47. 50 CHAPTER I

50 CHAPTER I

and the other, that was constructed by the spectator, when he heard or read about the hero, who is now artistically presented on the stage. The latter fuses with the former and figures in the consciousness as a quality of the same. Hence there arises qualified perception "that happy Rama is this."

UNCLASSIFIABILITY OF THE RECOGNITION IN ART. But1 recognition ordinarily involves the element of certainty. It is certain knowledge, such as prevents the recognition of the same in many. If one has recognised "X" in "A", recognition of the same in "B" is out of ques- tion. For, in the latter case the former recogntion shall have to be declared invalid. The fact, however, according to the exponents of the imitation theory of art, is, that the imitated is recognised in all successful imitations. The recogniton in art, therefore, is devoid of that element of certainty, which would prevent the recognition of the imitated in all successful imitative presentations. RECOGNITION IN ART IS NOT ERRONEOUS, While discussing the Nyaya theory of error we stated (i) that error may be due to some defect in the object such as close similarity with something else, (ii) that it consists in taking the directly perceived to be something that it is not, ( iii ) that it is subjective and does not lie in the object. (iv) that error is error only when it is discovered to be so, at least from the point of view of erring subject and ( v ) that it is the practical point of view, the utilitarian or purposive attitude, that destroys the error. If we keep these points in mind, we can understand why Śrī Śankuka holds that recognitive æsthetic judgement is not an error. He is concerned with explaining the essen- 1. A. Bh. Vol. I. 275.