the final attainment of the play. Among these Bīja is the first and the very important element of the plot. With Bharata, we may accept it as the element of the Plot which manifests itself minutely at the outset, but expands into many ways with the progress of the action and it extends up to the end of the phala. It corresponds with the first stage of the action. Duṣyanta's attraction at the first sight of Śakuntalā and blessing of the Ṛṣis for a sovereign son, or Cāṇakya's zeal in ‘Mudrārākṣasa’ may be cited as the illustration of the germ in a dramatic Plot. This Bīja may be of many kinds and there may be more than one Bīja in a Nāṭaka.

As we have seen that the other element Bindu has been interpreted differently, taking it with its metaphor we may finally say with Bharata that Bindu is the linking point that proceeds the main story when it has come to a halt due to the delinking of the prayojanas. With its help the main theme and the means, helpful in achieving it, get into touch again and the story proceeds crossing the bar. We may illustrate it from the second Act of Śākuntalam. With the return of the king from the hermitage to fulfil his obligation of protecting it from the attack of the wild elephant, the basic purpose had come to an end. But the plot could not proceed further if the king was unable to visit the hermitage again. This problem was solved by the play-wright by getting an invitation extended to the king to protect the rites of the hermitage through two Ṛṣikumāras. This device serves as Bindu. Bindu may occur more than once in a play. It extends upto the end of the play. Metaphorically, it is called Bindu, like the drop of oil or the drop of water. It is the vital drop that discovers the means again leading to the attainmert of the Phala.

Patākā is the subsidiary episode which benefits the principal plot and is described like the main one. The episode of Makaranda and Madayantikā in Mālatīmādhava may be taken as the example of Patākā or the episode of Āryaka and Śarvilaka in Mṛcchakaṭikam. Bharata has not mentioned that Patākā fulfils its own interest too, he regards Patākā as having anubandha or continuity. Dhananjaya also mentions that Patākā may have its own purpose to fulfil subsidiarily. From this aspect the episode of Kāmandaki in

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛttā

Mālatīmādhava may also be regarded as Patākā but it cannot be regarded as Patākā in the view of those who maintain that Patākā has its own interest to serve, as she has no interest of her own to serve. Of course Patākā is not necessarily found in every Sanskrit play. Prakari is inserted to benefit the principal plot only and it is short not having any anubandha. For its example may be taken the episode of Saudāmini in Mālatīmādhava or of Vidyādharas in Avimāraka of Bhāsa. Its presence will be more commonly found in the plays as small episodes are generally inserted in the plays to support the main Plot. The fifth and most important element is ‘Kārya’. It is directly connected with ‘phala’. It is the denouement of the plot which depicts the cause or the motif of the play. It is the Kārya, the attainment of which is desired and for which all efforts are directed and the achievement of which closes the action.

To conclude the Arthaprakṛtis we may say with Abhinavagupta that these Arthaprakṛtis make the five Avasthās materialised and recognised together with the principality of the plot. With the help of these Arthaprakṛtis the Nāyaka achieves his final goal. Collateral to five stages, these are present in the Plot. There is no set rule regarding their use in the play in the same order as they have been enumerated. A play may have Patākā and Prakari or it may not have either of the two. They should be reckoned and applied in a proper manner as suited to the need of the play and among these that Arthaprakṛti which helps the hero most, should be made predominant and the others subsidiary to it.

Sandhis : Five Segments of the Plot

We find that in a plot’s construction Avasthās, Arthaprakṛtis and sandhis play the important part. After discussing five Avasthās and five Arthaprakṛtis, in view of their prominence we should discuss sandhis. Normally, the term ‘Sandhi’ refers to the junction of two things. Before proceeding to our discussion, it is better to note in the beginning that in Sanskrit Dramaturgy, mainly two schools of thought exist about the sandhis. One school of thought believes in coambulation theory as five Avasthās with five Arthaprakṛtis giving rise to five sandhis. The other school of thought does not support the view. Let us see what Bharata himself has to say about these sandhis

114

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

How this coambulation theory sprang up and what should be the right view about them?

As Bharata has been regarded the founder of Sanskrit dramaturgy. First of all, we will take up his view.

After stating that a plot is known to be divided into five sandhis, Bharata21 has given rules about the omission of sandhis in the plot. In his opinion the plot may either have all the sandhis or lack some of them. The rule requires that all the sandhis should occur in it; but due to a special reason or necessity of the plot some of them may be left out. In the omission of one sandhi, the fourth (i.e. Avamarśa) should be omitted, in the omission of two, third and fourth (i.e. Garbha and Avamarśa) should be omitted. In the omission of three, the second, third and fourth (Pratimukha, Garbha and Avamarśa) should be omitted. But these rules about the omission of sandhis are to be be followed in the principal plot only. In case of the subsidiary plot this rule will not apply; for it is to serve the purpose of another. Any event can be introduced in it without violating the rule.

Bharata has not defined ‘sandhi’. He only describes five sandhis and their limbs. We shall only take first five sandhis and then afterwards the limbs there of.

The five sandhis in a Nāṭaka are: Mukha (opening), Pratimukha (progression), Garbha (Development), Vimarsa or Avamarśa (pause) and Nirvahana (conclusion).

Bharata22 defines each of the sandhis thus.

Mukha Sandhi18 (Opening)

That part of a play, in which the creation of the Bīja as the source of many objects and sentiments takes place, is called in relation to its body the Mukha sandhi.

Pratimukha19

Uncovering of the seed, (Bīja) placed at the opening (Mukha) after it has sometimes been perceptible and sometimes been lost, is called the Pratimukha (progression).

Garbha20 (Development)

The sprouting of the Bīja, its attainment or non-attainment and search for it again, is called Garbha (development).

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

Vimarsha21 (Pause)

One's pause (Vimarsa lit. deliberation) over the Bija that has sprouted in the Garbha on account of some temptation, anger or distress is called the Vimarsa. Obviously, Bharata's definition of Vimarsa is not very clear in itself.

Nirvahana22 (Conclusion)

Bringing together the objects (of the segments) such as the Mukha etc. along with the Bija when they have attained fruition is called Nirvahana. In other words, bringing together of the Arthas of Mukha and other sandhis with Bija etc. and bringing together of many sentiments ending in wonder and surprise is Nirvahana. Bharata has next stated the rules of their presence in different kinds of plays.

In his view these are the five Sandhis (segments) of a Nataka, and Prakarana to be known by the producers of a drama. Dima and Samavakara are to have four sandhis and the play-wright should never make Avamarsa in them. Vyayoga and Ihamrga should always have three sandhis, they should not have Garbha and Avamarsa. Prahasana, Anka, Vithi and Bhana are to have two sandhis and only Mukha and Nirvahana should be employed in them. Thus, these are the sandhis to be planned by the producers in the ten types of play. The angas of these five sandhis the utility and sixfold purpose of the Angas, we will take later on. First we will look into the delineation of sandhis by Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya and Dhanika and others.

Although Bharata has not defined the term 'sandhi' itself, Abhinavagupta23 has defined the term in his commentary that runs along the text of Bharata's Natyasastra.

In his opinion, the definition of the sandhis will be the segments of the plot (Arthavayavah), joined mutually or with the limbs (angaih). Abhinava has not explained what does Artha signify here. Should it be taken to denote phala or Itivrtta? He appears to take it, here, in the sense of plot. So, in his view, the 'sandhis' are the five parts or portions of the Artha of the play, (Rupaka) which is like the sense of a great sentence, principal and independent, and these sandhis are made in accordance with the five stages. Abhinava is not consistent in his treatment of sandhis. He gives two definitions of sandhis, which are hard to be reconciled. At one place, he would call sandhis as imaginative compositions,

116

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

full of variety and at another, the segments of plot, either mutually joined, or joined with their limbs. Regarding the number of sandhis also, he has made contradictory statements. First of all he regards the number five as traditional and states that there would be no contradiction even if there are less sandhis in a Rūpaka. But he suddenly takes Somersault and quotes his teachers opinion with obvious approval that there must be five sandhis. He further supports this view by stating ‘Samuccayapadaiḥ Pañcānāṃ Sarvatrāvaśyambhāvitvam dyotitam’. Further he mentions that the adherents of orderliness hold that these five sandhis should be employed in respective order as stated. It is, rather, amusing to imagine that there could be another possibility of employing these sandhis but in the order laid down.

Abhinava, next, interprets each of the five sandhis. In his view, that much part of the main Artha in the play as is useful for the Ārambha stage, which has been described before of the hero by himself or by others, is Mukha sandhi. It is called Mukha as it is useful for the ‘Prārabmha Avasthā’ of the hero, which is like the mouth of the whole independent aim in the plot. The secondary parts of that portion, Upakṣepa etc. are the aṅgas of Mukha sandhi. That part of the plot, in which proper origin of the Bīja—which is the chief means of the main end—is followed by the Prārabha stage and becoming manifold on account of the aim or context becomes the cause of Rasa, is called Mukha. Thus, in short, the part of the plot, useful for the Ārambha stage, and having Rasas in their initial stage, is Mukha sandhi and it occupies a part or portion of the whole play. For example, the first Act in Ratnāvalī may be taken, because the Heroic sentiment of Amātya, Śṛṅgāra and Adbhuta of Vatsarāja and again Śṛṅgāra, this much part is useful for Sāgarikā’s seeing the king in the Prārabha stage begun by the minister and so it is Mukha sandhi.

Prior to his own interpretation of Pratimukha, Abhinavagupta has quoted others’ views about the vague term ‘dṛṣṭanaṣṭamiva Kvacit’ used by Bharata. As quoted by him, some take it to mean ‘as seen in the form of kārya but destroyed in the form of cause’; others take it to mean, that revelation of the Bīja is seen in the object worth obtaining but destroyed in the object to be abandoned; some others mean by it ‘seen in the Vṛtta of Nāyaka and destroyed in the Vṛtta of anti-hero’. In Abhinava’s opinion all these interpretations are not right, because of incapability of one object

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

being joined with another, and even the objects which are low and destroyed are seen due to Prāram bha. The real interpretation should be that expanding of the Bīja is a particular condition favourable to phala, and though visible is destroyed like (being hidden) because of the closeness of the opponent, just like the sprouting of the Bīja covered with dust. In the Pratimukha sandhi, Bīja is further revealed but it is not clearly visible because of the presence of opponent. Abhinava gives its example from Veṇīsaṃhāra in the speech of Kañcukin. In the speech of Kañcukin, the Bīja, leading to the progress of Pāṇḍavas, put in Mukhasandhi, is revealed by the death of Bhīṣma, but is destroyed by the vadha of Abhimanyu. Abhinava again refers to the view of others that some taking revelation only useful in Pratimukha and concealment in Avamarṣa have defined ‘drṣṭānāṣṭa’ as the gradual consequent development because the former state though visible is destroyed like in comparison to the later state of development. But he opines that in this interpretation, the meaning of ‘iva’ does not fit because of not having the power to create, kārya.

Abhinava illustrates Pratimukha with the example from Ratnāvalī. The incident of Sāgarikā, put in Mukha by Amātya, is concealed or destroyed like by the festival of spring and the worship of Kāmadeva. Though the festival etc. are like the covering to conceal the incident of Sāgarikā which is like Bīja, are really the cause of its revelation like the soil. As a seed is put in the soil, the soil covers it and thus conceals it, but even when concealing the soil helps in its development and reveals it in the form of sprout. Such is the case with Pratimukha. The Bīja, put in Mukha sandhi and visible, there, is concealed and made destroyed like and is developed like kuṅkum bīja. The part of the story, where everywhere, this type of revelation is found, should be known as Pratimukha sandhi. It is termed Pratimukha as it turns towards Mukha, but Abhinava also mentions that turning away is to illustrate the conception of drṣṭānāṣṭa. In his view, the explanation given by Śaṅkuka etc. just explains a part of it,

Abhinava, next, interprets Garbha that it is that part of the play, where there is the manifestation of the Bīja, which is already covered with the two conditions of germination and revelation, directed towards the attainment of the phala. He, further, explains the nature of the growth. In this disclosure gain belongs to the hero, that is, in Garbha, the cause of the hero rises and gains ground,

and the loss or non-attainment belongs to an anti-hero; and the search to find means for the attainment of aim is common to both, that is, hero and his opposite force equally try to find out means which will lead to the attainment of their phala. They persist in their search. Thus Garbha sandhi consists of achievement (Prāpti), failure (Aprāpti) and search (Anveṣaṇam). These three stages repeatedly occur in it. As it is accompanied by Prāpti-saṃbhava Avasthā, it is Garbha being pregnant with phala. Aprāpti or cause of missing the aim must be shown in it, otherwise it would not be possibility of attainment, rather, would become certainty.

Abhinava, now takes up Avamarśa sandhi. Bharata has defined Avamarśa vaguely. Abhinava has tried to explain it and has quoted others' views also upon it. As referred by him, some read it Vimarsa and others Avamarśa. Vimarsa consists of doubt. The question may arise, that first, there is the possibility of attainment and then doubt, this does not seem proper, moreover, Vimarsa sandhi extends to Niyataphalaprāpti stage, how the consistency, would be in certainty and doubt. To answer this it is said that as after argument, due to a cause posed as a hindrance, there exists doubt in removing it, in the same manner in Vimarsa sandhi even in the possibility of phala there arises equally strong obstacles and the doubt arises about the success as the causes in favour and opponent causes are equally forceful. Thus, in beating back and defeating the equally strong opponent forces and in looking clearly at the result, the fortitude of the hero is glorified, so after hypothesis, there is doubt and then certainty. ‘Good results are beset with many obstacles, the obstacles, are to be removed’ viewing thus with pride and resolution his effort is multiplied into thousands, as for example, in Ratnāvalī even when Sāgarikā is in prison, the incident of the magician is cleverly woven which is employed by Yaugandharāyaṇa to overcome the obstacle of Vāsavadattā. According to Abhinava there are others who take Avamarśa as obstacle. So the Bīja phala that has been unfolded in Garbha, its Artha, culmination (nivṛtti), engaging again in that, causes creation of phala because of the obstacles being dead and that culmination (nivṛtti) may be due to anger, temptation or calamity or curse or by other reason. By the word ‘api’ may be taken all other causes of obstacles. That extends from putting of Sāgarikā into prison by Vāsavadattā upto the statement of the king in fourth Act of Ratnāvalī ‘my body is

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

consoled by the garland, disunited from my beloved after receiving her embrace like the friend, in the same condition'. Here, in the obstacle, anger of Vāsavadattā is the cause. Temptation may be the cause as in Tāpasavaśarāja. 'I have lived due to temptation of getting you'. But others do not tolerate it, because, here, the temptation of attaining Vāsavadattā is not an obstacle in the real phala and they give the example in the same play that even though married to Padmāvatī, not attaining Vāsavadattā, the king desires to die, that not being a temptation, the greater attainment of the kingdom by the ministers is the cause.

That calamity is caused by Amarśa, i.e., anger, is shown in Abhijñānaśākuntala. Thus other causes should be imagined, as for example, effect of Vidyā in co-wives may be the cause in Avamarśa, somewhere fate, somewhere some condition as in Vikramorvaśīyam the effort in going to heaven because of seeing the face of her son. Abhinava again, quotes the view of others who taking Vimarsa in the sense of Āvrtti (Repetition) explain that, that part of the story, in which the Bīja consisting of Phala, exposed from Garbha is in the form of Vimarsa due to the reason of Vimarsa etc., is called Vimarsa. Abhinava does not accept this interpretation on the basis that the main element of this sandhi, which consits of removing the obstacles, is almost untouched in this explanation. According to him there are others who opine that ability of attainment (Lābha), state of destruction (Nāśa) and state of discovery or pursuance, these should be employed in Garbha and Avamarśa according to one's will. When the state of attainment is described through Pratimukha, the other two should be described in Garbha. When the state of loss is depicted in Avamarśa, then searching should be in Garbha; when loss and search are described in Garbha, then state of ponderance should be described in Avamarśa. He also quotes Udbhata who regarded Avamrśī, the place of searching as Avamarśa. But in Abhinava's own opinion it goes contrary to the aim and the sequence of the stages stated earlier. Next, he quotes the view of Sañkuka who regards Vimarsa as consisting of contemplative nature. In Sañkuka's view, where the doer contemplates 'I was engaged by this in the failure of action because of temptation' would be the Vimarsa caused by temptation and the pondering of the hero about the loss of phala, when it has been destroyed by anger and calamity etc., would be Vimarsa caused by anger and

calamity. The downfall or failure of the Kārya is depicted to support the marvellous sentiment which is to come in Nirvahana sandhi. In his opinion the thought being followed in all sandhis would be stated separately by Vimarśa. Closing the discussion about Vimarśa, Abhinava writes that all this is wrong and is discussed according to critic's own inclination. But, here, rejecting all the previous discussion about Vimarśa, Abhinava was expected to give his own view. But he has left discussion in the middle and has not supplied his own view explaining Vimarśa sandhi. We cannot say finally what was his personal view. The only point that can be deduced is that Abhinava includes doubt in Avamarśa sandhi and the existence of opponent forces, in Avamarśa, the final certainty that the phala will be attained comes in the end after overcoming the obstacles. As he has already said, there is the prominence of failure in Avamarśa. Here, the hero pauses and thinks over the means and the failure.

In interpreting Nirvahana, Abhinava writes that in definition of Nirvahana given by Bharata, Prārabbha, Prayatna, Prāptisam-bhava and Niyatāpti are the Arthas or aims respectively of four sandhis, Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha and Vimarśa. When these Arthas, i.e. Avasthās together with the four states of Bīja, namely origination (Utpatti), revelation (Udghaṭana), Exposure (Udbheda) and disclosure (Nirbheda of the Garbha) and with the manifold existing psychological states of laughter, anger, grief etc. which consist of the happiness and sorrow, are brought together in the state of wonder and are harnessed in the attainment of phala, that is Nirvahana sandhi pervaded with the phalayoga Avasthā. Abhinavagupta quotes others' views also. According to him some are of the view that all these sandhis and the five Avasthās should be separately depicted in Nirvahana. There are others, who following the philosophy of Sāñkhya, though desiring the entrance of other sandhis in this final sandhi, but not finding the former stage as the cause resulting in another stage, yet stages becoming Kārya, regard it proper that one Avasthā, in relation to phala becomes an implement and other Avasthās, which have become one in helping the other, unite with phala. Others interpret that the Arthas i.e. initial principal means adopted in Mukhasandhi are the powerful benefactors in the attainment of phala. They are brought together through the union with phala in Nirvahana. Obviously the words 'Arthānām Mukhādyanām' employed by Bharata have been interpreted differently. When the phala consists of the

Plot : Vastu or Itivṛtta

attainment of happiness, love, laughter etc. will be shown in majority of Prārambha etc. and when the phala is the loss or grief, then anger, grief etc., being painful, are shown in majority. The example of Nirvahana sandhi may be taken from Ratnāvalī extending from the entrance of the magician upto the end of the play.

Concluding Abhinavagupta writes that the Avasthā of these sandhi etc. may be depicted in relation to the hero, his minister, his family, heroine etc. not through hero alone; this is the rule as has been stated before.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika represented the school of combination34 theory of sandhis. They believed that the five Arthaprakṛtis are related with five Avasthās and in the same number of five, sandhis, Mukha etc. arise. Here, one thing to be noted is that Dhanañjaya does not state it clearly that five sandhis arise as the result of the connection of five Arthaprakṛtis with five Avasthās.

This is the interpretation given by Dhanika to Dhanañjaya's statement. The sandhis are the structural divisions of the drama which correspond with the elements of the plot and the stages in the hero's realization of his purpose. As we will see further, this theory does not hold ground, for in the case of Mukha and Pratimukha it may be true as Bīja is put in Mukha and Mukha follows Prārambha avasthā and Bindu is used in Pratimukha when the main aim is blocked and by Bindu effort, i.e., Prayatna is made. But the real difficulty comes if we stretch this combination further. As we have seen, Patākā and Prakari are not necessary in a play and if this is the case, then, how will the combination take place.

Besides, episode (Patākā) is not confined to the development as it should be, but may extend into the pause and even into the conclusion.

The other problem about this theory is that in a play Bīja may be manifold and Bindu may occur at more than one place. In that case will there be Mukha and Pratimukha also whenever there is Bīja and Bindu ? But it has nowhere been mentioned either by Bharata or any other dramaturgist or Dhanañjaya and Dhanika themselves. Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha, Vimarsa and Nirvahana occur in their due sequence in a play without being repeated.

Now, let us look into the views of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika. This is the delicate portion of their treatise where they do not agree with Bharata and differ from him to a large extent.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika first define sandhi. According to

Dhanañjaya25 sandhi is the connection of one thing with a different one, when there is a single sequence (of events). In Dhanika's26 view the connection with the subsidiary events of the different parts of the story related with the common object is sandhi. We find that the definition of Dhanañjaya is not clear. Nor the commentary of Dhanika helps much in making it clear. What is the common object of relating and what is that Artha with which sandhi connects the parts of the plot ? This definition of Dhanañjaya is not in keeping with his former statement and of Dhanika where they say that five sandhis are created as a result of the union between five Arthaprakrtis and five Avasthās. As we have seen, five Arthaprakrtis are not purpose, they are, rather, the means in the success of the aim as Dhanika himself has said while explaining Arthaprakrtis, 'Arthaprakrttayaḥ Prayojanasiddhihetavaḥ'. It seems that even Dhanañjaya and Dhanika were confused in their mind while writing about Sandhis. Even five stages are not the aims of the play, they mark the conditions which the main plot passes through in achieving its final aim.

Dhanañjaya has not mentioned anything about the rule of omission of these sandhis, while Bharata has done so. He is silent about the issue whether the plot should have all the sandhis or may lack some of them. He simply states that the sandhis are five in number. Then he defines each of them.

In his definition of Mukha, Dhanañjaya follows Bharata as he states that Mukha (opening) is the origination of the germ (Bīja), giving rise to various purposes and sentiments; it has twelve limbs, because of its connection with the Bīja (Germ) and Prāram bha (the beginning).

As in Mukha there is the origination of Bīja and the Ārambha Avasthā, so it may be the reason that Dhanañjaya was guided in his combination theory of Avasthā and Arthaprakṛti giving rise to Sandhi. In the view of Dhanika, in Prahasana etc. where Trivarga is not the phala there the cause of production of Rasa is Bījam.

Dhanañjaya's definition of Pratimukha is more clear than that of Bharata and he does not differ from Bharata if we take the meaning of 'dṛṣṭanāṣṭamiva Kvacit' as somewhere perceptible and somewhere not perceptible. As defined by Dhanañjaya, Pratimukha (progression) is the development of that (Germ) in accordance with its quality of being perceptible by turns. Its limbs arising from the sequence of Bindu (expansion) and Prayatna (effort) are thirteen.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

In Dhanika's view, Pratimukha is that revelation of the Bīja where it is at times revealed and at times concealed. He means to say that in Pratimukha, development of Bīja is at times obscured from the view. As for example, in the second act of Ratnāvalī, the revelation of the Bīja, which is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, constitutes Pratimukha, because the Bīja which is the cause of meeting of Vatsarāja and Sāgarikā sown in the first act becomes perceptible because of its being known to Susaṅgatā and Vidūṣaka, and through the incident of picture is likely to be inferred by Vāsavadattā. Thus in short, revelation (Udbheda) of the Bīja is Pratimukha.

Dhanañjaya states that in the course of Garbha sandhi there is a regular search for Bīja which sometimes becomes visible and at others missing. It has twelve limbs. Later half of the last line of his statement may be interpreted in two ways: firstly, there should be a Patākā (episode), or (else) there should not be prāpti sambhava (prospect of success), secondly Patākā may not be necessarily there but Prāptisambhava is there. Dhanika has accepted the second interpretation.

In our view though the contradiction may be there in Dhanañjaya's statement with his former statement, yet the interpretation given by Dhanika appears to be more correct, as Dhanika was more near to Dhanañjaya than the present critics in respect of time and he had better chances of knowing Dhanañjaya's real interpretation.

Dhanika interprets Garbha sandhi that the Bīja was little revealed because of its being perceptible and imperceptible in Pratimukha sandhi. Garbha sandhi consists of the Prāptyāśā stage in which phala is not decided in one direction and in Garbha; particular revelation of the Bīja is done accompanied with its repeated gain, dislocation and search. He, further, adds that the exception of generally found Patākā is shown by the term 'Patākā Syānn Vā:' Prāptisambhava should be there as is shown by the use of 'Syāt'. For example in the third Act of R tnāvali Vāsavadattā is posed as a hindrance in the meeting of Vatsarāja, by the adoption of Vāsavadattā's dress etc. means of Sāgarikā's meeting are shown, and through the speech of Vidūṣaka Prāptyāśā of Sāgarikā is first shown, then the possibility of attaining Sāgarikā is jarred by Vāsavadattā, again there is gain, again disruption, then the search to discover the means and to remove the hindrance is shown by the

124

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

speech of the king ‘there is no other means except by pleasing Vāsavadattā’.

In Dhananjaya and Dhanika’s statements we find contradiction which is due to their combination theory. And in the definition of Garbha sandhi it becomes clear that they are not sticking firmly to their theory of combination about sandhis. As they have maintained in Mukha and Pratimukha that they are the result of combination of Arthaprakṛtis with Avasthās, they appear to lose that hold in Garbha. It may be that upto this time they realised the weakness of the combination theory or may be they saw their deviation from Bharata. From Garbha onwards they have left their combination theory. Though as a result of this contradiction has arisen in their statements, yet it is for good that they have left their theory of combination. If they had stuck to it, it would have created real difficulty. Because if they had maintained that Garbha arises out of the union of Patākā with Praptyaśā, then in the plays which do not have Patākā, what would take its place? For Patākā’s substitute they had nothing to offer. Still they have not forsaken their theory altogether in Garbha and so the confusion and contradiction have arisen.

Dhananjaya gives a better definition of Avamarśa than Bharata. He has made his definition more clear while he follows Bharata. According to him Avamarśa (Pause, lit. deliberation) is that group of limbs in which one stops to reflect because of anger or passion or temptation and which has as its subject the Bīja that has been unfolded in Garbha. Dhanika states that Avamarśana means thinking deeply or critically viewing the phalaprāpti and that review is made either due to anger or calamity or temptation. ‘It should be by this means’ determining thus, which culminates in the decided phalaprāpti on one side and the deliberation connected with the ‘Bījārtha’ which has been unfolded in Garbha is Avamarśam. As in the fourth Act of Ratnāvalī upto the extent of Agnividrava, ‘through the pleasing of Vāsavadattā Ratnāvalī will be attained certainly without hindrance’, Vimarsa consisting of this determination is shown.

Here, we see that Dhananjaya and Dhanika have already given up their original view of combination. In Avamarśa Dhananjaya does not say a word about Niyatāpti Avasthā and Prakarī Arthaprakṛti. He closely follows Bharata here. In the light of their former statement Avamarśa ought to be arisen out of the

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

union of Prakarī with Niyatāpti. But they contradict themselves here. Perhaps they realised the fallacy of their theory as they found that plays in practice may have more than one Prakarī, and in the other case, a play may not have it altogether. Like Abhinava, Dhanika also maintains that Vimarsa sandhi consists of the resolution about the means which will certainly lead to the attain- ment of phala in one direction. Dhanañjaya defines Nirvahana as that sandhi in which the matters that occurred in Mukha and in other sandhis, and that contained the Bīja and were distributed in due order, are brought together to one end. He means to say that in Nirvahana all the means and purposes having Bīja in them, distri- buted uptil now, are unitedly brought together for one aim, i.e. leading to final attainment of the phala. Dhanika has not given any commentary. He has only supported it with the examples from Veṇīsamhāra and Ratnāvalī. In Veṇīsamhāra, in the sixth Act, the Bījas like tying the hair of Draupadī etc. put in Mukha sandhi and others, distributed in their proper places, are employed for one end.

The most strange thing in Dasarūpaka is that neither Dhanañjaya nor Dhanika utters a single word about the union of Kārya and phalayoga, both of them, to be found in Nirvahana, while they so strongly professed that all the sandhis are born in the sequence of number of five, out of the combination of five Arthapra- kṛtis with five Avasthās. As we have also said before, the apparent reason may be that they found it impossible to hold it any longer in the light of plays. Whatever may be the reason, it is certain that in their treatment of sandhis contradiction is found and in pro- pounding the theory of combination they have deviated from Bharata.

If we look closely we find that Bharata has not defined the term ‘sandhi’ anywhere. He has simply mentioned five sandhis, making them five component parts of a plot. Generally, as a rule, these five should be employed in a Nāṭaka, but due to special reason a plot may omit some of them. In the omission also, Mukha and Nirvahana are never to be omitted and it is truly laid down so, because Mukha deals with the germination of Bīja and the Nirvahana deals with the attainment of Phala, which is a result of that Bīja. No play can dispense with its beginning and end. In discussing five sandhis, Bharata has nowhere tried to establish their relationship with either Avasthās or Arthaprakṛtis. Bharata

126

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

rather shows the states of ‘Bīja’ in five sandhis, its appearance (Utpatti), its partial bloom (Udghaṭana), its decay, and also its fruition at length. Thus the different situations of the Bija—the concentrated quintessence of all dramatic action, (1) showing its rise or (2) fall or (3) involving efforts to sprout it and (4) depicting anxious care to vivify it, no sooner than it appears fading or withering, determine the different sandhis that weave the entire dramatic theme.

Abhinavagupta and Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra followed this view of Bharata about the sandhis. At the, same time Abhinavagupta and Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra established their relation with five Avasthās too. As we have seen, Abhinavagupta regards these five sandhis as the five major portions of the main independent plot, which are made in regard to the Avasthās. Abhinavagupta has relegated each sandhi with one of the five Avasthās, for example, Mukha sandhi extending to Prārabha Avasthā, Pratimukha to Prayatna Avasthā, Garbha to Prāptisambhava, Avamarśa to Niyatāptī and Nirvahana to phalayoga. Later writers, on dramaturgy more or less have connected these five sandhis with the five Avasthās. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika do so. Sāgarnandin and Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra likewise do so. Abhinavagupta has defined sandhis as the segments of Artha (which may be phala or plot) joined mutually and also with their aṅgas. Thus sandhis are the joining points, they are connected with each other with the main phala and also with their respective limbs. We cannot blame Dhanañjaya and Dhanika for defining sandhi as the connection of one thing with a different one, when there is a single sequence of events or the connection with the subsidiary events, of the different parts of the story related to the common object. But there is a fault in their definition. Their definition of sandhi does not (27) differentiate it much from Bindu. Another fault in the theory of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika about sandhis is that they first started with the coambulation theory in maintaining that sandhis arise out of the combination of Arthaprakṛtis with five Avasthās, but they could not stick to their theory upto the end, in view of irregularity in the matter of juxtaposition of these two concurrent phases of dramatic action.

Abhinava deviated from Bharata in his explanation of Avamarśa and he has not given his final view about Avamarśa. Abhinava has also taken the meaning of ‘hīnasandhi’ differently taking it to mean sandhi lacking some of its aṅgas.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

127

Looking at the position we may finally say that sandhis are the important parts of a plot. A plot is divided into five parts marking different phases of the main aim. These five sandhis are related to each other and to their limbs. Usually, they are five in the kind of play called Nātaka. In other kinds of play like Bhāṇa etc. they may be less in number. As a rule these sandhis should be at sequenced but exception may be there due to some necessity. These five sandhis are related somehow or other with the five Avasthās of the action.

In the conception of sandhis, essential need of a dramatic conflict is recognised. The way to final attainment is not a smooth path. It is loaded with difficulties. In the course of time these obstacles are to be overcome and the path is to be paved which will ultimately take to the final attainment of the Phala. Following Abhinavagupta we may, briefly, say that these must be five if a Nāṭaka is to be inclusive and comprehensive in its Phala.

Sandhyangas (Divisions or Limbs of Sandhis)

Bharata and later dramaturgists have discussed limbs or divisions, rather, the parts of sandhis which come to number sixty four. In the view of Keith,8 the insistence on the sub-divisions of five sandhis in sixty four ‘member’ is very complex. The distribution, however, has no real value, because the limbs are not confined to that sandhi alone to which they are assigned in the practical usage of dramatists. Not all of these limbs need be used. Even when used, they should be essentially subservient to the sentiment which the piece seeks to create. But the definitions and classifications about them are without substantial value.

Bharata29 has thrown light on the importance of these limbs and their sixfold purpose in the plot. In his view the events in the segments in their respective parts (Pradeśa) will in due order support those limbs of segments by means of their own qualities. The incidents of the sandhis in their parts respectively which consist of the quality of that particular sandhi, are the aṅgas. (1) Expressing the desired object, (2) expanding the plot, (3) attaining the quality of pleasing in production, (4) concealment of the objects to be concealed, (5) mentioning of things in a manner as producing surprise, (6) disclosing things to be disclosed are the sixfold purposes of the aṅgas described in the Śāstra. Bharata shows the importance of these aṅgas. Just as a man, deficient in his limbs is unable to start any action,

similarly, a play deficient in the limbs (of segments) will be unfit for successful production. A play which has a lofty theme and is accompanied with the Guna and alaṅkāra, but if it is devoid of requisite limbs will never please the mind of the aesthetes. On the other hand, a play which is having a low aim like Prahasana etc. will, when furnished with requisite limbs, attain beauty because of the brilliance of its production. In other words, if not all, some of the limbs must be included in a drama, since a play without any, would be like a man without limbs, and when adroitly used, they may add merit to a mediocre subject-matter.

Interpreting Bharata Abhinava30 opines that the term ‘anupūrvaśah’ indicates the sequence in regard to the fulfilment of the main aim and not the order in which these aṅgas are mentioned. In his view, these are called limbs as they are present in the parts, namely, beginning, middle and end. They are also termed aṅgas because in the fulfilment of their respective sandhi, they partake its quality and in the rest they act as appropriate parts. In interpreting the sixfold purposes mentioned by Bharata, Abhinava takes ‘prayoga’ in the sense of ‘itivṛtta’ and in his view it should attain the capacity of pleasing, and this is achieved through the union of Avasthā with proficiency in production.

Interpreting their purpose of producing surprise, he states that the repeated mention of itivṛtta by itself does not produce surprise, but described in aṅgas it does so. In the importance of aṅgas, he agrees with Bharata.

Dhanañjaya31 agrees with Bharata in assigning the same sixfold purpose to these sixty four aṅgas.

We find that all these aṅgas are not available in a single play, some of the important ones are used by the dramatists, and generally, the use of four or five only is found in one segment. Whatever limbs may be allotted to a particular sandhi, their total number is sixty four. We shall first give the names32 of limbs of each sandhi as mentioned by Bharata and Dhanañjaya. Bharata mentions aṅgas of Mukha sandhi to be : Upakṣepah (Suggestion), Parikarah (Enlargement), Parinyāsaḥ (Establishment), Vilobhanam (Allurement), Yukti (Decision), Prāpti (Accession), Samādhānam (settling) Vidhānam (Conflict of feeling), Paribhāvanā (surprise), Udbhedaḥ (Disclosure), Karaṇam (Activity), and Bheda (Incitement). The number of these comes to twelve. Dhanañjaya agreeing with

Plot : Vastu or Itivrttā

Bharata has also mentioned the same limbs of Mukha, twelve in number.

The limbs of Pratimukha sandhi mentioned by Bharata are : Vilāsah (Amorousness), Parisarpah (Pursuit), Vidhiitam (Refusal, unrequitedness), Tāpanam (Pessimism), Narma (Joke), Narmadyutiḥ (Flash of joke, amusement), Pragayaṇam (Response), Nirodhaḥ (Frustration), Paryupāsanam (moving forward, courtesy), Puṣpam (Sweet words, gallantry), Vajram (Thunderbolt), Upanyāsaḥ (reference, intimation) and Varṇasamhāra. These come to number thirteen. Dhaṅanjaya accepting thirteen limbs in Pratimukha mentions śama in place of Tāpanam and Pragamana instead of Pragayaṇam. But as both the readings are found in the MSS of N.S., Dhaṅanjaya cannot be said as deviating.

Bharata mentions limbs of Garbha which are thirteen : Abhutāharaṇam (Mis-statement), Mārga (Indication), Rūpa (supposition), Udāharaṇa (Exaggeration), Kramaḥ (Progress) Sangrahaḥ (Propitiation), Anumānam (Deduction), Prārthanā (supplication), Ākṣiptam (Revelation), Toṭaka (Quarrel), Adhibala (outwitting), Udvegah (Dismay) and Vidravah (consternation).

Dhaṅanjaya mentions twelve limbs of Garbha instead of thirteen. He omits Prārthanā from the list and instead of Vidrava mentions Sambhramah which is also found in other MSS of N.S.

Bharata, next, mentions limbs of Avamarśa. As given in G.O.S. ed. Baroda, their number comes to fifteen, though two of them Yukti and Vidrava are repeated. The limbs of Avamarśa are Apavāda (censure), Sampheta (angry words), Vidravah or Dravah (insolence), Śakti (Placation), Vyavasāyaḥ (Assertion), Prasaṅgaḥ (Mention), Dyuti (Injury), Kheda (Lassitude) Niṣedhanam (Opposition), Virodhanam (Altercation), Ādānam (summing up), Chādanam (Humiliation), Prarocanā (Foresight), Vyavahāra and Yukti. In these Vyavahāra and Yukti should be omitted as interpolations.

Abhinava33 accepts twelve in Mukha, thirteen in Pratimukha, thirteen in Garbha, twelve in Avamarśa and fourteen in Nirvahana, thus becoming sixty four. He, himself has not discussed Vyavahāra and Yukti and about the number of limbs in Avamarśa, he writes that some term Prarocanā as Yukti. There are some who do not accept other limbs and maintain twelve aṅgas in Avamarśa. Others regards the counting unjust as its Vṛtta is included in Nirvahaṇa also but due to its thirteen aṅgas support the number of sixty four.

Dhanañjaya34 has mentioned thirteen limbs of Avamarśa. He includes Vidrava and Drava both in it. He deviates from Bharata in the names of aṅgas of Avamarśa. He mentions chalanam instead of kheḍa and vicalanam in place of chādanam and omits Niṣedhanam. The thirteen limbs mentioned by him are : Apavāda, Sampheṭa, Vidrava, Drava, Śakti, Dyuti, Prasaṅga, Chalanam, Vyavasāya, Virodhanam, Prarocanā, Vicalanam and Ādānam. We find much variation35 in the MSS of N.S. about the names of aṅgas of this sandhi.

Bharata36 now mentions the limbs of Nirvahana which are fourteen : Sandhi (junction), Nirodha or Vibodha (Awakening), Grathanam (Assembling), Nirṇayah (Ascertainment), Paribhāṣaṇam (Conversation), Dyuti (Confirmation), Prasāda (Gratification), Ānandah (joy), Samaya (Deliverance), Upagūhanam (surprise), Bhāṣaṇam (Clever speech), Pūrvavākyaṃ (Retrospect), Kāvyasaṃhāra (Termination) and Praśasti (Benediction).

Dhanañjaya37 also mentions the fourteen limbs of Nirvahana, employing Kr̥ti instead of Dyuti and Upasaṃhāra instead of Kāvyasamhāra. Thus we see that Dhanañjaya does not differ much from Bharata in his treatment of limbs of the segments. Both Bharata and Dhanañjaya have accepted sixty four limbs of the sandhis.

Abhinava38 refers to the views of others about aṅgas, some opine that beginning (Upakrama), conclusion (Upasaṃhāra) and Middle (Madhya) these are the three distinct places related to each stage. In these three, each must have five Avasthās minutely, thus fifteen states occur in sequence, amidst them the previous ones are described as the parts or subsidiaries of those states. In Nirvahana all the fourteen occur because of phalayoga, in other sandhis such as Mukha etc., some are omitted. Twelve divisions etc. are not the aṅgas there. Abhinavagupta holds this view to be wrong and we also find that this view was not accepted by any prominent writer on dramaturgy. In Abhinavagupta's own view this order of the limbs is just to give their definition, not their usage. Udbhāṭa etc. who accept this sequence as a rule of aṅgas in sandhis are wrong.

As for example, Yukti, described in Mukha, is worth employment in other sandhis too. But some aṅgas follow the rule of occurring in that particular sandhi only due to their very form, as for example, Upakṣepa is used in Mukha sandhi only. By the statement 'having sixty four' only then possibility is stated not that it

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛttā

is the rule. The aṅgas that are narrated in each sandhi are as found in the majority of the cases. The Rūpaka consists of five sandhis, the order of sandhis only is definite and the limbs are not to be used in the same order as narrated. Nāṭyadarpaṇa also follows the view of Abhinavagupta. Dhanika39 also does not state that all the limbs occurring in a sandhi should be used, he has specified some to be used in each sandhi. As he says that out of these twelve aṅgas of Mukha, Upakṣepa, Parikara, Parinyāsa, Yukti, Udbheda and Samādhāna must be present, others may also be employed. He marks Parisarpa, Praśama, Vajra, Upanyāsa and Puṣpa as prominent in Pratimukha, others should be used as possible. In Garbha, he mentions Abhūtāharaṇam, Mārga, Toṭaka, Adhibala and Ākṣepa as prominent and recommends the use of other limbs as much as possible. In the thirteen limbs of Avamarśa, Apavāda, Śaktī, Vyavasāya, Prarocanā, Ādāna etc. are important. The view of Dhanika is also supported by the authors of Nāṭya-darpaṇa.40 About these aṅgas Bharata himself states that with a view to introducing sentiments and psychological states, expert playwright should insert these limbs into appropriate segments of his work.

Out of these sixty four aṅgas, we shall only discuss those aṅgas -in which either Bharata and Dhanañjaya differ between themselves or their commentators do so.

In the definitions of twelve aṅgas of Mukha sandhi Bharata and Dhanañjaya do not differ much in their sense, except some change in words about the eleven aṅgas. Though Bharata and Dhanañjaya define Udbheda41 differently, yet the sense conveyed is the same. Bharata defines Udbheda as the sprouting of the purpose of the Bīja, while Dhanañjaya defines it as the disclosing of something hidden. It is only in the definition of Bheda that they differ widely.

Bheda42

In the view of Bharata Bheda is that Aṅga which is meant for disrupting the union, while in the view of Dhanañjaya, it is the term for an urging on. It encourages some action tending to foster the main cause. In the view of Abhinavagupta dissociation of the characters for the purpose of exit which turns them in their own duties is Bheda. It helps the main cause, always, happening in the Act. To illustrate it both Abhinava and Dhanika cite the same

132

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

example from Venisamhara when Bhima replies to Draupadi that Pāndavas are expert enough in moving in a battle-field. For it we may only say that it helps in the main cause either by dissociation of characters or by encouragement. The example43 cited by Abhinava to illustrate Samadhānam from Venisamhara is cited by Dhanika to illustrate Udbheda and the example cited by Abhinava from the same play to illustrate Parinyāsa is cited by Dhanika to illustrate Samadhānam.

In the view of Abhinavagupta,44 out of these twelve angas, the group of four, i.e., Upaksepa to Vilobhanam, is commonly found in Mukha sandhi, and these four are in the sequence as narrated, i.e. Upaksepa, Parikara, Parinyāsa and Vilobhanam. The purpose of these four is to sustain interest in the Vrtta and the purpose of Parikara is to express the desired object also. In the angas of Pratimukha, Bharata and Dhananjaya differ about Vidhūta.

Vidhūta45

In Bharata's opinion Vidhūta is not complying with the request made. It is a non-acceptance of a courtesy or an advance shown by one to another. In the view of Abhinava, first there is non-acceptance of the request, but later it is accepted. Dhananjaya takes it as 'arati', i.e. absence of pleasure due to unrequited love. But the definition given by Dhananjaya is also found in some MSS of N.S.

Bharata and Dhananjaya differ in Tāpanam and Samah. Bharata defines Tāpanam46 as the appearance of some impediment. Dhananjaya defines Samah47 as the allaying of unrequitedness. They also differ about the definition of Narmadyuti.

Narmadyuti48

In the view of Bharata and Abhinava the laughter which is meant for concealing one's faults but produces laughter is called Narmadyuti. But in the view of Dhananjaya Narmadyuti is considered to be the satisfaction caused by the joke (Narma).

Upanyāsa49

Bharata defines it as a remark based on reason, while, according to Dhananjaya, it is a remark embodying a stratagem. Bharata and Dhananjaya do not differ much. But Dhanika takes it in the sense of propitiation.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

133

Varṇasamhāra50

Though Bharata and Dhanañjaya agree in their definition of Varṇasamhāra defining it as ‘meeting of the four Varṇas’, but their commentators interpret it differently taking ‘Varṇa’ in different sense. Abhinava understands characters by the term ‘Varṇas’. So in his view, where characters, though situated separately, are brought together, there it would be ‘Varṇasamhāra’, i.e. drawing the characters near. He refers to the views of his teachers, that according to them, in a Nāṭaka Prominent in Vīra, Hero, anti-hero and their ministers are mainly described, so they are Varṇas, so also in the Nāṭaka prominent in love, hero, heroine and their advisers. Abhinava does not accept the view of those who regard it as the meeting of four castes. Dhanika illustrates it by the meeting of Ṛṣi, Kṣatriya and Amātya etc. in Mahāviracarita. Though not clearly mentioned, yet he seems to take Varṇas in the sense of ‘meeting of four castes’.

In the limbs of Garbha, Bharata and Dhanañjaya differ slightly about the definition of Rūpa.51 Bharata defines Rūpa as a hypothesis with which novel meanings are combined. It entails inconclusive remark due to a variety of curious things presented at the occasion. Dhanañjaya omits the first part of Bharata’s definition and simply defines it as a remark embodying hypothesis.

Krama52

Bharata defines Krama ‘Bhāvatattvopalabdhi’ which has been interpreted differently, ‘bhāva’ and ‘tattva’ being taken differently. Following one interpretation, Krama would be foreseeing of what is coming afterwards. Following other interpretation it would be expressing the reality of some emotion. Abhinava interprets it as the attainment or certainty of the object which has been thought over when there is excess of feeling. Dhanañjaya defines Krama as the attainment of what one is thinking earnestly about. Dhanañjaya also gives another definition of krama stating that in the view of others, knowledge or acquaintance with the feelings is krama.

Prārthanā53

Bharata has defined Prārthanā as the request for love’s enjoy-

134

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

ment, rejoicing festivity and the like, while Dhanañjaya omits it altogether.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika take Ākṣipti54 or Ākṣepa in a deeper sense than Abhinava and Bharata.

Dhanañjaya55 quotes two definitions of Adhibala and Toṭaka.

In his definition of Udvega56 Bharata includes the fear caused by the king, enemy and the robber, while Dhanañjaya only includes the fear of enemies.

Bharata mentions and defines Vidrava57 as the panic caused by apprehension (śaṅkā), fear (bhaya) and uneasiness (Trāsa),

Abhinava understands by it the apprehension from the object which causes fear and trembling. Dhanañjaya terms Sambhrama in place of it and he includes apprehension and uneasiness in Sambhrama.

It is in the limbs of Avamarśa that Dhanañjaya and Bharata differ much.

In the definitions of Apavāda, sampheṭa, Drava, Prasaṅga, Prarocanā and Ādāna, Bharata and Dhanañjaya agree.

In interpreting Drava Abhinava58 adds that moving away from the accepted norm is Dravanam, so it is called Drava.

Bharata and Dhanañjaya differ about the definition of Vyavasāya and Dyuti.

Vyavasāya59

According to Bharata Vyavasāya is a promise made on account of some reason.

As interpreted by Abhinava Vyavasāya is the achievement of the causes of the Artha which has been vowed and promised.

In the view of Dhanañjaya it is the mention of one's own capacities.

Dyuti60

As stated by Bharata, Dyuti should be known as the words spoken in contempt.

Dhanañjaya defines it as reprimanding and inciting the feelings.

Kheda61

Bharata has mentioned and defined Kheda which Dhanañjaya has not accepted.

As defined by Bharata and Abhinavagupta, Kheda is fatigue arising from mental fatigue and physical exhaustion.

Pratiṣedha62

Bharata has mentioned and defined Pratiṣedha as the obstruction

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

of one's desired object, while Dhanañjaya has not mentioned it.

Virodhanam63

Bharata defines Virodhanam as the gain of impediment in Kārya. Abhinava terms it Nirodhanam. Dhanañjaya has defined it as the opposition of excited and angry persons. Dhanika interprets it as the proclamation of their powers by excited persons.

Chādanam64

Bharata has mentioned and defined Chādanam as the wurds caused by insult for some purpose. Abhinava interpreting it states that it is termed Chādanam as it ends the blot of insult. In its place, Dhanañjaya mentions Chalanam as disrespect or insult and we also find this reading in the MSS of Nāṭyaśāstra.

Dhanañjaya65 has also defined Vicalanam as a self-panegyric statement and the Vidrava as slaying, taking prisoner and the like. Both these limbs have not been included in the common reading of Nāṭyaśāstra.

In the limbs of Nirvahana, Bharata and Dhanañjaya agree in the definitions of Sandhi, Nirodha, Grathanam, Nirṇaya Dyuti, Ānanda, Samaya, Upagūhana, Prasāda, Kāvyasamhāra, and Praśasti. Dhanañjaya mentions Vibodha in place of Nirodha, and Kṛti, in place of Dyuti. Definitions of Prasāda and Kāvyasaṃhāra, given by Bharata are wider and inclusive of more aspects than that of Dhanañjaya. In his definition of Kāvyasaṃhāra66 Bharata includes giving and receiving of the boon in it, while Dhanañjaya includes the receiving of the boon only. While Bharata defines Prasāda67 as the gratification caused by attendance etc., Dhanañjaya regards it as the act of pleasing or showing courtesy. Bharata and Dhanañjaya differ in their definitions of Paribhāṣaṇam, Pūrvavākya and Bhāṣaṇam.

Paribhāṣaṇam68

Bharata defines Paribhāṣaṇam as the talk full of censure. According to Abhinava's interpretation, it is disclosing of one's own faults. Dhanañjaya defines it as the mutual conversation in which one or more characters participate. Abhinavagupta and Dhanika illustrate it with the same example from Ratnāvalī.

136

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Bhāṣaṇam69

In the opinion of Bharata, Bhāṣaṇam is said to be full of conciliatory words, gifts etc., while in the view of Dhananjaya, acquisition of honour etc. is bhāṣaṇam.

Pūrvavākyam70

Bharata defines Pūrvavākyam as showing the Artha (object of Phala) stated before. Dhananjaya terms it Pūrvabhāva and defines it as foreseeing of the Kārya (Denouement). There is not much difference. Thus we see that Dhananjaya does not deviate from Bharata in the description of major limbs of segments. The deviation often found in Dhananjaya is usually a variation, present in the MSS of Nāṭyaśāstra itself. As a play concludes with Nirvahana, so all its limbs are important in it. Its last limb Praśasti marks the end of the play in which a desire for the general well-being or for the welfare of the nation and king is expressed. Praśasti is the concluding part of a Sanskrit play and it is also termed Bharatavākyam, perhaps, because it was recited by the actors in the end. It has been a general mode with Sanskrit play-wrights from Bhāsa upto present day dramatists to end their play with Praśasti or Bharatavākyam.

Finally, these are the limbs of the five segments. There may be more than sixty four. These limbs should be used in accordance with the sentiments and feelings. Among these aṅgas while some are restricted by their very nature to their respective sandhis, some may be used in more than one sandhis.

Sandhyantarasas

While discussing Plot, Bharata71 has mentioned twenty one Sandhyantaras. Dhananjaya72 has not mentioned them separately in his Daśarūpaka, and he states that the thirty-six Lakṣaṇas, Bhūṣaṇa etc. and twenty one sub-divisions, beginning with sāma etc. are not enumerated separately because they are included in these (i.e. states of joy, Energy and the rest) and their embellishments. Authors of Nāṭyadarpana,73 Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra, too, have not mentioned them separately. In their opinion, some of them are themselves aṅgas, some become transitory states, some become the part of the story, and others are included in other sub-divisions, so they need not be mentioned separately. Most

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

later writers have not mentioned them separately. Bharata74 himself, does not give them much importance. He only gives their names in his Nāṭyaśāstra. In his view these Sandhyantaras are the special features or particular characteristics which are found in the midst of the sandhis and their limbs. These are twenty one, namely : Sāma (Conciliation), Bheda (Disintegration), Danda (Chastisement), Pradāna (gift), Vadha (arrest), Pratyutpannamatitvam (Ready wit), Gotraskhalitam (slip of tongue), Sāhasa (enterprise), Bhaya (consternation), Hri (shame), Māyā (deceit), Krodha (Indignation), Ojas (Prowess), Samvaranam (concealment), Bhrānti (misconception), Apadhāraṇa of Hetu (conclusion), Dūta (assistance), Lekhaḥ (Parchment), Svapnaḥ (vision), Citram (Portrait) and Mada (intoxication).

Interpreting these Abhinava75 refers to the views of others. In the opinion of some ‘Antara’ means gap, sandhi means the same. These sandhyantaras act as inter-links. They are the special characteristics of the sandhyaṅgas. In the view of others they are the particular subsidiary divisions of Upakṣepa etc. which have been narrated in general. Upakṣepa, in general, is different from the particular sāma etc. Abhinava gives his view that these Sandhyantaras are in the form of Vibhāva, anubhāva or Vyabhicāri-bhāva. Nothing exists in the world except them in the production.

To guide the poet for the purpose of making the play (Prayoga) more bright, they are mentioned as twenty one. He, further, adds that sāma etc. serve as the causes in brightening the Heroic (type of play), Vadha in Raudra, and ready wit is in the form of transitory state, Gotraskhalanam is found everywhere in jealousy and Vipralambha, enterprise in śṛṅgāra and Vira etc., Cāpalam in comic etc. These sandhyantaras are easily available in all the plays like Nāṭaka etc. Thus sandhis, sandhyaṅgas and sandhyantaras becoming useful in the sentiment are the parts of the body, i.e. ‘Itivrtta’.

Dhanika76 believes that they may be included in Alañkāras and the psychological states. They do not belong to any particular sandhi or stage of action or to any particular emotion but they, generally, conduce to the proper weaving of the plot. In brief, it may be said, that these special features are inserted in sandhis to fulfil some purpose, to highten some emotion. Their importance was later minimised by the authors like Dhanañjaya etc.

138

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Patākāsthānakas or Episode Indication

Useful in the plot of drama is another distinct feature termed Patākās­thānaka. This device of Patākāsthānaka has been used by most of the Sanskrit dramatists. It plays an important part in the plot of a play. Patākāsthānaka foreshadows an event, whether near at hand or distant and thus it informs the audience about the incidents through equivocal speech or attributes. It also enhances the beauty of the plot. It involves both the dramatic irony and pathetic fallacy. It is in fact a point of pivot, which gives at times an interesting turn to the dramatic action. In the treatment of Patākāsthānaka, we find a great difference between Bharata and Dhanañjaya, while Bharata mentions four types of Patākāsthānaka, Dhanañjaya contents himself with two types. On other hand, most of the writers have accepted four kinds of Patākāsthānaka narrated by Bharata. We shall first take up the view of Bharata.

Bharata77 defines Patākāsthānaka, in general, when some matter being taken in hand, i.e., already thought about, another matter of similar nature, i.e. characteristics, is suggested, through an accidental idea (Āgantuka bhāvena), it is termed Patākāsthānaka. In simple words, the present matter in hand indicates suddenly another matter of similar characteristics which is to happen in future. The important points to be noted about it are that ‘Patākāsthānaka’ is used to suggest the future event; secondly the words apply equally well to the present matter and to the future event as they appear to have the common features. The character spoken to, does not recognise their importance at that time, but the audience takes them as a valuable information about the future. Bharata without giving specific names recounts them as first, second, third and fourth.

First Patākāsthānaka

The sudden development of a novel meaning (arthasampatti) due to an indirect suggestion is called the first type of Patākāsthānaka. Artha, here, should be understood to mean phala. The first Patākāsthānaka consists of an abrupt revelation of facts which result in the acquisition of a desired object. An ambiguous situation may result in bringing about the aim of the hero.

The second Patākāsthānaka

Words completely carrying double meaning and expressed in a

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

139

poetic language are termed as the second type of Patākāsthānaka. The words ‘Sātiśayam’ and ‘Śliṣṭam’ in the definition of Bharata have been interpreted differently. Some have interpreted ‘Śliṣṭam’ as having more than one sense, while in the opinion of others, it means related to the present context. This type of Patākāsthānaka may be illustrated from Śākuntalam when a voice behind the scene bids the female cakravāka to say farewell to her spouse, a command whose application to the case of the king and the heroine is immediately appreciated by the audience alone. Here, the equivocation lies in words, whose sense the spectator alone grasps in its deeper application.

The Third Patākāsthānaka

That which suggests with courtesy the object (of a play) in a subtle manner and in the form of a dialogue is termed the third type of Patākāsthānaka.

The Fourth Patākāsthānaka

Words with a double meaning, expressed in a well-knit poetic language and having a reference to something (other than what appears at first sight) are termed the fourth Patākāsthānaka. Bharata has not set any limit as to when and where these Patākāsthānakas should be used. They may be used anywhere in the play and their general use is that they indicate some incident or the subject of the play that is to happen in future, at the same time they add beauty to the plot.

Abhinavagupta78 understands by ‘Artha’ in Bharata’s definition both aims and means. In his view when some means or purpose is thought over, but another means or purpose, different from the one thought over, becomes related with it, it becomes Patākāsthānaka. Being based on Patākā, the Itivrtta is also called Patākāsthānaka. The matter described in Patākāsthānaka is in the form of inanimate and animate like Patākā. He quotes the view of his teachers that the place of Patākā forms the itivrttatā and the artha performed overcomes the meaning of the former Pada, hence itivrttam is called Patākāsthānaka. The other Artha, indicator of that, indicates the main motif in a surprising manner. The similarity between it and Patākā is denoted by the word ‘Āgantuka bhāven’. ‘Bhāvanam’ here means bhāva and that is the cause which is twofold, in its own form and in the form of

accompaniment. The cause accompanying is called ‘Āgantuka’. So due to similarity of accompaniment, it has its similarity with Patākā. In simple words, the direct aim in it is accompanied with the future aim of the plot. The similarity with Patākā is that just as a Patākā hero accompanies the main hero, so in Patākāsthānaka another aim or means accompanies the main Artha. Abhinava-

gupta interpreting the first kind of Patākāsthānaka writes that when the desired phala is suddenly achieved without the previous thought—that it would be achieved by the hero—that is the first and principal Patākāsthānaka as it is related with the main attainable aim. Here, the hero is related with his final aim by gaining it suddenly. This achievement of the phala is attributive because it benefits the doer. Abhinava cites its example from Ratnāvalī when the king thinking her to be Vāsavadattā saves Sāgarikā from committing suicide and suddenly finds that she is his beloved Sāgarikā. Here, the aim thought over was some what else, but beautifying it another aim is fulfilled. When the means other than thought over are gained, may be illustrated from Nāgānanda. The Kañcukin offers red garments to Jimūtavāhana, which become the means of forsaking his life, when Jimūtavāhana wanted to have the garments of Saṅkhacūḍa. Abhinava’s interpretation of Bharata’s definition is the most proper and it explains Bharata’s point of view vividly. Abhinava quotes the view of others also who think that these four Patākāsthānakas, first, second, third and fourth are to be used respectively in four sandhis, Mukha, Pratimukha, Garbha and so on. He holds this view to be ridiculous, as used thus Patākāsthānakas will not create any beauty nor there is any necessity of using them so.

Abhinava, next, interprets the second type of Patākāsthānaka. When the statement or artha related to the present context, uttered in exaggeration, fits in with the matter not at hand, it is the second Patākāsthānaka. The aim of the speaker in it is to say something in exaggeration, but due to its exaggeration it also serves another purpose that is to happen later in the story. He takes for its example, the message of Sugrīva towards Sītā in Rāmābhyudaya. Sugrīva sends message to Sītā, ‘Rāghava will bring you soon, even crossing the sea and even if you are beyond the sea’. The statement is uttered to show great power, but it exceeds the present context and becomes related with the real object of the play, as it so happens in the case of Sītā.

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta.

141

In interpreting the third type of Patākāsthānaka, Abhinava takes ‘Līnam’ employed by Bharata, in the sense of not very clear. When the ‘Artha,’ not very clear, supported with the answer which is capable of being related to it, but is spoken in another sense, is brought to a particular decision, it is the third type of Patākāsthānaka. In this type, the matter thought over is not very clear, an answer is given which spoken in another sense can be related with the matter at hand, and the character taking that answer comes to a decision. This can be illustrated with the conversation between Cāṇakya and Siddhārthaka in Mudrārākṣasa. Cāṇakaya is thinking about the capture of Rākṣasa which is the main motif of the play. Siddhārthaka gives an answer ‘it is taken’, which can be related with the thinking of Cāṇakya, but Siddhārthaka uses it for the message, meaning that he has grasped the message. Cāṇakya, relating it with his present thinking comes to a decision as he has devised the course of action to capture Rākṣasa. So the answer carries two applications, and this helps in the real object of the play.

Then Abhinava comes to the fourth kind of Patākāsthānaka. In his view when the arrangement of words or part of the story, due to the use of double entendre (Śleṣa) conveys many meanings and has beauty of expression due to the use of Alañkāra in bringing another subject-matter, that is the fourth kind of Patākāsthānaka. He takes its example from Ratnāvalī when Vaitālika describes the rise of the moon. In this stanza the use of the Śleṣa meant for the description of rising moon in the evening equally applies to the king Udayana and thus brings in the main matter, belonging to Sāgarikā. By the description of moon, Sāgarikā, takes the hint and recognises that he is king Udayana. Abhinava does not accept ‘Uddāmotkalikām’ as the fit example of the fourth type of Patākāsthānaka. In his view, though it conveys two senses but it does not accompany the Artha.

In deviation to Bharata, Dhananjaya79 recognises only two kinds of Patākāsthānaka, equivocation of situation and deliberate equivocation of phrase. He defines Patākāsthānaka as an indication, by the mention of something extraneous, of a matter that is begun or about to happen and this Patākāsthānaka is characterised by similar situations or attributes. Consequently Patākāsthānaka becomes of two kinds; one known as ‘Tulyasamvidhāna’ or that which bears similarity between the matter indicating and the

142

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

indicated. Second ‘Tulyaviśeṣaṇaka’ which indicates the matter of similarity of attributes.

Dhanañjaya only mentions the use of Anyokti while Dhanika80 mentions Anyokti and Samāsokti both. In his view the indication of the future matter in context becomes like Patākā so it is Patākāsthānaka. It is two fold, having similarity of situation and similarity of attributes based on Anyokti and Samāsokti. Dhanika illustrates the first type from Ratnāvalī when the setting of the Sun is described. But Dhanika has not explained how it indicates the future matter. Of course, through the statement setting Sun is touching his head with his hands’ is indicated the incident of future, when Udayana tries to please Vāsavadattā. Dhanika gives the example of similar attributes from the same play when the attributes applied to the creeper equally apply to Sāgarikā and thus make Vāsavadattā angry.

Finally we see that Patākāsthānaka indicate by sudden introduction of some extraneous matter, something already begun or is about to begin. Bharata has included more aspects of Patākāsthānaka in his Nāṭyaśāstra than Dhanañjaya. All the four types of Patākāsthānaka are related in one way or the other with the actual, real theme of the play. Only the first type is different from the rest three in this aspect that, while in the next three Patākāsthānakas use of Śleṣa is there, and words convey more than one meaning and thus indicate the real matter of the play, in the first type no use of Śleṣa is made and the character suddenly without prethought achieves his desired goal.

The difference between the second type and the fourth type of Patākāsthānaka is that in the second, the real matter is indicated due to use of excess of poetical language and the matter indicated is very much related to the words indicating. In the fourth type of Patākāsthānaka, the use of Śleṣa applies to both the situations, equally to the subject-matter of the play and the matter in hand. In the third type the response of a character is applied to the main theme though he utters it, in another sense and the Principal device maker comes to a decisive course of action.

Patākāsthānakas may be used anywhere in the play without any limit on them that they are to be used in four sandhis only. They beautify the main plot in bringing out the main theme to the forefront by indirect suggestion.

Plot : Vastu or Itivṛtta

PART II

We have discussed in previous chapter, certain essential features, relating to the Plot. We, now, propose to take up certain other features which are equally important together with certain accessory elements prescribed by the dramaturgists.

Before the actual presentation of the play is to commence, Bharata prescribes certain items to be performed in Pūrvaraṅga, which can be considered as the preliminaries of drama. Most of these items are performed behind the curtain except the benediction. We are, here, concerned not with all the preliminaries of drama, but only Nāndī, Prarocanā and Prastāvanā which are, generally, found in most of the Sanskrit plays.

We find in practice that every play, taking from Kālidāsa onwards, starts with a benedictory verse which is to be recited before the action of the play for averting any evil that may impede the success of the performance. Every Sanskrit play begins with a verse or group of verses invoking the grace of a deity, a Brāhmaṇa or a king for the welfare of the audience and the actors. After the benedictory verse the stage direction occurs : ‘at the end of Nāndī the Sūtradhāra appears’ ‘Nāndyante tataḥ praviśati Sūtradhāraḥ, but in the plays of Bhāsa after this stage direction benedictory verse is sung. There is some controversy whether the benedictory verse is sung by Sūtradhāra on the stage or Sūtradhāra enters after it. We will see it in the light of Bharata’s view and that of Dhananjaya’s and their commentators and also as in practice. The beginning verse of the play is called Nāndī and it is an important part of the dramatic composition.

Nāndī

Etymologically, the expression Nāndī is derived from the root ‘Nand’ to rejoice and the purpose of its recitation is to rejoice all those concerned with the show. Since the aim of all dramatic literature is to delight, to feast the eyes, the playwrights have established a practice of making Nāndī, the first substantive part of the drama to reach the audience and of making it the very essence of the Pūrvaraṅga which has inter alia several other elements possessing individual significance.

Let us first take Bharata’s view. Bharata81 states that Nāndī

144

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

(Benediction) is so called because it must always include and invoke the blessings of gods, Brāhmaṇas and kings. The moon-god is pleased with the Benediction.

Next, he prescribes the reciter of Nāndī. The Sūtradhāra (Director) should recite, in a medium tone, the Nāndī (Benediction) which should consist of eight ‘padas’ or twelve ‘padas’. This limitation set by him of eight padas or twelve padas has given rise to diversity of opinions. The word ‘Pada’ has been interpreted differently which we will see later.

Bharata presents the specimens of Nāndī showing how the welfare should be wished in it.

‘Salutation be to all the gods. Blessed be the twice born class. Let the king and the cows attain good health by his soma-sacrifice. Let there be an advancement of the cause of the Brāhmaṇas and let their enemies be killed and let the great king rule this earth together with all the seas.

Let this state (Rāṣṭra) prosper and the troupe of actors prosper and let the producer of the theatrical show attain virtues inspired by the Vedic knowledge.

Let the playwright attain fame and let his virtue increase and by this kind of sacrifice let the gods be always pleased. Between these Nāndī verses or after the recitation of such verses, the two assistants should loudly and distinctly say ‘Let this be so’. The Nāndī (Benediction) should thus be performed duly according to the rules, mentioned above.

In general, we can say that in Nāndī a wish was expressed for the well-being of the people. Later in Sanskrit plays, a wish for the prosperity of the nation, prayer for the well-being of the Kingdom, Brāhmaṇas and people was expressed in Bharata-vākyam at the end of the play. Nāndī included the invocation of gods to protect the spectators and actors and a wish was expressed that the play may be represented smoothly.

In Bharata’s view the Nāndī was recited by the Sūtradhāra. After performing the items of Pūrvarañga, the Sūtradhāra with his assistants retired from the stage and Sthāpaka entered to begin Prastāvanā who resembled the Sūtradhāra in every respect.

From this statement of Bharata it appears that the Nāndī was first recited by the Sūtradhāra with his assistants. The text, available, seems to have been interpolated and because of this a confusing situation has resulted about the Nāndī. Later, we find

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

that perhaps these benedictory verses were included in the play by the poet and we find the stage direction ; 'at the end of Nāndī, the Sūtradhāra enters'. We may take it to mean collectively the Pūrvavaranga. This stage direction appears at the very beginning in the plays of Bhāsa, while in later plays it is inserted after the benedictory verse or verses. Hence the assumption that previously Nāndī was not the part of the play, but later it was made the part of the play. When was it done cannot be said definitely. It appears that with the passage of time, the difference between the Sthāpaka and the Sūtradhāra disappeared and the Sthāpaka was also called the Sūtradhāra as he resembled the Sūtradhāra in every respect. The anomaly between the statement of Bharata and the later stage direction can be explained only in this way.

Let us see the view of Abhinava82 also. In his view the Nāndī is always to be used in the Prayoga. 'Nityam' means, in the same form, that is while other recitations like Utthāpana etc. may be made otherwise depending upon the representation, Nāndī is recited in the same manner and form. Abhinava takes 'ādi' word in Bharata's Kārikā for the Sūtradhāra and other actors etc. In his view, this Nāndī is mentioned as Prarocana in the discussion of aṅgas of Bhāratī Vrtti in Chapter 20. Abhinavagupta does not restrict Nāndī to eight or twelve Padas only. He widens its scope and accepted Nāndī to be consisting of four or sixteen padas also in Caturaśra Pūrvavaranga and three or six padas also in tryaśra Pūrvavaranga. He does not make 'Pada' an issue of dispute, he accepts it in both the senses as the padas subservient to the sentence and as āntaravākya having Subanta and Tiṅanta, i.e. grammatical word ending in a nominal or verbal suffix.

Daśarūpaka83 does not say anything about Nāndī. But from the brief statement, when the Sūtradhāra has gone out after disposing of the preliminaries at the beginning of the play, another actor, entering in like manner, shall introduce the drama', it becomes clear that Dhananjaya and Dhanika do not deviate from Bharata. Dhananjaya follows Bharata and it may be assumed that according to him also Nāndī was the part of Pūrvavaranga and Sūtradhāra made an exit after doing Pūrvavaranga as Bharata has already stated. The action of the play was established by another actor called Sthāpaka who was very much like Sūtradhāra. Dhanika has also explained Purvaranga as a feature in which first the audience is delighted, and it was so in fact, because Pūrvavaranga consisted of music, song

and dance. In the opinion of Dhanika, Pūrvarañga will indicate Nāṭyaśālā, in modern terms the theatre, and the ceremonies performed there consisting of Pūrvarañgatā. Another reading of it is also found, comment needed. Dhanika wrote Pūrvarañga, not the Nāṭyaśālā but the ceremonies performed therein.

Finally we see that Bharata has not mentioned in reference to Nāndī what he actually meant by Pada, so Pada has been interpreted differently, as a metrical unit, the grammatical unit, the syntactical unit, the musical unit or the caesural unit.

It becomes clear, when we look into the statements of Bharata and Dhananjaya and in the plays of Bhāsa that first Nāndī was recited in Pūrvarañga and Sūtradhāra used to recite it. In Svapnavāsavadattam, in Avimāraka, in Pratimā and other plays we find the stage direction. ‘At the end of Nāndī Sūtradhāra enters and after it the benedictory verse. But in Abhijñānaśākuntala of Kālidāsa, in Veṇīsamhāra of Bhatta Nārāyaṇa, in Ratnāvalī of Sriharṣa, we first find one or more benedictory verses and then the stage direction and then Prastāvanā. It denotes that gradually Nāndī was included in the play and it was recited at the very beginning of the play; though when this practice started we cannot say. Later the activities of all the three, i.e. Sūtradhāra, Sthāpaka and Pāripārśvikas were merged and were performed by Sūtradhāra only.

Prarocanā (Laudation)

Bharata has mentioned Prarocanā in the items of Pūrvarañga, but later writers included it in the play under Sthāpanā. As stated by Bharata84 in Pūrvarañga after the Nāndī Rañgadvārā occurs, after that Cārī and Mahācārī, then there is trigata—‘three men’s talk’ and thereafter just before the entrance of Sthāpaka, Prarocanā occurs. Prarocanā announces the content of the drama, and the Sūtradhāra and his two attendants leave the stage.

Bharata defines Prarocanā (Laudation) as an appeal with a view to success which is made (by the director) after suggesting the action of the play in hand with proper reasoning and arguments. This prarocanā is made after trigata. Bharata also mentions Prarocanā as the aṅga of Bhāratīvrtti and there he prescribes that Prarocanā in the Pūrvarañga is to attain success, prosperity, good luck, victory and removal of all sins.

Bharata does not specify the person who is to present Prarocanā. He just mentions that the Prarocanā should be done with

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

147

an appeal to the audience and for the success of the performance, and the subject of the play should be mentioned.

In the view of Abhinavagupta85 the appeal which is made to the audience with a view to achieving success of the performance is Prārocanā. The pleasure—the delight will be gained from this play, please look at the play’, thus, as it causes the interest greatly, so it is called Prārocanā.

Abhinavagupta states that Nāndī mentioned here, becomes Prārocanā in the discussion of aṅgas of Bhārati Vṛtti because in that context the definition of Prārocanā resembles the definition of Nāndī. He regards Prārocanā as of two kinds : one that is the aṅga of Pūrvaraṅga and another forming the part of Bhārati Vṛtti.

Dhanañjaya86 describes Prārocanā as the aṅga of Bhārati Vṛtti, and this Bhārati Vṛtti is to be employed by the actors. The Sthāpaka, afterwards called Sūtradhāra, propitiates the audience with pleasing verses that hint at the subject of the composition and after that he employs Bhārati Vṛtti in describing some season. As defined by Dhanañjaya, Prārocanā is a means of arousing expectancy by means of praise [of the matter in hand]. Dhanika adds nothing new and he cites its example from Ratnāvalī where the expectancy of the audience is aroused by the praise of the poet and matter in hand, as, ‘Śrīharṣa is an expert poet and this audience is also expert in recognising the virtues, the Vṛtta of Vatsarāja is attractive and we are also experts in representation and so on.

Dhanañjaya deviates a little from the definition of Prārocanā given by Bharata.

In Dhanañjaya’s view the Sthāpaka (Establisher) propitiates the sense of the audience by introducing a eulogium commending the poetical virtues of the dramatist and panegyrizing the faculty of critical appreciation of the audience. Thus it helps the Sthāpaka in preparing an attractive atmosphere around him with a result that the audience thereby feel interested in the play to be staged before them.

In practice we find that in Bhāsa’s dramas, for example in Svapnavāsavadattam, Avimāraka and others, there is no mention of the name of the author or the play in the prologue part. But in the Abhijñānaśākuntala of Kālidāsa, in Mṛcchakaṭika, in Venisamhāra and the later plays, we find the name of the play and the author mentioned and a praise of the audience. Thus the practice

148

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

grew up of transferring from the preliminaries which were not a matter for the poet, the substance of the Prarocanā and embodying it in the poet's own work. First Prarocanā was included in the preliminaries as Bharata has mentioned; later it was included in Prastāvanā as becomes clear from Dhananjaya's Dasarūpaka. In this respect Bharata's Nātyaśāstra and Dhananjaya's Dasarūpaka clearly indicate the difference that came into the theory of Sanskrit Dramaturgy as a result of the change in practice. The plays upto the time of Dhananjaya; except the plays of Bhāsa, generally indicate the trend that in Prarocanā the audience was attracted towards the play by the mention of its title, the name of the poet and the praise of the critical faculty of the audience. Dhananjaya's definition of Prarocanā bears testimony to it. Though upto the time of Abhijñanaśākuntalam87 this practice had not gained enough ground as is indicated in the statement of Sūtradhāra. He praises the audience, gives the name of the Nāṭaka and the poet but is timid in his praise. But all the same he propitiates the audience. Thus we can say that in Prarocanā which is made before Prastāvanā, the action of the play is indicated, an appeal is made to the audience seeking its indulgence for its successful performance and the poetical qualities of the play are also praised.

Prastāvanā or Amukha

Bharata88 prescribes that after performing preliminaries in the manner described, the Sthāpaka (introducer should enter the stage and he should resemble the Sūtradhāra (director) in every respect, i.e., in quality and form. He should assume the ‘Vaiṣṇava’ guise and should have the appealing countenance and on entering the stage he should observe the movements which the Sūtradhāra had used. At the entrance of the Sthāpaka the Dhruvā should be sung suitable to the occasion.

Bharata states further that a Cārī should be performed in praise of gods and Brāhmaṇas. After pleasing the spectators (raṅga) with the recitation of ślokas containing sweetwords and evoking various sentiments and states, the Sthāpaka should announce the name of the play-wright.

After that he should start the Prastāvanā which relates to proclaiming the theme of the play and the Udghātyaka etc. should be employed to start the play. The costume of the Sthāpaka should indicate the nature of the drama as dealing with divine or human affairs. Thus having recourse to a god in a divine

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

play, a man in a human play and a god or a man where gods and men are, together he should proclaim in different ways the subject of the play by alluding variously to its Mukha and Bīja.

After introducing the play, the Sthāpaka (introducer) should go out of the stage. Thus should be performed the preliminaries according to the rules. Bharata has also mentioned Āmukha or Prastāvanā as the part of Bhārati Vṛtti and at that place he defines Āmukha or Prastāvanā thus: ‘That part of a play where an actress, the jester or the assistant has a talk with the Sūtradhāra (Director) on some relevant topic and they use interesting words or adopt any type of Vīthi or talk in any other way, is called the Āmukha or Prastāvanā by the experts. While mentioning Prastāvanā in Pūrvaraṅga Bharata mentions only Prastāvaka or Sthāpaka and that allusion to the play should be made befitting the Mukha and Bīja and which may be made in many ways. In the context of Bhārati Vṛtti he mentions that in Amukha, Nati, Vidūṣaka or Pāripārśvika talk with the actor. It does not become clear, whether he takes Prastāvanā and Āmukha to be two different things or the same. Bharata mentions five aṅgas of the Āmukha, namely, Udghātyaka, Kathodghāta, Prayogātiśaya Pravṛttaka and Avalagita. He has mentioned Udghātyaka etc., with reference to the Prastāvanā in Pūrvaraṅga also to make allusion to the play. So the two things appear to be one, not different.

In the view of Bharata working out skilfully any of the device which may be relevant, the wise should construct Āmukha without encumbering it with characters and speeches. The Āmukha should be known to the wise with different bases.

We find that some difference exists in actual Sthāpanā in Pūrvaraṅga and Āmukha Sthāpanā in Pūrvaraṅga includes the Dhruvā song, the Cāri in the praise of gods and Brāhmaṇas, the stanzas having sweet words to please the audience and the mention of the poet. Prastāvanā or Āmukha actually deals with the last part of the preliminaries, in which the character or the play is introduced and just after that the play begins.

Abhinava⁸⁹ takes Sūtradhāra and Sthāpaka identically and in his view Sūtradhāra after performing the Pūrvaraṅga enters as the Sthāpaka and the two are not different persons. In the light of this statement much confusion and contradiction of the Sanskrit plays may be removed. He further explains that the Sthāpaka or Sūtradhāra should recite the stanzas to purify the hearts of the

150

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

spectators and to train them so that they may become capable of enjoying the sentiment.

Abhinava shows the difference between the ‘Upakṣepa’ which is the limb of Mukhasandhi and the suggestion made here in Prastāvanā. In the ‘Upakṣepa’ of Mukhasandhi the aim of the play is directly put and stated and in Bīja Arthaprakṛti that is in minute form, but here in Prastāvanā it is not directly put or mentioned but the allusion just resembles the aim of the play. Sthāpaka and Prastāvaka should exit after introducing the play with the help of those allusions which are made in the heart of the spectators by Naṭ, Vidūṣaka and Pāripārśvika by the means of their action and which allude covertly to the Bīja of the play.

Abhinavagupta accepts Prastāvanā as of two kinds, the part of the Pūvararanga or the part of the Bhāratī Vṛtti. In the Prastāvanā which is the part of Pūrvaraṅga, the poet is not concerned; Sthāpaka is either its composer or any other poet. The other kind or type of Prastāvanā is mentioned in dealing with Vṛttis. This should be applied to Prarocanā also. Thus Abhinavagupta has distinguished between the two Prastāvanās mentioned by Bharata. He takes one type of Prastāvanā and Prarocanā mentioned as the parts of Pūrvaraṅga and the other type belonging to Bhāratī Vṛtti. Interpreting Āmukha Abhinavagupta states that in Āmukha ‘ Ā’ may be taken in two senses, either in limitation that it is upto the Mukhasandhi or the beginning is little introduced here. Thus when Sthāpaka, similar in virtues and figure to Sūtradhāra is represented as the character Rāma etc. then this type of Āmukha is composed by the poet. He takes five aṅgas of Āmukha as its five varieties.

Abhinava has quoted others, views also who take Prastāvanā mentioned in Pūrvraranga as the part of Bhāratī Vṛtti. But as we know Abhinavagupta has taken a different stand. Was it the view of Bharata also, we cannot say definitely, because Bharata has nowhere stated them as two types and we are very far removed from Bharata.

While Abhinavagupta has regarded Sūtradhāra and Sthāpaka as the same person and there is only the change of designation, Dhananjaya90 regards Sthāpaka another person, as he says that another actor entering in like manner shall introduce the drama. It is not clear in Bharata’s N Ś. whether Sthāpaka was the Sūtradhāra or another actor. Bharata mentions only this much, ‘Sthāpaka should enter the stage resembling Sutradhāra in qualities

Plot : Vastu or Itivṛtta

and costume. Dhananjaya follows Bharata when he mentions that he shall introduce a play dealing with gods or one dealing with mortals in that form, i.e. divine or human, respectively. A play whose characters are gods and mortals co-mingled, he shall introduce as either of these. He shall allude to the Vastu (subject-matter) or the Bīja (Germ) or the Mukha (opening) or to one of the characters. The example of allusion to Bīja may be taken from Ratnāvalī and to character from the Abhijñānaśākuntalam.

Dhananjaya further mentions that after propitiating the audience with pleasing verses that hint at the subject of the composition, he shall use the Bhāratī Vṛtti describing some season.

Here, we see that Dhananjaya deviates a little from Bharata. Next Dhananjaya defines Āmukha or Prastāvanā (introduction or Induction) as that in which the Sūtradhāra addresses Naṭī, Mārīṣa or Vidūṣaka on a matter of his own in bright conversation, hinting at the matter in progress. And there are Kathodghāta, Pray-ttakam and Prayogātisaya and thirteen sub-divisions of Vīthī. Dhanika comments after the thirteen sub-divisions of Vīthī that the aṅgas of Prastāvanā have been spoken, but it is amusing that interpreting these sub-divisions of Vīthī, Dhanika does not cite their examples denoting Prastāvanā.

In the opinion of Dhananjaya also, Sūtradhāra after hinting at the theme or character with any one of these shall go out at the end of Prastāvanā and then begin the detailed presentation of the subject-matter.

Here, we find some contradiction. First Dhananjaya mentions that an actor, similar to Sūtradhāra, enters and then in discussion of Āmukha he terms him Sūtradhāra. This contradiction can be explained away only by the interpretation of Abhinavagupta. But Dhananjaya has clearly mentioned that Sthāpaka was an actor other than Sūtradhāra.

If we examine closely we find that Bharata has discussed Prastāvanā at two places, first, in the context of Pūrvaraṅga and secondly in the context of Bhāratī Vṛtti. Now Bharata has not mentioned them as two different types, and the two things do not seem separate.

But Abhinavagupta regards the mention of Prastāvanā at these two places as two separate varieties of Prastāvanā, one belonging to the Pūrvaraṅga and the other belonging to Bhāratī Vṛtti. This view is not upheld by others. The writers like Dhananjaya and

Rāmacandra and Gunacandra discuss Prastāvanā under the añga of Bhārati Vṛtti, and this Prastāvanā precedes the Mukhasandhi in the play and here the actors are in their own selves, they have not assumed the roles of the characters.

Dhanañjaya follows Bharata when he states Āmukha to be the talk between Sūtradhāra, actress, Vidūṣaka and Pāripārśvika. He also follows Bharata when he states that the Sthāpaka should be either as a divine or mortal or one of the two. While Bharata mentions that introduction of the play should be like Mukha or Bija. Dhanañjaya adds character also.

As we have seen, Abhinavagupta regards Sūtradhāra and Sthāpaka as one and the same person, Dhanañjaya regards Sthāpaka as different from Sūtradhāra, but further he mentions him as Sūtradhāra. We find that the theory gets very complicated. It cannot be stated definitely whether Nāndī was recited before the Sthāpaka entered or the Cāri was made to serve as Nāndī. To which place the sweet ślokas sung to please the audience should be assigned ? The mention of the poet's name and qualities occurred in Prarocanā, Sthāpanā or Prastāvanā? It cannot be stated definitely whether Sthāpanā and Prastāvanā were the same thing or different. As Bharata's rules had been laid down on the basis of the lost plays, they are not thoroughly applicable to the later plays. Although the main definitions of Prarocanā, Nāndī, Prastāvanā containing the important characteristic apply to the later plays as well.

As Dhanañjaya's observations are based on the plays, available up to his time, mostly his definitions are cited to explain the elements in the plays. In practice in the Abhijñānaśākuntalam,91 after a benedictory verse, we find the talk between Sūtradhāra and Naṭī, after that the mention of the poet and his play, then the stanza to please the audience, next the stanza describing summer season and hinting indirectly at the happy ending of the play, after that the mention of the play and the end of Prastāvanā, after introducing the character Duṣyanta. In Veṇīsamhāra92 after Nāndī verses we find the praise of Vyāsa and the mention of the play and propitiation for the benevolence of the audience, it may be called Prarocanā, then the allusion to the matter of the play, description of the season, the talk between Sūtradhāra and Pāripārśvika and the introduction of the play by the use of Kathodghāta. Bhāsa's plays do not accord to the rules laid down,

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

In Bhāsa’s plays there is Sthāpanā instead of the Prastāvanā; at the end of Sthāpanā the play is introduced. We find a talk between Sūtradhāra and Naṭī in Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa. We find no song of the season in Bhāsa’s plays.

To conclude, this much we may say that previously Nāndī and Prarocanā were the parts of the Pūrvarāṇga, later they were inserted in the play. Broadly speaking, Prastāvanā or Sthāpanā may be said to pertain after Nāndī upto the introduction of the play either through any of the ways mentioned. Specifically Prastāvanā or Āmukha denotes the part, taking a cue from which a play begins. In Prastāvanā we find the mention of the Bīja or Mukha of the play, there may be a talk between the Sūtradhāra and the actors hinting at the meaning of the play.

But all the same this is the very important part before the actual commencement of the play and it is found in almost every play.

Presentation of the Plot

The entire subject matter of the drama can broadly be divided into two parts. Firstly that which is presented on the stage and the other that is indicated through various means. The important events involving the hero are presented, but there are some events which cannot be shown on the stage, as they either offend the feelings or are improper or are impossible. Such events which cannot be presented, but which are essential to grasp the subject matter in full, are narrated or related. The matters as are appropriate for presentation must be presented through the Aṅkas (Acts). Now let us see what is an Aṅka (Act) and what matters are included into it.

Aṅka (Act)

As defined by Bharata93 an expert should properly make an Aṅka containing the different conditions (Avasthās) projected by Bindu.

Aṅka is the customary word. As by means of presentation of the psychological states and sentiments it causes the purposes of the play to develop, and as it adheres to some technical rules it is called an Aṅka. That part of the play, where a particular incident or Avasthā is fully expressed and where one state of Bīja ends but is not finally disposed of, is always to be known as an Aṅka which

154

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

slightly clings to the Bindu. This is the remarkable definition of an Aṅka given by Bharata. To be connected with the story, an Aṅka clings to Bindu, one Artha (i.e. Avasthā) ends, one state of Bīja out of its Utpatti, Udbheda etc. concludes.

The Aṅka which relates to the direct exploits of the heroes and their various Avasthās should not be made too long. The Aṅka is to contain more sentiments than one, arising from words and deeds of the hero, his queen, their elders, the priest, the minister and the leader of the caravan.

Anger, pacification, grief, ending of the curse, vidrava, marriage, beginning of the Marvellous are to be presented in the Aṅka.

An Aṅka should cover events that can take place in course of a single day. It should relate to the Bīja of the play and should proceed without a clash with compulsory acts (routine duties).

The Kārikā of Bharata has been interpreted in two ways. Some take its meaning in negative that in an Aṅka not many events should be put while according to others, sometimes the wise may put many events in a single Aṅka. But the events depicted should be without a hindrance to routine duties. Persons appearing on the stage during an Aṅka would all go out after they have performed things connected with the Bīja and purpose of the play and leading to relevant sentiments. Knowing the length of a day which is divided into Kṣaṇas, Yāmas and Muhūrtas, one should distribute exhaustively the entire action in different Aṅkas.

With an Aṅka of the Nāṭaka and the Prakaraṇa the Hero should be closely associated.

Battle, loss of kingdom, death, siege of a city are not directly presentable in an Aṅka.

In the view of Abhinava when the Prārabha Avasthā out of the five Avasthās of the Itivrtta which is jointed with the thread of Bindu, comes to fulfilment then the Aṅka ends and the second Aṅka discovered by Bindu should be devised. This should be relevant to the other four Avasthās also. Therefore, there should be five Aṅkas, but what about the plays having less Aṅkas. The experts should devise the Aṅka otherwise also following this direction. When the Prārabha stage is prominent, then, keeping in view its beginning and end it occupies two Aṅkas and the other one Aṅka thus the number six, seven etc. However, when all are

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

prominent then the number reaches to ten Aṅkas. When making one Avasthā prominent others are described after mixing, then, the lesser Aṅkas are found in Nāṭikā.

Abhinava quotes others' view also about Aṅka. In the opinion of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa etc., the Artha covered with Bhāva and Rasa is termed Aṅka according to one's sweet will, and they read Gūḍha' instead of 'Rūḍhi'. There are others, in whose opinion 'rūḍhi' means growth, so the part of the play, which with the sentiments Śṛṅgāra etc. and the feelings Vibhāva etc. develops the Arthas-Bhāva etc. in the heart and is accompanied with many rules, is called Aṅka because of its being related with the growth.

In Abhinava's own view Aṅka has become traditional in the characteristic to denote the separation from the other. This Aṅka also distinguishes itself from the other, i.e., unrepresentational. In the presentational the one part of the play develops the 'arthas' denoted by Rasa and Bhāva. It develops the sentiment like the sprouting of the Bīja through the direct representation, and thus brings the universalization of the heart.

Next, Abhinava94 interprets the form of the Aṅka. Aṅka occurs where the Artha denoting Prārabha etc. ends or when compression of the Bīja becomes proper befitting to Sandhi then also occurs the end of the Aṅka. Utpatti, Udghāṭana, Udbheda, Garbhanirbheda and bringing together the phala, the particular states of Bīja depicted respectively in Mukha etc. should be taken from 'Samhāra' word. At the end of an Aṅka lest the story may break, an Aṅka should be done having relation to Bindu.

Regarding the three-fold nature of Aṅka Abhinava follows Kohala's view whom he quotes in this context. Abhinava states that the vastu to be described in the Aṅka, is of two kinds, main and auxiliary to it. In auxiliary matter also, some becomes helpful due to fate or accident and some due to purpose (Abhisandhi). Thus the Artha of Aṅka is threefold and that is sometimes employed in a single Aṅka as mixed. In the varieties of Aṅka—Cūlikā and Aṅkamukha, the main artha is not touched.

This interpretation of Abhinava is his own contribution. Abhinava further states that not only the incidents and actions are directly visible but things like anger, delight, grief, destruction of the evil done by the curse, vidrava caused by fear, apprehension and terror, marriage, beginning of the miraculous, its accomplishment are also to be directly presented,

156

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Dhanañjaya95 follows Bharata in defining an Añka and he aptly defines Añka in concise words. He states that an Añka visibly represents the doings of the Hero, is attended with inherence of the Bindu, and is based on purposes, contrivances and sentiments of various kinds. Dhanika96 states that it is ‘Añka’ like the Utsańga (lap).

Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata in forbidding the representation of impossible acts and he also adds other improper acts like bathing etc. in it. He follows Bharata in setting the limit of one day events in an Añka. He adds that an Añka should be arranged with a single purpose, with the hero thus engaged, i.e. near at hand and with three or four characters, all making their exit at its end. There should be employed Patākāsthānakas, Bindu and Bīja in it. In this way the Añkas are to be prepared.

Thus we find that Bharata provides a larger scope when he admits that sometimes there may be more than one Kārya in a single Añka.

The view of Abhinava that Añka is of three kinds is not supported by Bharata, Dhanañjaya or even authors of Nāṭyadarpaṇa who otherwise follow him. The Añka contains the Artha pertaining to Bīja and it has Bindu also, as Bindu connects the Añkas by keeping the story continued, otherwise the story will break with the break of the Act. Abhinava has accepted as the basis of Añka’s division the Avasthā like Prārabdha etc. In his view Añka ends generally with the completion of one Avasthā of the hero and the state of Bīja. But Dhanañjaya has not supported this view, while Nāṭyadarpaṇa has accepted this view and we may regard it as a novel contribution of Abhinavagupta.

Thus a Nāṭaka may have five to ten Añkas, while other kinds of plays may have lesser Añkas, there may be plays having only one Añka. There should be an effective development of the plot in the Añka; at the moment when the characters are to depart and they seem to have attained their immediate aims, a new motive should come into play and a fresh impetus be given to the movement of drama.

Arthopakṣepakās (Explanatory Devices)

The subject-matter of the play which is not directly presentable is introduced through various devices known as Arthopakṣepakās. The word Arthopakṣepaka applied to the devices which

Plot : Vastu or Ītivr̥ttā

157

indicate the matter not presentable is very appropriate. The devices are called Arthopakṣepakas because they allude or hint at the matter, they do not directly represent it. Bharata has not used the term Arthopakṣepaka for these devices. He uses Praveśaka. But later writers, in one consensus, Dhananjaya, Abhinavagupta, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, all have applied the term to the devices which relate the matter not presentable. And the term is significant and rightly applied (but with some exception). The Arthopakṣepakas, recognised by all later to Bharata are five in number, respectively, Viṣkambhaka, Praveśaka, Cūlikā, Ankāvalāra and Aṅkamukha. But Bharata has himself applied two terms, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka.

As Bharata is the forefather in the field of Sanskrit dramaturgy let us first consider his views.

Bharata97 states, when events that are to be finished in the course of a day cannot be accommodated in an Ank̇a, should be presented through Praveśakas after breaking the Ank̇a. Praveśaka should be known to be made up of a conversation of attendants.

As in Prakarana and Nāṭaka there are five to ten Ank̇as, the number of explanatory devices might extend to that limit. (In his view events requiring a month or a year should be depicted in an Ank̇a, but never more than a year. If the interval is more than that in events, then it should be related through Praveśakas (explanatory devices) and the Ank̇a brought to a close.) When a person starts on a long journey due to some business, then also the Ank̇a should be brought to a close. Bharata now prescribes the rules for Praveśakas.

A Praveśaka falls between two Ank̇as and it will treat the artha of Bindus in brief i.e. it will refer briefly to the segments in Nāṭaka and Prakarana.

The Praveśaka should not consist of exploits of the superior and the middling characters, and there should be no exalted speech. In practice it should adopt speeches and manners of the common people (lower people). A Praveśaka may purpose to serve. (1) It may explain the advent of time, (2) the inner purpose of some particular move, (3) change of purpose or the inversion of movement, (4) or making a beginning, (5) a state of bewilderment due to plurality of action or implicit nature of some momentous acts, sometimes a major endeavour or the attainment of some expedients likely to help the consummation of the principal motif.

158

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

Nucleus of events or events depending on many persons are to be compressed by Praveśakas or in segment, for a play containing too many prose passages will be tiresome at the time of production. When if due to multiplicity of events it is not possible to present it completely in an Añka, then it should be indicated through Praveśaka compressing it in few words. The items like Battle, Death, Siege of the city etc. should be alluded to by means of Praveśakas. But as a rule of exception, murder of the rising hero should not be indicated even through Praveśaka.

Viṣkambhaka

In relation to Prakaraṇa Bharata prescribes rules for Viṣkambhaka. Here Viṣkambhaka should be employed always devised with the middling characters. It should adopt Sanskrit speech and it is concise like the Praveśaka. Bharata mentions two kinds of Viṣkambhaka, Śuddha, i.e. pure and Saṅkirṇa, i.e. mixed. The śuddha is employed by middling characters and the mixed is employed by inferior and the middling characters. It may occur between Añkas or in the beginning of the Añka suiting the action of the matter. It should state briefly the 'arthas' of the sandhis.

But Praveśaka falls between two Añkas and not in the beginning of the First Añka. The difference drawn by Bharata between Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka is that Praveśaka consists of the inferior characters, using Prākrit and it does not consist of exalted language. Praveśaka may be used for indicating many purposes, while Viṣkambhaka is used by middling characters or middle and inferior; it is in Sanskrit and it may occur in the beginning also.

Bharata has not used the terms Añkāvatāra, Añkamukha and Cūlikā in reference to Arthopakṣepakas. The seven stanzas (in Ch. 19) mentioning five Arthopakṣpakas are bracketed by the editor considering them as interpolated.

Abhinavagupta98 interprets Praveśakas that as they make even the invisible matter enter the heart, so they are called Praveśakas and by Praveśakas should be understood Cūlikā, Añkāvatāra, Añkamukha, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka. And for that reason Kohala has stated five Arthopakṣepakas. Thus it becomes clear from Abhinava's commentary that it was Kohala who seems to have used this term of Arthopakṣepakas first of all.

Abhinava refers to the others' view that there are some who construe 'in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa' with the next line and say that other types of plays different from Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa do

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

not have Praveśaka. In his opinion, made up of the conversation of the attendants ‘Parijankathānubandha’ is the characteristic of all the four, namely, of the Cūlikā used by Sūta, Māgadha etc. (i.e. bards), of the Añkamukha made up of male or female or of Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka used by Ceṭī and Kañcukins etc., Añkāvatāra is connected with the mutually joined story. He further gives the definition of Añkāvatāra to support his plea. The device in which due to presentation an Añka follows another Añka or is in between the Añka, being joined to the story of the play should be known as Añkāvatāra. This Praveśaka is to unite or support the matter of the Añka. To perform variegated junctions between the Añkas, the Praveśaka of five kinds should be employed. Praveśaka is a general term to denote the five, but here it connotes the Praveśaka and the Viṣkambhaka. Abhinava, while explaining the purpose for the introduction of Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka in the drama, though seems to offer an unconvincing reason, has certainly based his views on sound psychology. He states that Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka are to be introduced by the play-wright because the extent of the events to be presented by him might, in the minds of the audience create an impression of their running up to a month or a year. The necessary corollary would follow that the events running upto a month or a year cannot be presented in one single Act. By the introduction of Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka this purpose can be achieved. The matter of limited extent should be indicated through Añkamukha, lesser than that should be through Cūlikā and the least through Añkāvatāra. In his view what is to be performed through efforts that much only should be counted a year, the elapse of time without the events should be considered as not existent. In Rāmacartia also though the story is of fourteen years in the forest to be depicted, but there are only three or four years where the subsidiary acts like murder of Mārīca etc. are performed. There should be shown only events pertaining to a year not more than that.

Praveśaka occurs in the middle of the Añkas, it comes after the previous Añka. It aims briefly at the purpose of the Bindu which is in the end of every Añka. In Prakaraṇa and Nāṭaka there necessarily occurs Praveśaka, because there are unlimited means, and to describe the acts of ministers etc. Praveśaka is to be devised. In other kinds of plays Kārya being limited, there is not so much use of Praveśaka. The distinction between Praveśaka in its special

160

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

sense and Viṣkambhaka is shown. In Praveśaka the superior kind of servants and Sanskrit language is forbidden. Somewhere due to presentation. Sanskrit language is to be used in Viṣkambhaka. The purpose of Praveśaka is five fold ; some Praveśakas indicate time, by some the subtle matter is explained, some Praveśakas indicate the special motif and its expedients. In short there are many purposes of the Praveśakas.

The Kārya of the Ańka which is in great details, should be narrated in brief through five kinds of Praveśakas like Cūlikā etc. and that much should be related whatever is useful for the purpose. Bharata and Abhinava mean to say that Praveśaka should not be very long and having many prose sentences full of big compounds. In the events of a day only beautiful and useful should be directly shown and others though presentable should be related briefly through Praveśakas. Thus the utility of Praveśaka in relating the presentable matter is shown.

Abhinava does not support the view of those who recognise two different categories of death. In the opinion of Abhinavagupta any type of murder is not to be shown on the stage except the one where the person comes to life soon. Other kinds of death should be indicated by any of the five Arthopakṣepakas.

In a Prakaraṇa usually the characters belong to middle rank, so there Viṣkambhaka may be seen in greater majority. In the view of Abhinava it is called Viṣkambhaka because it supports (the story). It should either be followed by Sanskrit language or by Praveśaka, thus viewing the action of the Artha, it should be made pure or mixed. It should be employed taking as its purpose the summary of sandhis and the summary of the Arthas like battle, downfall of the kingdom etc. It should be done either in the interval of Ańka or in the interval between two Ańkas. Abhinava quoting Kohala for its application in Mukha sandhi only states that it occurs without being forbidden in the first Ańka also. Praveśaka should not be used in the first Upakṣepa. By the general rule that it follows the Ańka, its presence is stated in the middle of Prastāvanāńka (i.e. first act) also. In reference to Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka, the gender and number being not limited they may be employed by women also and may be more in number.

Though Abhinavagupta has stated that Praveśaka here denotes five kinds of Arthopakṣepaka, yet he has only explained Ańkāvatāra, Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka and for Cūlikā, Ańkamukha and

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛtta

Añkāvatāra he has quoted Kohala. Abhinava in showing three varieties of Añka has defined Cūlikāñka, Añkāvatāra and Añkamukha. As quoted by Abhinava for his support, in the view of Kohala, putting up of the matter having many meanings by bards, is rūḍha. Union of the Act in Another Act is Avatāra, where the beginning of Añka is related in the previous Añka by male or female that is Añkamukha.

In the view of Dhananjaya99 minute details of the subject matter that are deficient in sentiment and unsuitable are merely to be intimated in it. The matter to be intimated should be related by five Arthopakṣepakas. These intimating scenes are : Viṣkambhaka, Cūlikā, Añkāsya, Añkāvatāra and Praveśaka. It is to be noted that while Bharata uses the general term Praveśaka, Dhananjaya and Abhinavagupta have used the word Arthopakṣepaka. Dhananjaya, next defines Viṣkambhaka. Viṣkambhaka, which is presented by middling characters and is for the purpose of condensing the matter, explains parts of the story that have happened or are about to happen. Dhananjaya describes it as the device explaining in condensed form of past events or future events, while Bharata explains it as the summary of segments and matters (Arthas).

In the view of Dhanika100 it may be used by a single middling character or two middling characters.

Like that of Bharata in the view of Dhananjaya also it, is of two types; the pure one—where one or two middle characters are employed and the mixed one where the middle and inferior characters are employed together. Dhananjaya has set no rule about its language or its occurrence in the Añkas. It may be used anywhere in the Añka. Viṣkambhaka may be used in the beginning of the Añka, when after omitting an extensive part of the subject-matter that is required, but is devoid of sentiment, one wishes to present the rest.

Like Bharata, Dhananjaya accepts that Praveśaka is that which is quite similar to it (i.e. Viṣkambhaka) and is performed by inferior characters in language not exalted (i.e. Prākrit). It explains between the two Añkas the, matters that have been omitted. While Bharata has mentioned many purposes of the Praveśaka, Dhananjaya has stated that it indicates the rest of the matter.

Dhanika writes that ‘similar to it’ means that Praveśaka like Viṣkambhaka explains the matter past and future. It is distin-

162

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

guished from Viṣkambhaka in the manner that it is solely employed by a single inferior character or characters. By falling between two Aṅkas, its presence in the first Aṅka is prohibited. For its example may be cited, the Praveśaka in the sixth Act of Abhijñānaśākuntalam giving the episode of fisherman and the police.

Dhanañjaya defines Cūlikā as the indication or information of a matter by persons stationed behind the curtain. Dhanika cites its example from Uttararāmacarita ‘Welcome to the female hermit’, here, from behind the curtain the arrival of Ātreyi is indicated. It is indicated by the stage-direction ‘Nepathye’. No rule about it as by whom it should be spoken, but when it should be used is given. It means that it can be used any where in the Aṅka.

Dhanañjaya defines Aṅkāsya that it is called Aṅkāsya because the characters in the end of an Aṅka inform about the matter of the next Aṅka which is separate from it. Dhanika interprets it that the information is rendered about the later separate Aṅka by the character who exits at the end of the former Aṅka. As the next Aṅka is opened by it, hence it is called Aṅkāsya. The example cited by him is from ‘Viracarita’ where in the end of second Aṅka, Sumantra gives the message, ‘Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra with Bhārgava invite you’, and the next Aṅka opens with Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra and Paraśurāma.

Dhanika seems to follow the definition of Aṅkamukha given by Kohala. When the detached beginning of an Aṅka is summarised before hand by a male or a famale character, it is called Aṅkamukha. Dhanañjaya states that Aṅkāvatāra is the occurrence of an Aṅka at the end of the previous Aṅka without separation from it. By means of these one should intimate what is to be intimated. Dhanika explains that just with the mention of a character’s entrance another Aṅka begins without being detached in the matter, devoid of Praveśaka, Viṣkambhaka etc., is the Aṅkāvatāra. As in Mālavikā-gnimitram the same characters of the former Aṅka continue in the next Aṅka.

It appears from the above definition of Dhanañjaya that Aṅkāvatāra just technically divides the Aṅka otherwise, the same theme and characters continue in it. So as a matter of fact, it should not be taken as an explanatory device. Dhanañjaya’s definition of Aṅkāvatāra and Aṅkamukha is in accordance with that of Kohala.

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛtta

Aṅkāvatāra has been defined in this way also; as in practice it falls between two Acts or within an Act and relates to the purpose of the seed, it is called Aṅkāvatāra. As Bharata himself has not defined Cūlikā, Aṅkāvatāra and Aṅkamukha and Dhananjaya has described them, so let us look into some other views also about them.

Authors of Nāṭyadarpaṇa,101 Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra agree with Dhananjaya, in defining Cūlikā, Aṅkāsya and Aṅkāvatāra.

When we look closely into these five modes of indication, we find that Aṅkāvatāra as defined by Dhananjaya does not explain any matter. As in it another Aṅka begins with the same character, so it should not be called as an Arthopakṣepaka. In Aṅkamukha the beginning of the next Aṅka is indicated by the last characters of the previous Aṅka. In Cūlikā some essential event is indicated by the characters like bards etc., who are stationed behind the curtain.

Out of these five Arthopakṣepakas only Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka are most important as they occur in Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa and they are used to relate the events in compression which cannot be shown on the stage or which cover a long period. Both are essential to relate the incidents necessary for the sake of the main story but are uninteresting. This is the reason that Bharata and Abhinava have discussed Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka at length but not the others. Bharata has used the word ‘Praveśaka’ in general, to denote all the modes of indication and in special to denote the Praveśaka as proper also. These Praveśakas or Arthopakṣepakas introduce the matter.

It becomes clear from Bharata’s statement that as a matter of fact Praveśakas or Arthopakṣepakas ought to be separate from the Aṅka, but in practice, in the plays we find them included in the Aṅkas, as for example in Abhijñānaśākuntala, where Act IV is written and then Viṣkambhaka is employed between Anusūya and Priyaṃvadā. As Ramji Upadhyaya suggested moreover this division of the subject matter into, to be presented and related is not appropriate. We find in practice that there is much matter in the Aṅkas which is only Sūcya, for example in the Veṇīsaṃhāra of Bhatta­nārāyaṇa the whole speech of Sundaraka in the fourth act is Sūcya and in Urubhaṅga of Bhāsa also much of the matter is just related in the speech of three soldiers, so also in Mudrārākṣasa, much matter

164

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

is just indicated. So this division of the subject matter into

Añkas and Arthopakṣepakas is not very commendable.

Languages, Modes of Address and Intonation

Bharata in detail and Dhanañjaya in brief, have stated rules about

the usage of Language in a drama.

Languages

Bharata102 has stated that the languages to be used in a drama are

of four types in which ‘Pāṭhya’ (text of the dialogue) should either

be in Sanskrit or in Prākrit. The languages occurring in the plays

are: Atibhāṣā (superhuman), Āryabhāṣā (Noble), Jātibhāṣā (common),

Yonyantarı (of other animals) etc. Atibhāṣā belongs to deities and

Āryabhāṣā to the princely class.

Jātibhāṣā is twofold or it has various forms as prescribed for

the use on the stage. In Jātibhāṣā some words even from Mleccha

Vocabulary do occasionally creep in, as are spoken in Bhārata-Varsa.

Yonyantarı Bhāṣā is used by the rustics and foresters and has its

origin in animals—domestic or wild and in birds of various species.

It follows the conventional practice (Nāṭyadharma).

The language most popularly used in dramatic literature is

Jātibhāṣā.

Bharata states that Pāṭhya in Jātibhāṣā is of two kinds. Prākṛta

and saṃskṛta and which relates to the four castes. In the case of the

Dhıroddhata, Dhiralalita, Dhırodātta and Dhırapraśānta types, the

Pāṭhya should be in Sanskrit. Heroes of all these classes are to

use Prākrit when the occasion demands that; as for example Arjuna

disguised as Bṛhannalā uses Prākrit.

In the case of even a superior person (in caste) not educated

or poor or due to other causes and intoxicated with kingship or

wealth, etc. Sanskrit should not be used.

To persons in disguise i.e. persons in disguise of different

kinds of professional and religious mendicants, Śramaṇas, ascetics,

and jugglers, should be assigned the Prākṛta Pāṭhya. Prākrit should

also be assigned to Bhāgavatas, tāpasas, children, persons possessed

of spirits, of the lower order, women, persons of low birth, lunatics

and eunuchs.

But to itinerent recluses, sages, Buddhists, pure Śrotriyas and

others who have received instruction in the Vedas and wear

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

costumes suitable to their position, should be assigned Saṃskṛta Pāṭhya. Saṃskṛta Pāṭhya is also to be assigned to the queens, courtezans, female artists to suit special times and situations in which they may speak.

In the production of a play their native language should not be assigned to tribes such as Barbara, Kirāta, Āndhras and Dramila. To pure tribes of these names should be assigned dialects current in Śauraseni. The producers of plays may, however, at their option use local dialects, for the plays may be written in different regions. Bharata mentions seven dialects assigned to different people which are : Māgadhī, Avantijā, Prācyā, Śauraseni, Ardhamāgadhī, Bāhlīka, Dākṣiṇātyā.

In the dramatic composition there are besides many Vibhāṣās, such as the speeches of the śakāra, ābhīras, caṇḍālas, śabaras, dramidas, odras and the lowly speech of the foresters. But we need not go into detail here. Suffice it to say that according to Bharata, Māgadhī is assigned to the guards in the royal harem, the heroes and others like them while in difficulty are also to use Māgadhī. Ardhamāgadhī is assigned to menials, princess, and leaders of banker’s guild. Prācyā is the language of the jester and the like, Avantijā of the gallant crooks (Dhūrta). The heroines and their female friends are also to speak Śauraseni without any exception. To soldiers, gamesters, police, chief of the city and the like should be assigned Dākṣiṇātyā and Bāhlīki is the native speech of the Khasas. Thus these are the rules regarding the assignment of dialects in plays. Whatever has been omitted here should be gathered by the wise from the popular usage. In the opinion of Abhinava103 Sanskrit and Prākṛt Bhāṣā due to the distinction of the speaker become fourfold. Sanskrit Bhāṣā owing to its refinement due to proper accentuation, grammatical inflexions and Vedic influence over its vocabulary, is thus distinguished. He further thinks that Bhāṣā is the Apabhraṃśa of Saṃskṛta, and the Apabhraṃśa of Bhāṣā is Vibhāṣā, and that belongs to persons living in caves and open, they are found in the drama also.

Dhanañjaya104 to avoid the tiresome detail has spoken about the Language in brief. In his opinion Sanskrit is to be spoken by men that are not of low rank, by devotees and in some cases by the chief queen, by daughters of ministers and by courtezans. Dhanañjaya follows Bharata and states in brief what Bharata has stated in great detail.

Dhanañjaya states that Prākrit is the language to be spoken by women and that too is Śauraseni and characters of low rank also speak Prākrit in the dialects of Śauraseni. In this Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata.

Dhanika105 defines Prākrit as developed from or related to an original form which was Sanskrit, and the language derived from that may be of many kinds like Tadbhava, tatsama, deśī and so on. Śauraseni and Māgadhi are fixed in accordance to their rules. Dhanañjaya mentions Paiśācī also. While Bharata has mentioned other minor dialects like Śakāri, Candālī, Ābhiri, Śabari, he has not mentioned Paiśācī.

Modes of Address

Bharata has prescribed set rules how a character should address another in a play. Bharata mentions the rules of popular modes of address or the manner in which persons of equal, superior or inferior status in a play are to be addressed by those of the superior, the medium or the inferior class.

As stated by Bharata106 the great sages even adored by gods should be addressed as ‘Bhagavan’ and their wives similarly ‘Bhagavati’. For example Kanva is addressed so by his disciple, and Mārica by Duṣyanta in Śākuntalam. Gods, persons wearing sectarian teacher’s dress and persons very learned should be addressed as ‘Bhagavan’ by men and women. Brāhmaṇa should be addressed as ‘Ārya’ and the king as ‘Mahārāja; the teacher as ‘Upādhyāya’ and the old men as ‘tāta’.

The king may be addressed either by name or ‘Rājā’ by the Brāhmaṇas and that is to be accepted, for the Brāhmaṇas are to be adored by the kings. The minister is to be addressed by Brāhmaṇas as ‘Amātya or Saciva’ and by other persons inferior to them (i.e. Brāhmaṇas) always as ‘Ārya’. One is to accost one’s equals by the name with which they are styled. A superior person may, however, be addressed by name by inferior persons when the latter are privileged to do so. Men and women in their employment and artisans and artists are to be addressed as such (i.e. according to their status). A Mārṣa (a respected person) is to be addressed as ‘bhāva’ and a person less so as ‘Mārṣaka’. Person of equal status as ‘Vayasya’ and a low person as ‘Haṃ, ho, haṇḍa’ or a low person is to be addressed as Haṃ, ho, haṇḍa by equally low person,

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

The chariot rider (Rathī) should always be addressed as ‘Āyuṣman’ by the charioteer. An ascetic or who has attained beatitude is to be addressed as ‘Sādho’, the crown prince as ‘Svāmi’ and other princes as ‘Bhartṛdāraka’. Inferior persons are to be addressed as ‘Somya’ and ‘Bhadramukha’ preceded by ‘He’.

Thus according to Bharata a person is to be addressed in a play by term appropriate to his vocation, art or learning practised by him or by his clan or birth.

Thus a disciple or a son is to be addressed by the Guru or the father as ‘Vatsa, Putraka, tāta’ or by name or clan name. The king is to be addressed by his servants as well as subjects as ‘Deva’, but when he is Sārvabhauma i.e., he is an overlord of other kings, then always ‘Bhaṭṭa’ by his servants. The king is to be addressed by sages as ‘Rājan’ or by patronymic name and ‘Vayasya’ or ‘Rājan’ by the Vidūṣaka. The queen and her maids are to be addressed by Vidūṣaka as ‘Bhavatī’. The Vidūṣaka should be addressed by the king as ‘Vayasya’ or by name. In Abhijñāna-śākuntalam, in Mālavikāgnimitra and in Ratnāvalī this rule is followed. The husband in youth should be addressed by all women as ‘Āryaputra’, otherwise ‘Ārya’ and the king as ‘Mahārāja’. The elder brother should be addressed as ‘Ārya’ and the younger brother like one’s son. These are the modes of address to be used to male characters in a play. After it Bharata mentions the modes of addressing women. Female ascetics, goddesses are to be addressed as Bhagavatī, wives of respectable seniors and of king’s officers or respected women and a little old ones are to be addressed as ‘bhavatī’.

In a play king’s wives are to be addressed by servants and attendants ‘Bhaṭṭinī’, ‘Svāminī’, ‘Devī’.

The chief queen is to be addressed ‘devī’ by the king or the attendants, Bhoginīs and the rest as ‘svāminī, unmarried princesses are to be addressed by their handmaids as ‘bhartṛ-dārikā’. An elder sister is to be addressed as ‘bhaginī’ and the younger as ‘Vatsā’.

A Brāhmaṇī, a nun (lingasthā) or a female ascetic is to be addressed as ‘Ārye’.

A wife is to be addressed as ‘Āryā’ or by referring to her father’s or son’s name. Women friends among their equals are to be accosted by one another with the word ‘halā’.

A handmaid is to be accosted by a superior woman with the

168

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

word ‘hanje’ and the courtesan should be addressed as Ajjukā by the servants. The mother of the courtesan is to be addressed by the servants as ‘Attā’.

In Śṛṅgāra the wife may be addressed by the king or the others as ‘Priye’. The wives of priests and merchants are always to be addressed as Ārye’.

Thus Bharata has provided rules for the modes of address to be used in plays in great details. These rules have been mostly followed in most of the Sanskrit plays. Numerous examples may be given from the plays to support these rules.

Dhanañjaya states these modes of address in brief and in most respects he agrees with Bharata. But in stating that ‘sūtrin’ is to be called ‘bhāva’ by his assistant and he i.e. his assistant is to be addressed ‘Mārṣa’ by the Sūtradhāra, Dhanañjaya107 deviates from Bharata. He bases this rule on the practice of the plays in their prologue part. While in the opinion of Bharata ‘Mārṣa’ is to be spoken as ‘bhāva’ and lesser to him as Mārṣaka. But these deviations are minor in Dhanañjaya. Bharata has stated all the modes of address to be applied in plays very clearly and in great details. Dhanañjaya has only abbreviated them for the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary details.

In addition to these, there are some more ways of presenting the matter. As also stated earlier, in the view of Dhanañjaya108 this subject-matter can be divided into three, with regard to the dramatic rules. In this some matter is to be heard by all, some by certain persons and some is supposed not to be heard by any. Dhanañjaya has also stated that the matter to be heard by all is termed ‘Prakāśam’ (aloud) and the matter supposed not to be heard is termed ‘Svagatam’ or Ātmagatam’. The matter to be heard by certain persons is of two kinds—Janāntikam and Apavāritam. Besides, there are other modes of speech like ‘Ākāśabhāṣitam’, in the ear and so on. We will view these terms in the light of views of Bharata, Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika.

Āatmagatam

Bharata109 defines ‘Ātamagatam’ that when overwhelmed with excessive joy, intoxication, fit of passion, fear, astonishment, anger and sorrow etc., one speaks out words which are in one’s mind, that talking to oneself is called Ātmagatam. This should be often

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

used accompanied with arguments in Nāṭaka etc. This form of speaking is indicated by the stage direction ‘Ātmagatam’ or ‘Svagatam’ as is shown in Abhijñānaśākuntalam when Śakuntalā puts her thoughts into words ‘seeing him I am overpowered by the changes not conforming to the holy Āśrama’. Dhananjaya110 has mentioned that inaudible to all is regarded as Svagatam.

Aakāshabhāṣitam

Bharata111 defines Ākāśabhāṣitam that addressing some one staying at a distance or not appearing in person or indirectly addressing some one who is not close by is called Ākāśabhāṣitam. This mode of speaking will present the substance of a dialogue by means of replies related to various imaginary questions which may arise out of the play. Abhinava agrees with Bharata. In the view of Dhananjaya when one actor alone, without another actor, states ‘do you say so’ or the like as if hearing something though it is really not spoken that is called Ākāśabhāṣitam.

Apavāritam and Janāntikam

Bharata,112 next, defines Apavāritam and Janāntikam thus. Apavāritam is concealed speaking and is related to secrecy. When out of necessity persons, standing close by, are supposed not to hear what is spoken to some one else, this constitutes Janāntikam. Janāntikam and Apavāritam should be indicated by a ‘Tripatākā’ hand covering the speaker and the persons by whom it is not to be heard.

Abhinavagupta113 tries to draw a distinction between Apavāritam and Janāntikam which is not very clear. In his view, in Apavāritam the matter is concealed by all and only one person hears in it. In Janāntikam the matter is talked to one close by and is concealed from one. He refers to the view of others in whose opinion both kinds are Janāntikam.

Dhananjaya114 states that Janāntikam is mutual conversation in the presence of other persons by shutting out the others in the middle of the story by the hand with three fingers raised. Dhanika115 explains that the person who is not to hear it, is screened by means of a twisted slanting palm with first three fingers raised by the speaker by means of curving his third finger inward. Thus it is a sort of personal address.

170

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

In Apavāritam a secret is told to another by turning around. It is understood to be heard only by the person addressed. This is a talk in confidence.

In the view of Bharata116, words in a play connected with secrecy should be spoken in one's ears. Without making any mistake one should resort to Ākāśabāṣitam, Janāntikam, Apavāritam and Ātmagatam etc.

Thus these are the modes of presenting the matter in a play. Dhanika117 writes in his commentary that some have stated other Nāṭyadharmas also like first Kalpa etc., but as they are not Bhāratīya, are only famous in name and some are included in dialects and are devoid of Nāṭyadharma, so they are not stated.

Thus we see that a plot consists of many dramatic devices artifices, embellishments, qualities and figures of speech which have been dealt at length by Bharata. We need not go into such detail. Suffice it to say that a Plot is generally divided into two, main and subsidiary. It mainly consists of five Avastāṅs, five Arthaprakṛtis and five Sandhis. All these things help in attaining the final aim of the play which is the sole purpose of the Plot. A Plot consists of many events, some are extraneous but necessary, some are important. Events necessary for the story but lengthy, uninteresting or the like are indicated by the ex'p'lanatory devices, while the presentable events having sentiments and the like are presented into Aṅkas. A Plot contains conversations of all types to present the matter. Thus, Plot is a very important principle of Dramaturgy.

REFERENCES

1. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XIX, 1-2; Ch. XVIII, 10.

2. Dhananjaya, D.R.B. I., 11.

3. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XVIII, 10, 45, 46, 58, 78, 84, 94; Ch. XIX, 1-2, 26.

4. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, p. 1.

5. Dhananjaya, D.R., B.I., 11, 15, 56, 63, B. III, 60b, 70, 39.

Plot : Vastu or Ittvṛtta

6. Dhanika, Av., p. 74, ‘Vastu Varṇaniyam’.

7. इतिवृत्तं तु नाट्यस्य शरीरं परिकीर्तितम् । पंचभिः सन्धिसंभिस्तस्य विभागः संकलिप्तः ॥ इतिवृत्तं द्विधा चैव बुधस्तु परिकल्पयेत् । आधारिकमेकं स्यात् प्रासंगिकमथापरम् ॥ यत्कार्यं हि फलप्राप्त्या सामर्थ्यादुपरिकल्प्यते । तदाधिकारिकं ज्ञेयमन्यत्प्रासंगिकं विदुः ॥ कारणात्प्रलयोगस्य वृत्तं स्यादाधिकारिकम् । तस्योपकरणार्थं तु कीर्त्यन्ते हि यानुपंगिकम् ॥ कवे: प्रयत्नान्नेतृणां युक्तानां विध्यपाश्रयात् । कल्प्यते हि फलप्राप्तिः समुद्रकृत्फलस्य च ॥

भ., ना. शा. अ. 19, का. 1-6

8. प्रसक्तिरह प्रसंगस्तत आगर्तमिति, प्रसज्यते वा प्रधानफलनिष्पत्तये इति प्रसंगस्तत आगर्तमिति । तेन शक्यांतरयोगाभ्यासांश्च यथ्रासंगिकस्या- नेकविधत्वं टीकाकृद्भिरभ्यध्यायि न तदुपाध्याया: सम्मन्यन्ते । सर्वप्रासंगिकमेकरूपमेव ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ-19, पू. 2 क्रमशः ।

9. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I, 11, 13, 15.

10. A प्रथ्यातोत्पाद्यमिश्रत्ववेदान्त्रेधापि तत्स्वधा । प्रथ्यातमितिहासादेरुत्पाद्यं कविकलिपतम् ॥ मिश्रं च संक्रान्ताभ्यां दिव्यमर्त्यादिभेदतः । द्वेधा विभागः कर्तव्यः सर्वस्यापीह वस्तुनः । सूच्यमेव भवेत्किंचिद दृश्यव्यग्रयमथापरम् । नाट्यधर्ममपेक्ष्यैवतत्पुनर्वस्तु त्रिधेष्यते । सर्वेषां नियतस्यैव श्राव्यमश्राव्यमेव च ॥

ध., द. रू., प्र. प्र., का. 15, 56, 63

B Dhanika, Av., pp. 7ff, 67, 72. Sāgaranandin N.L.R., O.U.P., London (1937). 1. 47-50, divides plot into two Upāttam and Pratisamṣṛtam. Rāmacandra, Guṇacandra N.D., Ch. I, Sū 8, p. 29, first accept two kinds of plot: main and subsidiary, then divide it into four; to be indicated, represented, imagined and neglected.

11. संवाद्ये फलयागे तु व्यापारः कारणस्य यः । तस्यानुपूर्व्या विज्ञेयः; पंचावस्थाः प्रयोकृतृभिः ॥

ईष्टप्राप्तिप्रतिच्छफलस्य परिकलपते ।

भावमाचरणं तं प्राहृरविचिज्ञा प्राप्तिसम्भवम् ।।

नियतां तु फलप्राप्तिं यदा भावेन पद्यति ।

नियतां तां फलप्राप्तिं सगुणां परिचक्षते ।।

अभिप्रेतं स मार्गं च प्रतिरूपं क्रियाफलम् ।

इतिवृत्ते ह्यवस्मिन्ने फलयोगे: प्रकोतितः ।

सर्वस्यैव हि कायस्य प्राणवृदस्य फलादिभिः ।

एतास्त्वनुक्रमेणैव पंचावस्था भवन्ति हि ।।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 7-15

12. उपायमात्रेण लघेन यदा कदाचिद् विशिष्टफलप्राप्तिरिष्यते कल्प्यते

संभावनामात्रेण स्थाप्यते न तु निश्चित्यते तदा प्राप्ते: सम्भव: ।

संभावनायोग्यत्वमसंभावनाविशिष्टत्वं नाम तृतीया कर्तृवस्था ।

फलस्य प्रकार्षेण/प्रतीतयत्: सहकारिवर्ग: प्रतिबन्धकविध्वंसनसहितता च सामग्री-

रूपत:, तां सामग्रीं, यदा तेन भावेन पूर्वोपसात्तया मुख्योपायेन नियतां

नियतत्वातां फलाव्यभिचारिणीं पर्याप्ति तदा नियतत्वप्राप्तिरनियमावस्था ।

सगुणामिति गौणी उपचारिता तस्येयमवस्था ।

अतएव पश्यतीह्यननन

दर्शनमेवास्व्येति दर्शितम् ।

यदि वा सहगुणेन दर्शनेन वर्त्तते, नियत-

फलप्राप्तिदर्शनां तन्नामावस्येत्यर्थ: ।

अभि.. अभि. भा., अ-19, पृ. 6 क्रमश:

13. Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I, 19-22.

14. Dhanika, AV., pp. 14 ff, Example of Prāptyāśa from Ratnā., p. 80, ed. by M.R. Kale, Example of Niyatāpti from the same, p. 78.

15. Kālidāsa, Abhś., ed. by Kapila Deva Dvivedi, Allahabad (1966), Act I, p. 34. Prārabha stage, p. 70. Prayatna depicted in Act II, p. 130.

16. इतिवृत्ते यथावस्था: पंचारम्भादिका स्मृता: ।

अर्थप्रकृत्य: पंच तथा बीजादिका अपि ।।

बीजं विनिह: पताका च प्रकरी कार्यमेव च ।

अर्थप्रकृत्य: पंच ज्ञात्वा योज्या यथाविधि ।।

स्वल्पमात्रं समुत्सृष्टं बहुधा यद्विसर्पति ।

फलावसानं यच्चैव बीजं तत्परिकीर्तितम् ।।

प्रयोजनां विच्छिदेदे यदवच्छेदकारणं ।

यावत्समाप्तिवान्धस्य स विन्नु: परिकीर्तित: ।।

यदयं तु परार्थं स्यात् प्रख्यातस्योपकारकम् ।

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

प्रधानवच्च कल्पयेत सा पताकेति कीर्तिता ॥

फलं प्रकल्प्यते यसya: परार्थीयव केवलम् ।

अनुबन्धविहीनत्वात् प्रकरीति विनिर्दिशेत् ॥

यदाधिकारिकं वस्तु सम्यक् प्राज्ञः प्रयुज्यते ।

तदर्थो यः समारम्भस्तत्कार्यं परिकीर्तिततम् ॥

एतेषां यस्मादर्थो यतश्च गुण इष्यते ।

तत् प्रधानं तु कर्तव्यं गुणभूतान्त्यत: परम् ॥

एकोडनेकौपि वा सन्धि: पताकायां तु यो भवेत् ।

प्रधानार्थानुयायित्वादनुसन्धि: प्रकोत्यंते ॥

आगर्भादाविमर्शाद्वा पताका विनिवर्तते ।

कस्माद्यस्मादनिबन्धोऽस्या: परार्थ: परिकीर्त्यते ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19; 20-29

17. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, pp. 11ff.

18. Sāgaranandin, NLR., 4, 130-135, accepts the meaning

of the ‘Artha’ as the plot of the play and ‘prakṛtis’ as

the Svabhāvas; Abh., Bh., p. 12, ‘Arthasya Samastarūpa-

kavācyasya prakṛtayah prakaraṇānyavayavārthakhaṇḍā,

ityarthaprakṛtayah; Rāmacandra Guṇacandra, N.D. p. 62.

‘Bījam Patākāprakari Binduḥ Kāryam Yathāruci,

Phalāsya hetavastathā pañca cetanācetanātmakāḥ’.

19. यत्रार्थः फलं तस्य प्रकृतः: उपायाः फलहेतव इत्यर्थः ।

तत्र जड़चेतनतया द्विधाकारंणं, जड़स्तु मुख्यकारणभूतः, गूढतरौ वा आख्यं बीजं द्वितीयं कार्य

करणीयं प्रयोक्तव्यमित्यर्थः । अर्थ-इतिवृत्ते प्रकृत्या इति वक्तव्येऽर्थ-

ग्रहणमतिरक्तं स्यात्, इतिवृत्ताविश्र्च तुल्यतावर्णनं वर्णनमात्रं स्यादिति

किमनेत । बीजंतच्च क्वचिदुपायमात्रं क्वचित्फलमात्रं क्वचिद्द्वयं फलं च

क्वचिदुपादानं क्वचिद्‌गेयस्यासननिवर्तनं क्वचिदुभयमिति ।

तत्रापि क्वचि-

न्नायकोद्‌देशेन क्वचित्त्रिनायकाश्रयेणेत्यादिभेदैरभिन्नधर्मा भिद्यते ।

फलमपि

च भविष्यदुपायाविनाभावाद् बीजमित्युच्यते ।

प्रयुज्यते फलं यैरुपायैरनुष्ठाने: तैरामितवृत्तवृत्तान्तवशाद्‌वश्यकृतं व्यतादि-

भविच्छेदेऽपि सति यदनुसन्धानात्मकं प्रधाननायकगतं सन्धिद्रव्यज्ञानं

बिन्दु:, ज्ञानविचारणं फललाभोपायत्वात् ।

इत्येवं प्रधानानुसन्धानचेतन-

व्यापार: कारणानुप्राही स्वयं च परमकारणस्वभावस्तैलबिन्दुवत्

सर्वव्यापकत्वाद्‌विप्रकृष्टं बिन्दु: ।

प्रकरी, प्रकर्षण स्वार्थानपेक्षया करोतीति ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 19, पृ. 12 ऋमशः ।

20. A तस्यैतिवृत्तस्य कि फलमित्याह-काव्यं त्रिवर्गस्तच्छ्रद्धमेकानुबन्धं च धर्मार्थकामाः फलं तच्च शुद्धमेकानुबन्धं वा । तत्साधनं व्युत्पादयति 'स्वल्पोद्दिष्टस्तु, तद्रघेतुबीजं विस्तार्यनेकधा' । स्तोकोदिष्टः कार्यसाधकः पुरस्तादनेकप्रकारं विस्तारी हेतुविशेषो-बीजदूबीजं । तच्च महाकार्यावान्तरकार्यहेतुभेदनेकप्रकारमिति । अवान्तरबीजस्य संज्ञान्तरमाह 'अवान्तरार्थविच्छेदे विन्दुरच्छेदकारणम्' । यथा रत्नावल्यामवान्तरप्रयोजनानङ्गपूजारिसमाप्तौ कथार्थविच्छेदे सत्यनन्तरकायंहेतु:-उदयनस्येन्दोरिवोद्वोधीक्षते । विन्दु-जले तैलविन्दुतस्पारिरित्याद् ।

घ.दृ. रू., प्र.प्र., 16-18; धनिक, अव., पू. 12

B Sāgaranandin, NLR. 160-170, has interpreted the metaphor of Bindu as the original drop of water which links the different streams together when they are separated, and in doing so between the groups of drops of water, it informs its own fall and of the stream; Rāmacandra, Gunacandra, N.D., Sū. 34, p. 77, says Bindu may be many as there are three kinds of phalasiddhiḥ in Nāṭaka; Śāradātanaya, B.P., p. 206, considers Patākā and Prakarī as the essential or eternal limbs of the dramatic action. Sāgaranandin, pp. 9, 200-205, Prakarī put like the bunch of flowers causes beauty or elegance; N.D., Ch. I, Sū. 27 'Āvimarṣaṃ Patākā cetaccetanah Sā parārthakṛt'.

21. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XIX, 17-19.

22. यत्र बीजसमुत्पत्तिनानार्थरसराम्भवा । काव्ये शरीरानुगतां तन्मुखं परिकीर्तितम् ।। बीजस्योद्भाटनं यत्र दृष्टनष्टमिव क्वचिच् । मुखनयस्य सर्वत्र तद्रूपं प्रतिमुखं स्मृतम् ।। उद्भेदनस्य बीजस्य प्राप्तिरप्राप्तिरेव वा । पुनश्चानुविसर्गण यत्र स गर्भ इति संज्ञितः।। गर्भनिबिन्दनविज्ञार्थो विलोभनकृतोडथवा । क्रोधव्यसनजो वापि स विमर्श इति स्मृतः ।। समनयनमर्थानां मुखाद्यानां सबीजिनाम् । नानाभावोत्तराराणां यद्भवेदनुबन्धनं तु तत् ।।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 37-49

23. महाकाव्यार्थरूपस्य रूपकार्थस्य पंचांशा अवस्थाभेदेन कल्प्यन्ते । enाथविधया संधीयमानाः परस्परमङ्गैश्च संधय इति समास्या निरुक्ता । तदेषां सामान्यलक्षणं । प्रकारवाच्यर्थकल्पनं चैव सन्धिः ।

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

तत्र पारम्परतया पंचसंध्येय:, तेन हीनसन्धित्वेऽपि न कश्चिदत्र विरोध:।

अन्ये तु सर्वत्र पंचैव सन्धय:, अपूर्णगत्वात् कस्यचिदन्यत्र हीनसन्धित्वमुख्यत इत्याह: ।

विकल्प: सर्वत्रेति कश्चिदाशंकते तं प्रत्याह नियमादिति ।

उत्सर्गेणेति केचित् ।

उपाध्यायास्स्वाहु:-सर्वत्रेत्युक्तं पंचसन्ध्येय, न हि कश्चिदपि व्यापरो प्रारम्भाद्यवस्थापंचकं विना सिद्धयेत, न शक्यमौनीकृत्यं वा ।

अवस्थापंचकानुयायिना सन्धिपंचकेनापि भाव्यमेव, तेन सर्वे नियमात्पंचसन्धि, हीनसन्धित्वं तु तत्र कारणादपुर्णांगत्वलक्षणादुच्यते ।

समुच्चयपदे: पंचानां सर्वत्रावश्यकभावित्वं द्योतितम् ।

नियमवाचिभि: क्रमनियम: ।

प्रतिमुखसन्धि- अतएव कुंकुमबीजस्य यदुद्घाटनं तत्कलप्यं, यत्नोद्घाटनं कथाभागसमूहे तत्प्रतिमुखं, प्रतिराभिमुख्येन यतोत्कृष्टा वृत्ति: ।

पराड्मुखता हि दृष्टनष्टकल्पना निदर्शनम् ।

गर्भ-उत्पस्युद्घाटनदशा द्वयाविष्टस्य बीजस्य यत्नोद्भेद: फलजननाभिमुख्यत्वं स गर्भ: ।

विमर्श-तत: प्रसंदेहातको विमर्श: ।

एषामवस्था सन्ध्यादीनां नायकतद्मात्यतत्परिवारनायिकाभिमुखेनापि नियोजनं न त्वेकमुखेनैवेतो नियम: ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ-19, पृ. 2, पृ. 10, 23

24. अर्थप्रकृतय: पंच पंचावस्थासमन्विता: ।

यथासंख्येन जायन्ते मुखाद्या: पंसचन्धय: ।

ध., द. रू., प्र.प्र., 22, 23

अर्थप्रकृतिनां पंचानां यथासंख्येनावस्थासु: पंचभि: योगात् यथासंख्येनैव वक्ष्यमाणा मुखाद्या: पंचसंधयो जायन्ते ।

धनिक, अव., पृ० 16

25. अन्तरैकार्थसंम्बन्ध: सन्धिरेकान्वये स्मृत: ।

मुखं बीजसमुत्पत्तिरनानार्थरससम्भवा ।

ग्रंथागनि द्वादशौत्सस्य बीजारम्भसमन्वयात् ।

गर्भस्तु दृष्टनष्टस्य बीजस्यावेशणं मुहु: ।

द्वादशांग: पताका स्यान्न वा स्यात्प्राप्तिसंभव: ।

क्रोधेनावमृश्यत व्यसनाद्वा विलोभनात् ।

गर्भनिर्मिन्नबीजार्थ: सङ्क्षवर्म इति स्मृत: ।

बीजवन्तो मुखाद्यर्था विप्रकीर्णा यथायथम् ।

एकार्थमुपनयन्ते यत्न निर्वहण हि तत् ।

ध., द. रू., प्र.प्र., 23, 24, 30, 36, 43, 48

26. एकेन प्रयोजनेनावितानां कथांशानामवान्तरैकप्रयोजनसम्बन्ध: संधि: ।

बीजानामुत्पत्तिरनेकप्रकारप्रयोजनस्य रसस्य च हेतुमुखसंधिरिति व्याख्येयं तेन तिवर्गफले प्रहसनादौ रसोत्पत्तिहेतोरेव बीजत्वमिति ।

प्रतिमुखसंधौ लक्षणलक्ष्यरूपतया स्तोकोद्भिन्नस्य बीजस्य सविशेषोद्भेदपूर्वकः सान्तरायो लाभः, पूर्वंविच्छेदः पुनः प्राप्तिः, पूर्वंविच्छेदः पुनरपि तस्यैवान्वेषणं वारंवारं सोऽनिधारितैकान्तफलप्राप्त्याशात्मको गर्भसंहारित इति । अवमर्शानमवमर्शः पर्यालोचनं तच्च क्रोधेन वा व्यसनाद्वा विलोभनेन वा ‘भवितव्यमननार्थेन’ इत्यवधारितैकान्तफलप्राप्त्यवसायात्मा गर्भसंहारोद्भिन्नबोजार्थसंबन्धा विमर्शोऽवमर्शः ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 17

27. अवान्तरार्थविच्छेदे विन्दुरच्छेदकारणम् । अन्तरैकार्थसम्बन्धः संधिरेकान्वये सति ।

28. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 299.

29. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XIX, 50-55.

30. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, p. 31 ff.

31. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. I. 54, 55.

32. Names of Angas, Bharata, N.S., Ch. XIX, 57-59. Dhananjaya, D.R., B.I., 25, 26; N.S. Ch. XIX, 58-60, D.R., B.I. 31-32; N.S. Ch. XIX, 61-92, D.R., B.I. 37-38; N.S. Ch. XIX, 63-65.

33. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XIX, pp. 34, 56.

34. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. I, 44-45.

35. N.S., G.O.S. ed., Ch. XIX, p. 35.

36. Bharata, Ch. XIX, 65-67.

37. Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I. 49-50.

38. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, pp. 34ff.

39. Dhanika, AV., pp. 26, 36, 46, 57.

40. Ramacandra, Gunacandra, N.D, Sū. 41, 62, pp. 106ff. accept Upaksepa Parikara, Parinyāsa, Samāhiti, Udbheda and Karana to be used in Mukha only; Puṣpa, Pragamana, Vajra, Upanyāsa, as a must in Pratimukha; Ākṣepa, Adhibala, Mārga, Abhūtāharaṇa and Toṭaka in Garbha; Śakti, Prarocanā, Ādāna, Vyavasāya in Avamarśa.

41. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XIX, 74, Dhananjaya, D.R. B.I. 29.

42. सङ्घातभेदनार्थो यः स भेद इति कीर्तितः ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 75

भेदः प्रोत्साहन मता ॥

घ., द. रू., प्रप., प्र. 29

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛtta

पात्रसंघातस्य यन्निजप्रयोजनोपकक्षेपेण निष्क्रमणसिद्धये भेदनं प्रकरणमिव स भेदः ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 19, पू. 41

43. 'यत्पत्यवततभंगभीषमणसा यत्नेन मन्दीकृत'

अभि., अभि. भा., अ-19, पृ० 40, वेणीसंहार 1-25 धनिक, अव., पू० 26

'चंचद्भुजाभ्रमित चण्डगदाभिघात'

अभि., अभि. भा., अ-19, पृ० 38, वे.सं., 1-21 धनिक, अव., पू० 23

44. विधूतम्-कृतस्यानुनयस्यादौ विधूतं ह्यपरिग्रहः ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 77

आदौ प्रथमतः कृतस्यानुनयस्य सामवचसो नांगीकरणं विधूतं, पश्चात् पुनरंगीकरणमिति ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 19, पू. 43

विधूतं स्यादरति ।

घ., द. रू., प्र.प्र. 33 अ. 2

45. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XIX, p. 38.

46. अपायदर्शनं यत्तु तापनं नाम तद्भवेत् ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 77

47. तच्छमः शमः ।

ध., द. रू.,प्र. प्र., 33

तस्यापनयनं यत्र शमनं ।

भ. ना: शा. अ. 19, पू० 43

48. दोषप्रच्छादनार्थं तु हास्यं नर्मवृत्तिः स्मृता ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 78

वृत्तिस्तज्जा बुदितर्मता ॥

घ., द. रू., प्र.प्र. , 33

49. उपपत्तिकृतो योऽर्थः उपसंघासश्च स स्मृतः ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 81

उपन्यासस्तु सोपायम् ।

ध. द. रू., प्र. प्र. 35, धनिक, अव., पू० 35

50. जातुर्वर्ण्योपगतं वर्णसंहार इष्यते ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 82

ध., द. रू. प्र.प्र., 35

चातुर्वर्ण्याश्रबदेन पात्राण्युपलक्ष्यन्ते। तेन यत्न पात्राणि पृथक् स्थितान् यपि ढौक्यन्ते स वर्णसंहारः। यत्तु ब्राह्मणादिवर्णाचतुष्टयमेलनमिति तदफलत्वाद्ृत्यमेव।

अभि. अभि., भा. अ. 19, पृ. 47

यथा वीरचरिते तृतीयेड्के—

'परिविद्यमृषीणामेष'

(3-5)

धनिक, अव., पृ. 36

51. रूपानुरूपगमननुमानमिति स्मृतम्।

रूपं विकारवद्वाक्यम्।

भ., ना. शा., 19, 85

घ., द. रू. 1-39 अ 1

52. भावतत्त्वो प्लबिधस्तु क्रम इत्यभिधीयते॥

क्रम: सञ्चिन्यमानार्थ:। भावज्ञानमथापरे॥

भ., ना., शा. अ. 19, 84

ध., द. रू. 1-39 ब

53. रतिहर्षौ चमानां नु प्रथंगा प्रार्थनां अवेत

भ., ना. शा.,अ. 19-86

54. गर्भस्योद्भेदनं यत्साक्षि(क्षि)न्तिरित्यभिधीयते॥

हृदयान्ते-स्थितं पुनः प्रतिष्ठापितस्यापि यतः कुतश्चिन्निमित्ताद्भेदनमन-पहनवनीया या स्फुटतापत्ति: सा आक्षिप्तः, अभिप्रायस्य हि तत्षाक्षेपो बहिः करषणं।

अभि., अभि. भा., पृ. 50

गर्भबीजसमुद्भेदादाक्षेप: परिकीर्तितः।

ध., द. रू. 1-42

55. कपटेनातिसंधानं ब्रवतेरधिबलं बुधाः।

भ, ना. शा., 19-87

अधिबलमभिसंधि——संरब्धं तोटकं वचः।

तोटकस्यान्त्य्याभावं ब्रवतेरधिबलं बुधाः।।

संरब्धवचनं यत्तु तोटकं तदुदाहृतम्॥

ध. द. रू., 1-40, 41

56. भयं नूपारिदस्यू(सू)न्थमुद्रेग: परिकीर्तितः।

भ. ना. शा., अ. 19-88

Plot : Vastu or Ītivṛtta

उद्वेगोद्वेरिकता भीति: ।

57. शङ्काभयन्त्रासकृतो विद्रव: समुदाहृत: ॥

घ. द. रू., प्र. प्र० 42 अ

भ., ना शा., अ. 19-88

58. भयद्वासकारिणो वस्तुनो या शङ्का यदाशङ्कनं स विद्रव:, विद्रवति विलीयते हृदयं येनeti ।

शङ्कालासौ च संग्राम: ।

घ., द. रू., 1-42

59. व्यवसायश्च विज्ञेय प्रतिज्ञाहेतुसंभव:

प्रतिज्ञ।तस्याङ्गीकृतस्यार्थस्य हेतवो ये तेषां संभवा: प्राप्तिरव्यवसाय, अभि. मा., अ. 19, पृ 54 व्यवसाय: स्वशक्तियुक्ति: ।

घ., द. रू., 1-47

60. वाक्यमाधर्षसंयुक्तं युतिस्तज्जैरुदाहुता ।

तर्जनोद्वेजने युति: ।

भ., ना. शा., 19-92

घ द. रू, 1-66

61. मनश्चेष्टाविनि:ष्पन्न: श्रम: खेद उदाहृत: ।

भ. ना. शा., 19-92

62. ईप्सितार्थप्रतीघात: प्रतिषेध: प्रक्रीतित: ।

भ., ना. शा., 19-93

63. कार्यतियोगगमनं विरोधनमिति स्मृतम् ॥

ना. शा. अ. 19-93; अभि. पृ० 55,

संरबधानां विरोधनम्

घ., द. रू. प्र. प्र. 47

64. अपमानकृतं वाक्यं कार्यार्थच्छादनं भवेत् ॥

भ , ना. शा. ग्र. 19, 94

करोति बहुमाने वर्त्तने, तेन दुष्टोद्र्यर्थाडपमाननेन बहुमतीकृत: । तदपमानकलङ्कापवारणाच्छादनमिति:

अभि. अ. 19, पृ. 55

छलनं चावमाननम् ॥

घ , द. रू. प्र. प्र. 46

65. 'विकल्पथना विचलनम् '। विद्रवो वधबन्धादि

घ., द. रू.प्र. प्र. 48, 45

180

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

66. वरप्रदानसंप्राप्तः काव्यसंहार इष्यते ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 103

वराप्तिः काव्यसंहारः ।

घ. द. रू. प्रप्र 54

67. जुष्टूषाभुपसंपन्नः प्रसादः प्रीतिरुच्यते ॥

भ , ना. शा. अ. 19, 101

प्रसादः पर्युपासनम् ।

घ., द. रू., प्र. प्र. 52

68. परिवादकृतं यत्स्यात्तदाह परिभाषणम् ।

भ., ना, शा., अ. 19-99, अभि. पू. 58

परिभाषा मिथो जल्पः ।

घ. द. रू., प्र.प्र 52,

धनिक, अव. पू० 61, रत्न. ग्रंथ 4

69. सामदानादिसंपन्नं भाषणं समुदाहृतम् ॥

भ. ना. शा., अ. 19, 102

मानाद्याप्तिरहच भाषणम् ।

घ., द. रू., प्र. प्र. 53

70. पूर्ववाक्यं तु विज्ञेयं यथोक्तार्थं प्रदर्शानम् ।

भ., ना. शा. अ. 19, 103

कार्यदृष्ट्याद्भुतप्राप्ती पूर्वभावोपग्रहणे ॥

घ. द. रू. प्र. प्र. 53

71. सन्ध्यन्तराणि सन्धीनां विशेषास्त्वेकविस्तति: ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 19, 107

72. षट्त्रिशन्धूषणादीनि सामादीन्येकविंशति:

लक्ष्यसंध्यन्तरालस्थैः श्लोकैरंगैस्तु तद् वच ॥

घ. द. रू. च. प्र. 83-84

73. Rāmacandra, Guṇacandra, ND, p. 198.

74. Bh., N.Ś., Ch. XIX, 107, 109.

75. केचिदाहु:- अन्तरं छिद्रं सन्धिरिति... तेन सन्ध्यंगच्छिद्रद्व्यतित्वात् सन्ध्यन्त-

राणि, अतएव चांगानां संबन्धानि...। अन्ये मन्यन्ते य एवोपक्रमाद्या

सामान्या उक्ताः तेषामेवतद्विशेषा अवान्तरभेदाः। उपक्रमो हि सामादि-

विशेषभिन्नः ...एते च विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिरूपा एव । न तु तदतिरिक्तं

जगति किचिदस्ति प्रयोगे । प्रयोगोज्जवलत्वोपयोगाय तूपलक्षणत्वेनैक-

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

विशतिरित्युक्तं कवेमर्गं प्रदर्शयितुम्... एते सर्वेषु नाटकादिरुपकेषु सुलभा ।

अभि. अभि. भा., अ. 19, पृ. 63 क्रमश:

76. विभूषणं चाक्षरसंहितं श्लिष्टं च शोभाभिमानो गुणकोतिनं च इत्येवमादीनि षट्त्रिंशत् (विभूषणादीनि) काव्यलक्षणानि 'साम भेद: प्रदानं च' इत्येवमादीनि संध्यान्तराण्येकविशतिरुपादिश्वलङ्कारेषु हर्षोत्साहादिपु चान्तर्भावान्न पृथगुक्तानि ।

धनिक, अव. पृ. 291

77. यत्रार्थे चिन्तितेऽन्यस्मिन्नस्ति लिङ्गोऽन्यः प्रयुज्यते । आगन्तुकेन भावेन पताकास्थानकं तु तत् ॥ सहसैवार्थसम्पत्तिर्‌गुणवत्युपकारतः । पताकास्थानकमिदं प्रथमं परिकीरिततम् वचः सातिशयं श्लिष्टं काव्यबन्धसमाश्रयम् पताकास्थानकमिदं द्वितीयं परिकीरिततम् ॥ अर्थोपक्षेपणं यत्र लीनं सविनयं भवेत् । श्लिष्टप्रत्युत्तरोपितं तृतीयमिदमिष्यते ॥ द्वर्थो वचनविन्यासः सुश्लिष्टः काव्ययोजितः । उपन्यासयुक्तश्च तच्चतुर्थमुदाहॄतम् ॥ चतुष्पताकापरमं नाटके कार्यमिष्यते ।

भ., ना. शा., अ.19, 30-36

Rāmacandra Guṇacandra, N.D. p. 73, takes śliṣṭam as related, Sāgaranandin, N.L.R. 9.1015 takes śliṣṭam as having two meanings and Sātiśayam having many arthas.

78. अर्थः प्रयोजनं उपायश्च, कर्मकरणव्युत्पत्या । पताकाधारत्वादुपचारादिति वृत्तमपि पताकास्थानकम् । उपायश्चार्थः क्रियामणौडपि पूर्वपदार्थमुपसंकामति, तेन पताकास्थानकर्मितिवृत्तमेवोच्यते ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 19, पृ. 18 क्रमः

79. प्रस्तुतागन्तुभावस्य वस्तुनोऽन्योक्तिमूचकम् । पताकास्थानकं तुल्यसंधानविशेषणम् ॥

ध द रु. प्र. प्र. 14

80. प्राकरणिकस्य भाविनोऽर्थस्य सूचकं रूपं पताकावदभवतीति पताकास्थानकं तच्च तुल्येन्तर्गतया तुल्यविशेषणतया च द्विप्रकारकम् अन्योक्ति समासक्तिभेदात् । यथा रत्नावल्या 'यान्तीस्मि पद्मनयन', 'उद्‌दामित्कलिके' (3-6, 2-4)

धनिक अव., पृ. 9

182

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

81. शब्दकल्पद्रुम, द्वितीय भाग, चौखम्बा संस्कृतसीरीज (1961) पृ० 860; नन्दन न्नयनयेतिं । √नन्द् + घञ्, निपातनात् द्विर्ष:, ततो दीपं नाटकाद्यौ मंगलार्थं देविद्विजादीनामाशि: । नन्दन्ति देवा: पितरो वा यत्र √नन्द-इन् डीप्, 1/पृ समृद्धौ । नान्दीश्राद्धं ततः कुयादिति स्मृतिः, नाटकादौ सूत्रधारेण कर्तव्ये देविद्विजपादीनामाशीर्‌वादपरायणा' नन्दन्ति देवता यस्मात्तस्मान्नान्दी प्रकृतितेतेयुक्ते मंगलाचरण-भेदे च ।

शब्दस्तोममहानिधि, चौखम्बा संस्कृत सीरीज (1967); नन्दन्ति देवा अश्, √नन्द् + घञ् वाचस्पत्यम् बृहन्त्संस्कृताभिधानम् भाग 5, चौखम्बा संस्कृत सीरीज 1962

82. A आशीर्वचनसंयुक्ता नित्यं यस्मात्प्रयुज्यते । देविद्विजनृपादीनां तस्मान्नान्दीति संज्ञिता ॥

सूत्रधार: पठेतत्र मध्यमं स्वरमाश्रित: । नान्दी पदैर्दशभिर्‌ष्टभिर्‌वाड्लकृताम् ॥

पूर्वं कृतं मया नान्दी ह्याशीर्वचनसंयुता । अष्टादशपदसंयुक्ता विचित्रा वेदनिर्मिता ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ-5, 24, 49, 104-109, अ. 1, 56, 57

B Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Vol. I, pp. 217, 237, 25ff.

83. A पूर्वरङ्गं विधायादौ सूत्रधारे विनिर्गते । प्रविश्य तद्वदपर: काव्यमास्थापयेन्‌नट: ॥

पूर्वं रज्यत इदस्मिन्निति पूर्वरङ्गो नाट्यशाला तत्स्थप्रथमप्रयोगध्युत्थाप-नादौ पूर्वरङ्गता ।

धनिक, अव. पृ. 147 क्मात् ।

B Rāmacandra, Gunacandra, N.D. Ch. IV, p. 363 state that either it states good qualities or it is Benedictory. They take ‘pada’ to mean aṅgas of Vākya. The limitation of six and eight is spoken to denote middle Nāndī in view of Caturasra and Tryasra type of theatre. In Tryasra, the best Nāndī is in twelve padas; inferior in three. In Caturasra, the best is in sixteen, inferior in four. Nāndī denotes the whole of the Pūrvaraṅga. Therefore, poets give the stage direction, ‘Nāndyante Sūtradhāraḥ’. Where Nāndī composed by the poet is not evident, it is evidently recited by the Sūtradhāra. Reciters of Nāndī are Sūtradhāra, Sthāpaka and Pāripārśvika,

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

84. Bharata, N.S., Ch. V, 29, 135, 136, pp. 219 ff, 243, Ch. XX, 27-28, p. 92.

85. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. V, pp. 217, 219, Ch. XX, p. 42.

86. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. III. 46 ‘Unmukhīkaranam Tatra Prasamsātaḥ Prarocana’; Dhanika, Av., pp. 150 ff.

87. आयें, अभिरूपस्थेष्ठ परिषदियं । अय्य खलु, कालिदासप्रथितवस्तुनाभिज्ञानशाकुन्तलनामध्ये येन नाविन नाटकेनोपस्थात-व्यमस्माभिस्तत: प्रतिपात्रमधीयतां यत्न: ।

अभि. गं., कपिलदेवद्विवेदी द्वारा सम्पादित (1966) पृ. 7

88. Bharata, N.S. Ch. V, 162-169, Ch. XX, 30-39.

89. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. V, pp. 248ff., Ch. XX, pp. 92ff.

90. दिव्यमत्यैः स तद्वृत्तो मिश्रमन्यतरसत्वोः । सूचयेद्वस्तु बीजं वा मुखं पात्रमथापि वा ॥ एषामन्यतमेनार्थ पात्रं वाक्प्रप्य सूत्रभृत् । प्रस्तावनान्ते निर्गच्छेततो वस्तु प्रपञ्चयेत् ॥

ध, द. रू., तू. प्र., 2-22

विनिर्गंते प्रथमं सूत्रधारे तदुबदेव वैष्णवस्थानकादिना प्रविश्यान्यों नटः काव्यार्थं स्थापयेत्। स च काव्यार्थस्थापनात् सूचनास्थापकः ।... इति प्रस्तावनाद्वानि।

धनिक, अव., पृ, 147 ऋमशः, पृ. 162

91. Kālidāsa, Abhs., Act I, pp. 1-14, Talk between Sūtradhāra and Nāṭī on p. 5, propitiating in stanzas 2-3 description of summer season in Ś. 5.

92. Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa VS., Act I, Ślokas, 1-8, pp. 1-16.

93. Bharata, N.S., XVIII, 13-25, 38.

94. तस्माद्यमर्थ:——अङ्कुर इत्ययं लक्षणे रूढः शब्दोऽन्यतोव्यवच्छेदकं लक्षणम् । एतदपि च नाटयरूपकस्य नानात्वमन्यतोभेदं विधत्ते अनभिने-यात्, अभिनेये हि य एकदेशः: स रसभावैरुपलक्षितानप्यर्थान् हृदयसंवाद-साधारणताकरणे प्रत्यक्षीभावनया रसाद्यायोक्त्याभिरोहणं बीजस्ये-वाड्कुराकारतया रसाकारोदय प्ररोहो भवति ।

अङ्कुरस्यैव विधेयमुच्यते । तथा चोक्त कोहल-स्त्रिधाकोट्टङ्कावतारेण चूड्यादङ्कमुखेन वा । अर्थोपक्षेपणं चूडा बहूवर्थै: सूत्रवन्दिभिः । अङ्कस्याङ्कान्तरे योगस्त्वतारः प्रकीर्तितः

विश्लिष्टमुखमण्डकस्य स्त्रिया वा पुरुषेण वा ।

यदुपक्षीयते पूर्वं तदङ्कमुखमिश्रयते ॥

अङ्के यदवर्णनीयं वस्तु तत्तावत् द्विधा प्रधानं तदुपयोगि च ।

तदुपयोग्यपि किञ्चिद्दैववशादुपयोगं याति किञ्चिदभिसन्धिबलादिति

निविधोपपादकार्थ: । स कथाविदेकस्मिन्स्थं मिश्रभावेऽपि निवध्यत इति

चूलिकाङ्कमुख्योरङ्कभेदयो: प्रधानार्थस्पर्शो निवास्तीति ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18, पृ. 415 क्मात् ।

95. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. III, 30, 31, 36, 37.

96. रङ्गप्रवेशे साक्षान्निर्दिश्यमाननायकव्यापारो विट्टुपक्षेपार्थपरिमितौजने

प्रयोजनसंविधानरसाधिकरण उत्सर्ग इवादृक: ।

धनिक, अव. पृ., 116 कमश:

97. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 26-39, 54-56.

98. अदृष्टमप्यर्थं हृदि प्रवेशयन्निति प्रवेशक: । चूलिकाङ्कावताराङ्क-

मुखप्रवेशकविश्लेषकमा इहाभिप्रेताः: तथा च कोहलोद्यापकेषु पञ्चक-

मुक्तवान् ।......यस्मान्मानासृकृतं वर्षसन्धिच्छेदं वा यच्च तत्कार्यं

सामाजिकानां हृदयगतं तस्मात् प्रवेशकविधंकारो कर्तव्यो । परिमितन्तु

यदनुसार्यं तदङ्कमुखमलपानुसन्धेये चूलिका, अल्पतमे अङ्कावतार: ।

कार्यप्रवृण हृदतदर्थ भूनिना कृतं, यत् हि यत्ननिष्पाद्यं सन्धिच्छेदं तदेव

वर्ष गण्यते वर्षान्तराणि तु तत् विद्यमानान्यपि अविद्यमानकल्पानि

विष्कम्भकयतुपस्तम्भयतिति विष्कम्भक: ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 18 पृ., 421-434

99. नीरसोनुचितस्तत्वं संमूचयो वस्तुविस्तर: ।

दृश्यस्तु मधुरोदात्तरसभावनिरन्तर: ॥

अर्थोपक्षेपकै: मुख्यं पञ्चभिः प्रतिपादयेत् ।

विष्कम्भचूलिकाङ्कास्याङ्कावतारप्रवेशकै: ।

अन्तर्जवनिकासंस्थैश्चूलिकार्थस्य सूचना ।

अङ्कान्तपातैरङ्कस्यैव छिन्नाङ्कस्यार्थसूचनात् ।

अङ्कावतारस्त्वङ्कान्ते पातोङ्कस्याविभागत: ।

एभि: संमूचयेत्सूच्यं दृश्यमण्डकै: प्रदर्शयेत् ।

धनिक, अव., प्र. प्र. पृ. पृ. 67+71

100. अङ्कान्त एव पात्रमण्डकान्तपात्रं तेन विश्लिष्टस्योत्तराङ्कमुखस्य सूचनं

तदवशेषोत्तराङ्कावताराङ्कस्यमिति, यथां वीतरचिते द्वितीयाङ्कान्ते

(प्रविश्य) सुमन्त्र:--भगवन्तौ वसिष्ठविश्वामित्रौ भवत: सभागवन्तौ हू बयत: ।

इत्यड्कसमाप्तो (तत: प्रविशन्त्युपविश्टा वसिष्ठविश्वामित्रपरिजुरामाः) ।

Plot : Vastu or Itivrtta

यत्तु प्रविष्टपात्रेण सूचितमेव पूर्वार्धकविच्छिन्नार्थतयैवाड्कान्त- रमापतति प्रवेष्टकविष्कम्भकादिशून्यं सोडकावतारः, यथा मालवि- कार्गिनिमित्रे प्रथमाड्कान्ते विदूषक:—तेण हि दुवेविच देविए पेक्खागोहं गदुअ सड्ढीदोवअरण कोइअ ।

101. N.D., Ch. I, Sū. 22-26, 23; Sāgaranandin, NLR, p. 18. Where all the acts are put together in one place or where all the acts are woven together as in a thread, that is called Aṅkanmukha. At the end of the Act, information of the next, in brief, by the statements of the drama is Aṅkāvatāra.

102. Bharata. N.Ś., Ch. XVIII, 26-65.

103. संस्कृत प्राकृतयपैव भाषा वक्तृभेदाच्चतुर्था सम्पन्ना । संस्कृतैव भाषा स्वरभेदादिपूर्णसंस्कारोपेता संस्कृतभाषा भाषाभेदानामुक्ता वैदिकशब्द- बाहुल्यादार्यभाषातो विलक्षणत्वमस्या इत्यन्ये भाषा संस्कृतापभ्रंशः, भाषापभ्रंशस्तु । विभाषा सा तत्तद्देश एवार्य गर्ह्यरवमिना प्राकृतवासिनां च एता एव नाट्ये तु ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ-17, पृ. 372 ऋमश:

104. पाटयं तु संस्कृतं णूणामनूचानां कृतातमनाम् । लिड्गिनीनां महादेव्या मन्त्राजावेशययो: क्वचित् ॥ स्त्रीणां तु प्राकृतं प्रायः सौरसेन्यमधमेपु च । पिशाचतत्नतीचादौ पैशाचं मागधं तथा ॥ यदि देशं नीचपात्रं यत्तद्देशं तस्य भाषितम् । कार्यतश्चोत्तमादीनां कार्यैर्भाषान्यतिक्रमः ॥

ध., द. रू, दि. प्र., 64-66

105. प्रकृतेरागतं प्राकृतम्=प्रकृति: संस्कृतं तद्भवं तत्समं देशीत्यनेक- प्रकारकम्

धनिक, अव., पृ. 144

106. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XVII, 65-94.

107. Dhanañjaya, D.R., B. II, 67-71. Bhāvonugena Sūtri ca mārṣyetenā so’pi ca—,Dhanika, Av., pp. 144, 145.

108. Dhanañjaya, D.R. B.I, 63-64.

109. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XXV, 88-89.

110. Dhanañjaya, D.R. B. I, 67.

111. Bharata, Ch. XXV, 86-87; Abhinava, Abh. Bh. p. 280.

112. निगूढभावसंयुक्तमपवारितकं स्मृतम् ।

कार्यवशादश्रवणं पाठवृगतैर्यंजनान्तिकं तत्त्वियात् ॥

हस्तमन्तरितं कृत्वा लिप्ताकं प्रयोक्तृभिः ।

जनान्तिकं प्रयोक्तव्यमपवारितकं तथा ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 25, 89-90, 94

113. निगूढवाचो निगूढं सर्वेषां रहस्यं यत्नेन पाकं श्रूयतापिति तदप्यार्त-

तम् । जनान्तिकमेकान्तिकत्वं चैक्सयैव निगूढ यत इति विशेषः ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 29, पू० 281

114. त्रिपताकाकरेरणाॅनपवायर्न्तराकथाम् ॥

अन्योडन्यानुवर्णनं यत्स्याज्जनान्ते तज्जनान्तकम् ।

रहस्यं कथ्यतेउनस्य परावृत्यापवारितम् ।

व., द. रू., प्र.प्र., 65-66

115. यस्य न श्राव्यं तस्यान्तर उद्वंर्सर्वाड्गुलं वक्नानामिकं त्रिपताकालक्षणं करं

कृत्वाड्गुल्याॅन सह यन्निम्न्र्रीयते तज्जनान्तकमिति । परावृत्यान्यस्य

रहस्य कथनमपवारितमिति ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 73

116. Bharata, N.S., Ch, XXV, 90-93.

117. अन्यान्यपि नाट्यधर्माणि प्रथमकल्पादीनि केऽपिच्छुदाहॄतानि तेषाम-

भारतीयत्वान्नाममालाप्रसिद्धानां केषांचिद्देशभाषातमकत्वान्नाट्यधर्मंत्वा-

भावाल्लक्षणं नोक्तम् ।

धनिक, अव., पृ. 73

CHAPTER 6

NĀYAKAḤ i.e. (HERO), CHARACTERS

Bharata, the epoch maker of Sanskrit dramaturgy, did not divide the dramatic components into water-tight compartment. He was, rather, more concerned with all the possible aspects of dramaturgy that it could evolve into. Rather than being interested into theoretical side, he was more concerned with the practical side of the dramaturgy. Keeping in view all the aspects of dramaturgy, he touched upon, at great length, the four kinds of representation. Bharata kept in mind all the sides—the spectator, the dramatist and the actor, involved in the process of drama. So his Nāṭyaśāstra is written comprehensively. What type of literature actually he had before him, when he wrote the guidelines for Sanskrit dramaturgy in the present form of Nāṭyaśāstra, we do not know. We can only make a conjecture. But on the other hand, when Dhanañjaya wrote his treatise Daśarūpaka he had a vast and the best literature of Sanskrit drama before him. He had before him the great plays like that of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti, Śriharṣa and others. So his treatise must have been guided by the examples of such mighty works in Sanskrit dramaturgy. He had the problems of mixture which Bharata had not to face. Even then he tried his best to keep to the line of Bharata and follow him. In this effort he also modelled his rules taking the authority of Bharata.

The term, ‘Nāyaka’ is derived from the root/ ‘Nī’ to carry with a suffix NVUL, meaning one who leads. So, the term Nāyaka or Netā should not be taken in its restricted sense but in its wider sense. Moreover, we should bear in mind the fact, which constitutes the real basic difference in Bharata and Dhanañjaya that Bharata nowhere regarded the Nāyaka as the distinguishing element of the

188

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Rūpakas. On the other hand, to divide the Rūpakas into ten categories Dhananjaya1 laid down the criteria of Vastu, Netā and Rasa. These three elements are pivotal points upon which his whole treatise is based. As a result his whole treatise is divided into four books; first dealing with Vastu, second with Hero (Hero entails Heroine and his assistants), third with the kinds of plays and the Fourth with sentiment. So he treats Hero from this point of view and his treatment of Hero differs from the treatment of Bharata.

As we have seen, Bharata was concerned with all the aspects of plays, so he did not attach so much importance to the Hero exclusively and did not describe him in such great details. In Ch. XVIII Bharata has described ten kinds of plays, including in them both the plays of full-fledged form as Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa and also plays constituted of one Act differing in sentiments. As stated by Bharata, the Vṛttis which will be discussed at their proper place, are the mothers of all poetical works and these ten forms of the Rūpakas owe their origin to Vṛttis from the point of view of representation. Bharata did not regard Vastu, Netā and Rasa as the distinguishing elements of the plays, because he knew that the drama was to cater for the needs of all; it was to be a representation of all the sides of human nature–both good and bad. It was to be a real Imitation of ‘Trilokī’ in its representation. Four Vṛttis were to be represented by four kinds of representation (namely Vācika, Sāttvika, Āhārya and Āṅgika). So he divided plays broadly into two categories. Plays like Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa consisting of all the Vṛttis–psychological states and Rasas–and superior and middle characters and plays not having all the Vṛttis.

To represent life in real-like manner plays were also to have characters of lower order as Bhāṇa, Vithi, Prahasana. Bharata knew it very well and we also know that life is not all good. It is constituted of good as well as bad. Human nature has its weak side too. So Bharata did not exclude characters of lower order. He never meant that characters of lower order could not be the heroes of the plays. This shows his deep insight into human nature as becomes evident from his definition of Vithi, Bhāṇa and Prahasana. As defined by Bharata the pure kind of Prahasana consists of the dialogues–comic in nature–of ascetics, saints, Brahmaṇas, the coward persons, while the mixed kind of Prahasana consists of courtezen, slave, eunuch, bonded maid-servant2 and the Dhūrta,

Nāyakah

By no standards these persons belong to high order. Bharata knew very well that to represent the comic sentiment, a play was to abound with the characters of lower category. Thus accordingly, Bhāṇa was to be employed by Viṭa and Dhūrta. Viṭhī could consist of any type of nature either high, middle or low. By the definitions of Viṭhī, Bhāṇa and Prahasaṇa and the characters abounding in them, it may be safely inferred that Bharata did not think that a hero ought to be wholly virtuous and perfect and that a person of lower category could not be the hero of any play. Bharata divides the Human Nature briefly into three types or categories; namely (1) of high order i. e., persons belonging to superior category (2) of middle order, persons of middle rank, (3) of low order, persons belonging to lower rank. Abhinavagupta3 opines that although the natures of women and men are variegated and differ from one person to another, Yet these connot be described separately and individually. As a result the persons can be broadly included into three types of nature. Since the treatment of Kāma ends in Śṛṅgāra and that belongs particularly to the Nāyaka, so it should be said that types of heroes are spoken here. But here the word Nāyaka is not taken in the narrow sense of the principal Hero. These categories may be of the main Hero, Patākā Hero or Prakari Hero and so on.

Bharata4 has defined the best nature or nature of high order as 'one that has control over the senses, that is full of wisdom, is expert and skilled in many skills, is Dakṣiṇa (courteous), has high aim, gives protection to the weak, has the knowledge of many Śāstras, is serious and benevolent and that has the qualities of fortitude and sacrifice.' In other words the hero of the high nature will be one who has controlled his senses and who is expert judge of many handicrafts, who is not cruel, who has high aim set before himself, who renders protection to the weak, who knows many Śāstras, who is grave and benevolent in nature and who has got the qualities of fortitude and sacrifice. Now if we look closely into Sanskrit plays we find that Rāma is such a character. His nature belongs to the category of the highest order. Rāma has full control over his senses; he is grave, he does not let his emotions be seen by others. He gives shelter to the weak persons. He is full of patience and sacrifice. In Uttararāmacarita, he forsakes even his dear wife to please his subjects. Rāma keeps his fortitude in calamity. He does not waver from his way even when swayed

190

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

by calamity. Hence Rāma is regarded as superhuman. As a human being, we may put Jimūtavāhana of Nāgānanda in this category. He forsakes his kingdom to serve his parents, offers his life to Garuḍa (a bird) to save a snake-child Saṅkhacūḍa, who is the only son of his mother. He is also skilled in arts. He paints a beautiful picture of Malayavati. His aim is also high which is to do good to others. Generally speaking, our heroic figures like Droṇa, Bhiṣma, Karṇa, Śivi, Buddha, Yudhiṣṭhira, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa and such like persons belong to the high category of human nature. The examples may be numerous.

After describing the best nature, Bharara has defined the middle type of nature. Nature of middle category is clever in worldly dealings. Bharata has used the compound ‘Śilpaśāstra-viśārada’ which can be resolved in two ways—either expert in the Śāstra of śilpa or expert in śilpas and Śāstras. But the later conveys a better sense. Thus the human nature of middle category is expert in various arts and crafts and also in the Śāstras, it consists of excellence and sweetness. In other words persons of middle nature are expert in worldly dealings, in arts and Śāstras and have the common qualities of excellence and sweetness. To such a category will belong the average persons of middle rank, not having extraordinary qualities but having common qualities. The examples of persons belonging to this category may be Mādhava in ‘Mālatī-mādhava’ and Cārudatta in ‘Mṛcchakaṭikā’.

Bharata next defines people of lower category. Persons of lowest quality are harsh-spoken, immoral in character, harsh-natured, dull-witted, angry, murderous, unfaithful to friends, fault-finders, cruel by violent words, forgetful of the good deeds done to them, lazy ; they cannot jugde between good and bad or whom to respect and whom not to respect. They are fond of women and are lovers of quarrel. These persons are betrayers, commit sinful deeds, snatch other’s wealth. Śakāra in Mrechakaṭika belongs to the lower category.

These are generally the three types of nature to be found among the men. Of course the examples of these types may be numerous. One thing should be kept in mind that a man possessed of all the good qualities but angry like Paraśurāma would not be called a low person due to his single bad quality of anger and anger is not always bad too. So the men will vary in their nature depending upon the number and quantity of the qualities present in them. A

Nāyakah

person like Duṣyanta will be called good even if he has some human weaknesses. These terms good, middle and bad are to be applied accordingly depending upon the number of the qualities. Duryodhana occurring in the plays which take their story from Mahābhārata cannot be called a low person just because he is anti-Pāṇḍavas (often the cause decides the good or bad aspect of the qualities). Nor Rāvaṇa can be called a low person just because he abducts Sītā to avenge his sister Sūrpaṇakhā's insult in Rāmāyaṇa plays.

These qualities belonging to three types of men enumerated by Bharata are broadly mental qualities based on the psychology, nature and morality. Dhanañjaya5 has adopted some of these qualities and enumerated some qualities as common, generally, belonging to all the Heroes. Of course Dhanañjaya has taken the Netā (Hero) in its specific sense, accepting him as the distinguishing element of the play. By the term Nāyaka he means the principal Hero of the play, one who leads. who is the Adhikārin of ultimate phala of the play. In his view a leading Hero must have some of the common qualities to distinguish him from the other persons. He states that a Hero is modest, charming, sacrificing, clever, sweet-tongued, loved by people, upright, expert in speech, of good lineage, resolute, young, having wisdom, courage, good memory, good judgement, fine art and pride. He is brave, firm, vigorous, familiar with the codes, and a Law-abider. Dhanika6 only says in his commentary that a Hero has these qualities. But neither Dhanañjaya nor Dhanika explains whether a person lacking any of these qualities will be called a Hero or not. Then it would mean that the Heroes of the plays like the Prahasana and the Bhāṇa will also have these qualities, but it goes against Bharata's statement and theirs also, as Bharata regards Viṭa and Śakāra etc. as persons of lower category. Moreover, if the heroes of Bhāṇa and Prahasana possess these qualities, how would they cause merriment.

Then it should simply mean that Dhanañjaya etc. divided the plays into two categories, of high quality and low quality. Heroes of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa etc. will possess these qualities while the heroes of Bhāṇa etc. will not have them. But we cannot divide plays into such categories because a Nāṭaka badly written, weak in plot and characterization, not producing the proper sentiment may fail miserably and will naturally be called a play of low quality. On the other hand, a Bhāṇa very well written, perfect in its plot

and in the arousal of sentiment will be a play of good quality. We may only concede this much to Dhanañjaya that generally the Heroes of Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa in Sanskrit have got these common qualities enumerated by him. But lack of one or two qualities, out of these will not make them a bad hero. For example, if we make Lakṣamaṇa the Hero of a Nāṭaka, he is not modest to Paraśurāma like Rāma, he also shows anger, but he will be a Hero nonetheless. So the division of Bharata is more liberal and practical. Dhanañjaya enumerated these general qualities of a Hero when he found that generally Sanskrit dramas, especially, Nāṭakas had kings as heroes and they possessed these qualities, more or less common in themselves. For example Duṣyanta in Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa, Agnimitra in Mālavikāgnimitra, Cārudatta in Mṛcchakaṭika, Mādhava in Mālatīmādhava, Udayana in Svapnavāsavadattam of Bhāsa and so many Heroes of Sanskrit Nāṭakas possessed mostly these qualities. It is also true to say that the Hero of a Nāṭaka will ensure the sympathy of the spectators only when he possesses most of these qualities. A Hero devoid of many of these qualities will not be able to draw the attention of the audience towards himself. The spectators feel attracted and drawn to the Hero who possesses more qualities, who is virtuous, who suffers calamity, then the spectators become sympathetic to the Hero. And this concept of Hero, being a good man has been followed in Greece, in the tragedies of Greek and in the plays of Shakespeare also, Dhanika has illustrated these qualities individually with the examples from different plays.

After describing the three categories of nature of men Bharata7 describes the nature of women in like manner. Bharata describes three types of women. The three types of women are : Bāhyā (public or outgoing), secondly Ābhyantarā, i.e., who live inside the home (homely) and Bāhyābhyantarā (mixed) who move outside and then inside, who are (first public then become homely). The women belonging to good family is known as Ābhyantarā (homely), the courtesan is Bāhyā (public woman) and a thoroughly tested woman who has sublimated her character i.e., who was first public and then becomes a homely woman like Vasantasenā and her maid-servant Madanikā in Mṛcchakaṭika is known to be Bāhyābhyantarā (of mixed class).

Bharata also mentions three types of female nature. Woman of high quality or category is soft in feelings, not vivacious, is

Nāyakah

unwavering, talks sweetly with a smile, is kind, expert in following the speech of elders or she is expert in fulfilling the commands of the elders, is bashful, full of modesty, has got natural beauty and sweetness, the natural qualities belonging to a well-bred person, is full of gravity and patience. For the example of women belonging to this category we may take Sītā in Rāma-plays, Sāvitrī, Padmāvatī and Vāsavadattā in Svapnavāsavadattam of Bhāsa. The woman of middle category has these qualities but she does not possess them in the highest degree and in full measure. She has some faults also. In this category we may have Irāvatī of Mālavikāgnimitra. The women of low nature are similar to men of low nature. They possess the similar qualities.

Bharata mentions that a eunuch (impotent) should be considered mixed and low, the servants etc. be also known as mixed and low, Śakāra, Viṭa and the characters like these should be known as mixed and low. These are the natures described by Bharata of men, women and the eunuch.

Bharata states that here are four types of heroes mentioned, found only in high and middle natures, defined with various characteristics. These four types of heroes found in the middle and high order of nature are : Dhīrodātta (self-controlled and vehement), Dhīralalita (self-controlled and light-hearted), Dhīrodātta (self-controlled and exalted) and Dhīraprasānta (self-controlled and calm). The common quality to be found in all these four types is that of fortitude (Dhīratā). They must have patience to bear the shocks and setbacks of life and then be able to sort out their way out of those difficulties. Now it may be inferred that in Bharata's view there may be only the eight varieties of these four types, as these four types cannot be found in low nature. These eight varieties will be, (1) Dhīrodātta of high order. (2) Dhīrodātta of middle nature. (3) Dhīralalita of high quality, (4) Dhīralalita of mediocre quality. (5) Dhīrodātta of high quality. (6) Dhīrodātta of middle quality. (7) Dhīraprasānta of high order. (8) Dhīraprasānta of middle order. Bharata does not throw much light upon the qualities required in each hero of these four types, while Dhananjaya made an addition and he defined these terms, Dhīralalita, Dhīrodātta and so on. Abhinavagupta also does not help us much about this. Of course Dhīrodātta would differ from hero to hero depending upon the quantity of the qualities.

We may place Rāma in both the plays of Bhavabhūti, i.e., in

194

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

the Uttararāmacartia and Mahāviracarita as Dhīrodātta of the superior-most quality. Duṣyanta in Abhijñānaśākuntalam is Dhīrodātta of high quality as he is praised by all; even Indra calls him to his help. Agnimitra in Mālavikāgnimitra may be regarded as Dhīrodātta of middle quality. Jimūtavāhana is Dhīrodātta of the high quality as he gives up his life to save another being. Udayana in Svapnavāsavadattam of Bhāsa is Dhīralalita of high quality while Udayana in Ratnāvalī of Śrīharṣa is Dhīralalita of middle quality. Paraśurāma may be regarded as Dhīroddhata of high quality. But Bharata has not restricted these terms to be applied strictly to the principal hero, while according to the later theory a conception grew in the minds that these terms, Dhīralalita etc. comprising the four categories could be applied to the main hero only and the leading hero of a play could be only a Dhīralalita or Dhīraprasānta or Dhīroddhata or Dhīrodātta. But Bharata nowhere expressed this view that only leading heroes could belong to these four categories.

Bharata mentions that gods should be taken as Dhīroddhata, kings as Dhīralalita and chieftain of the army and the ministers are to be known as Dhīrodātta. Brāhamaṇas and businessmen should be known as Dhīraprasānta.

But it does not forbid that kings cannot be Dhīrodātta. When Bharata mentions the Nāyaka of a Nāṭaka to be Dhīrodātta, then it becomes clear that famous kings in a Nāṭaka are Dhīrodātta. For example Rāma, Jimūtavāhana etc. are Dhīrodātta. And among gods also, all are not Dhīroddhata. Some are calm also like Brahmā etc.

In the view of Dhananjaya8 this Nāyaka is of four kinds—Lalita, Śānta, Udātta and Uddhata. Dhananjaya defines each kind of the Hero. As stated by him Dhīralalita is free from anxiety, is fond of the arts (song, dance etc.), happy and gentle. Dhanika9 elaborates the point in his commentary and says that his welfare being looked after by the ministers he is care-free, therefore, fond of fine arts, adept in enjoyment because of the dominance of Śṛṅgāra and having a character of delicate strength. The best example of this kind is Udayana in Sanskrit plays as is also illustrated from Ratnāvalī.

Dhananjaya next defines Dhīraprasānta. Dhīraprasānta is a Brāhmaṇa or the like, possessed by the generic merits quoted by him previously. Dhanika explains that having the common

Nāyakah

qualities like modesty etc. Dhīraśānta is a Brāhmaṇa or the like; this has been stated to denote the heroes of Prakaraṇa like the Brāhmaṇa, businessmen, minister etc. Dhanika is here, guided by Bharata and he comments that though there may be present other qualities like care-freedom etc., yet we will have to accept the calmness of Vipra etc. not Lālityam as in the case of Mādhava in the Mālatīmādhava and Cārudatta in Mṛcchakaṭika.

Dhanañjaya has defined Dhīrodātta as one of great excellence, exceedingly serious, forbearing, not boastful, resolute, with self-assertion suppressed, and firm of purpose. Dhanika takes Jimūtavāhana of Nāgānanda belonging to this category and also Rāma in Mahānāṭaka. He comments that qualities like resoluteness, firmness, etc. enumerated in common qualities are described here to show their majority. There are some who are dubious of the exaltation of Jimūtavāhana etc. In their opinion exaltation is to behave in supreme most degree and that can be found only in a person desirous of conquering. To show the unwillingness of Jimūtavāhana of surpassing others, they cite two examples from the same play; in the first showing his disinterest towards the throne and in the second showing his devotion to his parents. They regard him as calm as he is tranquil and full of pity. They accept Buddha, Yudhiṣṭhira and Jimūtavāhana etc. as calm. Refuting them Dhanika has upheld truly the exaltedness of Jimūtavāhana. But then he states that the description of love for Malayavatī precludes him from being a calm hero. Here Dhanika has contradicted himself. If Dhanika does not accept Jimūtavāhana as a calm hero because of his love for Malayavatī, why does he accept Cārudatta and Mādhava as calm heroes when their love for Vasantasenā and Mālatī is described in the plays. Dhanika further elaborates that calmness is without being self-assertive and that ought to be of Vipra etc. So Vipra etc. are regarded calm from this aspect not by their definition alone. But the statement of Dhanika is not based on good reason. Jimūtavāhana, nowhere, shows his self-assertion then why should he not be accepted as calm ? Moreover, there is no such rule that only Vipra etc. should be calm ; of course this calmness of Vipra etc. has been accepted in the light of definition of Bharata.

Dhanañjaya has next defined Dhīroddhata. A Dhīroddhata hero is one who is altogether dominated by pride and jealousy, wholly

196

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

devoted to magic practices and deceit, self-assertive, fickle, irascible and boastful. Dhanika supports it with the example of Rāvaṇa and Paraśurāma. But if we look closely, we find that these two characters are not wholly Dhīrodḍhata in the sense, as defined by Dhananjaya. This definition accords well with the definition of low persons given by Bharata.

Dhanika comments that these terms Dhīralalita etc. denote the stages of those qualities, they are not fixed by the caste, otherwise in the works of great poets, description of many changes shown in one character would become contradictory. But he is not consistent. He has accepted the calmness of Vipra etc. on the basis of their caste, now he states that they do not denote separate categories like the caste. To illustrate his point that Dhīralalita etc. are merely the stages of qualities, he cites the example of Paraśurāma who has been described as Dhīrodātta towards Rāvaṇa, first Dhīroddhata towards Rāma etc., later as Dhīraśānta in Mahāviracarita. He adds that this change of stages is not improper in the subsidiary hero. But Dhananjaya has used the term Hero taking him in the sense of leading Hero. Dhanika did not himself put this limitation when he mentioned that Dhīralalita etc. are the terms denoting stages. Did he mean them to be stages of secondary heroes ? A leading hero may also become Dhīrodātta and Dhīralalita in plays as Duṣyanta becomes Dhīralalita in Act III in Abhijñānaśākuntalam. But it seems that when Dhanika faced the examples of the principal heroes like Rāma etc., he got confused and said that the principal hero must be one of the four types just defined throughout the drama to insure unity; as the change of Rāma first adopted as Dhīrodātta to any other stage would be improper. In the view of Keith10 the chief hero in any drama must be essentially true to one or other of those types; any change would spoil unity of development of drama. It is true, if we change the type of main hero in the same play, the unity of impression will be destroyed. If necessary, then changes must be made in the plot as in Rāma’s dealings with Vālin to preserve the consistency. Keith mentions, it is obvious that there is difficulty in conceiving as a chief hero one of the haughty type and the theory does not provide us with one.

Bharata11 has tried to distinguish the principal Hero from other male characters. He states that the person is to be known as the principal Hero who being in misfortune or distress ultimately attains elevation. It should be here noted that Sanskrit theory does

Nāyakah

not permit the ultimate downfall of the principal Hero. In the case where the misfortune and elevation of many are described equally, no one would be the principal Hero.

As Sanskrit drama deals usually with love, the theory has another division of types of hero based on their attitude to women (in love).

Bharata12 mentions the terms which women in love are to use to their beloved ones when the amorous union takes place. Such terms are Priyah, Kāntah, Vinitah, Nāthah, Swāmī, Jīvitam and Nandanah. In the case of anger terms generally used may be Duhśīla (ill-natured), Durācārah (tyrant), Saṭhah (Deceitful), Vāmah (hostile), Vikatthanah (boastful), Nirllajjah (shameless) Niṣṭhurah (cruel).

While in Bharata's opinion these are the terms to be uttered by the women in love and anger to their beloved ones, in the view of Dhanañjaya13 when the Hero has been captivated by another woman, he may be Dakṣiṇa (courteous), Saṭha (deceitful), Dhrṣṭa (shameless) towards his previous love. In Dhanika's14 opinion these are the stages of the Hero in Śṛṅgāra; and the four types of heroes described before, each of them belonging to these four stages in Śṛṅgāra become of sixteen types. But this is the view of Dhanika, Bharata has not mentioned any such division and following his opinion a Daksina hero can be only of eight types.

Dhanañjaya discusses each type of the hero in Śṛṅgāra. In his opinion a Daksina hero is kind to his previous love. Dhanika comments that who behaves sympathetically with his former beloved is Dakṣiṇa and he gives its example from his own work and Mālavikāgnimitra. Agnimitra is Dakṣiṇa towards Dhāriṇī even when he loves Mālavikā in Mālavikāgnimitra. Thus a Dakṣiṇa Nāyaka can find room in his heart for more loves than one.

As stated by Dhanañjaya a Saṭha (deceitful) hero hides his unfaithfulness. Dhanika explains the difference between Dakṣiṇa and Saṭha. In his view though both commit wrong to the previous love but the difference between the two is that the Dakṣiṇa (courteous and clever) behaves sympathetically with his former love.

The description of Saṭha given by Dhanañjaya is in keeping with the description of Bharata.

Dhanañjaya enumerates the characteristics of a Dhrṣṭa hero

198

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

(shameless). A shameless hero lets the disfigurement on his body show.

Different to these three, an Anukūla (faithful) Nāyaka has only a single lady love as Rāma in Uttararāmacarita. Dhanika poses the question, to what stage belongs the hero of the Nāṭikā like Vatsarāja etc. and answers that they are at first Anukūla (faithful) till the love arises for another, afterwards Dakṣiṇa (unfaithful but courteous). They are not to be regarded as deceitful and shameless even though they at first conceal their love and afterwards openly confess it; for they always retain some of the affection for their previous love and a hero may have love for both the heroines as can be seen in the works of great poets. To support his statement he quotes the statements of Bharata who has described the best male as sweet, sacrificing, not becoming engrossed with passion nor becoming a slave to love. Thus Vatsarāja etc. remains Dakṣiṇa upto the end of the play. He adds, since each of the sixteen varieties of hero may be superior, intermediate or inferior, there are forty eight varieties of the hero. But neither Bharata nor Dhanañjaya has enumerated these forty eight varieties of the Nāyaka.

Leaving aside all this classification of heroes there are eight general natural manly qualities (Sattva Pauruṣa Guṇas) that a Nāyaka should possess and which have been enumerated by all dramaturgists starting from Bharata onwards. These qualities consist of both physical and mental. These qualities are born as a nature in man and are not artificial. These eight15 excellencies may be termed as certain general characteristics adding his personal merits, eight aspects of the male’s sattva.

Eight Male Sāttvika Qualities

Bharata mentions that Śobhā (brilliant character), Vilāsa (graceful bearing), Mādhuryam (self possession), sthairyam (steadiness), Gāmbhīryam (gravity), Lalitam (sportiveness), Audāryam (Nobility) and Tejas (spirit) are the different aspects of the male’s sattva. According to Dhanañjaya these are the eight sāttvika male qualities.

Now we may take them one by one.

Śobhā (Brilliance of character)

Bharata and Dhanañjaya mention that śkill (in various things),

Nāyakah

heroism, aversion to mean acts and emulation of the best virtues constitute śobhā. Abhinavagupta interpreting it says that the link of the sentence is that skill etc. which are understood from the change of the body constitute Śobhā. Dhanika has illustrated each point of sobha with the proper example.

All dramaturgists accept śobhā as the compassion for the inferiors, emulation with superiors, heroism and skill.

Vilāsa (Graceful Bearing)

Bharata defines that eyes moving straight and firmly, gait as graceful and steady as that of a bull and smiling words constitute Vilāsa. Dhananjaya follows Bharata and he includes in it a firm step and glance and smiling words. Dhanika illustrates it with the appropriate example from Uttararāmacarita. Thus vilāsa consists of steady glance, steady gait, sweet speech, smiling face, laughing voice.

Mādhuryam (Self poise)

Bharata states that if due to a long practice one's organs retain their firmness even when great changes of natural state have occurred it is called Mādhuryam. Abhinavagupta interprets Bharata's statement, when due to practice of organs in exercise etc. a little upsetting in the body is seen even when there are present many reasons of turmoil, it should be known as Mādhuryam. Dhananjaya has defined Mādhuryam in very apt and clear words that a little change in the great turmoil is Mādhuryam.

Thus we may say that due to this quality a man does not lose his self-poise even when there are present great reasons of change, only a mild change may be percepted in the body.

Sthairyam (Steadiness)

Bharata defines that pertaining to Dharma, Artha or Kāma and rising as a result of good or bad, not swerving from one's determination is 'Sthairyam'. Abhinavagupta explains that dharma etc. are its phala and it is joined with them. 'Śubhāśubhasamutthitāt' means caused of good thoughts or ignoble thought because the determination from ignoble also prevents from instability. In the view of Dhananjaya also Sthairyam is not swerving from his determination even when faced by a multitude of obstacles.

Dhanika elucidates it with the example from Mahāviracarita when Rāma says that he would not forsake his path of weapons. Thus unflinching devotion to the purpose, though accosted with a host of obstacles depicts Sthairyam.

Gāmbhīryam (gravity)

Gāmbhīryam is something due to an influence of which outward changes in cases of anger, joy and fear do not occur. Abhinavagupta states that mental state (cittavṛtti) is reflected by these, so these are called ‘ākāras’, i. e. changes in the colour of mouth, sight etc. Even when anger etc. are born, lack of changes in colour etc. is there and that absence of changes, making body unchanged is Gāmbhīryam. Dhanika comments that Gāmbhīryam is different from Mādhuryam as in Mādhuryam there is seen little change but in Gāmbhīryam no change is seen. Thus poise is that quality of character due to influence of which no change of demeanour whatsoever is observed even in very great agitation.

Lalitam (Sportiveness)

As defined by Bharata and Dhananjaya, erotic movements and changes of features which are not deliberate and which grow out of a tender nature constitute Lalitam. Keith takes it as grace of deportment. Thus sweetness of temperament, amiable disposition and engaging manner constitute Lalitam—character of affability.

Audāryam (Nobility)

As stated by Bharata bestowing of gifts, favouring and speaking sweet words to others as well as to one’s own men is called Audāryam (Nobility). Abhinavagupta writes that bestowing of gifts etc. related to others and causing change in efforts consist Audāryam. ‘Abhyupapatti’ is protecting the person who asks shelter. In the opinion of Dhananjaya, Audāryam is giving up of even as much as one’s life with a kindly word and the propitiation of the virtuous. Dhanika gives its example from Nāgānanda when Jimūtavāhana offers his own life for Saṅkhacūḍa and tries to please Garuḍa.

This quality relates to moral virtue of a character. Thus Audāryam is a tendency to oblige someone else even at the cost of self-interest.

Nāyakah

Tejas (Spirit, Sense of honour)

Bharata, Dhanañjaya and others, all take Tejas as not enduring insult and the like made by others even at the cost of one’s life.

Abhinavagupta makes it clear that insult made by others means reproach or insult done by the enemy not by the elders or friends.

Even at the cost of life means that there is no returning back with tolerance following any policy or observing the time and place.

Thus Tejas is that mental quality in which a person does not bear with any insult even though he has to give up his life.

Sense of self-respect and intolerance of an insult is called Tejas.

Thus we can say that the Hero of a Nāṭaka type of Rūpaka should not be low and mean who cannot command respect and love of the people.

We see in practice that all the heroes in Kālidāsa’s Nāṭakas have common characteristics.

All the three heroes are brave, highly born, fond of arts, generous, possessing manly qualities, loved by people, devoted to their subjects, protector of law and religion etc.

Bhavabhūti also makes heroes of his two plays, grand and noble in nature.

Even in Prakaraṇa plays like Mṛcchakaṭika and Mālatīmādhava, hero is praised by all, is noble in qualities and virtuous.

Nāyikā (Heroine)

The description of the Nāyaka, naturally, involves the description of the Nāyikā.

It would be, rather, incomplete without the description of the Nāyikā because she is not separate from the Nāyaka.

In later theory of Sanskrit we find a detailed classification of the Nāyaka and the Nāyikā, which is mainly done keeping in view the Erotic sentiment.

The Heroine has been much discussed in Sanskrit Poetics and Dramaturgy.

So much has been written about the Heroines and their varieties that a detailed description would be just a repetition and nothing else.

So we should take the Heroine in brief without supplying minute details.

Let us first take Bharata.

On the basis of nature, Bharata16 states that the divine (Divyā), wife of a king (Nṛpa-patnī), woman of good family (Kulastrī) and the courtezān (Gaṇikā), these should be known as the heroines having different kinds of nature.

They may be Dhīrā (self-controlled), Lalitā (elegant), Udāttā (exalted) and Nibḥṛtā (quiet).

The divines and the wives of the king contain virtues, they are self-controlled (Dhīrā), elegant (Lalitā), exalted

202

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

(Udāttā) and quiet (Nibhṛtā). The women of good family are exalted and meek. Gaṇikā and Śilpakārikā are elegant (Lalitā) and prone to exaltedness (Abhyudāttā). In the connection of Love (Conjugal union with the hero), Bharata mentions that heroines are known to be of eight kinds namely : (1) Vāsakasajjā (one dressed up for union), (2) Virahotkaṇṭhitā (one distressed by separation), (3) Svādhīnabhartrkā (one having her husband in subjection), (4) Kalahāntaritā (one separated from her lover by a quarrel), (5) Khaṇḍitā (one enraged with her lover), (6) Vipralabdhā (one deceived by her lover), (7) Proṣitabhartrkā (one with a sojourning husband), and (8) Abhisārikā (one who moves to her lover). In deviation to Bharata, Dhananjaya and Dhanika have classified the heroines differently. First they17 put the heroine into three, having the common characteristics of the hero. These three types of heroines are one’s own wife (Sviyā), belonging to the other (Anyā) and a common woman (Sādhāraṇa strī). They further make the three categories of the Sviyā as Mugdhā (inexperienced), Madhyā (partly experienced) and Pragalbhā (experienced), having good character and modesty etc. They again classify the Madhyā (partly experienced) into three types, showing her attitude in anger, as Dhīrā, Madhyā and Adhīrā. In their view, Madhyā and Pragalbhā become of twelve kinds, on the basis of being elder (Jyeṣṭhā) and younger (Kaniṣṭhā). Another woman, not one’s own wife may be either married or a maiden. A married woman should never figure in the main Rasa, while an unmarried girl may be described either in the main sentiment or in the subservient sentiment. A common woman is a courtesan, skilled in the arts, bold and cunning. In the context of a courtesan, Dhananjaya has employed a word ‘Sukhārtha’ which has been interpreted in two ways by Dhanika either as one who has attained wealth easily or one having pleasure as the sole aim.

One thing should be noted here that Bharata has nowhere classified the heroine thus, while later writers have followed this classification. It seems that this classification of the heroines came into dramaturgy from the works of Sanskrit poetry. And this classification takes into account only the Rasa of Śṛṅgāra, while plays could be written prominently having other Rasas than Śṛṅgāra. We cannot apply this classification to the plays like Mudrārākṣasa, Uttararamacarita etc.

Nāyakaḥ

In the view of Bharata Vāsakasajjā etc. are the eight types of heroines (Nāyikāḥ), and the heroine of Nāṭakas should be known in these states. In the view of Dhananjaya18 also these are the eight stages (Avasthā) of the heroines enumerated before. That is to say that all kinds of heroines belong to these eight stages only. Dhanika19 elaborates the point that Svādhīnapatikā, Vāsa-kasajjā, Virahotkaṇṭhitā, Khaṇḍitā, Kalahāntaritā, Vipralabdhā, Proṣitapriyā and Abhisārikā are the stages of the heroines enumerated before as one's own wife etc., Nāyikā (Heroine) etc. also being in Avasthā form, mention of other eight Avasthās is to denote the characteristics of the former heroines. The number ‘Aṣṭau’ (eight) is mentioned to stress that they are neither more nor less. These stages cannot be included into one another. As for example, Vāsakasajjā cannot be included in Svādhīnabharṭṛkā because her husband is not near at hand. If she is called Svādhīna-bharṭṛkā, then Proṣitabharṭṛkā cannot be stated separately, because distance cannot be restricted. The heroine, not knowing the falsehood of the lover, cannot be Khaṇḍitā either. The heroine engaged in the game of love or having the desire cannot be Proṣitapriyā. She cannot be called Abhisārikā who does not go near the hero herself. Utkāṇṭhitā is not Vāsakasajjā, and Vipralabdhā like Vāsakasajjā is different from others. Kalahāntaritā is different from Khaṇḍitā. Thus Dhanika asserts that there are only eight stages of the heroines and they cannot be merged into each other. Bharata20 states that Khaṇḍitā, Vipralabdhā, Kalahāntarit and Proṣitabharṭṛkā should be represented by the conditions such as anxiety, sighs, lassitude, burning of the heart, conversation with female friends, looking to one's own condition, weakness, depression, shedding tears, giving up of ornaments, sorrow and weeping. Svādhīnābharṭṛkā should be represented with gaudy and brilliant dresses, face beaming with pleasure and having an excess of blooming. Bharata does not mention Vāsakasajjā and Abhisārikā here, and Abhinava21 gives the reason that they are not mentioned separately as they act like Svādhīnābharṭṛkā at their respective occasions. While in the view of Dhananjaya22 the heroines of six states (excluding Svādhīna-bharṭṛkā and Vāsakasajjā) are characterized by reflection, sighing, dejection etc., Dhanika23 comments that the heroine, belonging to another, whether maiden or wife, cannot be of all these varieties. She may have only three states, Virahotkaṇṭhitā before the appointment, Abhisārikā, when meeting the lover and Vipralabdhā, hero

204

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

not approaching at the appointed place. Other states are not possible as the hero is not independent in this case.

Graces of Women (Alankāras)

Bharata and Dhananjaya have discussed the twenty natural graces or Alankāras of women. In their view these graces of a woman in her prime of youth are twenty. Bharata24 elaborates further that dramatic experts know the young women's graces (Alankāra) to be the support of sentiments in a drama and these consist of changes in respect of their faces and other limbs, out of these changes, the first three are 'Añgajā' (i.e. caused by limbs), and next to them ten are 'Svābhāvikas' (natural) and the seven, grown with the sentiments and psychological states, are Ayatnajāh (involuntary changes), Helā, Hāva and Bhāva, arising from one another, being different aspects of Sattva are añgajāh (connected with the physical nature).

The ten Svābhāvikāh Alankāras (natural grace) of women are Lilā (sportiveness), Vilāsa (Amorous gesture), Vicchitti (Dishabille), Vibhramah (confusion), Kilikiñcitam (Hysterical mood), Moṭṭāyitam (Manifestation of affection), Kuṭtamitam (Pretended anger), Vibboka (affected coldness), Lalitam (elegance) and Vihrtam (want of response).

The seven Ayatnajā Alankaras (Involuntary graces) of women are : Śobhā (Beauty), Kāntiḥ (charm), Diptiḥ (Radiance), Mādhyam (sweetness), Dhairyam (self-control), Prāgalbhyam (courage) and Audāryam (Nobility).

As stated by Bharata these are found in the performance of delicate nature (Sukumāra) and except Vilāsa and Lalitam, they are also found in radiant (Dipta).

Interpreting Bharata Abhinava25 first explains 'Sattva'. The mental state transmitted to consciousness extends to body also and is called Sattva. He further comments that the Sattva in relation to feeling has been considered in Rasa chapter. The other Sattva belongs to the body. The superiority of the women is restricted to Śṛṅgāra Rasa only and of men's to Virarasa. The whole worldly human object is pervaded with the Śṛṅgāra related to women and Vira related to men. These Alankāras of actions are not found anywhere else except in the best female made of best Sattva.

These Alankāras belong to body only and are not in the form of mental state. They represent only the love sentiment.

Nāyakah

seen developed in the prime of youth, they are not developed in the childhood and they disappear in the old age.

Some changes of the body even having the form of Kriyā, transmitted from the previous birth are present in the body in the form of residual traces, awakened by Sattva, they are called Aṅgaja as for example Bhāva, Hāva and Helā. Others becoming apparent by the entrance of particular Vibhāvas, appropriate to the present birth, develop in the body permeated with the love emotion. They are called Svābhāvikas as they arise out of their own love sentiment which is visible to heart. They are also called natural because they arise differently in different persons. The same do not arise in all the women. All the three, Bhāva, Hāva and Helā are present in all the women of best quality, having excess of Sattva. In the same manner are seven Śobhā etc. Thus Aṅgaja (physical), Svābhāvika (natural) are caused by action (Kriyā), others Śobhā etc. are the virtues in nature and they are Ayatnaja (involuntary). Born as a result of effort are called Kriyātmaka because there is effort (from desire) and then the action of the body. Others different from them are involuntary (Ayatnajāḥ). Thus among those Graces Aṅgaja arise first as they arise out of the body subjected to the natural residual traces of previous birth. Natural and the involuntary are enlivened with their feeling of love. They are of the living beings.

In Dhananjaya's26 view in accord with Bharata, the Natural Graces of women in prime of youth are twenty in number, arisen from Sattva. In them Bhāva, Hāva and Helā, these three are Śarīrajā (physical) i.e. born out of the body. These seven qualities: Śobhā, Kānti, Dīpti, Mādhuryam and Praṅgalbhata, Audaryam and Dhairyam are Ayatnaja as they come of their own accord. The ten ‘Svābhāvajā’ qualities that arise from one’s disposition are considered to be Līlā, Vilāsa, Vicchitti, Vibhrama, Kilkiñcita, Moṭṭāyitam, Kuṭṭamitam, Vibboka, Lalitam, and Viḥṛtam. Dhanika has nothing particular to add here.

Abhinava27 referring to the views of others makes the point clear about these Alañkāras. He writes that in the opinion of some, although these are mental states, yet they have not been enumerated under psychological states, because they lack the characteristic of Vibhāvas and they cannot make Rasas felt. But he holds this view wrong. Śobhā, Kānti, Dīpti pertain to the external form of beauty, while Āvega, Cāpala, Trāsa, Amarṣa etc. are feelings. These have been discussed separately from transitory psychological states

206

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

because they are restricted to body only and they pertain to erotic sentiment only. These are only twenty in number as enumerated, therefore, stating of other graces like innocence etc. by Śākyācārya and Rāhula etc. is going against Bharata.

Finally, we may say that we have not gone into details here, as these are just minute details related with other aspects and not with real Dramaturgic principles. Moreover, Sanskrit drama has never been Heroine-oriented. We may add about the graces of women that as the male Sāttvika qualities are possessed by the Heroes, in the like manner, all the heroines, generally, possess these qualities.

Now we come to the other characters of drama.

Other Characters and Assistants of Nāyaka (Hero)

We find in practice in the Sanskrit plays that there are many persons both male and female to assist the Hero and Heroine in attaining their desired object. They help the Hero and Heroine. Some of them hold a prominent position while others are relegated to secondary position. These assistants may also be of the best, middle or lower nature. A Hero or Heroine needs messengers, so they are employed in almost every play. As Sanskrit drama is very much related to Dharma, there are introduced characters to perform religious duties. As a king is generally the Hero of a Nāṭaka so will have a big retinue following him and characters related with him will pertain to inside his place harem as well as outside. Queens belonging to different cadres will be there, there will be door keepers and so on. Let us look briefly into the other characters introduced in the plays.

Dhanañjaya28 states that there is a Patākānāyaka (episode Hero) who assists the main Hero. Patākānāyaka (The Hero of the Episode) is a different person, an ally of the hero, intelligent, assisting him, devoted to him and possessed of his qualities in a less degree. Dhanika illustrates it further that Patākā is the subsidiary plot previously described and its Hero is called ‘Piṭhamarda’. He assists the principal hero, as for example Makaranda assists Mādhava in Mālatīmādhava of Bhavabhūti, Āryaka assists Cārudatta in Mṛcchakaṭika, and in plays based on Rāmāyaṇa, Sugrīva assists Rāma.

Bharata29 mentions that the harem of a King consists of Mahādevī, Devī, Svāminī, Sthāpita, Bhoginīs, Śilpakāriṇīs,

Nāyakah

Nāṭakīyā, Nartakīs, Anucārikās, Paricārikās, Sañcārikās, Prekṣaṇakārikās, Mahattaris, Pratihārīs, Maidens, old women, Āyuktikā.

Then according to Bharata servants, Kañcukins and Varṣavaras should be employed. Bharata mentions seventeen kinds of women and eighteen kinds of other persons in the harem of a king. Dhananjaya30 also mentions that in the harem Varṣavaras, Kirātas, dumb and small persons, mleccha, Ābhīra and Śakāra etc. are useful in their respective works.

Bharata31 mentions the external companion as Yuvarāja, chieftain of the Army, priests, ministers, sachivas, Prāḍavivākas and Kumārādhikṛtas. He has also defined them separately with their characteristics. But we need not go into detail here. We may only say that priests and ministers are of good lineage, intelligent, well-read in many Śāstras, affectionate, not tempted by others, aware to their duties, belonging to the same country, modest of good conduct and pious.

After the Piṭhamarda, the second prominent character that assists the Hero in his schemes most, especially in Śṛṅgāra, is Vidūṣaka.

In the view of Bharata there are four categories of Vidūṣakas belonging to the four kinds of Heroes, narrated before. They are namely : Liṅgī (Disguised person), Dvija, Rājajīvī, and Śiṣya (disciple) and they are to be the Vidūṣakas in respective order of gods, kings, ministers and Brāhmaṇas. Vidūṣaka is the friend in separation and talks with the hero over delicate matters.

In Dhananjaya's opinion Vidūṣaka causes laughter. As this character is very important in Sanskrit plays, let us go into some detail about him. Dhananjaya's description of him is meagre while Bharata has defined him rightly. Except in the plays of Bhavabhūti and Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta, Vidūṣaka plays an important part in most of the Sanskrit dramas. In Mālavikāgnimitra, Vidūṣaka assists the King Agnimitra in his love with Mālavikā. He is tactful and devises means to ensure the object of the king. Here he is given a prominent role. In real sense, here, he may be said to be a Narma-sachiva. Otherwise in most of the plays he generally shows his fondness for eatables and folly and creates laughter.

In Abhijñānaśākuntalam he has deteriorated in his position. Here he only tries to please the King and creates laughter. Vidūṣaka is generally given the role of a Narma-sachiva. He assists the king or the Hero in his love matters. He is made a partaker of his secret.

He is generally represented as wearing comic dress and causing laughter through his dress, action and words. He is a brāhmaṇa by caste and is called friend by the Hero and himself also calls the hero friend. He shares the equal status with the king. But why a Brāhmaṇa who was regarded a wise person was presented in this anomaly, is not intelligible.

According to Dhananjaya32 the other assistant may be Viṭa who has but a single accomplishment. Dhanika gives the example of Viṭa of Śekharaka in Nāgānanda. But the character of Viṭa will be mostly available in Prakaraṇa and other plays like Prahasana, Bhāṇa, etc. In Nāṭakas (a special variety of plays) he will not be found as their heroes are Dhīrodātta. Bhavabhūti and Kālidāsa have excluded him from their Nāṭakas. Neither in later plays like Ratnāvalī (a Nāṭikā) nor in Veṇīsamhāra we find him, while in Mṛcchakaṭika he has been introduced.

Dhananjaya33 mentions that when the Hero is a king then a minister (or the Hero), Himself, or both (together) are his assistants in deliberations on affairs of state. A Dhīralalita Hero has his affairs attended to by a minister ; the other by their ministers and themselves. Udayana has his affairs attended to by the ministers, while in the plays of Kālidāsa both the Hero and the ministers attend to the matters of the state. Ministers help the king in thinking devices for attaining kingdom etc. and in conducting the affairs of the state.

Then in his religious duties the assistants of the Hero are his chaplain, his domestic priests, ascetics and expounders of sacred lore.

In the matter of inflicting punishment the assistants of the Hero are his friends, princes, foresters, officers and soldiers.

Now if we see closely we find that these assistants of the Hero as mentioned could belong only to a king because he only needs this much retinue. The Hero of a Prakaraṇa will not need them all. There is no rule or necessity that a Hero should have all these assistants. In Mālatīmādhava Kāmandaki and Saudāmini assist the union of Mālati and Mādhava. A king cannot manage the state alone, as he was to be the Hero of a Nāṭaka, he needed ministers to look after the matters of state and advise the king, as in Śākuntalam, Mālavikāgnimitra, Svapnavāsavadattam, King needed priests to perform religious duties and these priests expressed their fearless and frank opinion

Nāyakah

about the moral conduct. In olden times people also had slaves and they employed them in various works. Then there are divine assistants too in a Nāṭaka. A Hero may get divine help also in the play as Śrikrṣṇa assists in Veṇisamhāra or Vidyādhara in Avimāraka or Indra in Vikramorvaśiyam and Abhijñānaśākuntalam.

In the view of Bharata34 a wise woman, female story teller, a female ascetic or woman of the stage, an intelligent woman, a female neighbour, a female friend, a maid-servant, an unmarried girl, a crafts woman, a foster mother, a nun or a female fortune teller can be employed as female messenger. Then any woman should be engaged as a messenger when she knows the art of encouraging, is sweet in words, honest, able to act suitably to the occasion, charming in her behaviour and is able to keep secrets. A wise person should never engage as a messenger any person who is foolish, beautiful, wealthy or diseased, Dhananjaya35 agreeing with Bharata mentions that as messengers the heroine may employ a maid servant, a female friend, a working woman, a foster sister, a neighbour, a female ascetic, a crafts woman and her ownself, being possessed of qualities (to match) those of the friends of the hero. Thus the hero and the heroines need messengers and some one to assist them.

Besides these assistants, there is found an antagonist also in the plays. He is called Pratināyaka. The opponent of the Hero is avaricious, self-controlled and vehement, stubborn, criminal and vicious. But in Sanskrit plays opponent of the hero has been neglected and he has not been depicted well as he has been represented in the English plays. It is not necessary that every Sanskrit play should contain it. In most cases Sanskrit plays do not have him or he is given a minor role except in the plays based on Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata.

In ancient India Polygamy was not regarded bad. Kings could have many wives so it was not thought immoral or wrong if they enjoyed love with other maidens. As Dr. J.D. Vidyālankār has also proved in his paper the kings like Agnimitra, Duṣyanta could indulge in love affairs with maidens though having their own queen and yet they were regarded as Dhīrodātta heroes. It has been rather a drawback of Sanskrit drama that mostly Sanskrit plays make Erotic sentiment as their principal sentiment and they are centered round the kings and court. Though Bharata recommended drama to be the vehicle of

210

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

depicting all situations yet later plays were restricted to limited sphere. Bhāsa has shown the variety in his plays. In Sanskrit plays characters are types rather than individuals and later they also became stereotypes.

While Bharata mentioned at the outset that men are of three categories, Dhanañjaya says in the last that all these characters are divided into three groups, higher, middling and lower and their relative supremacy is determined by their possession of the aforementioned qualities in different degrees. But what qualities, is not clear ? If Dhanañjaya means the qualities narrated at the beginning by him like modest, pious etc., then those qualities he has mentioned of the Hero. Heroine is not separate from the Hero. The term ‘Hero’ includes the description of the heroine and his retinue.

To conclude we may say that Bharata did not regard Nāyaka (Hero) as the distinctive element on the basis of which ten forms of dramas are distinguished from each other. While Dhanañjaya made Nāyaka (Hero) as the second prominent element that distinguishes ten forms of drama. Bharata discussed Nāyaka cursorily, Dhanañjaya discussed in detail. It was due to difference in their approach. Bharata’s division is more broad and roughly we may divide the variegated human nature into three categories, higher, middle and low and this division is in more consonance with the universal social order.

REFERENCES

1. Dhanañjaya, D.R., B. I, 11a.

2. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 4, Ch. I, 106-118. Ch. XVIII, 7-9, 103-113, Ch. XXIV, 1.

3. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XXIV, p. 248.

4. नयतीति नायक: √नी+णखुल्

जितेन्द्रिया ज्ञानवती नानाशिल्पविचक्षणा । दक्षिणाथ महालक्ष्या भीतानां परिसान्त्वनी ॥ नानाशास्त्रार्थसपन्ना गम्भीर्योदयशीलना ॥

Nāyakah

स्थैर्य त्यागगुणोपेतां ज्रेया प्रकृतिरुत्तमा ।

लोकोपचारचतुरा शिल्पशास्त्रविशारदा ।

विज्ञानमाधुर्ययुता मध्यमाऽप्रकृति: स्मृता ॥

रुक्खवाचोड्य दु:शील: कुसत्वा: स्थूलबुद्धय: ।

क्रोधना घातकाश्चैव मित्रध्नादिच्चद्रमानिन: ॥

पिशुनास्तूद्रतैर्वान्तंरक्तज्ञास्तथालसा: ।

मान्यामान्यविशेषज्ञा स्त्रीलोला: कलहप्रिया: ॥

सूचका: पापकर्माण: परद्रव्यापहारिण: ।

एभिर्दोषै:पैस्तु संपन्ना भवन्तीहाधमा नरा: ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 24, 2-8

5. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 1-2.

6. Dhanika, Av., pp. 15 ff.

7. त्रिविधा प्रकृति: स्त्रीणां नानासत्वसमुद्भवा ।

बाहूया चाभ्यन्तरा चैव स्याद्बाहूयाsभ्यन्तरापरा ॥

कुलीनाsभ्यन्तरा ज्रेया बाहूया वेध्याड्गना स्मृता ।

कृतशौचा तु या नारी सा वाहूयाsभ्यन्तरा स्मृता ।

अत्र चत्वार एव स्युर्नायिका परिकीर्तिता: ।

मध्योत्तमप्रकृतौ नानालक्षणलक्षिताः ॥

धैरोदात्ता धीरललिता धैरोद्धतास्तथैव च ।

धीरप्रशान्तकाश्चैव नायका: परिकीर्तिता ॥

देवा धैरोदत्ता ज्रेया: स्युर्यींरललिता नृपा: ।

सेनापतिरमात्यादौ धैरोद्धता: प्रकरीर्तितो ॥

धीरप्रशान्ता विज्ञेया ब्राह्मणा वणिजस्तथा ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 22, 152-153; अ. 24, 8-19

8. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 3-6. 'Netā nāyako vinayādi-gunasamppanno bhavatīti'.

9. Dhanika, A.v, pp. 79 ff.

10. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 305.

11. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XXIV, 21-23.

12. Bharata N.Ś., Ch. XXII, 302-304 ff.

13. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 6-7.

14. Dhanika Av., pp. 87 ff.

15. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XXII, 33-41 ; Abhinava, Abh., Bh., Ch. XXII, pp. 165 ff., Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 10-14, Dhanika, Av., pp. 94 ff.

212

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

15. शोभा विलासो माधुर्यं स्थैर्यं गाम्भीर्यमेव च ।

ललितोदार्यंतेजांसि सत्स्वभावेस्तु पौंष्ठवः ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 22, 33; घ., द. रू. डि. प्र., 10

16. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XXIV, 23-26 ; Ch. XXII, 211-221.

17. स्वान्या साधारणस्त्रीति तद्गुणा नायिका त्रिधा ।

मुग्धा मध्या प्रगल्भा स्वोक्ता शोलाजोवाद्ययुक्त ॥

द्वेधा जेष्टा कनिष्ठा चेत्यमुग्धा द्वादशोदिता ।

घ., द. रू., डि. प्र., 15-23, धनिक, अव. पृ., 98 क्रमश:

18. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 23. ‘Āsāmaṣṭāvavasthāḥ syuh Svādhīnapatikādikāḥ.’

19. स्वाधीनपतिका वासकसज्जा विरहोत्कण्ठिता खण्डिता कलहान्तरिता

विप्रलब्धा प्रोषितप्रिया अभिसारिकेत्यष्टौ स्वस्रीप्रभृतानामवस्थाः ।

नायिका प्रभृतीनामव्यवस्थारूपत्वे सत्स्यवस्थान्तराभिधानं पूर्व्वसां

धर्म्मात्प्रतिपादनाय । अष्टाविति न्यूनाधिक्यवच्छेदः ।

धनिक, अव. पृ. 113 क्रमश:

इति शास्त्रान्तरविषयतामुक्त्वा मध्यमस्यवरूपणं चतुरधिकाश्रितियुक्तं शतत्रयं

नायिकाभेदा ।

विश्वनाथ, सा. द., अ. 3, 72-87

20. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XXII, 222-225.

21. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XXII, p. 210.

22. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 28.

23. Dhanika, Av., p. 119.

24. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XXII, 4-32.

25. यत् एते केवलमलङ्कारा देहमात्रनिष्ठा:, न तु चित्तवृत्तिरूपा: ।

रतिमात्रंमभिनयन्तीति । तत्त् देहविकारः: केचन क्रिग्रामकाडपि ते च

प्रार्जनमात्रान्तरिता भावसंस्कारमात्रेण सत्त्वोद्बुद्धेने देहमात्रे सति

भवन्ति, ते एवाड्गनानु उच्चयन्ते अन्ये स्वद्यतनजन्मसमुचितविशिष्टविमावानु-

प्रवेशस्कुटिभावद्र तिभावानुविदधे देहे परिस्फुरन्ति । इते स्वाभाविका:

स्वस्माद्र तिभावात् हृदयगोचरीभूताद् भवन्ति ।

अभि., अभि, भा., अ. 22, पृ. 154 क्रमश:

26. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 30-41 ; Dhanika, Av., p. 121 ff.

27. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XXII, p. 163 ff.

28. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 8. ‘Patākā nāyakastvanyah Piṭhamardo Vicakṣaṇaḥ

ūnāś ca tadguṇaiḥ’ Dhanika, Av., p. 93.

Nāyakah

29. Bharata. N.Ś., Ch. XXIV, 29-32, 68-73.

30. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 44-45.

31. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XXIV, 74-89, 19-21 ; Abhinava, Abh. Bh., pp. 253 ff.

32. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 9. ‘Eka vidyo viṭaścānyo hāsyakṛcca viḍūṣakaḥ’ Dhanika, Av., p. 93.

33. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 42-43. cf. Viśvanātha, SD. III, 43, p. 102, criticizes Dhananjaya on the ground that this should not be read in the context of assistants.

34. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XXIII, 9-13.

35. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 29 a. ‘Lubdho dhīrodḍhataḥ stabdhaḥ pāpakṛdvyasani ripuḥ’.

36. Dr. Vidyālaṅkār J.D. paper entitled, Mālavikāgnimittrasya Nāyakah Kīdrgvidhaḥ, pub. in Śodha-Bhāratī, Gurukula Kangarī University, Haridvāra, April (1976) Aṅka 2, 3.

37. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 45-46.

CHAPTER 7

PART I

RASA (SENTIMENT)

As Rasa is one of the most essential elements of Sanskrit drama so after discussing Vastu (Plot) and Nāyaka (characters) we shall now take up Rasa (sentiment).

The term, ‘Rasa’ may convey different meanings in different contexts but its essential core remains unaltered. Rasa literally means juice, essence or elixir. It also means taste, relish or flavour. Now, the first question arises, what is Rasa? It is called Rasa simply because it is relished ‘Rasyatiti Rasah’. In fact, whether we use the word in its association with the palate or the transcendental experience of a yogi or the delight afforded by art, the word Rasa indicates the pleasure that each class of people receive from their experiences. Here, we are concerned with Rasa as an aesthetic experience enjoyed at the time of witnessing a play.

Since the advent of Lakṣaṇa-Granthas, Rasa has been a much discussed topic. It has caught the attention of every writer, writing either on poetry or drama. The question has been posed from the very beginning why do we read any poetry or see any drama enacted? What is it that we enjoy in them? What is the crux of a poem or drama? Unanimously the answer has been that we read a poem or see a drama, because doing so gives us pleasure, and the pleasure is par-excellence and unique in itself which cannot be properly defined or translated into words. And this experiencing of the delight has been called Rasa. It is the soul, the spirit of the piece of the literature that we feel and enjoy merging

Rasa (Sentiment)

ourselves into that spirit. Canonists have differed in their views about its place, its nature, its prominence to other elements, its number etc., yet all have felt somehow or other its presence in literature and they have been automatically forced to pay attention to it, no matter whether they subjugated it to an inferior position or raised it to the highest.

Bharata is the first known author to us to introduce and discuss it in relation to drama. Later one theory of Rasa was transferred to the region of poetry also. Although its mention is found in the Purāṇas like Agnipurāṇa and Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa, yet the date of these Purāṇas is not certain and P.V. Kane and Manomohan Ghosh are of the view that they are later to the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata and perhaps the discussion of Rasa in those Purāṇas is borrowed from the Nāṭyaśāstra.

Bharata accepted Rasa as the soul of drama and maintained that nothing proceeds without Rasa. From then onwards in Sanskrit literature, Rasa has been the touch-stone of any work composed. Some old writers accepted it as an Alaṅkāra, while others as something separate, the spirit or soul of the literary work. Followers of the school of Dhvani established its superiority and prominence in poetry. The poetry where Rasa is dominant, was called the best form of poetry and Dhvani and where it held a subordinate position, Rasa was regarded as an Alaṅkāra termed 'Rasavat'.

We are concerned with drama and dramaturgy and as Bharata is the first proponder of Rasa theory, so let us try to look into his theory of Rasa.

Bharata1 discussing Rasa in the sixth Chapter of Nāṭyaśāstra writes that no sense proceeds without Rasa 'Na hi rasādṛte Kaścidarthah Pravartate'. We may say that all poetic meaning is imbued with Rasa. Every good piece of art contains this Rasa. Bharata describes the Realisation or Niṣpatti of Rasa in the following Sūtra 'Tatra Vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisamyogādrasaniṣpattih', meaning that realisation of Rasa results from the union of Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicāribhāva. In other words, in drama or poetry Rasa is produced from a combination of Vibhāva (Determinants), Anubhāva (consequents) and Vyabhicāribhāva (Transitory psychological states). Bharata further clarifies his sūtra with an instance stating that as flavour or relish (Rasa) results from a combination of various spices, vegetables and other articles

216

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloku

similarly, Rasa results from the combination of many emotions. Just as six flavours are produced by ingredients such as raw sugar, spices and vegetables, similarly, Sthāyibhāvas (durable psychological states) attain the quality or state of Rasa (sentiment), when they come together with various other psychological states. Bharata has not mentioned Sthāyibhāva in the Rasa-Sūtra. But it becomes evident from the instance that the union referred to in the Rasa-Sūtra is not the union of Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicāribhāva among themselves, but their alignment with the permanent emotion known as Sthāyibhāva. Bharata further explains the process of Rasa. The question is, What is Rasa? It is said in reply, it is called Rasa because it is capable of being relished (Āsvādyatvāt). The next question arises, how is Rasa relished? The reply is--just as well-disposed persons, while eating food cooked with many kinds of spices, relish its tastes and attain pleasure, satisfaction etc., similarly the spectators with refined minds relish the durable psychological states while they see them represented by an expression of the various psychological states with word, gestures and the Sattva and derive pleasure, satisfaction etc. Therefore ‘Nāṭyarasas’ have been described.

This is in brief the realisation of Rasa propounded by Bharata. It becomes obvious that in his view Rasa is an experience which is relished. Secondly, the permanent emotion or durable psychological state becomes sentiment when it is united with other emotions. Thirdly, Rasa is relished by the spectators who are cultured and who get pleasure and satisfaction. Fourthly, these permanent states are relished by the spectators when they are expressed through the representation of words, gestures and Sattva.

Bharata next explains the relation between Rasas and emotions. The question is raised, ‘do the psychological states come out of the sentiments or the sentiments come out of the psychological states ?’ Some are of the view that they arise from their mutual contact. But Bharata does not accept it because it is apparent that the sentiments (Rasas) arise from the psychological states (bhāvas) and not the psychological states from sentiments. To support this argument Bharata supplies some couplets. The psychological states are so called by experts in drama, for they make one feel (bhāvayanti) the sentiments in connexion with various modes of dramatic representation. Just as by many articles of various kinds cooked eatable (Vyañjana) is brought forth, so the psychological states along with different

Rasa (Sentiment)

kinds of Histrionic representation will cause the sentiments to be felt. There can be no sentiment prior to the psychological states and no psychological states without the sentiments (following it), and during the Histrionic representation they result from their interaction. Just as a combination of auxiliary cooked eatables, vegetables and rice imparts good taste to the food (in totality) so the psychological states and the sentiments cause one another to manifest themselves (bhāvayanti).

Bharata envisages the complete continuity of the poetic process, beginning with the creative experience of the poet through the birth of his poem to the aesthetic experience of the reader. He illustrates this process with the seed-tree-flower-fruit analogy. Just as a tree grows from a seed and flowers and fruits from the tree, so the sentiments (Rasas) are the source, the roots of all the phychological states and likewise the psychological states exist (as the source of all the sentiments). We may say that the Rasa in the poet's heart is the seed which gives birth to the poem (tree). The aesthetic experience of the reader is the blossoming of this tree yielding the maximum of pleasure.

Thus, roughly, Sthāyibhāva or the durable psychological state in a piece of literature is the basis of Rasa, the essence of which lies in Āsvāda. When the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and the Vyabhicāribhāvas unite to awaken the Sthāyibhāva, it emerges as Rasa. In order to understand properly the Rasa-Sūtra and the process of Rasa realisation, it is necessary to know what is the exact nature of Sthāyibhāvas, Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas. We will first take them as narrated by Bharata.2

The question arises, why are they called Bhāvas ? Is it because they are present (bhavanti) so are called bhāvas or 'they make felt' (bhāvayanti) therefore, they are called bhāvas. Bharata states that they are called bhāvas because they infuse or make felt the meanings of the plays, i.e. the Rasas with words, Gestures and Sattva, 'Vāgan̄gasattvopetānkāvyārthān bhāvayantīti bhāvāḥ'. 'Bhu' in an instrumental sense meaning bhāva as an instrument of causation as words 'bhāvitam', 'Vāsitam', 'Kṛtam' are synonyms. An expression like 'O all these things are pervaded (bhāvitam) by one another's smell or moistened by one another's juice' (Rasa) is current amongst the common people. So it means to cause to pervade.

To know the Vibhāva, Anubhāva, Vyabhicāribhāva and Sthāyibhāva it was necessary to know the sense of the bhāva'. Now we come to the Vibhāva. Why is it called Vibhāva? Vibhāva is used for the sake of vivid knowledge. Vibhāvah, Kāraṇam, nimittam, Hetu, all these are synonyms. As words, gestures and representation of the sattva are determined (Vibhāv-

yante) by it, it is called Vibhāva and 'Vibhāvitam' conveys the same sense as 'Vijñātam' (vividly known).

How we take the Anubhāva. Why is it called the Anubhāva? It is called Anubhāva because it makes the spectators feel (anubhāvyate) or experience the effect of the Histrionic representation (abhinaya) by means of words, gestures and the sattva. Thus psychological states (bhāvas) combined with Vibhāvas (Determinants) and Anubhāvas (consequents) have been stated. Vibhāva and Anubhāva are well known among the people and as they are connected with the human nature so their characteristics have not been discussed. The third constituent mentioned in the Rasa-sūtra of Bharata is 'Vyabhicāriṇah' or Transitory psychological states.

Bharata mentions thirty three Transitory psychological states that accompany the Durable psychological states. These thirty three transitory psychological states are: Nirveda (Discouragement), Glāniḥ (Weakness), Śaṅkā (apprehension), Asūyā (envy). Madah (intoxication), Śramaḥ (weariness), Ālaśyam (indolence), Dainyam (depression), cintā (anxiety), Mohaḥ (distraction), Smṛti (recollection), Dṛḥti (contentment), Vriḍā (shame), Capalatā (Inconstancy), Harṣa (joy), Āvega (agitation), Jadatā (Stupor), Garva (arrogance), Viṣāda (despair), Autsukyam (impatience), Nidrā (sleep), Apasmāra (epilepsy), Suptam (dreaming), Vibodhaḥ (awakening), Amarṣaḥ (Indignation), Avahitthā (Dissimulation), Ugratā (cruelty), mati (assurance), Vyādhi (Sickness), Unmādaḥ (Insanity), Maraṇam (death), Trāsaḥ (fright) and Vitarkah (deliberation).

Why are they called Vyabhicāriṇaḥ? Because with 'Vi' and 'Abhi' as the prefixes and the root √ 'cara' meaning 'to go', 'to move'; these move in relation to the sentiments towards different kinds of objects, therefore, they are termed 'Vyabhicāriṇaḥ.' United with the words, gestures and sattva they carry to the sentiments in the production of the play. How do they carry? They are said to carry, foilowing a popular convention of saying. It does not mean that they are carried on arms and shoulders. In the view of

Rasa (Sentiment)

Bharata these thirty three Transitory states are to be produced in a play by men and women of the superior, middling and inferior types in conformity with proper place, time and occasion.

Although Bharata has not mentioned Sthāyibhāva in his Rasa-sūtra, yet in the instance he makes it clear that only the durable psychological states attain the state of sentiments. They are the mainstay of Rasa. Bharata has discussed Rasas and the durable psychological states separately. In his view the Sthāyibhāvas are eight in number viz., Rati (love), Hāsah (mirth), Śokah (sorrow): Krodhah (anger), Utsāhah (energy), Bhayam (fear), Jugupsā (disgust) and Vismayah (wonder).

Besides these, Bharata counts eight Sāttvika bhāvas also among the forty nine psychological states, excluding Vibhāva and Anubhāva from them. The question arises, why are they called ‘Sāttvikas’? Are other psychological states represented without Sattva? Sattva in this connection is something originating in mind. The Sattva is accomplished by concentration of the mind. Its nature is horripilation, tears, loss of colour and the like cannot be mimicked by an absentminded man. The Sattva is desired in Nāṭya because of its imitating human nature. In theatrical practice, situations of happiness as well as misery should so purely accord with the Sattva behind them that they may appear to be realistic. Hence the sattva is explained by the fact that tears and horripilation are respectively to be shown by persons who are not actually sorry or happy. The eight Sāttvika states are : Stambhah (Paralysis),

Svedah (Perspiration), Romañcaḥ (horripilation), Svarabhedaḥ (change of voice), Vepathuḥ (Trembling), Vaivarnyam (Change of colour), Aśru (weeping) and Pralaya (Fainting).

Thus, eight Durable psychological states, thirty three Transitory states and eight Sāttvikas, these forty nine psychological states should be known as capable of drawing forth the sentiment from the play. Sentiments arise from them when they combine for a common (Sāmānya) purpose. The question arises, if the forty nine psychological states being represented by Vibhāva and Anubhāva coming into contact with one another become sentiments when they combine for a common purpose, how is it that only durable psychological states are changed into sentiments and not others. For this Bharata replies that just as among persons having the same characteristics and similar hands, feet and belly and celebrity, some due to their birth, manners, learning and skill

220

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

in arts and crafts attain kingship, while others endowed with an inferior intellect become their attendants, in a similar manner, Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicārins become dependant on the durable psychological states i.e. Sthāyibhāvas. Being the shelter of others Sthāyibhāvas become like masters and similarly other psychological states (lit. feelings) reduced to subordination like attendants become dependant on the durable psychological states because of their superior merit. So the sthāyins (durable psychological states) become sentiments and the Vyabhicārins act as their retinue. What is the instance? Just as only a king surrounded by numerous attendants receives this epithet and not any other man, be he ever so great, similarly only the Sthāyibhāva followed by Vibhāvānubhāva and Vyabhicārin receives the name of Rasa (sentiment).

Abhinavagupta3, the great commentator of Bharata, takes ‘bhāva’ to mean mental states. The Vibhāvas like season, garland etc. and the external Anubhāvas like tears etc., which are not the characteristics of the animates are not included in the ‘Bhāva’. Abhinavagupta like Bharata includes only Sthāyin, Vyabhicārin and Sāttvikas under ‘Bhāva’. As the meaning of words (Padas) and the meaning of sentences and in sentiments, so Abhinava takes sentiments to be the Arthas of Kāvyam because of their unusuality and prominence. These bhāvas bring about (Bhāvayanti) the Rasas to the state of enjoyment. First Sthāyins etc. are realised, then, being universalised they are relished. The words etc. are their objects. Both the meanings of ‘Bhāva’, ‘caused’ and ‘pervaded’ are common in practice. Thus Abhinavagupta takes Bhāva in two senses, one that ‘causes something to be’ and one ‘that affects’. Abhinavagupta first explains the meaning of Bhāva in the sense of ‘pervading’. The cloth does not take the smell of musk (Kastūri) because the quality cannot be transmitted nor another quality similar to it is born, only the musk spreads that fragrance in cloth etc., similar is the case with the Representation. Those representations of words etc., though they seem in the main condition belonging to particular time and place, but the actor is not having those qualities; hence due to absence of false knowledge, leaving their limitations, aside becoming universalised, affect the spectator like the smell of the musk. Therefore, they are called bhāvas as they pervade the mind of the spectator. Abhinava has refuted those, who accept

Rasa (Sentiment)

the transitory states of the transitory states. In his opinion only Sthāyins become Vyabhicārins. First the meaning of bhāva was discussed from the point of view of utility to the poet and the actor. Now the meaning of bhāva is explained from the spectator's point of view. Abhinava interprets that the inner mental state of the poet, who is expert in delineation, exists in the form of beginningless and ancient impression and is brought about by the representation of words, gestures and colour of the face and also through the means of representation of the Sattva, but which does not come into being as a result of the worldly objects, when brought about to the state of enjoyment in the form of universality caused on account of the absence of difference of place, time etc., is bhāva. Now to conclude, these bhāvas present the relishable psychological states to the intellect of the spectators; even the representations are made vivid to the mind of the spectators.

Abhinavagupta next explains Vibhāvas that permanent and transitory mental states with their representations of words etc. come to be known especially by these so these are called Vibhāvas. Representations may be caused by many reasons as for example, laughter from joy etc., perspiration due to heat, smoke, disease etc. Vibhāvas settle the reasons instantly.

From the commentary of Abhinavagupta, the Abhinavabhāratī, it becomes evident that the famous Rasa-Sūtra of Bharata was variously interpreted by later writers in the light of the philosophies they believed in. Much of the controversy revolved round the words ‘Samyoga’ and ‘Niṣpatti’. The three most famous exponents of Rasa-Sūtra of Bharata, coming before Abhinavagupta, have been mentioned by him as Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śrī Śaṅkuka and Bhaṭṭanāyaka. He has presented the views of these and their followers on the realisation of Rasa. So before coming to his own interpretation it becomes necessary to know something in brief about the views of exponents of Bharata, earlier to Abhinavagupta.

The view of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa4 etc., as presented by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabhāratī runs thus. There is the unity of the permanent mental state with the Vibhāvas etc., and the Niṣpatti of Rasa is there. In that Rasa-Niṣpatti Vibhāva is the cause of the basic mental state. Anubhāvas (consequents or mimetic changes) which arise out of the fully developed mental state (Rasa) are not referred to in this context, because

they are incapable of being counted, as the cause of Rasa and also because they are the effects of the latter. Anubhāvas of the bhāvas (mental states) are only meant here. The Vyabhicārins (transitory states) being mental states, though not the concomitants of Sthāyin, yet referred to here, are related to the basic mental state in the form of Vāsanā. In the instance also cited by Bharata to support the Rasa Sūtra among the various articles of Vyañjanā etc., some one is Vāsanātmak like Sthāyin and the others are like Vyabhicārins. Therefore, Sthāyin—the permanent mental state, supported and strengthened by the constituents of Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicārin etc., in their multiplicity, is Rasa. But when not developed it is the Sthāyin. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa regards Rasa belonging to both, i.e. primarily Rasa exists in the character like Rāma etc. which is to be imitated and secondarily in the actor because of closeness in affinity as the actor with the help of his training and dramatic environment on the stage, is able to unify the elements of his experience. So as to produce the mental construct which corresponds in every way to that of the original hero. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa first makes a determined effort to make clear the implication of the doctrine. But the drawback in this theory lies in the fact that it does not take subjective aspect in its account. While Bharata expressly mentioned that the spectators get pleasure and satisfaction etc., Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa has altogether neglected the spectator. Moreover, the actor whose chief aim is to earn money and please the audience need not feel at all the emotions of Rāma.

The view of Lollaṭa is classed as one of the production (Utpatti) of sentiment and is regarded as that of the Mīmāṃsā School; Abhinava states that this has been the traditional view as was stated by Daṇḍin in his definition of Alaṅkāra (in Kāvyādarśa 2. 281) ‘Rati becomes Śṛṅgāra with the union of prominence of beauty’. ‘Reaching its highest state anger becomes Raudra’ and so on.

According to Abhinavagupta the above view of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa has been opposed by Śrī Śaṅkuka. As presented in Abhinavabhāratī, Śrī Śaṅkuka opposed Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa in the following manner : Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa made the distinction between Rasa and Sthāyibhāva and that when developed and strengthened by Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicārins the Sthāyibhāva becomes Rasa otherwise in its undeveloped state it is Sthāyin. If this is the

Rasa (Sentiment)

case, then there being not the union of Vibhāva etc. Sthāyin will not be recognised in the absence of Linga (predicate of a proposition). The mental states in the former condition of without being united with Vibhāvas etc. are known by words only and if Rasa exists before the union, other characteristics (Lakṣaṇas) become futile. There would be innumerable varieties of Rasa also, there being innumerable stages in the development like slow, faster, fastest, medium etc. The comic sentiment will not be limited to six varieties only. In the ten stages of love there would be innumerability. It cannot be held that Sthāyin developed becomes Rasa, because grief is at first intense and then diminishes with the passage of time, in that case Karuṇa will have to be rejected. Similarly, anger of Raudra, Utsāha (belonging to Vīra) and Rati (of Śṛṅgāra) etc. weaken at the change in the cause of Amaṛṣa, patience and devotion. Thus the opposite of development is seen.

Śrī Śaṅkuka's own view runs thus in Abhinavabhāratī. The Sthāyibhāva, which is inferred to exist in the actor, by means of causes termed Vibhāvas, effects called Anubhāvas, and concomitants termed Vyabhicārins, which are though unreal because of being acquired through effort and training, but are not thought so; is an imitation of the Sthāyin (i. e. permanent mental stage) of belonging to the main hero Rāma etc. This being the imitation is called by another name, 'Rasa'. Thus, his view is regarded as the Naiyāyika view. He propounded the theory of imitation and inference.

His theory is thus further elaborated. The Vibhāvas (serving as the cause in the experience of Rasa) can be presented through poetic description, the Anubhāvas through training and practice (of the actor) and the Vyabhicārins by one's own unreal past experiences. But the Sthāyin cannot be presented by any of these means, not even by poetic description. 'Abhinayanam' or acting is the power of making an object cognised, and this is different from the mere words, the Abhidhā śakti. Śrī Śaṅkuka noting the omission of Sthāyi in the Sūtra of Bharata states that this is the reason why Sthāyin is not mentioned in the Sūtra, though it would have been in a different case. It is cognised by the presentation of the actor on the stage. Therefore, it is right to say that the basic emotion like that of love imitated is Śṛṅgāra and as Rasa is experienced because of this imitation.

In the case of inference of Rasa from imitative presentation

224

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

on the stage, the form of judgement is 'that happy Rāma is this' (the actor). This recognition is a qualified perception. This recognition or consciousness is not of certainty nor erroneous, nor dubious nor a cognition of similarity but the aesthetic recognition is an unanalysed flood of cognitions of the opposing nature. It is a unique experience. Consciousness of the imitated arises from an imitative dramatic presentation, exactly as does that of a horse from a pictorial or plastic presentation of it.

But the view of Saṅkuka was also faulty and open to objection. It was not universally accepted. As presented in Abhinavabhārati if Saṅkuka stated that the Rasa is in the form of imitation, then, is it from the point of spectator's cognition or actor's or from that of the analyst's analysing Vastu and Vṛtta (i. e. dramatic presentation).

Following the statement of Bharata, it is wrong. Whatever is directly perceived only that can be imitated. It is worth thinking what is there in the actor which can be said to be the imitation of basic mental state. Obviously his body, dress, Anubhāvas etc. cannot be accepted as the imitation of the basic mental state. Moreover, the basic mental state of love belonging to Rāma has not been seen by anyone, so it becomes wrong to say that the actor imitates Rāma. If it is said that the mental state of the actor himself is called 'Śṛṅgāra' being the imitation of Rati and it is felt through causes like beautiful woman effects like throwing glances etc., then it will be a real basic mental state and not the imitation.

The question arises, whether the Vibhāvas etc. unreal in the actor, are accepted as such or not by the spectator. If they are taken as unreal how would they help in the cognition of love. The spectators neither have the perception of similarity nor their perception is devoid of emotion. Therefore, considering the cognition of the spectator, it is wrong to say that imitation of the basic mental state is Rasa.

From the actor's point of view it is also wrong, because the actor does not recognise that he imitates the mental state of Rāma. Without being available, the nature of an historic person cannot be imitated. Nor it is the imitation according to impassioned analyst of Vastu and Vṛtta (i.e. dramatic presentation). Saṅkuka's contention also goes against the Sūtra of Bharata. Bharata has nowhere stated that the imitation of the Sthāyin is Rasa. Therefore, it cannot be stated that imitation of bhāva is Rasa.

Rasa (Sentiment)

A third7 view about the Realisation of Rasa has been also presented in Abhinavabhāratī, in brief. This view belongs to the followers of Sāṅkhya philosophy. According to it, the material constituting Vibhāva etc. and having the power of creating pleasure or pain is external, Rasa consists of pleasure and pain by nature. In that material Vibhāvas occupy the place of basis. Anubhāva and Vyabhicārins serve as Samskārakas (reformants) and Sthāyins are inner states of pleasure and pain caused by that material. Exponents of this theory went against Bharata in accepting sthāyins as Rasa itself, while Bharata stated that Sthāyin will reach the culmination of Rasa.

Now Abhinavagupta has also presented the view of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.8 Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka criticized the former views about the realisation of Rasa. He denied both the Utpatti (Production of sentiment) and Anumiti (inference) of the sentiment. As presented in Abhinavabhāratī, according to Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka there is neither the perception or apprehension of the sentiment, nor its revelation through suggestion (Abhivyakti). Leaving the perception or apprehension or revelation of sentiment pertaining to other than the spectator aside, as it is futile not being concerned with the spectator, he views it from the spectator's point of view. He rejects the theory that the dramatic presentation gives rise to emotive experience in the spectator as related to his individuality, because in that case sorrow will arouse an unpleasant experience, but that perception is not right. The Historic characters such as Sītā etc. cannot be the Vibhāvas of his personal experience. The personal emotion cannot be said to be due to recollection of the object of his own love, because in that case in gods etc., there will not be capability of universalisation, and the acts like crossing the sea etc., being uncommon will not be able to awaken conceptions of acts of our own. Therefore, the sentiment cannot be apprehended by the spectator himself.

He also rejects the theory that the cognition of emotion as presented is due to the inference or verbal presentation, because there will not be that type of aesthetic experience as it is from the direct. On the contrary, it will give rise to the feelings of envy, shame, hatred etc., as such sights do in actual world, and in the absence of concentration there would not be any aesthetic experience. Thus rejecting the apprehension of sentiment, he equally rejects the production of sentiment because the same defects

226

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

are present therein. Nor he accepts it as the revelation of something existing potentially, because if this were so, there will be diverse degrees of sentiment depending on their Vibhāva etc., and thus contradicting the sentiment as one.

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka's own view is thus presented in Abhinavabhāratī. In the drama the fourfold representation makes the Vibhāvas etc., universalised and realised. And this is done by a Abhidhā. In Rasa due to its power of uniqueness, Rajas (the quality of response and desire) and Tamas (the quality of ignorance) are relegated due to the prominence of Sattva which is denoted by Druti (melting), Vistāra (unfoldment) and Vikāsa (expansion). This Rasa, blissful in its state of rest of the self which is very akin to the realisation of Brahman, is enjoyed through ‘Bhoga’.

The view of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka has been criticized in the Abhinavabhāratī.9 Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka rejected the perception or apprehension of sentiment and propounded the Bhoga of sentiment. The objection is, what type of Bhoga exists in the world besides perception etc. If the reply is Rasanā, i.e. enjoyability, then that is also perception (Pratipatti). In not accepting either the production or suggestion the Rasa will be eternal or non-existent, the third state cannot be there. Moreover, the thing, not cognised is not admitted in practice. If it is defended that the Rasa is not apprehended like the external objects, and actually the perception is the enjoyment of the Rasa and that is in the form of Rati etc. then that may be. Nevertheless it is not that much only (i.e. not the only defect). In as much as there are sentiments of the same number would be the perceptions taking the form by nature of enjoyment. There may be imagined the innumerability of actions depending upon the difference of qualities becoming main and subsidiary, so it cannot be restricted to three actions only i.e. Abhidhā, Bhāvakatva and Bhojakatva. In the statement ‘Rasas are realised through Kāvya’, if by ‘Bhāvanam’ is meant the aesthetic experience caused by Vibhāvas etc. becoming cognizable, relishable in nature, then it can be accepted.

Thus, all the previous theories have been rejected by Abhinavagupta. The question then arises : what is the aesthetic experience or Rasa? Before going into the details of explanation of Abhinavagupta, it will not be out of place to look at the contribution made by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka. He first recognised the

Rasa (Sentiment)

universalization of the aesthetic subject and object. He stressed the relishability of Rasa and established the uniqueness of aesthetic experience, making it distinct from all other worldly experiences. He first propounded that in the enjoyment of Rasa, the spectator becomes de-individualised, and that it was the state of repose in bliss due to prominence of Sattva. He rejected the theories that Rasa could be perceived either in oneself or in the actor as something external.

Abhinavagupta10 states that to know the real meaning of Rasa the previous theories have not been criticized or rejected but they have been only improved upon, because in finding fault with a thing already proved and self-evident, the fault-finder will be to blame. Now let us consider his own view.

Explaining Bharata and presenting the enjoyment of Rasa, Abhinavagupta11 has given a detailed analysis of Rasa and its experience explaining it most psychologically and rationally and also blending his philosophy in that analysis.

In the beginning of the chapter (vi) Abhinavagupta explains Nāṭyam because Bharata has discussed Rasas in respect to Nāṭyam. According to him (Abhinava) Nāṭyam is the sense (Artha) revealed from the dramas, and some particular kind of poetry. This ‘Artha’ appears as directly perceived by the means of acting of the actor, and is experienced because of the fixed concentration of the mind. Though that Artha (Nāṭyam) is in the form of innumerable Vibhāvas even then because of the fact that all inanimates (Vibhāvas etc.) end in the consciousness, and that consciousness or (Samvidī) knowledge ends in the Bhoktā (human being) and all bhoktās belong to the principal bhoktā (experiences), that artha is the permanent mental state in nature belonging to the main experiencer called Hero.

That one mental state, having the worldly songs, music etc., and ten Lāsyaṅgas and having Guṇa, Alaṅkāra, music, instrumental music etc., is thus beautified. And that state, due to the greatness of poetry and practice by the actors is improved upon. Devoid of the distinction of belonging to oneself and the other because of universalisation and making the spectators one with itself and due to rapport, it becomes unique from the other Pramāṇas like Anumāna, Āgama. Also unique from the experience of yogi and from indifferent Pramātā and Prameya, it is luminous, and due to lack of limited self-luminosity, is incapable of causing other mental states

like the love and grief caused by worldly women. That one mental state because of being experienced by the Vyāpāra called Rasanā which is characterised by the repose consisting of self-consciousness; and is without obstacles is called Rasa.

Abhinavagupta accepts Nāṭyam as meaning Rasa, experience of which may be called the ‘Phala’ (result) of Nāṭya. Therefore, he says, it was stated by Bharata that nothing proceeds without Rasa. Abhinava accepts that there is only one main Rasa or Mahārasa in which other Rasas appear as its shades.

In Abhinava’s view the consciousness of the aesthete (Adhikari) is greater than conveyed by the words of poetry. The percipient, here, (in the aesthetic experience) possesses the power of Visualisation, aesthetic susceptibility and pure intellect. Supporting his statement with an example from the Śākuntalam, Act I, depicting the fear of the deer he maintains that in the process, of Rasa, experience following the cognition of the meaning of the verse the apprehension, which consists of inner visualisation dawns, inhibiting the elements of time and place and so forth of the verse. In that consciousness the object deer etc., loses its individuality and the cause of terror being without any objective reality, this state is reduced to terror without the barrier of time and place. This terror, appearing in the consciousness of the spectator, who is free from all elements of individuality, and free from all barriers of apprehension, affecting his heart so as to seem penetrating it and being visualised so as to seem to be dancing as it were before the eyes, is the suggested meaning, technically called Bhayānaka Rasa. In that kind of Bhaya, self is neither very much subdued nor very much conspicuous.

Similar is the case with other sentiments. This universalization is not limited to one particular being but is all embracing. The actors etc., support in visualising (terror and trembling) or in bringing universalisation of object and subject. The universalisation or the process of commonness becomes strengthened in which the aesthetic objects and subjects, inhibiting one another become free from the temporal and spatial limitations. Therefore, the one-centred social consciousness of all the spectators into one single focus, very much strengthens the aesthetic experience, because mental communication is there of the innate emotion (Vāsanā) of all the hearts having those innate emotions. That consciousness is free from all limitations and barriers. And that is Camatkāra

Rasa (Sentiment)

and the change like trembling horripilation etc., caused by that is also Camatkāra. Not being disturbed by discontent, that is called Bhogāveśa or full enjoyment. Camatkāra is an activity of the subject which has not merged into the 'spanda' and is essentially a wonderful enjoyment. This Camatkāra consists in the action of the experiencer on attaining to an enjoyable experience. Its technical implication Camatkāra is nothing but perfect self-consciousness and this, luminous in nature, is mental awareness (Adhyavasāya) or revived state. This conscious state (in which only the innate Vāsanā like Rati is felt) free from individuality and other distinguishing elements, becoming relishable is neither the experience of ordinary life, nor is illusive nor something supernatural nor worldly like. So 'bhāva', which figures in the consciousness of the spectator free from all impediments is Rasa.

In that Rasa-process Vibh va etc., cause the impediments to disappear. The obstacles or impediments in the aesthetic consciousness are : inability to get at the meaning impossibility, subjective and objective limitations of time and space, influence of personal joys and sorrows, lack of sufficient stimulus, lack of clarity, subordination and dubiousness of presentation. The first arises from the idea of the impossibility of the presented. To get over this, two things are necessary: (i) rapport of the heart, and the susceptibitity (Sahrdayatva) on the subjective side, (ii) the presentation of a well known event in the case of social drama and in that of the transcendental, the name of a person whose historic reality has taken deep root in the hearts of those who are seeing the presentation, because of persistence of the tradition.

The dramatic technique (followed in the presentation of the introductory scene that introduces the actor and conceals his identity with suitable dress etc. also fits in with the historic personality) together with music etc., described by Muni Bharata is the means of universalizing the presentation etc.

The influence, of personal joys and sorrows is overcome by the process of universalisation and music. By the influence of music and beautified stage etc. even the spectator who is not sympathetic is made susceptible. The other two impediments, lack of clarity and insufficient stimulus are overcome by the acting which has the stimulating effect as that of being directly present, which

230

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

is different from the inferential signs or linguistic symbols. Mind or consciousness does not get rest in the subordinate state, it naturally runs towards the principal to get that satisfaction full of repose. For this reason, the inanimate Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas and the transitory states, which are though psychological states, yet are made subordinate as they need others and are thus dependant. Only the permanent mental state (Sthāyin) is made the basis of enjoyment and contemplation (Carvanā Pātram). Among them only some feelings are dominant which are related to human object of life. For example love (Rati), anger (Krodha), energy (Utsāha) and peace (Nirveda) caused by knowledge are dominant, though there is subordination among them also, yet in their respective forms of Rūpaka, they become prominent.

Abhinavagupta accepts all the Rasas as blissful, because self consciousness is luminous, and the light of the Absolute—the consciousness of the self is perfect Bliss or Ānanda. In consciousness of the pathos focused, the mind gets restful satisfaction as that restful state is free from impediments.

Abhinava attributes permanence to these states only, because with his birth, the human being is encircled by these feelings only. Abhinava accepts these innate tendencies present in every human being.

Then Abhinava notices the difference between the Sthāyibhāva and the Vyabhicāribhāva as both are psychological states. The transitory states, i.e. the mental states like glāni etc. in the absence of proper stimulus (Vibhāvas) are not recognised, they arise because of Vibhāva and decline when the cause is destroyed and do not leave their residual traces in the individual concerned. On the other hand the permanent states like Utsāha (energy) etc., after performing their needful even when relegated to subconscious and becoming destroyed like, leave their residual traces. The Vyabhicārins are intertwined in the permanent mental state and thus rising and falling, attain variation. Not interposing their residual trace in that permanent state and taking on the benefits accrued by that state, beautify themselves and the permanent mental state. They give the permanent mental state, an opportunity to shine in between, yet appear to be making it varied with the transitory states coming before and after it. Because of all persons being possessed of innate tendencies, the permanent mental states do not become inexistent in the absence

Rasa (Sentiment)

of Vibhāvas, while Vyabhicārins cannot exist in the absence of their Vibhāvas.

Among the constituents of Rasa Anubhāvas, Vibhāva and Vyabhicārins are not fixed to particular Sthāyins (permanent mental state) because tears etc., may arise from happiness, disease of the eyes etc., and lion etc. may cause anger or fear; anxiety, tiredness etc. may accompany enthusiasm, fear etc. To obviate the dubiousness, their Samyoga (configuration) is spoken of and so in Rasa the Vibhāva, Anubhāva and transitory states are presented together.

Abhinavagupta holds Rasa to be unique from the Sthāyin and this Rasa is taken to the transcendental level consisting of identification free from all impediments. It is not something existent but present at the time of relishing. It is presented in the mind of the spectator through the medium of determinants, consequents etc. which have gained proper combination or relation or concentration in the mind of the spectator. They are termed Vibhāva etc. because they have crossed the worldly level of cause etc, and so have become transcendental. The percipients of Rasa are those who are clever in inference of the permanent mental state of themselves and others, by means of cause, effect and concomitants in the world. Abhinava refutes the view of Śrīsañkuka etc. who held that permanent mental state, inferred from Vibhāva etc. is called Rasa because being relished. Cognition of permanent mental state is only inferred but not Rasa and for this reason Bharata has not mentioned Sthāyin in his Sūtra. Only keeping in view the propriety, it is said that Sthāyin has become Rasa (Sthāyi Rasibhūta).

Abhinava maintains the relish of Rasa or aesthetic experience to be transcendental, consisting of Camatkāra in itself and unique from the remembrance, inference, and worldly consciousness. He does not regard Vibhāva etc. as the causes of production of Rasa, because even in the absence of their knowledge, the Rasa will be possible. Nor they are the causes of imparting knowledge that they may be regarded as proofs because Rasa does not exist before as something concrete already present. This use of Vibhāva etc. that are useful for the Carvaṇā of Rasa is transcendental which cannot be properly explained in worldly language. He next tries to explain what is meant by Nispatti in the Sūtra of Bharata. Abhinavagupta holds that Nispatti is spoken of the Rasanā (relish)

232

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

which is the object of it, and if by the production of the aesthetic object (relish of the Rasa) the Nişpatti of Rasa which depends upon the relish only is spoken of, then there is no fault. Thus the Rasanā (relish including contemplation) is neither the act of Pramāṇas nor that of Kārakas; neither it is unreal being proved by the self-consciousness. It consists of consciousness or it is cognitive but diffrant from other cognitions. Therefore, the meaning of Sūtra will be; as Rasanā (relish) is achieved because of the union of Vibhāva etc., so comparable to that kind of Rasanā is the transcendental ‘Artha’ i.e. ‘Rasa’.

To sum up the aforesaid ideas of Abhinava, the consciousness (Buddhi) of the actor is enveloped by external looks and paraphernalia. In him the aesthete’s consciousness of the historic person is not satisfied because of the residual traces of previous deep-rooted perception. For that, limits of time and place are overcome; the external physical changes like horripilation etc. lead to Rati by the freedom from time and place. In that perception one’s self becomes involved because of being inhabited with Vāsanā. Hence the perception of Rati is not through detachment, nor due to definite cause, nor due to limited object belonging to another; therefore, the feelings like grief, jealousy, anger etc. do not arise. Universalised perception of Rati, visualised through one’s own consciousness is Śṛṅgāra. Universalisation comes through Vibhāva etc. Therefore, the cognition is this much ‘Rāma’, not ‘this is Rāma’ or someone else. Dramatic presentation makes the unimaginative persons imaginative by presenting and visualising clearly the poet’s imagination.

Till now Abhinava has explained the Rasa-Sūtra from his own stand-point. Now he comes to the instance given by Bharata. We have already stated Bharata’s instance before, and in that instance Bharata stated that the durable mental states though combined with many states become Rasa.

Abhinava12 takes ‘Śāḍava’ to denote a Rasa (relish), unique from the famous six tastes known as sweet, sour etc., either individually or unitedly. Therefore, as many objects are made relishable having that unique ‘Śāḍava’ Rasa, in the same manner, durable psychological states, in comparison to wordly transitory feelings, by means of many kinds of Vibhāvas, become visualized-like and achieve to the state of enjoyment which consists solely of relish,

Rasa (Sentiment)

In the instance, in the worldly Rasa ‘Śāḍava’, water is mainly expressive of Rasa and so taking it to be Vyañjanā, it may be taken as Vibhāva and the spices are like Anubhāvas, articles such as ‘guḍa’ etc. are like transitory states. Here the Rasa ‘Śāḍava’ should be regarded as produced by Vibhāva etc. and the ‘Anna’ should not be imagined. Deviating from Bharata Abhinavagupta maintains that as in the sūtra the mention of Sthāyin has been omitted and only the Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicārins have been mentioned, similarly in the instance, it is proper to take those three only.

In the process of enjoyment of Rasa, ‘Yathā, Tathā’ have been used by Bharata to show the similarity of enjoyment. The similarity of aesthetic object, aesthete and of result (phala) i.e. of aesthetic experience is shown.

As there is relishability in the object i.e. in the well-cooked food, similarly there is relishability in the Rasa called by Sthāyin. This capacity of enjoying is found in the aesthete who is concentrated in mind, similar is the case with the spectator of drama who is concentrated in mind and who has become one with that. The knowledge of Dharma etc. which mainly consists of pleasure, can be resembled as the phala of enjoyment. Therefore, the enjoyment of Rasa is established by the similarity of object, subject and phala.

Abhinava refutes those who take ‘di’ in the compound ‘Harṣādin’ to include grief and the like. In his view, Nāṭyam has only one effect (phala) and that is joy, not sorrow.

Abhinava maintains that ‘Āsvādana’ is not just the enjoyment, the act of tongue, but in the enjoyment mental involvement or enjoyment is more important and mental enjoyment in the Aesthetic experience is undisturbed, because of the removal of all limitations, objective or subjective.

In his opinion, seat of Rasa is not in the actor. The question then arises as to where is it ? He states that it has already been indicated that Rasa is not restricted by the differences of place, time and aesthete (Pramātṛ), what is the importance of actor then ? The Actor serves as the means of relish (Āsvādana), therefore, he is termed Pātra, a receptacle.

Abhinava affirms his own view as stated before that perception (samvedanam)—sum of Ānanda (bliss)—is enjoyed. There is no place for sorrow; only in beautifying that one consciousness of

234

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

bliss, there is the employment of Vāsanā like rati, grief etc., and to arouse that representation and anubhāva etc. are employed.

Bharata mentioned the three questions about the relation of psychological states and the sentiments. He accepted that the sentiments come out of the psychological states, not the psychological states from the sentiments. Abhinavagupta13 agrees with Bharata, showing the falsehood of arguments of Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa and Saṅkuka etc. He also maintains that Rasa arises from bhāvas, being realised from the combination of Vibhāva etc. It becomes established that in the representation making aesthetic experience visualised and being helpful in that, the states are termed as Vibhāva etc. and therefore, their mutual dependance is not a fault. Through psychological states, Rasa is experienced and by the Rasa its means of realisation are termed as Vibhāva etc. To remove the doubt, namely, if the psychological states cause Rasa why are not they discussed before and why is it ‘said no meaning proceeds without Rasa’ ? Abhinava explains that as seed is the basis of tree, similarly, are the sentiments. because the knowledge comes by its perception which is pleasing. The action of the actor is based on the universalised perception of the poet, and that universalised perception of the poet is actually the Rasa. In the spectator, affected by that consciousness, knowledge of Vibhāva etc. dawns afterwards on him in the drama and poetry and in his intellect. The poet is like the spectator, and from that seed (the sentiment of the poet) Kāvyam arises like the tree and the actions are representations of the actor etc. are like the flowers. Enjoyment of Rasa by the spectator is like the phala (fruit). Thus all the three relations have been accepted somehow or other. After viewing the view of Abhinavagupta, let us examine the views of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika also.

Bharata distinguished between Rasa (sentiment) and the Durable mental state (Sthāyin). He discussed eight Rasas and eight Durable mental states separately in his N.Ś. He also omitted mention of Sthāyin in his Rasa-sūtra but in the instance following, he asserted that only Sthāyins attain the state of Rasa and in the discussion of psychological states, Bharata elaborated how these Durable mental states attain ‘Rasatva’ and in his view they occupy the position of kings or masters or the Guru.

According to Dhanañjaya14 the Durable mental state, when

Rasa (Sentiment)

brought to the level of enjoyment by means of Vibhāva (determinants), Anubhāva (consequents), Sāttvikas, (the involuntary states) and Vyabhicārins (transitory states), is called Rasa.

Dhanika15 agrees with Abhinava in regarding permanent mental state to be present in the spectator or the hearer and he says that it is transformed into Rasa when it is brought to the visualisation of relish, i.e. when it is brought to the consciousness of perfect bliss. He also agrees with Abhinava in regarding Rasa to be consisting of perfect Bliss. But the difference is, while Abhinava does not regard Sthāyin as Rasa, but the realisation of the state produced by the combination of Vibhāva etc. removing all the barriers; according to Dhanañjaya and Dhanika the transformed state of Sthāyin, brought to the point of enjoyment through Vibhāva etc. may be called Rasa. Dhanika regards spectators as the aesthetes not the actor or the historic characters themselves.

The drama or poetry is said to be full of sentiment because it becomes the means in awakening that type of blissful consciousness. In regarding audience as the percipients of Rasa, he agrees with Bharata. Dhanañjaya, next, defines the terms Vibhāva etc., through means of which the Sthāyin achieves the state of Rasa.

Dhanañjaya states that among these, a Vibhāva (determinant) is that which causes the development of the states by its being recognised. Vibhāvas (determinants) are of two kinds, being divided into Ālambana Vibhāva (fundamental determinants) and Uddipana Vibhāva (Excitant determinants). In the basic sense of Vibhāva, Dhanañjaya does not differ from Bharata, because he also has taken it to mean—as the cause of knowledge or perception. But Bharata has nowhere classified Vibhāva as Ālambana or Uddipana. The tradition must have started later on. Though Abhinavagupta did not classify Vibhāvas like Dhanañjaya, yet he accepted innumerability of Vibhāvas. We may put this classification of Vibhāva in this way also : Vibhāvas are the stimuli that activate an emotion. These stimuli are of two kinds—human and environmental. Ālambana Vibhāva (the basic stimulus) is the object which is responsible for activating the dormant emotion and Uddipana Vibhāvas are so called because they help enhance the emotive effect of the focal point.

In the view of Dhanika ‘Thus he’, ‘Thus she’ thus described hyperbolically in poetry, known or recognised due to its special form, the Ālambana Vibhāvas (fundamental determinants) are the hero and the other characters of the drama. The Uddīpana Vibhāvas

(the excitant determinants) are the circumstances of time and place. The Vibhāvas do not require external sattva or physical presence (concrete existence). They become known by the words only used in the drama and are universalised in form becoming recognised (Vibhāvita) in accordance to their respective Rasas. Revolving in the heart of the aesthete as directly known are called as Ālambāna and Uddīpana Vibhāvas. So absence of presence (Vastusūnyatā) cannot be accepted in them. Dhanika like Abhinava regards Vibhāvas of the poetry to be universalised. But while Abhinavagupta has regarded Vibhāva as transcendental in poetry or drama, in Dhanika's view they so revolve in the mind of the spectator as if he is directly visualising them. Dhananjaya defines Anubhāva

that it is an external manifestation that serves to indicate a feeling. Dhanika explains that Anubhāvas make the permanent states felt to the spectators, and throwing of glances etc. strengthen the Rasa, so they are called Anubhāvas. They suggest and indicate the effect wrought upon the characters after the emotions have been evoked. Anubhāvas communicate to the audience and spectators the emotion being experienced by the characters. He further states that the external manifestation of the feeling indicates it; thus Anubhāva has been defined in view to worldly sentiment, in poetry and drama they serve as cause or Kāraṇa because they strengthen the sentiment. Bharata, on the other hand, defined Anubhāva as that which makes the spectators feel or experience the effect by Abhinaya, by means of words, gestures and sattva. He also said that Artha, i. e. Rasa is made experienceable through three kinds of representation with all its branches. So Dhananjaya and Dhanika cannot be said to be deviating from Bharata. Dhananjaya and Dhanika also, like Bharata, do not give their separate

characteristics as they may be known from the practical life, and in their view they serve as cause (hetu) and effect (Kārya) in the worldly sentiment but not so in the poetry or drama.

Dhananjaya and Dhanika next define Bhāva (an emotion, feeling or psychological state). In the words of Dhananjaya Bhāva (a state), which is brought about by emotional states such as pleasure and pain, is the realisation of such states. Dhanika's explanation of Dhananjaya's definition which is not very clear is more in accordance with Bharata's discussion of Bhāva. Dhanika states that through the emotions in the form of pleasure or pain, described in the character (Anukārya), pervasion of the aesthete's

Rasa (Sentiment)

heart with that emotion is called Bhāva. In other words, the heart or mind of the person of taste becomes affected or pervaded with the very emotion of the hero or other historic person described so. To support his statement Dhanika quotes Bharata also. Dhanika's own explanation is given keeping the spectator in view. He states that the definitions of Bhāva given by Bharata as 'Rasān bhāvayan bhāvah' and 'Kaverantargataṃ Bhāvaṃ bhāvayan bhāvah', are to denote its causation in drama and poetry. Dhanika includes the Durable mental states and Transitory mental states in Bhāva.

In the view of Dhananjaya, Sāttvika bhāvas (involuntary states) are separate, for although in the category of consequents, they are different; just because they arise from the Sattva which is to accord with the same state. Dhanika interprets that Sattva is the attunement of heart in a high degree to the feelings of sorrow or happiness belonging to others. He quotes Bharata and then says that this much is its Sattva that in sorrow tears come out and in happiness horripilation etc. is caused. Being caused by Bhāvas, tears etc. are also called Bhāvas and they are Anubhāvas because of being manifestations of feeling indicating it. Thus, Dhananjaya and Dhanika agree with Bharata in the mention of eight Sāttvikas and the definition of Sāttvika.

Dhananjaya defines 'Vyabhicāriṇah' as those that especially accompany the permanent state in co-operation, emerging from it and again being submerged in it like the waves in the ocean. He does not deviate very much from Bharata. He just differs in the explanation of the prefix 'Vi'. Dhananjaya and Dhanika also accept them as thirty three.

As stated earlier, the Durable mental state (Sthāyin) brought to the level of relish is called Rasa, so in the constituents of Rasa, it is very important.

Dhananjaya deviates from Bharata in defining Sthāyibhāva. In his view Sthāyin (a permanent state), the source of delight, is one which is not interfered with by other psychological states whether consistent (with it) or inconsistent, but which brings the others into harmony with itself. Dhananjaya gives its simile with Lavanākar, Dhanika illustrates it further. In his view contradiction may be of two kinds; Sahānavasth nam, i.e. two emotions cannot exist together and Bādhyabādhaka bhāva, i.e. one interferes with the other. Because of harmony both kinds of contradictions are not found there. Even if the contradiction

238

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

is there of the permanent state and the other states, they can exist together, because the existence of the consistent transitory states in the heart, enveloped with the dominant state of love, is evident to all the aesthetes because of their self perception; as it is evident to self-consciousness, similarly through the poetic means, put in the historic character because of the harmony with their heart, it becomes the cause in developing that type of blissful perception. The other contradiction is the interference by other states, but this contradiction is also not present, because the consistent transitory states of the permanent states are not against it and they are subservient. Whatever is against the principal cannot be subsidiary, and thus the contradiction of contradictory permanent states can be removed.

Like Bharata, Dhanañjaya also accepts only eight permanent states. Though according to him some accept Sama also but there is no development of it in drama.

Although Dhanañjaya has not done so, Dhanika16 discusses the relation of these permanent states with the 'Kāvyam'. First he has forwarded the view of Dhvanivādins and then given his own view. Followers of Dhvani school do not accept the 'Vācyavācaka bhāva', i.e., they do not accept that Rasa is to be spoken. They do not accept that Rasa is conveyed through literal power of the word because the sentiments or permanent states are not spoken by the words like, Rati, Śṛāgāra etc. in the plays having that sentiment or state. Nor it is the relation of Laksya and Lakṣaka (connection of the indicator and indicated).

Giving the arguments that if the cognition would have been through words, then the persons who are not aesthetes would also experience sentiment. Not accepting it as something imaginary, some invent the suggestive power of language, different from Abhidhā, Lakṣaṇā and Gauṇī. They maintain the sentiment everywhere to be 'Vyaṅgya', i.e. indicated or suggested. According to them, where suggestiveness is mainly perceived that is Dhvani, at other places suggestiveness is relegated to subdued position.

Dhanañjaya states that just as a verb, whether to be spoken or (merely) present in the mind, according to the matters under discussion, when combined with the nouns relating to it, (Kāraka) is the essence of a sentence, so a Durable psychological state (Sthāyin), when combined with the other states, is the essence of a play. Dhanika explains that as the verb is developed by

Rasa (Sentiment)

Kārakas, similarly, in plays or poetic works, somewhere denoted by words and somewhere because of the context or because of the relation with definite Vibhāva etc., revolving in the heart of the Bhāvaka (contemplator) as directly evident, the permanent state Rati etc. through the combination of its accordant Anubhāva, Vibhāva and Vyabhicārin, is recognised from those words, through the tradition of Samskāra; is brought to its highest culmination and is the essence of the play. In other words it is ‘Vākyārthah’. Here Dhanika agrees with Abhinava.

It should not be stated that Rati etc. which are not conveyed by words cannot be ‘Vākyārthah’, because according to Dhanika the ‘Tātparya’ power of word pertains up to the end till the Kārya is accomplished, i e. up to the realisation of Rasa.

In his view, the aim or Kārya of the drama is to arouse the self-Bliss and this arousal of self-Bliss is caused by the permanent state accompanied with its Vibhāva etc., therefore, the ‘Tātparya’ power of Vākya, motivated by the sentiments with the help of Vibhāva etc. needed for its aim, is brought to its culmination and there (in the drama), Vibhāva etc. are like the meanings of Padas, and the permanent states Rati etc. associated with them are like the meaning of the sentence. The simple thing is that permanent mental state is the essence of the play. Dhanika accepts that Rasas are to be relished (Bhāvya), experienced and relishable; poetry or drama is the medium (Bhāvaka) that makes it relishable; poetry or drama (Kāvya) makes Rasas, already present in the form of material cause, to be experienced in the aesthetes by means of the particular Vibhāva etc. If doubt is raised how the Sthāyin etc. can be known from the phrases not related with it ? For that Dhanika answers that as in the practical life Rati etc. is seen in the youths having that type of actions, similarly, in the drama (Kāvya) it being so described the cognition of Rati etc. is Lākṣanika through the words denoting those actions.

Here, Dhanika does not differ much from Abhinavagupta, because the latter has also regarded that Rati etc. are cognised through inference by the experts on the basis of worldly love. But the basic difference between the two is that Abhinavagupta accepted Sthāyins Rati etc. as the residual traces present in the form of Vāsanā, and accepted Rasa as the perfect Bliss, realised through Vibhāva etc. and quite different from Sthāyins which are already present before. But Rasa is not present before,

240

A Study of Abhinava bhārati and Avaloka

it is the act of relishing. On the other hand, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika do not differentiate between Rasas and Sthāyins, though they also accept Rasa to be self-bliss, not denoted by words but realised through Vibhāva etc. Now Dhanañjaya17 gives his own view regarding the seat of Rasa. Dhanañjaya asserts that the very dominant emotion or permanent mental state becomes sentiment (Rasa) because it is enjoyed by the spectator of taste (Rasika) and because he is actually at present in existence. It becomes sentiment from the spectator's own capacity for being pleased and his attitude. It is not located in the hero or the character to be imitated, for he belongs to the past nor does it appertain to the poem or work, for that is not the object of the poem, as its function is to set out the determinants etc., through which the dominant emotion is brought out and to generate the sentiment. Nor is sentiment the apprehension of emotions, since in that case the spectators would feel not sentiment but an emotion varying in different individuals according to their nature like shame, envy, desire or aversion as they do in the real life seeing a pair in union.

Dhanika18 supporting the statement of Dhanañjaya further adds that although some may query that though not present but historic characters appear as present. In his own view, it is desired that Rāma etc. in the form of Vibhāvas appear so. Moreover, poets do not write their works to produce Rasa in Rāma etc., they write, rather, to please persons of taste and that is perceivable by all the aesthetes due to their own capacity. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika next discuss as what is the Vibhāva of sentiments of the spectators, and how Sītā etc. are consistent as Vibhāvas.

Dhanañjaya19 states that Rāma etc., the characters, are the exhibitors of the states (Avasthās) known as self-controlled and exalted etc. and they arouse permanent states like Rati etc. which are present in the spectator and these are enjoyed by the persons of taste. Dhanika20 like Abhinavagupta says that the poets do not describe these states like the Yogis or as is done in history etc. They illustrate those stages, which they saw in their benefactor, in their universalised form, common to all which they have visualised in their minds. Sītā etc. casting their individual characteristics aside, become the causes (Vibhāvas) of Rasa in their universalised form.

As the children playing with clay-elephants and other toys taking them as real experience their own energy as pleasant, the

Rasa (Sentiment)

deeds of Arjuna etc. arouse a like feeling in the spectators’ minds, i.e., their own imaginative effort or joy is what causes pleasure to the audience through the enactment of the parts of Arjuna and other characters. In the view of Dhanika, in the Rasa enjoyed by the spectator from a play, the use of Vibhāva etc. like the woman etc. is not akin to the worldly sentiment of Śṛṅgāra etc. Like Abhinava he also maintains the uniqueness of Nāṭya-Rasa from the worldly Rasas. Contrary to Abhinavagupta in the view of Dhananjaya and Dhanika, enjoyment on the part of an actor in the status of a spectator through his realizing the meaning of the work he is presenting, is not precluded.

As presented in Abhinavabhārati, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka accepted the three stages of mind—Druti (melting), Vikāsa (unfolding) and Vistāra (expansion). Dhananjaya and Dhanika accept four stages, including Kṣobha (agitation) also.

In Dhananjaya’s view ‘Svāda’ of the aesthetic enjoyment is a manifestation of that joy which is innate as the true nature of the self. Dhanika makes it more lucid that in the manifestation of joy which is innate in oneself, which comes into being as the result of the pervasion of the mind of the spectator with the dominant emotion and the determinants etc. in combination, the distinction of individuality and objectivity is annihilated, and though that experience is being universalised because of being caused by fixed Vibhāva etc., yet there are four kinds of stages of the heart. Thus, we do not find much difference in the views of Dhanika and Abhinavagupta about the Realisation of Rasa (sentiment) or the aesthetic experience. We have seen that Abhinavagupta also accepts Sthāyin as the object of relish. Both Dhanika and Abhinavagupta accept the perfect Bliss of one’s own self as the Realisation of Rasa (of Rasāsvāda). Both acknowledge the utility of Vibhāva etc. in bringing out this Rasa realisation in the spectator. Both agree that only an aesthete can relish Rasa. Both have accepted the process of universalisation propounded by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka.

The only important difference is that while Dhananjaya and Dhanika take Rasa as the Sthāyin (permanent state) transformed into consciousness of Bliss through combination of Vibhāva, Anubhāva etc., Abhinavagupta accepts Rasa as unique from Sthāyin and not present before while the permanent states already exist in all aesthetes in their Vāsanā form. Abhinavagupta gives a more philosophical touch to the state of experiencing Rasa.

Thus, from all the foregoing discussion we may conclude that according to Bharata, Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya and Dhanika it becomes evident that sentiments or, rather Rasa, is enjoyed by the spectators who are cultured and aesthetes. Durable psychological states or Sthāyins are transformed into Rasa and they are called Rasa when they are brought to the level of enjoyment in combination with their Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicarins. Rasa is not something created from concrete objects, but it is the Bliss of one's own consciousness. In the enjoyment of Rasa both the subject (i.e. person of taste) and object (i.e. Vibhāva etc.) are de-individualised, and in their universalised form limitations of time and place disappear. In the process of Rasa-realisation, the spectator identifies himself with the character of the drama and passes through the same situations and trials in his contemplation and imagination as the hero passes through. The aesthetic experience achieved from 'Kāvyam' (drama and poetry) is unique from all other evidences and experiences whether worldly or the mystical. Aesthetic experience or enjoyment of Rasa is a single, ineffable, transcendental joy of the self. It becomes Rasa when the combination of Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicarins take place. To a simple statement of Bharata theoreticians gave different interpretations colouring it with their own philosophies. Bharata considered Rasa from the spectator's point of view and also from the dramatist's or the actor's point of view. Actor helps in visualising the Rasa and Vibhāvas etc., Vibhāva and Anubhāva etc. are the means in the arousal of sentiment. Vibhāva has been translated as determinant, emotive situation, stimulus; Anubhāva as mimetic changes, consequents; Vyabhicarins as the transitory states or emotions and Sthāyins as the durable psychological state, permanent mental state, basic emotion, basic feeling etc. Rasa is the essence of any play and it is the pleasure that we get either from reading or hearing it or seeing it enacted. The realisation of Rasa is a complicated psychological process in which the whole Self of the audience is involved. The constituents of Rasa-configuration are—Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicarins. The Vyabhicarins are transient, they rise and fall in relation to Sthāyin. The Sthāyin is compared to a thread in the garland and the Vyabhicarins as the flowers or varied precious stones tied in that thread. Rasa is existent as it is experienced by all the aesthetes. It is a contemplative creative experience and not a running amuck of

Rasa (Sentiment)

emotion. But it cannot be compared to the joy of 'Para-Brahman' as mentioned in Ved nta, because in the joy felt in the contemplation of Brahman no emotion remains, earthly barriers break. While in the experience of Rasa emotions remain in their residual form and so the enjoyment of different sentiments becomes possible. Of course the feeling in the Realisation of Rasa is one that of joy and Bliss.

PART II

RASA (SENTIMENT)

In the previous chapter, the theory of Rasa has been discussed mainly taking its culmination, now, we propose to discuss the number of Rasas.

On the basis of eight Durable mental states, Bharata, in the very beginning of his Rasa chapter mentions only eight Nātya-Rasas, sanctifying them with the authority of Brahmā.

Bharata21 states that the eight Rasas (sentiments) recognised in drama are: Śṛṅgāra (Erotic), Hāsya (comic), Karuṇa (Pathetic), Raudra (Furious), Vīra (Heroic), Bhayānaka (Terrible), Bībhatsa (Odious) and Adbhuta (Marvellous)

It becomes evident here, that Bharata talks of Rasa in relation to drama, and in the drama he accepts only eight Rasas.

These Rasas, eight in number, prevailed22 upto the time of Bh maha and Daṇḍin Kālidāsa23 also accepted only eight Rasas as becomes clear from his verse in the Vikramorvaśiyam. Later, upto the time of Abhinavagupta, Śānta Rasa has gained ground and so he defends it in his Abhinavabhāratī which we will see later in our discussion. The number of Rasas was not restricted to eight only. The traditional view of eight Rasas was challenged and questioned and dramaturgists differed in their views about the number of Rasas. The conception about the number of Rasas

244

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

underwent a change, because Bharata's view about the number of

Rasas was traditional and based on the predominance of the

Durable psychological states which were accompanied by many

transitory states. As psychological state (Bhāva) was generalised,

the critics thought that any mental state could be nourished into a

Rasa (sentiment) when accompanied with its proper accessories.

Therefore, the innumerability of Rasas was accepted. But whatever

view was held, eight Rasas enumerated by Bharata were accepted

unquestioningly by all. Most of the later writers accepted Śānta

Rasa in one respect or another.

Abhinavagupta24 was a philosopher and a psychologist. He

favoured oneness of Rasa. He also accepted Rasa as the conscious-

ness of perfect Bliss and in his view Love, Grief etc. act in beautify-

ing it.

Dhananjaya25 accepted eight Rasas in drama fixing their

number to be eight because of the fourfold tendency of the heart

of the spectator, namely-Vikāsa (unfolding), Vistāra (expansion),

Kṣobha (agitation) and Vikṣepa (movement to and fro of the mind)

in the enjoyment of sentiment.

Now let us view the problem about the number of Rasas.

Bharata26 accepts four primary Rasas and the other four dependant

upon them. In his view among these eight sentiments, the original

sentiments are four which are the sources of other sentiments, i.e.,

there are four primary Rasas which become causes in the production

of other Rasas. These four primary Rasas are Śṛṅgāra, Raudra,

Vīra and Bībhatsa. Bharata appears to be right in his conception

of four original Rasas, because these four Rasas are based on the

most dominant mental states of human nature. Generally, all human

beings are possessed of Love (Kāma), Anger (Krodha), Energy

(Utsāha) and Detachment (Nirveda). In the scriptures, the man is

advised to overcome his tendencies of Kāma, Krodha and Moha.

The emotions of love and anger give rise to other emotions.

Moreover, although Bharata is concerned with the spectator, yet

he views Rasa objectively as depicted in the drama. No incongruity

appears in his statements with his previous statement where he has

narrated that cultured spectators enjoy permanent mental states

expressed through the representation of many emotions through

words, gestures and Sattva and they get pleasure etc. The pāda

'Harsādīn' may be taken to mean pleasure, grief, anger etc., though

Abhinava27 has refuted this. Bharata28 further mentions that Hāsya

Rasa (Sentiment)

(the comic) arises from Śṛṅgāra, Karuṇa (the pathetic) from Raudra (the furious). Adbhuta (the Marvellous) from Vīra (the Heroic) and Bhayānaka (the Terrible) from Bībhatsa (the Odious).

A mimicry (Anukṛti) of the Erotic is called the comic, and the object (Karma) of the Furious should be known as the Pathetic, the object (Karma) of the Heroic is called Adbhuta and the sight (Darśana) of the Odious should be known as Terrible. In other words it may be said that imitation of Śṛṅgāra (Love) causes laughter or may give rise to Hāsya, the performance of Raudra would give rise to Karuṇa in the adverse side, the performance of the Vīra would automatically cause wonder and seeing of the odious, would arouse the feeling of fear.

The real problem comes about the view of Abhinavagupta.29 As we have stated before, Abhinavagupta accepts all Rasas to be pleasant and the feeling in all sentiments is that of perfect joy. How can then the four original states give rise to other states ?

From the spectator's point of view, if cannot be held that Raudra will give rise to Karuṇa in the heart of the spectator. That may be the case in regard to characters depicted in the drama. When the spectator is enjoying Raudra and his personality is merged into that type of pleasure, how the enjoyment of Raudra will result or cause the Karuṇa Rasa ? Let us look into the interpretation of Abhinavagupta, offered to these statements of Bharata in his Abhinavabhāratī.

In the view of Abhinava30 in the arousal (Utpatti) of sentiments, four are the hetus, i.e. the indicaters. The possible kinds of sentiments to be produced and productive are indicated by the four, enumerated further. How can another sentiment arise due to its semblance or its mimicry (anukṛti) is indicated by Śṛṅgāra, because from the semblance of Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicārin the cognition is that of the semblance of Rati and not of actual Rati.

Therefore, consisting of the resemblance or Carvaṇā, there is the semblance of Śṛṅgāra, not the real Śṛṅgāra. Here the love presented in a person, unbecoming of the man due to unequality of age, physical beauty, social status etc. is just a transitory mental state and not the permanent mental state. It appears to be very much like the basic mental state and so the semblance of Vibhāva etc. The improper Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Transitory states, not befitting the person, due to impropriety become semblance, and thus cause laughter ; or they become the source of comic sentiment because

246

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

the comic sentiment arises from improper dress, words and ornaments.

Hence, the comic sentiment may arise in all the semblances of other Rasas also, like Karuṇa etc. as any object (person) due to impropriety becomes the Vibhāva (cause) of comic sentiment. That impropriety may consist in Vibhāva, Anubhāva etc. of all the sentiments. This is the case with the transitory states also. For this very reason, the old teachers, expert in deciding the aesthetic consciousness, employ the terms like Rasa (sentiment), Bhāva (mental state), Tadābhāsa (its semblance) etc. Even the semblance of Sānta in the improper cause not leading to Sānta is comic (as in the Prahasana). The impropriety causing laughter should be eschewed in all the human objects. Even there may be semblance of the comic and not the real comic sentiment. In the grief of the person who is not related to the dead, Karuṇa becomes the source of laughter. In this way others should be imagined and so Bharata has used the word ‘Yathā’ (as for example). Raudra is the sentiment that causes another sentiment through its phala such as killing etc. The phala of Raudra is killing and imprisonment etc. The (same) killing etc. become the Vibhāva of Karuṇa, i.e. they serve as stimulus in the arousal of Karuṇa sentiment. Abhinava illustrates it with the example from Veṇīsaṃhāra where the killing of Duśāsana causes Karuṇa in Duryodhana. Thus by rule, after Furious is terrible, after Śṛṅgāra is Karuṇa and sometimes Karuṇa arises in the same life, when the other is believed to be dead, as in Tāpa- savatsarāja the Karuṇa of Vatsarāja is aroused due to the rumour of Vāsavadattā’s being burnt to death. Terrible is produced from the Heroic as for example the statement of Dhṛtarāṣṭra about the death of Karṇa’s son in Veṇīsaṃhāra.

The example of the sentiment that proceeds making other Rasa object in the form of phala is Vīra, because the enthusiasm of great persons proceeds with the object of causing wonder to the world, i.e. Heroic sentiment causes Marvellous sentiment.

The difference between the Raudra and Vīra is that Raudra proceeds with the object of other’s (foe’s) destruction not Karuṇa, while Vīra proceeds with the object of causing wonder. The laughter of Vidūṣaka takes the laughter of the Heroine as its object.

The example of the sentiment that hints at or highly suggests another sentiment because of alike Vibhāvas is Bībhatsa. The Vibhāvas or Bībhatsa blood etc. are definitely the causes of fear,

Rasa (Sentiment)

similarly, its transitory states—death, swooning etc. and its mimetic changes like making faces etc. are necessarily found in Terrible sentiment also.

Abhinavagupta adds that it may be said that the Vibhāva of the comic sentiment is the repeated mimicry of Śṛṅgāra.

In his view the four original sentiments which cause other sentiments are pervaded with their proper human objects of life, i.e. Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa and they create excess of beauty. The Rasas which have the semblance of pleasing may be presented in the plays as subservient to them. The sentiments are only these.

At another place also Abhinavagupta writes about the prominence of sentiments that only, some feelings related to human objects are dominant, as for example Rati (love) which leads to attainment of Kāma and consequently of Dharma and Artha. Thus Krodha leads to the attainment of Artha, and Utsāha leading to Kāma and Dharma leads to all like Dharma etc., Vibhāva abounding in Nirveda caused by Tattvajñāna, becomes the means of Mokṣa. Therefore, these i.e. Śṛṅgāra, Raudra, Vīra and Śānta are the principal ones. Though occasionally they may be found to occupy a subordinate position, yet there are dramas in which each of them is separately found to be the principal.

Abhinava quotes the view of Lollaṭa who holds that though there may be innumerability, yet due to traditional fame, only these are to be presented in a drama. But Abhinava does not accept it. It becomes obvious that even before Abhinava, the doubt about the number of Rasas was raised.

Though Dhanañjaya31 like Bharata also accepts four principal sentiments and four caused by them, yet his basis of the distinction is more rational and is made keeping in view the mental activity involved in the enjoyment of sentiment. In their view the Relish (Svāda) is of four kinds consisting of Vikāsa (cheerfulness), Vistāra (exaltation), Kṣobha (agitation) and Vikṣepa (perturbation of mind) in Śṛṅgāra, Vīra, Bībhatsa and Raudra Rasas respectively. The same mental activities are produced in the case of Hāsya (the comic), Adbhuta (Marvellous), Bhayānaka (Terrible) and Karuṇa (Pathetic) Rasas. For this reason the last mentioned arise from those mentioned before, and therefore, the precise determining (Avadhāraṇa) of their number. Here Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata, but while Bharata has stated that the four Rasas are the causes of other Rasas and has not explained why, Dhanañjaya improving upon him mentions that

248

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

it is because of the four kinds of mental activity in the enjoyment of Rasa. Dhanika32 makes it more lucid. He states that though the enjoyment (Svāda) is common, universalised, yet the Vibhāvas being different to each particular sentiment, there is fourfold tendency of aesthete's mind; as for example Vikāsa in Śṛṅgāra, Viṣtāra (expansion) in Vīra, Kṣobha (agitation) in Bībhatsa and Vikṣepa in Raudra. The other four -Hāsya, Adbhuta, Bhayānaka and Karuna strengthened with their own Vibhāva etc. have the same mental tendencies. Quoting Bharata he comments that four sentiments, causes of other four have been stated to show the relation of 'Hetu' and 'Hetumad' with regard to the difference of mental tendency, not in the sense of Kārya and Kāraṇa, i.e. cause and effects, because the other four arise out of different causes (Vibhāvas).

Certainty of the number also is possible because there may be only eight kinds of sentiments from four kinds of mental tendency. Thus Dhananjaya and Dhanika are more cogent and convincing in their treatment of division into principal and subordinate Rasas.

Now, we will first discuss the eight sentiments enumerated by Bharata and generally accepted by all and then the Śānta Rasa.

Śṛṅgāra Rasa (The Erotic Sentiment)

Bharata33 mentions that among these Rasas Śṛṅgāra is caused by the durable psychological state of Rati or in other words, it proceeds from love. It consists of bright and pure attire. Whatever is seen pure, bright and beautiful in this world is compared to Śṛṅgāra. Just as persons are named after the profession of their father, mother or family in accordance with traditional authority so the sentiments, psychological states and other objects connected with drama are given names in pursuance of practice and traditional authority. Hence it has been so named on account of its usually being associated! with a bright and elegant attire. It owes its origin to men and women and relates to the fulness of youth. It has two bases—Sambhoga and Vipralambha (Union and Separation). The Erotic sentiment in union arises from determinants (Vibhāva) like the pleasures of the season, the enjoyment of garlands, unguents, ornaments, the company of beloved persons, objects (of senses), splendid mansions, going to a garden and enjoying there, seeing the beloved one, hearing his or her words, playing and dallying with the beloved. It should be represented on the stage by consequents (anubhāva) such as clever movements of eyes, eyebrows, glances,

Rasa (Sentiment)

soft and delicate movement of limbs and sweet words and similar other things. The Transitory Psychological States (Vyabhicārins) in it do not include indolence, cruelty and disgust. The Erotic sentiment in separation should be represented by consequents such as indifference, languor, fear, jealousy, fatigue, anxiety, yearning, drowsiness, sleep, dreaming, awakening, illness, insanity, epilepsy, inactivity, fainting, death and other conditions. Bharata distinguishes between Vipralambha and Karuṇa. The doubt has been raised, if the Erotic sentiment has its origin in love, why does it manifest itself through pathetic conditions (bhāva) ? Bharata tries to remove the doubt by replying that it has been mentioned before that Śṛṅgāra has its basis in union as well as in separation. Authorities on Ars Amatoria (Vaiśikaśāstra) have mentioned its ten conditions.

The Pathetic sentiment relates to a condition of despair owing to the affliction under a curse, separation from dear ones, loss of wealth, death or captivity, while the Erotic sentiment based on separation relates to a condition of retaining optimism arising out of yearning and anxiety. Hence the Pathetic sentiment and the Erotic sentiment in separation differ from each other. Thus the Erotic sentiment includes mental states available in all other sentiments. The sentiment called Erotic is generally happy, connected with desired objects, enjoyment of seasons, garlands and similar other things and it relates to man and woman. It is of three kinds, viz., of words, dress and action.

Abhinavagupta34 interprets Bharata in the following manner. Śṛṅgāra primarily means love as aesthetically experienced. For a person who has immense liking for the aesthetic experience of love is spoken of as Śṛṅgāri by those who are capable of having the aesthetic experience of love. But all that which helps in the rise of the aesthetic experience of love on account of serving as the Vibhāva etc. is called Śṛṅgāra in the secondary sense only, provided it is in harmony with the scriptural injunction, is not contemptible but bright and lovely and this has been explained by the word ‘Upamīyate’. By the word ‘Ujjavalaveśa’ use of Śṛṅgāra is in secondary sense. Śṛṅgāra is the conventional word for the aesthetic experience of love and it becomes known in the world also because of the charming attire. Thus, Śṛṅgāra etc. are the terms primarily used for aesthetic experience, but they are applied in secondary sense in the world.

He further interprets that the love in the context of aesthetic experience is very different from the emotion that human beings

250

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

feel at the empirical level. The worldly love, mundane emotion of love consists in the intense desire in two persons of opposite sexes for each other and in the enjoyment of each other. It is transient. But the love that is presented in the focus of dramatic situation and is responsible for the rise of aesthetic experience is persistent. It persists without break from the moment of its first rise till its full fruition. It is entirely a blissful state of mind.

The poet, possessed of the experience of worldly love and its residual traces presents the Vibhāva etc. in such a manner and the actor manifests through representation in such a manner that they give rise to the aesthetic experience of love and it becomes Śṛṅgāra. The experience of worldly love and its residual traces of the aesthete become helpful to take up the necessary attitude towards the presented at the initial stage.

In his view, it has been said that love and the amorous sports belong to the two young lovers because they are the terminating point of the stream of pleasure in love. (This is at the worldly level of love). In the other, i.e. in aesthetic love, all that is related to it, may it be the situation with its charming constituents or the object that inspires, it belongs to the level of imagination. Such a love is aroused in the aesthete by the poetic presentation of the aesthetic object, complete in all its aspects, because it is a suggestive presentation of poet's imagination. It presents the merging of the two selves and the aesthete enjoyment of love consists in the experience of the unity that emerges in consequence of the merging of the two selves into each other (the merging may be identification of the aesthetic with the hero or the lover and the object of love). Therefore, it is said that it belongs to the best young nature i.e. in which the individuality of both the lovers is lost, meaning by it the consciousness, the feeling and not the body.

Abhinava thinks that the term 'Veṣa' denotes here the Vibhāva and Anubhāva on the basis of the meaning which engages the mental state at the other place, i.e. which transmits it into Rasa, so Veṣa or as the complimentary states (Vyabhicārins) pervade the permanent mental state, so they are meant by Veṣa. Abhinava takes 'Adhiṣṭhāna' to denote states, i.e. love is experienced in two states : in union and in separation. These are not the two types of Śṛṅgāra, but Śṛṅgāra is enjoyed through love in its two states. The other states of love like desire, jealousy, separation by distance become included in these two states. The presentation of love

Rasa (Sentiment)

mixed up with the two states is full of much ‘Camatkāra’. It is more appealing to the heart of the spectator.

In the state of love, in Union the woman and man become Vibhāvas to each other, the season etc. are useful in it. Abhinava holds that the division of Vibhāvas into Ālambana Vibhāva and Uddīpana Vibhāva is imaginary, therefore, Bharata has nowhere stated or indicated this division of Vibhāvas, and in his opinion this is right so that one sentiment may arise because of the Vibhāvas seen together in one play without any distinction. Thus, through these (Vibhāvas) presented by the poet in a play and brought to the visualisation by the actor, the enjoyment of love in union is immediately experienced without any obstacle. The enjoyment is not like the act of going but it is at the first moment. Disgust (Jugupsā) is a permanent mental state. By its denial among Vyabhicārins, it is accepted that other permanent states may become Vyabhicārins in a principal sentiment only. That type of indolence is excluded which belongs to its Vibhāvas woman etc. and not all types of indolence. The most contemptible state of Unmāda (insanity), Apasmāra (epilepsy) end Vyādhi (sickness) should not be depicted in poetry and enactment of drama. The old authorities lay down that the worst state (death) even if possible should not be shown. In Abhinava’s own view, in death the feeling of love breaks and so Śṛṅgāra cannot exist in that state. That death or possibility of death should be only depicted in which the union occurs soon so that grief—the permanent mental state of Karuṇa—may not find place.

He further comments, Vipralambha proves distress, disappointment, but here, it is in a secondary sense and its phala consisting of separation is taken. Because the lovers mutually having love do not feel distress, therefore, Muni shows that the presentation of love in union has necessarily to be mixed up with the presentation of separation in order to make it appealing to the heart of the spectator. For the presentation of union continuously is as unpleasant as a dinner in which sweet dishes only are served.

Abhinavagupta maintains that ‘by ten states’ the doubt of many kinds of Vipralambha is removed. It would mean that in love, which consists of mutual love, ten states becoming its parts, are the parts of Vipralambha. In explaining the distinction drawn between Karuṇa and Vipralambha, he does not deviate from Bharata. The low nature does not have the state of separation of love because of the absence of permanent state of love, and the

252

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

absence of permanent state is because of the lack of Vibhāva etc.,

but they experience Karuṇa separately. In the best nature also the

grief, contrary to love, is permanent in Karuṇa, therefore it is said

without hope. The permanent state and the Vibhāva differ in

Karuṇa and Vipralambha. And in love in separation, the Vibhāva

and the permanent mental state do not differ from love in union.

In the śloka of Bharata Puruṣa means the Bhoktā who consists of

consciousness, perception. That Bhoktā is in the form of conscious-

ness of the permanent mental state. Transitory states are the

objects of enjoyment. Therefore, the permanent mental state of

love is ‘Puruṣa’. Thus woman also. In the enjoyment ‘Puruṣa’ is

dominant, woman is worth to be relished. Therefore, due to his

prominence, Puruṣa being independent, enjoyment of Śṛṅgāra is not

disrupted in his union with other heroines also. And the object to

be enjoyed being dependant, in the union with other, Śṛṅgāra is

disrupted. Vibhāva etc. being merged in Bhoktā through their

enjoyment show the prominence of Bhoktā. Love caused by the

pride at the perfectness of objects is only proper. The love lacking

in the objects not fitting to one’s caste, family etc. in human effort,

should not be depicted. Abhinava writes that because of causing

pleasure Kāvyārtha is Rasa, the objects etc. are not.

In the view of Dhanika35 Bharata has stated definitions of

permanent mental states like Rati etc. and of sentiments Śṛṅgāra etc.

separately through discussion of their Vibhāvas etc. Dhananjaya36

states that the same definition will serve both for the sentiments and

for the states, because they are not distinct having identical

determinants. In his words Rati (Love) is essentially delight

(manifested) in fondness for lovely places, arts, occasions, garments,

pleasures and the like. That on the part of two young persons

mutually enamoured, gladsome and manifested by tender gestures,

constitute the Erotic sentiment. In other words, to explain his

definition further, in the hearts of two young persons, attached to

each other, love is essentially delight through the enjoyment of

pleasing, beautiful place, arts, season and dress etc. The same

permanent mental state of love consisting of delight becomes Śṛṅgāra

through the sweet and delicate mimetic changes of the limbs.

Dhanika comments that the play, thus presented becomes capable for

the relish of Śṛṅgāra, this definition is given for the sake of the poet.

In the definition of Śṛṅgāra, Dhananjaya and Dhanika do not

deviate much from Bharata. But Bharata is more clear in his

Rasa (Sentiment)

253

definition. It becomes clear from the commentary of Dhanika that place, arts, season, dress etc. are the Vibhāvas and both the young boy and girl are the Vibhāvas of Rati which consists of delight.

In accordance with Bharata and Abhinavagupta, according to Dhananjaya and Dhanika also the forty nine states—eight involuntary states, eight permanent mental states and thirty three transitory states, skilfully employed (i.e. in subordination) cause it (the Erotic sentiment) to develop. Indolence, cruelty, death and disgust are each declared prohibited because of the unitary basis of it. Dhanika states that they may be employed in other ways, not in the unitary basis of it or directly as its subsidiaries. While Bharata only excluded indolence, cruelty and disgust from its transitory states. Dhananjaya excludes death also and he is right because actual death will cause grief and will not be helpful in love. We have seen that according to Abhinava also indolence etc. were prohibited in relation to Vibhāva etc., otherwise they could be shown.

In deviation to Bharata in the opinion37 of Dhananjaya and Dhanika Śṛṅgāra is threefold, Ayoga (Privation), Viprayoga (Separation) and Samyoga (Union). Dhanika states that the terms Ayoga and Viprayoga have been used to avoid the popular meaning of Vipralambha, which denotes deceiving. In the state of separation in the Erotic sentiment, mentioned by Bharata and Abhinava, all the ten states of Ayoga and Viprayoga become included.

Dhananjaya and Dhanika define Ayoga that it is the impossibility of being united on the part of two young persons with but a single thought because of their separation through dependance on others or by fate, even though a passion exists between them. It has ten stages.

Dhananjaya mentions that the fact, that there are ten stages is generally pointed out by learned teachers from actual occurrence; endless examples of it are to be seen in the works of the great poets. For example, does the impatience not arise from the longing on hearing and seeing the beloved ? Does discouragement not arise when not gaining and weakness from excessive anxiety ?

Dhananjaya and Dhanika differentiate Viprayoga from Ayoga. In Viprayoga, there is sundering of two persons between whom an intimacy has sprung up. Dhananjaya accepts its two divisions arising from resentment and absence, and the separation arising from resentment arises in a state of fondness or jealousy. Here

254

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

Dhanañjaya goes into undue classification which Bharata has wisely avoided.

According to Dhanañjaya Viprayoga arising from Resentment becomes of two kinds, arising from fondness called Praṇayamāna and arising from jealousy called Īrṣyāmāna. The Viprayoga arising from jealousy belongs to women and it may arise hearing the beloved attached to another inferring or seeing. If it is inferred, it is of three kinds, accordingly as is deduced from words uttered in a dream, from indications of intercourse or from the advertent mention of name. This increasing resentment may be remedied by six expedients in proper succession: Sāma (conciliation), Bheda (dissension), Dāna (gift giving), Nati (humility), Upekṣā (indifference) and Rasāntaram (diversion). Dhanañjaya next elaborates and defines these terms. Dhanañjaya defines separation arising from Pravāsa (Absence). Pravāsa is the presence of the two at different places owing to business, confusion or a curse. In such a case there is weeping, sighing, emaciation, letting the hair hang down and the like by the two. According to further classification, the first variety of Absence, that owing to business being premeditated, is of three kinds: future, present or past. The second (that due to confusion) comes about suddenly through disaster caused by gods or mortals. That arising from a curse, may be caused by the change of one's form into another, even in the presence. Like Bharata and Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, too, maintain that when one being dead the other laments that is sorrow, there Śṛṅgāra cannot be present being without base and because there is no means of escape from death, but in the case of one restored to life, there should be no other sentiment than Śṛṅgāra. But the distinction made by Bharata and Abhinava is more psychologically based. In Karuṇa and Vipralambha, the basic emotions differ. In Karuṇa there is no hope of reverting the end, while in Vipralambha, there is hope of union and the sthāyin of Love in separation and Love in union is the same.

Dhanañjaya mentions the heroines in Śṛṅgāra, in separation and privation. In separation arising from fondness and Ayoga (privation) the heroine is Utkā (one distressed at her lover's absence), in separation due to Absence Proṣitapriyā (whose beloved is away) and in separation due to resentment arising from jealousy. She is Kalahāntaritā (one separated by a quarrel), Vipralabdhā (one deceived) and Khaṇḍitā (one enraged).

Rasa (Sentiment)

Dhanañjaya comes to the discussion of love in union. In his view Union is that blissful state in which the two playful lovers, in complete agreement, enjoy seeing each other, touching each other and the like. In this state of union, there occur the ten actions of women, līlā etc., according to kindness, gentleness and devotion to their lover.

Her lover using flattering words should cause her pleasure by means of the arts, amorous sports and the like; he should not do anything vulgar nor anything that would disturb her good humour. Dhanika states that the poet should depict Śṛṅgāra knowing the tradition of poets and himself inventing, keeping propriety in view.

One difference is to be noted between the delineation of Bharata and Abhinavagupta and Dhanañjaya and Dhanika. While Bharata describes Śṛṅgāra in reference to its Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika define it from the poet's point of view, i.e. how it is depicted in plays by the poets.

They do not describe it in relation to its Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas. Looking at their discussion it appears that they are putting it objectively, while Abhinavagupta has made it clear that it is a subjective state experienced by the aesthete, and love becoming Śṛṅgāra is a unitary experience and one, though it is found in its two states—union and separation and is depicted between two opposite sexes. In the aesthetic experience of love the consciousness (Samvit) counts mainly.

Hāsya-rasa (The Comic Sentiment)

As Bharata called Hāsya the mimicry of Śṛṅgāra and semblance of Śṛṅgāra gives rise to Hāsya, so he takes up Hāsya after Śṛṅgāra. While Bharata38 defined Śṛṅgāra as caused by permanent state of Love, making a slight distinction, he thus defines Hāsya : Hāsya consists of the permanent mental state of Hāsa, i.e. its soul is formed of the Hāsa Sthāyibhāva. In other words the comic has for its basis the permanent psychological state of laughter. This is aroused by determinants (Vibhāva) such as showing unseemly dress or ornament, impudence, greediness, jugglery, defective limb, use of irrelevant words mentioning of different faults and similar other things. This is to be represented on the stage by consequents (Anubhāva) like throbbing of the lips, the nose and the cheek, opening the eyes wide or contracting them, perspiration, colour of

256

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

the face and taking hold of the sides. The transitory psychological states (Vyabhicārins) in it are: dissimulation, indolence, drowsiness, sleep, dreaming, insomnia, envy and the like. It is twofold or of two kinds, self-centred (Ātmastha) and centred in others (Parastha). When one himself laughs, it relates to the self-centred comic sentiment, when makes others laugh, it is centred in others.

In the view of Bharata this sentiment is mostly to be seen in women and men of the inferior type and it has six varieties namely : Smitam (slight smile), Hasitam (smile), Vihasitam (gentle laughter), Upahasitam (laughter of ridicule), Apahasitam (vulgar laughter) Atihasitam (Excessive laughter). To the persons of superior type belong the slight smile and the smile, to those of the middling type the gentle laughter and the laughter of ridicule, and to those of inferior type the vulgar laughter and the excessive laughter.

Comic situations which may arise in the course of a play for persons of the superior, middling or inferior type are thus to be given expression to. This comic sentiment is of two kinds—self-centred (Ātmastha) and centred in others (Parastha) and it relates to the three types of persons and three states ; thus it has six varieties. According to Bharata depending on limbs, dress and words, the comic sentiment is of three kinds.

Bharata has used the word ‘Hāsah sthāyibhāvātmakah’. Abhinavagupta tries to explain what is denoted by ‘Ātma’ here and why the word ‘Prabhavah’ has been used in context of Śṛṅgāra and Karuna. ‘Ātma’ word suggests that love arousing the consciousness of enjoyment does not create the same cognition of love because of its transcendental Vibhāva etc. In the enjoyment of Hāsya, the presentation of distorted imitation of dress etc. become the causes of laughter towards the spectators as in the worldly experience of laughter. Therefore, due to commonness of Vibhava etc. aesthetic experience of the emotion of laughter is essentially the same as that of the laughter at the worldly level, and it is experienced by the relish (carvanā) consisting of Hāsa. Only Love and grief, in the enjoyment of their perception by means of causing pleasure and pain, arise from their extraordinary Vibhāvas, therefore, Bharata has used the word ‘Prabhavah’ for them. In the other sentiments, Vibhāvas being the same, ‘Ātma’ word has been used. Both the distorted dress and ornament not fitting in with time, place, age, manner etc. become the Vibhāva of the comic sentiment and by this all the sentiments can be included in the comic sentiment.

Rasa (Sentiment)

Abhinavagupta criticises an earlier authority about the interpretation of self-centred comic sentiment and centred in others. An earlier authority maintained that it is said to be self-centred when a person's laughter is excited by the ridiculous dress, ornament etc. which he himself is putting on ; e.g. the jester laughs at his own dress, demeanour etc. It is said to be centred in another when another is made to laugh by it, e.g. the jester makes the heroine laugh. This appears to be the meaning of Bharata at the surface. This view is not justifiable; thus the division will be of Vibhāvas, belonging to oneself or another and not of the laughter. Moreover, the grief of the master causes grief in his servants, thus centred in other will be found everywhere. If it is said that arising itself, expressed in the heroine etc., is centred in others, then the anger in a grave master caused by the anubhāvas of the servants will also be centred in others. The explanation in which one is its Vibhāva that is self-centred; in which the other is Vibhāva that is centred in other, is also wrong. Thus the laughter of the other will be Vibhāva in one's laughter. In that case it will apply to all the sentiments. Therefore, the right interpretation of 'Ātmastha' and 'Parastha' is as follows : The laughter is a contagious emotion in as much as its expressions arouse identical emotion in others exactly as the sight of a person, enjoying a delicious fruit produces saliva in the mouth of the beholder. Thus, it happens that when we see another person laughing at something, we ourselves start laughing, though we do not see the cause of laughter ourselves. Thus, self-centred laughter (Ātmastha) means experience of the emotion of laughter due to perception of an object that is ridiculous. The laughter centred in another (Parastha) means the experience of the emotion of laughter because of the sight of expression of laughter as an emotion in another without seeing the ridiculous object that is the stimulant of it. The six varieties are keeping in view the contagious nature of laughter, otherwise if some take these varieties to be dependant on the quantity of the Vibhāvas, then there will arise other varieties also. Because the slight smile (Smitam) in the best nature, imparted to the best nature becomes smile (Hasitam). Therefore, Bharata has stated its three stages, otherwise it would have six stages. When not transferred, its three stages are smitam, Vihasitam and Apahasitam ; imparted to the other they become Hasitam, Upahasitam and Atihasitam. Abhinava quotes that some say that this division of Hāsa into self-centred and centred in

257

258

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

another is to be applied in others also but he holds this wrong as love, anger, grief etc. are not contagious. Dhananjaya40 follows Bharata and accepts the former meaning of self-centred and centred in other that has been refuted by Abhinavagupta. In Dhananjaya's view laughter is caused by one's own or another's strange actions, words, or attire ; the development of this is declared to be the comic sentiment ; its nature is threefold. Dhanika41 explains that it has six varieties depending upon the best nature, middle nature, and low nature. In the names of these six varieties also Dhananjaya and Dhanika closely follow Bharata.

Thus we find that though the interpretation of Abhinavagupta of 'Atmastha Hasa' and 'Parastha Hasa' is very psychological and rational, yet it cannot be said with certainty that Bharata meant this. Of course both the meanings given by Abhinava and given by Dhananjaya can be construed of the Bharata's text, as he has simply stated 'when himself laughs, it is Atmastha, when makes others laugh, it is Parastha.'

Karuna Rasa (The Pathetic Sentiment)

Now Bharata comes to the Pathetic sentiment. Bharata42 states that the Pathetic sentiment proceeds from the permanent mental state of sorrow (Soka). It grows from determinants (Vibhāva), such as affliction under a curse, separation from dear ones, loss of wealth, death, captivity, flight, accidents or any other misfortune. This is to be represented on the stage by means of consequents such as shedding tears, lamentation, dryness of the mouth, change of colour, drooping limbs, being out of breath, loss or memory and the like. Transitory states connected with it are indifference, languor, anxiety, yearning, excitement, delusion, fainting, sadness, dejection, illness inactivity, insanity, epilepsy, fear, indolence, death, paralysis, tremor, change of colour, weeping, loss of voice and the like. According to Abhinavagupta43 the view of Tikakara, 'Atha (after is used to show the order that in love in Union, the comic sentiment is required as its subsidiary, so it was discussed, because of the similarity of transitory states with love in separation Karuna is discussed', is contradictory. Abhinavagupta also quotes the opinion of Srisankuka and criticizes it. According to Sankuka, Karuna (pity or sympathy at the worldly level) is the heart-felt compassion. The same is called Karuna Rasa when it arises in the heart of the

Rāsa (Sentiment)

aesthetes who infer grief in the actor from its expressions which constitute reason for the inference.

In Abhinava's opinion it is inconsistent with what Saṅkuka said in the context of Śṛṅgāra. Applying his theory of inference, Karuṇa should be imitated grief through the inference of it, but Saṅkuka admits that Karuṇā is pity which includes a desire to help another who is in suffering and distress. But how can that feeling be imitation of grief, and whom their Karuṇā will signify, is not known. Therefore, by former device, the grief experienced in its universalised form, at the level of enjoyment is termed Karuṇa. For this reason 'Nāma' word has been used. Abhinavagupta, explaining Bharata writes that curse has been used to denote other causes which cannot be remedied. 'Vidrava' here means exile from the country, 'Upaghāta' denotes death by fire etc. The loss of wealth etc. contained in themselves do not cause grief in the persons of superior nature but they cause grief in persons of middle and low nature.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika agree with Bharata and as stated by them44 the pathetic sentiment, with the permanent state sorrow or grief (Śoka) as its essence results from loss of something cherished and from attaining something undesired. In consequence of it, there occur heaving of sighs, weeping, paralysis, lamentation etc. and the transitory states, sleeping, epilepsy, depression, sickness, death, and so forth.

Raudra Rasa (The Furious Sentiment)

Bharata now takes the Furious Sentiment. In the view of Bharata45 Raudra consists of the permanent mental state of anger. It owes its origin to Rākṣasa, Dānavas and haughty men and is caused by fights. This is created by determinants such as anger, rape, abuse, insult, untrue allegation, exorcising, threatening, revengefulness, jealousy and the like. Its actions are beating, breaking, crushing, fighting, drawing of blood and similar other deeds. Its representation should be by means of consequents such as red eyes, knitting of eyebrows, biting of the lips, movement of the cheeks, pressing one hand with the other and the like. Transitory psychological states (Vyabhicārins) in it are : presence of mind, energy, excitement, indignation, restlessness, fury, perspiration, trembling, horripilation, choking voice and the like.

Here, the question arises, since it is stated that Raudra Rasa

260

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

belongs to Rākṣasa, dānava etc., does it not relate to others ? The reply is, the furious sentiment belongs to others also, but here it is to be understood as their special function because they are furious by nature. For they (Rākṣasa etc.) have many arms, many mouths, standing and unkempt hairs of brown colour, red raised eyes and prodigious physical phrame of black complexion. Whatever they attempt, be it their speech, movement of limbs of any other effort is by nature furious. Even in their love-making they are violent. The persons who imitate or follow them, should be understood giving rise to the furious sentiment from their fights and battles.

In the view of Abhinavagupta46 the violation of the principles of morality and social laws (Anyāyāritā) is mainly the object of anger, i.e. it excites the wrath of all right-minded persons and they wish to 'suck the blood' of any one who violates such laws and principles. Therefore, like the comic sentiment, Vibhāvas being such as can serve as common objects, aesthetic experience from a presentation that arouses anger, the emotion that affects the self, is essentially the same as that of which we have an experience at the worldly level so aesthetic experience of Raudra consists of anger and Raudra is constituted of anger.

The experience of Raudra arises from the sight of the character presented on the stage by the actors, who is prone to kill at the slightest provocation.

Abhinava holds the view wrong of earlier authority who made the distinction between a person whose anger is aroused by war and a Rākṣasa who is naturally of very irritable temper. He asserts that all the heroes in the dramas presenting Raudra Rasa are naturally of extremely irritable temper. Aesthetic experience of anger is got through contemplation on the actor representing such a character.

Abhinava explains why Bharata has first stated the actions of Raudra and then its Anubhāvas. The actions like beating, cutting etc. being not representable directly on the stage are just verbally described, while the red eyes etc. are directly to be represented on the stage. Bharata has enumerated energy, perspiration, trembling, horripilation, choking of voice among the transitory states of Raudra. Abhinava explains that energy (Utsāha) is here a transitory state because anger is mainly to be relished. Perspiration etc. which are external, should be understood ; the internals become Sāttvikas, and the externals are caused by poison, fever etc., so they are included in transitory states.

Rasa (Sentiment)

Aesthetic presentation of anger is possible both in men and demons alike. The haughty men lacking many arms and mouths are seen of furious nature by means of their words, actions of limbs, appropriate to anger. Even presented in renowned persons like Aśvatthāmā and Paraśurāma etc., it becomes capable of aesthetic experience of Raudra. Similarly laughter and grief also are presented in demons due to the situations sufficient for their arousal and overpower the irritable tendency to give rise to the aesthetic experience of love and grief. The question is raised, how the spectators have the aesthetic experience of anger in the presentation of those Rākṣasas etc. ? Abhinavagupta replies that aesthetic experience of enjoyment (Āsvāda) is through the identification or rapport of the heart. The aesthetes of ‘tāmas’ nature identifying themselves with dānava etc. experience anger provoked by the violation of laws through the rapport of the heart, therefore, nothing is to find fault with.

Dhananjaya and Dhanika follow Bharata in the the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and transitory states of Raudra. But they47 do not, like Bharata, make the difference between the Anubhāvas and its actions, nor, they include perspiration, horripilation etc. in its transitory states and they do not mention Rākṣasa etc. in connection to it. According to them anger is caused by the determinants, anger and the foul acts done by the enemy ; the resulting development of anger is the furious sentiment, a state of agitation accompanied by biting one’s lips, trembling, frowning, sweating, redness of the face and also by drawing of weapons, holding the shoulders boastfully, striking the earth as consequents.

Dhanika comments that in the behaviour of Paraśurāma, Bhīma, Duryodhana etc., in the plays like Mahāvīracaritam and Veṇīsamhāram, its examples may be found.

Vīra Rasa (The Heroic Sentiment)

Bharata48 mentions that Vira or the Heroic sentiment is constituted of supreme nature, as it relates to superior type of persons and consists of Energy (Utsāha). This is aroused by the determinants such as presence of mind, perseverance, diplomacy, discipline, military strength, power, reputation of might, influence and the like. It is to be represented by consequents such as firmness, patience, heroism, charity, sacrifice, diplomacy and the like. The transitory psychological states in it are—contentment,

262

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

judgement, pride, agitation, indignation, remembrance, horripilation and the like.

Bharata further states that Brahmā spoke of Vīra as of three kinds, that arising from making gifts (Dānavīra), from fulfilling one’s duty (Dharmavīra) and from fighting (Yuddhavīra).

In the view of Abhinavagupta49 ‘Uttamaprakṛtiḥ’ may be interpreted in two ways : first the energy (Utsāha) is the nature of the noble, superior persons, so the Heroic sentiment having energy is also of noble nature or the noble nature, because the energy of the noble characters is everywhere enjoyable. In other words, it may be said that aesthetic experience of energy (Utsāha) from presentation of drama of higher type is possible in the noble minds only and the experience of it arises from the presentation of it in and through a character, that is noble. Therefore, energy is the common characteristic of each type of the hero.

The energy of the persons whose character is fit to be followed, should be expressed at the right moment. The rightness of the energy depends on the rightness of the object that inspires it. In his view all the objects mentioned together become the Vibhāvas of the Heroic sentiment. The entire character of Rāma etc. may be taken as the example of it. These Vibhāvas may be understood to belong to the ministers also of the heroes who are dependant on the ministers for their success, and even belonging to anti-hero they may be sources of energy (Utsāha). Thus, Abhinava does not deviate from Bharata. Dhananjaya50 agrees with Bharata in his description of the Heroic sentiment. As explained by Dhanika51 in his commentary, the permanent mental state of energy is relished (svadate) by the means of determinants like fame of one’s might, discipline etc. and consequents like sympathy, war, giving of gifts etc. and by transitory states like pride, contentment, joy, indignation and the like.

This Heroic sentiment results in unfolding the heart of the aesthete and causing pleasure. For the example of Dayāvīra, Jīmūtavāhana in Nāgānanda ; of Yuddhavīra Rāma in Mahā-vīracarita ; of Dānavīra Paraśurāma, Vālin etc. may be taken.

Dhanika adds that if lacking in consequents like perspiration, red face, red eyes etc. which are the consequents of anger, it will be Yuddhavīra, otherwise, having them will be Raudra. In deviation to Bharata, Dhananjaya and Dhanika mention Dayāvīra in place of Dharmavīra’

Rasa (Sentiment)

Bhayānaka Rasa (The Terrible Sentiment)

As mentioned by Bharata51 the Terrible Sentiment is formed of the permanent mental state of fear (Bhaya). This is created by the determinants like hideous noise, sight of ghosts (sattva), panic and anxiety due to (untimely cry) jackals and owls, staying in an empty house or forest, sight of death or captivity of dear ones or news of it or discussion about it. It is to be represented on the stage by consequents such as trembling of hands and feet, restless eyes, change of colour, horripilation and loss of voice. Its states (transitory states) are : paralysis, perspiration, choking voice, horripilation, trembling, change of voice, change of colour, fear, stupefaction, dejection, agitation, restlessness, inactivity, terror, epilepsy, death and the like.

Bharata mentions in Āryās that the terrible may be the natural fear : the fear caused by Sattva should be presented similarly. In case of feigned fear, all efforts for its representation should be milder. Again the Terrible sentiment is of three kinds ; feigned fear, from a wrong action and from apprehension of danger.

Abhinavagupta53 states that Vira being dominant in giving shelter to the weak, now Bhayānaka is denoted. In the Vibhāvas, fear and excitement in others also are responsible for the arousal of fear in those who see them in those moods. Abhinava takes the sense in the Āryās, mentioning fear from teacher and the king that fear is ordinarily aroused by the sight of terrible objects in women, children and persons of low type only. It does not arise in persons of higher and middle type. Occasionally, they may show the fear, but then it will be due to teacher or king. Such fear is not inconsistent with their greatness. In the world at mundane level, the consequents are related in such a manner that teacher etc. cognise him really as fearful. Being unnatural, it is termed feigned and being present for a longer time and because of its capability of being relished it is Rasa and not a transitory state. It would have been so if it has been natural and for a short time.

Abhinavagupta gives his view about the Āryās that these Āryās were read by the former teachers at one place. Bharata has put them at the proper places. ‘Sattvasamuttham’ means the fear caused by mind, i.e. feigned fear, and this is for the sake of the actor. The Ṭīkākāra thought that this is for all but it is wrong. All this is (Nāṭyaśāstra) for the training of the poet and the actor. In the ordinary life all these Vibhāva, Anubhāva, Abhinaya etc. are

not used. Thus the natural fear belongs to low type of persons having ‘Rajas’ and ‘Tamas’ nature. The feigned fear of the higher persons should be shown by these consequents, and it is mild. Why the king etc. show the feigned fear from teachers ? Why, the feignness of Terrible only and not of any other sentiment ? On the manifestation of fear, the teacher takes him to be modest, and by mild efforts, he does not count him of low nature. By the feigned erotic sentiment of courtexan etc., no human object is served. Where the king shows anger, surprise etc. and not feigned, there they are he transitory states not permanent mental states. Thus fear is of two types–feigned, found in higher nature and natural, found in women, children etc.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika follow Bharata in determinants, consequents and transitory states of the Terrible Sentiment. But in deviation to Bharata and Abhinavagupta, they do not mention the fear of two types, feigned and natural. Nor, do they mention that it is found in low type of persons and women etc.

In the view54 of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika from the hearing of furious words and seeing the furious spirits, Terrible sentiment arises from the permanent state of fear and in it trembling in all limbs etc. are the consequents, and depression etc. are its transitory states.

Bībhatsa Rasa (The Odious Sentiment)

In the view of Bharata55 the odious sentiment consists of the durable psychological state of disgust (Jugupsā). It is aroused by the determinants like hearing of unpleasant, offensive, impure and harmful things or seeing them or discussing them. It is to be represented by consequents such as stopping movement of all the limbs, narrowing down of the mouth, vomiting, spitting out, shaking the limbs in disgust and the like. Transitory psychological states in it are epileptic fit, agitation, fainting, sickness, death and the like.

From Bharata’s statement it does not become clear whether it is of two kinds or three kinds. It seems plausible that he mentions two kinds of Bibhatsa, pure, caused by Kṣobha and impure, i.e. Udvegi. If it had been of three types, Bharata would have mentioned it like other sentiments. According to Bharata Udvegi (exciting) arises from the sight of stool and worms etc. and the Kṣobhaja arises from the sight of blood etc.

Abhinavagupta56 comments that in odious sentiment the

Rasa (Sentiment)

disgust may be due to various causes, subjective, objective or both. Something may be disliked by a person because of his cultural peculiarity as Brāhmaṇas have natural disgust for garlic. ‘Apriyam’ (not pleasant) means that an object may be disliked on account of inequilibrium in the three humours, as milk is disgusting to a man suffering from phlegmatic disorder. ‘Impure’ indicates an object becoming disgusting because of its being dirty and ‘Aniṣṭa’, when the desire ends because of its having been enjoyed to satiation. In Abhinava’s opinion the Bībhatsa, arising from the sight of blood, intestine etc. is pure because it agitates the mind. The odious sentiment arising from the foul smelling excrement like stool etc., is Udvegī as it troubles the mind, so it is impure because of the impure Vibhāvas. Abhinavagupta quotes the opinion of his reverend teacher. According to his teachers it is actually of three types. They hold that loathsome object may be presented in such a way as may lead to the realisation of vanity of human wishes through contemplation on them and so help in the attainment of the highest human objective, the final emancipation. Such type of Bībhatsa is pure. They assert that the word ‘dvitīyaka’ is used in connection with the second type to indicate its rareness.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika describe the odious sentiment and its three varieties more lucidly. In the view of Dhanañjaya, as also explained57 by Dhanika, the odious sentiment having disgust as its sole basis is Udvegī, i e. causes distress, by means of worms, stinking matter and nausea, it is Kṣobhana, i.e. causes horror by means of blood, entrails, bones, marrow, flesh and the like, it is pure causing unmixed aversion (ghrṇā) in case of hips, breasts, and so forth (of women) because of renunciation. The transitory states and consequents are in line of those mentioned by Bharata. But the pure type of odious sentiment should not be taken as Sānta.

Adbhuta Rasa (The Marvellous Sentiment)

Bharata53 takes the Marvellous sentiment in the last, as according to him it is to be inserted in the last act of the play, in the Nirvahana Sandhī. The Marvellous sentiment has, as its basis the Durable psychological state of Astonishment (Vismaya). It is aroused by determinants such as sight of heavenly beings or events, attainment of desired objects, entry into a superior mansion, temple, audience hall (sabhā), seven storeyed palace or divine chariots and seeing illusory and magical acts. It is to be represented by the

consequents such as wide opening of eyes, looking with fixed gaze, horripilation, tears (of joy), perspiration, joy, uttering words of approbation, making gifts, crying incessantly 'hā hā', waving the hand, mouth and movement of fingers and the like. Transitory psychological states in it are—cessation of bodily movement, weeping, perspiration, choking voice, horripilation, agitation, hurry, inactivity, death and the like.

Bharata states two kinds of the Marvellous sentiment—Celestial and Joyous. Celestial is due to seeing of heavenly sights and joyous is due to joyful happenings.

Abhinavagupta offers nothing remarkable in his Abhinavabhāratī except giving the meanings of words.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika mention59 that the Marvellous sentiment having its essence in the permanent mental state of astonishment is caused by supernatural things as determinants ; it has as its result (Karma) i.e. as consequents, exclamation of surprise, weeping, trembling, sweating and stammering ; the transitory states in it, generally, are joy, agitation and the like. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, in deviation to Bharata, do not mention its two kinds, otherwise they agree with Bharata.

If we see minutely, of course the distinction between the two kinds is minor, because the sight of celestial things causes astonishment and joy in the hearts of the aesthetes in identification with the characters of the play.

Śānta Rasa

Though the text on Śānta Rasa is given in G.O.S. edition of Nāṭyaśāstra under brackets, yet it can be said with certainty that Bharata did not accept Śānta Rasa in drama, whatever the reason may have been. About the text describing Śānta, the learned editor of Vol. I (revised ed.) K.S. Ramaswamy60 writes that the first edition of the N.Ś. Vol. I from Baroda does not indicate whether all or only some of the manuscripts, contained the Śānta Rasa section. Śānta Rasa has not been included in the list of Rasas enumerated by Bharata at the beginning of the Chapter VI. It is, therefore, permissible to suppose that this portion relating to Śānta Rasa at the end of Chap. VI is not the genuine part of Bharata's work. But the two later eds. of N.Ś. from Banaras and Bombay do not agree with the Baroda edition. It seems that all the four MSS used for these editions did not contain the Śānta Rasa section. He gives

Rasa (Sentiment)

his opinion that the portion dealing with the Śānta Rasa in the text of N.Ś. and the commentary on it by Abhinavagupta seem to have been added by lovers of Śānta Rasa, beginning from Udbhata in the 8th century A.D. to Abhinavagupta in the 11th century. Bharata has not recognised Śānta Rasa as a specific Rasa anywhere throughout his work.

This Śānta Rasa section certainly is an interpolation as it is found only in one manuscript out of the four MSS of the Nāṭyaśāstra used for this edition. Only the MSS from Trivandrum contains this interpolated section of Śānta Rasa, while the other three MSS of South and North do not contain this portion.

Bharata only elaborates eight Rasas enumerated by Brahmā. Moreover, the discussion about its Sthāyin and its place in drama shows that Bharata did not write about it and its determinants and consequents so the dispute arose about it.

There are two rival schools, since the 8th century A.D. one of them has raised Śānta Rasa to the Status of a principal Nāṭya Rasa just like Śṛṅgāra and others, while the other school has condemned it as unfit to be a Nāṭya Rasa. There is a third school also which denies its very existence.

The earlier authors, Bharata, Kālidāsa, Amarasimha, Bhāmaha, and Dandin enumerated only eight Rasas, excluding the Śānta Rasa. Udbhata was the first author to mention Śānta as one of the Nāṭya Rasas in his Kāvyālankāra-sārasaṅgraha. Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta have supported this view of Śānta as the ninth Rasa, while Dhananjaya has vehemently condemned it as unfit for the stage, though has accepted it in poetry. As all the possible views have been quoted by Abhinavagupta and Dhanika, we will go into details of their enumeration of Śānta Rasa.

About the commentary of Abhinavagupta on Śānta Rasa section, the editor of G.O.S. edition, K.S. Ramaswamy61 thinks that this is possibly a separately written small discussion on the Śānta Rasa and does not appear to be a commentary on the passages of the N.Ś. in question.

Whether Śānta Rasa is fit for the stage or not, whether a Sthāyibhāva and other Bhāvas can be fixed up for it or not and whether or not it is possible for the spectators to relish it while viewing the performances of dramas exhibiting the Śānta Rasa are debatable points and open questions that have been agitating the minds of scholars, since the 8th century A.D. up to our own time,

268

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

In the interpolated text62 of Nāṭyaśāstra in G.O.S. ed., Śānta consists of the permanent mental state of Sama, leading to the Mokṣa. It arises from the determinants like Tattvajñāna, Vairāgya, purification of ideas etc. It should be represented by the consequents like restraints, regularity, spiritual contemplation, worship, pity for all creatures etc. Its transitory states are Nirveda, Smṛti, Dhṛti, purity in all Āśramas, absence of bodily movement, horripilation and the like. When there is neither sorrow nor happiness, nor envy nor pride, and there is the feeling of equanimity for all the creatures, then it is called Śānta Rasa. The mental states, Rati etc. are the changes and Śānta is considered to be the cause, the Prakṛti.

Abhinavagupta63 states in the beginning of the Rasa Prakaraṇa that Śānta results in Mokṣa, and there the aesthetic experience is from the realisation of the self. Abhinava starts his discussion of Śānta with the words that Śānta is discussed according to the view of those who read nine Rasas. As quoted by him, according to some Śānta is the basic mental state of Śānta to be presented in the context of the situation constituted by practice of austerity, contact with the yogins etc. It is to be represented by the consequents which show lack of Kāma and Krodha, and its transitory states are contentment, wisdom etc. But others oppose it on the grounds that Sama and Śānta are synonymous and that one cannot be the Sthāyin of itself and that the acceptance of Sama would increase the number of mental states which have been mentioned to be forty nine by Bharata.

Moreover, the situations, seasons etc. constitute the fringe experience in the case of accepted Rasas such as Śṛṅgāra etc. Austerity etc. are not the causes of Sama or Śānta. The absence of such passions as love and anger cannot be spoken of as the Anubhāvas of Śānta. Further, the absence being of negative nature cannot be presented and therefore, cannot serve as the sign from which Sama could be known. The transient emotions of Śānta such as Dhṛti etc. which consist in the use of the available, are impossible in the context of Śānta. What instruction can, the presentation of the ways and means of realisation of the Ultimate impart to them ? For, if they attain a state akin to. What one gets through the realisation of the ultimate, they would transcend the worldly level and so would become indifferent to the suffering of others. Therefore, there is no such Rasa as Śānta. Abhinava replies that like the triad of Dharma, Artha and Kāma—the empirical and

Rasa (Sentiment)

semi-empirical aims of life, the final emancipation (Mokṣa) is also the aim of life. Therefore, just as the mental states called by the terms Rati etc., necessary for the attainment of three objects of human life, Kāma etc., if well presented by the poet and the actor, are responsible for the aesthetic experiences, known as Śṛṅgāra etc. in the aesthetes having that kind of rapport of heart ; similarly the basic mental state, necessary for the highest object of human life called Mokṣa, if well presented may be responsible for the arousal of the corresponding aesthetic experience in the spectators possessing the necessary aesthetic susceptibility for that. But the question is what can be its permanent mental state ? According to some, it is Nirveda which arises from the Tattvajñāna and they distinguish it from the Nirveda caused by poverty etc. They give the plea that for this reason it has been inserted between the permanent mental states and the transitory states, otherwise the sage Bharata, who begins auspiciously would never have begun his list of Vyabhicārins with such an inauspicious word. Further, exclusion of disgust as a Vyabhicārin from the presentation of Śṛṅgāra makes it clear that Bharata permits all the bhāvas to be used as either the Sthāyins or the Vyabhicārins. And the Nirveda caused by the realisation of the Ultimate is capable of driving other permanent mental states away. This Nirveda is more permanent than the other permanent states mentioned, all of which are subordinate to it.

The above view is criticized because on stating Nirveda as Sthāyin caused by the Tattvajñāna, it means that Tattvajñāna is the Vibhāva. How the causes of Vairāgya can be the Vibhāvas ? If they are included as the Vibhāvas because they are the causes for producing the Tattvajñāna, then they are really the causes of the cause and the admission of the indirect cause as the Vibhāva will make the conception too far-fetched. Further, the causal relation, between Nirveda and the Tattvajñāna has been totally misconceived. Abhinava, in his commentary makes it clear that the position of those, who maintain Nirveda aroused due to self-realisation as the basic mental state of Śānta and cite Patañjali's aphorism, is not sound ; for in that aphorism the author is talking of higher Vairāgya which has no objective reference to it and is simply a higher stage of purity of consciousness and in that condition the Sthāyin of Śānta will be the Tattvajñāna and not the Nirveda. It is also wrong to seek support of Gautam's aphorism 'Duhkhajanmā' to assert the causality of Tattvajñāna to detachment from the worldly

objects (Nirveda) on the ground that it mentions the tattvajñāna as the cause of Vairāgya and that the Vairāgya is nothing but Nirveda and to maintain that Nirveda to be the basic mental state of Śānta ; for nirveda is an attitude of aversion and a continued sadness and as such is hardly identical with the Vairāgya. The Vairāgya is the cessation of Rāga and Dveṣa. Even if Nirveda be taken to be synonymous with the Vairāgya, it would still be not right to maintain its causality to the final emancipation. The Nirveda aroused due to the Tattvajñāna is just another name for the Śama. Śama and Śānta differ even as Hāsa and Hāsya differ. The former is Laukika and the latter is transcendental. So, Abhinava does not accept Nirveda as the Sthāyin of Śānta.

Now, Abhinavagupta cites another view. Some hold that anyone of the eight, accepted as the basic mental states can be the Sthāyin of Śānta. Any one of these if presented in the context of a situation different from that to which Śṛṅgāra etc. are due, will arouse a different aesthetic experience of Śānta. Thus the uninterrupted devotion to self (Ātmarati), to the exclusion of all the rest may be the means to liberation. Hence, Rati may be presented to be the Sthāyin of Śānta. Utsāha etc., also can similarly be treated. The view that such Vibhāvas were meant to be introduced in the context of Rati etc. is attributed by Abhinava criticizes this view as follows.

This means that there is no definite Sthāyin of Śānta and multiplicity of Sthāyins would involve the multiplicity of Rasas also. If by virtue of the unity of the object, viz. Mokṣa, a plurality of Sthāyins is accepted as resulting only in one Rasa, in that case Vīra and Raudra resulting in the same end of the destruction of the enemy, can be made into one Rasa. The view of others that all the Sthāyins, unified in the manner in which the different ingredients are unified in the Pānaka rasa, are the Sthāyins of Śānta, is also not appealing. For the different permanent mental states do not occur simultaneously, and they are of the opposite nature.

Abhinavagupta holds that the realisation of the Ultimate (tattvajñāna) is the only means to the liberation (Mokṣa). Therefore, when the latter is to be presented as the hero's object of attainment, the former has necessarily to be presented as the Sthāyin and the Tattvajñāna is nothing but the Ātmajñāna, the realisation of the Self. Therefore, Ātmajñāna or the very nature

Rasa (Sentiment)

of the soul, the Self which is in itself of the form of knowledge and Bliss and free from all determinate experiences, is the Sthāyin of Śānta. Then he defends why it has not been mentioned by Bharata. It should not be mentioned as Sthāyin like Rati etc., for they are spoken of as Sthāyins, because they are comparatively more permanent than the transient emotions, inasmuch as they affect the Self so long as the situations, responsible for their rise persist. The Self as such is the most permanent of all the Sthāyins. This relegates all the basic mental states such as Rati etc. to the position of Vyabhicārins. Its permanence is natural and real but not comparative. It is, therefore, unnecessary to mention it separately in the list of Sthāyins. Thus, the sanctity of the number--forty nine Bhāvas--is protected. Another reason, why it has not been mentioned along with Rati etc. is that it is aesthetically experienceable in a manner distinct from that in which other Sthayins are. Since, Ātmasvarūpa is usually seen as tinted by Rati etc., the ordinary means of comprehension which comprehend Rati etc. do not comprehend it. Bharata does not attempt to give all the possible permanent mental states because all of them are not necessary in the rise of the accepted types of aesthetic experience. His object in mentioning them as separate Sthāyins is that they may not be misconceived as definable in terms of the definition of Vyabhicārins. In the case of Ātmasvabhāva there is no such possibility of misconception. This Ātmasvabhāva is called Sama. When one speaks of Sama or Nirveda both of which are the 'cittaṛttis' one has to qualify them as a special and superior kind to make them the Sthāyin of Śānta. Thus, the Tattvajñāna and Sama mean the Self itself. That Sama is the very nature of the Self is made clear by the fact that a person who has realised the Self in all its purity through the undisturbed Samādhi, experiences Sama even after the rise of Samādhi, inspite of the rise of impurities in the form of mental affections. All the transient states of mind whether empirical or not, may by represented as its transitory states. All the Anubhāvas of the said mental states, coupled with Yama and Niyama may be presented as its Anubhāvas, and also those which are spoken of as Svabhāvābhinaya in the three chapters dealing with the Āngikabhinayas or Upāngabhinayas. Its Vibhāvas are the favour of the God and so on. Rati etc. are experienced in the context of Śānta as being on the verge of destruction. There is closer relationship between Śānta and Utsāha, consisting in the effort arising from the desire to do good to others, and therefore,

272

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

synonymous with pity. It is because of this that some speak of it as Dayāvira and others as Dharmavīra. Abhinava further asserts that it cannot be objected in this context that Utsāha arises from egoistic consciousness. But Śānta is free from such consciousness. For, even the opposite is not altogether unfit to be presented as the Vyabhicārin; as for instance Nirveda in Rati. There is no condition marked by total absence of Utsāha. The persons who have attained the highest peace and have realised the highest, their parting with all their possessions is not inconsistent with the Sama. Jimūtavāhana etc. have surely realised the Ultimate, because the persons prizing their bodies above all things cannot sacrifice them for the sake of others. Śānta is a subordinate Rasa because the objectives attained by the hero are Dharma, Artha and Kāma. So, Bharata has said that in the drama prosperity and enjoyment are to be primarily presented, leading to one of the two objects of human life; Artha and Kāma which bring about the identification of all. The view that there is no Śānta Rasa because the sage does not mention any Jātyaṅgakas of it, is not sound. Vyabhicārins come in the context of Śama, according to the occasion. The view holding the absence of Anubhāva because of its freedom from action has been refuted. No doubt, Sama at its highest stage is not fit for presentation, because then the mind is free from all affections. But the same is the case with Rati, Śoka etc. As for the identification, there is no doubt that those who have the residual traces of Tattvajñāna get identified with the focus of the situation of Śānta. The question 'How could the aesthetic experience of Vīra etc. be possible from the presentation of Śānta?', is baseless. For wherever Śama is presented, Śṛṅgāra or Vīra as leading to the attainment of one of the human objectives has necessarily to be presented alone with it. The aesthetic experience of Śṛṅgāra etc. therefore, depends upon that of the Śānta. The existence of Śānta Rasa is established in every way. For in old MSS after 'Sthāyibhāvān Rasatvam-upaneyāmah' Śānta is found defined. Experience of every Rasa at the highest level is very much like that of Śānta. It is just because Śānta is involved in all Rasas that it is mentioned by the sage first of all. Detachment, fear of being engrossed in the world etc. are its Vibhāvas. Thinking about emancipation, etc. are the Anubhāvas; Nirveda, Mati, Dhṛti etc. are its transitory states. Therefore, devotion (Bhakti) and Faith (Śraddhā) being its parts are not separately counted. And the phala of the Śānta is greatest, is prominent in all and pervades in the

Rasa (Sentiment)

273

itivṛtta. Now Abhinava discusses its aesthetic experience. Just as the white string, whereon gems of different kinds are loosely and thinly strung, shines in and through them, so does the Pure self through the basic mental states such as Rati and Utsāha which affect it. The aesthetic experience of Śānta consists in the experience of the Self as free from the entire set of painful experiences which are due to the external expectations, and therefore, is the blissful state of identity with the universal. It is the experience of self in one of the stages on the way to perfect self-Realisation. Such a state of Self, when presented either on the stage or in poetry, and, therefore universalised, is responsible for the arousal of a mental condition which brings the transcendental bliss.

Dhanañjaya64 accepts only eight permanent mental states and states that some add Śama also but in his opinion there is no development of it in the drama. Dhanika65 elaborates the point in some detail. First he comments that the opponents of Śānta give many arguments and he mentions them. Some deny the existence of Śānta on the basis that Bharata has not defined it and given its Vibhāvas etc. Others take it to be non-existent, because they hold that the ignorance (Avidyā) producing Rāga and Dveṣa is inborn in man since the time he began his migration into this world and they cannot be wholly rooted out. Others include it under the odious and the Heroic sentiment. They thus do not desire even Śama. Dhanika does not object to Śānta on the above grounds. He denies it to be a permanent mental state in drama only because drama is meant primarily to be presented in action. Such a presentation, however, is not possible in the case of Śama because it consists in cessation of all activities. The view of those who accept Śama as the Sthāyin in Nāgānanda, is according to him untenable because it is inconsistent with the love for Malayavatī and the attainment of the sovereignty of Vidyādharas. No instance is available wherein both the attachment and aversion from the wordly objects are represented due to one and the same situation in which original hero of the drama is involved. Therefore, the Utsāha of Dayāvīra is the permanent mental state because only in relation to such a sthāyin, the Erotic aesthetic configuration can occupy a subordinate position and also because with it alone the attainment of sovereignty harmonises. But as we have seen in Abhinavabhāratī, the Śama as a subsidiary cannot be denied in Nāgānanda. Dhanika also quotes the doubt raised about the number

274

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

eight, which is as follows: old authorities have stated them to be

Rasas, as they are relished like the six tastes sweet etc. and that relish-

ability may be found in Nirveda etc. So they are also Rasas and thus

accepting other Rasas, other permanent mental states have been

imagined. To remove that doubt Dhananjaya states how can an

impermanent state produce pleasure or be relished in the absence

of identification, beginning with the discouragement (Nirveda).

The development of that would tend to disruption of sentiment,

therefore, there are declared to be eight permanent states. Dhanika

elaborates its impermanence. His reason for the rejection is that

the definition of the Sthāyin as a state of mind, the continuity of

which is not broken either by states harmonising with it or the states

antagonistic to it, does not apply to Nirveda etc. Therefore, they

being interfered with their transitory states like anxiety etc., and

brought to development, only produce displeasure. He refutes the

view of those who accept the ground for its rejection as a Sthāyin,

its incapacity to lead to any one of the well recognised goals of

human life, in that case Hāsa etc. will also become impermanent.

Traditionally Nirveda etc. also lead to human object of life.

Nirveda etc. have not got the quality of Sthāyin which is of not

being disturbed by any, and so they are not permanent mental

states; they are not stated as Rasa.

Though Dhanika and Dhananjaya do not accept Śānta in

drama, but in their view it can be presented in poetry.

In their view Śama—the basic mental state or Śānta, at its

highest pitch is not presentable. For such a state of mind is reached

only at the final emancipation which consists in the merging of the

individual into the universal. And this state is characterised by

freedom from pleasure and pain, attachment and aversion, and

anxiety and desire. No linguistic presentation of it is possible.

Even if somehow presented, there is no person possessed of the

necessary aesthetic capability for Śānta. If, however, Śānta be

identified, with the means of attaining it such as Mudita etc. it

implies that the aesthetic experience of Śānta does not involve a

state of mind distinct from those involved in the first four Rasas

such as Śṛṅgāra etc.

We see that Dhananjaya and Dhanika take Nirveda etc. in

its strict sense of discouragement, self-dissatisfaction and not in the

sense caused by realisation of the Ultimate. Abhinavagupta

also takes Nirveda in the sense of self-contempt, or continuous

Rasa (Šentiment)

sadness. Abhinavagupta has rejected Nirveda to be Sthāyin as caused by Tattvajñāna. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika and Abhinava- gupta do not accept Nirveda to be the permanent mental state. Both Dhanañjaya and Dhanika and Abhinavagupta accept Śama at its highest level to be unpresentable. But then Abhinava's view is quite appealing. If other Sthāyins can be called Rasas then Śama or Tattvajñāna in its initial stage can also be a Rasa. Moreover, if it can be presented in poetry, drama is also a form of poetry, why it cannot be presented in drama. An expert actor can represent it like any other Rasa. So, in our humble opinion Śānta can be presented in the drama also. And if the aesthetes can relish Śānta from poetry, they can also have its aesthetic experience from drama. If it is said that it cannot be enjoyed by all then other sentiments like Raudra etc. cannot be equally enjoyed by all.

As the aesthetes having the particular aesthetic susceptibility can experience other sentiments, so is true in the case of Śānta. Persons having residual traces of Tattvajñāna are fit to experience Śānta Rasa. So, we cannot deny the existence of Śānta on the basis of its rareness. As the dramas depicting Raudra, Bībhatsa, Bhayānaka are not found, but they are counted separate Rasas because their permanent psychological states are found in human heart, so Śānta may not be a dominant Rasa in a drama, but it can be counted as a Rasa. The plays depicting the lives of saints and the persons who try to attain self-realisation can have Śānta as a dominant Rasa also, The reason of Bharata's not accepting Śānta may be that, upto his time perhaps, there was no example available depicting the Śānta Rasa, yet when the examples became available and its necessity was felt, it was added to the list of eight Rasas and authorities generally accepted it in one way or the other.

Now we come to the number of Rasas. We know that Bharata states eight Rasas, four primary and the four rising from them. Abhinavagupta also accepts four primary Rasas, relating them with the four recognised aims of human life and four others dependant upon them. And according to him each primary Rasa may be the source of many dependant Rasas as he has explained in his Abhinava- bhāratī, Vīra giving rise to Bhayānaka and Adbhuta. At the end of the chapter dealing with Rasa he definitely asserts that there are no more than nine.Rasas. These are the only Rasas fit for exposition. For they are directly or indirectly related to objectives of human- life and are extremely interesting to human mind. He further

276

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

holds that the view is refuted of those who state the rule of number to be based on the recognition of the literary circle. Abhinavagupta96 refutes the view of those who accept Sneha (love) as Rasa having the permanent state of Ārdratā (tenderness). For, according to Abhinava love (Sneha) is union and all that terminates in Rati and Utsāha. For, the love of child in parents rests in fear, of the young persons in friends in love. And the love of Lakṣmaṇa etc. in the brother consists of duty (Dharmamaya). Thus the other forms of love can be taken. The same should be followed in the refutation of Laulya Rasa having permanent state of Gṛddha. For they are only subvarieties of Rati, Hāsa or some other basic mental state. Similar is the case with Bhakti (devotion). Thus Abhinavagupta does not accept more than nine Rasas and he takes Rati in its not widest sense here. But the love of child can be said terminating in fear.

V. Raghavan67 criticizes Abhinava for not accepting other Rasas and writes that this is not a commendable attitude. To have less distinction is no great aim. If friendship is accepted only as a variety of Rati, can we call the association of Rāma and Sugrīva, Śṛṅgāra ? If Dharma-vīra can be called forth to deny Rasatva to Lakṣmaṇa's attachment to Rāma why should not opponents of Śānta call forth another kind of Vīra to deny Rasatva to Śānta ? V. Raghavan asserts that the instance of Daśaratha's death due to separation from Rāma is ample proof for the existence of Vātsalya as a major mood fit to be developed and fit to be relished.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika accept only eight Rasas in drama having the certainty of the number because of the fourfold state of mind, first present in primary Rasas, and then in their dependant Rasas. In their68 view the states of Prīti (friendship), Bhakti (Devotion) and the like, as well as the sentiments of Mṛgayā (Hunting), Akṣā (gambling) and the like are not enumerated because they are clearly included in Harṣa (Joy), Utsāha (Energy) and the rest.

About the division of four primary and four dependant Rasas, A.B. Keith69 is of the view that it is also artificial to find four primary and four secondary sentiments laid down, the Erotic, the Furious, the Heroic and that of Horror whence in order are supposed to develop the comic, the Pathetic that of wonder and that of Terror.

Rasa (Sentiment)

Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha70 writes about the number of Rasas that the statement of Bharata should be accepted here, otherwise the whole philosophy of Rasa would be disrupted, because then there can be Sthāyitva of Love of son etc. and why not disgust and grief become pure bhāvas, so the number limited in nine by ‘Muni’ should be followed.

But the exponents of additional Rasas re-examined in Bharata’s text to find out what exactly constituted ‘Rasatva’ and ‘Bhāvatva’. If according to Bharata the permanent states become Rasas when accompanied with other transitory states then there may be other Bhāvas also which can be reinforced into Rasas. So, the number eight is just traditional. Actually speaking the sentiment or Rasa is a single, ineffable, transcendental joy which is experienced from the enactment of a play or reading and hearing the poetry, when determinants, consequents and transitory states combine together. It can be subdivided, not according to its own nature but according to the emotions which evoke it. And the other sentiments exist only at the Kathartic level with their distinct vibhāvas, anubhāvas etc.; at the transcendental level Rasa is one, the feeling of enjoyment, so Rasas cannot be divided as four primary and four dependant upon them. Of course some feelings are more dominant in human heart in comparison to others. But the psychological states can be nourished to the level of enjoyment with their accessories. As Abhinava himself has shown that Śṛṅgāra does not give rise to comic sentiment only. The comic sentiment may arise from the impropriety in any sentiment. So, comic sentiment cannot be said to be dependant upon the Erotic sentiment only. And if we admit the production of subsidiary sentiments as a result of four primary sentiments then the problem will arise what will be the substratum of the sentiments in a drama. About the number of Rasas we can apply the view of Abhinavagupta, expressed about the production of Rasa, Vibhāvas etc. are not the causes of Rasa nor the informants. The use of Vibhāvas etc., useful for the aesthetic experience is transcendental. We cannot divide the Rasas into primary and subsidiary on the quasi-psychological rationale of the mental states in the enjoyment of Rasa. If we do so then the number of Rasas will come to four. Moreover there was no early agreement on this piece of psychology ; Abhinavagupta with Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka accepts only three aspects of mental condition as involved. Though the emotions can be developed into sentiments but the

278

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

transitory psychological states cannot be turned into sentiments, because they are not durable and do not leave their residual traces, while the accepted eight durable psychological states are found in their innate forms in all the human beings, and they are more durable. They have been generally accepted as developing into the sentiments by all. Śānta is the basis of all, because its basic mental state Tattvajñāna helps in the highest human object of life, viz., final emancipation of life and it leaves its residual trace in the person even when he leads the practical life.

Following Abhinavagupta, we can conclude that in the aesthetic experience, the consciousness, consisting of the concentrated Bliss is enjoyed, and Rati, Grief etc. act in beautifying it. So Rasa or the aesthetic experience is one, the feeling of perfect Bliss in which worldly limitations disappear and the aesthete is conscious only of the enjoyment of Bliss.

REFERENCES

*Kane, P.V. and Ghosh Manomohan, Supra Ch. I, Ref. 25.

1. न हि रसाद्र्ते कश्चिदर्थ: प्रवर्त्तते । तत्र विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोग-द्र्सनिष्पत्ति: ।

को दृष्टान्त: । अत्नाह-यथा हि नानाव्यञ्जनैरौषधिसंयोगाद्र्सनिष्पत्ति: । यथा हि गुडादिभिर्द्रव्यैर्य्यञ्जनैरौषधिभिश्च पाडवायो रसा निवर्त्यन्ते तथा नाना भवोपरता अपि स्थायिनो भावा रसत्वमाप्नुवन्ति । इति क: पदार्थ । उच्यते — आस्वाद्यत्वात् । कथमस्वाद्यते रस: । यथा नानाव्यञ्जनसंस्कृतमन्नं भुञ्जाना रसानास्वादयन्ति सुमनस: पुरुषा: हर्षादिश्चाधिगच्छन्ति तथा नानाभावाभिनयव्यञ्जितानां वागङ्गसत्वोपेतानं स्थायिभावानास्वादयन्ति सुमनस: प्रेक्षकाः: हर्षादिश्चाधिगच्छन्ति । तस्मान्नाटचयरसा इत्यभिवाच्यतां ।

नानाभिनयसम्बन्धाभावयन्स्ति रसानिमानू । यस्मात्तस्मादमी भावाः विज्ञेया नाटचयोक्त्रुमि: ॥ नानाद्रव्यैर्बहुविधैर्जनैर् भाव्यते यथा । एवं भावान्भिनयै: सह ॥ न भावहीनोडस्ति रसो न भावो रसर्‌वजित: । परस्परकृतासिद्धिसत्योरभिनयै भवेत ॥

Rasa (Sentiment)

279

संयोगो यथाज्ज्ञं स्वादुतां नयेत् । एवं भावा रसाश्चैव भावयन्ति परस्परम् ॥

यथा बीजाद्भवेद्वृक्षो वृक्षात्पुष्पं फलं यथा । तथा मूलं रसा सर्वे तेम्यो भावा व्यवस्थिता ॥

भ., नो. शो., अ. 6, पृ. 272, पृ. 287 क्रमशः

2. Bharata, Ch. VII, pp. 342-355, 374-375 ; Ch. VI, K. 17-21.

3. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VII, pp. 342 ff.

4. अत्र भट्टलोल्लटप्रभृतयस्तावदेवं व्याचक्षु:—विभावादिभिः संयोगोऽर्थात् स्थायिनस्सतो रसनिष्पत्तिः। तत्र विभावश्चित्तवृत्तेः स्थाय्यात्मिकाया उत्तत्तौ कारणम् । अनुभावाश्च न रसजन्या अत्र विवक्षिता: । तेषां रसकारणत्वेन गगनानहंवात् । अपितु भावानामेव । (ते) येऽनुभावा: व्यभिचारिणश्च चित्तवृत्तयात्मकरवात् यद्यपि न सहभाविनः स्थायिना तथापि वासनात्मकैः तस्य विवक्षिताः । दृष्टान्तेऽपि व्यञ्जनादिमध्ये कस्यचिद्वासनात्मक्ता स्थायिवत् । अन्यस्योद्भूततया व्यभिचारवत् । तेन स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिरुपचितः । स चोभयोरपि । (मुख्यया वृत्त्या रामादौ) अनुकर्यनुकर्त्यपि चानुसन्धानबलात् इति ।

अभि. भा., अ-6, पृ० 272

5. चिरन्तनानां चायमेव पक्षः। तथाहि दण्डिनः स्वालङ्कारलक्षणेऽभ्यधायि, 'रति श्रृङ्गारतां गता । रूपवातुल्ययोगेन इति' (काव्यादर्श 2. 281) 'अधिरुह्य परां कोटिं कोपो रौद्रात्मकतां गतः ।' (2. 283 इत्यादि च ।)

अभि. भा., पृ. 272

6. एतन्नेति श्रीशङ्कुकः: विभावाद्ययोगे स्थायिनो लिङ्गाभावेनावगत्यनुपपत्तेरभावानां पूर्वमभियेतयाप्रसङ्गात् स्थितदशायां लक्षणान्तरबैयर्थ्यात्, मन्तरतरमध्यस्थैः स्थायिभिन्नय्यपत्ते, हास्यरसे पोढतावाभावप्राप्ते:, काम-वस्यासु दशस्वसदृशो रसभावादिप्रसङ्गात् शोकस्य प्रथमं तीव्रत्वं कालात्तदुम्यान्तर्दर्शनं, क्रोधोत्साहरतीनांमपपस्थैयं सेवादिपर्यये हासदर्शन-

मिति विर्य्यस्य दृष्ट्यमानत्वाच्च । तस्मादेतुर्भिवभावाद्यैः कार्येचानुभावात्मभिः, सहचारीभिश्च व्यभिचारिभिः प्रयत्नाज्जाततया, कृतिमैरपि तथानुभिमन्थमानैरकर्तृ स्थैवैन लिङ्गबलतः प्रतীয়मानः स्थायी भावो मुख्यरामादिगत स्थाय्यनुकारणरूपः अनुकरणरूपत्वादेव च नामान्तरेण व्यपदिष्टो रसः । विभावा हि काव्यबलानुसन्धेयाः । अनुभावा: शिक्षातः । व्यभिचारिणः कृतिमनिजानुभावार्जनबलात् । स्थायी तु काव्यबलादपि नानुसन्धेयः ।

7. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch., VI, p. 276.

8. तस्मात्काव्ये दोषभावगुणालङ्कारमयत्वलक्षणेन नाट्ये चतुविधाभिनयरूपेण निविडनिजमोहसङ्कटततिवारणकारणात्, विभावादिसाधारणीकरणात्मनोऽभिनयतो द्वितीयेनांशेन भावकत्वव्यापारेण भाव्यमानो रसोज्जीवस्मृत्यादिलक्षणेन रजस्तमोऽनुवेधवैचित्र्यबलादुद्रतविस्तारविकासलक्षणेन सत्त्वोद्रेकप्रकाशानन्दमयनिजसविद्विश्रान्तिलक्षणेन परब्रह्मावादसविधेन भोगेन परं भुज्यत इति।

अभि. भा., पू. 276-277

9. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, p. 277.

10. आन्नायसिद्धे किं पूर्वंवमतस्संविदैकसङ्गतागतामित्वम् । इत्यं स्वयंग्राह्य-महाहेतुत्वाद्दैन किं दूषयिता न लोकः ॥ उद्धवोद्धवमारुह्य यदर्थतप्वं धीः पश्यति श्रान्तिमवदयन्ती । फलं तदर्थः परिकलिप्तानां विवेकसोपानपरस्पराणाम् । चित्रं निरावलम्बनमेव मन्ये प्रेक्ष्यसिद्धौ प्रथमावतारम् । सन्मार्गालामे सति सेतुबन्धपुरप्रतिष्ठादि न विस्मयाय । तस्मात्सतामन्त्र न दूषितान् मतोनान् तत्त्वं शोभताम् । पूर्वप्रतिष्ठापितयोजनासु मूलप्रतिष्ठाफलमामनन्ति ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 6, पू. 278 ऋमा: ।

11. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, p. 266, pp. 278 ff.

12. Ibid., p. 288.

13. Ibid., p. 293.

14. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV. 1-35.

15., Dhanika, Av., pp. 182ff, pp. 217 ff.

16. Ibid., pp. 230 ff, DR. B. VI, 37, Av., pp. 246 ff.

17. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. VI, 38-39.

18. Dhanika, Av. pp. 254 ff.

19. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 40-43, 46-47.

20. Dhanika, Av., pp. 255 ff, p. 261.

21. श्रृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः । बीभत्साद्भुतसंज्ञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाट्ये रसा स्मृताः ॥ एते ह्यष्टौ रसाः प्रोक्ता दृशिनेन महात्मना ।

भ., ना. शा., अ 6, 15-16

22. Pref. to Vol. I, N.S., p. 52.

23. Kālidāsa, Vikramorvaśīyam, Act III 17. Supra. Ref. 12, Ch. II.

Rasa (Sentiment)

24. तत्रश्च मुख्यभूतात् महारसात् स्फोटदृश् वासस्यानी वा अन्विताभिधानदृश्-वोपायात्मकानी सत्यानी वा अभिहितान्यदृश्-ीव तत्समुदायरूपाणि वा रसान्तराणि भागा (वा)ड भिनिवेशदृष्टानि रुप्यन्ते । असम्मत्ते संवेदन-मेवानन्दघनमास्वाद्यते । केवलं तस्यैव चित्तताकरणे रतिशोकादिवासना व्यापारः ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 6, पू. 267, 292

25. विकसविस्तरक्षोभविकल्पे: स चतुर्विध: ।। श्रृङ्गारवीरवीभत्सरौद्रेषु मनस: कमात् । हास्याद्भुतभयानकैरक्षकरुणानां त एव हि ।। अतस्तज्जन्यतया तेषामेवावधारणम् ।

घ., द. रु., च. प्र., 43–45; धनिक. अव. पू. 258

26. तेषामुत्पत्तिहेतवश्र्चतवारो रसा: । तथाहस्थायिभावो रौद्रो वीरों वीभत्स इति ।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 6, पू. 295

27. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. VI, p. 289.

28. श्रृङ्गारादि भवेदास्यो रौद्राच्च करुणो रस: । वीराच्चैवाद्भुतस्तस्माच्च भयानक: ।। श्रृङ्गारानुकृत्या तु स हास्यस्तु प्रकल्पित: । रौद्रस्यैव च तत्कमं स ज़ेय: करुणो रस: ।। वीरस्थापि च यत्कर्म सोज्ज्वलं: परिकल्पित: । वीभत्सदर्शनं यच्च ज़ेय: स तु भयानक: ।।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 6, 39–41

29. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. VI, p. 282.

30. Ibid., pp. 295 ff., p. 282.

31. Dhananjaya and Dhanika, D.R., B. IV, 43–45.

32. Dhanika, Av., pp. 258 ff.

33. तत्र श्रृङ्गारो नाम रति स्थायिप्रभव: । तस्य द्वे अभिधाने सम्भोगो विप्रलम्भश्च । सुखप्रायेषु सम्पन्न: ऋतुमाल्यादिसेवक: । पुरुष: प्रमदायुक्त: श्रृङ्गार इति संज्ञित: ।।

भ. ना. शा. अ. 6, पू. 300

34. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 300 ff.

35. Dhanika, Av., pp. 262 ff.

36. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 47–71.

37. Ibid., Ayogo Viprayogaśca Sambhogāśceti Sa Tridhā.

Dhanika, Av., pp. 268 ff.

38. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, pp. 312-316, K. 77.

39. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 312 ff.

40. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. IV, 75-78.

41. Dhanika, Av., pp. 287 ff.

42. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, pp. 317 ff., K. 62, 63, 78.

43. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 317 ff.

44. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 81-82, Dhanika, Av., pp. 290 ff.

45. अथ रौद्रो नाम क्रोधस्थायिभावात्मको रक्षोदनवोद्भवत मनुष्यप्रकृति:

संग्राममहत्क: । किमन्येषां नास्ति। उच्चते, अस्त्यन्येषामपि रौद्रो

रस: । किन्त्वधिकारौद्र गृहूयते। ते हि स्वभावत एव रौद्राः। कसमात्।

बहुबाहवो बहुमुखा: प्रोद्भूतविक्रंर्णपिङ्गलचारोजा रक्तोद्भ्रूतविलोचना

भोमासितरुरुपिनरच्चेव । तेषां चानुकरणो ये पुरुषास्तेषामपि

सङ्ग्रामसम्प्राहारकृतो रौद्रो रसोद्भुनमान्तव्य:।

भ., ना. शा., अ. 6, पृ. 319, का. 64-66, 77

46. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 319 ff.

47. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 74 ; Dhanika, p. 286.

48. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, p. 324, K. 67-68, 79.

49. Abhinavagupta, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 324 ff.

50. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 72.

51. Dhanika, Av., pp. 283. Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha, Rasa- gaṅgādhara, Chawkhamba Vidyabhawan, Varanasi (1955),

Ch. I, pp. 160 ff.

52 अथ भयानको नाम भयस्थायिभावात्मक:——

विकृतरवसच्वर्दर्शनसङ्ग्रामारण्यशून्यगृहादिगमनम् ।

गुरूनूयपरपराधात्कृतकृरच भयानको ज्ञेय:॥

गात्रमुखदृष्टिभेदैरुरसनभ्रमिवीक्षणोद्रेगै: ।

सन्त्रमुखश्वासहृदयस्पन्दनरोमोद्गमैश्च भयम् ॥

एतत्स्वभावजं स्यात्सत्वसमुत्थं तथैव कर्तव्यञ्च यत् ।

पुनरेभिरेव भावै: कृतकं मुद्रयेदितै: कार्यम् ॥

करचरणादिप्रच्युतस्तम्भगात्रहृदयप्रकम्पेन

शुष्कोष्ठतालुकण्ठेभयानको नित्यमभिनेय:॥

व्याजाच्चेवापराधाच्च वित्तासितक मेष च ।

पुनर्भयानकश्चैव विद्यात् त्रिविधमेव हि ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 6, पृ. 326 ऋमश:, का. 69-72; 80

Rasa (Sentiment)

53. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 326 ff.

54. Dhananjaya D.R., B. IV, 80, Dhanika, Av., pp. 289 ff.

55. अथ बीभत्सो नाम जुगुप्सास्थायिभावात्मक: । अनभिमतदर्शनेऽन च गन्धरसस्पर्शशब्ददौपसर्गाच ॥ उद्वेजनैश्च बहुविधैर्भीत्सरस: समुद्भवति । मुखनेत्रविकूणनया नासाप्रच्छादनानवनमितास्यै: ॥ अव्यक्तपादपतनैरबीभत्स: सम्यगभिनेय: ॥ बीभत्स: क्षोमज: शुद्ध उद्देगेऽ स्यात् द्वितीयक: । विष्ठाकृमिभिच्छृदेगै क्षोमजो रघिराज: ॥

भ., ना. शा., अ. 6, का 73-74, 81, पृ. 328 क्रमश:

56. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, pp. 328, 331.

57. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 73, Dhanika, Av., pp. 289 ff.

58. Bharata, N.S., Ch. VI, K. 75-76, 82, p. 329. Abhinava Abh. Bh., Ch. VI, p. 329.

59. Dhananjaya, D.R. B. IV, 78-79 ; Dhanika, Av., p. 289.

60. Ramaswami, K.S. Pref. N.S. Vol. I (1956), pp. 5, 12, 52.

61. Ibid., pp. 53 ff.

62. अथ शान्तो नाम शमस्थायिभावात्मक: मोक्षप्रवर्तक: । स तु तत्त्वज्ञानवैराग्याश्रयगुणध्यानादिभिर्विभावै: समुत्पद्यते तस्य यमनियमाद्यात्मध्यानधारणोपासनसंवं भूतदयालिङ्गग्रहणादिभिरनुभावैरभिनय: प्रयोक्तव्य: । व्यभिचारिणस्त्वस्य निर्वेदस्मृतिधृतिसर्वस्थामशौचस्तम्भरोमाञ्चादय: । अन्रार्या: श्लोकार्च भवन्ति—मोक्षाद्यात्मसमुद्रतत्त्वज्ञानार्थहेतुसंयुक्त: । नेः श्रेयसपरीदृश्ट: शान्तरस्सो नाम सम्भवति ॥ बुद्धीन्द्रियमनोऽन्रदयसरोध-ध्यात्मसंस्थितोपेत: । सर्वप्राणिसुखहित: शान्तरससो नाम विज्ञेय: ॥ न यत्न दुःखं न सुखं न द्वेषो नाऽऽि मर्ष: । सम: सर्वेषु भूतेषु स शान्त: प्रतिष्ठितो रस: ॥ भावा विकारा रत्याद्या: शान्तस्तु प्रकृतिमल: । विकार: प्रकृतेर्जात: पुनस्तवैव लीयते ॥ स्वं स्वं निमित्तमासाद्य शान्ताद्भाव: प्रवर्तते । पुनर्निमित्तापाये च शान्त एवोपरि यते ॥

ना. शा., अ. 6, पृ. 332

63. ते च नव । शान्तापलापिनस्वष्टावविति तन्त्र पठितम् । तत्स्वसर्वर्गात्मकप्रवृत्त(त्त) धर्मविपरीतनिवृत्त(त्त) धर्मात्मक मोक्षफल: शान्त: । तत्र स्वात्मावेषण रसचर्वणेतयुक्तम् । ये पुनर्नव रसा इति पठन्ति तन्मते शान्तस्वरूपमभिधीयते । तत्र केचिदाह:

शान्तः शमस्थ्यविभावात्मकस्तत्प्रायोगिकसम्पर्किदिभिविभावैरुत्पद्यते —। एतदपरे न सहन्ते । शमशान्तयोः पर्यायत्वात् । एकोनपञ्चवाशद्- भावा इति सङ्ग्रव्याप्त्रागात् । तपोज्ज्ञाननादयस्तु न शान्तस्य (शमनस्य) हेतवः । कामादिभावोक्तेर्नानुभावः । अग्निमकत्वादियोगासमवायितत्वाच्च । न हि चेष्टाद्युपरमः प्रयोयोग्यः । तन्न शान्तो रस इति । अन्रोच्यते—इह तावद्विविधोऽत्रितयमेव (निव) मोक्षेोऽपि पुरुषार्थः । यथा न च कामादिभु समुचिताश्चित्तवृत्तितयो रत्यादिशब्दवाच्याः कविनटव्यापारेण स्वाद- योग्यतापन्नत्वाद्रेण तथाविधहृदयसंवादवत् सामाज्ञान्प्रति रसत्वं श्रृङ्गारादितया नीयन्ते तथा मोक्षाभिधानपरमपुरुषार्थोचिता चित्तवृत्तिः किमिति रसत्वं नानीयात इति वक्तव्यम् । या चासौ तथाभूता चित्तवृत्तिः सैवान्त स्थायिभावः । एतत्तु चिन्त्यम् । तत्वज्ञानोल्थितो निर्वेद इति केचित् ।

वैराग्यात्मकप्रकृतिलयः । योगसूत्र 1. 16 तत्परं पुरुषख्यातेर्गुणवैतृष्ण्यमू तादृशं तु वैराग्यं ज्ञानस्यैव पराकाष्ठा (व्यासभाष्य 1. 16) अकस्माद्, दुःखजन्मसूत्र 1.1.2 दुःखजननप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरौत्तरापायै तदनन्तरापायादपरं । ननु वैराग्यं निर्वेदः । एक एव महत् । निर्वेदो हि शोकप्रकर्षपर्यवसन्नचित्तवृत्तिविशेषः । वैराग्यं तु रागादीनां प्रह्ववंसः । भवतु वा वैराग्यमेव निर्वेदः । तथापि तस्य स्वकारणवशान्मध्यभाविनोऽपि मोदो साध्ये सूत्रस्थानीयतांलभतेव (प्रत्यपादि) । किं च तत्त्व- ज्ञानोल्थितो निर्वेद इति शमप्रसिद्धं नाम कृतं स्यात् । शमशान्तयोः पर्यायत्वं तु हासहासाभ्यां व्याख्यातम् । सिध्यसाधयच्‌ते ? (यदा तथा लौकिक) लौकिकत्वेन साधारणासाधारणतया च वैलक्षण्यं शमशान्त- योरपि मुलभमेव । तस्मान्त निर्वेदः स्थायिभावः । अन्ये मन्यन्ते रहस्यादय एवाष्टौ चित्तवृत्तिविशेषा उक्ताः । ते एव कचित्‌विभाव विविक्ता न शृङ्गा- रादिकविभावविशेषसंश्रया विचित्रा एव तावत् । ततश्च तन्मध्यदेव- न्यतमोद्र्र स्थायी । एवंवादिना तु परस्मैव विचारयतामेकस्य स्थायित्वं विशीर्यत एव । तदुपायमेदास्तस्य तथै स्थायित्वमित्यप्युपचुमानं प्रत्युक्तमेव । स्थायिभावेन प्रति पुरुषरसस्याप्यायान्त्यापत्तौ मोक्षैकफलत्वादेको रस इति चेत् क्षणिकफलत्वे वीररौद्राद्योरप्येकत्वं स्व्यात् । अन्ये तु पानकरस- वदविभाग्रे प्राप्ता सर्व एव रत्यादयोऽत्र स्थायिन इत्याहुः । चित्तवृत्तीनामुगपद्भाववादिनोऽन्ये च विरोधादतदपि न मनोज्ञम् । कस्तज्जन्यं स्थायी । उच्यते । इह तत्त्वज्ञानमेव यावन्मोक्षसाधनमिति तस्यैव मोक्षे स्थापिता युक्ता । तत्त्वज्ञानं च न तामात्मकज्ञानमेव । तेनात्मैव ज्ञानानन्दादिविशुद्धधर्ममययोगी परिकल्पितविषयोपरागरहितोऽत्र स्थायी ।

Rasa (Sentiment)

न चास्या स्थायितया स्थायित्वं वचनीयम् । तत्वज्ञानं तु सकलभावान्तर-

मत्तिस्थानीय सर्वस्थायिप्रख्य: स्थायितमं सर्वा: रत्यादिकास्स्थायिपिचित्तवृत्ति

व्यभिचारीभावयत् निसर्गत एव सिद्धस्थायिभावमिति तन्त्रवचननेत ।

(तन्त्रावचननीयम्) अत एव पृथगस्य गणना न युक्ता । तेनै कोत्पत्तिप्रक्नाहेतुभावा इत्यग्रादितमेव । अस्यापि कथम् (न) पृथग्गणननेति

चेतः-पृथग्गास्वादयोगादिति ब्रूमहे । न हि रत्यादिवेतररासम्पृक्तेन वपुषा

तथाविधमात्ररूपं लौकिकप्रतीतिगोचर:(रमु) स्वगतमप्यविकलरूपं

(कल्प) व्युत्थानावसरेजुसन्धीयमानं चित्तवृत्त्यन्तरंकलुषमेवावभाति ।

भासतां वा लोके तथापि न संभावनामात्रस्थायिनां गणनं

रसेषूक्तेस्वनुपयोगात् ।

तदिदमात्मस्वरूपमेव तत्वज्ञानं शम: (तथा च) यत्कालुष्योपोरागविशेषा

एवात्मनो रत्यादय: । तदनुगमेव विशुद्धमस्य रूपमव्यवधानसमाधिवलाद-

धिष्ठायीर्य व्युत्थानेऽपि प्रशान्तता भवति । यथोक्तम्-प्रशान्तवाहिता संस्कारात्

(योग सू. 3.10) तत्वज्ञानलक्षणस्य च स्थायिन: समस्तोऽयं लौकिका-

लौकिकचित्तवृत्तिकलापो व्यभिचारितामभ्येति । तदनुभावा एव च

यमनियमाद्युपकता अनुभावा उपाग्लभिनयस्य । (आडिड़गका) उद्यायत्नये

च ये स्वभावभिनये वक्ष्यन्ते । विभावा अपि कथं । ईश्वरानुग्रह-

प्रभृतय: । प्रकर्षायश्च (प्रकर्षोन्मुखा) रत्याद्योऽत्रास्वाद्य: केवलम् ।

स्वात्मनि च कृतकृतप्रस्य परार्थघटनायामेवोद्यम इत्युत्साहोऽस्य

परोपकारविषेच्छाप्रयत्नरूपो दयापरोपकारयोद्भयधिकोऽन्तरङ्ग: अतएव

तत्केचिद्द्यावीरत्वेन व्यपदिशन्ति, अन्ये धर्मवीरत्वेन ।

अतएव शान्तस्य स्थायित्वेऽव्यपदिश्राभ्यां । जीमूतवाहने त्रिवर्गसम्पत्तिरेव

परोपकर्तिप्रधानाया: फलत्वात् ।

यदा तु पर्यन्तभूमिकालामहेतुभावाभाव (हेतुभाव) स्तदास्याप्रयोगजत्वं ।

रतिशोकादावपि पर्यन्तदशायामप्रयोगस्यैव युक्तत्वात् । हृदयंवदादुपि

तथाविधतस्वज्ञानबीजसंस्कारभावितानां भवत्येव । तस्मादस्ति शान्तो

रस: । तथा च चिरन्तनपुस्तकेषु 'स्थायिभावान् रसत्वमुपनेष्याम:'

(ना. दा. पृ. 299) रत्यनन्तरं 'शान्तो नाम शमस्थायिभावात्मक:

इत्यादिशान्तलक्षणं पठ्यते । तत्र सर्वरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्वादो न

विषयेभ्यो-विपरीकृत्या

सहविभावत्वेन चास्य वीरवीभत्सौ । अतएवास्य रसस्य यमनियमेद्वार-

प्रणिधानाद्युद्भवेत् । अनुयोगितया महाफलत्वं सञ्चारिभिर्यमितत्वाद्यभावकत्वं

चोपसंनम् तत्त्वास्वादोदस्य कीदृश: । उपरागादिभिरुत्साहरत्या-

दिभिहुपरक्तं यदात्मस्वरूपं तदेव विरलोभिलाषितान्तरालनिर्भासमान-

सिततरसूत्रकवाभातस्वरूपं सकलेषु रत्यादिषूपरजकेषु तथाभावेनापि

286

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

सकृद्विभातोदयमात्रमिति न्यायेन भासमानं परोन्मुखतात्मसकलदु:खजालहीनं परमानन्दलाभसंविदेकत्वेन काव्यप्रयोगप्रबन्धाभ्यां साधारणतया निर्भासमानमन्तमुखावस्थाभेदेन लोकोत्तरानन्दानयनं तथाविघहृदयं विधत्त इति ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 6, पू. 261, पूपू 332 ऋमश: ।

64. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. IV, 35-36, 45.

65. Dhanika, An., pp. 227 ff., 259 ff.

66. एवं ते न तैव रक्षा: । पुमर्थोपयोगिहेतुं रक्जनाधिक्षयेन वा इयतामेवोपदेश्यतत्वात् । तेन रसान्तरसंभवेऽपि चार्षप्रसिद्धया सङ्ख्यानियम इति यदन्यैरुक्तं तत्प्रत्युक्तम् । आदन्त्रास्थायिक: स्नेहो रस इति त्वसत्त् । स्नेहो हवविषङ्ग; स च सर्वो रत्युत्साहादिषु पर्यवस्यति । तथा हि बालस्य मातापित्रादौ स्नेहो भये विश्रान्तः । यूनोऽमित्रजने रतौ । लक्षणद्वो भ्रातरि स्नेहो धर्ममय एव । एवं वृद्धस्य पुत्रादर्वित द्रष्टव्यम् । एषैव गङ्गास्थायिकस्य लौलयरसस्य प्रत्यायने सरणिमन्तव्य । हासे वा रतौ विलयनपर्यवसानात् एवं भक्तावपि वाच्यमिति ।

अभि. अभि भा., अ. 6, पूपू. 295-298, 341

67. Raghavan, V., The Number of Rasas, The Adyar Library, Adyar (1940) p. 111.

68. Dhananjaya and Dhanika, D.R. B. IV, 83, Avaloka, p. 291.

69. Keith A.B., SKD, p. 324.

70. Jaganmātha, Paṇḍitarāja, Rasagaṅgādhara, pp. 174 ff.

71. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. VI p. 292.

CHAPTER 8

VṚTTIS (STYLES)

After discussing the important elements of Sanskrit drama, we now come to another important factor and that is the Vṛtti. The question arises what are Vṛttis or the styles ?

Bharata, the greatest canonist of Sanskrit dramaturgy, has laid stress on the importance of Vṛttis while discussing the kinds of plays and also Vṛttis in a separate chapter.

Bharata1 holds that Vṛttis are traditionally known as the constituent elements of all dramatic works. With respect to their production, the ten kinds of play are considered to have proceeded from these. He has discussed the Vṛttis in detail in Chapter XX.

Abhinavagupta2 states that in the four objects of human life, consisting of Dharma etc., efforts of speech, limb and sattva are common. And the effort is fourfold. Whatever action is started, the action of words, mind and body is involved in it. Out of that fourfold action some has charm and variety, because the action of the persons belonging to superior rank has got excellence. That effort having charm and beauty comprises four Vṛttis. The physical, vocal and mental efforts having diversity are Vṛttis. These extending to the whole animate world, not originated in the way as now used, flow with the current and when joined with the particular excitement of heart, are helpful in bringing out the real character of the Nāṭya. Now this excitement is twofold : worldly and transcendental ; worldly excitement does not help in the enjoyment of Rasas. Transcendental excitement without being excited is yet exciting such as that of the poet and the spectator.

In the view of Dhanañjaya3 the style of procedure, which is based on hero’s conduct, is of four kinds. Dhanika4 explains the

288

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

term Vṛtti that the nature of the hero to act as a tendency is Vṛtti and that is of four kinds, namely, Kaiśikī, Sāttvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Bhāratī. We see that Bharata and Dhananjaya have not properly defined the term Vṛtti itself. Their commentators have defined it for our comprehension.

Keith5 is of the view that the poet must be an adept in adopting the appropriate manner or style for each action of the hero ; the style adds to the play the indefinable element of perfection which is present in the highest beauty of feature or dress. Vṛtti pertains to the exertion of the characters involving the physical, mental and vocal efforts. Though the term Vṛtti is used in another sense also, but here we are concerned with drama and we will take the term in its narrow sense, i.e., the Vṛttis are really the styles or modes of conduct that a character, mostly, the hero or the heroine adopts in a play and these modes depend upon the mood or sentiment or bhāva that occupies the whole personality of the hero in that particular kind of a play. These Vṛttis also decide the form of the play.

Origin of Vṛttis

Bharata has described the origin of four Vṛttis from Lord Viṣṇu showing the preponderance of the action that prevails in each Vṛtti. He has stated that whatever was made and in whatever manner, the exploits of gods were utilised by the sages in fashioning the similar styles arising from the words and the gestures which have their origin in the materials taken from the Nāṭyaveda and which also have Words and Gestures as their chief characteristics.

Bharata6 mentions the origin of Bhāratī from Ṛgveda, of Sāttvatī from Yajurveda, of Kaiśikī from Sāmaveda and of the rest (i.e. of Ārabhaṭī) from the Atharvaveda.

Abhinavagupta7 comments that God is the creator of these Vṛttis, because the action, without excitement supporting Rasa, which is Ānanda, is only possible in God as His heart is enlightened with the knowledge (Vidyā) and is like the essence of Lotus.

By showing Brahmā as the spectator of the actions of Viṣṇu, from whom the Vṛttis have originated, importance of the repose of Vṛttis is shown in the heart of the spectator. Abhinava further adds that the whole action is encircled by the fourfold Vṛttis. There is no action beyond the action of words and mind, and no particle

Vṛttis (Styles)

289

is without action. All the Kārya ends in Rasa and Bhāva. Rasa and Bhāva are found only in living beings and therefore no poetical work is devoid of threefold action. Persons who accept two or five Vṛttis do not follow the sense of Bharata and their arguments are annihilated. Dhanāñjaya has not mentioned the origin of Vṛttis like Bharata. Bharata has stated the origin of Vṛttis from Vedas also.

Number of Vṛttis

The question arises how many Vṛttis have been accepted in drama ? Generally most of the dramaturgists, following Bharata accept four Vṛttis, namely, Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Kaiśikī. Bharata has mentioned only four Vṛttis. Why should the number be limited to four only ? For this purpose Bharata's statement about Pravṛtti and Vṛtti may be looked into.

In a prose passage Bharata8 states that it is called Pravṛtti because Vṛtti provides information regarding the costumes, languages and manners in different countries of the world. Though it is true that the observance of Pravṛttis has common characteristics, but as people have different native-countries, costumes, languages and manners, following them a fourfold classification of the dramatic performance attached to four different styles i.e. Bhāratī, Ārabhaṭī, Sāttvatī and Kaiśikī has been prescribed. Among the Pravṛttis (four Local Usages) Dākṣiṇātyā is abundant in Kaiśikī, favouring various kinds of dance, song, music and clever and graceful gestures. Āvantī Pravṛtti depends on Sāttvatī and Kaiśikī styles. In the Pāñcālī Pravṛtti, Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī are known (to predominate). Application of this requires paucity of song and excessive movement and extraordinary gait and steps. But Bharata has not mentioned the Vṛttis in Oḍramāgadhi, Pravṛtti.

Experts should produce their plays in styles which have been prescribed earlier for the local Usages in different countries.

Abhinavagupta9 comments that these Vṛttis are named according to the element or action that is abundant in them, otherwise in the physical, mental and vocal efforts, none is single. Even the bodily action is accompanied with subtle mental and vocal exertion. So these Vṛttis, though intermixed, are designated in accordance with the element prominent in them. The Bhāratī is termed as such, since the action of words is dominant therein ; the

Sāttvatī because Sattva is prominent in it. In Kaiśikī dance, song and the like, the delicate actions are predominant, and in Ārabhaṭī tumult, disturbance etc. are overwhelming. Abhinavagupta accepts only four Vṛttis and he does not support the view of the persons who hold two or five Vṛttis. He seems to favour the concept of one Vṛtti also, when defining Vṛtti, he states that the exertion leading to human objects is one. Abhinavagupta quotes the view of Bhaṭṭodbhaṭa and others in this respect.

As quoted by him Udbhaṭa states that taking the example of Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, another Vṛtti, Phalasaṃvitti Vṛtti, should be recognized, and he criticizes the fourfold division of Vṛttis. If Kaiśikī is mentioned separately because of the object Kāma, then, two Vṛttis should be stated to have as an object Dharma and Artha. Therefore, Nyāyavṛtti having action, Anyāya Vṛtti having words and Phalasaṃvitti, these are the three Vṛttis only. The view of Udbhaṭa has been refuted by Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa etc.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika also accept four Vṛttis only. Dhanañjaya10 after discussing the three Vṛttis Kaiśikī, Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī states that there is no other style of procedure (Arthavṛtti) than these three. The fourth style is Bhāratī Vṛtti and that will be mentioned in describing the Nāṭaka. Dhanañjaya mentions that the followers of Udbhaṭa, while mentioning Kaiśikī, Sāttvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Bhāratī, recognize a fifth style also.

Dhanika11 states in his commentary that this additional Vṛtti is nowhere found nor it fits in the sentiments, because the Hāsya etc. consist of Bhāratī and the Kāvyārtha cannot be without the sentiments. It is not clear in Dhanika's commentary as to what 'Sā' refers ? Does it refer to the fifth Vṛtti mentioned in the last by Dhanañjaya or to the Bhāratī Vṛtti. It appears that 'Sā' here refers to the fifth Vṛtti. Dhanika further mentions that the Arthavṛttis are only three, Bhāratī is a verbal style and it being the part of Āmukha will be mentioned in that context.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika divide the Vṛttis into two, the Arthavṛttis and the Śabda Vṛtti and accept four Vṛttis in all. Dhanika states that the 'Vyāpāra', i.e. the action of the hero and others, varying according to the country, dress etc. is Pravṛtti. According to Dhanañjaya the actions are to be characterized by the language, gesture and costume of a special region. The dramatist should employ these suitably taking them from common life. Here Dhanañjaya deviates from Bharata. Bharata has based four Pravṛttis

Vṛttis (Styles)

on four vṛttis of drama and they are inter-related but Dhananjaya does not set any limit to the number of Pravṛttis. The difference between the Vṛtti and the Pravṛtti seems to be that Pravṛttis are the actions varying with the region and costume etc.

When we see the statements12 of Abhinavagupta, Sāradātanaya and Dhananjaya, it becomes clear that there were persons who were not satisfied with the number four regarding to the Vṛttis. Some accepted two, some three, while others accepted five. But all the other different views regarding the number of Vṛttis did not gain ground as their views were not supported by Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra. Bharata based his Vṛttis on the four kinds of representation. The four Vṛttis are closely connected with four Nyāyas and four kinds of representation. We also find that all the four types of Vṛttis mentioned by Bharata are popular among play-wrights and they have been accepted by later dramaturgists.

A problem arises. Some like Dhananjaya and Dhanika have made the distinction among these four Vṛttis as Arthavṛttis and Sābdikavṛtti, taking three Vṛttis, Sāttvatī, Ārabhaṭī and Kaiśikī under Arthavṛttis and Bhāratī under Sābdavṛtti. It should be seen whether the case is so, and does Bharata also mention this distinction ?

Bharata has not distinctly made any such distinction, rather he has added Kaiśikī afterwards. True, he has accepted the prominence of words in Bhāratī Vṛtti and it has become synonym for Vāk. It is perhaps in this light that Dhananjaya and Dhanika have made this distinction maintaining that Bhāratī deals with language, while the others deal with action. But there was no necessity of making such a distinction because Abhinavagupta has already stated that Vṛtti consists of action involving language, mind and body. Dramaturgists like Abhinavagupta, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, Sāgaranandi and Viśvanātha etc. have not made any such distinction. This distinction is not very scientific either. Moreover, Dhananjaya and Dhanika have not explained what they mean by 'Arthavṛtti'. If they mean by Artha 'sense' as Keith13 has done, in that case distinction is not valid because even in the use of Bhāratīvṛtti words have got sense, they are not used as meaningless. So, there is no need for such a distinction as all the four Vṛttis deal with four type of actions. We will discuss these four Vṛttis one by one. As Bhāratī Vṛtti entails many problems, so

292

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

for the sake of convenience, we will first take up other Vṛttis and the Bhārati afterwards.

Sāttvati Vṛtti (Grandiose Style)

Bharata14 mentions that at the time of a battle between Madhu-sūdana and Madhu and Kaitabha, by the rebounding of the bow named Śārṅga which was intensely brilliant, steady and by an excess of unperturbed Sattva (strength) the Sāttvati Vṛtti was made. He defines Sāttvati as the style which is endowed with the quality of the Sattva, the Nyāyas (proper) and the Vṛtta, and has exuberance of joy and suppression of the state of sorrow.

He further elaborates that related to the plays expressing the Sattva, the Sāttvati Vṛtti is known to consist of the representation by words and gestures. It is to contain the sentiments such as the Heroic, Marvellous, and Furious and is devoid of the Śṛṅgāra, Karuṇa and Nirveda, and the characters in it, should be mostly majestic and defying one another.

It is known to have the four varieties (Bhedas) such as Utthāpaka (challenge), Parivartaka (change of Action), Sallāpaka (Harsh discourse) and Saṅghātya (Breach of Alliance).

In the view of Abhinavagupta,15 involving the action of the mind, Sāttviki is Sāttvati. ‘Sat’ means Sattvam that is light, and it is present in the heart. So, pertaining to the action of the mind, combined with the verbal and physical representation it is present in the plays which contain the statements, full of Sattva. Thus Sāttviki Vṛtti has the prominence of Sāttvika representation. He takes ‘Sat’ as being present in the mind, and enlightening. In Śṛṅgāra mind is busy in love affairs, in Karuṇa it is afraid, in Nirveda it is perplexed, therefore, although action is there but the mind is not so much agitated as it is in anger, wonder, courage.

Dhanañjaya16 also states that Sāttvati is free from grief and is characterised by the examples of virtue, courage, self-sacrifice, compassion and uprightness. In it are found samlāpa, Utthāpaka, Sāṅghātya and Parivartaka. Dhanañjaya follows Bharata in defining Sāttvati as devoid Grief and having Sāttvika qualities. But his definition seems to be incomplete in comparison to that of Bharata. Bharata has included in it the representation of words and limbs, while Dhanañjaya is silent about this. Dhanañjaya has described Samlāpaka, Utthāpaka, Saṅghātya and Parivartaka in it but he does

Vṛttis (Styles)

not mention whether these are its aṅgas or its varieties. Dhananjaya differs in the terms ‘Samlāpa’ and ‘Sāṅghātya’.

Dhanika17 regards these four as its aṅgas. We shall now take the four varieties of Sāttvatī. The four varieties of Sāttvatī have been accepted by all the dramaturgists with a little change of spelling in Samlāpaka and Sāṅghātya.

Now we shall discuss these varieties :

Utthāpaka

Bharata18 states that one’s rising up with a view to conflict after saying ‘I am getting up (for battle now) show me your own prowess’ is called Utthāpaka.

Parivartaka

It after leaving the things which caused the rising up, one takes to other things due to some necessity, it is called Parivartaka.

Sallāpaka or Samlāpaka

A dialogue containing passionate words of abuse (or according to other reading various kinds of words) whether these arise from contempt or not is called Sallāpaka.

Saṅghātyaka

Bharata states that Breach of an alliance through power of advice, wealth or words due to accident or one’s own fault is to be known as Saṅghātyaka. It has been interpreted otherwise also as disrupting an alliance for the sake of a policy in favour of a friend or due to an accident or one’s own fault is called Saṅghātya. But this interpretation does not explain the full importance of the definition.

Abhinavagupta19 interprets that the action that stirs up the mental agitation is Utthāpaka and the action indicating that is just complimentary saying.

He adds the mental action in interpreting each of its variety and gives examples to illustrate them. He gives the varied interpretations of Saṅghātyaka. That which disrupts the alliance in battle is Saṅghātyaka, or by which enemy can be thoroughly killed and being related to Saṅghātyaka, it is called Saṅghātyaka or breach of alliance is done by another party by adopting any of the four means, sāma etc., so it is Saṅghātyaka,

294

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

In the view of Dhanañjaya20 also Utthāpaka is a challenge in which at the outset, one challenges or excites another to combat. Dhanañjaya and Dhanika agree with Bharata in defining the Parivartaka. But Dhanañjaya has not indicated the cause due to which a change occurs in it, while Bharata has made his definition complete and clear that when a character changes his course of action abruptly due to exigencies of circumstances in him, such a change of conduct presents element of Parivartaka in him.

Dhanañjaya deviates from Bharata in defining Samlāpaka. In his view it is a discourse, a mutual talk of a serious nature expressing various feelings and sentiments. He agrees with Bharata in his brief and clear definition of Saṅglātyaka. The Breach of alliance is a violation of alliance under the influence of advice, gain, fate or the like.

Dhanika has explained these varieties of Sāttvatī with proper examples in his Avaloka.

Thus, we find that dramaturgists in majority have mentioned these four varieties of Sāttvatī Vṛtti. The Sāttvatī Vṛtti is connected with demonstrating one's power. It is concerned with the Sattva, the mental aspect of the action.

Kaiśikī Vṛtti (The Graceful Style)

Kaiśikī is the most delicate style and it is suited to Śṛṅgāra Rasa. Rather it should be spoken as its life. Bharata21 defines Kaiśikī as the style which is specially interesting on account of the charming costumes worn by dramatic personae mostly women and in which many kinds of dancing and singing are included and the themes acted are the practices of love and are connected with (lit. arising from) its enjoyment.

At another place Bharata has mentioned about Kaiśikī that this style, seen at the time of Nīlakaṇṭha's dance is appropriate to the Erotic sentiment. This requires beautiful dresses and is endowed with gentle Āṅgahāras and dancing and has sentiment, states and action as its soul.

Bharata mentions its four varieties (Bhedas) as; Narma (Pleasantry), Narmasphiñja (Beginning of Pleasure), Narmasphoṭa (Unfoldment of Pleasure), and Narma Garbha (Covert Pleasure).

Abhinavagupta22 interpreting Bharata writes that ‘Ślakṣṇa’ means delicate as it softens the heart. The term Narma prefixed in all the four aṅgas indicates the prominence of laughter. Abhinava

Vṛttis (Styles)

has explained Kaiśikī that the action to be employed in beauty is Kaiśikī Vṛtti. Except explaining the words of Bharata, he contributes nothing new.

In defining Kaiśikī Dhananjaya23 does not differ from Bharata. According to him also Kaiśikī is delightful through its outward expressions of love, song, dance, coquetry and the like.

Dhanika24 writes in his commentary that the action expressed through songs, dance, love, enjoyment of love, soft, erotic and having its success in Kāma, is Kaiśikī. In the view of Dhananjaya and Dhanika it consists of four aṅgas, Narma, Narma-Sphiñja, Narmasphoṭa and Narmagarbha.

The only difference that we find between Bharata, Abhinavagupta and Dhananjaya and Dhanika is that, while Bharata regards these four as the varieties of Kaiśikī, Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya and Dhanika regard them as its aṅgas.

Thus Kaiśikī pertains to delicacy and as it consists of dance, music etc. and of beautiful dresses, so it shows the excess of women mostly and it is used in the representation of Śṛṅgāra. As Śṛṅgāra may be said to be extending to the whole human nature and the main sentiment, Kaiśikī being related to it may be said to have the widest range.

We now take its four varieties :

Narma

As stated by Bharata25 the Narma which abounds in remarks made in jest is of three kinds: first that based on love that with pure laughter, and that having sentiments other than the Heroic (Vīra). Narma is known as generally connected with acts of jealousy and anger and mixed with words of rebuke and as done in the guise of self reproach and through to deception of others.

Narmasphuñja

Narmasphuñja is to be known as the first meeting of lovers in which words and dresses exciting love are in evidence but which ends in fear.

Narma-Sphoṭa

Narma-sphoṭa is the cause of the sentiment contributed by short

296

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

touches of different psychological states and not by any of them as a whole.

Narma-Garbha

When the hero out of any necessity acts incognito through his qualities such as intelligence, (good) appearance, beauty, wealth etc. and affection, it is called Narma-Garbha.

In the view of Abhinavagupta26 prominence of laughter is common in all the four aṅgas of Kaiśikī. In Narma jest or laughter is threefold, it is either to indicate the jealousy or to censure the other or to deceive other's heart. To allude to oneself or charging the other is to bring near oneself.

Explaining Narma-sphoṭa, he writes that in Narmasphoṭa, Fear, Laughter, Joy, Terror, Anger etc. are expressed in small quantities and they, not becoming permanent states do not attain the position of Rasa; Śṛṅgāra is already there.

Dhanañjaya27 deviates from Bharata and he mentions eighteen types of Narma, while Bharata has mentioned only three types of Narma. In his opinion Narma is clever jesting that serves to conciliate the beloved. It is of three kinds, accordingly as it is done purely in fun, or through love or through fear. Dhananjaya mentions Narma caused through fear. Again he divides Narma connected with love into three, being caused by an allusion to one-self, by (manifestation of a desire for) enjoyment or by (show of) jealousy. He further mentions that Narma connected with fear is twofold, either pure or subordinated (to some other sentiment).

The comic element as a whole is futher, of three kinds more, that of words, that of costumes and that of action. Consequently, Narma is said to be eighteenfold.

Dhanika just elaborates the statements of Dhananjaya and illustrates his definitions with proper examples.

Narma is a witty jest and all its varieties include the element of Fun. These jests strengthen the Erotic sentiment. Dhananjaya has mentioned the eighteen varieties of Narma. Generally, its three varities have been mentioned—Narma with Śṛṅgāra, with pure laughter and fear or having other sentiments than the Heroic. Depending upon dress, words and actions it may vary.

Dhananjaya terms Narma sphuñja as Narma sphiñja and he agrees with Bharata in his definition of Narmasphiñja when he

Vṛttis (Styles)

defines it as characterised by happiness in the beginning but ending in fear.

Thus, Narma-sphunja or Narma-sphuñja or Sphiñja is found in the mode of behaviour which is full of love and coaxing speech, as generally used in initial stages of contact with the beloved. Use of befitting dresses and charming decorations is one feature of this aspect of Narma. It is pleasant at the start but ends in awe of the former wife.

In defining Narma spoḥṭā Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata. In his view also it is moderate sentiment indicated by slight expressions of the feelings.

In the definition of Narmagarbha also, he follows Bharata. Thus he defines that it is the coming up of the hidden Hero for the attainment of his purpose.

In the treatment of Kāśikī he mostly agrees with Bharata. Kāśikī style with all its four varieties vibrates with mirth and love. It will be mostly in the plays having Erotic and comic sentiment. It may be said to consist of delightful vivacity and full of charming expression of love by means of songs, dance and coquetry. It is the most charming Vṛtti and does not limit itself to particular actions of body, mind and spirit but encompasses within it general movements of all limbs.

Ārabhatī (The Energetic Style)

Bharata28 terms Ārabhaṭī as consisting of violent sentiments. He defines Ārabhaṭī as the style which includes mostly the qualities of a bold person suited to an Ārabhaṭa, and like an Ārabhaṭa, it consists of many deceptions and disguises, is full of false pride and false words.

He further mentions that from the various ways of personal combats, which were full of energy and excitement and which entailed the various cāris, Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti was made.

Bharata mentions, the four varieties of Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti, Saṅkṣiptaka (compression), Avapāta (commotion), Vastutthāpanam (Elevation of the plot) and Sampheṭa (conflict).

Abhinavagupta9 interprets it etymologically that ‘Arā’ is formed from the root √ ‘Ṛyarti’, and ‘Bhaṭaḥ’ means persons with courage and not having laziness. The Vṛtti belonging to them is bodily action. Otherwise he just explains the statement of Bharata without adding any remarkable point.

298

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

In the view of Dhanañjaya30 Ārabhaṭī Vṛtti consists of in deeds of magic, conjuration, conflict, rage, frenzy and the like. Its four sub-divisions are Saṅkṣiptikā, Sampheṭa, Vastūtthāna and Avapātana.

Dhanika only explains the word ‘Māyā’ as the unfolding of some absent matter through the power of hymns and ‘Indrajāla’ as the power of Tantra etc.

Dhanañjaya deviates from Bharata in his definition. Bharata has mentioned that it is full of many deceptions, but Dhanañjaya omits it. Bharata has also defined it as consisting of the qualities of the Ārabhaṭas but Dhanañjaya does not mention it. Bharata terms it as having Uddhata Rasas, Dhanañjaya does not mention it either.

Dhanañjaya also differs a little from Bharata in the names of Vastūtthāpana and Saṅkṣiptaka. Dhanañjaya terms them respectively as Vastūtthāna and Saṅkṣiptikā.

Ārabhaṭī is invariably attended with feats of jugglery and deeds of conjuration and conflicting situations. It is conspicuous in the form of bodily activities It will be generally found in the plays having fiery sentiment like in the Samavakāra etc.

Now we take its varieties one by one:

Saṅkṣiptaka or Saṅkṣiptikā

Bharata31 states that conforming to the purpose of the play Saṅkṣiptaka (compression) includes relevant crafts such as many kinds of model works, drawings and dresses for a condensed representation of the plot.

Avapāta (commotion)

In Bharata’s view occurrence of fear, jubilation, panic, fall, puzzled behaviour, quick entrance and exit of characters should be known as Avapāta.

Vastūtthāpana (Elevation of the Plot)

The deed which either includes panic or is without it or which is being connected with as giving shelter to (anyone) and includes a combination of all the sentiments in brief, is called Vastūtthāpana.

Sampheta (conflict)

Sampheṭa is known to include excitement, many fights, personal

Vṛttis (Styles)

combats, deception, betrayal, and much striking of weapons.

Explaining these varieties Abhinavagupta32 notes in his commentary that the things presented by tokens or signs form the subject or Saṅkṣiptaka division hence it is termed saṅkṣiptaka. In it the Arthas (i.e. tactics) are devised by the expert craftsmen with a purpose. Here is found the abundance of model work and the costume, swords, skin, armour etc. are variegated.

He states that Avapāta occurs when there is quick entrance and exit of characters due to excess of fear and joy, and where there is tumult, running away caused by the words, falling down due to attack and the action is excited because of the flurred conduct of characters. It is called Avapāta because the characters fall and run away in it.

He next explains Vastūtthāpana. The deed (Kārya) in which many things, i.e. objectives are raised or described according to context is called Vastūtthāpana. These matters have been denoted by the word ‘Sarvarasa’. Therefore all the permanent states and transitory states are described in it in nut-shell and they are accompanied either with flights due to fire etc. or without them also. It is also called Vastūtthāpana because of raising the ‘Vastu’ (subject matter) that is to happen in future. In explaining Sampheṭa he agrees with Bharata.

Dhanañjaya33 follows Bharata in the definition of saṅkṣiptaka though he terms it saṅkṣipti.

He quotes others, views also prevalent about it, though he has not given the names of the persons holding that view.

Dhanañjaya defines saṅkṣipti that it is arranging a matter concisely by the artful device. Thus, he had adopted only a part of Bharata’s definition and left out the rest of the portion which may be included generally under the term ‘śilpāyoga’. As quoted by him, others take it to be the substitution of another hero (secondary) on the withdrawal of a previous one.

Dhanika34 following Bharata makes the definition of Dhanañjaya more lucid in his commentary. He writes in his Avaloka that by the use of soil, bamboo, leaves, skin etc. creating a Vastu is saṅkṣipti as in the Udayanacarita, the making of elephant of mats. Neither Dhanañjaya nor Dhanika points out, though Bharata has done it that these devices are used with a purpose. These things of craft are not without any purpose. Dhanika elaborates the view of others quoted by Dhanañjaya that taking another stage at the

300

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

completion of one stage of the former hero is also saṅkṣiptikā. He gives its example and states that either another hero is taken up at the withdrawal of the former hero or the same hero takes up another stage at the disappearance of the first. As for example Sugriva is taken up at the disappearance of Vālin and Paraśurāma achieves calmness at the disappearance of boldness.

But one thing should be remembered in respect to this view as Keith35 has also pointed it out that this substitution either of the hero or change of heart should be related to a secondary hero only because the main hero cannot be replaced in a play nor change of state should be shown of the principal hero, otherwise the unity of drama would disappear. The main hero should be depicted sincerely from the beginning upto the end of the play.

Dhanañjaya36 also agrees with Bharata in the definition of Avapāta. He defines Avapāta briefly that it is characterised by exits and entrances, terror and flight.

Dhanañjaya differs from Bharata in his definition of Vastū-tthāpana. In his view Vastūthāpana is the name given to a matter produced by magic or the like. Dhanañjaya omits the mention of all the rasas in nut-shell in it. However, he does not include Vidrava etc. in it.

If we follow Dhanañjaya’s definition of Vastūtthāpana, then there will not be much difference between Saṅkṣipti and Vastūtthā-pana. Hence, Bharata’s definition should be accepted that it is chequered with a variety of sentiments. It can be either based on tumult or without it.

While Bharata’s definition of Sampheta is all inclusive of fights, personal combats and deception, striking of weapons etc., Dhanañjaya defines it as an encounter of two angry and excited persons.

Thus, we find that Ārabhaṭī vṛtti generally relates to the bodily action. Deception, conjuration, magic practices, flights, striking of weapons and battles etc. occur in it. It pertains to fiery sentiments.

Now, we come to the Bhāratī vṛtti and its aṅgas:

Bhāratī Vṛtti has been discussed elaborately. First of all we are taking the view of Bharata,

Vṛttis (Styles)

Showing the origin of Vṛttis Bharata37 mentions that hearing the various abusive words of the two Rākṣasas, Druhiṇa asked Lord Viṣṇu, if it was the Bhāratī Vṛtti that started with the words. Hearing his question Madhusūdana replied that the Bhāratī vṛtti was made by him on some purpose. It would be the Bhāratī Vṛtti of the speaker in which words would preponderate. Its origin shows the prominence of speech in Bhāratī vṛtti. It is related with the vocal representation. Its name indicates its origin from the Bharatas, i e. the tribe of the actors. Etymologically Bhāratī would mean the style used by Bharatas. Bharata defines Bhāratī as follows :

‘yā vākpradhanā, puruṣaprayojyā, strīvarjitā, saṃskṛta pāṭhyayuktā svanāmadheyair bharatair prayuktā, Sā Bhāratī nāma bhavet tu vṛtti.’

Let us examine closely his definition. First of all the Bhāratī vṛtti is prominent in words, then it is to be applied by male characters and not by females, thirdly, it consists of the saṃskṛta text, i.e. in it the speeches are employed in Sanskrit, and it is employed by the Bharatas (i.e. actors) in their capacity as such. In other words, Bhāratī vṛtti prevails where the action of words dominates ; it is generally used by male characters excluding female characters, it uses Sanskrit in speeches, (this is the reason why its origin has been stated to be from the Ṛgveda) and it is employed by the actors when they are in their own capacity and they have not assumed the roles of characters.

Some problems arise out of this definition. First is the prominence of words in it. But we find that every play is written in words. So the problem is, should we take Bhāratī Vṛtti present throughout the play or to some limited part of the play ?

Second point is its application by males only. Why did Bharata put this limitation ? May be it was to demark it from Kaiśikī where women play a greater role. Third is, it includes the speeches made in Sanskrit. Then in the plays written in Prākṛt or Prākṛt. The natural conclusion of Bharata’s statement may be only that if a play is written in Sanskrit, all of its speeches read by male characters would be in Bhāratī vṛtti and in a play written in Prākṛt, there would not be any Bhāratī vṛtti. This does not seem to be the intention of Bharata.

302 A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

Fourthly, it is called Bhāratī because it is applied by Bharatas. What does the term Bharatas, signify ? Would they mean actors, then the whole play is acted by actors, and all vṛttis are acted by them who assume the role of characters, or would they mean the special actors who come on the stage only in the beginning of the play and go away after the prologue part.

Taking strictly the definition of Bharata, it may be said that he limits it to the prologue part of the play because in that portion of the play male characters abound and they generally use Sanskrit, because in prologue recitations are made in Sanskrit by Sūtradhāra with Vidūṣaka and Pāripārśvika. There, Naṭī, the female actress plays a minor role. In that part actors appear in their own names without assuming the roles of the respective characters, they are relegated to.

Bharata mentions that its four varieties which have become its component parts should be known as Pracaṇā, Āmukha, Vīthī and Prahasana.

Now let us consider the views of others.

In the view of Abhinavagupta also in the prominence of words there prevails Bhāratī Vṛtti.

Abhinava38 interpreting Bharata's definition of Bhāratī comments that by exclusion of women, obstrunction for the prominence of Kaiśikī is shown. By the employment of Sanskrit it is denoted that it must replace or throw off Kaiśikī because of the sweetness of its Prākṛta recitations. The term 'Bharataih' here denotes actors who are so called after the name of their ancestors. 'Bhedas' here mean the parts in it, not the varieties. Some part of the Bhāratī is Praocaṇā, some Āmukha, Bhāratī extends to the three worlds. So, here, 'aṅgatvam' means that these four have become its parts. Otherwise if it is said that they become the parts of the play then Vīthī and Prahasana are the varieties of Rūpaka, not that they are its parts.

Thus Abhinavagupta has not provided any valuable clue to the problems raised.

Dhanañjaya39 agrees with Bharata and states 'Bhāratī saṃskṛta-prāyo vāgvyāpāro naṭāśrayah'. Bhāratī Vṛtti is a manner of speaking, chiefly in Sanskrit, employed by actors (naṭa). Dhanañjaya clearly states that it takes the support of actors and it has prominence of Sanskrit. But here we detect a little modification from Bharata. The limitations put are not so strictly binding. Otherwise

Vṛttis (Styles)

like Bharata Dhananjaya also takes Bhāratī to be the Vṛtti of words. He mentions that Bhāratī Vṛtti is present everywhere. And like Bharata he also mentions its four Bhedas as Prarocanā, Vīthī, Prahasana and Āmukha.

Dhanañjaya makes it distinct from other three Vṛttis by calling the previous three Vṛttis as Arthavṛttis.

Dhanika40 writes in his commentary that Bhārati is a Śabdavrtti and it being the part of Āmukha will be discussed there. By this statement it becomes clear that Dhanika limits it to the prologue part only and it may be inferred from Dhananjaya's statement also when he says that Sthāpaka should describe some season taking the help of Bhāratī Vṛtti and he has discussed it in the context of prologue.

Dhanika takes Prarocanā, Āmukha etc. as the aṅgas in it. Dhanika differs from Dhananjaya. While the latter calls these four as the bhedas, Dhanika calls them aṅgas and here he agrees with Abhinavagupta who also regards these as the parts or aṅgas, while Bharata has mentioned them as the bhedas.

Dhanañjaya and Dhanika perhaps modified the definition of Bharata from 'Saṃskṛta pāṭhyayuktā' to 'Saṃskṛta prāyo' seeing that in some plays Prākṛt is also resorted to in the prologue part.

Bharata has not mentioned its range,41 but Abhinavagupta Dhananjaya, Dhanika, Śārādatāṇaya and Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra accept it to be present everywhere. It is true if we limit it to the prologue part only, then it will be found in every play, and it will consist of the speeches spoken by the male members in the prologue.

Abhinavagupta is also right in accepting four bhedas as its parts, because some part of Bhāratī Vṛtti consists of Prarocanā and some part consists of Āmukha. And we must remember here the point made by Abhinavagupta that no action is single ; verbal action involve a little of the mental action too.

The real problem arises about Vīthī and Prahasana. As we know, these are the two kinds of plays. Does Bharata mean the same ones here or otherwise ? Nobody has dealt with them properly in the context of Bhāratī Vṛtti though all have mentioned them. We will see this when we take each of the four Aṅgas separately.

The second problem is, should we restrict this Bhārati Vṛtti to the introductory part of the play only as maintained by the authors of Nāṭyadarpaṇa and Bhoja etc.

304

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

The description of Vīthī and Āmukha is most confusing and this confusion has not been allayed by any of the dramaturgist.

We now take these Bhedas of Bhāratī Vṛtti and first we will discuss them as enumerated by Bharata.

Prarocanā

Bharata has mentioned that Prarocanā is to be put in the Pūrvarañga, i.e., before the beginning of the play. It is to attain success, prosperity, good luck, victory and removal of all sins. He has defined it also when dealing with the Pūrvarañga, where he defines it as an appeal with a view to success which is made by the Sūtradhāra after suggesting the action (Kārya) of the play in hand with proper reasoning and arguments.

Aamukham

Bharata states “that part of a play where an actress, the jester, or the assistant has a talk with the sūtradhāra on some relevant topic and they use interesting words or adopt any type of the Vīthī or talk in any other way, is called the Āmukha (Introduction) or Prastāvanā by the wise.”

He mentions five aṅgas of Āmukha namely; Udghātyaka (Accidental Interpretation), Kathodghāta (opening of the story), Prayogātiśaya (the particular presentation), Pravṛttakam (the personal Business) and Avalagitam (the Transference).

When we examine Bharata’s statement closely, we find that Āmukha has been mentioned as one of the four varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti. In Āmukha Naṭī talks with Sūtradhāra often in Prākṛt (as in Śākuntalam). Then the question arises, will we have to exclude that portion spoken by Naṭī out of Bhāratī Vṛtti as it has been defined by Bharata to be applied by males and in Sanskrit ? And if the talk of Naṭī with Sūtradhāra is included in Āmukha then the contradiction will arise. So it does not seem proper that this limitation of Sanskrit language should be imposed on Bhāratī Vṛtti.

Secondly, Bharata has mentioned clearly that the Naṭī, Vidūṣaka or Pāripārśvika may talk with the Sūtradhāra by adopting the aṅgas of Vīthī. Bharata has also mentioned Vīthī as one of the bhedas of Bhāratī Vṛtti. When Vīthyāṅgas may be used in Āmukha or Prastāvanā why this repetition, and why the need for

Vṛttis (Styles)

stating Vīthī separately as the part of Bhāratī Vṛtti and how to harmonise them? The question also arises, are the aṅgas of Vīthī wherein Bhāratī prevails and those to be used in Āmukha, one and the same? Moreover, out of the five aṅgas of Āmukha, Udghātyaka and Avalagita are the aṅgas of Vīthī, so actually there remain only three varieties of Āmukha, i.e. Kathodghāta, Prayogātiśaya and Pravṛttakam. We find the confusion in Bharata himself which the later writers could not remove though they tried their best. The confusion may be removed in one way only, if we accept that any of the thirteen aṅgas of Vīthī may be used in Āmukha, and that Bhāratī also prevails in the form of drama named Vīthī. Here, it may be added that Vīthī and Prahasana mentioned by Bharata as the Bhedas of Bhāratī Vṛtti, refer to the two kinds of dramas and the aṅgas of Vīthī occurring in that kind of the play and used in Āmukha are one and the same.

Bharata further states that he has already spoken the characteristics of Udghātyaka and Avalagita which he has done at the place, discussing Vīthī as a form of Rūpaka. Of the rest he speaks now. We have also defined them in our previous chapter dealing with ten kinds of play, so we need not repeat them here.

Kathodghāta

Bharata defines Kathodghāta. In his view the part in which a character enters the stage taking up a remark of the Sūtradhāra or its meaning is called Kathodghāta.

Prayogātiśaya

When over the production of the introduction, the Sūtradhāra imposes another production and then a character enters (the stage) it is called Prayogātiśaya.

Pravṛttakam—or Pravartakam

The introduction in which Sūtradhāra taking help of some season speaks on some business in hand, and taking cue from this, a character enters the stage it is Pravṛttakam.

Thus, according to Bharata working out skilfully any of this which may be relevant, the wise (play wright) should construct the Āmukham (introduction) without encumbering it with many characters and speeches. In this manner the wise should know the introduction with different bases.

306

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

About Vīthī and Prahasana Bharata states that their characteristics have been mentioned before which he has done only as the forms of Rūpaka. Bharata has left the problem as it is. He has not discussed Vīthī and Prahasana in the context of Vṛtti. It becomes obvious that Vīthī and Prahasana mentioned under the Bhedas of Bhāratī Vṛtti are the forms of drama and not something separate related to the introductory part of the play only. As Bhāratī Vṛtti prevails in Vīthī and Prahasana, it also becomes clear that, it cannot be restricted to prologue part only. As we have defined them in our earlier chapter we will not repeat them here. One thing may be said that as Vīthī and Prahasana consist of Vīthyaṅgas and they are one-act-plays abounding in speeches so they may be said to be the aṅgas of Bhāratī Vṛtti, but of course their inclusion in the aṅgas of Bhāratī Vṛtti does not seem proper and this is the reason why Nāṭyadarpaṇa has avoided them and only mentioned Prarocanā and Āmukha as the parts of Bhāratī-Vṛtti.

While in the view of M. Ghosh, Haas and V. Raghavan, Āmukha, Vīthī etc., these four, are the varieties43 of the Bhāratī Vṛtti, in the opinion of Abhinavagupta, Dhanika and Viśvanātha, these are the four aṅgas, parts of the Bhāratī Vṛtti. But Vīthī and Prahasana do not fit in as its aṅgas. We now take the view of Abhinavagupta.

Abhinavagupta44 does not discuss Prarocanā in detail and says that the Prarocanā that has been described before in Pūrvaraṅga should be considered the part of the Bhāratī Vṛtti. And there is nothing remarkable here.

Abhinavagupta explains Āmukha. He understands that ‘eva’ word denotes the compulsory presence of Sūtradhāra but here he has stretched his imagination too far, because the compulsory presence of Sūtradhāra is denoted by the word ‘Sūtradhāreṇa’ and not by ‘eva’.

In simple words, Abhinavagupta explains that in it, Naṭī, Vidūṣaka or Pāripārśvika either collectively or individually talk with the Sūtradhāra. They talk with the Sūtradhāra purposely through words alluding to the matter of the play either speaking in a winding manner, employing double meaning words or in simple question-answer form.

He opines that in Āmukha, the prefix ‘Ā’ may be taken in two senses, first denoting limit which is upto Mukha only or it may be

Vṛttis (Styles)

taken in the sense that the beginning or a little Mukha (opening) is presented by it. In it, sometimes the Pūvarañga Vidhi is carried towards Kārya or the beginning of Kārya is carried towards it. Thus, when Sthāpaka also, who resembles Sūtradhāra in qualities and appearance, is presented like Rāma etc. then, it is the Āmukha composed by the poet.

Abhinava further states that, a doubt may be raised here that the Prastāvanā would be when the five are used together at a time, but this is not agreeable to Muni Bharata as he has clearly stated that any of these should be used relevant to the topic of the play.

He has tried to remove some confusion present in the NŚ of Bharata. As we have seen, Bharata has mentioned Udghātyaka and Avalagita as the two sub-divisions of Āmukha, and he has also said that Vithyañgas may be used. These two are also the sub-divisions of Vīthī, so why to mention them separately? Abhinavagupta provides the reason of it. He states that although in Prastāvanā there are present other sub-divisions of Vīthī also and it has been stated in the general definition of Āmukha also, yet Udghātyaka and Avalagita serve as important sub-divisions and are forceful parts in the Prastāvanā presenting the matter of the play near at hand.

Abhinavagupta explains etymologically the meaning of Kathodghāta. Kathā means the subject-matter of the play and it is taken upward, so it is called Kathodghāta. He explains Prayogātiśaya that where in Prastāvanā (Prayoga) Sūtradhāra employs a production like the pair of ‘Samudgaka Kavāṭa’, that production because of the double meaning and being connected with two applications is called Prayogātiśaya (Samudgaka Kavāṭa means artificial stanza, the two halves of which exactly correspond in sound though differ in meaning).

He interprets Pravṛttakam that when something is described by the Sūtradhāra basing it on something appropriate to time, and with the help of it there is entrance of the character, one’s matter being spoken through the Pravṛtti of that time it is called Pravṛttakam. He cites its example from Veṇīsaṃhāra which is not appropriate.

Thus Abhinavagupta has explained some points in Bharata’s definitions, and he has left out Vīthī and Prahasana without giving any commentary upon them.

He has accepted four bhedas of Bhāratī Vṛtti as its component parts (aṅgas) and five aṅgas of Āmukha as the five varieties of Āmukha.

In the view of Dhanañjaya45 among these (the varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti) Prarocanā is a means of arousing expectancy by means of praise (of the matter in hand). The definition of Dhananjaya is closer to the definition of Prarocanā given by Bharata in Pūrvaranga. Dhanika46 comments that to excite the curiosity of audience through the praise of matter in hand is Prarocanā as in Ratnāvalī ; the qualities of the poet, the subject-matter and the audience have been praised.

Dhanañjaya like Bharata does not describe Vīthī and Prahasana in reference to Bhāratī Vṛtti and shirks the matter by saying that Vīthī and Prahasana will be discussed in their own context which he does only when he discusses them as the two forms of plays and nowhere else. He does not help us a hit in the problem whether Vīthī and Prahasana, the varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti, are the same which are the forms of dramas or different. Rather he has presented a greater confusion and contradiction before us. He accepts Vīthī and Prahasana as the varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti but when he discusses Vīthī as a kind of the play, he does not mention Bhāratī Vṛtti there, but he mentions it to be in Kaisikī Vṛtti and appropriates to it the sentiment to be indicated as Śṛṅgāra. This type of contradiction we do not find in Bharata. Bharata has simply tried to avoid the repetition, while Dhananjaya has contradicted himself. In Prahasana, of course, Dhananjaya accepts Bhāratī Vṛtti.

We may infer then that like Bharata according to Dhananjaya also Vīthī and Prahasana referred to as the sub-divisions of Bhāratī Vṛtti are not different from the forms of drama of these names and they are the same. It also becomes evident from the fact that Dhananjaya described thirteen sub-divisions of Vīthī under Āmukha and not under Vīthī.

He further states that he is describing the aṅgas of Vīthī here as they are the aṅgas of Āmukha also.

He does not deviate from Bharata in the definition of Āmukha. The only difference is that while according to Bharata Naṭī, Vidūṣaka or Pāripārśvika talk with Sūtradhāra, in Dhananjaya's view here the Sūtradhāra addresses an actress or an assistant or the jester on a matter of his own, in bright conversation hinting at the matter in

Vṛttis (Styles)

progress. This is only putting it otherwise. Dhananjaya calls Amukha as Prastāvanā also. But instead of five, Dhananjaya mentions three varieties of it; Kathodghāta, Pravṛttakam and Prayogātiśaya and the thirteen sub-divisions of Vithi. Dhananjaya has discussed Udghatyaka and Avalagita under the angas of Vithi. Thus there remain only three angas of Amukha itself, Kathodghāta, Prayogātiśaya and Pravṛttakam and when any of the thirteen angas may be employed in Amukha or Prastāvanā, then there should be no need to say Udghatyaka and Avalagita separately as the angas of Amukha. Thus Amukha may become of sixteen varieties not of five, depending upon the three angas of itself and the thirteen of Vithyangas.

The problem remains unsolved in Dhananjaya also that when Vithyangas may be employed in Prastāvanā, and these Vithyangas may be employed in Prahasana too, why Vithi and Prahasana should be mentioned separately as the varieties of Bharati Vritti.

Of course the problem may be solved in one way only that we should take Prarocanā, Amukha, Vithi and Prahasana as the four varieties of Bharati Vritti which become its angas and that Vithyangas are not limited to Vithi kind of play only. They are just the means of expressing a matter beautifully and they can be employed in any play, and they may be used in Prastāvanā also. As Vithi and Prahasana consist of speech and counter-speech so Bharati is prominent there.

Dhananjaya, without differing from Bharata in the definition of Kathodghāta clarifies it more by saying that in it the character enters taking up a remark of the Sutradhāra or the meaning of such a remark which corresponds with some incident connected with himself.

About the definition of Kathodghāta, most of the theoreticians do not differ. Dhananjaya defines Prayogātiśaya as that form of induction in which a character enters in accordance with a reference to him (Prayogatah) by the Sutradhāra in the words 'here he is'. Dhanika exemplifies it with the Introduction of Abhijnanasakuntala, when Sutradhāra in order to present Dusyanta says, 'I have been captivated by your song like this king Dusyanta captivated by the fast running deer'. Dhananjaya mentions clearly that Sutradhāra uses in the production 'here he is' and refers to the character and the character enters, Bharata has not mentioned expressly what prayoga sutradhāra employs.

310

A Study of Abhinavabharati and Avaloka

From the definition of Prayogātiśaya it is evident that in his presentation of Prastāvanā Sūtradhāra makes use of such a presentation as it refers to the character or the matter of the play and as a result of that presentation, character enters the stage.

Dhanañjaya has defined Pravṛttakam as the entering of (a person) hinted at by the similarity of (the nature) the season (described).

In comparison to Abhinava, Dhanika has given a better example. Dhanañjaya has deviated from Bharata in his definition of Udghātyaka.

While in the view of Bharata if in order to explain the words men connect the words of obscure meaning with words other than those (intended by the speaker) it becomes Udghātyaka ; in the view of Dhanañjaya, Udghātyaka, which is of two kinds, is a series of successive words whose meaning is hidden or of the questions and answers where there is mutual conversation.

While Bharata has mentioned only one kind of Avalagita combining both the senses in his definition, Dhanañjaya mentions two kinds of Avalagita. According to Bharata when anything occurring in relation to something will be made to accomplish, something else it becomes an instance of Avalagita.

Dhanañjaya states that Avalagita which is of two kinds, is that in which on the one hand a different matter is carried out because of a simultaneous occurrence or on the other hand, there is a different turn in a matter in progress.

Then mentioning these thirteen aṅgas of Vīthī Dhanañjaya mentions like Bharata that out of these, taking the most relevant, and by it referring to the matter or the character, the sūtradhāra should go out at the end of the Prastāvanī. Dhanika has also regarded these thirteen aṅgas of Vīthī as the aṅgas of Prastāvanā.

Thus we find that Dhanañjaya has not deviated much from Bharata. Of course he differs a little in mentioning the two kinds of Udghātyaka and Avalagita and their definitions.

The conclusion which we may draw from all the discussion of Āmukha is that in Āmukha or Prastāvanā any of the aṅgas of Vīthī may be employed to present the matter of the play. Bharata has added specially Udghātyaka and Avalagita, the two sub-divisions of Vīthī, in the three aṅgas of Āmukha to emphasise the fact that out of all the aṅgas of Vīthī, these two help the most in hinting at the present matter of the play at hand in Prastāvanā,

Vṛttis (Styles)

311

Now we come to Vīthī and Prahasana, the two varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti. As we have already said that though Bharata and Dhanañjaya and others have accepted Vīthī and Prahasana as the aṅgas of varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti but they have not discussed them while discussing other parts of that Vṛtti. They have left the problem unsolved. They have discussed Vīthī and Prahasana as the species of drama. Perhaps it was to avoid the repetition of them. About Bharata it can be said that he does not contradict himself and he is very clear. He decisively says that the Vīthī and Prahasana have been spoken before and he discusses the thirteen sub-divisions of Vīthī when he discusses Vīthī. Bharata has regarded Vīthī as rich with the characteristics of all the sentiments and to be acted by one or two persons. Dhanañjaya has discussed the thirteen aṅgas of Vīthī under Āmukha apparently as the may be employed in Ānukha also. Dhanañjaya has contradicted himself in describing Vīthī to be in Kaiśikī Vṛtti. Prahasana is also one Act play having the comic sentiment and employes Vīthyaṅgas.

We have discussed Vīthī and Prahasana when discussing them as species of drama and we need not go into detail here. With Keith47 we may say that the two elements of Bhāratī Vṛtti, Propitiation and Introduction essentially belong to the prologue part of the Drama, the other two Vīthī and Prahasana are species of drama. All the theorists agree that elements of Vīthī are applicable in any part of the drama, essentially in the first sandhi and are an essential part of Bhāratī Vṛtti.

S.N. Śāstrī18 takes Vīthī as a sub-division of Bhāratī Vṛtti to be different from its namesake, which is one of the species of Rūpakas. In his view the similarity of thirteen sub-divisions has created a misunderstanding. But we cannot accept the view of S.N. Śāstrī as it goes against the available facts. If this Vīthī, the part of Bhāratī Vṛtti is different from its namesake then why even Bharata and Dhanañjaya have not discussed it when dealing with other varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti at such a length. V. Raghavan49 also writes in his thesis on Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa that Vīthī and Prahasana refer to two types of Rūpakas not only to prologue. But later writers restricted them to prologue part only. Bhoja and others put a restricted meaning in Vīthī.

Vīthī and Prahasana are the two species of drama which form the two varieties of Bhāratī Vṛtti and being descriptive, there is predominance of verbal action and Bhāratī Vṛtti prevails there,

The most plausible conclusion that we can draw about Bhāratī Vṛtti may be that the main purpose of Bhāratī Vṛtti was to present the drama in an attractive way through these aṅgas and generally it was restricted to the prologue part of the play as here the verbal action predominates and the actors are yet in their own names and they have not assumed their respective roles and here, mostly Samskṛta Pāṭhya is used and only Nāṭī appears otherwise it is applied by male actors. It seems plausible that first Vīthī and Prahasana were introduced in the beginning of the play to entertain the audience before the actual commencement of the play. Later they developed as separate species of drama. Theory included them as the aṅgas of Bhāratī Vṛtti as they mostly consist of exchange of beautiful expressions and words. But when any subdivision of the Vīthī may be applied in Prastāvanā, Vīthī should not be retained as a separate aṅga or variety of Bhāratī Vṛtti. If we do not restrict Bhāratī Vṛtti to the prologue part, many problems arise e.g. should all the speeches made in Sanskrit by the male characters in a play be considered as belonging to Bhāratī Vṛtti and what about the plays written in Prākrit and other languages.

As a matter of fact its scope is generally restricted to the presentation part of the play of all the plays, and it prevails in Vīthī and Prahasana also.

Use of Vṛttis in Rasas

The use of these four Vṛttis has been prefixed to different sentiments. As mentioned by Bharata50 Kaiśikī is mostly abundant in the comic and Erotic sentiment and Sāttvatī shelters the Heroic, Marvellous and the quiet:tude. In some texts instead of ‘Śama’ is read ‘Śamāśraya’, meaning based upon. In Terrible (Raudra) and Furious (Bhayānaka) should be known Ārabhaṭī and in the odious and the Pathetic, Bhāratī is applicable.

There are obviously two different texts51 which give varied readings about these rules. While according to G.O.S. ed. these rules are as given above, in other texts we find Sāttvatī mentioned in Vīra and Adbhuta Rasa only, Ārabhaṭī in Bhayānaka, Bibhatsa and Raudra and Bhāratī in Karuṇa and Adbhuta in Vīra, Hāsya and in all sentiments.

There are two stanzas in brackets which are not found in Mātrkā and according to which no play employs only one sentiment, feeling or Rasa or Pravṛtti or Vṛtti. In all of them, whatever

Vṛttis (Styles)

is abundant, is considered as the permanent Rasa and others its subservients.

Dhanañjaya52 mentions that Kaiśikī should be in Śṛṅgāra ; Sāttvatī in Vīra, Ārabhaṭī in Raudra and Bībhatsa and Bhāratī everywhere i e. in all the Rasas. So, Dhanañjaya does not go against Bharata, though he does not mention these Vṛttis in the subordinate Rasas to the main Rasas but these may be inferred. Thus, Bhāratī's scope is the widest as it is present in all the sentiments.

V. Raghavan53 is of the view that it is not proper to say that the poet should add a certain Vṛtti if the Rasa is such and such. It should rather be said a certain Rasa is a certain Vṛtti or is in a certain Vṛtti or has that Vṛtti.

Bharata54 mentions that the representation is twofold, delicate and violent. Āviddha or violent Nāṭya consists of magic, conjuration, model work, mostly men and a few women only and Sāttvatī and Arabhaṭī. Dima, Samavakāra, Vyāyoga and Ihāmṛga come under this category. Nāṭaka, Prakaraṇa, Bhāṇa, Vīthī and Aṅka consist of delicate representation and are based on human beings.

Passingly we should also see the relationship between Vṛtti and Pravṛtti. According to Bharata and Dhanañjaya these are inter-related. Bharata55 holds that Vṛtti deals with the dress, language and behaviour of the different regions and it is called Pravṛtti in reporting that. And the regions are attached to performances which relate to the styles such as Bhāratī, Sāttvatī, Kaiśikī and Ārabhaṭī. Because of this the four local usages develop and performances following them originate.

Dhanañjaya56 states, Vṛtti consisting of the action of the Hero etc. is fourfold and Pravṛttis are characterised by the region, language and dress and action. Rājaśekhara57 holds that physical action may be said Vṛttis, dress and decoration as Pravṛttih and speech Rīti. (Veśavinyāsa Kramah Pravṛttih, Vilāsavinyāsa Kramo Vṛttih, Vacana-Vinyāsa Kramo Rītiḥ). In a certain sense we may say that Vṛtti comprehends both Pravṛtti and Rīti as Vṛttis involve the action of words, Sattva and body and also the representation of costumes etc. Four Vṛttis involve the fourfold representations respectively, Bhāratī, Vācika, Sāttvatī, Sāttvika, Ārabhaṭī, Āṅgika and Kaiśikī, Āhārya.

In the end we may say that all the confusion about Vṛttis cannot be removed, though we have tried our best to allay it. Generally, most of the canonists have recognised the four Vṛttis

314

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

mentioned by Bharata, somehow or other Vṛtti involves action and no action can be absolutely singled out, every action involves the other actions also. This division of Vṛttis into four has been done in regard to the prominence of a certain action in to a certain Vṛtti. Otherwise all the action is confined into the threefold action of human beings consisting of words, Sattva and body. These Vṛttis depict the mode of behaviour of different kinds. And appropriate to the main sentiment of a play, one Vṛtti will be prominent there, though others may also be present. As for example in a play dealing with Śṛṅgāra both Kaiśikī and Bhāratī will prevail though Kaiśikī will be abundant. These names are attached to them seeing the abundance of a particular element in that Vṛtti. Bhāratī will be present in all the plays as its main purpose was to introduce the drama and its bhedas Āmukha and Prarocanā-are found in almost every play. It is present in all the Rasas as it refers to the matter of the plays depicting different sentiments. We may conclude with Abhinavagupta by saying that the action helping in the object of man is Vṛtti and this action is described everywhere in the plays, so, Vṛttis are like the mothers of K vya, i.e. their use is not restricted to dramas only.

REFERENCES

1. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XVIII, 4-7, p. 407.

धर्मीविग्रहपुरार्थचतुष्टये साध्ये वागङ्गसत्वचेष्टा सामान्यम् । तच्च संक्षिप्तेनावान्तरभेदेन चतुर्था । यद्यत्कल कर्माभ्यते तत्र वाड्मनः-काव्यकारस्तावदस्ति तत् कस्मि चिल्ललित्यवैचित्र्यक्रमस्यानुप्रवेश । यत उत्तमप्रकृतीनां सौष्ठवमय एव सर्वो व्यापारः । तदेव तद्वृत्तिच-तुष्टयम् । यद्यापि काव्यादमसं चेष्टा एव सह वैचित्र्येण प्रवाहेन वहनित, तथापि विशिष्टेन हृदयावेशेन युक्तो वृत्तयो नाट्योपकारिण्यः । अभि., अभि. भा., अ-1, पृ. 20, अ. 20, पृ 83 क्रमशः ।

3. तदध्यापाराभ्रिका वृत्तिरित्यर्थः । घ., द. रू., दृि. अ., 47.

Vṛttis (Styles)

4. प्रवृत्तिरुपो नेतृव्यापारस्वभावो वृत्ति:, सा च कैशिकी-सात्वती-आरभटी-भारतीभेदाच्चतुर्विधा । धनिक, अव., पृ 134.

पुरुषार्थसाधको विचित्रो व्यापारो वृत्ति: रामचन्द्र गुणचन्द्र, ना.द., अ. 3, सू. 155, पृ. 273.

नैपथ्ये गीतवादित्रसभावभिनयनृत्यजातीनां श्वापि विशेषे वर्तनमिति वृत्ति: । ' विलास विन्यासक्रमो वृत्ति:' । सागरनन्दी, ना. ल. को., 10.

5. Keith, A.B. SKD, p. 326 ; Raghavan. V., Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa of Bhoja, p. 195.; Śāstrī, S.N., LPSKD, p. 319.

6. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XX, 7-15, 23-25, p. 85 ff.

7. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XX, pp. 85; Sāgaranandin, NLR., 1045-1050 ; Sāradātanaya, Bhāvaprakāśā p. 12.

8. Bharata, N.Ś. Ch. XIII, p. 205 ff.

9. Abhinava. Abh. Bh. Ch. XVIII, p. 451, Ch. XX, p. 87.

10. नाथंवृत्तिरत: परा । चतुर्थी भारती सापि वाच्या नाटकलक्षणे । कैशिकीं सात्वतीं चार्थवृत्तिमारभटीमिति पठन्त: पदवर्यो वृत्तिमौदभटा: प्रतिजानते ॥ देशभाषाक्रियावेशलक्षण: स्यु: प्रवृत्तय: । लोकादेवागमयिता यथौचित्यं प्रयोजयेत् ।। ध., द. रू., अ., 2, 60-61, 63.

11. Dhanika, Av., p. 143.

12. Rāmacandra Guṇacandra, N.D., Ch. III, Sū. 155, p. 273; Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch., XX p. 88 ; Dhanañjaya, DR. B. II, 61 ; Sāradātanaya, BP, p. 12.

13. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 326.

14. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XX, 12, 41-44.

15. यद्यपि अमेदेऽपितरेकेणापि भारती (तो) न दूर्यते तथापि न्यायेनैति तत्प्रकारचतुष्कं निरूपितम् । सात्वतो गुण: मानसो व्यापार: । सत्सत्वं प्रकाशं तद्विधये यत्र तत्सद्वं मन:, तस्मिन् भव: । अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 20, प. 96, क्रमश: ।

16. Dhanañjaya, DR., B. II, 53.

17. Dhanika, Av., p. 139 ; Rāmacandra Guṇacandra, N.D., Ch. III, p. 285, Viśvanātha Kavirāja, S.D., Ch. VI, 128-130,

18. Bharata, N. S., Ch. XX, 45-51.

19. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XX, p. 97 ff.

20. Dhananjaya, DR. B. II, 54-55 ; Dhanika, Av., p. 139 ff.; Visvanatha, SD., Ch. VI, 130-132 ; Sagaranandin, NLR, 10, 1276-1288. He defines Parivartaka differently, 'Bhedah Samadhanam ca trayam nispalatatam gatam, Uddhared dandam asthaya yatsyattatparivartakam'.

21. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XX, 53, 56, Ch. I, 44-45.

22. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XX, p. 99 ff. Ch. I, p. 20 ff.

23. Dhananjaya, DR., B, II, 47-48.

24. Dhanika, Av., p. 134 ; ND. Ch. III, p. 287 ; Visvanatha. S.D., Ch., VI, p. 323 ; Sagaranandin, NLR , 10, 1308.

25. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XX, 57-61.

26. हासप्रधानता न तदेति सामान्यलक्षणम् । तत्र-हास ईर्ष्या वा सूचयितुं पर वोपालब्धं परहृदयं वाक्प्रहृतुमिति त्रिधा आत्मनः परकीयस्य जित्स्ययोगप्रख्ये आत्मसमर्पणरम् ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 20, पृ 100 क्रमशः ।

27. Dhananjaya, DR., B. II, 48-52 ; Dhanika, Av., p. 134 ff.

28. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XX, 63-67.

29. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XX, p. 103, Ch. I, p. 20. 'Iyarti ityara bhatah sots:ha analasah. Tesamiyamarabhatim Kayavrtti'.

30. Dhananjaya, D.R., B. II, 56-57 ; Dhanika, Av., p. 141 ; N.D. Ch. III, p 288 ; Visvanatha, SD., Ch., VI, 132-134, p. 327 ; Saganranandin, NLR, 1347.

31. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XX, 68-71.

32. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. XX, p. 103 ff.

33. Dhananjaya, DR. B. II, 57-58. Sanksiptavasturacanā sanksipitih silpayogatah Purvanetrnivrtt ty, anye netrantraparigrahah.

34. Dhanika, Av., p. 141 ff.

35. Keith, A.B., SKD., p. 327.

36. Dhananjaya, DR B. II, 58-59.

37. Bharata, N.S., Ch. XX, 6,8, 26-27.

38. स्त्रीवर्जितेतिन कैशिकी प्राधान्याबावकाशं गमयति । संस्कृतेति वचसा प्राकृत-पाठयलालित्य्यात कैशिकीमवश्यमक्षिपेदिति सचर्यति । भेदा इति अस्यामर्थोऽत्र न तु प्रकाशः; त्रैलोक्यव्यापिप्या कविचिदंश: प्ररोचनारूप:;

Vṛttis (Styles)

एवमामुखवभावा । अज्जत्वमिति श्रेष्ठत्वे प्राप्ता ।

अभि., अभि. भा., अ. 20, पृ. 91 ऋमशः ।

39. Dhananjaya, DR. B. III, 4-5, B. II, 60,62.

40. Dhanika, Av., p. 143, 150.

41. Abhinava, Abh. Bh. Ch. XX, p. 91 ; Dhananjaya, B. II, 62 ; Dhanika Av., p. 143 ; Śāradātanaya, Bhāvaprakāśa, p. 12, N.D., Ch. III, Sū. 156, p. 275 ; Sāgaranandin, NLR 1055-1068.

42. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XX, 28-40.

43. Ghosh, M. N.Ś., (Eng. Trans.), p. 404 ; Haas, C.O., DR. (Eng. Trans) p. 81 ; Raghavan, V., J.O.R. Vol. VII, p. 44.

44. Abhinava, Abh. Bh., Ch. V, p. 219, Ch. XX, p. 92 ff. ‘Kāvyārtharūpa Ūrdhvameva hanyate gamyate tatreti Kathodghātah’, Example of Pravṛttakam-‘Satpakṣā madhuragiraḥ, veṇī, 1.67.

45. वीथी प्रहसनं चापि स्वरसङ्गोष्ठीभिधास्यते । वीथ्यड्गान्यामुखादित्वादुच्यतेस्तत्रैव, तत्पुनः ।

46. प्रवृत्तकालसमनुगुणवर्णनया सूचितपात्रप्रवेशः प्रवृत्तकम्-आसादितप्रकट निर्मलचन्द्रद्रहासः । प्राप्तः शरत्समय एष विशुद्धकान्तः ॥ उत्क्वाय गाढतमसं घनकालमुप्रै । रामौ दशास्यमिव सम्मृत्तवन्‌धुजीवः ॥

धानिक,, अभ. पृ. 151 कमशः ।

47. Keith, A.B., SKD, p. 328.

48. Śāstrī, S.N., LPSD, p. 325.

49. Raghavan, V., Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa of Bhoja, p. 198.

50. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XX, 73-76, p. 105.

51. N.Ś. G.O.S. ed., Vol. III, p. 105.

52. Dhananjaya, DR. B. II, 62.

53. Raghavan, V. J.O.R., Vol. VII, p. 45 ff.

54. Bharata, N.Ś., Ch. XIII, 59-64.

55. Ibid., p. 205, Supra, Ref. 8.

56. Dhananjaya, DR., B. II, 63, Supra Ref. 10.

57. Rājaśekhara, Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Ch. III, p. 49.

CONCLUSION

Having made a comparative and critical appreciation of the commentaries of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka in respect of the Dramaturgical Principles, treated in the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata and in the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya, we can now summarise the results of our study as follows.

Dhanañjaya claimed to follow Bharata in the very beginning of his treatise and he has kept his promise to a great extent, yet we have found that there are some striking deviations in his treatment of Dramaturgical Principles. Dhananjaya differs from Bharata in his basic approach. While Bharata takes Netā or Nāyaka in the broader sense of characterisation, Dhananjaya takes it in the narrow sense of the leading and stereotyped sense of the main hero. His classification of hero and heroines is very minute and detailed.

Next, Bharata has not used the term Arthopakṣepakas and has not enumerated all of them, while Dhananjaya does so. Bharata has not mentioned Sandhis as arising out of the combination of Avasthās with the Arthaprakṛtis, while Dhananjaya believes in it. In deviation to Bharata, Dhananjaya has classified the Vibhāvas in two categories : Ālambana Vibhāva and Uddīpana Vibhāva. And they have been rightly so divided, because to awaken a particular Rasa, its stimulant situation isasmuch responsible as is its unitary base. In defining some terms, Dhananjaya has improved upon Bharata. He has left out the unnecessary details and has defined the terms in brief and apt words, as for example, in the definition of Añka and in the modes of address.

Dhananjaya has not given any scope to four kinds of representation, while Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra is divided on the basis of representation. Bharata's chapters are named after the four kinds of representation, for example, some dealing with Vācikābhinaya, some with Sāttvikābhinaya, some with āṅgika, some with Āhārya

Conclusion

and so on. Dhanañjaya regards Vastu, Netā and Rasa as the distinguishing elements of the ten kinds of plays, while it is not so in Bharata's view. Dhanañjaya's classification of Vastu is all inclusive and different from that of Bharata. He deviates from Bharata in the kinds of Patākāsthānakas. While Dhanañjaya regards pleasure as the sole aim of the Rūpakas and appears to believe in the theory of Art for pleasure, Bharata regards the aim of drama to impart message also, and he believes in 'instruction and delight', and to cater for the needs of all. In most of the definitions of technical terms he agrees with Bharata and the slight modifications in his treatise were essential with the pace of time.

Abhinava set his aim and included in his commentary the objectives of 'proper reading of the useful, omission or removal of its opposite, lucid and clear explanation, removal of contradictions, bringing completeness ; keeping the objective in view, critically viewing the ambiguous part, establishing propriety of the repetitions, collection of views and explaining the things in their proper perspective.'

Though Abhinava explains the statements of Bharata in the best way possible, yet sometimes he appears to be going too far and out of his way. He seems to deviate from Bharata in his explanation of Arthaprakṛtis, dividing them into animates ; and inanimates while Bharata has not done so. In trying to explain 'Anusandhis' he becomes vague and contradictory. In giving a philosophical turn to the simple statement of Bharata about the Rasa, he digresses into philosophy and goes into elaboration. Unlike Bharata he has accepted five kinds of Arthopakṣepakas. He, evidently, differs from Bharata in his interpretation of the Raudra Rasa, in the interpretation of Adhiṣṭhāna in Śṛṅgāra Rasa, in his treatment of Vṛttis. He propagates Śānta Rasa in deviation to Bharata.

As Dhanañjaya and Abhinava were more or less contemporaries so their views often coincide and sometimes they quite disagree. Dhanañjaya and Abhinava agree in accepting five kinds of Arthopakṣepakas. Both regard the spectator as the seat of Rasa. Dhanañjaya confines himself to drama proper and not to other allied arts with it, Abhinava also takes everything in respect to Nāṭyam. Abhinava, unlike Dhanañjaya, has not accepted the Vibhāvas as of two kinds. While Dhanañjaya has accepted Rasa as the Sthāyin in its transformed state, Abhinava takes the two things as separate. In his view, Sthāyin is always present in its

320

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

residual form, but Rasa is aroused only at its stage of culmination when it is relished. Abhinava accepts the Śānta, while Dhanañjaya does not accept it in a drama. While Abhinava belongs to the school of Dhvanivādins, Dhanañjaya to that of Tātparyavādins.

Dhanika mostly explains the statements of Dhanañjaya and elucidates them with proper examples. Generally, they are of one view. But sometimes Dhanika leaves many points untouched in his commentary without providing any adequate commentary on the relevant points. Dhanika confuses the matter over Bindu, naming it as avāntarbīja, and thus differs from Dhanañjaya. He elaborates the forty eight kinds of heroes. Then he regards Dhīrodātta etc. as the Avaśthās of the hero. He gives a detailed explanation of the relation between Rasa and poetry. In deviation to Dhanañjaya he takes bhedas of Vṛttis as their aṅgas.

We find that Abhinava's is a better commentary, is in great detail ; takes every possible aspect of the problem, discusses all the prevalent views of his time, but sometimes leaves the problem as it is. For example Abhinavabhāratī is vague and contradictory on the points of 'hīnasandhi and pūrṇasandhi', about Avamarśa about Prastāvanā and Āmukha about his justification of the division of Rasas into primary and dependant Rasas, in his defence of Śānta and in his explanation of īhāmṛga. Yet, all the same, Abhinavabhā-ratī is the best guide to understand Bharata. It faithfully records all the existing views over the debatable points. It provides a most psychological and better convincing explanation and sees the problem from the aesthete's point of view.

In comparison to Abhinavabhāratī, Avaloka of Dhanika is wanting in many places, though it also tries to illustrate every point with appropriate examples. Dhanika generally gives the appropriate examples, but sometimes his examples are not fit and to the point. As for example, he gives examples of thirteen aṅgas of Vīthī enumerated under Āmukha or Prastāvanā, but his examples do not illustrate Prastāvanā part. Sometimes he gives examples from poetic works, while he ought to give them from dramatic works. His commentary is often scanty as at the place of Arthaprakṛtis. He contradicts himself at places like mentioning Dhīrodātta etc. as the states etc. Yet, all the same, it is a great help in understanding the Daśarūpaka. Dhanañjaya is so concise at places that without the help of Avaloka we will not be able to grasp the real importance of a point. Both Abhinava and Dhanika have tried to explain the terms etymologically also.

Conclusion

Moreover we also find that acceptance of four primary and dependant Rasas is not sound from spectator’s point of view. Rasa is just a mixed feeling that we experience while seeing an enactment of drama and it should not be taken into so deep a philosophical sphere. Bharata was more concerned with the practical side of drama than with its philosophical. He has produced the manual more for the guidance of playwright and the actor than for the spectator. Of course he does not neglect the spectator too. A spectator of drama, in the view of Bharata, Abhinava, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, is not an ordinary common man, but a well-versed critic in all the related arts of drama, and in the rules of drama proper itself. Moreover, this critic is not just to criticise but is sensitive and sympathetic of heart (sahrdaya), keen of intellect and imagination who can appreciate the beauty in minute details also.

Vṛttis are related with Rasas and representations. Vṛttis are not restricted to drama only but they may be found in poetry too. The term ‘Rūpaka’ to denote drama is very significant and apt. Sanskrit drama was to be enacted and a thing of representation. Drama is more impressive than poetry as situations are visualised directly before the spectator. All cannot enjoy a piece of drama in equal measure or manner. It will vary with the nature of man and his susceptibility. The minute classification of hero and heroines or other details is futile and superfluous. Some forms of drama have been described on the basis of inadequate material and we do not find any old specimen of them. So, basic facts should be kept in mind. In Sanskrit dramaturgy there is too much classification, attention has not been directed to the practical utility. Too much importance has been attached to Vīra and Śṛṅgāra, other aspects of human life have been neglected, though Bharata regarded Nāṭyam as the medium to express all kinds of states and feelings that may arise in this world. The word ‘Nāṭyam’ itself does not imply mere theoretical side but it connotes the very representation itself. Representation helps a lot in the awakening of Rasa.

A drama is meant to be enacted and enjoyed and it necessarily entails the presence of an audience.

Abhinaya and Dhanika cited examples mostly from Veṅsamhāra and Ratnāvalī, because only these two plays mostly adhere to the dramaturgical detailed classification. Other plays of master play-wrights are not slavishly written as the creative artist

does not bind himself in the rules and regulations laid down. His creative energy wants fresh channels, so this is the reason that if we take the plays of Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti etc. to illustrate the dramaturgical details, our labour will not be adequately rewarded. Of course the basic dramaturgical principle of holding the interest of the audience upto the end is followed by every play-wright. And the creative dramatist always accepts and traverses on the basic dramatic principles, otherwise he cannot succeed in his aim. The dramatist's basic aim or principle is to entertain, to delight, and every play-wright tries to fulfil this aim, but with pleasure sure he also vibrates a message though it may not be directly stated. As Goethe has said, 'If a poet has as high a soul as Sophocles, his influence will always be moral, let him do what he will. In drama both realism and idealism should be intermixed. Drama is an imitation but not a mere replica. Moreover, unity of impression should always be followed.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

A—TEXTS

Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Kālidāsa, ed. by Dvivedi, Kapiladeva, Allahabad, (1966).

Alaṅkārasaṅgraha, Amṛtānandayogin, Adyar Library, series No. 70, (1949).

Amaruśatakam, ed. by Śrīkrsnadāsa, Mitra Prakashana, Allahabad, (1961).

Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini, Pub. Motilal Banarsidass, (1962).

Avimāraka, Bhāsa, 1968.

Bhāsaṇāṭakacakram, ed. by Devadhar, Poona Oriental Series No. 54, 1951.

Bhāvaprakāśana, Śāradātanaya, G.O.S. ed., Oriental Institute, Baroda, (1930).

Daśarūpaka, Dhananjaya, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, Varanasi, (1967).

Dhvanyāloka, Ānandavardhana, Benaras, 1940.

Kāvyaprakāśa, Mammaṭa, Pub. Sahityabhandar, Meerut, (1970).

Kāmasūtra, Vātsyāyana, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Banaras (V. Sam. 1986).

Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Rājaśekhara, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, (1934).

Kāvyādarśa, Daṇḍin , Madras, 1952.

Kāvyānuśāsana, Hemachandra Ācarya, ed. by Shrimahavira Jain Vidyalaya., Bombay, 1938.

Kumārasambhava, Kālidāsa, Pub. Sahitya Academy, New Delhi (1962).

Kuṭṭanimatam, Dāmodaragupta., ed. by Madhusudan, 1944,

324

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Mahābhārata, Harivaṃśa, Śāntiparva, Citrashala Prakashan, Pune, (1932), Anuśāsana Parva.

Mahāviracarita, Bhavabhūti, Vidyabhavan Sanskrit Granthamala, Banaras, (1955).

Mālatīmādhava, Bhavabhūti, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay, (1936).

Mālavikāgnimitram, Kālidāsa, ed. by Kashinatha Panduranga Parab, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay, (1935).

Mṛcchakaṭika, Śūdraka, Pub. Sahitya Bhandara; Meerut, 1972.

Mudrārākṣasa, Viśākhadatta. Bombay, 1948.

Nāṭyadarpana, Rāmcandra Gunacandra, Pub. Delhi University, Delhi, Hindi Deptt., (1961).

Nāgānanda, Śrīharṣa, Poona, (1953).

Nāṭakalakṣaṇa Ratnakośa, Sāgaranandin, Oxford University Press, London, Humphrey Milford, (1937).

Nāṭyaśāstra, Bhārata, G.O.S O.I., Baroda, Vol. I, second revised ed. (1956), Vol. II, (1934), Vcl. III (1954).

Nāṭyaśāstra, Vol. I, ed. by M. Ghosh, Manisha Granthamala, Calcutta (1967).

Pātañjala Mahābhāṣya, Calcutta, 1953.

Pratāparudrīyam, Vidyānātha, Mylapore, Madras 1950.

Priyadarśikā, Śrīharṣa, Poona, 1928.

Rāmāyaṇa, Vālmīki, Kalyana, Bombay, Saka, 1857.

Ratnāvalī Śrīharṣa, ed. by M.R. Kale, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay, 1925.

Rasagaṅgādhara, Paṇḍitarāja, Jagannātha, Chowkhamba Vidhya-bhavan, Varanasi, (1955).

Rājatarangiṇi. Kalhaṇa, Hindi Pracāraka Samsthāna, Varanasi, (1969).

Raghuvamsa, Kālidāsa. Bombay, 1953.

Sāhityadarpana. Viśvanātha Kavirāja, ed. by Durgaprasad, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay (1936).

Śrautsūtra, Kātyāyana, Pub. Varanasi, 1933.

Sāṅkhyakārikā, Īśvarakṛṣṇa,

Select Bibliography

Tāpasavatsarāja, Anañgaharṣamātṛāja, Sahitya Bhandara, Meerut, (1969).

Uttararāmacaritam, Bhavabhūti, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay, 1939.

Veñīsamhāra, Bhāṭṭa Nārāyaṇa, Meerut, 1960.

Vikramorvaśīyam, Kālidāsa, ed. by Satyabhamabai Pandurañga, Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay, (1942).

Yogasūtra, Patañjali, Vyāsabhāṣya, ed. by Kashinath, 1932.

B–COMMENTARIES

Abhinavagupta, Abhinavabhāratī, G.O.S., Oriental Institute Baroda, Vol. I, (1956), Vol. II, (1934), Vol. III (1954), Hindi Abhinavabhāratī, Hindi Deptt., Delhi University Delhi (1960).

Dhanika, Avaloka, Chowkhamba Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, (1967).

Rāghavabhaṭṭa, Arthadyotanikā, Commentary on Abhijñāna-śākuntala, Pub. by Satyabhamabai Pandurañga, Nirṇaya Sagar Press,Bombay, (1947).

C–TRANSLATIONS

Haas, G.C.O., The Daśarūpaka, a Treatise On Hindu Dramaturgy, Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi (1962).

Ghosh, M., The Nāṭyaśāstra, ascribed to Bharatamuni, Vol I, Manisha Granthalaya, Calcutta (1967).

D–GENERAL

Bhattacharya, Biswanatha, Sanskrit Drama and Dramaturgy, Pub. Bharata Manish, Varanasi, 1974.

Butcher, S.H., Aristotle Poetics, Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts, IV. ed. Dover, 1951.

Benegal, Som, A Panorama of Theatre in India, New Delhi (1967).

Das Gupta, S.N. and De S.K., A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical period, Vol. I, Pub. University of Calcutta, (1947).

Dey, S.K., Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, Calcutta, 1959.

Dey, S.K., Aspects of Sanskrit Literature, 1959.

Dey, S.R., History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I (1923).

Dvivedi, Hajariprasada, Prithvinatha, Bharatiya Natyasastra ki Paramarpa Aur Dasarupaka, Rajkamal Prakashan, Delhi.

Ghosh, M., Contributions to the History of Hindu Drama, Pub. Calcutta, (1958).

Shekhar, I., Sanskrit Drama and its Decline, Brill, 1960.

Jagirdar, R.V., Drama in Sanskrit Literature. Bombay, (1947).

Kane, P.V., The History of Sanskrit Poetics, as Introduction to Sahityadarpana, Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay, (1951).

Kavi, M.R., Preface to first ed. of N S.,Vol. I, Second Revised ed. (1956), Vol. II, (1934).

Keith, A.B., The Sanskrit Drama, O.U.P., (1954).

Keith, A.B., The Sankhayana Aranyaka, Oriental Reprint, New Delhi.

Krishnamcharior, M., History of Classical Sanskrit Literature,, Tirumalai Tirupati, (1937).

Mainkar, T.G., Studies in Sanskrit Dramatic Criticism, Motilal Banarsidas, (1971).

Mankad, D.R., The types of Sanskrit Drama, Pub. Urmi Prakashan Mandir (1936).

Pandey, K.C , Indian Aesthetics (Comparative Aesthetics), Vol. I, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Varanasi, (1959).

Raghavan, V., The Number of Rasas, Adyar Library Series, Vol. XXIII, Adyar, Madras, (1967), (1940).

Sastri, K.S. Ramaswamy, and Yadugiri Yatirāja, Swamy of Melkot, Introduction to Bhavaprakasana, G.O.S. ed., Baroda, (1930).

Sastri, K.S. Ramaswamy, Preface to second Revised ed. of N.Ṣ. Vol. I, G.O.S. ed. (1956).

Sastri, S N., Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, Pub. Chwokhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi, (1961).

Singhal, R.L., Aristotle and Bharata, A Comparative Study of their theories of Drama, (1975).

Select Bibliography

Seṭha, Govindadāsa, Abhinandana Grantha, ed. by Dr. Nagendra, New Delhi, (1956).

Weber, Albrecht, The History of Indian Literature, Trans. by Hohn Mann and Theodore Zachariae, Pub. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, (1961).

E-JOURNALS

Indian Antiquary, Vol. 33, Reprinted AKP, Delhi, 1984.

Journal of Oriental Research (JOR), Madras, Vol. VIII, (1934), and Volume VII.

INDEX

Abhidhā 223, 226, 238

Abhijñānaśākuntalam 55, 101, 103, 112, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 162, 163, 166, 169, 207, 208.

Abhinavabhārati 24, 26, 27-31, 37, 221ff, 226, 241, 243, 318, 320

Abhinavagupta 16, 21, 23f, ten forms of drama 50-52, nāṭaka 53-54, prakaraṇa 57-58, Nāṭikā 59-60, Samavakāra 63-64, Īhāmṛga 66-67 Dīma 68, Vyāyoga 69 Utsṛṣṭikāṅka 70, Prahasana 71, Bhāṇa 72 Vīthi 74, Avasthās 97-98 Arth-prakṛtis 104-108, Sandhi 115-121, Sandhyangas 128-137, Sandhyantararas 137, Prastāvanā 149-152, Aṅka 154-156, Arthopakṣepakas 158-161, Language 165 Modes of presentation 169 ; Nāyaka 199-201, Graces of women 204-206 ; Rasa 220-234, Number of Rasa 243-259, Raudra 260-261, Vīra 262, Bhayānaka 263 ; Bībhatsa 264-265; Adbhuta 266, Śānta 268-273, Vṛttis 287ff, 289-291, Sāttvatī 292-294, Kaiśikī 294-296, Ārabhaṭī 297-299 ; Bhāratī 306-307 ; The aṅgas of Bhārati 306-307, Use of Vṛttis in rasas 312-314

Abhinaya 20, 27, 47, 188, 218, 313 ; Āhārya 46, 188, 313, 318 ; Aṅgika 46, 188, 313, 318 ; Vācika 46, 188, 313, 318 ; Sāttvika 46, 188, 292, 313, 318

Abhinayanam 223

Act 6, 44, 47, 52, 53, 56, 59, 61ff, 69ff, 79ff, 104, 105, 107, 108, 116, 153-156, 157, 159ff

Ādhikārikam 34, 92ff, 104

Agnipurāṇa 27, 215

Amara Singha 267

Amṛtamaṅthanam 66

Ānandavardhana 21, 27, 267

Anubandha 94, 113

Anukārya 236

Anukṛti 245, 247

Anusandhi 106, 107, 110, 319

330

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

Aristotle 42, 44, 90

Artha 45, 104, 105, 110, 111, 115, 120, 126, 155, 220, 227, 232

Artha-Prakṛtis 30, 34, 45, 47, 56, 80, 102-113, 121, 318, 319 ; Bīja 44, 97, 102, 105, 107, 108, 109, 112ff, 114, 116ff, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156 ; Bindu 34, 44, 65,102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109ff, 110, 112, 121, 122, 153, 154ff, 320

Kāryam 44, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 113, 125, 136, 156, 159, 160 ; 239, 289, 307 ; Patākā 44, 56, 94, 96, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112ff, 121, 123, 124 ; Prakarī 44, 56, 94, 96, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 124, 125

Arthopakṣepakas 44, 47, 156-164, 318, 319. ; Aṅkāsya, Aṅkamukha 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 ; Aṅkāvatăra 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 ; Cūlikā 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 ; Praveśaka 44, 53, 55, 57, 58, 65, 68, 157, 158, 157-163 ; Viṣkambhaka 44, 57, 109, 157, 158, 159-163

Aśvaghoṣa 9, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22

Āsvādana 233, 261

Avaloka 31, 35-37, 294, 299, 318, 320

Avasthās 44, 45, 47, 56, 80, 96-102, 104, 108, 111, 113, 120, 121, 125, 126, 153, 154, 318 ; Ārambha 44, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 107, 116, 117, 121, 122-126, 154 ; Niyata-phala-prāpti 44, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101 ; Niyatāpti 97, 98, 100, 118, 124, 126 ; Phalayoga, Phalāgama, Phalodaya 44, 96, 97, 98, 100, 120, 125, 126 ; Prāptisambhava Prāptyāśā 44, 96, 97ff, 98, 99, 101, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126 ; Prayatna, Yatna 44, 96, 97, 99, 101, 121, 122, 126

Avimāraka 113, 146, 147, 209

Bādhyabādhakabhāva 237

Benegal, Som 5

Bhāmaha 27, 243, 267.

Bharata 1, 2, In the sense of actor 8, 11, 15; Elements of drama 42 47, Ten forms of drama 50, 52 ; Nāṭaka 53 ; Prakaraṇa 56-57 ; Nāṭikā 59, Samavakāra 62-63, Īhāmṛga 66, Ḍima 67, 68, Vyāyoga 69, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka 70, Prahasana 71, Bhāṇa 72, Vīthī 73, Aṅgas of Vīthī 74-78, Avasthās 86, 97, Arthaprakṛtis 102- 104, Sandhis 114, 115, Sandhyangas 127-136, Saṁdhyantaras 136, Patākāsthānakas 138-139. Nāndī 143, 144, Prarocanā 146, Prastāvanā 148, 149 Aṅka 153, 154, Arthopakṣepakas 157, 158, Language 164, 165, Modes of address 166-168,

Index

Modes of presentation 168-170, Nāyaka 187-197, Eight male sāttvika qualities 198-201, Nāyikā 201-204, Graces of women 204, other characters 206-210, Rasa 215-220, Number of Rasas 243-245, Śṛṅgāra 248-249, Karuṇā 258, Raudra 259-260, Vīra 261-262, Bhayānaka 263, Bībhatsa 264, Adbhuta 265-266, Śānta 266, 267, Vṛttis 287-291, Sāttvatī 292-294, Kaiśikī 292-296, Ārabhaṭī 297-298 Bhāratī 301, 302, Aṅgas of Vīthī 304-306, Use of vṛttis in rasas 312-314

Bharata vākyam 47, 144

Bhasa 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 22, 44, 70, 113, 143, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153, 163, 187, 193, 210

Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa 22, 26, 28, 60, 107, 155, 221, 222, 234, 247, 290

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka 26, 28, 29, 221, 225-227, 277

Bhaṭṭa Tauta (Tota) 22, 27, 29

Bhaṭṭendurāja 22

Bhāva 51, 155, 217, 220, 221, 236, 237, 244, 246, 289

Bhavabhūti 11, 20, 56, 187, 193, 206, 207, 208, 322

Bhāvaka 239

Bhāvakatva 226

Bhāvaprakāśana 15, 16, 26

Bhaya 228, 263

Bhoga 226

Bhoja 23, 303, 311

Bhojakatva 226

Bhoktā 227, 252

Bibliotheca Indica 37

Bṛhatkathā 63

Camatkāra 228f, 251

Cārī 140, 148, 149, 152

Carvaṇā 230, 231, 245

Chalitarāma 76

Dāmodaragupta 20, 26

Dandin 222, 243, 261

Dāsagupta, S.N. 7

Daśarūpakam 18, 26, 29, 31

Dattila 25, 26

De, S.K. 7, 27

Dhanañjaya 18, 23, 31, Elements of Sanskrit drama 42-47, Ten forms

332

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

of drama 50-52, Nāṭaka 55-56, Prakaraṇa 58, Nāṭikā 60, 61,

Samavakāra 64, 65, Īhāmṛga 67, Dima 68, Vyāyoga 69,

Utsṛṣṭikāṅka 70, Prahasana 72, Bhāṇa 72. 73, Vīthī 74,

Vīthyaṅgas 75-79, Avasthās 99, Arthaprakṛtis 108-111, Saṁdhis

121-125, Saṁdhyāṅgas 128-137, Saṁdhyantaras 136-137,

Patākāssthānakas 138, 141, 142, Nāndī 145, Prarocanā 147, 148,

Prastāvanā 150-152, Aṅka 156, Arthopakṣepakas 161-163,

Language 165, 166, Modes of address 168, Male Sāttvika

qualities 198-201, Nāyikā 202-204, Graces of women

205-206, Other characters 206-210, Rasa 234-242, Number

of rasa 244, 247, Śṛṅgāra 252-255, Hāsya 258, Karuṇā 259,

Raudra 261, Vīra 262, Bhayānaka 263, Bībhatsa 265, Adbhuta

266, Śānta 273-275, Vṛttis 287-291, Sāttvatī 292-294, Kaiśikī

295-297, Ārabhaṭī 298-300, Bhāratī 302, Aṅgas of Bhāratī

308-311, The use of Vṛttis in rasas 313

Dhanika 16, 18, 35-37, Ten forms of drama 50-52, Nāṭaka 55-56,

Prakaraṇa 58, Nāṭikā 60, 61, Samavakāra 64, 65, Īhāmṛga 67,

Dima 68, Vyāyoga 69, Utsṛṣṭikāṅka 70, Prahasana 72,

Bhāṇa 73, Vīthī 74, Vīthyaṅgas 75-79, Avasthās 99, Artha-

prakṛtis 108-111, Saṁdhis 121-125, Saṁdhyāṅgas 131-137,

Nāndī 145, 146, Prarocanā 147 Prastāvanā 151, Aṅka 156,

Arthopakṣepaka 161-163, Language 166, Modes of presentation

169, Nāyikā 203, 204 Nāṭyadharma 170, Nāyaka 191,194-201,

Male qualities 199-201, Graces of women 205-206, Other

characters 206-209, Rasa 235-242, Number of rasas 248,

Śṛṅgāra 252-255, Hāsya 258, Karuṇa 259, Raudra 261, Vīra

262, Bhayānaka 263, Bībhatsa 265, Adbhuta 266, Śānta

273-275, Vṛttis 287-291, Sāttvatī 293-294, Kaiśikī 295-297,

Ārabhaṭī 298-300, Bhāratī 303, Aṅgas of Bhāratī 308-311

Dhvani School 238

Dhvanyālokalocana 28

Drauḥinī 26

Dūtavākyam 44

Essential elements of drama 42, 44-47

Forms of dialogue 168-170 ; Ākāśabhāṣitam 46, 72, 169, 170 ;

Apavāritam 46, 169, 170 ; Ātmagatam 47, 168-169, 170 ;

Janāntikam 46, 169, 170

Forms of Sanskrit Drama 50-80 Bhāṇa 6, 11, 32, 52, 70, 72, 73, 74,

79, 80, 115, 127, 188, 189, 191, 208 313; Dima 52, 63, 67-69,

Index

74, 80, 91, 115, 313 Dombī 51 Ihāmṛga 52, 66, 67, 74, 80,

115, 313, 320 Nāṭaka 4, 11, 51ff, 53-57, 58ff, 64, 68, 70, 80, 91,

108, 110, 112, 114, 115, 125, 127, 133, 148, 154, 156, 163, 188,

191, 192, 194, 201, 203, 208, 209, 303 Nāṭikā 34, 50, 51, 59-62,

63, 74, 79, 91, 155 Prahasana 6, 11, 52, 65, 71, 72, 79ff, 91,

115, 128, 188, 189, 191, 208, 302, 306, 307, 308, 311, 313,

Prakaraṇikā 60, Prakaraṇa 11, 51f, 56-59, 60ff, 80, 91, 92, 115,

154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 188, 191, 192, 208, 303

Samavakāra 6, 30, 52, 61, 62-66, 69, 74, 80, 115, 298, 313

Śrigadita 51 Utsṛṣṭikāṅka, Aṅka 6, 52, 70, 71, 80, 115, 191

290, 313 Vīthī 6, 43, 52, 62, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73-80, 115, 149,

151, 188, 189, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 320 Vīthyaṅgas

73-80, Adhibala 77, 129, 131, 134, Asatpralāpa 76, Abhinava

Avalagita 73, 74, 75, 149, 309, 310, Avaspanditam 75, 76

Chala 77, Gaṇḍa 73, 78, 79, Mṛḍavam 77, Nāṭikā 76,

Prapañca 77, Trigāṭam 73, 78, 146, Udghātyakam 73, 74, 75,

148, 149, 309, 310 Vakkeli 76, Vyāhāra 78, Vyāyoga 6, 52, 66,

67, 69, 70, 74, 80, 115

Gaunī 238

Gāyatrī 63

Ghaṇṭaka 60

Ghaṭikā 65

Ghosh, M.M. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 19, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 61, 66, 215, 306,

Goethe 332

Graces of Women 204-206

Haas, G.C.O. 33, 35, 36, 37, 61, 76, 306

Hall, F. 37

Harṣa 25, 26, 61, 146, 147, 187, 194

Hāsya 255, 256

Hemacandra 27, 29

Hertel 7

Imitation 223, 224

Inference 223, 225, 259

Itivrtta 57, 90, 91f, 102, 111, 115, 128, 139, 154

Jacobi 20

Jāgirdār, R.V. 4

Jayaratha 27

Jugupsā 251, 264

Kālidāsa 11, 18, 20, 21, 22, 37, 55, 56, 101, 143, 146, 147, 187, 192, 208, 243, 267, 322

Kāmasūtra 7

Kāne, P.V. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 215

Kārakas 232, 238, 239

Kātyāyana (śrautasūtra) 2

Kauṭilya's (Arthaśāstra) 8

Kavi, M.R. 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33

Kāvyaniṛnaya 36

Kāvyānusaśāsanaviveka 27, 29

Keith, A.B. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 20, 33, 36, 51, 59, 66, 68, 78, 127, 196, 200, 276, 288, 291, 300, 311

Kohala 23, 25, 26, 50, 78, 79, 155, 158, 160, 161, 162

Krodha 230, 244, 247, 259

Kṛshṇamāchāriar, M. 33

Kṣemendra 27

Kuntaka 27

Kuṭṭanimata 21, 26

Lakṣaṇā 238

Languages 164-166, Āryabhaṣā 164, Atibhāṣā 164, Jātibhaṣā 164, Vibhāṣā 165 Yonyantari 164

Lāsyaṅgas 32, 73, 79

Levi Sylvain 21-35

Luders 1, 21

Madhyama Vyāyoga 70

Mahābhārata 8, 10, 19, 191, 209 ; Anuśāsana Parvan 8 ; Harivaṃśa 8 ; Śānti 8

Mahābhāṣya 3, 6, 7, 8, 24

Mahācāri 146

Mahānāṭaka 195

Mahāviracarita 55, 133, 162, 194, 200, 261, 262

Malatimādhava 112, 113, 190, 192, 195, 206, 208

Malavikāgnimitra 162, 192, 193, 194, 197, 207, 208

Male Sāttvika qualities 198-201 Audāryam 198-199 ; Gāmbhīryam 200 ; Lalitam 200 ; Mādhuryam 198, 199 ; Sthairyam 199 ; Śobha 198, 199 ; Tejas 201 ; Vilāsa 199

Mammata 27, 28

Maṅkad, D.R. 10

Maṅkhaka 27

Index

Mārṣa 167, 168

Matrgupta 26

Mayurāja 55

Miśra 94

Miśra, Baburūpa 37

Miśraś roniddhara 37

Modes of address 166-168

Mṛcchakaṭikam 58, 112, 147, 190, 195, 206, 208

Mudrārākṣasa 112, 141, 163, 202, 207

Nādīkā 62, 65

Nāgānanda 190, 195, 200, 208, 262, 273

Nālikā 65, 76

Nāndī 4, 7, 43, 143-146, 147, 152, 153

Nandikeśvara 6, 25

Nāndyante 143

Naṭa 4, 6, 7, 8, 15

Naṭi 149, 150, 151, 153, 304, 306

Nāṭya 4, 7, 10, 27, 29, 31, 33, 50, 51, 227, 228, 233, 287, 313, 319, 321; Nāṭyadarpana 108, 131, 136, 156, 163, 303, Nāṭyadharma 170, Nāṭyaśāstra 1, 2, 9, 10, 15-31, 37, 50, 135, 136, 137, 148, 187, 267, 268, 318

Navasāhasāṅkacarita 36

Nāyaka, Netā 35, 42, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 54ff, 70, 79, 96, 98, 106, 107, 113, 116, 154, 187-210, 319 ; Nāyaka’s assistants and other characters 206-210

Nepathye 162

Nirveda 230, 244, 247, 269, 270, 274, 292

Nṛsiṃha 37

Oldenberg 1

Pada 60, 74, 78, 139, 145, 146

Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha 28, 277

Pāṇi or Devapāṇi 37

Panini 6, 7, 15

Parab, Kāshinātha Pāṇḍuraṅga 37

Paripārśvika 146, 149, 150, 151, 304, 306

Patākānāvaka 54, 107, 189, 206

Patākāsthānakas 56, 94, 138-142, 319

Patañjali 9

336

A Study of Abhinavabhārati and Avaloka

Paul Regnaud 19

Phala 59, 64, 92, 93, 97, 98ff, 105ff, 111ff, 115, 120, 124, 127

Pischel 1, 3

Piṭhamarda 7, 206, 207

Prakariṇāyaka 54, 107, 189

Prakhyāta 53, 63, 94

Prarocanā 47, 143, 146-148, 150, 152, 153, 302, 314

Prastāvanā 47, 64, 74, 143, 148-153

(i) Āmukha 302, 304, 309, 310, 314, 320

Prāsangikam 92ff.

Pratāparudrīya 34

Pratināyaka 116, 209

Pravṛtti 289, 312, 313

Āvanti 289 ; Dākṣiṇātya 289, Oḍramāgadhi 289, Pāñcālī 289

Priyadarśikā 61

Puruṣa 252

Pūvarañga 43, 78, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 307

Puṣpadūṣikā 58

Rāghavan, V. 28, 276, 306, 311, 313

Rāhula 25, 26, 206

Rajas 226

Rājaśekhara 313

Rāmābhyudaya 140

Rāmacandra, Gunacandra 69, 126, 136, 152, 163, 219, 303

Rāmāyaṇa 8, 9, 19, 90, 93, 191, 209

Rasa 15, 16, 27, 28, 30, 35, 42, 45, 46, 47, 52, 58, 60, 63, 67, 73, 79, 90, 116, 122, 155, 188, 214-243

Rasa's constituents : Anubhāva 46, 55, 137, 215ff, 218, 221-222, 223, 225, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 239, 241, 242, 245, 246 ; Sāttvika 219, 220, 235, 237, 238 Sthāyibhāvas 30,55, 216ff, 219, 224-231, 233, 234, 235, 237, 241, 242, 319 ; Vibhāva 46, 55, 137, 215, 216, 217, 218ff, 225, 229, 230, 231, 233, 235-236, 239, 240ff, 245, 246, 318, 319 ; Ālambana vibhāva 235, 251, 318 ; Uddīpana vibhāva 235, 251, 318 Vyabhicārin 34, 46, 55, 137, 215, 216, 217-223, 225, 230, 231, 233,-235, 337, 239, 242, 245, 246

State of mind : Druti 226, 241 ; Kṣobha 241, 244, 247, 248 ; Vikāsa 226, 241, 244, 247, 248 ; Vistāra 226, 241, 244, 247, 248

Index

Number of rasas 243-278, 289, 318-321 ; Adbhuta 116, 120, 243,

246, 248, 264-265, 312 ; Bhayānaka 70, 228, 243, 248, 263-264,

312 ; Bībhatsa 70, 243, 244, 248, 264, 265, 312 ; Hāsya 67, 68,

69, 71, 72, 79, 223, 243, 246, 248, 255-258, 292 ; Karuṇa 70,

223, 243, 246, 248, 249, 258-259, 292 ; Raudra 68, 69, 70, 243,

244, 246, 247, 248, 259-261, 292, 312, 319 ; Śānta 25, 28, 68,

243, 244, 247, 266-275, 319, 320; Śṛṅgāra 33, 55, 57, 60, 62, 63,

64, 65, 67, 69, 73, 74, 116, 197, 202, 204, 209, 223, 232, 243,

244, 246, 247, 248-255, 292, 312, 314, 319 ; Vīra 55, 64, 73,

116, 133, 204, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 261-263, 292, 312

Rasanā 226, 231, 232

Rasika 240

Rati 230, 232, 244, 247, 248, 252

Ratnāvalī 61, 77, 98, 99, 100, 105, 109, 110, 116, 120ff, 123, 124,

125, 135, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 151, 194, 208, 321

Rucaka 27

Rudraṭa 27

Rūpa 42, 50, 51, 59, 129, 133

Rūpaka 27, 50, 51, 52, 60, 72, 79, 115, 116, 131, 188, 201, 230, 302,

311, 319, 321

Ṣāḍava 232, 233

Sāgarṇadin 126, 291

Sahānavasthānam 237

Sāhityadarpana 34

Śama 131, 132, 268, 272, 274, 275

Samikīrṇa 58, 71, 72, 158, 161

Saṃdhis 19, 45, 47, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 80, 108,

110, 113-127, 318, Avamarśa, vimarśa 30, 45, 55, 61, 64,

68, 69, 107, 115, 118-120, 121, 124ff. ; Garbha 45, 67, 70, 73,

74, 92, 114, 115ff, 116, 117, 120f, 122, 125, 126, 149-150 ;

Mukha 45, 67, 70, 73, 92, 114-117, 120ff, 122, 125, 126, 149-

152 ; Nirvahana 45, 47, 53, 67, 70, 73, 74, 107, 115, 120,

121, 125, 126 ; Pratimukha 45, 55, 67, 114, 116-117, 122, 123,

126

Saṃdhyaṅgas 32, 55, 127-136

Aṅgas of Avamarāś 129 ; Ādānam 129, 130, 131, 134 ; Apavāda

129, 130, 131, 135 ; Chādanam 129, 130, 135 ; Dyuti, Kṛti

129, 130, 134, 135 ; Kheda 129, 130, 134, Niṣedhanam 129

Prarocanā 129, 130, 134, Prasaṅgah 129, 130, 131, 134

Pratiṣedha 134, Śakti 129, 130, 134 Vidravah, Dravah 129,

130, 134 Virodhanam 129, 130, 135, Vyavahāra, 129, Vyavasāya

129, 130, 131, 134

Aṅgas of Garbha 129 ; Abhūtaḥaraṇa 129, 131, Adhibala 129,

131, 134, Ākṣiptam 129, 131, 134 Anumāna 129, Kramah 129,

133 ; Mārga 129, 131 ; Rūpa 129, 133, Sam̄bhramaḥ 129,

Saṅgrah 129, Toṭaka 129, 131, 134; Udāharaṇa 129 ; Udvegah

129, 134

Aṅgas of Mukha ; Bheda 120, 131-132 ; Karanam 128; Paribhāvanā

128 ; Parikarah 128, 131, Parinyāsa 128, 131, 132 ; Prāpti 128 ;

Samādhānam 128, 131, 132, Udbhedah 128, 131, 132 Upakṣepah

129, 130, 132, 137, 150 ; Vidhānam 128 ; Vilobhanam 128, 132,

Yukti 128, 131, 129, 130, 131

Aṅgas of Nirvahana ; Ānandah 130, 135, Bhāṣanam 130, 135, 136 ;

Grathnam 130, 135; Nirnaya 130, 135; Nirodha or vibodha

130, 135 Paribhāṣanam 130, 135 ; Prasāda 130, 135, Praśasti

47, 130, 135 ; Pūrvavākyam 130, 135, 136 ; Samayah 130, 135

Sandhi 130, 135 ; Upagūhanam 130, 135

Aṅgas of Pratimukha; Narma 129 ;Narmadyuti 129, 132; Parisarpah

129, 131, Paryupāsanam 34, 129 Pragayanam 129 ; Puṣpam

129, 132 Upanyāsah 129, 131, 132, Vajram 129, 131, Vidūtta

Arati 129, 132 ; Vilāsah 129

Sandhyantarās 136-137

Saṅgītaratnākara 27-29

Śankaran, A. 27

Śaṅkuka 21, 22, 28, 60, 117, 119, 221, 222, 234, 247, 290

Śāradātanaya 26, 69, 291, 303

Śarmisṭhayayāti 70

Sattva 204, 205, 219, 221, 227, 237, 263, 290, 292, 314

Schmidt 7

Schroeder Von 7

Shāstri, Harprasad 19 ; Rāmāswāmy, K.S., 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

266

Śoka 219, 251, 258

Sragdhara 63

Sthāpaka 145, 146, 150, 152

Sthāpanā 146, 149, 153

Śuddha 71, 72, 158, 161

Śūdraka 11, 18

Index

339

Sūtradhāra 9, 10, 43, 143, 144, 146ff, 153, 168, 304, 306, 307, 309, 310

Svapnavāsavadattam 106, 108, 119, 246

Svāda 217, 247-248

Tamas 226

Tāpasavatsarāja 106, 108, 119, 246

Tarangadatta 58

Tātparya 239

Tattvajñāna 269, 270, 271

Tripuradāha 68

Trivarga 63, 109, 111, 122

Udāttarāghava 55

Udbhaṭa 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 119, 267, 290

Upādhyāy', Rāmji 73, 163

Uparupaka 52, 79

Urubhaṅga 44

Utpādya 94

Utpaladatta 22

Uttararāmacharita 162, 189, 194, 198, 199, 202

Utsāha 230, 244, 247, 260, 261, 262, 276

Vācyavācakabhāva 236

Vākya 239

Vāmana 27

V. managupta 27

V. saṅgā 222, 228, 229, 239, 241

Vastu 35, 42, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 56, 60, 64, 73, 90-142, 143-170, 188, 319

Veṇīsaṃhāra 75, 79, 107, 117, 123, 132, 146, 147, 152, 163, 208

Veṣa 205, 209, 246, 261, 321

Vidrava 30, 63, 65, 66, 68, 129, 130, 131

Vidūṣaka 3, 7, 57, 101, 123, 149, 150, 151, 152, 207, 246, 304, 306

Vidyālaṅkār, S.D. 209

Vidyāsāgar, Jivananda 37

Vikramorvaśīyam 209

Vikrta 71, 72

Viśākhadatta 11, 207

Vismaya 265

Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa 27, 215

340

A Study of Abhinavabhāratī and Avaloka

Viśvanātha 69, 70, 79, 291, 306

Viṭa 7, 57, 58, 71, 72, 73, 189, 208

Vṛtta 70, 90, 103, 116, 147, 149, 151, 170, 188

Vṛttis 10, 46, 47, 52, 56, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 80, 155, 188, 287-314, 321

Ārabhaṭī 5, 46, 68, 70, 288, 289, 290, 291, 297-300, 312, 313

Aṅgas of Ārabhaṭī ; Avapāta 297, 298, 299, 300 ; Sampheṭa 297, 298, 299, 300 ; Saṅkṣiptaka 297-300 ; Vastūthāpana 297ff, 298, 300 ;

Bhāratī 4, 46, 70, 72, 73, 74, 80, 145ff, 152, 288, 289, 290, 291, 300-312, 313, 314

Aṅgas of Bhāratī ; Āmukha (Prastāvanā) 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308-310, 314

Aṅgas of Āmukha ; Avalagitam 73, 74, 149, 309, 310 : Kathodghāta 149, 151, 305, 307, 309, 310 ; Prayogātiśaya 149, 151, 305, 307, 309, 310 ; Udghātyaka 73, 74, 75, 148, 309, 310 ; Prahasana 303, 306-308, 311

Prarocanā 303, 304, 306, 308, 314 ; Vīthī 303, 306-308

Kaiśikī 4, 46, 60, 64, 69, 70, 74, 288, 289, 290, 291-297

Aṅgas of Kaiśikī ; Narma 294, 295, 296, 314 ; Narma Garbha 294, 296, 297 ; Narma-Sphin̄ja (sphuñja) 294, 295-297 ;

Sāttvatī 4, 46, 68, 70, 288, 290, 291, 292-294, 312, 313

Aṅgas of Sāttvatī; Parivartaka 292, 293, 294 ; Sallāpaka (samlāpaka) 292, 293, 294 ; Saṅghātya 292, 293, 294 ; Utthāpaka 292, 293, 294

Use of Vṛttis in Rasas 312-314

Vyāsa, Bholāshaṅkar 37

Weber Albrecht 4,6

Winternitz, M. 3,8

GIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

DELHI-110007