2. INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION.

The following pages fulfil the promise, made to the reader in the Introduction to my Abhinavagupta: An Historical and Philosophical Study. Here the word 'Æsthe- tics' stands for 'Science and Philosophy of Fine Art'. For, the texts, on the basis of which 'Indian Æsthetics' is presented in the following pages, have approached the problem from both, the technical and the philosophical points of view. Here the problem of æsthetics is studied from the points of view of the dramaturgists and the poeticians. Although the School of Æsthetics, represented by Bharata and Abhinavagupta, regards all other arts, whether fine or mechanical, as auxiliaries to the dramatic art, yet the authorities on two arts, (i) Music and (ii) Architecture, assert the independence of these two fine arts in giving rise to æsthetic experience. Thus, in India, there are three schools of the Philosophy of Fine Art : (i) Rasa-Brahma-Vada, (ii) Nāda-Brahma-Vāda and (iii) Vastu-Brahma-Vada. The latter two will be dealt with in a subsequent volume on the subject.

In this volume also, as in the case of the previous, Sanskrit texts have been studied from the historical and the philosophical points of view. It is primarily concerned with the presentation of Abhinavagupta's Theory of Æsthetics against the background of the History of Æsthetic Thought in India and in proper setting of the system of the monistic Saiva Philosophy of Kashmir, as propounded by him in his two famous and voluminous works, (i) Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Vimarsinī and (ii) Īśvara Pratyabhijna Vivrti Vimarsini or Brhati Vimarśini.

( xvi ) The latter work is a commentary by Abhinavagupta on Utpalācārya's own commentary on his own Īśvara Pratyabhijñā Kārikā. It was available only in MSS. at the time when the present work was undertaken, though its publication has recently been completed by the Research Department of Kashmir. But the original commentary of Utpalacarya seems to be irrecoverably lost. For, not only my search for this valuable work in private and public collections of MSS. all over India has failed to trace it out, but also that of the Research Department of Kashmir, with all the resources of Kashmir State at its disposal. The published text tallies with MS. No. 464 of 1875-76 in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, so much so that the same portions are missing in both. In the absence of the original, it is exceptionally difficult to follow the commentary closely. But Abhinava- gupta's method of commenting is such as gives to his work some sort of independent value. At the beginning of his commentary on each Karika he gives his own in terpre- tation so as to bring out clearly its full meaning. On many important philosophical points, referred to by Utpalacārya in the course of his lost commentary, he enters into fairly lengthy discussions. Some of these are very important for a proper understanding of his theory of æsthetics. In the present work they have been utilised for the first time.

lo The Abhinava Bharati has not yet been fully published. Only the first two volumes, which cover first 18 Chapters, havebeen brought out by our learned friend, Rama Krishna Kavi. It is the most important and the biggest work on Indian Æsthetics. And without a careful study and thorough understanding of its contents, it is not possible to write on Indian Æsthetics so as to

("xvii )) show the importance of Abhinavagupta's Theory of Æsthetics in a comparative light. In this work the whole of the Abhinava Bharati has been used for the first time to solve different problems connected with Æsthetics, such as those of the unities of time, place and action in Sanskrit Drama : and why is there no tragedy in Sanskrit in the strict Shakespearian sense of it. The scholars, who have so far written on Abhinava- Iq lo

gupta's Theory of Æsthetics, have either completely ignored the philosophical aspect of the problem, as Dr. Sankaran has done in his Some Aspects of Literary Criticism, or have attempted to present it in terms of the Vedanta philosophy, as has been done by P. Panchapagesa Shastri in his Philosophy of Æsthetic Pleasure. Such an attempt is as good as interpreting the Æsthetic Theory of Hegel in terms of the philosophy of Kant. He has, however, followed the tradition, which developed, in ignorance of the philosophy of Abhinavagupta, of interpreting his Æsthetic Theory in terms of the Vedānta. In spite of this it would be wrong to minimise the importance of the substantial contributions, which these learned scholars have made to the revival of Indian Æsthetics. And it is but natural to a student of the subject, to feel extremely thankful to them. In presenting the views of Indian Æsthetic thinkers, fidelity to the original Sanskrit texts has been my guiding principle. In order, therefore, to convince the reader of this fact, I have not only occasionally incorporated the relevant texts in the book itself, but also have referred to other texts in the foot-notes, and have given them in full in an appendix at the end of the book.

( xvill)

For the information of the reader I may add here the following few important notes :- 1. The Roman figures, coming after abbreviations, unless otherwise indicated, stand for the number of volume. The number, coming immediately after the Roman figures, as in some cases, or immediately after an abbreviation, as in others, indicates the number of page.

2. In the appendix, I have given, in some cases, a few more textual authorities than those, indicated by foot-notes, and have not hesitated to repeat the same authority, when necessary.

3. The arrangement of the subject-matter of the Nātya Sastra under chapters, differs with different recensions. Even between two published editions of the Natya Sastra, one in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series and the other in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series, there is such difference.

The references in chapter VI 'The Technique of Sanskrit Drama' to the MS. of the Abhinava Bharatī are mostly from two chapters (I) Dasarūpa-vidhana and (II) Sandhyanga-vikalpa. As the various recensions of the Natya Sastra and the Abhinava Bharatī differ on the numbers of the chapters, I would, therefore, suggest to the reader to ignore the numbers. He will find it easier to hunt up the references in the MSS. of the Abhinava Bharati if he looks for the title of the chapter rather than its number.

4. Foot-notes are of two kinds, (i) those the texts of which are given in the appendix and (ii) the texts of which are not given. The latter are marked with "X"

( xix )

Here I feel in duty bound to acknowledge my indebtedness to the authorities of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona : and the Adyar Sanskrit library, Madras, for lending their Mss. and allowing them to be copied. I am deeply indebted to Prof. S. N. Dasgupta, ex-/ Principal, Sanskrit College, Calcutta, for suggesting the addition of a chapter on 'Mahima Bhatta's Criticism of Dhvani': to Prof. N. K. Sidhanta, for very helpful sugges- tions on 'Katharsis': to Frof. K.A.S. Iyer, for the questions on the 'Theory of Meaning': to Dr. Raj Narayan and to Mr. D. Mitra, for reading some parts of the work, either in type-script or in proofs, and suggesting some formal modifications. Now, the smiling image of late Dr. N. N. Sengupta stands before my mind's eye. I humbly bow. He was the Guide.

(Nlel wedmod saga2