1. Concepts of Ancient Indian Theater Christopher Byrski

Concept of Ancient -Indian Theatre

PR

Rare B/5 4978

Dedicated to

PADMA SUBRAHMANYAM

Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

by M. Christopher Byrski

Munshiram Manoharlal Pablishers Pot. Ltd.

Manshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pot. Lid. 54, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055 Bookshop : 4416, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006

First Published : July 1974 ® 1973 Byrski Maria Christopher (b. 1937)

PRINTED IN INDIA BY R. K. SHARMA AT AGRA PRINTING WORKS, BHOLANATH NAGAR, SHAHDARA, DBLHL-110082 AND PUBLISHED BY DEVENDRA JAIN FOR MUNSHIRAM KANOHARLAL PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHJ-110055

Acc. No. 10928

Date. 27.2.97

Item No. B/E-4938

Don. By

CONTENTS

Pages Abbreviations vii

Preface ix

Acknowledgements XV

PART I: PROBLEMS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST ADHYĀYA OF NĀȚYASĀSTRA

Chapter 1 Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 3

Chapter 2 Early Chronology of Nātya 19

Chapter 3 The Mythology of the Nātyotpatti Adhyaya of NS 23

PART II: THEATRE AND SACRIFICE

Chapter 4 Nāțya and Yajña 41

Chapter 5 Nāțya and Veda 52

Chapter 6 Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 62

Chapter 7 Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 76

PART III: THEATRE AND ACTION

Chapter 8 The Sacrifice (Yajña) 93

vi Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Chapter 9 The Plot (Itivrtta) 101

Chapter 10

The Essence (Rasa) 144

PART IV: REACTION

Chapter 11 The Essence of Peace (Santa-Rasa) 165

Conclusion 188

Bibliography 195

Index 203

ABBREVIATIONS

(Names given between brackets refer to the Bibliography. All the other abbreviations which are to be found in the text will always stand together with the names of the authors and can be referred directly to the Bibliography)

ABr Āitareya Brāhmaņa (Keith) AV Atharvaveda BG Bhagavadgītā (Radhakrishnan) BP.GOS Bhāvaprakāśa, Gaekwad's Oriental Series BUP Brhadāraņyaka-Upanișad (Hume) CUP Chāndogya-Upanișad (Hume) DI.L. Dhvanyālokalocana (Tripathi) DR Daśarūpaka (Shastri, Haas) HABh Hindi Abhinavabhāratī (Viśveśvar) HND Hindi Nāțyadarpaņa (Viśveśvar) IHQ Indian Historical Quarterly JB1 Jāiminīya Brāhmaņa (Vira) KBr Kāuşītaki Brāhmņa (Keith) KUp Kāuşītaki Upanişad (Hume) M.Bh Mahābhārata ND Nāțyadarpaņa (Viśveśvar) NLRK Nāțakalakșaņaratnakośa (Dillon) NS.GOS Nāțyaśāstra, Gaekwad's Oriental Series NS.KM Nāțyaśāstra, Kāvyamāla NS.MMG Nāțyaśāstrā, Manmohan Ghosh R Rāmāyaņa RV Rgveda Samhitā (Wilson)

viii Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

SB Satapatha Brähmaņa (Eggling) SD Sähitya-darpaņa (Ballantyne) SK Sämkhya-Kārikā (Jha) SUp Śvetāśvatara- Upanişad URC Uttararāmacarita (Bhavabhūti) YS(M) Yajurveda Samhitā (Mādhyandina)

PREFACE

In a paper entitled 'Studies in Nātya' and presented to the research seminar of the College of Indology in 1962, I made the following remark about the relationship of the Vedas and Nātya; 'If the Vedas do incorporate the whole of the human cultural heritage of their epoch it is natural to derive from them theatre which is the most comprehensive art. This is the real meaning of Bharatamuni's parable.'2 This statement, imperfect as it was, truly deserves to be called the seed of the present thesis. It contains two important observations. One, more general, des- cribes the whole of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya as a parable. Another one, concerning the relationship of Natya and the Vedas, indicates the mode of interpretation of this parable. All the implications of this remark were not immediately clear to me. It was only after a series of Vedic lectures delivered at that time by Dr. V. S. Agrawala, had broadened my understanding of the Vedic ideas and of the Vedic and the Brähmanic3 mytho- logy, that I realised some of these implications. The central motif of this mythology, i.e, the sacrifice seemed to supply the much needed key to the proper understanding of the mytholo- gical account of the origin of Nātya. A paper prepared at that time for the Paderewski Foundation Annual Symposium in Delhi (1962-3) and entitled 'Theatre and Sacrifice (Natya and Yajña)" presents a very brief and at places imprecise outline of

1 Bharati, Bulletin of the College of Indology, Banaras Hindu University, No.6, Part II, 1962-3. 2 op. cit, p.115. 8 Brähmanic, i.e., related to the Brähmana literature in distinction to Brahminic, i.e., related to Brahmins. This distinction will be kept through- out this thesis. 4 Published by the Paderewski Foundation and in Prajña, Banaras Hindu University Journal, Vol. IX(1), Oct. 1963.

Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre this new approach. Yet even then I was not fully convinced that this idea might take the form of a full-fledged thesis. In the summer of 1963 I discussed the synopsis of my thesis with Dr. V. Raghavan in Madras. Already at that time I included this problem into my thesis. I decided to investigate it under the heading 'The Philosophy of Theatre'. But it was supposed to be only one of the three parts of my thesis. A few months later I became aware that I should limit myself to this problem alone; for by then 1 was fully convinced that it perfectly fulfils the requirements of a thesis and that its implications reach further than I initially expected. The original synopsis did not remain unchanged. I had to abandon some of the topics which I have first included in it, since they appeared to rest on somewhat misconceived premises. A comparison of a theatre-hall to a temple belongs to this category.' Some other topics unexpectedly developed from a modest initial idea into very important concepts. The metamor- phosis of the role of Indra in the defence of Natya into the dåivasuram concept of Natya belongs to this category. When at last the synopsis acquired its final shape, the necessity of giving an exact characteristic of the mythology of NS became its first point. Part I deals with this problem. Chapter I of it furnishes a short review of different approaches towards the Natyotpatti adhyaya. It is meant to be a survey of what has been done so far in the field of the interpretation of the mythology of NS. I believe that no important contribution in this respect has been omitted, although I have to admit that some of the old contri- butions to the knowledge of the ancient Indian theatre made by the Western scholars were beyond my reach in Banaras. Chap-

1 This reservation concerns only the earliest period in the history of Nåtya. Later on the possibility of such a comparison cannot be ruled out. The theatre-hall of the classical Sanskrit theatre of Kerala, which is called Kuttampalam has many affinities to a temple. See .Kūțiyāttam, a thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Letters of the University of Madras, by P.C. Krishnan Nambudiripad, January 1962 (No T 1427), p.71-2. º I had to reconcile myself with almost complete lack of German sources. Besides on this occasion I would like to offer my apology to Prof. Dr. J. Gonda in case I might have misrepresented some of his views. Unhappily because of my ignorance of German I had to rely on the impromptu renderings of my German-speaking friends, lacking, of course, the proper knowledge of the subject. See also the Postscript, p. 191.

Preface xi

ter II does not bring any specially new material. Its only pur- pose is to show that although the assessment of the age of Nātya as given by Dr. Keith is the most cautious and the best proved one, it cannot be considered final and may be safely extended as far back as, at least, the age of Pänini. This 'opening to the past' was necessary in order to remove the basic obstacle for considering the Nătyotpatti mythology as belonging to the earliest epic period. Once the non-existence of Nâtya before Patañjali ceased to be uncontestable, it remained to prove in detail what I have already suspected before, i.e., that the mythology in question is a product of the epoch which saw the close of the Brähmanic age and the beginning of the epic period. This has been done in Chapter III of Part I. The detailed analysis of the character of the deities appearing in the mythological account of the Natyotpatti revealed their proper age and placed this account around the middle of the first millennium BC. Part II of this study presents the proper thesis. Its Chapter I establishes a concrete historical connexion between Yajña and Nātya. A direct contact between the two constitutes one element of this connexion. Another mode of relationship is their contact through the Indramaha festival. This assertion is based on the fact that the Indramaha festival has its roots in the sacrificial ritual. The subsequent three chapters offer an interpretation of the three major problems of the mythology of the Natyotpatti. It is first of all the relationship of Natya and the Vedas. Next comes the attitude of the gods, Rsis and men towards Nātya. And finally the dāivāsuram aspect of Nātya. Yajña, of course, cons- titutes all the time the unifying motif of this interpretation. The foremost requirement in each case mentioned above was to give a proper definition of these phenomena in their sacrificial surrounding. Only after the meaning of these concepts had in this way been properly defined, 1 ventured to offer my own interpretation of Nätya with reference to these phenomena. Part III broadens the above interpretation of Nātya so that it may embrace the concepts of itivrtta and of rasa i.e., speaking in traditional terms, the body and the soul of Nâtya. In this part both Yajña and Nätya are shown in their relationship to action in general. Chapter I offers an analysis of Yajña con- ceived as a mythological happening and as an archetype of all actions both in their course and in their aim. The following

xii Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

chapter contains an analysis of the itivrtta, i.e., the structure of performance.1 The basic feature of this analysis is an attempt to show that itivrtta is a concept embodying all regularities common to all actions. Thus itivrtta emerges as an abstract standard action. Its course and aim, therefore, speaking in general terms, have to be identical with the course and aim of Yajna which is an archetypal action. Chapter III supplies an answer to a query concerning the nature of relationship between such an itivrtta shown in the form of a performance on the stage, and a spectator. The foremost problem here was to find out the exact manner in which NS relates rasas to itivrtta and to see whether, at least on some occasions, NS goes beyond strictly technical discussion of this problem, offering some suggestions concerning the philosophical aspect of the concept of rasa. After this had been done I yielded to a temptation of examining in this light Abhinavagupta's contribution to the theory of rasa. Thus departing from the text of NS I have introduced Abhinava's concept of sādhāranīkaraņa and tanmayī- bhava. In introducing these concepts I felt justified by their rather technical connotation which, enriching somewhat more primitive theory presented in NS, does not affect its original philosophical premises. The last part of the book was not originally planned. It was only in the course of my studies of rasa theory that the sānta rasa began to appear as an altogether separate concept. It has become obvious to me that this rasa in the form it has been given in the inserted passage of NS cannot belong to the original scheme of the eight rasas. Since my view in this respect received a strong and authoritative support of Dr. V. Raghavan2 1 decided therefore that the problem of the sānta rasa has to be excluded from my original plan. It was due to the suggestion of once again Dr. V. Raghavan3 concerning the possibility of

1 Because of the necessity of re-evaluation of the entire concept, Chapter II has become somewbat too long. Having entered the jungle of details the reader may lose for a moment the awareness of the main purpose of this analysis. The metaphorical terminology of this discussion which I used following the tradition, may even augment this impression. I may therefore request the indulgence of the reader for this shortcoming. 2 Raghavan, NR, p. 15ff. 3 op. cit., p. 50.

Preface xiii

Buddhistic affiliations of the sänta rasa, that the role of it in the history of the philosophy of Nātya became clear to me. Now I decided to add a separate part entitled 'Reaction' and dealing with the problem of the śnta rasa which undoubtedly represents the Buddhistic reaction against the earlier sacrificial concept of Nāțya. Here my study ends. It may be regarded as an exposition of the earliest philosophical concept of Nātya. Throughout this work I did not try to avoid history and I believe that some interesting contributions regarding the history of Nātya can be found in it. Yet my main effort was directed towards finding out what was the philosophical concept of theatre-a theatre the technique of which is so exhaustively described in the pages of NŚ. M.C. Byrski

Warsaw April 23, 1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Before presenting the results of my research I should like to express my great indebtedness and gratitude to all these scho- lars, who carried out often a very ungrateful task of compiling indexes, dictionaries, editing texts, making translations or writ- ing surveys and histories. It is because of the labours of a legion dedicated workers in the field of Indology, that each and every sentence of this thesis could have been written. Let the biblio- graphy which goes together with this book as well as the references of it, be considered an acknowledgement of my inde- btedness to them. Besides I would like to express sincere gratitude to my guide Dr. A. K. Narain for his liberal guidance, his confidence in me, and his unceasing encouragement which permitted me to carry his work to a close. My special thanks go to late Dr. V. S. Agrawala, whose Vedic lectures gave me the sense of direction and purpose in my studies of mythology. In fact it is to his indirect inspiration that I owe the very conception of my thesis. I should also like to thank Dr. V. S. Pathak, now Head of the Department of Ancient History and Culture, University of Gorakhpur, who patiently discussed with me the synopsis of this book and who went carefully through its manuscript offer- ing many suggestions and contributing a lot towards its impro- vement. I owe my gratitude also to Dr. V. Raghavan, who al- ways readily offered his advice and through whose good offices I have become acquainted with the classical Sanskrit theatre of Kerala (Kūdiyātțam) which, indeed, has become a welcome counterbalance to the theoretical enquiry presented in this book. I may only express my regret that the distance between Madras and Banaras did not allow me to take more often the advantage of Dr. Raghavan's expert advice. To Dr. T. R. V. Murti I am obliged for his generous gift of time to discuss with

xvi Concept of Ancient Indian T

me the problem of the santa rasa and to offer his interpret of the santa rasa text of NS and of the Abhinavabhārati. also thankful to Pt. Jagannatha Upadhyaya of the Sanskrit versity, Banaras, for sharing with me his views concernin sānta rasa theory. My obligation is also due to late Pt. An Prasad Upadhyaya whose valuable tuitions helped me to u stand the most important portions of NS and of Abhin commentary on it. Further I would like to thank Pt. Rat Jha of the Sanskrit College, Banaras Hindu University, fo ungrudging help in reading some portions of NS and the navabhâratī. Miss Winifred Lewis of the Basanta K Mullick Trust, Banaras, obliged me indeed by volunteerin expert help in correcting the language of this essay. Unhap approaching hot season prevented her from carrying out cc tions beyond Part I of it. For correcting the remaining pa am indebted to Miss Mary Searle of England, who did her within the short time which I had put at her disposal. Among those who read the typescript of this work was my teacher of Sanskrit, Professor Dr. E. Suszkiewicz, who wit usual precision pointed out all mistakes and omissions. Wit his help preparing the typescript for print would have be much more time-consuming task. Last but not least 1 w like to express my hearty thanks to the Paderewski Founda Inc., New York, U.S.A. and to Sangeet Natak Akademi, Delhi, India, whose generous assistance made it possible fo to conduct, complete and publish this research work in I: Finally, Shri Devendra Jain, Editorial chief of Messrs Mu ram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. deserve great thank making this book look more promising than the content would allow.

Part

PROBLEMS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE

FIRST ADHYĀYA OF NĀȚYAŠĀSTRA

REVIEW OF ANCIENT AND MODERN APPROACHES

The Nātyotpatti adhyāya uses the language of mythology. Our comprehension of this adhyãya depends, therefore, on the way we approach ånd understand its mythology. It is from this viewpoint that we shall attempt to review some of the more interesting opinions concerning the Nätyotpatti adhyāya. In the course of our review we shall try to answer the following ques- tion: What the mythological account of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya means for an author under review and, therefore, what does he take the Nātyotpatti adhyāya itself for? The answers to this question of each reviewed opinion will allow us to form a general idea about the trends prevailing in this field of research in Nāțya. The earliest work which can supply such an answer is Abhinava's commentary on NS called the Abhinavabhārati.1 Abhinava accepts without criticism the basic text on which he comments. He does not question the reality of the mythological happenings which this text describes. Yet his affirmation is far from simple belief in them. Commenting upon the seventh verse of the Nätyotpatti adhyāya2 Abhinava says that the crea- tion of Nātya cannot be compared to an ordinary making of things, which is vyavahārasiddha as for instance, making of a pot by a potter. On the contrary, Nātya's existence is due to inborn original knowledge possessed by Brahmā-due to his upajñā. A modern commentator, Acharya Viśveśvar, adds that because Näțya is created by Brahmā, therefore, unlike making

1 See Kane, HSP. De, SP. 2 Śrüyatăm nāțyavedasya sa nbhavo brahmanirmitah (NS, GOS, I. 7.)

4 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

of a pot etc., its making is apratyaksa, i.e., imperceptible.1 Thus, Abhinava accepts the fact of the divine creation of Nātya. Taking into consideration the role of Brahmā as the creator of the universe we can assume that Abhinava under- stood the creation of Natya and the events which accompanied it in a similar way to the creation of the universe-which is equally beyond human perception. Apparently the faithful account of the creation of Natya was not, according to Abhi- nava, the only purpose of Bharata. His second impor- tant aim was to furnish a pattern of behaviour for all those who wish to organise a theatrical performance. Offering his commentary on the verses describing the appointment of gods to guard a theatre-hall, Abhinava says that men of similar character to the respective gods should be posted during a performance at the places allotted to them.2 The fact that Indra takes his place on the one side of a stage for instance, indicates according to Abhinava a place where a king should take his place during an ordinary performance.3 Abhinava seems to be somewnat aware of the naivety of such a sugges- tion. Thus he says that the fact of the appointment of gods will bring necessary result by itself even if it is impossible to find men of disposition similar to that of the gods.4 Besides these two, there is one more interesting problem shedding additional light on the attitude of Abhinava in regard to the mythology of the Natyotpatti. The introductory stanza of the first chapter mentions Pitamaha and Maheśvara but omits Vișņu. In contra- distinction to other commentators whom he quotes, Abhinava does not try to justify the god's absence with his minimal role in the creation of Nätya. Far from looking for such a trivial argument he states rather highhandedly that it is unbecoming (anucita) to discuss the absence of a salutation to a god. He5 refuses to comment upon one of the most interesting traits of

i "ghatādinām utpattir vyavahārasiddhāiva kulalādibhih abhyupagamyate iri ghatah kriyate iti yuktamna tv evam nātyasyaļtasya tūtpattir eva virifcyupajnatayā sthite ti" (HABh, p. 62.) % "anena câitat talyā eva mandapabhāgaraksā kācin niyojyā iti darsyate" (p. 31, v.I.) (NS. GOS, I, 83 ff.) * "påršve svayam iti rājādes tat sthånam ity uktam!" (HABh, p. 168). · "sarvathå tadaläbhe niyamadrstam evaj" (op. cit, p. 163-4). š (op. cit, p. 14) "etad api anamaskārahetunirūpanasyānucitatvādasat/".

Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 5

the mythology of the Natyotpatti adhyāya. Summarising our remarks we can say that Abhinava treats the events of the creation of Nätya like any other events connected with the crea- tive activity of Brahma. Consequently the story of Nātyotpatti is for him a description of events transcending ordinary human perception. The Abhinavabhärati is the only work commenting on the NŚ left to us by Indian antiquity. It was preceded by a number of commentaries which Abhinava quotes. Yet because of their brevity these quotations offer negligible insight into the attitudes of the quoted authorities towards the mythology of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya. Neither are there available any later contributions in this field. Thus, we can safely abandon Indian antiquity and begin our survey of the achievements of modern scholars. Never again did the Nātyotpatti adhyāya earn as much atten- tion. Modern scholars, no longer capable of assuming the uninhibited attitude of Abhinava towards mythology have been somewhat afraid of it. Only few of them made more than passing remarks about that story. Although nobody offered a comprehensive study of it, yet, often important statements were made which by all means deserve our attention. In first review- ing Abhinava's work we adopted a chronological order which we shall now discontinue, since it is impossible to speak about any development of theories. Everybody owes little to his pre- decessors and makes his own guesses independently. After this we shall group all opinions according to the character of their treatment of the subject. Undoubtedly a historical approach is best represented. Its foremost thesis is that our mythological account is a testimony of an effort to gain prestige and orthodox blessings for the art of theatre. Besides, this approach tries to define socio-historical conditions which were responsible for this particular shape of our legend. The already classical work of Dr. Keith subscribes to this trend. Dr. Keith concludes his account of the mythologi- cal happenings of Chapters I, V and XX of NS by saying : "the legend is interesting for its determination to secure the participa- tion of every member of the Hindu Trinity in the creation of new art."1 The argument of the derivation of Natya from the

1 Keith, SD, p. 13.

6 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Vedas and its being a fifth one serves a similar purpose. Dr. Keith, however, makes a serious mistake in that he ignores the fact that the story of the creation of Nātya as given in Chapter I of NŚ is complete. It includes both the contribution of dance and vrttis. In that story god Siva can claim at least some impor- tance but Vișņu is hardly noticed at all.1 Thus, Dr. Keith's remark will hold true only with regard to the eclectic story which he recounted. As we can see Dr. Keith does not go beyond the assertion that the legend aims at mobilising all the highest autho- rities in the service of Natya. Two other scholars, Dr. M.M. Ghosh and Dr. I. Shekhar, hold a similar view but go much fur- ther in their effort to find a historical background for the legend. According to Dr. Ghosh: "the story of the Nātyasāstra is but a badly made legend worth no credence."2 This is because of the desire of the Sūdras to win for Nātya "a place in the religi- ous ceremonies of Brahmanism ... and .. to soften the anti-Śūdra attitude of the ritual ridden orthodox lawgivers and their descen- dants to whom the mystic name of Veda appealed more than the aesthetic feats of natas."3 Interpreted in such a way our mythological story earned a final damnation by Dr. Ghosh who wrote : "the Nātyasāstra legend about the origin of Nātya is palpably a badly made fable fitted to the text in still worse manner." The attitude which Dr. Ghosh assumes in another paper dealing with the origin of Nātya, published considerably later,5 is an elaboration of his earlier conclusion. Now Dr. Ghash suggests a pre-Aryan origin of Nātya concentrating his attention upon the legend of Chapter IV of NS. His chief argu- ment here is the worship of Siva, with which he connects the origins of Nätya. Since our concern is not with that legend we shall refrain from discussing this portion of his arguments. Dr. Ghosh is not alone in searching for the origins of Nātya in pre- Aryan times. The same thesis has very forcefully indeed been put forward by Dr. I. Shekhar in his extremely well-published book entitled Sanskrit Drama : its Origin and Decline.e Dr.

1 M.M. Ghosh shares our view, see CHHD, p. 5. 2 M.M. Ghosh, PNS, p. 72. 3 op. cit, p. 73. op. cit, p. 75. 5 CHHD, Calcutta, 1958. Published by Brill, Leiden, 1960.

Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 7

Shekhar opens his deliberations with the following remark: "The traditional account given in the opening chapters of the Nātya- sāstra puts the stamp of a divine origin on the Sanskrit drama. However, the entire account is in the nature of a fabrication and the contents appear to have been rehandled freely and frequently. Since the stage was set in the epic age, Bharata had to invoke the favour of the gods so as to claim the treatise to be regarded as a fifth Veda."1 Here the author does not differ from Dr. Keith and Dr. Ghosh. But in his final conclusion he goes much further than these two scholars. After a review of the legend he writes: "This traditional account preserved in the Nāțyaśāstra, indicates:

1. That sage Bharata had to strive hard to secure a divine origin for the art of dramaturgy. In addition to securing the co-operation of major and minor gods, he introduced several such elements which suited the likings of the leading gods; 2. That Bharata spared no pains in making NS a compen- dium of all arts and the sacred books. By borrowing different elements from the Samhitas, he could float the treatise as a fifth Veda, otherwise it run the risk of being received indifferently; 3. That the Nātyaśāstra was composed to provide relaxation to all the Varnas and especially for those who had no access to the holy books. Thus, it opened a field for the non-Aryan artists, Natas and actors, who did not belong to the Aryan classes; 4. That female artistes from Südras and other low classes of non-Aryans were probably available for acting when Bharata staged the play; 5. Possibly, Indra and the other gods refused to take the res- ponsibility of staging a play because the Aryan community perhaps lacked the traditions, actors and other equipment. So Bharata defended the honour of the Aryan chief by taking the burden on himself; 6. It is significant that all the plays enacted by Bharata glori- fied the actions of the gods, thereby perhaps, he impressed

"1 Shekhar, SDOD, p. 34.

8 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

on the priests the harmless character of the dramatic art. But no plays mentioned by Bharata have come down

7. That god Siva commended the use of dance which, perhaps, to us;

heretobefore was not approved by the Brähmanas. The association of Siva lent a sacred character to this art and may have appeased the non-Aryans who must have felt happy at the inclusion of a god with strong non-Aryan sympathies in the evolution of the Sanskrit drama."1 All this, according to the author, signifies that Bharata "had to present the work in a convincing form without publicising its non-Aryan points.2 Our foremost objection in the case of both Ghosh and Shekhar is directed to their effort to present the mythological account of the NS as a camouflage for the unholy although commendable machinations of Sūdras or non- Aryans in order to get the Aryan recognition of Nātya. This app- roach finds little support in NS and elsewhere. We could agree that the last chapter of NS may reflect an effort on the part of the natas to obtain higher social status. But happily there is fully convincing evidence that the two accounts should not be considered parts of the same story. The legend of the last chapter runs concurrently with the Natyotpatti account. The descent of Nätya on the earth is illogical in the light of the events of Chapter I which had already taken place on the very Jambūdvīpa itself. Besides, Indra explicitly says that an object of diversion is needed which will be särva-varnika, i.e., for all men.3 Further he declares the inability of the gods to stage it and Bharata, a sage, but undoubtedly a human being, is ordered to stage it with the help of his hundred sons.4 It is obvious that

1 Shekhar, SDOD, p. 35-6. 3 Ibid. NŚ, GOS, 1. 8 ff "pūrva krtayuge vipră vrtte svāyambhuve'ntare| loke sukhaduhkhiteļ/

jambüdvīpe samākrānte. mahendrapramukhāir devāir ukțaķ kila pitāmahahl krīdanlyakam icchāmo dršyam śravyam ca yad bhavetļ/ na vedavyavahro'yam samśrāvyah šūdrajātişu/ tasmāt srajāparam vedam pañcamam sārvavarņikamļ/". 4 op. cit, 22 ff "grahane dhārane jñāne prayoge cāsya sattama) *ašaktā bhagavan devā ayogyā nātyakarmaņi!

Review af Ancient and Modern Approaches 9

the transfer of Natya to man is effected already in the Natyot- patti legend. Besides, the actors in it are considered Brāhmins. This is mentioned by the way, with no trace of the strain of a debatable claim which can be traced in the account of the last chapter of NS. It will be more just to take the state of affairs described in Chapter I as earlier than that in the last one and to compare the fate of the actors to that of the Vedic rathakāras who were Brähmins at first and only later became Śūdras.1 Further, we object to the treatment of the whole of Natya as an art alien to the Aryans. This art, according to both scholars being a special domain of the non-Aryans, needed aryanising treatment or 'coating' to become palatable to the Aryans. Dr. Shekhar says that Bharata wanted to present it without publicising its non-Aryan points. On the other hand according to him its most non-Aryan aspect is its association with god Śiva.2 Let use see now what NS says about this problem. In Chapter IV Brahmã is made to go to Śiva's abode, wait on him. and submissively accepts his recommendations. Do we need better evidence of the non-Aryan aspects of Näya when the highest god of the Aryans is ordered to bow in front of a divinity of the scorned non-Aryan origin and so closely associated with those loathed in RV siśnadeväh. Dr. Shekhar himself provides the most destructive argument for his thesis. He writes: "the Aryans who must have been so terribly impres- sed with a malignant, active like Rudra-Siva who no doubt entertained intimate associations with non-Aryans and who both in the meditative state of Yogin and in the dancing pose of Națarāja must have fascinated the Aryan mind added his name to their expanding pantheon."3 Was it necessary then to comouflage the non-Aryan points of a comparatively minor problem of Nätya when god Siva with Devi and Lingam (who can find a more non-Aryan point) was already voluntarily

ya ime veaaguhyajñā rşayah samsitavratāh/ eta 'sya grahane śekiāh prayoge dhāraņe tathā/ śrutvā tu sakravacanam måmāhambujasāmbhavah/ ivam putrašatasamyuktah prayokiā 'sya bhavānaghaļ!".

1 Kane, HD. Shekhar, SDOD, pp. 20-21 and 36. 3 Ibid. p 24.

10 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

accepted by Aryans?' At least NS's answer is an emphatic 'no'. Bharata says: "At the time of Nilakantha's (Siva) dance I have seen his Graceful Style appropriate to the Erotic Sentiment, and this requires beautiful dresses and is endowed with gentle Angahāras and has Sentiments (rasa), States (bhāva) and action as its soul."" He, further, proposes to Brahmā to include it into Nāțya. Brahmā readily agrees and cooperates in its intro- duction by creating Apsarases. This is no hide-and-seek. Every- thing is plainly stated. All the rest of the Natyotpatti legend can be taken only as a proof that theatre was in its main pro- portions known to the Aryans3 who gladly received the contribution of the non-Aryans in the form of a particular dance 'endowed with gentle Angaharas'. The account of Chapter IV is so obviously a late sectarian addition anticipating such attitude as that demonstrated later by Śāradātanaya who retells the legend making Mahāvișnu an ultimate source of Nātya, that it would be a great inconsistency to rely on its testimony when dealing with the early history of Nātya. Another argument of Dr. Shekhar demanding criticism is his assertion that the seek- ing of divine origin, help and patronage is one more ingenuity of NS employed to cover these non-Aryan points of the art.4 He believes that "if the material (of NS) was of purely Aryan descent and the work was of sterling quality, there was little necessity to flatter the divinities."5 Seeking divine origin, help, and patronage for different human enterprises was at that time a rule in all walks of life. Does Dr. Shekhar remember that Välmīki also told the story of his vision of Brahmā at the beginning of the Rāmāyana? Perhaps his material, too, was not of pure Aryan descent and sterling quality. It seems, that Dr. Shekhar and to some extent Dr. Ghosh remain under the wrong impression that the non-Aryans, although defeated, consciously preserved their identity but lost

1 Shekhar, SDOD, p. 24-25. 2 "nrttāngahārasampannā rasabhāvakriyātmikā) drştā mayā bhagavato nīlakanthasya nrtyatah! kāišikī ślaksnanāipathyā śrňgārarasambhavā| (NŚ. MMG, p. 7-8). 8 This is supported by Yajurveda's testimony for instance (nrttāya sāilūşam); (30 6.20) for other arguments see p. 87. 4 Shekhar, SDOD, pp. 31, 35, 36. 5 op. cit, p. 36.

Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 11

their pride and tried to smuggle themselves together with their culture into the Aryan fold by using camouflage and flattery. The actual situation was certainly different. Completely over- run, the non-Aryans probably lost in Mohenjo-Dāro and Harappa most of their upper class. The ordinary people re- mained. And as happens throughout history, the victors willy- nilly yielded to the influence of the conquered, accepting and integrating with their own culture everything that attracted them, including most probably that particular form of dance which is mentioned in NS as contributed by Śiva. This historical trend counts among its adherents the largest number of scholars. The views of a further two among them deserve to be presented here. R.V. Jagirdar and K.M. Varma hold in common one aspect of their treatment of that story. Generally speaking, both of them admit that our legend is some sort of history and both of them elaborate their initial sugges- tion, not in the field of history par excellence but in the related field of the technical development of Nätya. The approach of R.V. Jagirdar abounds in contradictions. While on the one hand he is inclined to believe, together with Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Shekhar, that Nätya had some non-Aryan affiliations,1 on the other hand he holds that it was the Vedic tribe of Bharatas which was the first sponsor of Nätya.2 Elsewhere, referring to the attitudes of modern scholars toward the mythological account of NS, Jagir- dar writes that "one is rather surprised to find that these scholars should insist that history ought to have been written in those earlier days in the same style as in the modern days."3 Unhappily the discussion which immediately follows this statement does not give much substance to it. Instead we find Jagirdar directing his attention toward the problem of the vrttis, he takes them as marking the stages of the evolution of drama.4 Since the problem of the vrttis is of a rather technical nature, its analysis can offer

1 Jagirdar, DSL, p. 36." ... it seems that Sanskrit Drama bas least to do with religion or religious rites ; that it is the work of people treated as anti-Vedic, if not as non-Aryan fiends, and that its origins are to be sought in the interest of the lower castes and its patron in a king-a non- Aryan adventurer/Nahuşa/." 2 see. p. 93 n. $ Jagirdar, DSL. p. 22. 4 op. cit, pp. 23ff.

12 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

at best only very limited help in reconstructing the historical background of Natya. Besides, its importance in the Natyotpatti legend is utterly insignificant. In the course of his argumentation Jagirdar makes a very pointed remark. He writes : "In explain- ing any phenomenon by tracing it to God the old sages enuncia- ted a theory or an outlook which has been at least silently acquiesced in ;... "1 Undoubtedly this is how the fact of the creation of Nātya by Brahmā should be comprehended. It is a pity that Jagirdar failed to see that his formula should be applied to the whole of the legend and not only to the single fact of the creation. After all, our legend has Natyotpatti for its title and is nothing less than an elaborate description of that single event. Dr. Varma in his turn holds that the legendary account of the origin of Nātya "through the mythological veil ... certainly refers to some historical facts."2 He gives a faithful account of the legend, carefully separating the events described in Chapter I from those described in Chapter IV.8 But in concluding his summary Dr. Varma hardly gives substance to his initial pro- mise. He discusses the following problems : the relation of music and drama, where he challenges the view that the "Indian drama is an opera type";4 the theory of the development of drama which suggest bhana as the original form of drama, which he contradicts on the ground that according to our mythological episode "the first to be created is samavakāra while the next is dīma ... ";5 the relation of religion and drama, where he states that "so far as the origin of Nātya goes, the above episode clearly points out that Nātya does not originate in religion and is not meant to serve religious purposes .. ";6 finally the problem of interrelation of Nātya, nrtta and nrtya, where he concludes that "the arts of nrtta and Natya are of independent origin ... and ... nrtya ... does not exists at all before Nātya."7 As we can

1 Jagirdar, DSL, p. 20. 2 Varma, NNN, p. 27. 3 op. cit, p. 28. he commits a mistake taking samavakāra entitled 'Amrtamanthana' for the first performance. The first one was simply about dāivāsuram war (NS, GOS, I, 57). The staging of Amrtamanthana is described in Chapter IV of NŚ. 4 op. cit, p. 28. 5 op. cit, p. 29. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 13

see, all these problems concern rather the technical than the historical development of Natya. Even the question of its rela- tion to religion, although historical, does not again contribute in this form any sound historical information.1 A somewhat similar approach to that hinted at by Mr. Jagir- dar has been adopted independently by Dr. C.P. Singh.2 Dr. Singh begins his enquiry with the following statement : "This story is only an allegory and it does not occupy any special place in the exposition of the tradition of the origin or the development of drama. It is only a description of a form and of an example of the theatrical art which has been made in it."3 We can see that Dr. Singh spreads the significance of Mr. Jagir- dar's remark over the whole of the legend. Since it is a descrip- tion of a form of the theatrical art it must be based on a certain theory and must express a certain concrete outlook by its author. What is this theory ? According to Dr. Singh the aim of Nātya is to express in a popular and easy form the metaphy- sical sense of life and of the cosmos. He ascribes the same role to Vedic sacrifice, the aim of which is a popular exposition of intricate metaphysical truths.4 Thus, Dr. Singh takes the out- look of the Nätyotpatti account for a product of the intellectual atmosphere surrounding Yajña. Continuing this thought Dr. Singh centres his attention on the sacrificial ritual, where he hopes to find an explanation of the problems posed by the legend of the Nätyotpatti. When comparing Indra's staff (jarjara) with the sacrificial post (yüpa) and a theatre hall with the sacri- ficial shed5 Dr. Singh remains somewhat true to his approach in the first statement : but he seems to be more concerned with the historical connections of Nätya and the ritual the proofs of which he sees again in the already mentioned similarities and in the fact that there are elements of theatre in the ritual.6 If the legend is an allegory then all its pronouncements can hardly be consi- dered a historical evidence. At the most they can hint at the

1 Varma, SWB, p. 131. 2 Bhāratīya Nātya Paramparā, Nāgarī Pracāriņī Patrikā I-II, Banaras 1958. 3 op. cit, p. 36. 4 op. cit, p. 40. 5 op. cit, p. 42-3. 6 op. cit, p. 40-1.

14 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

possibility of the historical connection between Nātya and Vedic sacrifice which has to be proved on other grounds as well. Yet the wording of Dr. Singh's conclusion concerning the connec- tion of Nätya and the ritual of the Vedic sacrifice is perfectly legitimate. He writes that "the tradition in which NS was writ- ten, was born, developed and was purified in illustrious and splendid surroundings of the Vedic philosophy, literature and ritual."1 This is precisely all that can be said on the basis of similarities. Dr. Singh unnecessarily overburdens his arguments with too much of historical significance, although his final con- clusion is sufficiently general and thus softens this impression. Another point of view which calls for attention here is that presented by Dr. A. Gawroñski. Gawroski's work was ready in manuscript in 1916. Published only thirty years later, in the little-known Polish language, it has escaped the attention of scholars. The book deals with the origin of the ancient Indian theatre and the problem of Greek influence. It is the first scholarly refutation of the theory of Greek influence on Indian drama. The corner-stone of Dr. Gawroñski's approach so far as the Nätyotpatti legend is concerned is expressed in the following sentence: " .it appears that, though in legendary form, nevertheless, one can trace in that story almost all the original elements of Indian drama which European scholars succeeded in finding, although they did not plan to conduct their research in harmony with the legendary tradition."2 By chance Dr. Gawroñski's assertion remains true also with refer- ence to Chapter I of the NS alone. This is so because he yields to a common temptation and combines the account of Chapter I with that of Chapter IV and apparently with that given in Nandikeśvara's Abhinayadarpana.3 Concluding his inquiry into the origin of Indian drama, Gawroñski repeats that modern research corroborated the legend in almost all details, though, of course, explains them differently.4 Which details had Gaw- roñski in mind in writing these words? "First of all, he says,

1 Bhārtīya Nâtya Parampara, p. 42. 2 Gawroñski, PDI, p. 9-10. : op. cit, p. 9, he says that Vișnu helped Brahmā in creation of Nåtya by the fact that with the help of gopis belonging to his retinue in his Krsna incarnation läsya dance was propagated on the earth. * op. cit, p. 52-3.

Review of Ancient and Modern Approaches 15

we have in it (the legend) one important detail i.e., that drama developed from dances executed through the initiative of great gods ... Further there is an unshakable fact there that drama was related to the mystery plays of the Krsna-cult.1 In one of the verses of NS defining Natya2 and in the fact that drama was accessible to Sūdras, Gawroñski sees the proof of its secular origin. Further, he asserts that the same legend corro- borates in detail that singing and epic tales were the compo- nents of the primitive drama.8 Bhärati vrtti in the eyes of the author proves that the bhāratas who originally were rhapsodists reciting epic tales, only later began to associate with natas and Nāțya and the word bhārata came to denote actors in general.4 The second conclusion concerning the connections of Nātya with the Krsna-cult will not, however, find support in the account of Chapter I of NS. All the other remarks are warrant- ed by it and show that the Nātyotpatti legend reflects to some extent the actual process of making of Nātya, or reflects its structure. We may criticise Dr. Gawroñski for certain of his views. Nevertheless it seems that his general approach is correct. It is most natural to expect from the mythological account of a creation some hints about the character of that creation. So long as we do not go further than this, we are on perfectly safe ground Last, but not least, Professor Gonda's opinion constitutes in itself a new category of interpretation of the mythology of Nātya. He views the elements of mythology and of ritual which NS contains against a broad background of the complex cul- tural identity of the primitive society. This is necessitated by the fact of a close interconnection of different aspects of the social life of that society. Professor Gonda says, for instance, that "the object of art is in a primitive society always an object of religious life."5 Further, in his treatment of the subject Prof. Gonda attaches great importance to the Indra- maha Festival, about which he says: "the erection of Indra's

1 Gawroñski, PDI. 2 NŚ. GOS, I, 119, "yo'yam svabhāvo lokasya sukhaduhkhasamanvitah, so'ngādyabhinayopeto nāțyam ity abhidhīyate" 8 Gawroñski, PDI, p. 53. 4 Ibid. and p. 38-41. . 5 Gonda, FUWID, p. 354.

16 Concept of Ancient Indian Theat

tree in the purvaranga demonstrates the close connection of t oldest Indian drama with this festivai. In any case one can s that it is one of the roots of the classical drama."1 The whd mythology of Natya with its central event of Indramaha termed by Prof. Gonda "an 'Aition' which ascribes to the go the institution of the custom of the erection of Indra's standar makes it into a myth and thus enhances the effect of th. custom."2 The most interesting aspect of Prof. Gond. approach, however, is his admission that both mythology a; ritual are, in a way, subservient to magic. The gist c ut position is that "the demons through the quasi magical a c of the 'drama' i.e., through the quasi magical action of victory of the gods, lost in reality their strength and were c down."8 Thus it appears, from what Prof. Gonda says, that mythology and the ritual of Nātya reflect a tendency of y primitive Indian society to consider their theatre as a weapon magic serving men in their confrontations with the evil spiri This is further supported by Prof. Gonda when he holds th the actions of the ritual of Nātya are of a kind similar t actions of the Vedic sacrifice,+ as also by his opinic "originally the point of gravity was in purvaranga-a centre the magic religious feast to which 'a dramatic' representati belonged."5 Prof. Gonda's observations carry great weight a are difficult to contest. We accept his contentions with resp to the importance of Indramaha and with respect to the magi implications of Natya's mythology and ritual. Yet we feel th these contentions neither fully explain all the details of th mythology, nor take a complete account of its intellect background, peculiar to ancient India at that time. The above review indicates that there are five disti approaches to the Natyotpatti adhyaya. The first, represented Abhinavagupta, can be termed traditional. According to it mythological account of the origin of theatre describes r happenings, although their nature is different from the nature those which accompany the creative activity of man. The s-

1 Gonda, FUWID, p. 369. 2 op. cit, p. 443. 8 op. cit, p. 442. op. cit, p. 443. 5 op. cit, p. 366.

of Ancient and Modern Approaches 17

ch may be called historical. It makes a modest start the legend for an effort to win the authority of the gods ie Vedas for Nāțya (Keith). But later it attempts to r a concrete historical background for that effort (Ghosh, ir). Finally it claims that the account is a veiled history ls to substantiate this claim, straying into the related ' the structural development of Nātya (Varma, Jagirdar). ird approach takes the mythology of the Nātyotpatti for iption of the theatrical art in general (Singh): and the which is similar, understands that account as reflecting icture and character of Nātya (Gawroñski). Finally the ›proach takes the mythology of Natya for a testimony ritualistic and magical significance of the early Indian :(Gonda).1 ourselves basically share the point of view of Dr. C.P. We also take Chapter I of NŚ for a general description theatrical art, or rather we take it for a definition of that ring the features of an early philosophical enquiry. This ise we understand mythology in general as a type of se used by man during certain periods of his cultural to analyse and describe the phenomena surrounding his contention receives strong support in the form of the anas and the Upanisads. Much of the mythological ge of the Brähmanas borders on philosophy, which is its r sister. A lot of the philosophy of the Upanisads is ed in terms of mythological or semi-mythological events. ı the Brähmanas and the Upanisads mythology often as an illustration for philosophical formulations and is a convenient medium for philosophy. Our position propose the following recasting of Jagirdar's remark: By any phenomenon to the gods and their world and by

ay other scholars dealing with the ancient Indian theatre give ews regarding the first Chapter of NS. (Upadhyaya, Bharatiya, Singh, D. Ojha, G.T. Deshpande, S.R. Chaturvedi, M. Winter- . Dasgupta, K.P. Kulkarni, M.R. Anand. For particulars see aphy). These views in most cases are too brief to give us any to what approach among these mentioned above their authors share. Besides in a good many cases the authors simply confess bility to cmprehend the legend (Dasgupta-De, C.B. Gupta, A.C. husan).

18 Concept of Ancient Indian Thoatn

showing how that phenomenon fares in the world of the gods the old sages enunciated a theory or an outlook. In this forr Jagirdar's remark expresses our own point of view. The mytho. logy of NS, in our own opinion, is the equivalent of the abstract philosophical enquiry of later times. In order to com- prehend the ideas which it conveys we have to define precisely the character of this mythology, that is to say, we have to find out what period in the history of mythology the Nātyotpatti account belongs to. But before we begin this enquiry, we have to establish the limits of time imposed on us by the existen Nāțya. This problem can for practical purposes be reduced ro one question, viz. how far back can we look for the sources of the NŚ's mythology without being confronted with the lack of any shred of evidence of the then existence of Nātya.

2

EARLY CHRONOLOGY OF NATYA

to Dr. Keith one of the most cautious assessments of of Natya. It is for this reason that we shall make the of Dr. Keith our starting point. According to him the illy reliable evidence of the existence of Nätya is the y of Patañjali (140 BC)1 For NS, which is the earliest eatise on Natya, he allows the third century AD.2 The amatist, it seems, is according to him Aśvaghosa whom isses first.3 We could undoubtedly accept Dr. Keith's unconditionally provided the testimony of Pāņini (circa did not exist. His mention of the Nata-sūtras, natas ya is well known.4 Dr. Keith is correct when he says do not have any other contemporary evidence which rove beyond doubt that nata meant an actor. There- ie only legitimate conclusion is that these rules (Nata- were laid down for the guidance of dancers or, perhaps, mes ... "5 Dr. Keith overlooked one aspect of the 4. Namely, that as we do not have any definite contem- proof that nata denotes an actor, equally, we do not y direct evidence that the term nata meant a dancer or › It is only the linguistic derivation of it from the root the general fact of the existence of dance that is : forth in this connection. A linguistic derivation alone suffice, especially, when we have at the same time a derivation of the word nartaka. The second argument

h, SD, p. 31. :it, p. 13. eit, p. 80. :wala, IP, p. 338-9. h, SD, p. 290.

20 Concept of Ancient Indian Theaire

would become valid only if a nata was actually spoken of as dancing. Dr. Keith's assertion appears to be that of a minima- list-an approach otherwise commendable. Yet, here the problem is too complicated to be dismissed with a simple statement that 'if there is no evidence that nata was an actor then let him be a dancer or a mime.' In certain more or less obvious cases it is better to look first for negative evidence before discarding this or that meaning of a word or a passage as unreliable. Only if we find conclusive negative evidence that, for instance, the word 'singing' in a text does not mean singing a song but humming a tune, can we discard the generally accepted meaning of the word 'singer' and translate it as one who hums. If such evidence is missing it will certainly be more prudent to accept a common connotation of a word. In the case of nata we neither have convincing positive nor yet negative evidence. Let us therefore see whether we can marshal sufficient arguments to show that we shall be on the safer side in accepting the later universal meaning of nata as an actor. The first argument against understanding that word as denoting a dancer is the simultaneous1 existence of the word nartaka meaning a dancer exclusively, and derived from the same root. Yet in justice it must be noted that synonyms are not a rarity. Should this word then be understood as a pantomime? It can hardly be so, since we equally do not have any positive proof of the existence of a pantomime. On the other hand we have numerous indications that the term nata can signify an actor with much more chance of being correct. Without overestimating the fact we can say that the universal meaning of this word as an actor, since Patañjali to this day' is not mere trifling evidence. Another interesting argument is furnished by the passages of Rāmāyana. Dr. Keith does not consider the testimony of the epics reliable.3 Yet, since the passages in question mention natas that spoke and nätakas that were recited and belong to the older portion of Rāmāyana, they deserve attention. Further, many authorities

1 Both words appear together in two verses of Rāmāyana (II, 6, 14; II 67, 15) quoted by Gawroňski (PDI, p. 28-9). ª The actors of Kütiyattam, the Sanskrit theatre of Kerala, call them- selves natas. 3 Keith, SD, p. 29. · Gawročski, PDI, p. 28 (R. 11, 6, 14; R. 11, 69, 4).

Early Chronology of Nāțya 21

agree that NS was preceded by works of sūtra and bhāşya style. Even if we do not accept in detail any of the theories forwarded by Dr. Varma,1 Dr. Das Gupta,2 or Dr. De,8 et al., we shall still have to admit that a sophisticated theatre, with theoretical manuals, was known to the last two centuries BC. Therefore Dr. Keith's opinion that it is only a primitive form of drama, the existence of which we can accept in Patañjali's time,4 seems no longer final. The very existence of Nata-sūtras implies the existence of a well developed art of those natas. As Așțādhyāyī itself indicates, language was a well-known subject, traditionally theoretically studied. In such circumstances, we do not see any exaggerated optimism in believing that those natas were not merely dumb performers. Here Dr. Keith stresses the fact of difference between natas of Panini and those of NS.5 He points to the fact that Silalin and Krsaśva, the authors of the sūtras mentioned by Pānini (iv, 3, 110 & 111), are ignored by NS. The omission in NS puzzled also Dr. Ghosh, who suggests the following explanation: first of all, an unfriendly atmosphere towards theatre, dividing Nata-sūtras from NS; secondly, the fact that disappearance of works and authors is not a rare phenomenon in Indian literary history; and thirdly, the possi- bility of professional jealousy to a rival school.6 In the light of these arguments the assertion of Dr. Keith becomes less irrevo- cable-the more so that Amarasinha (V century AD.) "gives śilālins, krsāśvins and some other words as synonyms."? If it is not an automatic following of Pānini but a reflection of popular usage, then we shall have in it an evidence of some continuance of that tradition set out by Nata-sūtras of Krśaśva and Śilālin. It will not be out of place to note at the end of our remarks that referring to NS and Nata-sūtras one should never risk a comparison between Bharata on the one hand and Krśāśva and Śilālin on the other, first of all, because we 1 Varma, SWB, p. 84 ff. 2 Dasgupta & De, HSL, p. 640. 3 De, HSP, p. 31. 4 Keith, SD, p. 37. 5 op. cit, pp. 290. Prof. Gonda (FUWID, p. 332-3) takes the Nata-sūtras for the precursors of NS and gives the word 'Künstler' (artist) as the equivalent of the word nata thus obviously disagreeing with Dr. Keith. MM Ghosh, Problems of the Nātyasāstra, IHQ, VI, 1930, p. 75. 7 Varma, SWB, p. 89.

22 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre know nothing about those two and secondly because there exists a great possibility that Bharata, a sage might have been known to the authors of Nata-sutras. (We shall return to this question later.) Thus, it may be that while in the case of NS we are in possession of the text but lack its human author's name, with the Nata-sutras it may be the other way round. This remark does not even claim to be a hypothesis. We simply feel that the utmost caution is here advisable since Bharata had all the qualifications of a mythological figure and the legend even according to Dr. Keith might well have existed earlier than the actual text of NS.1 None of the above remarks claim to offer conclusive evidence for the existence of Nātya before Pānini. They are far from being sufficiently convincing. Our only aim has been to show that there is nothing incorrect or superlative in admitting a strong probability of its existence at that time. We believe that a careful enquiry into the text of NS can bring forward still further material supporting our view and extending the antiquity of Nåtya towards the times of Panini. In what follows we shall submit some material of that description furnished by a study of the mythology of Chapter I of NS.

1 Keith, SD, p. 13.

3

THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE NATYOTPATTI ADHYĀTA OF NŚ

At first glance the mythology of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya immediately tells us that, at the most, there can be only three claimants to this mythology, i.e., two sectarian trends of Vāișnavism and Sāivism, and the Brāhmaņical or sacrificial. We shall first investigate the claims of the Vāisnava and Sāiva trends. Of the two great deities Visnu seems to have less to say in the field of Natya than Siva. This impression we get mainly because of the account found in Chapter XXII, where Visnu is credited with the creation of four vrttis-a rather marginal contribution to Näțya in comparison with Siva's dance. In chapter I Vișņu is also overshadowed by Siva. He is mentioned there for the first time only as having contributed a throne to the ensemble.1 Here he is the seventh in order giving way to such gods as Indra, Brahmā, Varuņa, Sūrya, Śiva, and Vāyu. The second and last time he appears as residing in the third section of Indra's weapon-the jarjara.2 It is difficult to argue that the mythology of the Nätyotpatti owes anything to Väisnavism seeing the highest deity of that denomination of Hinduism in such an inferior position. The story of Chapter XXII does not change this view, sinee in all probability it "was an afterthought, and may be dut to Visnu's connection with drama at a later stage. For if he had any original connection with drama, he might well have appeared in the first legend, which also men-

› NŚ, GOS, I, 61. * op. cit, 93.

24 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

tions the Styles."' Besides that, we should always remember that the legend of the first adhyaya is complete, so that all other stories to be found in NS should be considered separately, the more so, since the entire text of NS bears definite marks of a gradual interpolation and recasting.2 It is clear that Vișnu and his believers cannot claim any significant contribution to Nātya at least in the Nätyotpatti legend. Let us then have a closer look at the position Siva occupies in Chapter I of NS. Siva appears for the first time3 under his name Nilakantha when the inclusion in Nātya of the Kaisikī style and dance is discussed.4 In contradistinction to the privileged position which he occu- pies in the legend of Chapter IV, here he is ignored by Brahmā and it is only because Bharata once saw him dancing that he (Bharata) thought of including the Kāiśikī style and dance into Natya. The second time Siva is mentioned by his proper name as contributing success to the ensemble.5 Here he is the fifth in order, giving way to Indra, Brahmā, Varuņa and Sūrya. The third time Siva is mentioned as Sankara residing in the second section of the jarjara.® The last time, he is mentioned under his name Hara as protecting the minor characters of a play.7 Besides on the occasion of appointing gods to guard the theatre-hall, Brahmā places Siva's pike (sūla) in the top of the door.8 By all means the strongest claim of Siva to an elevated position in the legend of Nätyotpatti is his presence under the appellation of Maheśvara in the invocation of the adhyāva. There he finds himself in the most unusual company of Brahma. This impressed Dr. Ghosh so much that he wrote,-"Salutation to Siva along with Brahman is very rare in Indian literature."9 Dr. Ghosh was not the first who felt that something is amiss in that invocation: we have already seen how Abhinavagupta refused to comment on the absence of Visnu from it, his argument indicating rather his consternation than any serious scientific 1 Ghosh, CHHD, p. 5. º De, SP. p. 19. 3 His appearance in the first stanza we shall discuss 4 NŚ, GOS, I, 45. s op. cit, 60. NS, GOS. I, 93. 1 op. cit, 97. 8 op. cit, 89. · NŚ, MMG, p. 1, fn 2.

The Mythology of the Nätyotapatti 25

objection (see p. 3). Certainly he felt that something is not altogether proper in invoking Brahma and Siva without their third counterpart Vișnu. The problem becomes still more complicated because, although Siva has more say in the legend than Visnu, yet his role there hardly qualifies him for the honour of being mentioned in the invocation. The account of Chapter IV cannot be taken as the cause of that privilege for the same reason as we have discarded the account concerning Vișņu. The account concerning Siva is even a more obvious repetition with sectarian motives of the events of Chapter I than that concerning Visnu.1 Inevitably therefore we have to ask whether Siva should not share the fate of Visnu in not being mentioned in the invocation. To answer this we have to ask two further questions. First, whether the appel- lation 'Maheśvara' can denote any other deity. Secondly whether any other deity mentioned in the Nātyorpatti Adhyāya is better than Siva qualified for that distinction. The answer to the second question is not difficult. Certainly Indra's role in the creation and preservation of Nātya puts into the shade everything achieved in the Nätyotpatti by Siva. The first of our two ques- tions has to be modified now. It should run as follows: do we have any evidence that Indra was called 'Mahevara'? Many factors indicate that such a possibility exists. We know that only too often Vedic gods were bestowing their names and achievements on Visnu and Siva, the powerful contenders for lordship over the Indian pantheon. Especially outspoken in this context is the later epic mythology. Hopkins multiplies examples when the names of all gods, such as different names of Brahmā (NB. including Pitāmaha), were appropriated by Vișnu and Śiva2. The same happens to many of Indra's exploits3 and names, among which we find the appelation 'Mahesvara'.4 This name is shared by Krsna (Visnu), Rudra and Siva.5 But

1 Varma, SWB, p. 126. 2 Hopkins, EM, p. 192. 3 Sorensen, IN. MBh, p. 328 mentions Indra changing himself into wind and mixing the clothes of bathing maidens., p. 331 slaying of Namuci-both feats appropriated later by Krsna-Vişnu. pp. 332, 3, 5, Siva as Śakra .. p. 338 Nārāyaņa identified with Indra. 4 Hopkins, EM, p. 122-3. 5 sce Sorensen, IN.MBh.

26 Concept of Anc ent Indian Theatre

one of the earliest claimants to it seems to be Indra. Hopkins writes that "some grandiose names of Siva are the epithets of other gods. Maheśvara is Indra in I, 211, 23, where Siva be- comes four-faced through staring at Tilottama; and in I, 227, 19, Tridaśānām maheśvarah is also Indra."1 Thus we see that both gods are mentioned together while Indra is still known as Mahe- śvara-a situation similar to that in NS. Consequently it seems certain that the Mahesvara of NS is Indra and not Siva. . This interpretation not only explains that unusual proximity of Pitämaha and Maheśvara but it is also far more adequate to all the later events described in which in effect there are only four main actors, i.e., Brahmā, Indra, Bharata, and Virūpākșa-the chief of the demons." From these arguments we can clearly conclude that, since Visnu cannot claim any credit for the creation of Nätya, in the similar way Siva has just enough title according to the legend to be counted (among many contribu- tors to Nāțya) ahead of Vişņu but behind Brahmā, Indra and other Vedic gods. This conclusion may be almost automatically followed by another, namely that the account in question is older than Vişnu and Siva cults in their sectarian form.3 A standard chronology of Indian mythology is given by Dr. Keith.4 The Hindu mythology which interests us here is divided into four stages: Vedic, Brāhmaņic, Epic, and Purāņic. Their dating, of course, corresponds to the dating of their literary sources. We can dismiss outright any possibility that the mythological account of Chapter I remains in close relation- ship with the pure Vedic mythology. The reason for this is the importance, in the creation of Nātya, enjoyed by Brahmā, a

1 Hopkins, EM, p. 220. 2 NŚ, MMG, p. 14 footnote of Dr. Ghosh writes that the name of Virūpākșa occurs in R. and MBh. and in some Purāņas, but none can be identified with V. of NS. It is a mistake. MBh. (vide Sorensen) and Purāņas (vide Dikshitar) mention Virūpākșa as a demon, a son of Danu. $ Bhandarkar in VS and MRS suggests the early part of the second century BC. as the time when Vasudeva was already worshipped as the god of gods and his worshippers were called Bhāgavatas (p. 45). But in general the worship of Vasudeva has to be regarded as old as Paņini (p. 4). The worship of Siva according to the same authority acquires sectarian features around the time of Patañjali (p. 164). * Keith, MAR (1).

The Mythology of the Nātyotpatti 27

personal god who in the Veda is known only as the 'prayer' or the 'spell'.1 Besides, some of the deities like Siva are not to be found there. Also the idea of yugas is absent from the Rgveda. Other reasons can be cited but this is hardly necessary since the general style of the legend does not betray any direct Vedic influence and to push Nätya so far back in time would be unten- able. Let us now examine the chances at the other extreme, i.e., is there a possibility of this mythological account being a product of the Puranic age? Dr. Keith is of the opinion that "no Purāņa antedates 600 AD."2 "The most noteworthy feature of the Puranic mythology is the deepening of the sectarianism of the worship of the two great gods."3 Both the date and the character of the mythology of the extant Purānas place them well outside our field of interest.4 Yet, at the same time, we should remember that the Purānic tradition is already known to the Brahmanas. Dr. Dikshitar rightly insists that "some Puränas were in existence in the time of the Atharva- veda.6 If we remember also that works of the Purāna class were known to NS,7 then we cannot lightly dismiss the possibi- lity of the legend's dependance on the Purānas. At least it is certain that there must have been some earlier works of this type similar in antiquity to the Brähmanas and the epics. But since these works are not available and since in general "there is no essential difference between the mythology of the Purāņas and the mythology of the epics",8 we can safely direct our attention towards the epics in order to identify the mythology of NS. According to Dr. Keith the worship of Siva and Vişņu "is sectarian as early as the epics, in the latest part of which there is free use of language which goes as far as anything in the Purānas, but there is a difference in degree in the devotion

1 Keith, MAR (I), p. 78. 2 op. cit, p. 13. 3 op. cit. p. 162 4 Only for two epithets of Brahma, Omkära and Vibhu and for Sapta- dvipa we bave to look into Purånas since they are absent from the epics (vide Sorensen and Hopkins EM). Besides those, some other names are absent in the epics but neither are they mentioned by Dikshitar. 5 Mcdonell, HSL p. 251. · Dikshitar. PI, p. XIII. 7 Kane, HSP, p. 6 and 29 (NŚ, GOS. 14, 46. NŚ, KM, 13, 46) 8 Keith, MAR (I), p. 162.

28 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

when the main body of the epic is compared with these poems ... "1 Dr. Hopkins presents a similar view. He writes that MBh. "in its latest growth is on a par with the earlier Purāņas, but it is not so advanced in sectarianism as even the oldest of these writings."2 Both scholars stress that it was its latest part in which a sectarianism of the Puranic type appeared. It seems, therefore, that MBh. depicts some impor- tant changes in the character of worship which have taken place in the period of time when it was being composed. Here we share the supposition of Dr. Hopkins, who comments that "it is to the epic that one must turn to study the budding and gradual flowering of the modern religions which have cast strict orthodoxy into the shade."3 Thus we see that our general remarks point unmistakably to the earlier epic period as that which could be responsible for the mythological account of the creation of Nätya. In this light we shall discuss the characteristic features of the main gods appearing in that account. In the course of our discussion we shall also consider the relation of the Nätyotpatti mythology to that of the Brāhmaņas. So far we have pointed out only negative arguments support- ing our view, i.e., the absence of Visnu and Siva in their later sectarian glory from the story of the creation of theatre. Posi- tive arguments also are not lacking. One of the most interesting point is furnished by the position that Brahma holds in our story, where he is mentioned thirty-four times and where undoub- tedly he is an unchallenged sovereign. When the brahman of the Rgveda-writes Dr. Keith-"is converted into the subject of asceticism, it is clear that it is assuming the feature of Prajāpati, and that two distinct lines of thought are converging into one. The full result of this process is the creation of a new god, Brahma, which is the masculine of the neuter impersonal Brahman. Yet this new deity is not an early figure, he is found in later Brāhmanas, such as the Kausītaki and the Tāittiriya, as well as in the Upanisads and the still later Sūtra literature, in which he is clearly identified with Prajäpati, whose double, however, obviously he is. Was there, as has been suggested,

1 Keith, MAR (I). p. 162. * Hopkins, RI, p. 350. * Ibid, p. 349.

The Mythology of the Nātyotpatti 29

ever a time when Brahma was a deity greater than all the others in the pantheon? The answer certainly cannot be in unrestricted affirmative, for the epic shows no trace of a time when Brahma was a chief god; and the evidence of the Buddhist Sūtras, which undoubtedly make much of Brahmā Sahāmpati (an epithet of uncertain sense), is not enough to do more than indicate that in the circles in which Buddhism found its origin Brahmā had become a leading figure. It is, in fact, not unlikely that in the period of the close of the age of the Brahmanas, just before the appearance of Buddhism, the popular form of the philoso- phic god had made some progress towards acceptability, at least in the circles of warriors and the Brähmanas. But if this were the case, it is clear that this superiority was not to be of long duration, and certainly it never spread among the peo- ple as a whole."' In the above passage Dr. Keith said that the epic shows no trace of a time when Brahma was a chief god. Yet, further, Dr. Keith stresses that "beside Siva and Visnu no Vedic god takes equal rank, and the only power which can for a moment be compared with these two deities is Brahm, the personal form of the absolute Brahman, a god that is to say of priestly origin and one who could never have had any real hold on the mythological instinct."2 We see that although Brahmā is not a chief god in the epic yet he "is in his place merely because in the preceding age he was the highest god ;... "3. Furthermore, according to Hopkins, in all cases in MBh. in which "Visnu or Siva appears 'below' Brahmā ... this condition of affairs is recorded not in the epic proper but in the Brahma- nic portions of the pseudo-epic, or in ancient legends alone."'4 Therefore we can conclude by quoting Dr. Keith once more: he writes that in the epic " ... Brahma shows some of the features of the greatness of a creator ... but he yields in importance to the two great gods Siva and Visnu,"5 who according to Hopkins are superimposed upon the older worship of Brahma.6 As we have already mentioned Brahmā's sovereignty in the mythology

1 Keith, MAR (I), p, 78. 2 op. cit, p. 107. Hopkins, RI, p. 405. * op. cit, p. 408. 5 Keith, MAR (I), p. 109. * Hopkins, RI, p. 389.

30 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

of Chapter I of NS goes unchallenged. The nearest to him is Indra who waits on him with folded palms.1 Brahmā like Prajā- pati is said to be the father of both the Devas and Dāityas,2 he is all-knowing,3 an epithet refused to him in the epic proper.4 Finally, Brahma through his creative agency, Viśvakarman, brings to existence a theatre-hall5 thus making his creation complete and fulfilling his obligation in the last resort when even the king of gods, Indra himself, fails.6 Such an elevated position for Brahmā who is invoked in the opening stanza of the treatise could hardly be conceivable later than those "Brāhmanic portions of the pseudo-epic or ancient legends", i.e., the earliest epic period still under the strong sway of Bräh- manical thought. Suggesting this period for this legend we have a far easier task than that which faced Dr. L.O. Schroeder. He, on the strength of the fact that Brahmā sometimes appears in the epic as a god superior to Visnu, tried to prove that in fact throughout MBh. Brahma is a chief god and, therefore, we should date that text as composed between the seventh Century BC and the fourth Century BC, because at that time Brahmā was a chief god .? In the case of the Nätyotpatti adhyãya the priority of Brahma is beyond question. Another deity interesting us from that point of view is Indra. Mentioned in mythological account of NS seventeen times, he occupies a position inferior only to Brabmã. This position of Indra as Brahmä's favoured son or younger brother is noted in the early epic but loses ground with the growth of the sectarian gods.8 Indra's participation in multiple wars and skirmishes with demons is a very general factor recognized from the Rgveda up to the Puranas. It cannot therefore be of help to us in determining the character of this god as belonging to this or that particular period. Yet the mode of his engagement against demons in the Nätyotpatti legend is meaningful. It calls to mind

1 NŚ. GOS, 1, 21. 2 NS. GOS, I, 104. * op. cit, 18. 4 Hopkins, RI. p. 409. · NŚ. GOS, I, 79. * op. cit, 76. 7 Hopkins, RI, p. 408. * Hopkins, EM, p. 140-1.

The Mythology of the Natyotpatti 31

his similar engagement in defence of sacrifice described in the Brähmanas. "For at that time when the gods were setting out to spread the sacrifice, the Rakshasas, the fiends, sought to smite them, saying, 'Ye shall not sacrifice. Ye shall not spread the sacrifice'.1 This threat was counteracted by the gods. "Now once upon a time the gods while performing sacrifice, were afraid of an attack from the Asura-Rakshasas. They said 'Who of us shall sit on the South side, we will then enter upon the sacrifice on the North side, in a place free from danger and injury.' They said to Indra, 'Verily, thou art the strongest of us; sit thou on the South side ... ".2 "Now when the gods drove away Asura-Rakshasas, they could not drive those two; but whatever (sacrificial) work the gods performed that these two disturbed, and then quickly fled."8 Finally the gods resorted to an intrigue to free their sacrifice and bribed the demons. In NŚ they used nobler means-persuasion, although they were also ready to offer gifts.4 The events collected here are taken out of their context. It is not our purpose to prove that exactly the same sequence of events had already been described in the Brähmanas: nor do we want to suggest that the author of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya copied history from the Satapatha Brāh- mana. Our sole aim is to prove that only an author thoroughly conversant with the atmosphere and style of the Brāhmaņas could possibly have created an account of a type so similar to that of the Brämanas, and invested Indra with such a 'Bräh- maņic' role. Another non-epic feature of Indra's personality is his association with Vişnu. We have already noted that Vişnu is twice mentioned in the Natyotpatti legend-once as giving a throne to the troupe and once as residing in the jarjara- Indra's weapon. Dr. Gonda quotes a passage from the Śatapatha Brähmana according to which Visnu has a share in the cons- truction of the vajra. "One constructs the bolt; one makes the Agni the anīka-"point", Soma the salya-"shaft or socket" and Visnu the kulmala-"this part of the implement by which the point is attached to the shaft."5 The relevant portion of the

1 ŚB, VII, 3, 2, 5. 2 op. cit, IV, 6, 6, 1-6. ªop. cit, IV, 2, 1, 5-6; the two are demons Sanda and Marka. 4 NŚ. GOS, I, 100. Gonda, AEV, p. 35 quates ŚB, 3, 4, 4, 14.

32 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

text of NS runs as follows: "In the Jarjara was posted Thunder (vajra), the destroyer of Daityas, and in its sections were stationed the best and powerful gods. In the topmost section was placed Brahman, in the second Siva, in the third Visnu, in the fourth Kärtikeya and in the fifth great Nägas such as Šeşa, Vāsuki and Takșaka."1 One cannot miss the differences here which point, first, to a lesser antiquity of this account and secondly anticipate or mark the advent of the epic period. Important from our point of view is the equation of jarjara with vajra and the correspondence of the two first deities. Next to Indra Agni is the most important in the Rgveda. It is Brahmā in the account of NS. In the Rgveda Soma is the second in importance. In the account of NS t may be Śiva, since he is mentioned four times, i.e., more than any other god excluding Brahma and Indra. Thus, in both cases it seems that the aim was to endow Indra's weapon with the strength of the most powerful gods plus Visnu, the tried friend and assistant of Indra, who in the epic period, after being Indra's assistant and younger brother, assumes a superior position and is called Atindra (the god who is over Indra).2 Incidentally the festival of Indramaha is somewhat related to the question of Indra's weapon, since the establishment and adoration of Indra's staff was the central ceremony of that festival. Dr. Hopkins holds that the description of Indramaha given in MBh. (1, 63) belongs to the first period of epics when the worship of Indra was still of preeminence. The Indramaha festival occupies in the legend of the origin of theatre a very prominent place as a specially chosen occasion for the performance.8 It is difficult to believe that a merely obscure festivity would have been chosen. Therefore, if we accept Dr. Hopkins' opinion we shall have in it an additional argument for assigning this legend to the early epic period. Commenting upon the example of a benediction given in Chapter V of the NS Dr. Raghavan writes that Soma, the

I NS. MMG, p. 13. ª Goada, AEV. p. 32 but he argues that Visnu is in RV more than mere companion: he is equal in power, similar to Indra himself. 3 NŚ. GOS, 1, 54. 4 NŚ. GOS. V, 108; "namo'stu sarvadevebhyo dvijātibhyah subham tathå, jitam somena våi råjnd arogyam gobhya eva ca". We decided to

The Mythology of the Nätyotpatti 33

moon, "is specially saluted because it is the guardian deity of the play-house."1 Certainly there are strong reasons to take Soma for the moon here. "Nāndīprayoge ' tha krte prīto bhavati candramāh" (NŚ. GOS, V, 49), runs the passage which can con- vince the doubtful. We do not propose to question this identifi- cation. Our only suggestion is that its order should be reverted. Soma of the benediction should not be identified with the Can- dramas of Chapters I and V (NŚ.GOS, I, 84; V, 49) but Candramas should be identified with Soma the King. Our argument is as follows: In the detailed account of the charac- ter of the epic Moon-god2 we find nothing convincing enough to qualify Candramas from among all other gods for the praise in this benediction. On the other hand, the Vedic and Bräh- manic identity of this god seems to be the only reasonable cause of his presence there. Soma stimulates the voice. Soma is called the lord of speech, or leader of speech. Last but not least he is called the leader of the poets.3 This alone makes a good reason for invoking King Soma at the beginning of a play. But before we draw a final conclusion, let us more carefully consider the relation of Soma to the poets and their creative work. The word kavi in the RV combines in itself all the three ideas of wisdom, poetic gift and mystic power .- It also means one having divine power. Kävya, in its turn, would stand for 'wonderful activities achieved by 'divine power'.5 "Finally, "it emerges that kāvya is a power of deep perception which makes one kavi, whereby as a god one could create surprising things and as a man one could be either wise or could create poetry to please both gods and men." Thus, it seems, that

utilise in our deliberations an argument which does not belong to Chapter I of NS because of following reasons: the benediction quoted comes from a portion which in all probability is a part of the original text of NS (Varma, SWB, p. 114); the character of the deity invoked betrays pure Vedic features; the benediction does not represent any story running concurrently to the Natyotpatti legend; finally, as a quoted verse it can be of great antiquity. 1 Raghavan, Vrttis, p. 27 fn. 2 Hopkins, EM, 44. * Mcdonell, VM, p. 109. A Bhave, SH. III. p. 50. 5 op. cit. p. 16. op. cit. p. 51.

34 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Soma was invoked in the nāndi because "Soma gives a special power of perception and consequent efficiency to create literary or cosmic wonder."1 Now the intention of NS becomes crystal- clear. It invokes a god "who himself is a connisseur in singing and poetry, a vipra, a rebha, and a kavi.".ª Before the beginning of one of the kavyas, which, after all, according to Renou means in the RV 'the knowledge which rules over the sacrifice,8 and which is called in another verse of the benediction ijyã-a sacrifice pleasing to the gods.4 All these reasons convince us that it was for them that Soma vãi raja; who bestows special power to create literary or cosmic wonder is invoked in the nāndī. At the same time Soma's presence there and his character strongly suggest that Candramas of the Chapter I is Soma, since it is he who is pleased with the benediction praising King Soma.5 The next God whose characteristic in NS, meagre as it is, does not conform to his epic image, is Varuna. This god in the Nāțyotpatti adhyāya is said to reside in the space (ambara) of the theatre-hall.6 Beginning with AV, Varuna becomes a water. god par excellence.7 His function in NS revokes thus his kgvedic character where he is said to abide in the mid-

1 Ibid. 2 op. cit, p. 102. 3 op. cit, p. 50. NŚ. GOS, V, 49; all the examples of năndis can claim considerable antiquity. The fact that they are quoted by NS and the character of Soma the King invoked in one of them indicate this. Conspicuous is also the absence of Siva who later can claim most the nândis for himself. Therefore, we feel that the word ijya should be understood as 'sacrifice'. Brhaddevata, for instance gives ijyā which means 'sacrifice' (see Mcdonell BD, VI, 72, p. 228) He assigns it to the 5th Century BC. (Mcdonell, HSL, p. 236). 5 ŚB, 1. 6.3.24 says "The sun, indeed, relates to Agni, and the moon to Soma ... ". Elsewhere reversing this order it says: "Now this King Soma, the food of the gods is no other than the moon". (1,6.4.5:3.9 .. 1.8;3.9.4.12) Abhinavagupta also identifies Candramas with Soma (NŚ. GOS, I. p. 31) Besides it is interesting to note that Soma is repeatedly called the king of the Brahmins, for in the words of the Aitareya Brahmana "he who sacrifices has Soma as a King (Keith, RVBr, p. 117/1. 14 and III.3/) Thus his invocation in the nandi would suggest that the actors were Brähmins. see Chapter 1 and Chapter 6. 6 NŚ. GOS, 1, 85. " Koith, RPVU, p. 471; Hopkins, RI, p. 154.

The Mythology of tho Natyotpatti 35

heaven.1 According to the same source he supports both heaven and earth.2 In spite of the general attitude of the Brāhmanas to treat Varuņa already as a water-god, Kāuşītaki Brāhmaņa still holds that the world of Varuna is over the sky.3 According to Hopkins it is only in the last book of the RV that Varuna is seen to descend from the heights and thereafter he is a god and husband of waters.4 Yet his previous quality of a deity of the heavens lingers in the Kāusītaki Brāhmana and in NŚ, indi- cating a considerable antiquity of the mythological account of the latter. In the mythological account of the origin of theatre, Agni is called Vahni and made protector or guardian of the stage, for the description of which a technical term vedika has been used.5 The association of Agni with the stage recalls the original meaning of that architectonic term which is a sacrificial altar or ground. This in its turn revokes Agni's Vedic appellation as vedişad.6 " ... radiant Agni who is seated on the altar, and is fond of his station ... "7 says Rgveda. "The graceful messenger (of the gods) goes between heaven and earth; sitting (on the altar), and placed before men, he ornaments the spacious chambers (of sacrifice) with his rays, animated by the gods and affluent with wisdom"8 repeats the same authority and adds" ... mighty Agni, stationed on (the altar) the navel of earth ... "9 Later on Agni comes to denote the altar with which it is thought identical.10 All this seems to be the most logical reason for Agni's appointment in the theatre-hall. Besides these five chief gods we have a number of other gods and lesser c'eities, the references to whom also point to their pre-epic allegiance. We have seen that Vișnu for instance,

1 RV. 5.6.13.5. All references to RV refer to Poona edition. The first figure here stands for mandala, the second for anuvåka, the third for sütta and the fourth for the number of the verse. : RV. 8, 5, 11, 10. 3 Keith, RBr (AK), XX-1, p. 457. Hopkins, RI, p. 65. 5 NŚ. GOS. I, 85. 6 Mcdonell, VM. p. 92. 7 RV, 1, 21, 1, 1. 8 RV, 3, 1, 3, 2. 9 RV, 3, 1, 5, 9. 10 Agrawala, SVF, p. 54.

36 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

seems to appear in the account of NS in his Vedic capacity as the assistant of Indra. Yet this station of his is not unknown to earlier epic either.1 Sarasvati as the protectress of a heroine having as her counterpart Indra the patron of a hero reminds of her Vedic association with this god to whom she communi- cated vigour through speech (vācā).2 Mitra being mentioned in one line with Varuna can as well claim antiquity.3 There is little in our text which would help us to define precisely the character of such gods as Sūrya and Vayu. But the Ādityas, Rudras and Maruts betray some pre-epic features.4 Yet in the mythology of the Nātyotpatti adhyaya besides these already mentioned names, we have also some other which can hardly be traced beyond the epic. So far as these are loose names (as Skanda for instance, (NS. GOS, I, 93),5 and their part in the story is insignificant we could more or less ignore them as later additions made under the pressure of more and more omni- potent epic-cum-puranic tradition. But, there is at least one portion of the text which in spite of its unchallenged epic character seems to be an integral part of the story. The three ślokas (NŚ. GOS, 1, 8, 9, 10) give a description of time when Indra approached Brahma asking for the creation of Nātya. "O Brähmins, in the days of yore when the Golden Age (Krtayuga) passed with the reign of Svayambhuva (Manu), and the Silver Age (Tretayuga) commenced with the career of Vāivasvata Manu, and people became addicted to sensual pleasures, were under the sway of desire and greed, became infatuated with jealousy and anger and (thus) found their happiness mixed with sorrow, and Jambudvipa protected by the Lokapalas (guardians of the worlds) was full of gods, Danavas, Gandharvas, Yaksas, Rākșasas and great Uragas (Nāgas), the gods, with Indra (Mahendra) as their head (approached) Brahman and spoke to him, 'we want an object of diversion which must be audible as well as visible."* Referring to the concept of yugas Dr. Keith writes: "In the epic we find in developed and elaborate form a

1 Hopkins, EM, p. 140. Mcdonell, VM, p. 87. ª NŚ. GOS, I, 85.

E mentioned by Pagini; Kane, HD, p. 710. · NŚ. MMG, p. 2-3.

The Mythology of the Nätyotpatti 37

conception which is entirely or at least mainly lacking in the Vedic period .. "! It is meaningful that Dr. Keith places this remark at the very beginning of the chapter on the mythology of the epics taking it for the most convenient point of distinc- tion. Dr. Keith's caution in this remark was probably dictated to him by the fact which he and Dr. Macdonell mention in their Vedic Index. According to it, "there is no certain reference in the Vedic literature to the four ages, though their names occur as the designation of throws at dice. Four ages Pusya, Dvāpara, Khārvā and Krta are mentioned in late Şadvimśa Brähmana and Dvāpara occurs in the Gopatha Brāhmana."2 Since our account presents this concept in a developed form and since the way it is mentioned in the late Brāhmaņas differ, we shall have to conclude that this portion of the Natyotpatti adhyāya could not have been composed earlier than the early epic.8 We have already shown our preference for the early epic period as the time when the main framework of our legend came to existence. The character of the deities and especially that of Brahma and Indra, as well as the inferior position of Vișņu and Śiva point unmistakably to the existence of a still strong Brähmanical and Vedic type of worship. On the other hand the conception of yugas and few minor deities represent the epic claim on that legend. Judging from the accounts of the Indian mythology given by Macdonell, Hopkins and Keith we can accept for the kernel or the Natyotpatti legend around date of 500 BC. suggested by Macdonell as marking the close of the Brähmanic period and the beginning of the epic period.4

1 Keith, MAR(I), p. 103. 2 Mcdonell and Keith, VeIn, p. 193. 3 It is interesting to compare in this connection following remarks made by F.E. Pargiter, concerning the antiquity of the Mārkandeya Purāņa. "The prominent notice of the great Vedic god Indra, and of Brahmã the carliest of the post-Vedic gods would indicate a fairly high antiquity for the Purana. Especially for the second section which boldly claims to have issued from Brahma's mouth equally with the Vedas and thus to stand almost on an equality with them, a honour which none of the other Purānas ventures to arrogate for itself. Such an antiquity would also explain the high position assigned to the Sun and Agni, who are also among Chief Vedic gods." Pargiter, MP, p. XVI. Macdonell, HSL, p. 171 and p. 233. In order to be on the safer side

38 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

This contention agrees perfectly with our belief that the Nätyotpatti legend might have already been known to the Națasūtras mentioned by Paņini.8 This conclusion, of course, does not concern the extant literary form of the legend, which undoubtedly belongs to much later period.

it will be better to broaden that period which according to Keith extends from round 600 BC. ("the close of the age of the Brähmanas just before the appearance of Buddhism") till round 400 BC. ("the beginning of the age of epics"). Keith, MAR (I), p. 78 and p. 12. 1 Especially when Dr. Agrawala suggests "that Bharata's NS was the product of the dramatic school of Silālin (NS describes natas as sāilālakas and the corresponding Vedic term used by Panini is sdilalinah natāh) which originated in the Rgvedic carana founded by the teacher who was also the author of Brähmana work called Sailali Brähmaņa cited in the Ăpastamba Śrāuta Sūtra VI. 4.7." Agrawala, IP, p. 338.

Part II

THEATRE AND SACRIFICE

4

NĀȚYA AND YAJÑA

In the first part of this study we limited ourselves to the consideration of the character and activities of single deities. At that stage we ignored 'a theory', or 'an outlook'-as Jagirdar would say-which the author of the mythological account of the Nätyotpatti wanted to convey, making these deities act in certain particular way. In Chapter I of our inquiry we have offered a review of various attempts to interpret this mythological story. None of them as we saw, could claim to be sufficiently comprehensive. From among various utterances to be found in different works dealing with the subject of Indian theatre thesis of S.R. Chaturvedi seems to be worth quoting. The passage runs as follows: "According to our tradition the very Brahmã who governs the creative power of the highest god is the maker of the whole creation. Therefore, it is not surprising if he is called the creater of the Nātyaveda as well."1 This lonely statement ex- plains perfectly the role of Brahma as the creator of Nātya and would probably satisfy Jagirdar, who wrote that in explaining any phenomenon by tracing it to God the old sages enunciated a theory or an outlook.2 Unhappily, or happily, the legend of the Nätyotpatti does not concern only the act of the creation of Nātya by Brahmā. That legend describes many more events which cannot be properly comprehended if we rest satisfied with Chaturvedi's brief exposition of its outlook. Since this exposi-

1 Chaturvedi, ANS, p. 19. 2 See Chapter 1.

42 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

tion explains only one of the events presented in the Nātyotpatti adhyāya, therefore, we have to look for a theory which would explain all important happenings described there not as a series of unconnected events, but as a chain of actions serving one purpose within a logical scheme In the preceding part of our study we concluded that the framework of this legend was in all probability created around the middle of the first millennium BC. That period, as it is universally known, was extremely important in shaping Indian culture. It witnessed the close of the age of the Brāhmaņas marked by the most sophisticated speculations of the Upani- sads. Further it was the time when the epic traditions began to acquire their definite shapes. In the field of religion that epoch was characterised by the emergence of the two powerful heresies of Buddhism and Jainism. The traditional orthodox Brähma- nism also did not remain unchanged. Although its pattern, as set out in the Brāhmanas, was still definitely predominant amongst the people of the Vedic tradition, yet at the same time the tendencies of re-approachment between Yajña and the Vāișņava and Sāiva cults can be noticed. For at that time the followers of Vişnu and Siva made within the Brahmanical fold their first claims of superiority on behalf of their chosen deities anticipating the rise of the Saiva and Vāișņava cults. This was the time when our mythological story came into being. As we could already see, its main deities are definitely of the Brähmanic or even of the Vedic description. Although this account betrays in details certain influence of the epic trends, yet there is little doubt about its Brähmanic orthodoxy and its allegiance to the Brähmanical tendency which moulded the myth of the Nätyotpatti. Thus the key to its comprehension is to be found among the intellectual concepts which dominated the thinking of that epoch and this particular brand of Hinduism. A. A. Macdonell writes that the Brähmanas " ... reflect the spirit of an age in which all intellectual activity is concentrated on the sacrifice, describing its ceremonies, discussing its value, speculating on its origin and significance."1 The Araņyakas on the other hand represent a thought signified by a transference of

' Macdonell, HSL, p. 171.

Nāțya and Yajña 43

values from the actual sacrifices to their symbolic representa- tions and meditation.1 Finally the Upanisads seem to mark a stage when the main interest of sacrifice was transferred from its actual performance in the external world to certain forms of meditation.2 Or as Glasenapp puts it "the Upanisads are the secret 'teachings' which give an exposition of the philosophic sense of the sacrifice."3 Thus we can see that the sacrifice (with the exception of the Buddhist and Jaina trends) was accepted as a central intellectual concept even as late as the Bhagavadgīta, where it coexists with the Bhāgavata concept of Visnu.4 In what follows we shall try to show that the mythological account of the Natyotpatti was formulated in the terms of thinking dominated by the idea of Yajña. We have already quoted the opinion of C.P. Singh. Accord- ing to it "the tradition in which NS was written, was born, developed and was purified in the illustrious and splendid surroundings of Vedic philosophy, literature and ritual."5 Since, as we have seen, the leit-motif of those surroundings was the sacrifice, therefore, before attempting an analysis of the way in which it influenced the theory of the ancient Indian theatre, we shall first try to establish the measure of contact between Nāțya and Yujña. In the last chapter of NS its author puts into the mouth of king Nahusa the following statement: "I wish this (Nãtya) again to be openly produced on the earth during sacrifices to be done on different days of the moon, so that happy and auspicious situations may arise." Already earlier, in the same chapter, we are told that "on hearing the sound of Nāndī, and recitatives, songs and playing of instruments during marriages of all kinds, and sacrifices performed for the prosperity of the kings, ferocious spirits will make themselves scarce."7 This is so far as the testimony of NS goes. On the other hand the presence of an entertainment during sacrifices or in their very

1 Dasgupta, HIP, p. 35. e op. cit, p. 37. 3Glasenapp, BB, p. 47. 4 Gita, III, 8-16 ; IV. 23-32. 5 See Chapter 1. 6 NŚ. MMG, XXXVI, 62. 7 op. cit, 55-6.

44 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

ritual is well documented beginning with the Yajurveda,1 down to the Harivamsa.ª Among many scattered references to music, dancing, singing, recitation etc. the most significant and there- fore deserving an in extenso quotation is the concept of Silpas to be found in the Kāuşītaki Brāhmana. Following are the relevant passages: " ... the atmosphere is without base of sup- port, verily thus day by day they continue finding support in the Silpas. They are triplets, the Silpa is threefold, dancing, music and singing. Verily thus day by day they continue find- ing support in them." (XXIX-5) " ... moreover the Silpas are accompanied by (Verses) of two feet; therefore, here Silpas are recited, (thinking) 'Let us not depart from the Silpas ... "(XXX-3).3 There can be little doubt about the importance of this enunciation for our deliberations. Dancing, music, singing and recitation all are called Silpas. All are the basic elements of theatre-art and all are given a considerable metaphysical impor- tance in the ritual of the sacrifice. In the Ãitareya and the Gopatha Brāhmaņas the concept of Silpas is significantly broa- dened. Since both passages are almost identical, we shall quote here only the first one, which seems to give a fuller version of the same concept. A. Coomaraswamy renders it as follows: "It is in imitation (anukrti) of the angelic (deva) works of art (śilpāni) that any work of art (śilpa) is accomplished (adhigamyate) here; for example, a clay elephant, a brazen object, a garment, a gold object, and a mule-chariot are 'works of art'. A work of art (śilpa), indeed (ha), is accomplished in him who comprehends this. For these (angelic) works of art (śilpāni, viz. the metrical śilpa texts) are an integration of the Self (ätma-samskrti); and by them the sacrificer likewise integrates himself (ātmānam sam- skurute) in the mode of rhythm (chandomaya)."4 Thus we are YS (M), 30.6.20. 2 D. Ojha, Hindi Nātaka, p 28-9. Harivamșa, 91-97 adh. 3 Keith, RBr (AK) pp. 522 and 525. 4 Coomaraswamy, TNA, p. 8 .; Keith gives following translation: "They recite the Silpas. Tnese are the works of art of the gods ; in imita- tion of these works of art bere is a work of art accomplished; an elephant, a goblet. a garment, a gold object, a mule chariot are works of art; a work of art is accomplished in him who knows thus. As to these works of art (Sästras), the Silpas are perfection of the self ; verily by them the sacrificer perfects himself as composed of the metres. (IV. 27

Nāțya and Yajña 45

told that whatever is accomplished in imitation of the angelic works, which as the context shows are nature, deserves the name of Śilpa. Now Nātya is said to be the representation (anukīr- tana) of the Three Worlds and the imitation (anukarana) of the Seven Islands.1 Therefore Nātya is nothing else but a Silpa 'par excellence.' All this besides proving beyond any reasonable doubt the close relationship of Nātya to the sacrificial ritual, sheds valuable light on the problem posed by the meaning of the names sūtradhāra and sthāpaka. These two terms gave rise to an interesting theory forwarded by Pischel. He connects the meaning of these names with the specific nature of a puppet- theatre ; holding (dhr) strings (sūtrāni) and placing (sthāpana) puppets. The inadequacies of this theory have been clearly shown by Keith and thus the terms in question have been left without a fully plausible explanation.2 To make up for this lack we suggest the following way of explanation :- Sūtradhāra-the stage manager and the director of the troupe shares his name with architects-silpins 'par excellence.' The same may be said about sthāpaka-a somewhat shadowy assistant of sūtradhāra whose name as śilpin means an establisher of an image.3 Further, sūtra- dhära was entrusted with the responsibility of erecting a theatre- hall. Now if we remember that all that later became known as Națya had earlier been called Silpa4 and thus placed on the same level with such śilpas like image-making and architecture etc., we cannot help concluding that the terms sūtradhāra and sthäpaka are the relics of those times when the art of theatre or its immediate precursor was known as a Silpa and its exponents as śilpins and was closely connected with or even incorporated inte the sacrificial ritual. The term Nātya seems to owe its exis- tence to Pāņini's Aşțādhyāyī, where in all probability, it is men- tioned for the first time. We can risk the hypothesis that the need of such a term arose when these four elements mentioned

(XXX.1.) ), RBr (AK), p. 277-8. 1 NŚ. GOS., I. 107 and 117 anukr and anukīrt seem to be synonymous in NS. 2 Keith, SD, p. 52-3. The most satisfactory among those explanations is the one connecting the name of sütradhåra with his function as an architect of the theatre-hall. p. 56-7. 8 See M. Williams. M. Williams gives acting as one of the meanings of silpa.

46 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

in the Kāușītaki Brāhmaņa as Śilpas became more integrated into one whole and probably mingled with some popular enter- tainment, the exponents of which were called natas. Thus a new art termed Nātya was born. That new art finally crystallised shortly before Pänini and has in the form of the core of the Nātyotpatti legend been given a theoretical exposition closely following the ideas attached to the concept of Silpas already present in the Brāhmana literature.1 Listing different modes of entertainment provided during a sacrificial session Keith says that mimic combats were one of the items to be witnessed in the Vedic sacrifice.2 NS in its turn says that Bharata having learned the art of Nātya devised by Brahma ".went to that festival in honour of Indra's victory which took place after the Dänavas and the Asuras (the enemies of the gods) were killed ... " and " ... devised an imitation of the situation in which the Däityas were defeated by gods (and), which represented (sometimes) an altercation and tumult and (some- times) mutual cutting off and piercing (of limbs or bodies)."3 This part of our mythological story found its way into the con- secration of the stage. NS says : "Then a fight should be caused to be made on the stage in accompaniment with the sound of all the musical instruments such as conch-shell, dundubhi, mrda- nga and panava. If the bleeding wounds (resulting from the fight) will be bright and wide, that will be a good omen indicating success."4 Another element of the same category is exhaustively discussed by Dr. Raghvan, who concluding his enquiry writes: "These show clearly that to begin with Sättvati was the Vrtti in a Mallayuddha. Or it may have been a duel with some weapon. For we are led to infer so from the word Nyäya, which must not in this connection be taken as righteousness but as the technical

1 Agrawala, IP, p. 338. Dr. Dasgupta holds that Nätya existed in the time of Pănini. This is evident from the fact that Panini himself derived the word in his rule IV. 3. 129. Dasgupta De, HSL, p. 644. 2 Keith, RPVU, p. 258. 8 NŚ. MMG, p. 9; "tatas tasmin dhvajamahe nihatāsuradānaveļ tadante' nukrtir baddhā yathā dāityāh surāih jitāh// samphețavidravakriā cchedyabhedyāhavātmikāļ 4 NŚ. MMG, p. 43; "sankhadundubhinirghoşāir mrdangapaņavāis tathāļ sarvātodyaiḥ praņaditāi range yuddhāni kārayet// tattra cchinnam ca bhinnam ca dāritam ca sasoņitam/ kşatam pradīptam āyastam nimittam siddhilakşanam!/

Nāțya and Yajña 47

Paribhāșā of the dramatic world meaning 'wielding of arms', (śastramokșah)."1 Continuing his remarks Dr. Raghavan points to the association of drama with the Indradhvaja festival and finally says : "Thus fight with and without arms but more espe- cially with arms was being called Nyāya. This Nyāya was per- haps an entertainment in the ancient festival of Indra's flag. From it as depicting the fight between Devas and Asuras, Drama might have grown."2 The above remarks supply us with the following arguments. Firstly, that mimic combats or fights were associated with the sacrifice. Secondly, that the same fights constitute an important element of the ritual of Natya and are incorporated into the mythological story of its origin. Thirdly, that both Nātya and those fights are closely associated with Indra and his festival in the memory of his victory over the demons. We have already established the connection between Nātya and the sacrificial ritual and pointed to the association of fights with it. It remains, therefore, to find out whether Indra's festival itself is an altoge- ther different problem or, to the contrary, whether it has also some connections with the sacrifice. Both Indra and the sacrifice belong to the same stock and spring from the same source. Their closest association cannot be negated.3 It seems natural, therefore, to expect that most of the exploits of that god should be traceable either to the Rgveda or to the ritual of the sacrifice. Dhvajamaha or Indramahotsava seems to belong to this category of events, and as we shall see, there is strong probability that the whole ceremony grew out of the sacrificial ritual. The problem of Indramaha, though undoubtedly important for the early history of Nātya, has attracted little attention. More than half a century ago Haraprasad Sastri brought in that ques- tion and was the first to connect it with the origin of Indian theatre.4 But neither his comparison of Indra's staff with the

1 Raghavan, Vrttis, p 40-41. 2 op. cit, p. 42-3; Prof. Gonda quotes Bhavișya Purāna as describing Indramaha festival which included wrestling. (FUWID, p. 369) 3 Keith, RBr (AK), p. 266. " ... the sacrifice is connected with Indra ... " KBr, VI-11 ; "Indra is the ruler of the sacrifice." SB, 1.4.1.35 ; 3.4.3.18. 4 Sastri, OID, p. 361 ; Prof. Gonda holds that Indramaha is analogical to Maypole for both are fertility rites. (FUWID, p. 358)

48 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Maypole of England, nor any other argument sounds convinc- ing. Especially, since he does not tell us anything new about Indramaha except what has already been told in NS. This is much too little to serve as a basis for any generalisation. Only after almost a quarter of a century Dr. Raghavan, whom we have already quoted deals with the problem of the relationship of the Indramaha festival and Natya. In this connection Dr. Raghavan observes : " ... originally drama started as an item in the flag-festival of Indra and when it outgrew it, the flag-festi- val itself stuck to drama as necessary warding of obstacles."1 Looking still further into the past, we shall propose a similar description of the relationship of the Indramaha and the sacrifi- cial ritual. Following are our arguments: "The chanters (of the Sāma) hymn thee, Shatakratu; the reci- ters of the Rich praise thee, who art worthy of praise ; the Brā- hmans raise thee aloft, like a bamboo pole."2 This seems to be that reference to the Indramaha festival to which Dr. Raghavan alludes in his study of Bhoja's Śrngāra Prakāśa.3 Sāyaņa expla- ins the passage saying that they have elevated Indra, as tumb- lers raise a bamboo pole, on the summit of which they balance themselves.4 For obvious reasons we do not need to consider Sāyaņa an unmistakable authority.5 Therefore, we feel free to offer different suggestions. The considerable antiquity of Indra- maha, the central point of which is the raising of a bamboo pole symbolising Indra, allows us to think that the Rgvedic mantra quoted above either directly alludes to the by then existent Indramaha festival, or may be, concerns some part of the ritual which later became an independent ceremony called Dhvajamaha. Discussing the views of C.P. Singh we mentioned his attempt to identify the jarjara of NŚ with the düpa. The basis of that

1 Raghavan, Vrttis, p. 41 ; Prof. Gonda is of similar opinion. He Writes : "Originally the point of stress was in pürvaranga, center of the magic religious feast to which the 'dramatic' representation belonged." (FUWID, p. 366 and 373-4). 2 RV, 1.3.3.1. Keith, VBYS, p. 96 (1.6.12). ª Raghavan, BSP, p. 650. 4 Wilson, RV, I. p. 219. 5 Ghosh in IHQ, vol. X. in "The Nātyasastra and Abhinava bhārat" quotes R. Rath as saying that the writings of Säyana and other commen- tators must not be an authority to the exegete. Hopkins, RI, p. 23. see Chapter 5.

Nătya and Yajña 49

identification was for him the association of both jarjara and yüpa with vajra which is according to Macdonell the weapon exclusively appropriate to Indra.1 Yet this should by no means be a decisive argument.2 For many other things are also identi- fied with a thunderbolt.3 It is, of course, true that both jarjara and yūpa are some sort of poles and that both are supposed to keep off obstacles-demons. But this is where the similarity ends. The basic function of yüpa-the sacrificial stake, is altogether different from that of Indra's staff which serves solely as a defe- nsive weapon against the demons. It will be, therefore, better to look for some such element in the sacrificial ritual the basic function of which will be comparable to that of jarjara." In his translation of the Pañcavimsa Brahmana Dr. W. Caland quotes the following passage of the Jaiminīya Brāhmaņa (II.150): "At the beginning there were two kinds of the descendants of Prajāpati : the gods and the Asuras ... Prajpati desired 'May the gods come to prosperity and the Asuras perish. He saw this sacrifice, took it unto himself and performed it. At the sacrifice he invited (upahavyata) the gods, but, by means of a long bam- boo-stick he excluded the Asuras (dīrghavamsenāntargrhnāt) ... he who has an adversary, he who wishes to practice abhicāra, he who contends should perform this sacrifice/upahavya/. Those officiating priests who are friendly disposed towards him he should invite, the others he should exclude by means of a long bamboo-stick."5 The Pañcavimsa Brāhmaņa in its turn says that the whole rite was given by Prajāpati to Indra.6 If we remember one of the very important roles of Indra as the defender of the sacrifice,7 it will be difficult not to associate both the Rgvedic

1 Macdonell, VM, p. 55. -2 Gonda, AEV, p. 81, writes that the sacrificial post is conceived as the Indra tree (RV, 3.8.8) thus supporting C.P. Singh. 3 Water (ŚB, 7.2.1.17 etc.), horse (ŚB, 2.1.4.16), sun (ŚB, 6.3.1.29), fires and altar-bricks (ŚB, 7.3.2.5) etc. 4 The fact that jarjara should preferably be made of a bamboo is compared to a bamboo pole and in MBh. account is said to be symbo- lised by a bamboo pole (Kane, HDS, p. 823) seems to be an important element. Yüpa does not fulfill the need of the analogy in this respect. 5 Caland, PBr, p. 472. * op. cit, p. 473 (XVIII. 1.9.) 7 RV, 1.19.3.6. "Indra ... the destroyer of Räkşasas at (each) venerablo (:ite)."

50 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

mantra and the passage of the Jāiminiya Brāhmaņa as express- ing strikingly similar idea and referring most probably to the same element of the sacrificial ritual. It may be that the follow- ing passage of ŚB describes exactly this element of the ritual. "He (the Adhvaryu) hands to him (the sacrificer or consecrated) a staff (danda) for driving away the evil spirit-the staff being a thunderbolt ... He makes it stand upright with the text 'Stand up, O tree, erect, guard me from injury on to the goal of this sacri- fice. Whereby he means to say 'standing erect protect me till the completion of this sacrifice."'1 Relating the story of the origin of Indramaha to be found in MBh. P.V. Kane writes that Indra gave King Uparicara Vasu a bamboo staff as an affectionate gift and in honour of Indra the king planted it in the earth and since that time when the year ended a bamboo-staff was raised by the kings.2 Since, as we know, Indra not only wields a thunderbolt but also is identified with it,3 and since a yajamāna was usually a king,4 it will not be untoward to admit a possibility of the rite described in ŚB or any similar such rite being a source of the Indramaha festival and being an inspiration for the legendary story of it as related in MBh Recapitulating our remarks, we shall mention once more the opinion of Dr. Raghavan who holds that theatre (Nātya) was a part of the Indradhvaja festival, which it later outgrew and which in the form of preliminaries to a play became part of a theatri- cal performance. We feel that this was a second stage of a pro-

1 SB, 3.2.1.32-4 ; 3.2.2.34-5. Still the Upahavya rite is the most probable source of the Indramaha festi- val, since that rite seems to be closely connected with the victory of Indra over the demons. The Sankhāyana Śrautasūtra has a following passage: "Indra had slain the three-beaded son of Tvastr, he had given over to the hyenas the ascetic Arunmukha. All the beings cried out at him. He moved aside of the gods. The gods said : If he shall move in this manner Asuras will overcome us. Let us devise that tite by which we shall be able to call him unto us. They beheld that (one-day) rite (called) upahavya." (Caland, SSS, p. 404/14.50.1/). Further Dr. Keith says that "Upahavya ... is born of the strife between the gods and the Asuras." (RPVU, p. 338) 3 Kane, HDS, p. 823. SB, 11.6.3.9. J. Br, 1I.87. 4 SB, 3.2.1.28.

Nāțya and Yajña 51

cess which had its sources in the ritual of Yajña. The first stage was similar in nature to the second one but referred to the sacri- fice and the Indradhvaja ceremony. Originally it might have been part of the sacrificial ritual. Later it outgrew its ritualistic environment and became an independent ceremony. The Soma sacrifice in its turn became only one of many items of the whole ceremony.1 The conclusion is obvious. Such process brought into the realm of Nätya plenty of ideas connected with the sacrifice and its ritual. This, in addition to the elements listed in the first part of this chapter, convinces us that the key to the comprehension of the Natyotpatti is to be found among the ideas and specula- tions accepting Yajna as the central theological and philosophi- cal concept and elaborating the detailed implications of such an attitude.

1 Atharva Parišiştas, XIX.

5

NĀTYA AND VEDA

The gods led by Indra approached Brahmā asking him to create an object of diversion. Since the Vedas were not to be listened to by those born as Sudras, the gods requested Brahmā to create another Veda which will be sārvavarnikam. "Let it be so, said he in reply and then having dismissed the king of gods he resorted to yoga and recalled to mind the four Vedas. He then thought : 'I shall make a fifth Veda on the Nātya ... with this resolve the Holy One (Bhagavat) from his memory of all the Vedas shaped this Natyaveda compiled from the four of them. The recitative (päthya) he took from the Rgveda, the song from the Sama, Histrionic Representation (abhinaya) from the Yajus and Sentiments (rasa) from the Atharvaveda, /and/ thus was created the Nätyaveda connected with the Vedas ... "1 Just as the Nātyotpatti adhyāya in general has become subject to controversy, so in a similar way has been this particular

1 NŚ. MMG. I, p. 3-4 "mahendrapramukhāir devåir ukta kila pitāmahah/ krīdaniyakam icchamo drsyam śravyam ca yad bhavet !! na vedavyavahāro *yam samšrāvyah šūdrajātişu! tasmåt srja param vedam pañcamam sārvavarņikamļ/ evam astv iti tān uktvå devarājam visrjya ca sasmara caturo vedān yogam āsthāya tattvavit//

nāțyākhyam pacamam vedam serihāsam karomy ahamļ! evam samkalpya bhagavăn sarvavedān anusmaran nātyavedam tataś cakre caturvedāngasambhavamļ! jagrāha pāthyam rgvedāt sāmablyo gītam eva caļ yajurvedād abhinayān rasān åtharvanåd apiļ! vedopavedåih sambaddho nātyavedo mahātmanā! evam bhagavatā srato brahmanā sarvavedinā/"

N ya and Veda 53

point of it.' On the present occasion we shall discuss only one problem which seems to be generally misconceived. What exac- tly are the Vedas? A general statement of Shekhar, for instance, describing them as eternal and as being an unlimited source of knowledge3 although correct does not suffice. Especially since Shekhar obviously treats such an attitude as more or less primi- tive and belonging to the category of a blind religious belief. Let us see, therefore, whether this description does justice to the concept of the Vedas in Indian thinking. SB provides one of the earliest and clearest definitions of the character of the Vedas. It says : Prajāpati-'looked around over all existing things, and beheld all existing things in the threefold lore (the Veda) ... I will construct for myself a body so as to contain the whole three- fold lore ... in this manner he put this threefold lore into his own self and ... became the body of all existing things."3 We learn fur- ther from the same Brähmana that Brahman-here obviously in his already more or less Upanisadic connotation-is thought

1 Usually that derivation of Nåtya from the Vedas earned for itself an unsparing censure. Jagirdar, for instance, writes that it has been the age- long tendency of the Hindu mind to trace back everything to the Vedas. So a statement of the kind under question is more a tribute to the sancti- ty and hold of the Vedas than a reference to a fact. (DSL, p. 33-4) We have already pointed out certain inconsistencies of Jagirdar's approach. His attitude towards the derivation of Nåtya from the Vedas is once mare an inconsistency. If tracing everything to a God is in Jagirdar's opinion an expression of an outlook or theory, why then-one is tempted to ask-a similar attempt to trace everything to the Vedas cannot be comprehended in a similar way ? The more so that the Vedas beginning with the triple science of the Brahmanas and ending with the assurance of the Vişnu Purāna that Brahma is one with the four Vedas, are systema- tically and persistently identified with that god. Similarly disappointed is Shekhar who writes that the slavish tendency of tracing the origins from the Vedic texts often leads to the disadvantage of ignoring other patent factors (SDOP, p. I) We have written before that Shekhar under- stands Chapter I of N as an attempt to camouflage the non-Aryan paren- tage of Nåtya. Naturally having adopted this attitude Shekhar is dis- appointed that the cunning device of the clever author of the Natyotpatti adhyāya to derive Nātya from the Vedas deprived us of some other account of the origin of theatre which would more readily yield a con- crete historical material. As we have already said, we consider not only this point, but the whole approach of Shekhar, erroncous. 2 Shekhar, SDOD, p. I. * ŚB, 10.4.2.21-22 and 27.

54 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

identical with "the triple science' and that such Brahman is the foundation of everything here.1 It is in the light of these mean- ingful pronouncements that we have to discuss the two most common objections levelled against the trend to derive every- thing from the Vedas. The first says that it is an automatic or slavish tendency and the second holds that it is in order to gain orthodox approval for a given activity or work. Both objections, or rather evaluations, grew out of an original miscomprehen- sion of the meaning of the Vedas. If we take the Vedas merely for 'the holy writ of the Hindus' these miscomprehensions are bound to arise. Yet from the quoted passages of SB it is abso- lutely clear that originally the three Vedas and later (according to Vișņu Purāna) all four of them have first of all to be considered as the respectively three or fourfold aspect of both the ultimate and the ordinary reality. The written text of the Vedas seems thus to be only one more way in which these aspects manifest themselves in the creation. Thus understood, the Vedas acquire an evident philosophical meaning concealed by the fact that philosophical thinking at an early stage is never fully free from mythological associations and theological argumentation. Yet supposing the critics will further insist that such a statement within the framework of Indian thinking should, nevertheless, be understood in their way. In order to supply an answer to this objection we shall pose the following questions : Is the identifi- cation of Brahman with the Vedas an effort to seek the appro- val of the orthodoxy for Brahman or for the Vedas-or for that matter is it a slavish tendency ? Is the statement that Prajāpati beheld all existing things in the threefold lore an attempt to gain an orthodox recognition for all existing things or is it a slavish tendency of the author of SB ? To take a later example, -should the intentions of the Mārkandeya Purāna, which states that in the creation of the world is manifested Brahmā, who is composed of the Ric hymns; in its permanence Vişnu, who is composed of the Yajus hymns, and Siva who is composed of the Säman at the dissolution,' also be treated as an attempt to gain Orthodoxy's approval for the Universe, or should it be treated as one more example of that notorious 'slavish tendency'? These

• op. cit, 6.11.8. * The Markondeya Purâna, transl. by F.B. Pargiter, p. 552f7.

Nāțya and Veda 55

are, of course, rhetorical questions. For it is obvious that in all these cases the Vedas stand for a philosophical concept of a uni- versal principle of three or four-foldness. It follows from above that the criticism hitherto levelled against the statement of NS relating Nätya to the Vedas was remarkably shallow. This gran- ted, we still have to answer a question as to how to understand the concrete derivation of the nātyangas from the four Vedas in the light of the philosophical import of the Vedas. The only scholar and thinker, Abhinavagupta, whose opinion differs from that shared by most modern scholars, happened to live one millennium ago and at the first glance his close adhere- nce to the basic text of NS seems to corroborate the above criti- cism. NŚ itself does not supply a direct answer to the question why Nätya had to be derived from the Vedas. The only plausi- ble answer to this is supplied indirectly by H.W. Wells, who in connection with his theory of equilibrium writes that it was in India presumably at first taken for granted and later allowed to rest largely unnoted.2 Abhinavagupta corroborates in this res- pect our assumption. Commenting on the words vedusammitah he says that Nätya through its means (the fate of different types of heroes and villains and the enjoyment of rasa) directs the mind of men toward the fulfillment of the four purusarthas and makes it abandon the cause of adharma. All this, adds Abhi- nava, is absolutely obvious to us who have grasped the essence of Śruti.3 It becomes evident that in order to understand all these elements of Natya which were obvious for a contemporary Hindu and therefore taken for granted or largely unnoted, we have to grasp the essence of Sruti, i.e., the essence of the back- ground which is responsible for the formulations of NS. The lack of a grasp of this background by the majority of modern critics is responsible for all the accusations of slavishness and 'orthodox-approval-seeking' generously bestowed on NŚ by them. Returning to Abhinavagupta we shall quote another of his opi- nions which throws some light on his understanding of the relationship of Natya and the Vedas. Nätya-according to him,

1 Keith, AA, p. 254 (III.2.4.). Wilson, VP, III, p. 38-9. 2 Wells, CDI, p. 42. 3 HABh, p. 46; " ... dharmādicatuşkopåyopādeyadhiyam ađharmādibh- yas ca nivrttim nirvisankam vidhatta ity asmākam adhigatasrutitattvānām api pratyaksasiddham evaitat."

56 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

-is different from such branches of learning where an order is the main motivation and where persons are enjoined upon or compelled to act. Näțya brings about the self-existent manifest wisdom, and therefore, Nätya alone is the primary form of the Vedas.1 It appears now that neither NS nor Abhinavagupta can be accused of slavishness or any other guilt implying blind or mechanical usage of wors, sentences and concepts in order to comfort the delicate feeling of the orthodox. To the contrary, both the author of the Nätyotpatti legend and Abhinavagupta obviously enunciate an outlook or theory which they logically pursue throughout their writings. The above discussion provides us with the following arguments: first: the Vedas primarily are the three or four- fold principle of reality, only then are they the three or four concrete texts or books; second; the Vedas and Nātya are comparable or identical on the ground of their common role as leading to the attainment of the four purușarthas and as containing the manifest self-existent wisdom. In what follows we propose to contribute some more such arguments which will permit us to draw a final conclusion concerning the relationship of Nātya and the Vedas. In the light of the definition of Nātya the enigma of its derivation from the Vedas loses its puzzling features and becomes an absolutely natural and even unavoidable condition. The definition in question runs as follows: "trāilokyasya asya sarvasya nāțyam bhāvānukīrtanam."2 We have already dis- cussed Nāțya as Silpa.8 Our conclusion in this respect rested on the assumption that the definition of Silpa as anything done in the imitation or the image of the angelic works of art (silpas), i.e., in the image of nature, is well applicable to Nātya. The concept of Silpa as an image is meaningfully introduced in the Vājasaneyi Samhita (IV.9). "Ye are the images of Rik and Sāman" says this text and SB refers it to a black and a white antelope hides.4 Further these images are said to be conformable

1 HABh, p. 103 ; "tenākramyayojanātmaka-niyogātmaka-sāsanaprāņa- śāstravāilakşanyena svayamupārūdhajnānābhidhānavatah/vidah| prāņave- darüpatā nāțyasyāiveti siddham." 9 NŚ. KM, I. 107. # See p. 45. 4 ŚB. 3.2.1.5.

Näțya and Veda 57

to riks and sāmans.1 Another passage of SB worth quoting in this connection precedes these passages already mentioned. "But if there be only one (skin), then it is an image of these (three) worlds; then he consecrates him on these (three) worlds. Those (hairs) which are white are an image of the sky; those which are black are (an image) of this (earth) ;- or, if he likes, conversely: those which are black are an image of the sky and those which are white are (an image) of this (earth). Those which are of brownish yellow colour, are an image of the atmosphere. Thus he consecrates him on these (three) worlds."2 All these statements of ŚB broaden the definition of Śilpa describing it as any image conformable to its object which is conceived of as an original entity-be it the whole three worlds or only Rc and Saman. Though this differ- entiation seems to be rather immaterial since conformity to the three worlds implies conformity not only to Rc and Sāman but to the whole trayī vidyā which is its essence.3 Thus Nātya, which according to its definition can also be termed a Silpa of the three worlds, has to be conformable to the Vedas which actually are the universe or the three worlds. This requirement implies the need of a material for the creation of Nātya which will make it into a tool capable of representing properly that angelic Silpa which is the Universe. This is why the Vedas alone could supply the material out of which Nātya was fashioned. The way the Vedas were used for the creation of Nāțya indicates two important features given to this art by the theoreticians responsible for the legend of the Nātyotpatti. One already alluded to, is its catholicity and another is its subsequency to the träilokya in the order of creation. We have already noted repeatedly that the Vedas according to Indian thinking are 'all existing things'. Thus the derivation of Nātya from them ensures that it will be a universal art able to represent faithfully whatever happens in the whole creation. Here one can say that since the Vedas both in the case of the Universe and of Nätya were the original material for their construction, therefore, both the Universe and Nātya should be

1 ŚB, 3.2.1.5. 2 ŚB, 3.2.1.3. * ŚB, 4.6.7.1; 10.4.2.21; 10.6.5.5.

58 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

considered identical. This objection brings us to the second problem, i.e., that of the subsequency of Nātya to the creation. The circumstances in which Nätya was created, as well as the way in which the Vedas were utilised for its creation point un- mistakably to its being only a tool for the representation or imitation of the World. The problem of the circumstances is perfectly clear. When Indra submitted to Brahm the request of the gods to create an object of entertainment, the World with ad its virtues and vices was already fully in existence.1 The second point, however, requires some elucidation. Hitherto we have ignored in our discussion Yajña-an important aspect of the concept of creation thought of as a manifest three or fourfold lore. In the theological and philoso- phical literature of ancient India, there are literally countless references to the fact that creation and existence are nothing more but nothing less than a huge Yajña itself. Lévi supplies the most pointed synthesis of this notion. He writes that "the sacrifice is the unique reality and at the same time it is both the creator and the creation. All the phenomena of the universe, he adds, are a simple reflection of the sacrifice and the sacrifice bestows on them their semblance of existence."2 Now-accord- ing to ŚB-this same threefold science is the sacrifice,3 the sole difference being motion or movement which makes a static principle of trayī vidya active in the form of the sacrifice, i.e., creation.4 Jāiminīya Brāḥmaņa after stressing eka eva yajña says 'Prajāpatir yajña eva iti'.5 The same Prajāpati, as we know from ŚB, decided to construct for himself 'a body so as to contain the whole threefold lore' and thus 'he became the body of all existing things.® Sānkhāyana Āraņyaka says about him 'the

I NŚ. KM,I.8-11. 2 Levi, DS, p. 10. 3 ŚB, 1.1.4.3. 4 Agrawala, VL, p.21-2, "The cosmos is conceived of as a Yajña in which the Creator Himself has offered in order to mirror His Totality in the Trinitarian Manifestation of the sacrifice, of the Yajfia." p. 23; "The Veda as the basic principle stands for stasis, that is, the principle of rest in which all the powers of manifest creation have their source." p. 148; "Yajña signifies the emergence of dynamic activity out of the womb of stillness or rest." 8 JBr. II. 70, p. 187. 6 See p. 54.

Nã a and Veda 59

indestructible, which has the Yajus as belly, the Saman as head, the Ric as form, he should be known as Brahman'.1 Such Prajā- pati or Brahmā, according to Manusmrti, 'from fire, wind, and the sun drew forth the threefold eternal Veda, called Rik, Yajus, and Säman, for the due performance of the sacrifice"2, which as ŚB holds, is established 'at the same (upāmśu) graha by means of the Yajus; at the first chant (stotra) by means of the Saman; and at the first rècitation (Sastra) by means of the Rik!'3 As we can see, the sacrifice is fashioned from the Vedas and the two principles are vitally interconnected. Physically the Vedas and the Sacrifice known to us as the texts and the ritual are only symbols of the two eternal principles of rest and motion stand- ing behind them, or they are, in a sense, a representation on the human plane of those original cosmic happenings. Yet metaphysically there is no difference between an earthly Yajña and the cosmic one. 'Eka eva yajña'. The universal principle of the Vedas, shaped for the earthly Yajña and employed in it, acquires certain specific features. The abstract concept of the Rc becomes the Rgveda, i.e., a collection of hymns for the recitation at the sacrifice. The Sāman becomes the Samaveda, i.e., a collection of hymns to be chanted at the sacrifice. Finally the Yajus assumes the shape of the Yajurveda, i.e., a collection of hymns such as they accompany the ritual of the sacrifice. The method according to which different nātyān- gas were derived from the Vedas seems to indicate a plan according to which Nätya was conceived on the one hand as possessing the universal aspect brought into it by the Vedas- the universal principle, and on the other hand as possessing a quality of subsequency in the relation to the sacrifice-creation, since the Vedas used to mould Nātya had first to be trans- formed into creation through their application in the sacrifice. Abhinavagupta seems to share this point of view. Discussing the derivation of the recitation from the Rgveda, song from the Sämaveda, and acting from the Yajurveda4 Abhinava makes it clear that in all three cases these were the Vedas put to actual sacrificial practice which were used for the creation of

Keith, SA, III.7., p. 20. ª Bühler, LM, I, 23. 3 ŚB, 4.1.1.6-7. . HABh, pp. 92 ff.

60 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Nāțya.1 At one instance even he uses the term yāgopakāritva2 underlining by it the necessity, for that universal trayi vidyā which is beyond perception, to be transmuted through yāgopakāritva into trāilokya, of which exclusively the representation (anukīr- tana) is possible. Yet elsewhere Abhinavagupta called Nātya 'the primary form of the Vedas', thus stressing Nātyas universality which allows it to bring about the self-existent manifest wisdom.8 The problem of the fourth Veda-the Atharva deserves some- what separate treatment. Being unable after careful considera- tion to find any convincing speculative justification for the derivation of the rasa from the Atharvaveda,4 we have been forced to conclude that in all probability, the presence of the Atharvaveda in our account reflects a process which resulted in the admission of the Atharvaveda to the group of the origi- nal three Vedas in general. We have to stress at the very outset that rasa can by no means be considered as a separate element which could be contributed to Nātya from a separate source. Rasa cannot be termed an anga of Nātya, but, as Abhinava puts it, should be treated as its soul (atman).5 One can notice in this connection that the relationship between these Silpas of KBr6 and Nātya seems to corroborate our attitude. There we have music, dance, singing and recitation mentioned. From those Natya was fashioned and rasa came as a fulfilment resulting from it. Rasa does not occur without acting and acting is, so to speak, automatically follow- ed by Rasa .? 'Raso vai sah' has the Tāittirīya Upanișad.8 Thus rasa appears to be He-the Brahman and the triple science-not one of the three (or four) but all of them-their synthesis, The

1 NŚ. KM, I. 17. 2 op. cit, Chapter 6. $ See p. 55. 4 In spite of the laborious effort of Abhinavagupta to make this deriva- tion sound convincing. HABh, p. 98. 5 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 1, III. p. 1.

7 NŚ. MMG, I, p. 107, 36, ; "There can be no Sentiments (rasa) prior 6 See p. 44.

to (lit. without) the States (bhava) and no States without the Sentiments/ following it/, and during the Histrionic Representation they are produced from their mutual relation" ("na bhāvahīno'sti raso na bhāvo rasavarjitah| parasparakrıā siddhis tayor abhinaye bhavet"). 8 Gambhira, EV, 355 (VII. 1).

Nāțya and Veda 61

Atharvaveda, here, claims for itself considerably more than just one of the components of Natya. This 'behaviour' of the Atharvaveda, as we have already noted above, bears a close resemblance to the way in which it claimed to be part of the sacrifice, and therefore, to be the fourth Veda. Macdonell gives the following account of this problem : "A similar conclusion may be drawn from occasional statements in the classical texts, and especially from the efforts of the later Atharvan writings themselves to vindicate the character of their Veda. These ritual texts not only never enumerate the Vedas without including the Atharvaveda but even sometimes place it at the head of the four Vedas. Under a sense of the exclusion of their Veda from the sphere of the sacrificial ritual, they lay claim to the fourth priest (the brahman), who in the Vedic religion was not attached to any of the three Vedas, but being required to have a knowledge of all three and of their sacrificial application, acted as superintendent or director of the sacrificial ceremonial. Ingeniously availing themselves of the fact that he was uncon- nected with any of the three Vedas, they put forward the claim of the fourth Veda as the special sphere of the fourth priest. The priest, moreover, was the most important as possessing a universal knowledge of the religious lore (brahma), the com- prehensive esoteric understanding of the nature of the gods and of the mystery of the sacrifice. Hence the Gopatha Brāhmaņa exalts the Atharva as the highest religious lore (brahma), and calls it Brahma-veda."1 Thus Nātya, the representation of the true condition of the Three worlds, was created. The ideas which NS tries to convey deriving Nātya from the Vedas are only at the first glance limited to the Indian cultural milieu. Our study of it shows be- yond doubt that the pronouncements of NS are the result of a very profound study and understanding of theatre. Both the idea of catholicity of theatre, as well as that of its subsequency, in order of creation, to the universe are valid in the analysis of any theatre in the world. A truly great theatre has to mirror all aspects of existence without any exception. But at the same time man created true theatre only after he started to speculate about the nature of existence, i.e., in the terms of Indian think- ing, only after he sacrificed. 1 Macdonell, HSL, p. 163.

6

NATYA, GODS, SAGES AND MEN

Having created Nātya Brahmā addressed Indra the king of gods urging him to put it into practice. Indra refused and as an excuse gave gods' inability to practise it. He further advised Brahmā to ask the Rsis to implement it. Thus Bharata, a sage, was requested to take care of Nātya. He in turn trained in it his hundred sons.1 This is the next important event described in the Nātyotpatti adhyāya. It poses three following questions: Why did Indra refuse to practice Nätya and why he declared gods' inability to do it? Who was Bharata and why was he entrusted with its practical implementation? Who his hundred sons were? An answer to our first question was attempted by Shekhar and, to certain extent, by Ghosh. The interpretation proposed by them, on the one hand, resulted from their theory of the non-Aryan origin of theatre. On the other hand, it follows the widely accepted theory which holds that in many cases the

1 NŚ. GOS. 1,19-40 "utpādya nātyavedam tu brahmovāca sureśvaram/ itihāso mayā srstah sa sureşu nijyatām//

tac chrutvā vacanam sakro brahmanā yad udāhrtam! prāňjalih pranato bhūtvā pratyuvaca pitāmaham!/ grahane dhārane jñāne prayoge cāsya sattama/ asaktā bhagavan devā ayogyā nātyakarmanil! ya ime vedaguhyajnā rsayah samšitavratāh/ ete'sya grahane saktāh prayoge dhārane tathā// śrutvā tu śakravacanam måm ähāmbujasambhavah/ tvam putrašatasamyuktah prayoktā'sya bhavānagha!/ ājnāpitoviditvā'ham nāțyavedam pitāmahāt/ putrān adhyāpayāmāsa prayogam capi tattvatab !! "

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 63

Vedic gods stand for the Aryans and the Asuras for the non- Aryans. Shekhar words his opinion as follows: "Possibly, Indra and other gods refused to take the responsibilities of staging a play because the Aryan community perhaps lacked the tradi- tions, actors, and other equipment."1 This theory suffers from two basic weaknesses. One is the supposed lack of a suitable artistic tradition among the Aryans, as contrasted with the non- Aryans who, in the eyes of Shekhar, appear to be better quali- fied for the authorship of Nätya. Another shortcoming of this theory is hidden in the ease with which Shekhar chooses only half of the general analogy taking the gods for the Aryans all right, but with the respect to the non-Aryans substituting a Rsi for the Asuras whose animosity towards theatre shown in the Nätyotpatti legend is irreconcilable with the whole theory pre- sented by Shekhar. This point we shall discuss further when dealing with the identity of Bharata. In connection with the first one, we have to recall and stress our general disagreement with the theory of the non-Aryan origin of theatre, the reasons of which we have already given .? Here we shall concentrate on the problem of the artistic traditions of both peoples which appear to be a corner-stone of the approach in question. The assumption underlying the attitude of giving preference to the non-Aryans seems to rest on the belief that there is more evidence making a connection of the origin of theatre with the non- Aryans more probable than with the Aryans. Happily the case is not yet closed and we have every reason to believe that a careful and impartial scrutiny of the material would rather favour the Aryans or, at least, would in this respect equate both traditions. It strikes the critic that in relation to this problem the scarcity of the information concerning the non-Aryans causes its over-valuation and the comparative abundance of it in the case of the Aryans seems to be the reason for its under- valuation. The protagonists of the non-Aryan origin of theatre usually marshal to their support three main arguments. The first of them is the connection of the god Siva, on the one hand, with the Indus Valley culture, and on the other hand, with Nātya.

1 Shekhar, SDOD, p. 36. NŚ. MMG, p. 5fn. 2 See Chapter 1.

64 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

This god closely associated with the pre-Aryan phallic worship is at the same time in his Națarāja form considered a patron of Nātya. This argument is unsatisfactory because of two reasons. First of all the identity of Nataraja and the 'three- horned' god needs an intermediary in the form of the Yogi- incarnation of Siva. This is enough to term the relationship as dubious. Besides, the association of Natarāja with Nātya is comparably recent, since he is not mentioned in the Nātyot- patti adhyāya.1 The second argument raised to the support of the non-Aryan descent of Nātya underlines the importance of dance in the Mohenjo-Däro and Harappa culture. This conten- tion has its source in the little figurine of a so called dancing girl. Unhappily that image still has to be termed 'a so called dancing girl' since the only indication that she is represented in the dancing posture emanates from the fact that her right hand rests on her hip. We would certainly hesitate to take it for a conclusive proof of the existence of a widely spread art of dancing among the Indus Valley people. Finally the third argument pointed by the adherents of this theory stresses the association of the Indus Valley people and modern Dravidians among whom the ancient art of dancing and theatre survived to this day. The most serious objection to this argument is that the identity of the Dravidians of today and the pre-Aryans, although probable, has yet to be proved. Besides, the fact that the classical theatre and dance have lived to this day in the South can be equally well explained without bringing in such an awfully ancient relationship.2 Summarising these remarks we have to stress that all the arguments listed above depend too much on an a priori accepted theory and therefore, they are all circumstantial offering thus a very slender ground for the support of the theory of the origin of Natya among the non- Aryans. The evidence of the Vedic literature does not seem to leave any doubt as to the existence of a suitable artistic tradition among the Aryans capable of furnishing a proper background for the creation of the art of theatre. This is especially so in

1 Siva, who is mentioned there, is relegated to a very subordinate position. Chapter 1. 2 M.C. Byrski, 'Studies in Nāțya', Bhāratī. Bulletin of the College of Indology, Banaras Hindu University, No. 6, part II, 1962-63, p. 112-3.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 65

case we accept the importahce of dance in the process of the creation of theatre. To begin with we have to point out that Śiva is not the first and the only dancing god known to the Hindus. Āitareya Āraņyaka speaks about Indra dancing an anustubh.1 Further RV has a passage describing the worlds as conceived of so many particles of dust stirred into motion, which rapid foot movement of the dancing god made to splash into space.2 In the first case Indra, the god associated with the merriment of the Indramaha festival and with Nātya is mention- ed by name and in the second case it is probably he alluded to, since there can be no question of Siva being known to the Vedic Aryans at that time. Besides, in the Brähmanas and other literature concerned with the sacrificial ritual we find literally countless references to dance. We have already mentioned the most important of them to be found in the Kāuşītaki Brāh- maņa.3 Ghosh himself quotes in this respect Kātyāyana Śrāutasūtra.4 ŚB tells a story of the gods attracting Vāc who was with the Asuras through the means of music, songs and dance.5 Now we can see that the gods of the Aryans were not conceived as ignorant of dance which was hardly ever censored in the Vedic literature.6 Thus there is absolutely no reason to hold that they and their people were less qualified to practise an art of theatre than their non-Aryan counterparts. On the con- trary, the concept of Silpas, discussed in the first chapter of the second part of this study, seems to give a decisive advantage to the Aryans. It clearly follows from the foregoing discussion that the answer supplied to our first question by Shekhar and Ghosh cannot be accepted as a proper one. Does then Abhinavagupta supply more satisfactory answer ? He holds that because of preponder- ance of happiness among the gods, the plethoric conclusion of

1 Keith, AA, II. 3.5., p. 219. 2 Agrawala, VI, p. 32. RV, 10.72.6. 3 Sce p. 44. 4 Ghosh, CHHD, p. 30. KSu, 21.3.11. 5 Lévi, DS, p. 33. 6 Justice demands to mention here the testimony of the Jaiminiya Br. (II. 69, p. 186) strongly censoring dance and playing vind, which are called mrtyor senås. Yet it also proves that both arts must have beon extensively practised, since they earned such an epifhet.h AC e

66 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the performance produced by them would be difficult to achieve even if they were compelled to do so by the injunction of their king Indra.1 This would be so because both happiness and despair in equal measure are indispensable preconditions of Nāțya." Further from his remark concerning the Rsis it becomes obvious that he considers gods to be unable to apply sāttvika- abhinaya which includes such reactions as tears, perspiration, trembling etc.3 These remarks of Abhinavagupta are in agree- ment with the pronouncement of NS which appears to be the definition of Nātya.+ According to it the innate disposition of the world full of happiness and despair furnished with the four abhinayas is called Natya. As we can see, both the existence of duhkha and the abhinaya are the essentials of Nātya, Sāgara- nandin writes in the Nāțakalakşaņaratnakośa that dramas such as nātaka should be composed with the reference to Bhārata- varșa where alone joy and sorrow are possible. Elsewhere, in the divine and semi-divine, regions there is joy indeed but no sorrow.5 Brhadāraņyaka Upanișad says that evil, verily, does not go to gods.e Kātha Upanisad adds that in the heavenly world there is no fear whatsoever. Gone beyond sorrow, one rejoices in the heavenly world .? This is so far as the first point made by Abhinavagupta is concerned. General characteristics of the gods in their turn support Abhinava's second contention. Gods neither drink nor eat.8 They are exempted from perspira- tion; they have unwinking eyes, unfading garlands and they are free from dust. Besides they stand without touching the ground.º Such beings, of course are unable to fulfil the requirements of the abhinaya. Yet the refusal of the gods to become the perfor- mers of Nātya, although according to Abhinavagupta caused by some practical considerations listed above, seems to have some more profound reasons. For after all gods can freely assume

1 HABh, p. 108 "devāh sukhabhuyișthatvāt svāmyādešāt katham apiyadi pravarteran tat pürnaparyavasānam tu durlabham etāirity arthah!". 2 NŚ. GOS, 1. 119, see p. 15 fn. 2. HABk, p. 109. 4 Varma, NNN, p. 46. & NLRK, 120, p. 10. 6 BUp. I. 5.20, p. 90. ? KUp. 1.12, p. 343. * CUp, 3.7.1, p. 205. · Keith, MAR (I), p. 149.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 67

human shape with all it implies and act accordingly. In order to answer this question we shall have to remember first the main conclusion of the preceding chapter. Nātya, as we saw there, was created from the yāgopakārin Vedas. In that way it became, as it were, a shadow sacrifice. But it must be noted that the sacrifice meant here is the sacrifice offered by man-the sacrifice on a human plane. Such a sacrifice besides its universal metaphysical aspect, is also a means of subsistence to the gods-it is their food and they would be in a wretched state should these offerings fail.1 Now gods, as we remember, desired an object of diversion,2-an object which would satisfy their aesthetic thirst. This is why Brahma created that delightful visual sacrifice of the gods,8-the replica of a regular Yajña. But as Yajña needs priests to become productive of 'food', so the kāntam kratum cakșusđm needs performers to a / a ! become productive of the essence satisfying the aesthetic thirst of the gods. It is not surprising, therefore, that the gods refused to handle a tool designed to be handled by man for their and his satisfaction.4 Thus the gods refused their own active participation in practising nätya and instead suggested the Rsis as better quali- fied to do it. Here we come to another problem already announced at the beginning of this chapter. Who was Bharata and why was he asked to take care of the newly created Veda? At the very outset we should like to stress that we are not going to indulge here into the controversy regarding the real authorship of the compendium going under the appellation of Nātyasāstra. We shall be solely concerned with Bharata as the one of the four most important personages of the mythological account of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya.5 It is in his role of a person chosen by Brahmā to hear the Natyaveda uttered by this god that Bharata interests us here. The problem whether Bharata was an ordinary human being and an author of the Nātyasāstra is

1 Lévi, DS, p.27-8. ŚB, 2.4.2.1-4. Hopkins, EM, p.57-8 2 NŠ. GOS, I.11 3 Kālidāsa, MA, I.A 4 It may be of interest to note that the traditional theatres of the type of the Bhagavatamalandtakam of Mellatur or of Kütiyatam of Kerala count deities as the most important among their spectators. $ Soe p. 26.

68 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

interesting but lies wholly outside the pale of our discussion.1 Acharya Viśveśvar, a modern commentator of NS and the Abhinavabhärati, feels that the participation of Bharatamuni or in general Rsis and Munis in the practical usage of Nātya is a

1 It does not seem possible to solve the problem of the authorship of NŚ at the present stage of our knowledge of the history of Nätya. Roughly speaking we can talk about two general approaches to this problem. One takes Bharata for a real person and a real author of the most of the actual text of NŚ. Another treats Bharata as a par excellence mythical figure and usually treats NS as a compendium freely and frequently rehandled and passed under that mythical name. The first trend is well represented by K.M. Varma, who discusses extensively this prob- lem and concludes that Bharata is a real figure, and the undisputed author of NS. Here Varma follows Abhinavagupta, for he gives as the reasons of his conclusion-firstly, an unbroken and general acceptance of Bharata's authorship; secondly, the fact that there is nobody else to claim it (SWB, p. 123 ff). Shekhar is another scholar who treats Bharata as a real person and assures us that Bharata could only be a scion of a non- Aryan family of the artistes, who did his best to secure recognition for the members of his troupe (SDOD, p. 40). The second trend has somewhat larger following. Keith calls Bharata a sage and an eponymous hero of the drama (SD, p. 290). Ghosh writes that the legend-maker probably on the analogy of the names like Manusmrti, Gatama-sūtra and such others found an author of the Bharata-sutra in a Bharata-muni of his own crea- tion. Further he suggests that the text of a Sutra form destined for the Bharatas (identical with natas) existed earlier and that Bharatmuni is an eponymous figure (PNS, IHQ, VI, 1930, p. 73. NŚ. MMG, p. LXXI). Al- ready in 1916 Gawronski proposed an identical solution. He wrote that Bharata, an absolutely pale and unmotivated figure, is a scholarly abstrac- tion of the word bharata. That word itself originally denoted an epic rha- psodist and remains in doubtless connection with the name of the Bharata tribe. (PDI, p. 39). Kane supports this view-point writing that it is quite possible that someone who had mastered the traditional lore of the histrionic art and was well disposed to bharatas (actors) put together most of the present Natyasastra and in order to glorify the tribe of bharatas passed it on as a work of a mythical hero. (HSP, p. 28) Jagirdar suggests slightly different solution. He dismisses both Bharata as a real person and as an eponymous creation of bharatas. Instead he forwards a theory according to which the Vedic family of Bharatas analo- gous to Vasisthas, was the first sponsor of Dramatic Representation (DSL, p. 27 ff). Our own preference is for the second trend. First of all because the only unquestionable evidence we are in possession of shows Bharata, in the company of gods as a par excellence mytbical hero. Besides we can bardly take the ancient tradition of the authorship of NS for its face value, since, as we know, mythology and "history. were never sharply distinguished by the scholars of the past.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 69

strange and confusing theory. According to him the rsis or munis are in no relationship to Nāțya, abhinaya, etc., because they are free from material bonds, unacquainted with dance, singing and other skills required for Nātya.1 Sväti2 and very well known Närada prove that the Rsis were not only not un- acquainted with dance, nusic and singing but, on the contrary, they were considered experts in these fields. Thus Bharata in his association with Nātya is not a lonely case. Although our subse- quent remarks will concern only Bharata's association with theatre yet we are sure that they will also help us to consider less outrageous the association of any person of a Rsi's stand- ing with the arts in general. Throughtout the whole of NS Bharata is called a Muni. This appellation is not reserved for him alone. His interlocutors, the sages Atreyapramukhäh are also called Munis.3 Yet, in their case NS is not at all consistent and calls them alternatively either Rsis or Munis.4 Especially interesting is the case of the twenty-third verse of Chaptar I of NS. Kāvyamālā's edition of NŚ as well as Gaekwad's note an alternate reading Muni for the one chosen by them, i.e., Rsi. This choice in the case of the second edition follows Abhinavagupta's preference. But what- ever it is, it clearly follows from the foregoing arguments that for the author of NS and for his commentators both words mean more or less the same.5 Thus anyone who would like to find comfort in the fact that Bharata is never directly called a Rsi but is called only a Muni and therefore, does not need to be treated very seriously is bound to be disappointed. Concluding these remarks we have to stress that Brahma had chosen Muni or Rsi as the only one fit to hear the Nātyaveda

1 HABh, p. 110. 2 NŚ, 1, 50, XXXIV.2ff. 8 NŚ. KM, 1.3. 4 NŚ. KM, IV.267, V.1, VIII. 1, XII.24, XXXVI.38-9. 5 Monier Williams gives following meanings of rsi-a singer of sacred hymns, an inspired poet or sage; for muni he gives an inspired or ecstatic person, saint, sage, seer, etc. 6 Ghosh in the 'Problems of the Nātyasastra', IHQ, Vol. VI, 1930 says, "Though the story may be said to have the desired effect of giving Nātya a place in the religious ceremonies of Brähmanism, it still had a flaw; for the so called Nätyaveda was not revealed to a Rsi but to a Muni." (p. 73).

70 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

uttered by him and as the only one capable of putting it into practice. We have already mentioned Shekhar's interesting attempt to oppose the gods-Aryans inept in the field of Natya by the candidature of an expert Muni who, as Shekhar assures us, was a non-Aryan.1 The only solid argument supporting this con- tention appears to be the fact that the actors termed bharatas and the sons of Bharata belong g to the Śūdra varna. Unquestionable as this fact is, it gives little support to the non- Aryanism of Bharata himself. This is, first of all, because the testimony is furnished by the last chapter of NS, against an ¿ nndiscriminate use of which as a source for the comprehension of Chapter I of NŚ, we have already voiced our opinion. Secondly, because even if we accept the testimony of this chapter, we shall have to agree that the curse did not affect Bharata himself but concerned his sons alone who were addressed by the Rsis as Brähmins.2 Finally we have to remind that Bharata is in Chapter I of NS actually called Brähmin.3 The only other source of a support to this theory of Shekhar could be found if it is proved that the Munis, in a way similar to the Asuras, can be considered as representing the non- Aryans. Yet in spite of certain alusions to such an eventuality which could be detected in the tenth mandala of RV and in spite of a general possibility of the asceticism being connected with the 'three-horned' god of the Mohenjo-Dāro seal, it would be rather difficult to put convincingly such a theory. Even if it would appear possible, still these who are usually considered the Asuras are the Yatis as opposed to the Munis who are taken for the Aryans.4 But undoubtedly the most serious drawback to this theory, even if it could be conclusively proved with respect to the original non-Aryan descent of the Munis, is the character of the engagement of the Muni in the Nātyotpatti legend. There he is the one to whom the Natyaveda was revealed and he is the

1 Shekhar, SOD, p. 40. 2 NŚ. KM, XXXVI, 32. 8 op. cit, I, 4. 4 Ghurye, IS, p. 16-7. This point of view is shared by Bhandarkar, Kane and R.P. Chanda. Ghurye himself thinks that there is no sufficient basis to differentiate between both categories of the ascetics and that both should be considered Aryans.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 71'

one through whom the Nātyaveda has become known to men. Thus his role in our account has very little to do with the pure asceticism of the yogic type and is clearly that of a mediator and a seer. His role is, therefore, identical to that ascribed to both Rsi and Muni through the later derivation of these two words. In later, post-Rgvedic times Muni comes to be derived as a name for ascetics because of mediation (Mananāt).1 If, even in spite of Indra's friendship for the Munis,2 they could in some way be associated with the non-Aryans, still this very derivation of their name proves that later they became equated with the Rsis, whose Aryan purity seems to be unquestionable and who play a similar role of the mediators between the gods and men. This function of the Rsis is connected with the revelation of which they are said to be the heroes. The Rsis were created after the gods, along with men. Without that op- portune encounter men would have never known the rites which were hidden from them by the jealous egoism of the gods. The clairvoyance of the Rsis found what the gods discovered. That clairvoyance became the most important feature of the Rsis so much so that there were efforts made to derive their name from the root drs.3 The mediatory function of the Rsis is well describ- ed by Keith, who writes that the place of the seers is in view of their relation to the sacrifice one of great importance: they are the means by which in the normal case men secure the essential knowledge of the ritual, and they are often indebted to the gods for it.4 One might have already noticed some of the reasons which made it necessary to use the good offices of a Rsi in order to transmit Nätya to men. In the preceding chapter we have noted that Nātya was fashioned out of the yāgopakārin Vedas. The way it was fashioned makes Nātya a shadow-sacrifice as it were. This tool shaped out of the sacrificial ritual carried with itself that svayamupārūdhajnānābhidhāna1 or that reality which is nothing else but the Vedas2 and which when associated with the

1 Ghurye, IS, p. 12. 2 Ibid. 3 Lévi, DS, p. 143. * Keith, RPVU, p. 458. 5 HABh, p. 103. 6 ŚB, 9.5.1.18.

. 72 Concept af Ancient Indian Theatro

sacrifice required, as Lévi and Keith pointed out, an intercession of the Rsis in order to make it accessible to men. Remembering this, we shall not be any more shocked by the fact that a work of Brahma for which the author of the mythological account claims the name and essence of the Veda could have descended on the earth only through a visionary power of a Rsi. For whatever contains in itself a grain of satya (reality or truth) comes to men through that mystic faculty of seeing satya-a faculty incarnate as a Rsi.1 A Rsi who is an intermediary bet- ween the gods and men or more generally between the truth and men. In order to fulfil this particular task of his he has to disclose whatever he 'saw' to men and put it to practice so that through its success he will be universally recognised.2 According to the last chapter of the NS, Nātya became known to men only after the bharataputras had erred in heaven and caused their own subsequent banishment to the earth by the wrathful Ris.8 There are reasons to discredit this account as inconsistent with the general tenor of Chapter I of NŚ. To begin with, all events described in it take place already on the earth (Jambūdvīpa). Secondly, Indra clearly requested a sārva- varnika entertainment thus indicating that it was required for men as well. If in such a situation the gods kept it for them- selves then Indra's demand would have remained unfulfilled and his refusal to practice it illogical. Thirdly, if Nātya created by a god was designated for the gods then the help of the Rsis would have become less necessary and once more the gods would have not declared themselves unable to perform it. Finally, the Rsis would have not fulfilled their task of convey- ing it to men. In this connection the last chapter of NŚ goes even so far as to claim that the descent of Nätya on the earth happened actually against the will of the Rsis, who banished it there only after a ridicule made of them by the natas caused their rage. Further we are made to believe that all this took place leaving the Rsis absolutely ignorant of what was happen- ing. For it is in the answer to their query that they are told by Bharata about their own wrath as responsible for the degrada-

1 Ghurye (IS, p. 19 and 27), on the authority of the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad, says that knowing Brahman one becomes a Muni. º Lévi, DS, p. 149. a NŚ, XXXIV.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 73

tion of the actors and for the descent of Natya on the earth. This news must have surprised them a trifle. Last but not least, if we accept that Chapter I of NŚ is a product of a human hand we shall have to admit that the description of the Nātyo- tpatti was given in an effort to explain the actual existence of theatre among humans. This legend, as it is recounted in Chapter I, being obviously a complete story does not warrant a doubtful device of leaving almost half of the most important events to be given an account of only at the end of the treatise. Concluding these remarks we shall stress that since all the events of the Nätyotpatti have already happened on the earth, therefore, we have to speak not so much about the descent of Nātya but rather about its becoming the property of men. Men as the only beings capable of implementing properly the wondrous creation of Brahma are conceived of as the hundred sons of Bharata. According to Abhinavagupta Bharata's hundred sons were just his big family,1 and their names are painstakingly listed because fame is dear to every actor.2 Abhinava's interpre- tation has two shortcomings. First it does not convincingly enough explain why a big family should have been denoted by a round figure of hundred. Why was it not sixty thousand like in the case of Sāgara also a muni.8 Further it explains unconvincingly as well, the puzzling list of these hundred names of the bharataputras. Abhinava says in this connection that their names indicate the character of the roles which should be given to them.ª This is a rather vague explanation since in some cases it may appear difficult to determine what kind of a charac- teristic feature the name denotes-for instance, Pañcasikha, Trisikha, Sikha. On the other hand giving to men names derived from some special feature of their characters or bodies was a common practice never limited to actors alone. Besides some of

1 HABh, p. 110. Putting forth his point of view Abhinava criticises an attempt to understand this problem symbolically denoting hundred diffe- rent elements of theatre. The attempt is clumsy indeed, yet, it indicates that the question was not settled and appeared puzzling to many. Modern interpretations of this problem, never elaborate, on the whole follow Abhinava's interpretation usually adding that it is not family sensu stricto which is meant here but a troupe of actors, a tribe, or actors in general. 2 HABh, p. 115. 3 Hopkins, EM, pp. 121-2, 187. 4 HABh, p. 115.

74 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the names, as noted by Ghosh, belong to concrete persons connected with the history of theatrical criticism. He points out six such cases and writes that some at least of the so called sons of Bharata might in fact have been the authors who wrote on dramaturgy, histrionic art, dance and music etc.1 In this light Abhinavagupta's explanations appear less satisfactory. It seems that the proper understanding of the implications of the figure one hundred will furnish a key to correct interpreta- tion of this problem. For it is reasonabie to suppose that the author of the Natyotpatti legend, usually thoughtful, would not have used this figure lightly in an atmosphere in which it had a deep significance. According to the Aitareya Brahmana a hundred (verses) should be recited for one desiring life and a thousand should be recited for one desiring heaven.º As if in the form of an explanation the Kauşītaki Brāhmaņa adds that a hundred only should he recite ; man has hundred years of life, ... a thousand should he recite, a thousand is all.3 ŚB often repeats that man has a life of a hundred years, hundred powers, and a hundred energies as contrasted with the gods who were born with a life of thousand years in the heavenly world equal in extent to a thousand.4 The Svetāśvatara Upanişad characterising Purușa says that He has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes and a thousand feet.5 RV says that the horses yoked to Indra's cart are a thousand.e Finally ŚB declares a thousand to be every- thing and to mean all .? Thus thousand clearly stands for the unmeasured, the infinite, and for heaven.8 As contrasted to it, hundred denotes that which is human since as RV has it a hundred years were appointed for the life of man." Generally speaking in the Brähmanas the words sahasra and sata are obviously contrasted, the former denoting the divine and the

1 NŚ MMG, p. LXIV, p. 6. ? Keith, RBr. AK, II. 17, p. 146-7. 3 op. cit, XI. 7, p. 411. 4 ŚB, 5.4 1.13: 4.3.4.3; 5.5.4.27; 11.1.6.15; 13.1.3.1. s ŚUp, 3.14. p. 401. . RV, 6.4.4. 18. ? ŚB, 4.6.1.15 : 7.5.2.13; 8.7.4.11 ; 7.4.2.32. * Wilson, RV.III, p. 473. 9 RV. 1. 14.5.9.

Nāțya, Gods, Sages and Men 75

latter the human enunciations.' This was the intellectual background when the relevant por- tion of the Nätyotpatti legend was formulated. Such state of affairs seems to exclude the possibility of a purposeless presence of a figure hundred in the text. On the contrary, our contention is that it is the most important element here. The pedantic list of hundred names seems to have a good analogy in the existence of an equally pedantic lists of sahasranāma Vişņu and Śiva.2 Our list is most obviously a similar tour de force. Its composition indicates a considerable effort on the part of a name-maker to find a hundred suitable names. Some of them are clearly a word-play-for instance: Vitandya, Tāņdya, Pañcaśikha, Triśikha, Śikha, Kartarākşa, Hiraņyākșa, Puņd- rākşa, Puņdranāsa, or Vidyujjihva and Mahājihva. The other are simply the names of the rasas: Bhayānaka, Bībhatsa. Rāudra and Vira and still some other are the names of these six theoreticians of Nätya.3 Therefore, we are inclined to believe that these hundred concrete names were made up by someone who did not realise that the true substance and meaning of the passage was fully expressed in the concept of putraśatam. The knowledge of Nätya-that lovely visual sacrifice, was revealed by Brahmā to fulfil the aesthetic desire of gods and men. Gods depend on the sacrifice of men of which Nātya is a 'shadow.' Therefore, gods wanted it to be revealed to men. The only way a revealed knowledge can reach men is through the mediation of a Muni or Rsi. This was the way that the Vedas and the Sacrifice descended upon men and this is how the descent of the Nātyaveda was conceived. Brahmā, therefore, revealed the Nātyaveda to Bharatamuni. He in turn teaching his hundred sons, i.e., teaching men its principles, did justice to his name Muni and revealed to men one more way to know truth. Thus he became a true mediator between gods and men. In this way Natya became the property of men.

1 Agrawala, VL, p. 166. 2 Sorensen, IN MBh. It is obvious that sahasranåma stands here for infinity and that the pedantry of the devotees is responsible for putting up these lists. ' Numerous readings of this portion of the text scem to suggest that the original list was not considered too important and might have been confus- ing to those who traditionally handed this text over to their successors.

7

NĀTYA AND DAIVĀSURAM

Nātya is ready to be put into practice. Brahmā recommends as the most opportune occasion the festival of Indra's Flag Staff commemorating the victory of the gods over the Asuras. Bharata puts on the stage a piece representing the victory of the gods over the Asuras. The gods are delighted. The Asuras are in rage. "Come forward, we shall not tolerate this Nātya" -they say and resort to māyā paralysing speech, movement and memory of the actors. At this moment Indra intercedes and with his staff destroys the demons. Indra's was only a partial success. The demons keep on creating terror among the actors. Bharata seeks Brahmā's help. Brahmā causes a theatre-hall to be built and invests it with the divine defences. This is another impor- tant sequence of events related in the Nātyotpatti adhyāya.1

1 NŚ. GOS, I, 53-98. "nåțyasya grahaņam prāptam brūhi kim karavăny aham| etat tu vacanam śrutvā pratyuvāca pitāmahah// mahån ayam prayogasya samayah pratyupasthitah/ ayam dhavajamahah śrimän mahendrasya pravartate// atredānīm ayam vedo nāțyasamjñah prayujyatām! tatas tasmin dhvajamahe nihatāsuradānave|/ prahrståmarasamkīrne mahendravijayotsave| pürvam krtā mayā nāndī hy āšīrvacanasamyutā//

1adante'nukrtir baddh i yathā dāityāh surăi jitāh//

tato brahmdayo devāh prayogaparitoșitāh//

virüpākşapurogāms ca vighnān protsāhya te bruvan/ na kşamişyāmahe nāțyam etad āgamyatām itiļ! tatas tāir asurāth sārdham vighnā māyām upāšritāhį

utthāya tvaritam sakrah grhitvā dhvajam utiamam//

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 77

It is evident already at the first glance that the conflict bet- ween the gods and the Asuras is a central point of this portion of the story. A theatrical performance of the dāivāsuram was preceded by that conflict (Indramaha festival is the celebration of the victory of the gods in the dāivāsuram war) and was followed by a similar scuffle. The fact that the first perform- ance became a target of the attacks of the demons could have been anticipated. The close relationship of the sacrifice and Nātya furnishes an obvious enough irritant, especially so when theme of the first performance is the defeat of the Asuras. Further, as we have already noted, the role of Indra in the defence of Nātya is a replica of his engagement against the Asura-Rākşasas in the defence of the sacrifice.1 So far so good, -but what is the reason behind the choice of the dāivāsuram as a theme of the first performance? If the title of the first play was, for instance, 'The offering of Soma-the King' or some other such par excellence sacrificial theme, then the picture painted in the Nātyotpatti adhyāya would not demand any additional comments. Yet, the fact that the first performance was a representation of the conflict between the gods and the demons complicates the issue. In Chapter IV of this study we have referred to Dr. Ragha- van's theory relating the origins of the ancient Indian theatre to some kind of wrestling competitions which presumably were referring to, or may be picturing, the fights of the gods and the demons.2 This is a very plausible theory strongly supported by

"rañgapīthagatān vighnān asurāms caīva devarāt! jarjarīkrtadehāms tān akaroj jarjareņa sah.//

prayoge prastute hy evam sphīte sakramahe punah/ trāsam sañjanayanti sma vighnāh šeşās tu nrtyatām|! drştvā teşām vyavasitam dāityānām viprakārajam/ upasthi to'ham brahmānam sutāih sarvaih samanvitab// niścitā bhagavan vighnā nātyasyāsya vināsane/. asya rākşāvidhim samyag ajnapaya sunesvaral/ tataś ca višvakarmāņam brahmovāca prayatnatah/ kuru lakşanasampannam nātyaveśma mahāmatelk

drstvā ntyagrham brahmā prāha sarvān surāms tatab/ amsubhägåir bhavadbhis tu rakşyo 'yam nåtyamandapab !! " 1 See p. 30. . 2 See p. 46. Raghavan, Vrttis, p. 40 ff. Keith, SD, p. 24-5.

78 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

NS itself. But at this juncture we shall refrain from going any further into this problem. In its stead we shall consider the implications of the dãivāsuram as a cent per cent mythological event, notwithstanding its concrete historical source.' Sylvain Lévi discusses the problem of the relationship of the Devas and the Asuras in that part of his book which bears the title 'The sacrifice and the gods'.' This is not without reason, since according to him that strange ritualistic epopee of the conflict between the gods and the Asuras has as its heroes the priests and as its weapons the sacrifices.8 The sacrifice - conti- nues later the same author-is a means par excellence to attain victory. It is through the sacrifice that the gods succeeded in all their enterprises. 'Everything the gods do, they do through the chanted recitation; the chanted recitation is the sacrifice; it is through the sacrifice that they do it." Thus also the victory of the gods over the Asuras depends on the sacrifice. But it is by no means one-way dependence. Lévi had over-looked an other aspect of it, i.e., the need to vanquish the demons in order to complete the sacrifice. Discussing the character of . Indra we have already quoted some relevant passages of B showing that as much as the victory of gods is safeguarded by the sacrifice, so much so the successful accomplishment of the sacrifice depends on the ability of the gods to repel the demons.5 The very name of the Räksasas, for instance, is determined by their attitude towards the sacrifice. 'While the gods were engaged in performing sacrifice the Asuras and Räkshasas for- bade (raksh) them saying, 'Ye shall not sacrifice', and because they forbade (raksh) they are called Rakshasas'." On the one

1 In this respect we share to a certain degree the opinion of Dr. Agra- wala who holds that the euhemeristic approach of referring myths to historical basis, may have its value or even factual basis, but hardly touches the fringe of the problem (VL, p. 111). Wo strongly foel that both interpretations may be equally valid, since those responsible for the creation of the myth tried to explain phenomena surrounding them and thus had to keop in viow, at loast, the basic historical realities of the given phenomenon. *Lévi, DS, pp. 36-76. op.cit, p. 45. · op. cit. p. 54. 5 Sec p. 31. *SB 1.1.1.8; 1.1.2.3; 2.1.4.15; 3.3.4.2; 3.5.3.15; 3.6.1. 27.

Nātya and Dāivāsuram 79

hand if we are to believe the theologians; the sacrifice should by its sheer force ruin the Asuras.1 On the other hand the gods have to repel the demons before they enter upon the sacrifice. 'For at that time when the gods were setting out to spread the sacrifice the Rakshasas, the fiends, sought to smite them, say- ing, 'Ye shall not sacrifice, ye shall not spread the sacrifice'. Having made those fires, those bricks to be sharp-edged thunderbolts, they hurled those at them, and laid them low thereby; and having laid them low, they spread that sacrifice in a place free from danger and devilry.ª It follows from above that both the concept of Yajna and the concept of dāivāsuram are inseparably wedded to each other. Yet this statement, enlightening as it is (since it points the connection between the sacrifice and the dāivāsuram) does not fully answer our original question concerning the reasons for the choice of the daivasuram conflict for the theme of the first performance. In order, therefore, to answer it we shall have to become more familiar with some of the broader meanings of these concepts. The very definition of the term Yajña shows that the central idea of that Vedic sacrifice may be well expressed by the word movement. SB holds that sacrifice is born in being spread along and is born moving (yan jāyate): hence yan-ja, for yañja, they say, is the same as Yajña.3 The sacrifice thus conceived is anterior to all beings4 but, at the same time, posterior to the Veda. For ŚB says that Brahman, the triple science, is the first born of this All .- It is obvious that no Yajña can exist without the Veda.® It is the Veda that gives order and sense to the movement of Yajña. Prajāpati through sacrifice could have become the body of all existing things, only after he put this threefold lore into his own self.' The fact that the working of sacrifice is ruled by the Veda, that is to say, the fact that Yajña is an organised movement makes out of it an archetypal action,

1 Lévi, DS, p. 44. 2 ŚB, 7.3.2.5. 3 ŚB, 3.2.4.23. * Lévi, DS, p. 15. s ŠB, 6.1.1.10. * Hopkins, RI, p. 187. " ŚB, 9.5.2.1; 10.4.2.21.

80 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the actors of which are the gods. This first activity, which signifies the emergence of order from chaos and of dynamic activity out of the womb of stillness or rest1 dressed up in the intricacies of an elaborate ritual and endlessly repeated by both gods and men became not only a model sacrifice2 but became also a pattern for everything that happens. For as ŚB puts it, 'this All, indeed, corresponds to sacrifice,3 or if the sacrifice is conceived as the offering of the Soma oblation into the Fire (Agni), then ŚB will say that Agni became the eater of food and Soma food and the eater of food and food, indeed, are everything here.'4 Brhadāraņyaka Upanișad faithfully repeats this saying that the whole world, verily, is just food and the eater of food.5 Further the sacrifice is conceived in the Brah- maņas as the universal principle of life,6 and as the self of all beings and all gods.7 We can, therefore, safely conclude with Prof. Gonda that the sacrifice, indeed, dictates laws and rules to all happening in the Universe8 which according to Brhadā- raņyaka and Chāndogya Upanișads is itself a huge sacrifice.9 Keith writes that the identity of the sacrifice and the world is one of the most common ideas of the philosophy of the Veda.10 Each and every aspect of Yajña is reflected in the working of the Universe. Without indulging into practically endless multi- plication of examples we shall concentrate only on the one of these aspects of Yajña which, it seems, so far escaped attention. That aspect is the dāivāsuram in its relation to the sacrifice conceived as a pattern action. Yajña-an archetypal action, conceived as a mythological happening is constituted by a certain specific sequence of activi- ties or events which form the course of that action-sacrifice. Dāivāsuram is one of those activities. Therefore, the relationship between the sacrifice and daivāsuram is that of the relationship x

1 Agrawala, VL, p. 148. 2 Lévi, DS, p. 130. 3 ŚB, 3.6.3.1. ŚB, 9.1.6.19. 5 BUp, 1.4.6 6 Keith, RPVU, 460. Gonda, AEV, p. 77. 7 ŚB, 14.3.2.1 and 5 and 11. Lévi, DS, p. 38 fn. 8 Gonda, NBr, p. 36. 9 BUp, 6.2.11-13. CUp, 5.6.8. 10 Keith, RPVU, p. 435.

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 81

between an action and its course-none can exist without the other. This is the essence of the mutual interdependence of Yajña and dāivāsuram. Once entered upon, Yajña faced only one serious challenge and that was from the side of the Asura- Rāksasas. Thus the strife between the gods and the demons over the sacrifice becomes the crucial moment of the course of an action-sacrifice, and as such becomes its most characteristic element. If we now remember that it is also, as we have shown, a law and pattern for all whatever happens in the Universe, the consequences of it become obvious. Each and every positive action has a daivasuram as the element of its course. That dāivāsuram may manifest itself in an effort to overcome objec- tive difficulties or to overcome a sheer inertia of non-action. Otherwise it can be manifested in a conflict with a concrete negative action running counter to the positive one. This univer- sal conflict accompanying each happening of the creation and symbolised1 by the dāivāsuram has naturally been given a metaphysical import of its own. Born of an uneven distribution of truth and untruth,2 pervading the universe in the form of day and night3 and constituting the basic motive of life4 "the

1 Symbolised-for ŚB, 11.1.6.9. says 'Not true is that regarding (the fight between) the gods and Asuras which is related partly in the tale and partly in the legend; ... ' 2 ŚB, 9.5.1.19-27; "The gods and the Asuras both of them sprung from Prajāpati, entered upon their father Prajāpati's inheritance, to wit, speech -truth and untruth, both truth and untruth; they both of them spoke the truth, and they both spoke untruth; and indeed speaking alike, they were alike. The gods relinquished untruth and held fast to truth, and the Asuras relinquished truth, and held fast to untruth. The truth which was in the Asuras .... went over to the gods. And the untruth which was in the gods .. went over to the Asuras. The gods spoke nothing but truth, and the Asuras nothing but untruth. Now the same truth, indeed is this threefold lore. The gods said, 'Now that we have made up the sacrifice let us spread out this truth' .... But the Asuras became aware of it, and said, 'Having made up the sacrifice the gods are now spreading out that truth; come, let us fetch hither what was ours.' ... The gads ospying the Asuras, snatched up the sacrifice and begun doing something else. They (the Asuras) went away ...... When they had gone away, they (the gods) ... completed it; and by completing it they obtained the whole truth. Then the Asuras went down. Then the gods prevailed and the Asuras came to naught." * ŚB, 11.1.6.11. Agrawala, VL, p. 115.

82 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

dãivāsuram conflict is a pattern embellished with rich cosmic meaning as the basis of Vedic metaphysical thought."1 Before we finally give an answer to the question why the däivāsuram was chosen to be represented during the first per- formance, we shall first have to review the definition of Nātya as given in the sixteen verses concluding the Nātyotpatti adhyāya.2 Answering the accusation of the demons holding that Brahma through the creation of Natya has shown partiality to gods despite the fact that both the gods and the demons are equally his sons, Brahma assures the demons that Natya which he has created distributes good and bad fortune to the gods and the demons alike according to their action, condition and association.3 He continues that Nātya is /the representation of

. 1 op. cit, p. 121. 2 NŚ. KM, I. 105-120; "alam vo manyunā dāityā vişādas tyajyatām ayam// .. Bhagavatām devatānām ca śubhāśubhavikalpakāih/ karmabhāvānvayāpekșī națyavedo mayā krtaḥ// nāikāntato 'tra bhavatām devānām cāpi bhāvanam| trāilokyasyāsya sarvasya nāțyam bhāvānukīrtānam// kvacid dharmah kvacit krīdā kacidarthah kvacic chamah| kvacid dhāsyam kvacid yuddham kvacit kāmah kvacid vadhah// dharmo dharmapravrttānām kāmah kāmārthasevinām/ nigraho durvinītānam mattānām damanakriyā// klībānām dhārstyajananam utsāhah sūramānīnam. abodhānām vibodhaś ca vāidagdhyam viduşām api// īśvarānām vilāsas ca sthāiryam duhkhārditasya ca| arthopajīvinām artho dhrtir udvignācetasam//

uttamādhamamadhyānām narānām karmasamśrayam| hitopadeśajananam dhtikrīdāsukhādikrt//

duhkhārtānām śramārtānām šokārtānām tapasvinām/ viśrantijananam kāle nāțyam etan mayā krtam/ dharmyam yasasyam āyuşyam hitam buddhivivardhanam| lokopadesajananam nåtyam etad bhavişyatil/ na tac chrutam na tac chilpam na sā vidyā na sā kalā| na sa yogo na tat karmā yan nātye 'smin na drśyateļ/

yo 'yam svabhāvo lokasya sukhaduhkhasamanvitah| so 'ngådyabhinayopeto nāțyām ity abhidhīyatel/

saptadvīpānukaranam nātyam etad bhavişyati/" " This passage agrees with the already quoted passages of SB, 11.1.6.9.

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 83

the state of the Three Worlds which it reflects in its fullness. For in Nätya exactly as in the Three Worlds at places there is dharma, at places amusement, wealth, peace, mirth, fight, love and death. Besides, Nätya itself is dharma to the dharma-mind- ed, love to those devoted to love, chastisement to those of unsubdued passions, discipline to those of subdued passions, audacity to the timorous, energy to the valiant, intelligence to those deprived of it, and wisdom to the wise. It is diversion to the sovereigns, perseverance to the suffering, wealth to those who live from wealth, and resolution to the distressed. Conti- nuing this thought Brahma generalises and says that Nātya refers to the actions of all men and that it is a source of good instruction. It generates resolution, amusement and happiness. It is also a cessation of all that afflicts the suffering, the toiling, the despairing and the self-mortifying. Further he says that it is conducive to dharma, conferring fame, giving long life and increasing intellect. Still further, Brahmä says that there is no such revealed knowledge,1 no such craft, no such science, no such art, no such device and no such action which is not to be seen in Nätya. The following verse is a culminating point of the whole characteristic of Natya and appears to be the final definition of it,' being at the same time only a more precise paraphrase of the opening definition.8 Here Nātya is spoken of as the Nature of the World with its happiness and despair expressed by means of the four abhinayas. Later on Brahmā will once more stress this aspect of Nätya saying that it is the representation of the Seven Islands. This theory underlines the universality of the experience

and 9.5.1.12-27. There can be no partiality for good or evil. This is for what-gods and demons stand. Their conflict is otherwise unreal. Thus the play, as Brahma assures, is only a faithful and objective mirror of the actual state of affairs in the Universe. 1 There are two readings of this passage. One commonly accepted is na taj jñanam. Another is na tac chrutam. In the first case jñāna and later mentioned Vidyå can be confusingly similar in connotation. If the second reading is accepted it will become obvious that it is jñāna in its deeper sense meant here. Besides, the fact that Natya was created from the Vedas seems to support this reading too. 2 Varma, NNN, p. 46. 3 We take trālokyasyāsya sarvasya nātyam bhāvānukirtanam far the opening definition. NS. GOS, I. 107.

84 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

offered by theatre. But before all it puts stress on the ability of theatre to reflect faithfully the world not only as we see it, but also the same world as we know and comprehend it, i.e., the true nature of the world-its very essence. In the foregoing pages of this essay we have already indicated that it is the sacrifice which can rightly be taken for that nature and essence of the world 'dictating laws and rules to all happenings in the Universe'. Thus it is Yajña manifest as existence with its characteristic elements of happiness and despair, which in each case is to be enacted by means of Nätya. Here we reach the crucial point of our argumentation. The sacrifice is action. Each action has its aim and course. The aim of an action can- not come about without its course and it is the course of action which makes its sense comprehensible and its aim perceptible. Thus Nätya in order to become a true representation of the nature of the world (which is Yajña-the archetypal and eternal action) has to represent its course for which undoubtedly the dāivāsuram of our account stands. That is why not only the first performance, but each and every performance is, as a matter of fact, a representation of the dãivāsuram conflict. 'For whatever is signified by the Devas and the Asuras has reference to the life of man and the world',' and their conflict is the essence of the course of all happenings in the Universe behind which works an eternal Yajña. As we can see now, the prompt attack of the demons which the first performance of Nātya provoked only supports our conclusion. The gods' defence of Nātya comes to the same effect, and it is once more an expression of their eternal engage- ment in the divasuram conflict on the side of light, truth, and good as opposed to the Asuras who stand for darkness, untruth, and evil. The author of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya makes the gods' initial defences (Indra's action) only partly successful and at that moment he ingenuously avails himself of one more element which stresses the Yajna-like nature of Nātya. The motivation of the existence of a theatre-hall unmistakably betrays the author's familiarity with the notions of the role- played by a sacrificial hall. So far as we know only two scholars have noticed this simi-

1 Agrawala, VL, p. 115.

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 85

larity. Keith mentions that both Vedic religion and Indian drama are singularly sparing in the sacrificial buildings and theatre-halls respectively. Both the sacrifice and drama neither require nor need a fixed building.1 Such a general similarity does not mean much and the context of this remark shows that its author does not attach any importance to it. The next of the two scholars, C.P. Singh goes much further. He writes, "It has been clearly shown in the description of the stage that the definition of the shape of a theatre-hall given in NS was made following the pattern of the Vedic sacrificial sheds."g Singh obviously speaks here about a theatre-hall as described in the second chapter of NS. If his remark had been supported with some detailed evidence, it would have corroborated the conclusion which we have independently reached on the basis of the passages of the first chapter of NS.3 As Bharata puts it the sole reason for which a theatre-hall was erected was its role of protection. In both cases of theatre- hall and of sacrificial shed the initial impulse for creating a building was rather pragmatic. It was the need to protect the sacrificial rites as well as performances from the changes of the capricious atmosphere. Abhinavagupta draws our attention to this fact when he says that Nātya-mandapa was erected in order to ward off all the Vighnas like 'wind, heat, and rain which could not be subjected to an ordinary punishment."4 ŚB speaks in similar terms about the sacrificial structures. "On this ground they erect either hall or shed ... They enclose it on every side, lest it should freeze in winter, lest it should pour in the rainy season, lest there should be burning heat in summer."5 Later on in both cases this obvious pragmatic need of protec- tion grew into a complicated system of defences against the metaphysical dangers threatening the holy activities of gods

1 Keith, SD, p. 50. 2 Bhāratīya Nāțya Paramparā, Nāgarī Pracāriņī Patrikā I-II, Banaras, 1958 3 We shall not indulge here in the discussion of this more or less technical problem. This is because we want to remain faithful to the accepted subject of our essay, i.e., the mythology of the Natyotpatti adhyāya and its interpretation. 4 HABh, p. 157. 5 ŚB, 3.1.1.6 and 8.

86 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

and men. The meaning and importance given to Nātya is equal to that ascribed to the sacrifice. This fact suggests that arrange- ments existed for its safety similar to these made for the protec- tion of the sacrifice. The whole bulk of ŚB is full of descriptions of all kinds of shelters and enclosures for the safety of the sacrifice often called strengholds.1 RV speaks about Indra investing the sacrificial hall with defences against an interruption.2 This role of his is most naturally played in NŚ by Brahmā, to whom Indra ceded many of his Rgvedic powers and privileges, when Brahmā- Prajāpati became the highest god of the Brāmanical period. Thus in our account it is Brahma who invests the theatre-hall with the defences against an interruption and stations himself in the stage (1.95). The first to be appointed a protector of the whole building is the Moon-god identical with the wise Soma, the bestower of exhilaration who dwells in the hall of the sacrifice.8 Soma, the destroyer of Rākşasas,4 is prayerfully be- sought to offer a wide shelter from the wasting enmities wrought by the foes.5 'When in my house I watch the enemies of the gods-a believer prays-then, o king, drive away those who hate us.' The next appointment with clear Rgvedic associa- tions is that of the Maruts asked to protect the four corners of the building. Maruts in RV are spoken of as the visitants of the hall of offering,7 and requested to protect the sacrifice,8 as well as to seize the Räksasas, grind them to pieces; whether they fly about like birds by night or whether they have offered obstruc- tion to the sacred sacrifice.9 The next appointment is that of Varuņa and Mitra who according to RV protect pious rites10 and are possessed of the Asura subduing strength.11 'When you come,

1 ŚB, 1.2.2. 13; 2.1.4.16; 3.3.1.5; 3.4.1.16; 3.5.2.18; 4.3.3.24; 6.4.4.19; 14.1.2.16. 2 RV. 7.2.3.1. 8 RV, 9.1.12.3. . RV, 9.1.1.2. 5 RV, 8.8.10 3. 6 RV, 8.8.10.9. 7 RV. 1.11.7.11. ® RV, 7.3.3.7. 9 RV. 7.6.15.18. 10 RV, 5.5.7.7. 11 RV, 5.5.10.2.

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 87

Varuņa and Mitra, to the delightful place of sacrifice, then supporters of men, destroyers of foes, you bring felicity'.1 Mitra and Varuņa are also said to exterminate those who, emulously contending, disturb the rites.2 Further both of them together with Aryaman (absent from our account) are said to be magni- fied in the hall of sacrifice.3 Aitareya Brahmana says that it is. by means of Mitra and Varuna that they smite the Asuras and the Rākșasas,4 and RV adds, 'Mitra and Varuņa ... may we thus behold your golden (forms) in our halls of sacrifice ... '5 Finally the two gods are invited to sit down in this substantial and elegant hall (built) with a thousand columns.6 Undoubtedly the most significant is the appointment of Vahni (Agni), who is asked to protect the stage. We have already discussed some aspects of Agni's 'personality' as shown in the Nātyotpatti mythological account. Here we shall specially underline these aspects of his 'appointment' which clearly bring out the analogy between Yajña and Nātya mandapas. The stage of the theatre- hall is called a vedikā, i.e., a sacrificial ground or altar and is presided over by Vahni; according to RV, the minister of the sacrifice',? the lord of the mansion placed upon the sacred (altar) whence wisdom is derived,8 who conveys to the gods the offering that has been reverently sanctified.8 Further Agni is said to be himself the oblation and the sacrifice.10 Such Agni, the invoker of gods, dwelling on the altar,11 the brilliant symbol of sacrifice,12 is besought by the worshippers to protect them from odious Rākşasas13 and is said to ornament with his rays the spacious chambers of sacrifice.14 RV places Agni on the altar,

1 RV, 5.5.11.2. 2 RV, 6.6.6.9. 3 RV, 7.4.5.5. 4 ABr, VI.4. 5 RV, 1.20.6.2. 6 RV, 2.4.9.5. 7 RV, 6.1.15.14. 8 RV, 6.2.2.42. 9 RV, 2.1.3.11. 10 RV, 10.2.4.6. I1 RV, 4.4.9.5. 12 RV, 6.4.6.2. 18 RV, 7.1.1.13. 14 RV, 3.1.3.2.

88 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the navel of earth1 and speaks about him as dwelling in the sacrifice *- nay, as identical with it.8 These all are the impli- cation which the appointment of Agni brings into Nātya- mandapa where that par excellence slayer of Rāksasas4 is made to reside in the central point-the stage. Further, the two groups of the gods, i.e., the Ädityas and the Rudras are men- tioned among the protectors of a theatre-hall. RV praises the divine Adityas, the protectors of the Universe,5 the givers of dwellings,6 by whose protection we have continually possessed enjoyment from old.7 Ādityas are besought utterly to destroy the worshippers' enemies8 and to protect as with armour their votaries.9 Rudras on the other hand are extolled as munificient mighty Rudras, who in the sacrificial hall are wise (even) in the exhilaration (of the Soma)10 and who are powerful.11 Finally Indra whom we know as a defender of the sacrifice and who takes place by the side of the stage, is said to inspect the rite and to regulate the performance of the sacrifice when the ceremony is being prepared in the hall of sacrifice.12 The gods mentioned above13 are spoken of as the defenders against the demons and are associated in one or the other way

1 RV, 3.1.5.9. 2 RV, 8.10.9.11. 3 RV, 10.2.4.6. 4 Keith, RPVU, p. 158. 5 RV, 2.3.5.4. 6 RV, 2.3.5.11. 7 RV, 8.7.8.16. 8 RV, 8.7.8.21. 9 Keith, RVBr, p. 99. Interesting in this connection is the following passage of SB, 4.3.5.9. They enter (the Havirdhana) together-the Adhvaryu, sacrificer, Agnīdhra, Pratiprasthätri, Unnetri and whatever other attendant (of the Adhvaryu) there is. They close both doors-for (the Adityas) were afraid of the Rakshasas. This passage puts in a doubtful light the supremacy of the Adityas over the demons, but at the same time it shows that the Havirdhana structure was considered a defence against the Rākșasas. 10 RV, 8.2.2.12. 11 RV, 5.4.10.4. 12 RV, 8.3.1.30. 13 Besides those listed above there are some other gods and minor doities who are already known to the Vedic and Brahmanic mythology (Kāla, Krtānta, Nirrti, Apsarases and Gandharvas, see Macdonell, VM. although in our case they do not seem to have been specially

Nāțya and Dāivāsuram 89

with the sacrificial hall. So much so that the RV calls all the gods the dwellers in the chamber of worship.1 It is impossible to think that these gods detached from their Rgvedic identity found their way into the theatre-hall. The source of inspiration of the author of the Natyotpatti account seems to be only too obvious. We shall not, therefore, run a great risk if we assume

distinguished by any achievement either directly in the dāivāsuram or in the defence of the sacrifice and the sacrificial shed. These, and all other gads and demigods like Lokapālas, Mahodadhi, Bhūtas, Guhyakas, Nāgas and Yakșas might have found their way into the theatre-hall later when that hall began to acquire features of a symbol of the Universe. These were probably acquired by a theatre-hall under the influence of a cosmogonic trend already known to RV which regards the Universe as the result of mechanical production, the work of the carpenter's and joiner's skill, (Macdonell, VM, p.11. Keith, MAR, p.17) for the poets of the RV often employ the metaphor of building in its various details, when speaking of the formation of the world (Ibid.) The analogy of the stage and the altar which is arranged to represent earth, atmosphere and heaven (Keith, RPVU, p. 466) would have been enough to consider a theatre-hall an image of the Universe. Yet this is not the only element suggesting such a symbolical equation. Some of the ele- ments were already brought in by the appointments of the Vedic gods and the other elements were added later. The whole building was cons- tructed by Viśvakarmān, a creative agency of Brahmā, earlier identified with that god. (op. cit, p. 207) Soma-Candramas, truly to his role as the ruler of this world (RV, 9.4.18.3) protects the whole building. The Lokapālas protect and reside in its side. The presence there of Varuņa and Mitra is another important indication of this symbolism. For Varuņa and Mitra make the sun cross the sky, the rain fall, and send the dawns. All physical order is subject to the control of Varuna with or without Mitra; the law of Varuna holds earth and sky apart; the three heavens and the three earths are deposited within him; heaven, earth, and air are supported by the two gods; the wind is the breath of Varuna. By his ordinances the moon moves at night and the stars shine. He embraces the nights and establishes the mornings. He regulates seasons (op.cit, p. 97) Further the Pannagas guarding the bottom of the stage were before, on the creation of the universe, appointed by Brahma to their office under the earth which they had to upbold from below (Hopkins, EM, p.24) Nirrti and Mrtyu are made two doorkeepers in accordance with the role of the first of them who was termed an exit from life (op. cit, p. 109) The threshold of the door of the theatre-hall is Yama's rod of justice, personified as a Danda a form of Yama himself. (op. cit, p. 112) Thus the theatre-hall densely populated with the gods resembles very closely, indeed, the universe, which it most probably symbolises. 1 RV, 6.5.2.9.

90 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

that in the eyes of the author of that legend the importance of whatever happened on the stage demanded, so far as its safety goes, similar arrangements to these made for the safety of the sacrifice. For both the sacrifice and the performance of Nātya have similar metaphysical import and are exposed to similar metaphysical dangers.

Part III

THEATRE AND ACTION

8

THE SACRIFICE (YAJÑA)1

An action deserving its name has to have its 'actor', its course and its aim-these elements give sense to a particular move- ment which thereby becomes an action. The foregoing chapter of this study left us with the conclusion that the sacrifice is an archetypal action. This conclusion followed an analysis which showed that sacrifice, since it is controlled by a primordial principle of the Threefold Lore, is an organised movement or motion. Discussing this problem we said nothing about other requirements which an activity has to satisfy before it claims the appellation of an action. We can easily guess that the sacrifice fulfils these demands. It answers the description of an action both as a complicated ritualistic operation and as a mythological happening. Our concern, of course, is with the sacrifice conceived as a mythological happening. This is so because in the eyes of theologians of the sacrifice each element of the ritual follows certain practices established by a mytho- logical sacrifice, of which the actual ritualistic sacrifice is a faithful reproduction.2 The gods are the 'actors' of the sacrifice. They spread, per- form and complete it.8 In the mythological portions of the

1 The analysis offered in this chapter owes its inspiration to the analysis of action carried out in NS. 2 The whale bulk of the Brahmanas is full of remarks that this or that is done in such and such a way for the gods did it that way. "Now with the Yajus the gods first performed the sacrifice, then with Rik, then with Saman, and in like manner do they now perform the sacrifice. SB, 4.6.7.13. 3 ŚB, 1.1.2.3; 1.2.1.6; 1.3.1.5; 1.4.4.8; 3.3.3.16; 3.3.4.2; 3.5.3.15; 3.6.1.27; 3.7.2.2; 3.9.4.6; 4.2.4.19; 4.6.6. 1; 6.3.1.29; 7.3.2.5; 9.2.3.3; 9.5.1.12 ff; 9.5.1.29.

94 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Brãhmaņas the gods are made to execute the sacrifice.1 In this manner our first requirement of an 'actor' of the sacrifice has been met by the role that has been assigned in it to the gods. The second problem to be analysed is the course of an action-sacrifice. Whatever happens, for even the shortest dura- tion of time, it must follow some course of events which make up the whole of this happening. There must be somewhere its beginning, its duration and somewhere its end. Yajña is not only not an exception to this most obvious rule but it appears even that it is the very sacrifice that should be accounted for its existence. Yet before we shall venture any general conclusion, let us first review the course of this mythological action-sacri- fice in its most important stages. This course, according to our analysis, has the following distinct elements. They are: desire, effort and continuation, obstruction and conclusion or fruition. But let the Brāhmanas speak for themselves. "The gods desirous of smiting death, the evil, and desiring identity of world and union with Brahman saw this Abhiplava six-day (rite).2 "Prajāpati desired, 'Would that I obtain all my desires; would that I attained all attainments'. He beheld this three- days Soma-sacrifice, the Aśvamedha and took possession of it, and sacrificed with it."8 "Bhaspati desired, 'May the gods have faith in me, and may I become their Purohita." He saw this (rite) of twenty-four nights, he grasped it and sacrificed with it." "The Sadhya gods, desirous of heaven saw this (rite) of six nights. They grasped it and sacrificed with it."5 "Brhaspati desired, may I be resplendent'. He saw this rite of eight nights, he grasped it and sacrificed with it. "Prajāpati desired, 'May I be an eater of food', He saw this (rite) of seventeen nights, he grasped it, and sacrificed with it."7 Finally let us quote RV, which says that "In the beginning there was desire which was

1 The Rsis are also said to sacrifice but usually they follow the lead of gods. Lévi, DS, pp. 122,144. Keith, RVBr, p. 148. ŚB, 11.2.3.7. 2 Keith, RVBr, p.462. 8 ŚB, 13.4.1.1. 4 Keith, RVBr, p. 599. 5 op. cit, p. 572. 6 op. cit, p. 574. " op. cit, p. 575.

The Sacrifice 95

the first seed of mind." Summarising we can say that the first element without which an action cannot come about is a desire of an 'actor' to act. It is because of the desire of the fruits of an action that an 'actor' embarks upon it. In the mythological accounts of the Brähmanas it is usually expressed by the sacra- mentally used verb kam.2 There is no sacrifice without desire. So much so that it seems to be a raison d'étre of the sacrifice. The sacrifice is termed 'wish-fulfilling'.8 The sacrifice (Aśva- medha) contains all objects of desire4 and "Verily, whosoever performs the Aśvamedha sacrifice obtains all his desires and attains all attainments."5 "Prajapati created the sacrifice; with it when created the gods sacrificed; having sacrificed with it they obtained all desires."* The relationship of the sacrifice and desire is best described by Keith, who writes that 'the use of sacrifice is to exhaust desire through the enjoyment of desires.'7 Desire, one of the characteristic features of action thus emerges as equally characteristic feature of the sacrifice. An actual effort to begin and to continue an action is the next aspect, the presence of which in the course of the sacrifice has to be pinpointed. It is by no means a difficult task. The sacrifice is performed, spread or entered upon. Here usually the verb yaj is used as sacramentally as in the former case the verb kam.8 On one occasion ŚB becomes more eloquent when describing the nature of performing a sacrifice. Yet at the same time it avoids strict ritualistic terms and describes that action in general mythological terms. "The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu and the Viśve Devah, except the two Aśvins, performed a sacrificial session. They entered upon the session thinking, 'May we attain excellence, may we become glorious,

1 RV, 10.11.1.4. 2 Lévi, DS. Brhaspatir akāmayata ... .. (p. 110), Prajāpatir ...... prajākāmo bahuh ... (139), te devā akāmayanta ... (p. 51), so 'kāmayata yajñam srjeyeti ... (p. 18) Sarvasenih Śauceyo' kāmayata ... (p. 122), Vaśiștho hataputro 'kāmayata ... (p. 148). 3 ŚB, 11.1.6.20. · ŚB, 13.5.2.9. 5 ŚB, 13. 4.1.1. € Keith, RVBr, p. 514. 7 Keith, AA, 13. p. 199. * Lévi, "Brhaspatir ... tenāyajata" (p. 110) "Prajāpatir ... sagre yajata ... " (p. 139), "devāh ... tābhyām ayajanta ... " (p. 57).

96 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

may we become eaters of food' ... They spake, 'Whoever of us through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice and oblations, shall first encompass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall be in common to us all".1 It is through śrama, tapas, yajña,2 and āhuti that the sacrifice is accomplished.8 These terms signify the concrete effort of gods to perform the sacrifice and to continue performing it. Their steady effort would have soon brought the sacrifice-that arche- typal action to its conclusion, if it had not been that Prajāpati first created the gods and the Asuras; thereafter the sacrifice was created.4 Since then, that force of the Asuras eternally alien to the gods has invariably disturbed the sacrifice of the gods. "For the gods when they were performing the sacrifice were afraid of a disturbance on the part of the Asuras and Rākșasas."5 In ŚB this formula is repeated almost twenty times. This shows that the Asuric force of darkness and evil has unceasingly been engaged against the action of the gods. Sometimes the gods in order to defend themselves construct ramparts, strongholds or enclosures.6 Sometimes they hurl bricks at the Asuras7 or employ any other conceivable means of defence. In one case it was a false pretence that the gods did something else which saved their sacrifice from the eightfold attack of the demons.8 In other cases they entrust the defence to one of the gods. It is sometimes Agni who in RV is a pro- tector from the odious Rākşasas.® But most often it is Indra whom RV extolls in the following words: "Let (thy car), Indra drawn by the horses (rush) downwards (upon the Asuras): let thy destroying thunderbolt fall upon enemies; slay those that assail in front or in rear, or that fly (from the combat); make the universe (the abode of) truth; (let such power be concen-

1 ŚB, 14.1.1.1. and 3 and 4. 2 Considering its context the word yajña means here 'offering, obla- tion', not 'sacrifice'. * Lévi, DS, pp. 54, 70, 144. Keith, VBYS, 3.3.7.1, p. 259. Lévi, DS, p. 28n. * ŚB, 1.1.2.3. · ŚB, 6.3.3.24; 6.14.4.19; 14.1.2.16. " ŚB, 7.3.2.5. 8 ŚB, 9.5.1.12ff. ' RV, 1.1.1.13. SB, 1.2.2.13.

The Sacrifice 97

trated in thee."1 "The sound (of thy bolt) has been heard by the approaching foes; hurl upon them the consuming thunder- bolt, cut them by the root, oppose Maghavan, overcome, slay the Räkșasas, complete (the sacrifice)."2 Indra does not remain indifferent to these supplications and when " ... the gods were afraid- 'the Asuras will take from us this morning sacrifice, just as those that have more force and might.' To them said Indra, 'Fear not, against them in the morning shall I hurl my thunderbolt ... "8 We have already mentioned that Indra espe- cially was requested by the gods to defend the sacrifice (Ch. III). Crowned by them as their king4 and called the deity of the sacrifice.5 Indra is undoubtedly the leading hero of the sacrifice and as such the chief 'actor' of the action-sacrifice.® As we have already pointed out (Ch. VII) and as we still more clearly can see it now, the disturbance of the sacrifice by the demons is a culminating point of the course of the action- sacrifice. This leaves us with the last stage at which the action-sacrifice is finally completed. There are many instances when the gods are actually said to complete the sacrifice .? This aspect of the whole problem hardly needs any more comments. After all what we have said it is obvious that a successful completion of the sacrifice is a must, without which the sacrifice loses its deepest meaning. This is why Indra is asked to complete the sacrifice,8 and this is why the staff is planted with the words: "Stand up, o tree, erect, guard me from injury on to the goal of this sacrifice." Explaining this passage SB says that "whereby

1 RV, 3.3.1.6. 2 RV, 3.3.1.16. $ Keith, RVBr, p. 146, ii.16. 4 ABr, 37.1. 5 ŚB, 1.4.1.33; 1.4.5.4 ; 3.4.3.1.8; 4.2.3.10; 4.2.5.17 .... e The following passage of ŚB may be of interest here. "Forsooth, we (gods) are in evil plight, the Asura-Rāksasas have come in between us: we shall fall prey to our enemies. Let us come to an agreement and yield ta the excellence of one of us. They yielded to the excellence of Indra, wherefore it is said: Indra is all the deities, the gods have Indra for their chief." (ŚB, 3.4.2.2). 7 For instance: ŚB, 9.5.1.27; the root samstha (Lévi, p. 40n. SB, 14). 1.1.4 ; 'yajnasyodrcam pūrvo' vagacchāt (Lévi, DS, p. 70n). 8 RV, 3.2.4.16.

98 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

he means to say 'standing erect protect me till the completion of this sacrifice."' " This insistence of the texts that the sacrifice has to be completed directs our attention towards the purpose and the true meaning of the sacrifice. For if this meaning were limited to a prayer and an oblation, then it would have been obvious that it is better to offer half of an oblation and an unfinished prayer than nothing at all. Yet in the case of Yajña prayers and oblations are only tools serving a more important cause. The Pañcavimsa Brāhmaņa says that Prajāpati having changed himself into the sacrifice, gave himself over to the gods.2 Eggeling as if continuing this thought writes, "By offer- ing up his own self in the sacrifice, Prajāpati dismembered, and all those separated limbs and faculties of his come to form the Universe-all that exists, from the gods and Asuras (the children of the father Prajāpati) down to the worm, the blade of grass and the smallest particle of inert matter. It requires a new, and ever new sacrifice to build the dismembered Lord of Creatures up again and restore him so as to enable him to offer himself up again and again, and renew the universe, and thus keep up the uninterrupted revolution of time and matter."8 This metaphysical meaning of the sacrifice was most clearly expressed in the Brähmanas on the occasion of discussing the Aśvamedha. SB says, "Prajāpati's eye swelled; it fell out; thence the horse was produced ... By means of the Aśvamedha the gods restored it to its place; and verily he who performs Aśvamedha makes Prajāpati complete."4 We have already quoted a passage of SB in which a performer of Aśvamedha is said to obtain all his desires and to obtain all his attainments.5 Besides, Aśvamedha is said to contain all objects of desire.6 At the first glance it seems that there is some dis- ) ŚB, 3.2.1.35. 2 Caland, PBr, 7.2.1. p. 134. 3 Eggeling, ŚB, v. iv. p. xvii. The idea of the dismembered Prajāpati, and this or that sacrificial act being required to complete and replenish him occurs throughout the incubrations of the Brahmanas,-continues Eggoling. According to Keith we owe to Eggeling the clearest exposition of the doctrine of sacrifice. Keith, VBYS, p. CXXVI. 4 SB, 13.3.1.1; The same passage occurs in Caland, PBr, XXI. 4.2 .; and Keith, VBYS, p. 428; V. 3.11. 5 ÀB, 13.4.1.1. 6 ŚB, 13.5.2.9.

The Sacrifice 99

parity between tbe aim of the performers of the sacrifice and the metaphysical sense of the same sacrifice. Yet this disparity disappears under investigation. Sacrifice fulfills all desires. ŚB is very explicit about it. Whatever the gods desire,1 whatever the Rsis desire and whatever the sacrificer desires? all that is ful- filled through the sacrifice. This power of the sacrifice, despite all other pretences, is well rooted in its metaphysical significance. It is not a blind belief in the power of a rite but it is the meta- physical, meaning of the rite which makes it all-powerful. Some light upon this problem is thrown by a passage of the Kāușītaki Brähmana already quoted in some other connection. It may however bear a repetition here for the sake of clarity. "The gods, desirous of smiting away death, the evil, and desiring identity of the world and union with Brahman, saw this Abhi- plava six-day (rite); by this Abhiplava they approach, and having smitten away death, the evil, obtained identity of the world and union with Brahman; verily thus also the sacrificers approach by the Abhiplava, and having smitten away death, the evil, obtain identity of the world and union with Brahman."3 Thus an identity of the world with Brahman, equality with him and unity with him, as the Pañcavimsa Brāhmaņa puts it,4 are the desired objects of the sacrifice. A desire of identity and union implies the existence of variety or multiplicity and separation-viz. implies the dismemberment of the one Prajāpati. Multiplicity and separation give birth to desire. The sacrifice is designed so as to overcome that multiplicity and separation at the very root of it-viz, it is conceived as the reconstruction of Prajapati's dismembered body. Once the multiplicity and separation cease to exist, the desire having been thus fulfilled disappears as well. That is to say, once the dismembered body of the Lord of the Creatures has been reconstructed, the uni- versal metaphysical cause of the existence of desire in any form and scale and at any place disappears. This is why the desires of those who perform the sacrifice are fulfilled; for each small desire is nothing less than an individual expression of one and the same thirst to overcome the duality of existence and to

1 ŚB, 11. 1. 6. 20. 2 ŚB, 1. 6. 2. 7. * Keith, RVBr, p. 462. 4 Caland, PBr, 25. 18. 6. also ŚB, 11.4.4:2-7.

100 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

integrate with the Supreme.1 This contention strictly follows a conception of the sacrifice as a law and rule-giver to all happen- ing in the Universe. Having concluded that Yajña is an archetypal action we have at the beginning of this chapter posed the three following questions: (I) Is there any 'actor' of this action sacrifice? (II) What is its course? and (III) What is its aim? To the first question we have answered in the affirmative naming the gods as the 'actors' of the sacrifice. The answer to the second question is a trifle longer. The course of the mythological action-sacri- fice has the following invariable succession of events or elements: (A) desire, (B) effort as well as continuation denoted in the sacrifice by śrama, tapas, śraddhā, yajña and āhuti; (C) obstru- tion marked by an attack of the. Asura-Rākșasas; (D) its overcoming and completion of the sacrifice. An answer to the third question is that the import and aim of the action-sacrifice is a mystical reconstruction of the body of the Lord of Creatures and through it the fulfilment of all desires. In other words it is an integration of the multiplicity of existence and meta- physical merger in Supreme Being. Concluding, we have to stress that since Yajña claims to be the pattern for all happening in the Universe, then the elements of it outlined above will naturally remain a true expression of the Universe as well. On the other hand, since Nātya claims to be the representation of the true state of the Three Worlds and as such claims to deserve the name of the sacrifice itself (ijyã, NS.V.108), then these elements of the sacrifice have to be represented by Nātya. In the subsequent pages we shall try to show that Nātya has been conceived so as to be a correct representation of the world and as such it well deserves to be called sacrifice.

Duality of existence, - for the meaning of the sacrifice can also be expressed as an integration of the two principles (Agrawala, I'L, p. 150). Usually those two are symbolised by Agni and Soma. vide ŚB, 1. 6. 3. 23. and 24.

9

THE PLOT (ITIVRTTA)

NŚ calls itivrtta the body of Nātya and divides it into five sandhis or junctures.1 Both the meaning of the itivrtta and the significance of the sandhis have to be well investigated before there is laid any claim to the proper understanding of this brief enunciation. Most of the material of NS consists of strictly technical observations and its author or its authors rarely ventured into the purely speculative domains of the sources and justifications of all formulae recorded in NŚ. Chapter XIX of it, dealing with the structure of the plot (itivrtta), is not an exception to this rule. Below we shall make an attempt to reconstruct the theoretical reasoning underlying the concept of the itivrtta. Nätya is not a motionless picture of the Universe but it reflects the dynamic nature of the world characterised by incessant flux of happiness and despair.2 A motionless picture fails to reveal the state of happening. It merely reflects static situations. The need to reflect that flux of joy and sorrow pos- tulates an existence of a means of expression which itself will have motion or movement for its nature. Explaining the word itivrtta Abhinavagupta contrasts it with the word vrtta and says that the body of a poetic composition which is not suitable to be enacted consists of vrtta. On the other hand this which possesses a form suitable for the stage has its body in the form of itivrtta. Iti here means that vrtta was prearranged in a certain particular way, proper for the 1 NS. GOS, XIX, 1. Itivrttam tu nātyasya śarīram parikīrtitam| pañcabhih sandhibhis tasya vibhāgah samprakalpitab// 2 NŚ. GOS, 1, 119.

102 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

theatre.1 Abhinava's analysis suffers from two shortcomings. First of all, his distinction between vrtta and itivrtta is rather ambiguous and does not seem to be acknowledged elsewhere. There is nothing to suggest that at the time NS was composed, vrtta was used not only in the sense suggested by Abhinava-' gupta but even as a word different in any other way.2 The second objection relates to a reference to the special arrange- ment of the plot in a play as distinct from that of a poem. A plot of an ordinary kāvya certainly requires the same arrange- ment. SD insists that the mahākāvya should contain all the dramatic junctures (sandhis).3 Consequently it appears that one cannot speak about two different types of a plot-one for kāvya and another for Natya. The more so, because NS conse- quently calls the script of a play kāvya equating it thus with any other poetical composition.4 For all these reasons the distinction introduced by Abhinavagupta appears to be imma- terial. We in our turn propose a more general interpretation of the term itivrtta on the same lines as the well known derivation of the word itihāsa. Itihāsa means 'so indeed it was.' As the verb vrt means 'to occur, to happen' so the meaning of the term itivrtta will be 'so it happened'. In our case the term does not refer so much to the past, as to the substance of each happen- ing. This is supported by the dictum of NS which having listed the five stages of action says: "these are the five successive stages of every action begun by persons desirous of fruit."5 As we have said, Nātya represents happening or becoming and technically speaking itivrtta is its tool designed so as to represent faithfully that happening. Itivrtta dressed by a poet

1 NŚ. GOS, v. III. p. 1, "kāvyamātrasya anabhineyasya tāvad vrttāmā- tram śarīram, natanīyasya iv abhineyarūpasya iti evamprakāratayā yad upaskrtam vrttam ata eva itivrttasabdavācyam tad vastu śarīram." 2 At the most the word vrtta can be taken for a sub-division of itivrtta. See NS. GOS, XIX. 4 and 24. Ballantyne, MC, p. 265, 559, (VI. 315-25). 4 According to Kane, HSP, p. 355, kāvya and nātya are regarded synonymous. This is not true. For Nätya stands for the whole perform- ance and kavya for a text of play only. Kane has been misled by careless scribes who often changed nātya into kāvya. See NS. GOS, XIX. I 5 NŚ. MMG, 21. 14; NŚ. GOS, XIX. 14. sarvasyāiva hi kāryasya prārabdhasya phalārthibhiķ/ etās tv anukramenāiva paftcāvasthā bhavanti hi//

The Piot 103

in an attire of a concrete story and expressed through acting can truly be called the body of Nātya. Judging from the first glance, we have made in the foregoing analysis a serious omission, for we have practically reduced the concept of itivrtta to the bare five avasthas. In order to find out whether such an omission is admissible we shall have to review in detail the whole itivrtta concept of NS. It goes without saying that there are three principal elements of the plot. They are the five avasthas, the five arthaprakrtis and the five sandhis. Yet the opening verse of Chapter XIX of NŚ (in spite of its having all features of the basic definition of the plot) does not mention either the arthaprakrtis or the avasthäs and rests satisfied with the sandhis alone. Such a situation demands closer investigation of the mutual relation- ship of all three elements of the itivrtta. The problem is by no means simple; for almost invariably the first impression is, as Keith puts it, that the classification of elements of the plot is perhaps superfluous beside the junc- tures.1 Or as Pandit Chattopadhyaya prefers to say when speaking about the relationship of the avasthas and the sandhis: "the purpose of this twofold enumeration of this practically identical phenomenon is not clear." Further this question appears to him wrapped in a good deal of obscurity which seems to force him to abandon it as it is.2 Our own presump- tion is that the enunciations of the NS in this particular case are a result of a careful inquiry into the true nature of that 'happening' which Nātya is to represent. Discussing this problem, we shall adopt the same order in which the three elements are discussed in NS. This is because in our understanding this order reflects their particular interdependence. Each and every action has according to NS the following five stages: Beginning (ārambha): "That part of the play (lit. composition) which merely records eagerness about the final attainment of

1 Keith, SD, p. 299. 2 K. Chattopadhyaya, The sandhis or the five parts of a Sanskrit drama, The Allahabad University Magazine, vol. VI, No. 1, October 1927, p. 15.

104 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the result with the reference to the Germ is called the Begin- ning."1 Eagerness or desire (äutsukya) is the main aspect of the Beginning. It is recorded at this stage of action. Effort (yatna): "(Hero's) striving towards an attainment of the result when the same is not in view, and showing further eagerness about it, is called the Effort."" A concrete, so to speak, physical effort, to obtain the fruit is the most characteristic feature of this stage of action. Possibility of attainment (prāptisambhava): "When the attainment of the object is slightly suggested by an idea, it is to be known as the possibility of Attainment."3 So far we have not departed from the widely accepted mode of interpretation of the definitions of the three foregoing avast- häs. Such an approach and such an interpretation have been followed by scholars without any significant exception, begin- ning with Dhanañjaya and Abhinavagupta right to this day. Yet in the case of the fourth avasthā we feel obliged to contest the opinion of all these scholars. For they seem to automatically follow an initial misinterpretation of the text of NS. The passage in question runs as follows: "niyatām tu phalaprāptim yadā bhāvena paśyati | niyatām tām phalaprāptim saguņām pari- cakşate//.4 The meaning of the word niyata is here the prover- bial bone of contention. Wrong in our view is the traditional interpretation of that word in this particular case as niyata- niścita-sure-certain. Even Abhinava follows the general trend and explains niyatām niyantritām-phalāvyabhicāriņīm, taking obviously niyatäm for 'fixed, established, settled, sure'; niya- ntritām-for 'controlled' and phalāvyabhicārinīm for 'not sepa- rated from fruit'. Finally contradicting some other opinions according to which niyatā signifies doubt. with reference to the achievement of fruit, Abhinava does not leave any doubt about his own position and contrasts niyatā with sandigdhā asking

1 NŚ. MMG, 21. 9, "autsukyamātrabandhas tu yad bījasya nibadhyate| mahatah, phalayogasya sa phalārambha ișyateļ| 2 NŚ. MMG, 21.10, "apaśyatah phalaprāptim vyāpāro yah phalam pratiļ param cāutsukyagamanam sa prayatnah prakīrtitab// 3 NŚ. MMG, 21.11, "Işātprāptir yadā kācit phalasya parikalpyate| 2 bhāvamātreņa tām prāhur vidhijnah tām prāhur vidhījnah pråptisambhavam// 4 NS. GOS. XIX. 12.

The Plot 105

how these two contradictory terms can denote the same thing.1 Yet in spite of this attitude Abhinava has to admit that at this stage of action the achievement of fruit is endangered (and con- sequently doubtful), for he sees the state of being endowed with the actions countering the disruption as one of the elements of the material of the niyatāpti stage of action.2 Naturally an existence of danger implies an existence of doubt as to the bringing of an endangered action to a desired fruition. In such a way Abhinava negates his own approach. Paraphrasing his own saying one can ask how can there be anything certain and at the same time endangered. DR presents a similar approach. Dhanika explaining Dhanañjaya's definition gives the following example from Act III of the Ratnavali which is supposed to illustrate the niyatāpti stage of action. "Vidūşaka-'it is now very difficult for 'Sāgarikā to live' ....... King-'My friend, I do not see any other remedy in this matter than to conciliate the queen."8 This example is undoubtedly rightly criticised by Shastri who unhappily stops short of questioning the whole definition of the niyatāpti avasthā. Instead he proposes another example, this time from Act III of the Sakuntalā. "Śakuntalā-'O friends, I think about the versification (of love) but my heart is trembling from the fear of being rejected by him (the king)' ...... Friends- 'O friend you are slighting your own good qualities. Who in this world would prevent (from coming to himself) the autumnal moon which delights (tranquilises) his own body, with the end of the cloth (with a cloth)?"4 He offers the following comment on this example. "Here the obstacle was the fear of rejection in the mind of Sakuntalā. This obstacle is removed by her friends and there is sure success in her love affair. This is therefore a niyatāpti."5 Śhastri's criticism of the first example rests on the fact that considering the uneasy character of Vāsavadattā all that the king can expect is a dim shadow of hope, and there-

1 op. cit. v. III. p. 7-8 "ye tv akārapraśleşād abhāvena niyatām sandeham iti vyacakşate, te niyatā phalaprāptih samdighā cet katham etad viruddtam samgacchatām iti prastavah/" 2 Ibid. "phalasya prakarşeņa āptir yatah sahakārivargah pratibandhaka- vidhvamsanasahitatā ca sāmagrīrūpatah ...... "/ 3 Shastri, DR, p. 27. 4 op. cit, p. 28. 5 Ibid.

106 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

fore, the situtaion is far from being certainty of success.4 Our own criticism of this example agrees with one offered by Shastri. It may be useful also to add that this, as SD calls it, absolute confidence of obtaining the object2 not only is totally absent from the given example but this very situation is sepa- rated from the final attainment of fruit by such events as an attempt of Sāgarika to commit suicide, her imprisonment by the queen and finally the fact that she appeared almost to have perished in the conflagration of the palace. The conclusion is obvious. The true niyatāpti stage (in the traditional inter- pretation) has to be looked for, sometime after the conflag- ration of the palace appeared to be an artifice of a magician. The only difficulty is that this portion of the story undoubtedly is the phalāgama stage. Thus the definition offered by Dhanañ- jaya, Abhinavagupta, Viśvanātha and others make fourth stage of action practically identical with the last one. Similar criti- cism applies to Shastri's own example. To begin with, the avasthäs have to be delineated with reference to a hero and not to a heroine. Secondly the desired fruit of the hero is not a singular union with Sakuntala (in such case the play would end with Act I) but accepting her as a lawful wife whose son will be a successor to the throne. The particular situation described in Shastri's example does not suggest that the attainment of this fruit, from which this situation is separated by many events which hardly leave any hope of the final desired fruition, has become certain. Here also in search of the true niyatāpti stage we shall have to move as far as at least the recovery of the ring or better as far as the meeting of Dusyanta with his son Bharata in heaven. Thus once more the niyatāpti stage will appear identical with the phalāgama. For it is obvious that absolute certainty of success can come about only when an action aiming at that success is not any more endangered. Otherwise the niyatāpti stage, as exemplified above, will be a recurrent event of overcoming the obstacles. This is absurd because the avasthås are stretches of action touching or even slightly overlapping each other. They have never been conceived as recurrent incidents.

1 Shastri, DR, p. 27. Ballantyne, MC, p. 195.

The Plot 107

Among the modern scholars, Pandey discusses this problem in detail. Pandey's chief aim is to give a proper exposition of the aesthetic theories in perfect fidelity to the original texts. As he declares himself that with respect to the itivrita problem, he follows the interpretation of Abhinavagupta.1 Abstract theories usually make'sense till they are confronted with practice. Abhinava gave a slip to this rule and did not quote any example in support of his definition.ª Pandey tries to make up for this lack and retells as an example of the niyatāpti stage of action half of Act III and the entire Act IV of the Ratnāvali. He takes as a starting point a passage already quoted in DR and SD. He dismisses the whole sequence of subsequent events and unhappy developments with an assertion that it would be undramatic if the reconciliation attempted by the king would have resulted in an immediate union.3 The true niyatāpti stage according to Pandey begins with the entrance of Vijayavarman in Act IV and lasts till practically the end of the play. The phalāgama stage according to him does not take much time. "In the present case-he writes-it is represented by the attainment of sovereignty by the king and his union with Ratnāvali."1 Pandey brings to a logical conclusion the faulty definition of Abhinava- gupta. As we have already pointed out, this definition equates practically niyatāpti with phalāgama. Pandey solves the dilemma by limiting the phalāgama stage to the final one or two minutes of action during which the hero appears as a sovereign and as happily married to Ratnāvalī. Yet he overlooks one very important factor and that is the fact that we first hear about

1 Pandey, IAe, p. XI 2 In all fairness to Abhinava we have to admit (although we question his interpretation) that in not quoting any example he did the only proper thing. This is because the concept of the avasthas does not have any independent existence. It is a purely theoretical concept, which can be exemplified only after it is supplemented with the concept of the five arthaprakrtis, and thus evolves into the concept of the five sandhis. The five avasthäs picture the structure of pure and fully abstract action. The five sandhis picture the regularities of action in real surroundings. There- fore the examples can be given only in the last case. We in our turn decided to continue the discussion in the terms of examples since it had been started in this form, yet we are fully aware of the inconsistency of it. 3 Pandey, IAe, p. 418. * op. cit, p. 420.

108 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the attainment of sovereignty from the mouth of Vijayavarman right at his first entrance. Thus the phalāgama begins with his entrance and as we see corresponds exactly to the niyatāpti interpreted as certainty of success. The foregoing discussion clearly indicates the necessity of an / overall revaluation of the whole problem. The already quoted definition of the niyatāpti stage of action does not indicate whether the word niyata should be translated as 'suppressed' or as 'sure', 'certain'. In our view the following arguments speak for the first alternative.1 As we have seen, the hitherto accepted interpretation when brought to its logical conclusion practically excludes the last avastha (phalagama), which according to NS has to be present along with the first one in the form of the first and the last sandhis in absolutely all plays.2 Besides, the old interpretation inadmissibly dilutes the conflict so that there is hardly any place left for it in a play. From the very beginn- ing, a hero will steadily approach his aim without any really serious setback. After the Possibility of Attainment (prāpti- sambhava) comes immediately the Certainty of Success (niyatā- pti) which is followed by the Attainment of Fruit (phalāgama). Despair (duhka), which according to the definition of Nātya has to be present in it, is totally absent from such a theoretical play.ª Yet as if yielding to this obvious requirement, supported also by dramatic practice, Abhinavagupta, Dhanika, Viśvanātha and others mention in the course of their discussion the existence of the element of disruption at the niyatäpti stage.4 Neverthe- less, for them the true niyatäpti stage seems to follow the over- coming of difficulties. This unnatural shift of stress is, of course, forced upon them by their wrong interpretation of the word

' In this meaning the word niyata is used in MBH and in kāvya literature. See M. Williams Dictionary. K. Chattopadhyaya takes niyatāpti for 'restrained attainment'. Allahabad University Magazine. Vol. VI. No. 1. October 1927, p. 15. The word niyata was a source of controversy for philosophers also. Jha in his translation of the Tattva-kāumudī offers a following comment on the fourtieth kārikā (p. 95). "The word niyata translated in the kārikā as lasting is differently interpreted by Narayana Tirtha (in his Sämkha-candrikå). He takes it in the sense of "restricted", i.e., the Subtle Body is restricted to one particular Spirit." 3 NŚ. MMG, 21. 18. and 44-6. NŚ, I, 119. ' Shastri, DR, p. 27. Ballantyne, MC, p. 195. etc.

The Plot 109

niyata. Once this word is taken in its negative meaning of 'suppressed', 'curbed' or 'restrained', then a conflict in a play carrying with itself an element of despair gains a legitimate and prominent place in a drama. Such an interpretation is also justified from the point of view of an emotional reaction. The joy of a final victory is immensely augmented when contrasted with the very-near-to-defeat situation which precedes it. In the Ratnāvalī the prāptisambhava stage ends at the close of Act III with the entrance of Vāsavadattā. The queen sends Sāgarikā, who only a moment ago was rescued from the noose by the king, to prison. So far the success was, as NS wants, sometimes in hand and sometimes out of the reach of the hero.' The notorious passage of the Ratnāvali quoted so often is the most perfect example of the prāptisambhava stage of action (or of the garbhasandhi). The queen has gone away in anger, yet there is still a possibility of reconciliation, and of the king's achieving the union with Sāgarika behind the queen's back. Such a chance comes immediately when the king dis- covers that vāsavadatta, whom he has just saved from commit- ting suicide, is in reality Sāgarikā in disguise. Having discovered her identity the king hastens to embrace her closely. Sāgarikā is his. But alas,-the queen enters unexpectedly and having caught them in flagranti orders an imprisonment of both his beloved and his friend Vasantaka. With one powerful stroke of adverse fate, all is destroyed. The king is left in utter despair. The attainment of the fruit of his endeavours is suppressed. The niyatāpti stage begins.2 It lasts till the entrance of Vijayavarman with the news of the conquest of Kośala,

1 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 41. Yet this situation does not imply any real obstruction. Simply the search for fruit may sometimes be misleading and then a mother-of-pearl is taken for gold. But finally the search is success- fully concluded and only then a real disaster, like the imprisonment of Sāgarikā for instance, comes. 2 It will be interesting to compare in this connection the last verse of the third act of the Ratnävali with the definition of the vimarsasandhi which it perfectly illustrates and by the same concerns the niyatāpti avasthā. "kim devyāh krtadīrgharoşam uşitasnigdhasmitam tan mukham/ kim vā sāgarikām kramoddhatarușā santarjjyamānām tathā/ baddhyā nltam ito vasantakam ahamkim cintayāmy adya bhoḥ sarvākā- rakrtavyathah kşaņam api prāpnomi no nirvrtim// III For the definition of vimarsasandhi, see p. 188.

110 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

which for Udayana signifies an attainment of the desired sovereignty and which announces the advent of the phalāgama. Half of the fruit becomes his and at the same time it is a ray of hope of the attainment of the other half, i.e., union with Sāgarikā which, as Pandey wants, does not come immediately but only after an artificial conflagration heightens the effect of the final happy ending. Act IV of the Sakuntala closes with a happy note. For in spite of certain slight apprehension as to the final result, which prāptisambhava stage in one or another form always leaves (in the Sakuntala it is the curse of Durvāsa), we watch a happy scene of a beloved daughter leaving her father's home in order to join her lawful husband. In Act V Kālidāsa, as if trying to . augment the shattering emotional impact of the indifference of the king, shows him in the happy and care-free surroundings of his court. But the clouds gather slowly and with the question of the king-'kim idam upanyastam"-the situation reaches its climax. Yet it does not immediately affect the hero himself, who through the curse of Durväsa is made unaware of the true identity of Sakuntalā. The niyatāpti situation thus sinks slowly into the abyss of perfect despair which is brought about in Act VI by the miraculous recovery of the royal ring. It is then that the king who now abhors the delightful wails: "Was it a dream, a magic spell, A dark delusion, or the blight Of some good deeds, rewarded once? I do not know; it's passed forever, A deep and dark abyss, in which My heart's most precious hopes were plunged."2 The fruit is almost completely suppressed. The niyatāpti situa- tion is in full swing and lasts till the arrival of Mätali, the charioteer of Indra, who apprises the hero of the favourable disposition of gods towards him. Thus hope is born that the gods rewarding the king's services will help him out of his despair. Kālidāsa never ends his avasthās as abruptly for instance as Harsa. This shows his superior mastery of composi- tion. He introduces them gradually, and gradually conducts

1 Sak. V. after 16 verse. ª Wells, SSP, p. 260.

The Plot 111

them to a close. The niyatäpti situation of the play finally ends only with the king's recognition of Bharata and his mother. Yet this event belongs also to the last avastha, which has been announced by Mätali's entrance and which lasts after the scene of recognition for the remaining half of Act VII. Śūdraka is no lesser master in the difficult art of composition than Kālidasa. At the end of Act V we see Cārudatta and Vasantasenā united happily, although there is still a lot to be done in order to legalise their union and to ensure its lasting delight. This moment of high hopes and serenity is separated from the burning despair of Act IX by a superb gradation of events which binds the two avasthās together, and which gives credit to the way Sūdraka put into practice a dry injunction of NŚ describing Nātya as the representation of the world with its happiness and despair. The close of Act V signifies the end of the präptisambhava stage of action. The opening of the trial scene in Act IV is the beginning of the niyatāpti stage. Act VI styled "The exchange of carriages" at the beginning still reflects the hopeful atmosphere of the prāptisambhava situation. The first sign announcing the gloomy events of the niyatāpti stage soon comes when Vasantasena in a hurry mistakes the carriage of Śakāra for that of Cārudatta. Now, as Vasantasenā is carried away towards the fatal confrontation with Sakara the situation progressively deteriorates.1 The subsequent two acts further develop the situation. In Act VII Cärudatta impatiently await- ing his beloved offers his help to Äryaka escaping prison and we abandon our hero at the close of the act full of apprehension and worry for the absent Vasantasena. With this scene the prāptisambhava situation definitely ends. Act VIII already be- longs to niyatäpti stage of action. Here the base machinations of Śakāra not only cause the death of Vasantasenā2 but are also a prelude to the trial of Cärudatta resulting in the death sentence for the hero himself. This is the niyatāpti stage in its lowest ebb. It is carried as far as about two-thirds of Act X,

1 The story of Aryaka is a prakarī. His successful escape in which Crudatta is made to help him is an element of bindu which will finally relieve the hero of his suffering and bring about the desired fruit of the union with Vasantasena and the restoration of wealth. 2 The prakari of the Buddhist mendicant reviving Vasaniasenă is another manifestation of the bindu.

112 Concept of Ancient Indian Tbeatre

when a hangman is shown standing with a risen sword over Carudatta's head. It ends with the entrance of Vasantasenā announcing as well the advent of phalagama situation. Before finally closing this review of the niyatāpti theory as reflected in the works of the dramatists we shall discuss one more case in which the author seems to pay tribute to the dramatic possibilities offered by such a concept of the niyatāpti. The Uttararāmacharita of Bhavabhūti is a challenge to the mistaken views of the later theoreticians. This drama possesses the longest known niyatāpti stage of action. As a matter of fact it is the niyatäpti that makes it up. Leaving only a short portion of the whole play, i.e., the first act of it for a very condensed review of the three initial stages,1 the niyatāpti stage begins at the end of it with the entrance of the spy Durmukha, who announces the dissatisfaction of the people and their disbelief in the purity of Sita, and with the following words of Rama full of despair, "The world of living beings is now turned upside down; the purpose of Räma's life is at end today. The earth is now a sterile withered wilderness; worldly life is with- out interest; full of worry is the body. I have no refuge left. What can I do? What course is opened to me?"2 This stage lasting for four acts of the play ends in the last act with the entrance of Arundhati and Sita.8 The rest of the last act is the phalāgama stage. It is of course difficult to insist but it might have been that the criticism that Bhavabhūti had to face was caused by his partiality for the niyatäpti avastha and his disre- gard of the commonly accepted interpretation of that term. The last avastha is termed the acquisition of fruit. NŚ defines it as follows: "When the desired, full and suitable fruit of action comes about in the plot-it is known as the acquisition of fruit."4 The last stage, like the three initial ones, does not

1 Bhavabhūti utilises here skilfully an ingenuous device of the picture gallery where Rama, Sită and Lakșmana recall to memory their past adventures preceding the happening of the play and constituting the first three stages of action. : URC, 1. after 46 verse. 3 URC, VII. 18. · NS. GOS, XIX. 13. "abhipretam samagram ca pratirůpam kriyāphalam! ttivrtte bhaved yasmin phalayogas prakirtitab!/

The Plot 113

provoke any special controversy and therefore does not demand any special comments. We can, therefore leave it at that. NS states that every action has to have these five stages arranged according to the order they are mentioned in the text.1 A glance at them is enough to know that this concept concerns an 'actor', i.e., expresses the course of action from the point of view of an 'actor' or doer. Each action consciously under- taken by its 'actor' has to be carried through these five stages. They, of course, may be of different duration and importance. Nevertheless, for a doer, there will always be a moment at which there is a desire born in him to do this or that. Next comes concrete effort to achieve the purpose for which an action was embarked upon, followed by the possibility of success. Yet before the final victory there is always a stage at which there is as actual attempt of an adverse force to disrupt an action, or at least, as NS says, 'a possibility of such a disruption present in the mind of an 'actor' .? Thus an action stripped of all its specific distinctions, of all its side effects and of all its acciden- tal complications is reduced to a concept of pure action. Such a concept borders on physics and reminds of the vectors of force known to the world of physics. They picture the direction and strength of a particular force but they say little about all these complicated effects accompanying a concrete force applied in concrete conditions of the physical world. The five avasthās mark out a similar vector common to all actions. It has a defi- nite successward direction and its length consists of the five definite stages. Yet it says very little about what happens when/t an 'actor' becomes a concrete human being. When his action takes place among other concrete human beings and when there are at work all other complicated human factors playing a role far from negligible, when an action happens in the concrete world, An action characterised by the five avasthas is reduced to the most basic element of progress which carries an 'actor' towards the achievement of fruit. The avasthas are in fact an expression of a progress of action and as such they mark out five elements resulting from a vertical division of a horizontal

1 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 14. "etās tv anukrameņāiva pañcāvastha bhavanti hi//" 2 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 12 " ... yada bhāvena pašyati/"

114 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

vector of action running from the point at which an action begins towards its completion. The discrepancy between this purely speculative linear dia- gram of action and an actual course of action as it is to be observed in reality must have prompted the theoreticians to a further analysis, which would actually show all regularities of an intricate process, which every real action undoubtedly is. In other words they attempted to outline the breadth which a purely linear vector of the five avasthas will acquire in case the force which it pictures is applied in a 'contaminated' environ- ment of the reality. The regularities observed during that analysis have been put in the form of the five arthaprakrtis, i.e., fivefold nature of the matter or of business.1 Abhinavagupta conducts his reasoning concerning the artha- prakrtis on similar lines.' He also considers the scheme of the

1 Keith (SD, p. 298-9) and Ghosh (NS, p. 382) translate this term as 'the five elements of the plot'. Ballantyne (MC, p. 191) puts it as 'the five 'sources to the end'. Shastri (DR, p. 24) says that 'they are called artha- prakrtis because they are the leading source or occasion of the grand ob- ject of a drama." Pandey calls them the means to the end' (IAe, p. 420). Last but not least Dr. Raghavan names them 'the five elements of the story' (SL, p. 50). Our own interpretation of the word artha in this com- pound is based on the famous sutra of Chapter VI of NS, 'na hi rasād rte kaścid arthah pravartate', which we understand as declaring that there is no such matter (in Nātya) which does not bear rasa. This is broadly what Abhinavagupta seems to say (HABh, p. 441). Ghosh's interpretation (NŚ, p. 105) "No meaning proceeds, from speech, without, any kind of, Sentiment." does not seem to be warranted by the context. For there is nothing in it which would suggest that the ward artha should be connec- ted with speech. The word prakrti we take in its basic and simplest meaning of nature. 2 In this matter ND strictly follows Abhinavagupta. SD's and DR's opinions are very brief and not original, and therefore, negligible. Sāra- dätanaya's view of the arthaprakrtis seems to be wholly (and not alto- gether wrangly) dominated by the concept of bindu; for BP uses the definition of bindu to describe the nature of all five arthaprakrtis (kathā- bhedasya hetavah). Yet this description does not mean that all five are present in the entire play. On the contrary, he places bija at the beginn- ing, kårya at the end, bindu in between. Only for patākā and prakarī an option in usage is allowed. Śāradātanaya makes out of the arthaprakrtis a kind of links in a play and therefore his definitions seem to duplicate the scheme of the avasthas. Bhoja offers a very original interpretation of the arthaprakrtis. He says, as Dr. Raghavan puts it, that the whole uni- verse of action can be analysed into the agent or doer (kartr), the act

The Plot 115

five avasthas an insufficient definition of the itivrtta and says that the form of a conflict present there cannot be known from this scheme only. It is, therefore in order to show 'the form of the complete collection of means' of that conflict that the con- cept of the five arthaprakrtis is introduced. For when the artha- prakrtis are not described and consequently without the proper understanding of the means the ultimate significance of the five stages of action would not be properly comprehended. From these deliberations emerges Abhinava's final definition of the, arthaprakrtis, where artha means 'fruit' and prakrti of it denotes the means. In other words they are 'the causes of fruit'.1 At

(kriyā), the object (karman) and the means (kārana). These four can thus be restated in Bharata's language into five arthaprakrtis : Bīja, the seed and its sowing; Bindu or continuity; Patākā and Prakarī contribu- tory or helping events, major and minor; kārya the end (Raghavan, BSP, p. 597). Original as this view is, it seems to be somewhat forced upon the scheme of five arthaprakrtis. The relationship between kartr and bija for instance is not too convincing (kathāšarīravyāpakenāyake kartari karmaņi vā avatışthamānah ārambhah bījam iti ucyate (Ibid.) ) The most obvious appears to be the connection between bindu and kriyā (evam vicchinnāvicchinneu kathāšarīreşu yo'nusandhatā sa bindur ity ucyate (Ibid ). Patākā and Prakarī in turn are rightly considered the means (karana). But they obviously are only some of the means, for theirh presence in the itivrtta is optional. One is tempted to ask what will be the means if these two are not to be found in a play. Bhoja's treatment of kārya as the object (karman), i.e., the fruit achieved by the hero does not differ from commonly accepted interpretation of this arthaprakrti. Yet in the light of NS's definition of it, it does not seem to be correct. The principal error of Bhoja lies in his effort to accommodate within the concept of the arthaprakrtis the 'actor' or 'kartr' and the fruit. Action pictured through the elements of itivrtta is a movement, and therefore both 'actor' and his aim as static elements cannot be considered within this scheme but should be taken as causes conditioning an action, so to speak, from outside. For action is a process which unites an 'actor' with his aim, i.e., with a fruit of his action. 1" ... tatra ca upāyatatsahakārivargapratibandhatvam tadvidhvamsanam ca upakşiptam tatra tatsvarūpam na jñātam iti upāyasāmagrīsvarūpam darsayitum āha ...... tad anabhidhāne upāyādi svarūpāpari jnānāt prāram- bhādy avasthānām parāmārthato 'samvedane ādhikārikatvam aviditam syāt| yatra arthah phalam tasya prakrtaya upāyāh phalahetava ity arthah!". Here Abhinava introduces a slightly scholastic division of the arthaprakrtis. He divides all of them into non-rational (jada) and rational(cetana). Bīja kārya and belong to the first group. Bija is called a leading cause (mukhyakāraņabhūta) and kārya a more hidden one

116 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the first glance this definition seems to be as good as ours. Yet we shall insist that it is much less precise than the one we have suggested. The cause or means ef gaining fruit convey an idea of few separate devices employed here and there by a hero, so that he may attain his purpose. The artha- prakrtis defined in such a way do not represent the totality of the itivrtta in a similar way to the scheme of the avasthas but seen from a different angle. That Abhinava holds the first view and opposes the one, which we hold, becomes abundantly clear when he discusses a theory put forth by some earlier authority, which he quotes and refutes. According to that authority artha stands for the 'entire (expressed) meaning of a play' and prakrti stands for its 'sections or the divisions of the limbs of such artha'. Abhinava begins his criticism saying that such an interpretation would make sandhis acquire the features of the arthaprakrtis and would make itivrtta itself an assem- blage of arthaprakrtis. Further he says that artha in such interpretation is identical with itivrtta and therefore it is superfluous to introduce the word artha. Besides the similarity of the description of the arthaprakrtis to that of the avasthās renders the first a description for description's sake.1 It becomes obvious from Abhinava's criticism that he does not admit the existence of the two equally total yet different aspects of the same itivrtta.2 Although it is difficult to say whether exactly such an admission constituted the basic pre- mises of the approach criticised by Abhinavagupta, yet it may

(gudhatara). The rational arthaprakrtis are further subdivided into chief (mukhya) and auxiliary (upakāranabhuta). Bındu is the first. The auxiliary arthaprakrtis are termed either co-operating for its own sake (svārthasiddhi), Patākā, or for another's sake (parārthasiddhi) Prakârī. (NŚ. GOS, v. III. p. 12). 1 "anye tv āhuh-arthasya, samastarūpakavācyasya prakrtayah praka- raņāni avayavārthakhaņdā ity arthaprakrtayah-etac ca vyākhyānam na atva prakrtam poşayati sandhyādīnām opi ca arthaprakrtitvam atra vyākhyāne syāt, itivrttam eva samudāyarūpam| artha itivrute prakriaya iti vaktavye 'rıhagrahaņam atiriktam syāt, ity avasthābhiś ca tulyatāvarņanam varņanamātram syād iri kim anenaļ" Ibid. 2 In spite that he writes, "itivrttavişaye yathā yena prakāreņa adhikāri- kasya khaņdanalaksaņena pancāvasthā uktāh tenāiva prakāreņa arthaprakrtayo' pi pañcāiva pațhyantel" Ibid.

The Plot 117

be taken for granted that the exponent of these views did not explicitly identify arthaprakrtis with either sandhis or avasthās; for such an identification could not possibly escape Abhinava's attention and his available criticism shows that in such a case he would discuss it extensively. Now, before we begin our review of the arthaprakrtis, we shall first try to answer Abhinava's criticism which has been offered above.1 Summarising the discussion of the five avasthās NŚ says that each and every action (kārya) has to have all five of them.2 We shall strictly follow this injunction if we conclude that the full appellation of an avasthā is kāryāvasthā. Further we are told that as the avasthās so the arthaprakrtis are present in the itivrtta.3 Thus if we accept the criticism of Abhinava concerning the superfluity of the word artha conse- quently we shall have to consider as equally superfluous the above mentioned injunction of NS which puts the concept of kārya in a similar position to that of artha interpreted as the entire expressed meaning of a play. The more so, because there can be no doubt that the scheme of the five avasthās concerns the whole itivrtta and therefore the existence of some sort of identity between the kärya of the fourteenth śloka and the itivrtta cannot be questioned. Here we approach the crucial point of the whole problem. In our view both kārya (action)/ and artha (matter or business) are identical with the itivrtta. They both denote itivrtta in the same way in which the two words, i.e., crowd and multitude of people may be said to denote the same phenomenon each time stressing its different aspect; but each time describing it in its totality. In our case kārya stresses the progression of the plot or its aspect of motion, of becoming or happening. Artha in its turn stresses the quality of that progression or movement. In other words the kāryävasthas answer a question-where to? and the artha- prakrtis furnish an answer to a question-how to? Thus both

1 We shall deal here with two problems only, viz., superfluity of the word artha and identity of the avasthas with the arthaprakrtis. Our point of view regarding the 'arthaprakrtiness' of the sandhis will become clear later when we shall discuss the character of the sandhis themselves. 2 See p. 100. 3 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 20, "itivrtte yathā avasthāh pancār ambhādikāh smrtrh/ arthaprakrtayah pañca tathā bijādikā api!/

118 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the kāryāvasthās and the arthaprakrtis are mirroring the itivrtta in its entirety but each does it from a different angle. Abhinavagupta's definition of bīja is a rather faithful elabora- tion of NS's short formula. He holds that such a thing which at the beginning of a play, due to an absence of an awareness of its deep motive, is feared to be little and insignificant; which is sown through a dialogue and which invariably develops into fruit and which ever since spreads in many ways and extends by all means, is called bīja (seed or germ). The bija proceeds with the spirit of gaining fruit even if the success or fruit itself has been obstructed. It is deposited like a seed by the first insertion and in accordance with place, time and propriety. Finally an action (kārya) based upon numerous means takes place for its sake according to a rule of a water-drawing machine which brings down the well ever new empty container and brings them up full of water.1 Abhinava ends his definition of biju putting an equation mark between the fruit and the bīja. He says that the bija (seed) is fruit because it is inseparable from the means which will turn it into the fruit.2 As an exam- ple of the bīja Abhinava gives that verse of the Sakuntalā in which the hermits announce in their blessing the fruit which Dușyanta desires, i.e., to become the father of a son destined to be an emperor. On the whole Abhinava well elucidates the utterance of NS. Yet we feel that he does not stress enough an analogy to a plant which seems to be implied by NS. It is because of this that his final equation of the bija with fruit gives an impression of a breathtaking speed in assembling the logical links permitting such an equation. From this point of view introduction of the araghattanyãya concept seems to be altogether off the mark. In order to assess better Abhinava's opinion let us recall to mind the original definition of bīja: "That which scattered (or sown) in a small measure, expands

1 NŚ. GOS, III. p. 13 "yad vastu, sāgarikā antahpuranivās (en) asamaye gambhiraprayojanasamvedanābhāvāt svalpamātram akimcitkara- prāyam samkyate samvādenotsrstam prakşiptam yathāyaśyam phalāntārn, yato bahubhih prakārāir visarpaty eva sarvathā prasarati, yat tat siddhis tat phalam api yadi nirudhya phalatvena pravartate prathamaprakșepeņāiva desakālāucityāpekşāis tad bījavan nyasya araghatțaparivartananyāyena bahutaropāyaparamparopari kāryam eva yasya apekşyam tad bījam/" 2 Ibid. "phalam api ca bhavişyadupāyāvinābhāvāt bljam ity ucyate!"

The Plot 119

itself in various ways and ends in fruition, is called the Germ (bīja)."1 A seed expands into a plant. This analogy is beyond question. No seed develops into a theoretically thin sprout without branches and leaves which, after reaching certain height, yields a fruit. Each seed grows into the complex struc- ture of a plant with branches, leaves, thorns and flowers. It is never reduced to that pure vital force which works within it and which urges it to grow, and to give fruit. The complex structure of a tree cannot exist without that vital force which makes it grow. On the other hand, a pure vital force can be extricated from a plant only theoretically in the form of a vec- tor of its growth. Practically this vital force is inseparable from the plant. An action has the same features. Each action springs up from a seed in the form of an initial idea or event. It grows, it branches off into many implications and consequ- ences. It covers itself with the leaves of hope, with the thorns of setbacks and with the flowers of friendship and love. All these elements in their turn, like leaves that feed the trunk, feed that basic urge of a forward thrust aimed at fruition of an action. A tree will not grow without leaves. An action will never bring a concrete fruit without becoming itself a concrete action built of concrete events. This is in our view the meaning of NŚ's analogy. The bija in this interpretation depicts the struc- ture of an entire action no more limited to the theoretical concept of the five avasthäs merely picturing its progress but conceived as a pattern of all concrete and complex events. Thus bija appears to be the most universal, and, therefore, the most important of the five arthaprakrtis. As a matter of fact the remaining four of them are only the most important four as- pects of the bija. Such a point of view received the most forceful support from NS itself, which in its description of the sandhis relates all of them to the phases in the developmnent of the bīja.2 The bindu according to Abhinavagupta is the knowledge of the joining substance. That knowledge possesses search for its nature and is present in the chief hero. It flows from his

1 NŚ. MMG, XXI. 22, "svalpamātram samursrstam bahudhā yad visarpati| phalāvasānam yac cāiva bījam tat parikīrtitam// 2 We shall discuss the nature of this relationship later.

120 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

ingeniousness of obtaining a fruit and is employed when there is a break in the means by which a fruit is produced; a break caused by something which has to be done because of the requirements of itivrtta. Discussing further the problem of the extent to which the bindu should be employed, Abhinavagupta following the authority of NS, says that it should be employed by a hero till the very attainment of his fruit. Finally, ending his remarks, Abhinava notes that in this way the bindu having a function of the principal, rational and searching device fosters the elements of a play having itself the nature of the most important of them. All this is so because the bindu like a drop of oil pervades all. The last sentence summarises the dis- cussion of both the bija and the bindu. Here Abhinava says that the bija should be caused to originate from the mukha- sandhi and subsequently the bindu should be caused to originate. This is their special feature, as well as this that both of them spread over the entire itivrtta.1 The foremost and practically the only serious objection to this interpretation concerns the view that the bindu is a device left to the exclusive use of the chief hero. The injunctions of NŚ concerning the itivrtta are meant for the poets. It is, there- fore, much more natural to understand the bindu as an element of the structure of the plot, given to the disposal of a poet. For it seems only just to let a poet decide whether to coun- teract that break of the means which produce a fruit through a hero himself or through anyone else among the characters of a play. Another point of Abhinava's exposition which demands criticism is his comparison of the bindu to a drop of oil.2 It is difficult to understand why should it be that drop of oil evenly

1 NŚ. GOS, v. III. p. 13-4. "prayujyate phalam yāir upāyānuşthānāih teşām itivrttavašād avaśyakartavyatādibhir vicchede 'pi sati yad anusan- dhānātmakam pradhānanāyakagatam sandhidravyajñanam bindu, jñāna- vicāraņam phalalābhopāyatvād! yāvad avicchedah pratyanusandhānena (na) krtas tāvan na kincid api kāryam nirvahati ..... | (bindoh sthitiķ) yāvat svasya phalasya samyagāptis tāvat | ..... / ity evam pradhānānusandhāna- cetanavyāpārah kāranānugrāhi svayam ca paramakāraņasvabhāvas tāila- binduvat sarvavyāp akatvād api binduh | bījam ca mukhasandher eva pravartyātmānam unmeşayati bindus tadanantaram iti višeșo 'nayoh,dve api tu samastetivrttavyāpakeļ" 2 The same criticism will concern ND and DR and all those who use the same comparison.

The Plot 121

spread on the surface of water, since according to Abhinava's own view it appears only when there is a break in the means which produce a fruit. It may be mentioned here that Abhinava unnecessarily uses for each of the arthaprakrtis a different image. In the case of bīja it was a water-drawing machine, now it is the drop of oil, and in case of the patākā it will be a banner. It would certainly be better to keep a uniform imagery in all these comparisons in order to avoid confusion which may lead to a belief that all these elements are not interrelated. The assertion of Abhinava that both the bija and the bindu spread over the entire itivrtta is meaningful. For it should be remembered that Abhinava has already criticised the view which took the arthaprakrtis for the portions of a whole play. Here he seems to yield to this view at least in the interpretation of the two first arthaprakrtis. Besides in his interpretation of the bindu Abhinava goes considerably further than in the case of the bīja. Discussing the bīja Abhinava added little that could not be sanctioned by the basic text. But his treatment of the bindu has been much more liberal. The original definition of the bindu does not sanction his view, i.e., that the bindu is pradhānanāyakagata. The verse in question runs as follows: "The cause which liquidates the disruption when it occurs with regard to the aims (or means of attainment) as far as the end of composition, is called a drop (bindu).1 Shastri explaining DR's statement 'binduh jale tāilabinduvat prasāritvāt' writes that 'though the bindu is a technical term here, yet it is termed according to its literal sense also, for it spreads itself like a drop of oil upon the surface of water." As we already know, Abhinavagupta and, following his footsteps, ND repeat this comparison. By now we know well what to think about it. Still it may be useful to add that if we accept this to be the meaning of bindu, then there will hardly be any difference between bija and bindu. For bija too is said to expand itself, and it may become somewhat frustrating to look for a difference between expanding and spreading. Bhoja's explanation, as Dr. Raghavan points out, is better. Bhoja

1 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 23, "prayojanānām vicchede yad avicchedakāraņam| yāvat samåptir bandhasya sa binduḥ parikīrtitah//" 2 Shastri, DR, p. 24.

122 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

compares bindu to the drop of water dripping continuously or the drops of ghee falling at intervals in the flames of a fire which they keep burning without break.1 We readily subscribe to Bhoja's view and choose tò elaborate upon his first compari- son. His complete opinion on that matter can be put as follows: "the drop of water, i.e., dripping water is the cause of an uninterrupted (progression) of actions which are characterised by fluidity."2 The aim of our elaboration of this comparison is to reconcile it with a tree-like image of itivrtta which was suggested by the concept of bīja. To fulfil this need bindu has been conceived as an all-sustaining drop of water without which no plant can grow and which, having been assimilated by it, becomes a drop of juice circulating in the plant and allowing it to regenerate whenever it is broken or cut. It becomes then a drop of resin exuding upon incision and there- by healing it. Thus bindu appears to be a general tendency underlying itivrtta which guarantees its desired fulfilment. In other words bindu is a continuous reassurement that whenever something endangers an attainment of the aim of itivrtta it shall be successfully eliminated. Bindu therefore is not a techni- cal device attached to the person of a hero but it is a structural device describing the nature (prakrti) of the matter (artha) of itivrtta and it is defined for the use of a poet. It is rather difficult to extricate bindu from the body of a play for most often the same elements of a play may have features of more than one arthaprakrti.3 Yet sometimes when an 'incision' of an adverse event cuts deeply into the body of the itivrtta and threatens the endeavours of a hero with complete failure, then bindu appears with striking clarity. May be the best example of such bindu in the whole range of Sanskrit drama is that scene of the Sakuntala when enraged Durväsa, in answer to Priyamvadā and Anasūyā, mitigates his, rat first irrevocably destructive, curse. The drop of resin of hope covered the gaping wound inflicted on the cause of the hero by adverse fate. The Mrcchakatika furnishes an equally excellent example. The

1 Raghavan, BSP, p. 597. 2 Ibid , " ...... |pavobinduś cyotan payo' bhişyandalakşaņāyāh kriyāyā avicchedahetuh ....... /" 3 As below-the scene of Durvāsas is also a prakarī. The subsidiary plot of a shampooer is a patākā.

The Plot 123

strangled heroine falls dead. An axe of an adverse fate damages beyond reconstruction the very root of Cärudatta's tree of action. But an infallible bindu as Vasantasenā's miraculous resurrection heals that almost fatal wound. The bindu so con- ceived lasts in the form of an optimistic tendency throughout the entire itivrtta and it manifests itself in the drops of hope which appear here and there and which according to the defini- tion of bindu will always liquidate the disruption inflicted upon the means of attainment of fruit The next two arthaprakrtis hardly yield themselves to diverse interpretations. Both DR and Abhinavabhārati1 fairly strictly follow the original definition of NS which runs as follows : "If a subsidiary plot is designed for the sake of another one (i.e., for the sake of a principal plot), if it subserves the principal plot and if it is composed like it-it (a subsidiary plot) is known as the patākā. (But) if the result (of a subsidiary plot) is only and exclusively meant for the sake of another (i.e., for the sake of the principal plot, such a subsidiary plot), because of an absence of continuity (in it), is called the prakarī."2 Apparently from the comparison of the patāka and the prakarī Abhinava draws a fully justified conclusion that patākā achieves its own aim.3 The prakari to the contrary attends dutifully to the needs of the principal plot4 and does not have its separate aim. Since the patākā has to be composed like the principal plot, i.e., it has to have its own phala and its own distinct action; yet it still remains subservient to the principal plot, therefore, the above conclusion of Abhinavagupta is per- fectly legitimate. As we have already said, Abhinavagupta considers the bīja and the bindu exceptional in so far as they spread over the entire

1 NŚ. GOS, v.III. p. 15. Shastri, DR, p. 15, DR treats patākā and prakarī under prāsańgika itivrtta. 2 NŚ. GOŚ, XIX. 24-5. "yad vrttam tu parārtham syāt pradhānasyopakārakam) pradhānavac ca kalpyeta sā patāketi kīrtitā// phalam prakalpyate yasyāh parārthāyāiva kevalam/ anubandhavihīnatvāt prakariti vinirdišet|/" 3 NS. GOS, v.III. p. 15. "yasya sambandhi vrttam samvidanusandhānam parasya prayojanasampattaye bhavad api svaprayojanam sam-

· Ibid." ... parārtham eva kevalam sarvam anutişthati sā prakarī/" pādayatì/"

124 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

itivrtta. NŚ's description of patākā confirms this opinion. It says that patākā should not last beyond the vimarsasandhi although it can spread over the remaining four sandhis.1 In contrasting the character of the hija and the bindu with that of the patākā and the prakarī Abhinava remains faithful to his original interpretation of the arthaprakrtis as the means to an end. Their importance may vary, nevertheless they remain the five different means, i.e., the five separate entities which may freely be compared. Such an attitude in our view is erroneous. For the bīja as we have already noted, is the itivrttā itself expressed in terms of the arthaprakrtis, and all the other arthaprakrtis co-define it. Yet we can accept Abhinava's dis- tinction in so far as we consider both the patāka and the prakarī as the elements which are somewhat external to the basic plot and in addition optional in their use. Viewing it from this angle, we can state after Abhinavagupta that the spread of the patākā in the itivrtta is of limited nature. But let it be remem- bered in this connection that the patākā has to be considered a lasting element of the plot, though limited to the four sandhis only. Its exclusion from the last sandhi seems to be dictated by a desire not to obscure the attainment of the chief aim. It was comparatively easy to come to a conclusion with regard to the nature of the patākā. The problem of the prakurī is somewhat more complicated. Neither NS nor Abhinavabhāratī say directly when it should begin and for how long should it last. In order to obtain an answer to these questions we have to analyse more carefully the definition of the prakarī as it is found in NS. Specially helpful in this connection will be the following two terms used in that definition. One is anubandha- vihinatva, i.e., the lack of continuity or duration, and another pakari one is the very name of this arthaprakrti-the prakarī. In our view it is a nominal derivative of the feminine gender from the root kr with the prefix pra which means to scatter, to strew or to throw about. Thus it may mean 'the one scattered about.' That "about" in our concrete case will mean the itivrtta. Dr. Raghavan relating Bhoja's view on that matter says that prakarī is explained as being similar to a prakara or the heap of flowers strewn on the bed for its beauty and fragrance. We

I NŚ. GOS, XIX. 29

The Plot 125

fully agree with Dr. Raghavan that the explanation of the metaphor involved in the name is not satisfactory.1 Yet linguis- tically speaking, Bhoja was looking in the proper direction, although he was carried too far away by his fertile poetic imagination. Abhinava's opinion concerning itivrttavyāpakatva of the bija and bindu exclusively, holds good in this case too. For the prakarī cannot be said to spread through the itivrtta, but as stated above it may be scattered at several places in it. Yet it is important to remember that theoretically speaking the prakarī can accompany the main plot during its entire duration. But then, of course, it will become many prakarīs and practical considerations will never allow so many prakarīs to be intro- duced as to contradict the statement of Abhinavagupta. Returning to our image of the plant-like itivrtia we shall try to accommodate in it both the patākā and the prakarī. The meaning of the term prakarī must have by now become fairly clear. But patākā -* a banner, hardly fits either the itivrtta understood literally, i.e., as an action or figuratively as a plant of action. This prompts us to look for some other meaning of this term which would fulfil better, at least one of these demands. In our view its meaning has to be in some way co- relative to the meaning of the word prakarī The word patākā meaning an emblem or a banner is derived from the root pat.2/ This derivation remains true for the technical term of NS with a little amendation made possible by the fact that the root pat has many meanings. One of these meanings is to occur, to come to pass, to happen. Thus patākā of NS appears to be a nominal derivative of the feminine gender from the root pat and in our case it means 'one that has come to pass', being at the same time a perfect correlative to the term prakarī which as we remember means 'one that is scattered about'. Such an understanding of these terms receives strong support in the form of the technical difference between them which practically can be reduced to the anubandhavihinatva of the prakari, i.e., to the difference in the duration of both episodes. This is exactly the opinion of Dhanañjaya although his commentator upholds the old comparison of the patākā to a banner.3 1 Ranghavan, BSP, p. 598. 2 "patyate jñāyate kasyacit bhedo'nayāļ" Uņādi Sūtras, 4. 14. 3 Shastri, DR, p. 15.

126 Coucept of Ancient Indian Theatre

As we can see the names of the patākā and the prakarī are not related to the itivrtta conceived as a plant but refer to the basic meaning of the itivrtta, i.e., action. Applying this figura- tive imagery to the arthaprakrtis under discussion we shall find a convenient analogy to patākā in the creeper1 which envelops the trunk and thick branches of a tree but leaves free the most tender, fruit-yielding branches of it (nirvahanasandhi). The famous sub-plot of Sugrīva in the Rāmā yana may serve as an example here. The prakarī or rather the prakarīs in their turn result from a particular surrounding of our tree of action which does not stand alone but usually grows in a dense jungle of tree-like actions of other men. The branches of these actions- trees criss-cross the branches of the main itivrtta. Sometimes they obstruct the growth of the main tree of action and some- times they support and shield it. The Sakuntal provides good examples of the prakarīs conceived in this way. The tree of Duşyanta's itivrtta is surrounded by the iftvrttas of Durvāsas, Kaśyapa, Fisherman and last but not least Indra. These iti- vrttas happen outside the drama but although Kālidāsa has, so to speak, focussed his camera on the tree of Dusyanta's action, yet the branches of other actions-trees come into the picture. We see the vigorous and thorny branch of Durvasas' action almost crushing the tender and most sensitive sprouts of Duşyanta's action. Three remaining itivrttas with their branches lend support to the main one. Some are low near the root, some support branches and some the heavy bunches of fruit. Thus both patākā and prakarī fit well into the general picture of the itivrtta and as we can clearly see they further define the nature (prakrti) of the matter (artha). For they reflect two aspects more of a complicated process which a pure action of the five avasthas becomes in the reality of life. Kārya, the last arthaprakrti, is a trifle confusing. The very source of this confusion can be traced to the brief enunciation

1 This analogy finds support in the field of architecture. Dr. V.S. Pathak of Banaras Hindu University drew my attention to the Kaliñjar Nilakantheśwara Temple Inscription which contains a following passage : "gangāpatrapatākā hāimavatī šālabhañjikā yasmin"/ This according to Dr. Pathak is an element of a portal, i.e., a creeper-frieze framing the door. Unhappily Acharya's Dictianary of Indian Architecture is silent on this point. The said inscription was to be published in Epigraphica Indica, XXI.

The Plot 127

of NŚ which defines kārya. The verse in question runs as follows: "yad ādhikārikam vastu samyak prājnāih prayujyateļ tadartho yah samārambhas tat kāryum parikīrtitam|/"1 The pro- blem is further complicated by the existence of a variant reading which has vrttam instead of vastu. That variant has been chosen by the editor of the Nirnaya Sagar Press edition of NS2 and adopted by Ghosh in his translation of NS.3 Still the difficulties do not end here. One more problem is posed by the very name of this arthaprakrti which appears to be identical with a term earlier introduced in the same chapter and undoub- tedly denoting action.4 To begin with let us familiarise ourselves with the views of Abhinavagupta. "The subject-matter (vastu), which is carried towards (prayujyate) the shape of fruit by the wise, i.e., the chief hero, a hero of an episode and a hero of an incident-the sentient beings, (which) is accomplished and while being accomplished is searched for-such means of attaining fruit phalaprayojanah), giving fullness to the fruit of adopted earlier basic strategems called bīja, (as well as the) entire matter beginning with materials, acts and qualities expressed by the . word "arambha" meaning "is produced", (which is) of help to it is called kārya. For kārya means that a fruit is produced (kāryate) by the sentient beings ..... Therefore, an empire, a treasury, a fortress and other manifold operations (as well as) the category of means of conciliation etc .- all these come under the purview of kārya."5

1 NŚ. GOS, XIX. 26. 2 NŚ. KM, XIX.27. 3 NŚ. MMG, XXI.26. 4 NŚ. GOS, XIX.14 "sarvasyāiva hi kāryasya prārabdhasya phalār- thibhih|etās tv anukrameņāiva pañcāvasthā bhavanti hil/" 5 NŚ. GOS, v. III. 15-6. " .. prājñāih pradhānanāyakapatākānāyakapra- karīnayakāih cetanarūpāiḥ yad vastu phalarūpam prayujyate sampādyate sampādyatvena anusandhīyate tat phalaprayojano yah sampūrņatādāyī pürvaparigrhītasya pradhānasya bījākhyopāyasya phalam, ārabhata ity ārambhasabdavācyo dravyakriyāguņaprabhrtih sarvo'rthah (yasya) sahakārī (tat) kāryam ity ucyate, cetanāiḥ kāryate phalam iti vyutpattyā/ ......! tena janapadakośadurgādikavyāpāravaicitryam sāmādyupāyavarga ity etat sarvam kārye'ntar bhavati/" It seems that Abhinava's rabhate we can safely amend into arabhyate. This is warranted by his subsequent explanation of the word kārya and by the universal practice in similar cases of discussing vyutpatti.

128 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

As we can see Abhinavagupta brings the definition of kārya very close to what might have been the definition of the itivrtta. Yet he is well justified in his approach. Kārya certainly ex- presses the itivrtta in its totality and at this stage our only reservation concerning Abhinava's exposition is that what it says stressing the word "produced" (kāryate) it subsequently dilutes by bringing in all these vague notions of an empire, treasury, fortress, etc. We also feel that in his exposition of the word ārambha (samārambha of the NS) Abhinavagupta was not sufficiently explicit regarding the spirit of an enterprise, urge, energy and effort, which it-according to us-conveys. Apart of that his stress upon the fact that kārya "gives in fullness the fruit of adopted earlier basic strategems called bīja appears to be somewhat controversial. This pronouncement seems to limit kärya in the form of an intensified effort to bring about the fruition of the bija, to the later part of a play. Although Abhinava does not make his position in this respect fully clear, for the means listed by him as belonging to kārya may as well appear at the beginning of a play, yet we are supported in our belief by his earlier enunciation according to which only bija and bindu spread over the entire itivrtta.1 Thus kārya finally emerges as the last stage of action culminating in the attainment of fruit, and as such it may become in a way identical with the phalāgama avasthā. Besides this general objection, there is one more instance at which Abhinava's interpretation invites criticism. Here we have in mind his rendering of the word prajñaih. The entire context of the definition of kārya unmistakably shows that the first word belongs to the same category with words like prayok- trbhih,2 kavibhih,3 budohah,4 nātyakovidāih5 and jñāih,6 which is also used in a compound with prayoga .? All these words appear in the same chapter and all of them either call poets and actors by name (kavi, prayoktr) or allude to them like in the case of

1 NŚ. GOS, v. III, p. 14. 2 NŚ. GOS, XIX.7.44.49.147. 3 op. cit, 45.47.68.70.105 also kavina 45 and kavih 140. 4 op. cit, 2.87.131. also budhāih 67. B op. cit, 131. · op. cit, 92.96. " op. cit, 138.

The Plot 129

the second verse of Chapter XIX,1 where budha according to Abhinavagupta himself means a poet.ª These words, repeated endlessly in NS indicate that the whole treatise in general, and the nineteenth adhyaya in particular, is meant for poets and actors.3 Thus all words of this type, when ever their context allows it, should be referred to poets or actors. Consequently the word prjaih in our particular case cannot mean, as Abhinava wants, sentient beings, i.e., heroes, but means the wise or the poets. This is how Ghosh interprets it.4 Before proceeding further we shall consider shortly the opinions of DR and SD.5 The main characteristic feature of their interpretation of kārya is its explicit identification with the kārya of the five avasthas (XIX.14).e Yet having in this

1 op. cit, 2. "itivrttam dvidhā cāiva budhas tu parikalpayetļ" 2 op. cit, v.III,p.2 "budho vivecaka kavir ... " 3 op. cit, v.I,p.8 "kaviprayoktror upadeśaparam śāstram iti lakșyateļ" and p.327. "kavinatasikşārtham eva sarvam idar prakaraņam/" 4 NŚ. MMG, XXI.26. 'experts'. 5 ND simplifies somewhat Abhinava's exposition and says that kārya is all this means which is of assistance to the chief means viz., bija in bring- ing about the fruition. HND, p.80 (I.33.35) 6 The case of DR is opened to discussion. It is so because the verse of DR defining kärya does not have to be interpreted in the way suggested by Dhanika. We have already once pointed out the inconsistency of calling phala a kårya. It is to Dhanika that we owe the concept that kärya is fruit, stemming from an assumption that the trivarga of Dhanañjaya must mean dharma, artha and kāma If we do not consider Dhanika an undisputable authority on the basic text of DR, then we could disregard his opinion and offer our own translation of the verse in question (kāryam trivargas tac chuddham ekānekānubandhi ca). "Action is threefold ; without an obstacle, with one and with many." The word anubandha does not seem to be used here in its technical connotation given to it in NŚ, where it denotes a juncture of patākā (NŚ. MMG, XXI. 28) because DR uses in that case another term, i.e. anusandhi (Haas, DR, 3.31). It is true that DR has also the word anubandha mentioned in the context of patāka (op. cit, 1.21) but it seems to mean 'continuity' there. Besides, the verses which follow the definition of kārya seems to confirm our interpretation. The first of them speaks about bija as the cause (hetu) of Action. The second gives in the form of bindu a remedy in case an Action has obstacles to overcome. (Haas' translation of that verse is wrong and it is rightly criticised by S.N. Shastri, LPSD, p.84n.3). The major shortcoming of Dhanika's interpretation is the problem of suddhakārya. If we accept his view that trivarga means dharma, artha and kama then śuddhakārya seems to be that which is devoid of all the three. This is of

130 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

way extended the duration of karya over the whole itivrtta neither of them abandons the idea of a phala being included in this concept of karyā. Thus kārya becomes equated with the itivrtta or at least becomes the most important, basic element of it. This is corroborated by the fact that Dhanañjaya dis- cusses kārya before bīja and bindu, which he obviously treats as elements of karyā. Although Viśvanātha puts kārya at the end of the five arthaprakrtis, yet he unmistakably indicates its special importance clearly identifying it with the kārya of the five avasthās. Viśvanātha like Dhanañjaya discusses first arthaprakrtis and then avasthas. The opinion of both these authorities is correct in as much as it does not limit kārya to any particular stage of the itivrtta but allows it to spread over the whole of it. If our reinterpretation of the formula of DR is accepted (see the note 1 p. 179) then it will be only SD which will commit an error of including the idea of fruit into the definition of kārya.1 Dr. Ghosh's translation of our definition runs as follows: "The effort made for the purpose of the Principal Plot intro- duced, in a play, by the experts, is called the Denouement (kārya)."2 This rendering invites criticism twice. Firstly when the preference is given by Ghosh to the variant reading vrtta over the reading vastu. Secondly when he takes denouement as an equivalent of kärya. It is difficult to say whether the scrutiny of the manuscripts would support Ghosh in his preference of the word vrtta. We are inclined to believe that since the editors of the Baroda edition of NS had the largest number of manus- cripts at their disposal,3 their preference should normally be binding, unless there exist any special reasons for choosing otherwise. Dr. Ghosh can undoubtedly point out such a reason. We are well familiar with the term ādhikārika vrtta from the

course absurd. Summarising his discussion of the arthaprakrtis, Dhanañ- jaya lists all of them and right after it gives the NŚ's definition of kārya (XIX.44) as consisting of the five avasthås. Thus we can suppose thát Dhanañjaya's interpretation is based, on the identification of kārya of the fourteenth verse of NS with the arthaprakrti of the same name. In this way kärya of DR will not include the idea of fruit. Haas, DR, pp. 8 ff. Shastri, DR, pp. 22 ff. 1 Ballantyne, MC, p. 193 (VI. 69-70). : NŚ. MMG, XXI. 26. 3 NŚ. GOS, v.I. preface.

The Plot 131

earlier passages of the same chapter.1 Nevertheless, this reading does not seem to stand up to critical examination. For if the effort which is called karya is said to be made for the purpose of the principal plot, then we are given to understand that it does not form a part of the principal plot, but stands outside of it. Does it become part of any of the subsidiary plots? This seems to be an undue restriction imposed on kārya. Besides we should remember that the subsidiary plots are optional. What will happen, therefore, if there is no subsidiary plot in the itivrtta? The answer to this query is simple. We cannot speak about an effort being made for the sake of the principal plot because each plot is built of efforts made for the sake of gaining the object of a given plot. In this light the other alternative of an effort being made for the sake of the principal object (vastu) seems to be much more natural and much less confusing. Dr. Ghosh translates kārya as denouement following in this respect Haas. Haas himself must have been misled either by the French origin of this word or by the text of DR, or probably by both together.2 Denouement means a catastrophe, the unravel- ling of the plot or complications and a final solution in a play, novel etc. 'As such it does not concern an object (phala) of a play but the last stage of action in a play. It would, therefore, be much more correct to use this word for the translation of the term phalāgama or nirvahana. Dr. Ghosh's translation will, therefore, be right only in case he will limit kärya to the later part of the plot. Yet this interpretation can by no stretch of imagination be read into NŚ's definition.3 Our own interpretation of the passage in question does not basically differ from that of Dr. Ghosh, although of course, we do not share his preference for the word vrtta. A following prose rendering of the definition of kārya expresses in our view its true meaning. "Yah samārambha samyagprājñaprayuktādhikāri- kavastvarthah syāt, sah samārambhah kāryam astīti yāvat." An enterprise intended for a principal object properly presented by

1 NŚ. GOS, XIX 4. 2 Haas, DR.1.24. see also p. 129 n.5. 3 The enunciations of Dhanañjaya are opened to two interpretations. If we take verse 1.24. as unrelated to verse 1.28. then kārya will mean a fruit only ; otherwise it will stand for the entire action. Consequently in neither case kārya will correspond to denouement.

132 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

the wise, is known as karya (action). Such a definition of, kārya poses an important question concerning the relationship of kārya-the arthaprakrti with kārya-an action. Let us recall in this connection our conclusion reached at the end of the discussion of the avastha scheme. 'The avasthās are in fact an expression of the progress of an action and as such they mark out five elements resulting from a vertical division of a hori- zontal vector of action running from the point at which an action begins towards its completion.1 The stress here is put on the five stages of action. Yet, although separate entities, they are interlinked into one chain of continuity which has been hinted at as a horizontal' vector of action. Each action, besides being a succession of the five separate stages is at the same time a continuous process which owes its continuity to the spirit of an enterprise underlying an entire action. An action in its con- tinuity cannot be expressed in the terms of the five avasthās which stress the distinction and separateness of the five links in a chain of action. Its aspects of continuity are the five artha- prakrtis. Kārya embarked upon for the sake of the concrete principal object of a play loses its non-particular character of the chain of five stages of action and becomes a particularised basic element of continuity called enterprise or undertaking. This interpretation broadens the conception of kārya into a general tendency underlying or pervading each irivrtta. This tendency causes bīja to develop into a full-fledged plant of action and to yield a fruit. In this form kārya can be conveniently compared with bindu. For as bindu represents a factor of unity in the itivrtta, so kārya represents a factor of continuous growth in it. Bindu was compared to a drop of vital juice circulating the plant-like body of the itivrtta. Kärya may be compared to the turgor in each cell of a plant-that internal pressure which makes a plant expand. Such kärya remains in harmony with all other arthaprakrtis. It embodies another aspect of action taking place in the concrete surroundings of real life. It is never a single act of an effort which feeds the whole action with necessary thrust. This effort which in the abstract language of the avasthās is called yatna and placed as the second stage of action needs to be kept through the whole remaining part of

1 See page 114.

The Plot 133

a play-nay, it is also present at the first stage of it. It only culminates in the second stage when, so to speak, the physical beginning of an action takes place. A plant at the beginning grows very fast. The first push of a cart needs the highest measure of energy but if it is to be kept going that energy, although in smaller measure, has to be continuously applied. This is that spirit of an enterprise without which there is no action. The above analysis permits us to consider the five uvasthās as resulting from a vertical division of the vector of action. The arthaprakrtis in their turn are an outcome of a horizontal division of it aiming at a determination of, so to speak, the breadth of that vector of action, the length of which is deter- mined by the five avasthas. In this light Dhananjaya's theory of coambulation of the five avasthas with the five arthaprakrtis respectively into five sandhis proves altogether unacceptable.1 Abhinavagupta2, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra3, and Viśva- nätha1 offer in concert with NS the only proper derivation of the five sandhis. Abhinavagupta says that the five parts of the subject-matter (artha) of a play are conceived in accordance with the division of the five avasthäs and that each sandhi is as much of the subject-matter (artha) as is used during each avasthā.5 Abhinava's view as usual is followed by the authors of ND. Similar also is the opinion of SD which says that "in accor- dance with the five stages of action respectively, there become as many divisions in the business or plot called the five Jun- ctures. The Juncture-in its opinion -- is the connection with an intervening object of the several portions of the business, which all are connected with, or tend to, one principal object."8 Applying to this aspect of the itivrtta the imagery intended by NŚ7 we can say that the five kāryāvasthās are the five vertebrae and the five arthaprakrtis constitute flesh. Together they make a

1 Haas. DR. 1.34. 2 NŚ. GOS, v.III,p. 22-3. 8 HND, p. 94 (1.37.43.). 4 Ballantyne, MC, p. 195 (VI.73-5). 5 NŚ. Ibid." ... rūpakārthasya pañcāmšā avasthābhedena kalpyante/ ...... yå prārambhāvasthā prathamā vyākhyātā tadupayogī yāvān artharāših sa mukhasandhiḥ/ ...... ļevam anyeşu sandhişu vācyam/. 6 Ballantyne. MC, p. 195. 7 NŚ. GOS, XIX,1. "itivrttam tu nātyasya śarīram parikīrtitam/"

134 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

body. The division of the five avasthas projected into the body built of the arthaprakrtis results in the new concept of the five. sandhis. The sandhis do not have an independent existence. They are only a projection of the scheme of pure action unto the whole multiple event which in the sphere of existence enwraps it. It is like an imaginary bamboo-plant five sections tall. The parallel lines drawn through these sections and reach- ing the outermost branches and leaves will outline five portions of the whole plant. These five portions will be comparable to the five sandhis of the itivrtta. The body of a plot is an amalgam of the five arthaprakrtis, the first of which-bīja, is the principal one. The whole plot is conceived as a plant or a creature developing from a seed,-from a bīja. All other arthaprakrtis give simply a more detailed characteristic of the plot. It is not surprising, therefore, that the definitions of the five sandhis are nothing more and nothing less than descriptions of bīja at the five stages of action. These definitions translated by Dr. Ghosh run as follows: "That part of a play, in which the creation of the Germ (bīja) as the source of many objects and sentiments takes place, is called in consideration of its body the Opening (mukha, lit. face). Uncovering of the Germ placed in the Opening, after it has sometimes been perceptible and sometimes lost, is called the Progression ( pratimukha). The sprouting of the Germ, its attainment or non-attainment and search for it, is called the Development (garbha). One's pause (vimarsa, lit. deliberation) over the Germ that has sprouted in the Development (garbha) on account of some temptation, anger or distress, is called the Juncture of that name (i.e. Pause). Bringing together the objects, of the Junctures, such as the Opening (mukha) etc. along with the Germ when they have attained fruition1 is called the Conclusion (nirvahana)."2 The above definitions including these of the kāryāvasthās and arthaprakrtis reflect the regularities of each action. Each

1 Abhinavagupta accepts another version, i.e., 'nānābhāvottarāņām' (followed by many bhävas). This is a much better reading since it is correlative to 'nänärasa' of the mukhasandhi and besides it is supported. by a following verse of the first chapter of NS : "nānābhvopasampannam nānāvasthāntarātmakam ... nāțyam etan maya krtamļ" (112) ; NS. GOS, v.III, p. 29. 2NŚ. MMG, XXI, 38-42.

The Plot 135

scheme of course, idealises the object or objects which it repre- sents. The theoreticians of Nätya were well aware of it and in the form of the eight rūpakas and numerous uparūpakas they accommodated most of the variants of action which only partly answer the demands of the outlined scheme. Practically speaking only nātaka and prakarana are expected to embody a full-fledged action. All other types of plays may have lesser amount of sandhis but never less than two, i.e., the mukha and the nirvahana,1 which seem to be absolutely indispensable in the process of 'acting'. Here we approach a problem of an extra- ordinary importance for our interpretation of Nātya. This is a problem of the deepest significance of each and every action. The mechanism of action has been described above. It remains now to find out what is the ultimate purpose of each action and how our scheme of action can help us to spotlight that purpose. The most obvious conclusion in this respect is that the sense of an action lies in the achievement of fruit or, in other words, it lies in the fulfilment of the desire to acquire a particular fruit. We have already stated while discussing the sacrifice,2 that the existence of desire implies duality or multiplicity which when overcome signifies the fulfilment of desire. It could have already been noticed that the definition of the first sandhi puts stress on the variety or multiplicity of the elements (nānão), among which, of course, a hero and the object of his desire have to be included. That multiplicity comes to an end in the nirvahanasandhi where the nānão of the mukhasandhi becomes samānayana i.e., brought together, integrated, joined or united. Since according to NS at least these two sandhis have to be present in the simplest type of play, they seem to be, therefore, the basic elements of the body of action and as such they prove beyond doubt that each action is a process of uniting the sepa- rated or integrating the multiple into one.3 1 NŚ GOS, XIX, 47. 2 See page 100 ff. B It may not be out of place to note here that the very word samāpta or samāpti denoting end conveys a similar idea. The prefix sam stands for conjunction, union or completeness. The verb åp means to reach, to obtain, to meet, to take posssesion of etc. This term may be conveniently contrasted with the word anta, which denotes limit, death and destruction. This word never signifies a completion of action ; to express it the first term is employed.

136 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

In the foregoing pages we attempted to show that the theory of the itivrtta has been laid down following an analytical enquiry into the nature of action. As a result of that enquiry there has been established a set of principles which characterise each and every action. That set of principles, therefore, can be rightly considered as depicting a universal aspect of action which is epitomised. in each concrete performance of Nātya. Thus we touch upon the very core of our interpretation of Nātya. For, as it has been shown in the preceding chapter, this universal aspect of action is set out by the sacrifice itself which can rightly claim to be the primordial action, and there- fore, a pattern for all subsequent happening in the Universe. This aspect of the sacrifice has been already discussed on these pages. It will, therefore, suffice to compare the conclusions reached in both cases in order to find out whether Nātya really is an integral part of the reality which owes its form to the central concept of the sacrifice. Conceived as an archetypal action, the sacrifice had set a following pattern for the course of all future actions; desire, effort and continuation of it, disruption and final completion. The analysis of action conducted in NS has yielded similar results. The basic element of the mukhasandhi is āutsukya, i.e., desire or eagerness to enter upon a particular action aimed at the achievement of a particular fruit. The second stage as viewed by NŚ does not require any comments-it is called yatna, i.e., an effort. The third one is the possibility of success which appears as the result of the continuation of the effort applied at the former stage. The fourth stage, called the restric- tion of an attainment (niyatäpti), corresponds to that stage of the sacrifice at which the attacks of the Asura-Rākşasas endanger its completion. The last stage signifies in both cases the achieve- ment of a fruit for the sake of which either the sacrifice or a sacrifice-like action has been embarked upon. This similarity of the course of both the sacrifice and action as embodied in Nātya naturally entails identity of their deepest significance. Both Yajña and Natya bring an end to the multiplicity. Yajña does it on the metaphysical level through the reconstruction of Prajāpati's body. Nātya epitomises it, generalising on the stage the experience of that same process reflected in the mirror of human existence in the form of numberless human actions.

The Plot. 137

Bringing on the stage the fulfillment of a particular desire Nätya projects it through the prism of the aesthetic experience which amplifies it to an intensity of awareness of that basic metaphysical unity which causes the fulfilment of all desires and which is the only destiny of all actions.1

The problem of the absence of tragedy on the ancient Indian stage as envisaged by the works on dramaturgy is directly con- nected with the above outlined concept of Nātya. The explana- tions of this problem which are usually offered can almost without exception be reduced to the general statement that a tragic end is incompatible with the Hindu view of life. True as it is, this opinion requires some elucidation. The best so far has been offered by Dr. Dasgupta. "A drama as a work of art was regarded as a whole, as a cycle complete in itself. A drama ending with disastrous consequences would be a muti- lated piece from the world of our experience-it would merely mean that the cycle has not been completed, or that it is only a partial view and not the whole ...... Thus the five critical situa- tions-sandhis-co.stitute a unity, an epitome of our life as a whole. Life has its crises, its difficulties and disappointments, but we have always to be hopeful regarding the final fulfilment. The drama is thus the reflection of life as a whole from the Indian point of view and contains its own philosophy."2 By now we know how true this statement is and where to look for the sources of this philosophy of drama. We know further that the fullest form of the view of life which Nātya as a whole reflects is expressed in the concept of Yajña. Since Yajña must reach a positive conclusion, it cannot therefore be overrun by the adverse forces of the Asuras, for then the disintegrated body of the Lord of Creatures will not be reconstructed and the whole order of the Universe will be perilously disturbed. Nātya is supposed to reflect this nature of the world to such an extent that it is itself called a sacrifice3 so that it cannot

1 This statement will be elaborated upon in the subsequent chapter. 2 Dasgupta-De, HSL, p. LXXXI-LXXXII. 3 NŚ. GOS, v.108 see p. 212. It is interesting to note in this connection that Abhinavagupta also considers Natya a sacrifice. op. cit, v.II,p. 383 (nāțyavedamahāsattra).

138 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

disregard this pattern and consequently be an untrue represen- tation of the Three Worlds.1 In this light Bhavabhuti hardly deserves the epithet of a fool so lavishly bestowed on him by Shekhar, who criticises the composition of the Uttararamacarita.2 It is true that his epoch and to certain extent he himself may be blamed for choosing a comparatively easy way of giving expression to this view of life. Especially so, when one of his illustrious predecessors in the field of drama who had as difficult a problem as Bhavabhūti himself, could tackle it without trying to smooth out the complexity of the original conflict which he adopted for his play. The Orubhanga ascribed to Bhāsa is a perfect example that adherence to the basic philosophical concepts of Nātya did not in earlier stages cripple poets in their treatment of the realities of life. If the Orubhanga is a complete composition3 it proves that for Bhāsa, Nātya was truly reflecting reality and was in no way its distortion. The changes of the plot and of the characteristic of the dramatis personae do not tend to smooth the work of a dramatist as it is in case of the Sakuntalā. To the contrary, the author of the Orubhanga further compli- cates his task by creating a deeply human Duryodhana who in no way resembles the standard evil Rāksasas of the later dramas. Yet in spite of such a sympathetic treatment of Duryo- dhana his death at the end of the play is not tragic.ª The death of Duryodhana does not have features of irrevocability and finality. He simply leaves this world for the better one. He is

1 This interpretation does not render invalid Keith's explanation. He writes : "The fact that Sanskrit drama insists on happy ending is unques- tionabiy most effectively explained if it be brought into connexion with the fact of the origin of drama in a passion play whose end was happiness through death not grief." (SD, p. 38). That happiness according to Keith is due to the victory of good over bad ; victory of Krsna over Kamsa or spring over winter, from which motives that passion play origi- nates. This explanation of the origin of ancient Indian theatre may well be true provided it is viewed in a broader context of the dāivăsuram con- flict which we accept following Dr. Raghavan's opinion, as the most probable source of the Sanskrit theatre. see p. 61, n2. 2 Shekhar, SDOD, p. 169. 3 This is a subject of controversy See Dasgupta-De, HSL. p. 717. * Keith is right when he says that this end is not tragic. Yet it is not happy eitber. SD, p. 38.

The Plot 139

well satisfied with his life which he evaluates. But that evalua- tion neither ends in helpless wailing nor in repentance. Says Duryodhana: " ... . pride is the very body of kings and for pride alone I took to war."1 The whole story of this play has the air of an objective account of events made from the point of view of the vanquished Kāuravas. Krsņa and the Pāņdavas are censored but there is not a trace of the tendency to judge life in black and white terms as in the later dramas. Never was Rāvana depicted in a way similar to Duryodhana. The manner in which the conflict of the Pandavas and Kāuravas is handled in the Orubhanga recalls to memory the dāivāsuram battles. There are, of course, victors and defeated in them. But the gods engaged in the conflict hardly betray any moral superiority over their adversaries. In the Obruhanga the Kāuravas are shown as an opposing force and not as the wretched enemies of both blameless gods and Pāndavas. They had to be defeated, for in the dãivasuram conflicts gods win and the Asuras lose. The defeat and death of the Käuravas are in harmony with the rhythm of the whole Universe. A dāivāsuram battle determined by the order of creation has been fought. The gods won and the Asuras lost. Now they are at rest and the universal harmony is temporarily restored. This seems to be the true meaning of this so called tragedy which probably represents the oldest kind of dramatic performance composed still in the very spirit of the dāivāsuram conflict.

Another problem connected with this interpretation of the itivrtta is the meaningful association of Indra and Sarasvatī with a hero and a heroine respectively.2 This problem can be explained convincingly only with reference to the dāivāsuram conflict and its association with Nātya. Indra is the uncontestable hero of the dãivāsuram conflict. Nothing, therefore, prevents us from believing that Indra was also a chief hero of the first performance which as we remember was a representation of the victory of the gods over the Asuras. Thus the association of Indra and nāyaka in each of subsequent

1 Orubhanga, ed., and transl. by C.R. Devadhar, Poona, 1940. I.62-3 ; "mānašarīrā rājānah mānārtham evamayā nigraho grhītah/. 2 NŚ. GOS, I, 97. "nāyakam rakşati indrastu nāyikām ca sarasvatī/"

140 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

performances, which as we have already shown, is in a way always a representation of some or other manifestation of the Universal conflict between the gods and the Asuras, does not need further comment for the time being. It is Sarasvati who in this particular association seems to be somewhat a mystery. Yet the moment we consider her presence in Nätya in the light of her Brähmanic association with Indra, the mystery will become transparent. If our conclusion concerning the antiquity of the kernel of the first adhyāya of NS is accepted then there can be little doubt left as to the identity of the Sarasvati of NS with the Brähmanic goddess of the same name. The association of our Sarasvati with Indra makes the possibility of her being directly identical with the river Sarasvati remote. Since it is difficult to detect any meaningful relationship between Indra and this river goddess. This fact makes the idea of the existence of any Rgvedic source of this association also very improbable since as Macdonell puts it "there is nothing to show distinctly that Sarasvati is ever anything more in the Rgveda than a river goddess and even then her only association with Indra comes through väc."1 Post-Brahmanic association of Indra and Saras- vatī is also negligible and overshadowed by the unusual relationship of that goddess with her father Brahma.2 Thus the goddess Sarasvatī of the Brahmanas, usually identified with Vc.3 appears to be identical with the goddess Sarasvati of NS. ŚB has the following passages: "Now the gods and the Asuras, both of them sprung from Prajäpati entered upon their father Prajäpati's inheritance: the gods came in for Mind and the Asuras for Speech. Thereby the gods came in for the sacri- fice and the Asuras for speech; the gods for yonder (heaven) and the Asuras for this (earth). The gods said to Yajña (m. the sacrifice), 'That Väk (f. speech) is a woman; beckon her and she will certainly call thee to her ... Say to her, 'Come hither to me where I stand' and report to us her having come. She went up to where he was standing ... He reported to them her having come, saying, 'She has indeed come'. The 1 Macdonoll, VM, p. 87. 2 Hopkins, EM. * ŚB, 4.5.8.10; 5.2.2.13-4; 5.3.4.25; 5.3.5.8; 7.5.1.31; 11.2.4.9; 11.2.6.3; 13.1.8.5; 14.2.1.15. Keith, RVBr, pp. XLV; 153; 264; 371; 405; 417; 426.

The Plot 141 gods then cut her off from the Asuras; and having gained possession of her and enveloped her completely in fire, they offered her up as a holocaust, it being an offering of the gods. And in that they offered her with an anustubh verse, thereby they made her their own; and the Asuras being deprived of Speech were undone crying, 'He lavah, he lavah'."1 "They, Ādityas, brought Väc (Speech) to them, Angiras, for their sacri- ficial fee. They accepted her not saying, We shall be loser if we accept her' ... Now Väc was angry with them, 'In what respect, forsooth, is that one, Sürya, better than 1,-wherefore is it, that they should have accepted him and not me?' So saying she went away from them. Having become a lioness she went on seizing upon (everything) between those two contending parties, the gods and the Asuras. The gods called her to them, and so did the Asuras ... Being willing to go over to the gods, she said, 'What would be mine, if I were to come over to you?'-'The offering will reach thee even before (it reaches) Agni.' She then said to the gods, 'Whatsoever blessing you will invoke through me, all that shall be accomplished unto you.' So she went over to the gods.": Probably on the strength of these and similar other passages Keith concluded that Speech forms a ground of contest between the gods and the Asuras but the gods finally win her.3 Thus many dāivasuram wars are fought for the possession of Speech. The question now arises what has made Speech so important that the gods deemed it worthwhile to fight the Asuras for her sake. ŚB quotes the following mantra of the Vājasaneyi (V.14) and Rgveda (V.81.1) Samhitas: "They harness the mind and they harness the thought". B offers the following gloss to this passage: "With the mind and with speech they truly perform the sacrifice." When he says, 'They harness the mind', he harnesses the mind when he says, 'and they harness the thoughts', (dhi), he harnesses speech; for it is thereby that people seek to make their living in accordance with their respective intelligence (dhi), either by reciting (the Veda), or by readiness of speech, or by songs,-with those two thus harnessed

1 ŚB, 3.2.1.18-23. * ŚB, 3.5.1.18-22. * Keith, RPVU, p. 456.

142 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

they perform the sacrifice."1 Still elsewhere ŚB will say: "That same fire, then, they have kindled (thinking), 'In it, when kindled we will sacrifice to the gods'. In it, indeed, he makes these first two oblations 'to Mind and Speech (or Voice); for Mind and Speech when yoked together convey the sacrifice to the gods. Now what is performed (with formulas pronounced) in a low voice, by that the mind conveys the sacrifice to the gods; and what is performed (with formulas) distinctly uttered by speech, by that the speech conveys the sacrifice to the gods. And thus takes place here a twofold performance whereby he gratifies these two thinking, 'gratified and pleased these two shall convey the sacrifice to the gods."2 But ,who finally are these two and what is their connection with our problem? As an answer to this query we shall once more quote a passage of ŚB. "Indra, assuredly is the mind, and Sarasvatī speech ...... "3 Thus the sacrifice cannot be accomplished without Indra and Sarasvati. Because as Mind and Speech they are mutually inter- dependent, for with Mind one sets Speech in motion, with Speech set in motion by Mind he provides the oblation for the gods."4 The communion between Indra (Mind) and Sarasvati (Speech) is so close that the Kāuşītaki Brāhmana actually identified Indra with Speech.5 The meaning of the association of Indra and Sarasvati with the hero and heroine of Ntya becomes now abundantly clear Each performance is a dãivāsuram conflict in its course and sacrifice in its meaning. In each performance, therefore, the union of a nāyaku with a nāyika is as substantial as the unior of Indra with Väc-Sarasvati which, brought about through the victory over the demons in the dāivāsuram struggle, is ar integral part of each sacrifice.6

1 ŚB, 3.5.3.11. 2 ŚB, 1.4.4.1-2. 3 ŚB. 13.9.1.13. 4 Keith, RVBr, p. 138. 5 op. cit, p. 354. € The intimate relationship of Indra and Väc-Sarasvati seems to allou us to take her as being identical with Indrāņi. Both Sarasvati and Indrān are identified with Vāc (Macdonell, BD, p. 51, ff11.72ff). Both are asso ciated with the Maruts (Macdonell, VM, p. 78). Besides Indrāni seems tr have had rather meagre independent existence and her name appears to b a simple epithet of the wi'e of Indra (Ibid.) If we admit such a possibilit

The Plot 143

The world is Yajña. Yajña makes the world. It sets the pattern for all whatever happens in it. Yajna rules the world. Natya represents such a world. It has, indeed, been given a perfect shape to fulfil this task, for it restates in the language of the technique of art the most substantial truths enshrined in the sacrifice. Such Ntya is an epitome of the entire cycle of existence-never tragic, because there is no place for tragedy in the universal Yajña of existence which is conducted through its course to a fulfilment when Mind and Speech or Indra and Sarasvatī are yoked together for its sake. Nātya was created in the likeness of the sacrifice, its heroes and heroines-in the like- ness of Indra and Sarasvati. What it has to convey to men is the truth, the entire and exact truth, about the nature of the world. But how does it happen for all those who cannot or will not follow the tortuous path of intellectual speculation? Let us try to answer this question.

in spite of lack of any explicit identification of these two, then a Rgvedic hymn about Indra, Indrāņī and Vrşākapi (RV, 10.72, p.153ff. v.VI) can acquire some meaning for Nätya. Consequently it may not be altogether unjustified to suppose that there is some kind of relationship between Vrşākapi and Vidūșaka. Both are heroe's or Indra's beloved friends. Both incur the anger of heroe's pariner, Indrani, heroine. Finally both are compared to monkey. This would give a new strength to the hypo- thesis made almost half a century ago by Gawroński (PDI, p. 30-32) that Vrsākapi is a prototype of Vidūşaka.

I0

THE ESSENCE (RASA)

The foregoing discussion can be summarised in the following way: Nätya faithfully reflects both the course and the ultimate destination of all happenings in the Universe. Since Yajña is the nature of this happening, therefore, Natya termed NB the nature of the world itself,1 has to present all the characteristic features of the sacrifice. Nātya fulfils this requirement, epitomising the interminable universal process in which the multiplicity characterising creation eventually disappears. As we have repeatedly stated, this universal process is identical with the sacrifice which is conceived as a reconstruction or replenishment of the primeval entity who became many for the sake of creation.2 This process in the context of an indivi- dual means the fulfilment of his desires, for it is through desire that the multiplicity affects an individual. Consequently the fulfilment of desire which is identical with momentary merger of multiplicity allows man to experience the bliss of the unevolved Absolute. The Vedas and the Brähmanas, which according to us form the proper background for the earliest theory of Nätya, are an overwhelming testimony of the striving of man for the fulfilment of his desires. This tendency is embodied in the very Yajña itself which is rightly said to exha- ust desire through the enjoyment of desires.8 To repeat, Yajña is an operation of universal metaphysical significance, aiming

1 NŚ. GOS, 1.119 º As the Mäitri Upansiad says: "Verily that one became threefold. He developed forth eightfold, elevenfold, twelvefold, into an infinite number of parts. Because of having developed forth. He is a created being (bhüra), has entered into and moves among created beings." 3 Keith, AA, p. 199.

The Essence 145 . at the fulfilment of all desires through the reconstruction of the body of the Lord of Creatures. Advancing further in time we can see that this point of view still to a certain extent lin- gers in the Upanisads and is indirectly acknowledged by their Adväitic interpretation. In order to hint at the highest bliss of the Absolute the Brhadāranyka Upanişad says, "As a man when in the embrace of a beloved wife, knows nothing within or without, so this person when in the embrace of the intelli- gent soul knows nothing within or without."! Thus the fulfil- ment of one of the most powerful desires of man is comparable to the highest bliss of the Absolute. Yet we can infer that this is not an empty comparison, since the Tāittirīya Upanișad considers the fulfilment of all earthly desires (conceived as the happiness of a young and powerful emperor) 'the unit of human joy; the endless multiplication of which results finally in the Brahmānanda.2 Sankara puts it even more explicitly when he comments on this passage saying that "even worldly bliss is a particle of the bliss that is Brahman."3 Similarly another commentator, Upanisad-brabmā-yogin stresses that "there is no worldly bliss apart from Brahmānanda, for it contains all particles of bliss." Of course, in the Vedantin's case a stress is put on the negative idea of a particle as the most negligible fragment of the highest bliss. Yet this attitude willy-nilly supports our contention that Brahmānanda-like joy, rewarding the fulfilment of an earthly desire, has never been contested even by those who considered it negligible beyond description. All that we have said about Nātya unmistakably defines it as a glorification of action which aims at the fulfilment of desire. Such a concept of Nātya owes its existence to the great optimism of the Vedic and Brähmanic ages, which is so well

1 Hume, TPU, p. 82, 1.4.6. 2 Gambhīra, EU, v. I, p. 365. Dasgupta underlines that all desires belong to the same category of kāma and sex-desires also stand on the plane as any other desire. (HIP, v. I, p. 57). 3 Gambhira, EU, v. I, p. 366. for "Brahman becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss." 4 Daśopanişad, ed. C.K. Raja, Adyar Library, 1935, p. 368. "na hi laukikānando 'pi brahmānandātirikto' sti| brahmānande kşudrānandānām antarbhävåt/"

146 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

expressed by the Tāndya Mahābrahmana when it states that immortality for man is to live a full life and to be happy.' The same optimism which treats desire as the wholly legitimate aspiration of men reverberates in the stanzas of the Gua when Srī Krsna addresses Arjuna saying: "In beings am I the desire which is not contrary to law, O Lord of Bharatas."? The Theory of Natya presented in the foregoing pages is inseparably wedded to this view of life and this attitude towards desire. An achievement of fruit or a fulffment of desire is the pivot of cach and every performance. As a reeuh of his action the hero of a play achieves carthly happincess which even a Vedantin wonid agree is a particle of the Supreme Bhabmananda. We have alrcady shown in Chapter VIII of this study that techiically speaking Natya is in perfect harmony with sacrifice. Concluding our remarks concerning this problem, we wrote that what Yajña stands for. Natya in its turn epitomises on the stage. Through an enactment of an episode resulting in the fulfiiment of desire. Nätya (since it takes recourse to the aesthe- tic medium) forccfully intensifies our awareness of the basic metaphysical unity, which rewards fulfilment of any desire. Before we try to explain in detail this assumption we shall first have to find possible reasons why NS does not elaborate this point, leaving it almost entirely to the care of later theore- ticians. The simplest and the most plausible answer to this question seems to be that such a complex theory had not yet been fully evolved when NS was written. Yet this may not be the only reason It should not, therefore, prevent us from admitting that NS may contain a similar theory in its pristine form. or what is more probable, may contain a number of pronouneements which will indicate the then approach towards the problem of aestheue perception viewed from the spectator's side oi the footlights. NS being a compendium for the per- formance-makers deals uxtensively with the art of evoking an aesthetic response. It does not say anything about these react- ions of the spectator which do not directly affect a perfor-

1 Lévi, DS, p. 94. " Radhakrishnan, BG, VII. 11. "dharmaviruddho bhūtesu kamo'smi bharatarşabhaj"

The Essence 147

mance,1 but which, nevertheless, seem to be the philosophical raison d'etre of the aesthetic experience. NS does not offer any theory similar to those propounded by Bhattanayaka and Abhi- navagupta, for instance, because it addresses poets and actors. We shall not, therefore, try to prove that NS developed any theory comparable to these offered by its commentators. Our effort will be solely directed towards finding what might have been the course of that type of speculation when still unaffected by later philosophical theories. Technically speaking we shall try to find the implications of the actors' theory of rasa for the audience, calling for help all these stray remarks in NŚ which may throw some light on this problem. The interdependence of rasa and itivrtta has so far attracted very little attention.' A comparative review of the sandhyangas and vibhavas and anubhavas yields very interesting and meaning- ful results.3 It becomes absolutely clear after conducring such

1 See NŚ. MMG, XXVII. 2 Although as such this interdependence is self-evident and its existence was in general terms acknowledged repeatedly, yet the mutations of the aesthetic experience in harmony with the development of the itivrita seemed to be allowed to pass largely unnoted. Only Pandey deals with the problem (IAe, p. 174) see p. 223 ff 3 For instance sadana one of the sandhyangas has a following definition : "Putting in insulting words for some purpose is called Humiliation." (NŚ. MMG, XXI. 95, the numbers below will refer to the same source). Exactly such a situation is said to be a vibhāva of the amarsa-vyabhicāri- bhava which has a following definition : "Indignation is caused to persons abused or insulted by those having a superior learning, wealth or power. It is to be represented on the stage by consequents such as shaking the head, perspiration, thinking and reflecting with downcast facc, determi- nation, looking for ways and allies and means, and the like." (VI. 77) Similarly the vrīda-vyabhicaribhava will arise from the same situation. For it is defined as follows: "Shame has improper action as its basis. It is caused by Determinants such as humiliation/sic/and repentance on account of transgressing words of superiors or disregarding them, non- fulfilment of vows and the like .. " (VII. 57). Another striking example of the same interconnection is furnished by a comparison of the sandhyanga of ananda and the vyabhicaribhava of harsa The sandhyanga in question is defined as attaining objects of one's desire (XXI. 100). The respective vyabhicaribhava is said to be caused by Determinants such as attainment of the desired object/sie/. union with a desired, trusted, and beloved person, mental satisfaction, favour of gods, preceptor, king and master, receiving good food, clothing and money. and enjoying them and the

148 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

a comparison, that the sandhyanges are nothing more and nothing less than vibhavas from which transitory and permanent bhavas arise followed by rasas. Yet if this is correct, then a question arises why should they at one time be called sandhyangas; and at another time vibhāvas? What happens is this; sandhyangas stand for the elements of a literary composition which in the case of theatre is designed to be enacted but which may also remain off the stage for ever. In the second case (i.e., as long as play is not enacted) sandhyangas will remain what they are, viz., purely literary situations. But if a play becomes an actual performance all its situations (sandhyangas) fundamentally change their character. They are no more merely literary products but dramatised they become concrete events, which actually happen on the stage. Yet though their character changes, their-so to speak-original design does not. A lite- rary sketch of a situation acquires on the stage flesh (vibhāva) and life or movement through acting (anubhāva). This process can be conveniently exemplified by the process of film-making. The difference between a sandhyanga and a vibhāva is similar to the one which exists between the written scenario of a given situation and a still picture of the same situation. Motion in this picture becomes anubhāva or rather a series of anubhāvas already directly responsible for the rise of vyabhicāribhāvas, sthāibhāvas and rasas. Thus vibhāvas and anubhāvas denote a sandhyanga in the process of its execution on the stage. According to this analysis one aspect of a sandhyanga remains, so to say, static and since it determines the pattern of that

dike ... " (VII. 60). Another interesting sandhyanga is that of udvega, defined as fear arising from the king, enemy, or a robber XXI. 88). This sandlıyanga is the vibhāva of the vyabhicāribhāva called śankā, which is said to be caused by determinants such as theft, giving offence to the king and the like (VII. 32). Further kheda-sandhyanga, defined as fatigue from mental effort (XXI. 93), is said to be the vibhva of tne glanivyabhicari- "bhäva which proceeds from such determinants like mental worry for instance. (VII, 30). Nişedha-sandhyanga defined as obstruction of one's desired abject (XXI. 94) is the vibhva of the capalatā-vyabhicāribhāva, which is caused by such Determinants as impatience, jealousy, opposition etc. (VII. 59). Nirodha, defined as appearance of some calamity (XXI. 79) is the vibhäva of the visåda-vyabhicåribhāva, which is caused by Deter- minants such as accidential calamity for instance (VII. 68).

The Essence 149

situation it is called a determinant (vibhāva).1 Another aspect of the same situation (sandhyanga) may be called-if we may use a neologism-viatic since it stands for motion (acting) and . is, as it were, a via-media between a sandhyanga already transformed on the stage into a vibhāva and its onlooker. In other words that element, particular to a performed situation (vibhāva), makes it felt by a spectator and this is why it has been called anubhāva (consequent).2 An actual enactment of a sandhyanga transforms it into an aggregate of vibhāva and anubhävas. In such a manner there is established the most direct and intimate contact between the itivrtta and rasa, not limited anymore to a general and somewhat misty relationship between cause and effect, but a very concrete dependence active at each and every moment of a performance. This is why NS recapitulating its enumeration of sandhyangas stresses that "it is with a view to introducing sentiments (rasa) and states (bhava) that an expert playwright should insert all those limbs into the appropriate Junctures of his work."3 It is for the same reason that "the itivrtta is called the basis of the Senti- ments." All this shows that the correlation between itivrtta and rasa is one of the most important problems which a playwright has to face when composing a play. The question now arises whether there are in NS any suggestions at all concerning this correlation or whether a poet is absolutely free to handle it according to his will. NŚ assures us that there is no matter in Natya which is void of rasa.5 Besides, NS at least on a few occasions, indicates a particular configuration of rasas in their relationship to itivrtta. First of all this problem is tackled on the occasion of discussing the sandhis. The mukhasandhi is supposed to give rise to many rasas.6 The nirvahanasandhi in turn is given the function of 1 N'Ś. GOS, VII. 4. "bahavo'rthā vibhávyante vāgangābhinayāśrayāh! anena yasmāt tena ayam vibhāva iti samjñita/". 2 op cit., 5. "vāgangābhinayeneha yatas tv artho'nuthāvyate| šīkhāngo- pāngasamyuktas tv anubhāvas tatah smrtah:/". 3 NŚ MMG, XXI. 104. "yathāsandhi tu kartavyāny etāny angāni nāțake| kavibhiḥ kāvyakušalāi rasabhāvam apekşya tuļ/. 4 NŚ MMG, XX. 50, GOS, XVIII. 47 n.8. variant reading 'rasāśrayo- peta'. a NŚ. GOS, v.I, p. 272. "na hi rasād rte kaścid arthah pravartate". 6 See p. 131.

150 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

bringing together all these bhävas which have given rise to many rasas of the mukhasandhi.' Elsewhere NS states that in practice a play giving rise to only one rasa does not exist.2 The most interesting statement NŚ makes when discussing the nātaka type of play. "At the conclusion of all the plays which contain various States and Sentiments, experts should always introduce the Marvellous Sentiment "3 This statement corroborates the evidence furnished by the definitions of the sandhis mentioned above and elaborates it stressing the necessity of introducing the adbhuta rasa at the end of each play. From these recommenda- toins of NS it appears that rosas are supposed to follow the basic pattern of a performance. A performance, as we have repeatedly said, being an epitome of existence reflects its basic tendency- a tendency to integrate the multiple-a movement from diversity to unity. The same process reflected by the theory of rasa is not a tour de force, but it is a completely natural and fully justified consequence of such an approach towards Nātya. After all, rasa in spite of its being the aim of Natya, technically speaking is only an 'emotional shadow' accompanying a performance.4 Consequently, whenever many arthas of a play which generate many rasas are brought together, the 'shadows' of these arthas in the form of rasas become one at the end of a play as the Adbhuta rasa. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to agree with any proposition in the field of aesthetic experience which would not take into account an entire play as a souree of the fullest form of the aesthetic experience. From above it follows that only a spectator who consciously participates in what happens on the stage may be capable of experiencing the plenum of that relish which may be termed an awareness of the final destination of all the endeavours of existence, i.c., perfect merger with the Absolute. This is the logical conclusion of the theory of Natya outlined in these pages. This very conclusion,( at least in four instances, is almost directly supported by NS

1 See p. 135. 2 NŚ. KM, XX. 64. "na hi ekarasajam küvyam kimcid asti prayogetah" (only to be found in one manuscript). 3 NŚ. MMG, XX. 46. "sarveşām kāvyānām nānārasabhâvayuktiyuktānām! nirvahaņe kartavyo nityam hi raso dbhutas tajjnaih//". 4 Similar to a roadside tree which is planted only for the sake of its shadow.

The Essence 151

itself. To begin with, according to that treatise Nātya has been created by Brahma as a replica of the world of which it is said to be the nature itself.' The universe and existence have their beginning in Brahma and find their end in Him. If, there- fore, Natya is really supposed to be up to that definition, which also terms it a representation of the true condition of the Three Worlds2 then Natya's performance has also to convey to the spectator this awareness of the ultimate destiny of creation. Another interesting piece of evidence is to be found in the nāndi verses alluded to earlier. Only the second half of the third, and the second half of the fourth verse will interest us here. "Prekşākartur mahān dharmo bhavatu brahmabhāvitah!" and "ijyayā cānayā nityam prīyantām devatā itit."8 Prekşākartr of the first quotation denotes a patron, i.e., in broader sense the audience. Bhavita in compounds means pervaded or inspired by, occupied or engrossed with, devoted to or intent upon. Thus a wish is expressed that the dharma of the patrons of the performance, viz., audience be pervaded or engrossed with Brahma. It seems legitimate to suppose that the idea expressed in this wish remains in some relationship to a performance called in the second quotation a sacritice which in the Kāusitaki Brahmana is said to bring an identity of the world and union with Brähman to those who perform it.4 Still another interesting argument supporting our contention is to be found in the last chapter of NS in the form of a verse which could be a mangala- śloka for the entire treatise. "Ya ilamı śruvan nityam proktañ cedam svayambhuvā prayozam yac ca kurvūa prekșate cāvadhā- navān|j yā gatr vedaviduşām ça gatir vajhakāriņah! vā gatir dānašīlānām tām getun prapnuyaa narab;, " The goat of the stu- dents of the Vedas or that of the performer of the sacrifice is promised to those who attentively hear and watch a performance of Natya. The Taittiriya Upanisad says: "sa eko brahmānandah śrotriyasya ca kämahatasyaj".6 About the reward for a performer of sacrifice we have repeatedly spoken. Thus Nutya is supposed

1 See page 8in. 2 Ibid. 3 NS. GOS, v.107-8. See also page 33. 4 See page 99 5 NS. MMG, (text) XXXVI. 78-9. 6 Gambhīra, EU, p. 363, VIII. 4.

152 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

to be as good a tool to reach the absolute as the Vedas and the sacrifice. Yet another meaningful argument is the already touched upon problem of the Adhhuta rasa. This rasa, into which all other rasas are supposed to merge at the end of a play, has as its presiding deity Brahmã himself.1 If all the time we keep in view the exceptional importance of this god in the mythological account of Chapter I of NS2 then the fact that he is the deity of a rasa singled out as the most suitable to wind up a whole play from an emotional point of view, cannot be overstressed. It was probably with something similar in mind that Nārāyana, the great grandfather of Viśvanātha, wrote: "In Flavour, even in every case, Wonder is felt as its essence. Since Wonder is its essence, it follows that Flavour, even in every case, is that sentiment or Flavour called the Marvellous.' Hence the learned Nārāyaņa-adds Viśwanātha-has acknowledged oniy one Flavour, the Marvellous, and no other."3 It is, of course, not necessary to go so far and to deny rasatva to all other rasas. Suffice it to say that Adbhuta rasa undoubtedly has been con- ceived in NS as somewhat different from other rasas. This is indicated through its association with Brahmā and through putting it at the end of the list of the eight rasas as well as through allotting to it a very particular place in each play. Nevertheless, it should not be too speedily identified with that impersonal, ultimate experience of Brahmānanda. For the "Adbhuta rasa still belongs to the sphere of discursive experience which is evoked in the spectator through the skill of an actor and a poet. Otherwise NS would not have dealt with it. It is thus far that we could proceed on the basis of NS alone. This theory lacks, of course, the refinement of the later con- cepts. Yet it stresses certain elements which these later theories overlook or underrate. In this light we shall try to review briefly the most important and accomplished contribution to the thoery of rasa, originated by Bhattanayaka and elaborated by Abhinavagupta.4 The central idea of their theory is the

I NŚ. GOS, VI. 45. ? See page 28 ff. 3 Ballantyne, MC. p. 41. Dr. Raghavan discusses this problem exhaus. stively (NR, p. 171-5). It follows from his discussion that there were quite few followers of the theory giving priority to the Adbhuta rasa. Gnoli, AEAA. p. XXI. Pandey, LAe, p. 81.

The Essence I53

formulation of the concept of generalisation (sadhāranīkaraņa).1 The core of it is the assumption that Natya is capable of making a spectator "rise momentarily above time, space and casuality and, therefore, above the stream of his practical life."2 Abhinavagupta offers an elaborate explanation how this comes about. The pūrvaranga, music, dance, abhinayas, styles and conventions etc. all serve the purpose of eliminating any possi- ble influences of actual life. "The presence of these elements- says Abhinava-eliminates the perception of the following order;3 this particular individual, in this particular, place, at this particular moment feels pain, pleasure etc. This elimination takes place in so far as the theatrical spectacle implies the negation both of the real being of the actor and of the real being of the character he is playing. Indeed, on one side there is the negation of the real being of the actor and on the other the spectator's consciousness does not rest entirely on the being represented who. therefore, does not succeed in hiding com- pletely the real being of the actor."4 Consequently, what happens on the stage belongs neither to the time and space of Räma, for instance, nor to the time and space of the actor who impersonates him. In this way men and their actions shown on the stage are freed from all particulars, i.e., are totally deindivi- dualised. The same elements of Nätya which served the purpose of stripping a performed event of all its particularity contribute to the elimination of all particularity proper to the conscious- ness of a spectator. In other words they make him mentally free from the casuality of his own concrete existence. An actor, who is termed "an assistant in identification through heart's consent"5 causes a spectator to "identify himself with joy and sorrow etc. which arise from watching gesticulation and other abhinayas."6 So much so · that he, so to speak, "enters fhe

1 Gnoli, AEAA, p. 11. 2 op. cit. p. XXI. 3 Our addition. 4 Gnoli, AEAA, p. 80-1. 5 op. cit, p. 106 HABH, p. 195. "hrdayasamvādatanmayībhavanasaha- kārin" : 6 NŚ. GOS, v.I. p. 36. "sūcyādyābhinayāvalokanodbhinnapramodašokā- ditanmayīblıavah", Acharya Viśveśvar (HABh, p. 186) unnecessarily 'sūci into 'sūtradhara'. 'Sūci according to Monier-Williams' Dictionary means also gesticulation or dramatic action.

154 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

character represented and remains himself in no relationship to any particular time and place."' "During the spectacle-says Abhinavagupta-the spectator forgets about the samsārika existence and immerses himself in the Tasting of the vocal and instrumental music which accompanies the play being acted."2 As a result "the spectator is no longer living either in the space and time ef Rama etc. nor in the space and time of actor as such."3 This is the state of identification termed by Abhinava- gupta as tanmayībhāva. What happens next is described by Abhinava with the help of an example of the second verse from the first act of the Sakuntala.5 After having outlined as above the process of generalisation and identification with respect to the situation depicted in that verse he says: "As a result, what there appears is simply and solely Fear-Fear in itself, uncir- cumscribed by time, space ete. This perception of Fear is of different order from the ordinary perceptions ("I am afraid, he my enemy, m" friend, anybody-is afraid "); for these are neces- sarily affected by the appearance of fresh mental movement (of shunning ete ). consisting of pleasure, pain etc., and just for this reeson are full of obstacles (vighng). The sensation of the Fear above mentioned, on the contrary, is the matter of cognition by a perception devoid of obstacles (nirvighna), and may be said to enter directly (nivis) into our hearts, to dance before (viparayt) our eyes: this is the Terrible Rasa. In such Fear one's own Self is found to be in a state neither of com- plete oceiltation (firavkr) nor of particular emergenee (u'likht) and the same thing happens with the other Selves." This form 1 HABh. p 18 :- 7. " ...... tadiyacaritamadhyapraviste-svatmarapamatih syārmadvūreņa višy ak tathā pašyan, pratyckam sāmājiko dešakālavišeşaņā- parâmars. za. . " !. 2 Gnobi, AE L.1.p 112 3 op ci.p. tel 3 See nores 5 and 6 page 153. HABh, p. 502-3. " .... hrdayasamvāda- kramena tanma tbharapanna ." Pandey IAe, p 170 in this corneetion speaks about todatmva. 5 Cnoli is wrong when he says that it is the second sleka. Counting the slokas of the praasterand it is the seventh sloka, "grivabhangabhiramam muhur anupatati syandane baddhadrstih paścardhena praviştah śarapatana- bhayad bhavasa pūrvakavamļdarbhair ardhāvalidhaih śramavivțiamukha- bhramsibhih kirkavartmā pašyodagraplutatvādviyati bahutaram stokam- uryyam prayati;j." e Gnoli, AEAA, p. 67-8.

The Essence 155

of consciousenss is, according to Abhinavagupta called cama- tkara.1 Camatkara in its turn is in his eyes "an uninterrupted (achinna) state of immersion (āveśa) in an Enjoyment, charac- terised by the presence of sensation of inner fullness (trpti)."" "All rasas, adds Abhinava, are dominated by pleasure because of being the quintessence of Ananda of the manifest and uninter- om ) = rupted form of tasting one's own consciousness."3 Such an experi- ence "lasts exactly as long as the Tasting, i e., it does not lean on any time separate from it." This theory has led Abhinavagupta so far as to admit that rasa is the quintessence of beatitude. Yet he hastens to point out the difference between the beatific experience of an aesthete and Yogic experience of the Absolute which Bhattanayaka almost identified. In aesthetic experience, conceived as different from that which rewards a yogin. "the fact of being immersed in complete abandonment within the adored object; the lack of evidence, due to the absence of active participation; and the presence of obstacles, are absent. The reasons for this abence are: (al the absence of abandonment to one's own Self to the exclusion of everything else, (b) an active participation in one's own Self, and thus the absence of the character of otherness proper to cognition of the thoughts of others, and (c) immersion in the latent traces left by the mental states of Delight, etc., reawakened by the corresponding Deter- minants, ete., which are gencralised."6 Abhinava's theory of rasa enriches us not only with the most valuable concepts of the sāahraņīkarana and tanmayībhūva but also makes our understanding of the concept of resa much more precise. This theory places the esperience of rasa above the level of ordinary experience but below that of the yogin's experience of Brahman .? As we shall try to show, these three

1op. cit. p. 71-2 2 op. cit. p. 74 3 op. cit, p. 87. Gnoli translates this passage as follows : " .... for the essence of light-closcly dense light, consiting of the Tasting of one's own consciousness-is beatitude." This scems to be a rather obscure rendering of " ...... /svasarviccarvoņārūpasyāikaghanasya prakāšasyānan- dasāratvāt". HABh, p. 478. 4 Gnoli, AEAA, p 96-7. op. cit, p. 56 and n.l. 8 op. cit, p. 101-2. 7 DH. L, after verse 18 (p. 326).

156 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

aspects of Abhinava's theory fit well our interpretation of NS's theory of rasa. Our objections will concern only the identity of different rasas at the highest level of aesthetic experience and the meaning and importance of their particular arrangement in the itivrtta. In this connection we shall also discuss the point raised by Pandey concerning the climactic character of the aesthetic experience. According to Abhinavagupta all rasas are dominated by pleasure (sukhapradhāna) and, therefore, all rasas at the highest level of aesthetic experience become camatkāra which is "the continuous state of immersion in Enjoyment characterised by the presence of the sensation of inner fullness." It further follows from what Abhinava says that this state appears at the beginning of a play immediately after prastāvanā and lasts throughout till the end of it.1 Here a question poses itself whether camatkära is only one or whether it can be said to be many-as many as the rasas. Abhinavagupta, of course, chopses the first eventuality but "he admits that there is a stage in the process of aesthetic experience, in which the self experiences itself as affected by the sthayin."2 Although the point of view represented by Abhinavagupta is an unquestionable improve- ment on all these theories which do not see any particular difference between an experience of the Absolute and an aesthetic experience, yet it still views the relish of all rasas as a uniform experience (camatkāra) nearer to that of the Absolute than to that of a läukika type. Even in the case of Abhinava's modified theory it is not easy to understand how a performance lasting for a few hours and generating many rasas maintains that 'rest of universal subject in itself'. Especially as it comes through "utter disregard of the basic mental state .... which sinks back into subconscious."8 If this has already happened after the first verses of a play are recited then how do the

"laukikāsvādād yogivişayāc cānya evāyam rasāsvādah". 1 Discussing the process of generating rasa Abhinava seems to believe that already at the very beginning of a play (Sakuntalā, 1.8.2) we have a full relish of rasa (Gnoli, AEAA, p. 67.) The building of an aesthetic image spoken of by Pandey (IAe, p. 174) seems to be complere with the end of prastāvanā. 2 op. cit, p. 141. Ibid.

The Essence 157

remaining verses and events affect a spectator? If it happens through the subconscious how then can a spectator remember even the minutest details of abhinaya?' Thus to our comprehen- sion Abhinava's error is not much different from that of Bhattanāyaka in spite of his assurance that the experience of rasa is not identical with that of the Absolute. Dr. Raghavan draws our attention to a view that is very interesting in this connection, i.e., the view of Śāradātanaya.2 This writer holds that rasānubhava is similar to the Jīvātman's enjoyment of the world. Yatiraja Swami, the editor of the Bhāvaprakāsa, holds "that this view regarding the nature of rasānubhāva, is more appropriate than that of Bhattanāyaka, as the dramas are intended only to represent the daily life of human beings. The Jivas enjoy several rasas in their everyday life. The same actions, enacted by clever actors by following the beautiful compositions of the poets, make the Jivas, who possess similar impressions of their own deeds, identify them- selves with the Heroes. Thus they enjoy the worldly pleasure after forgetting themselves through the same process to which they are subjected in actual life .. ... As the Nātya is the representation of the daily life the enjoyment of Natvarasa also must be more appropriately compared (as (Sāradātanaya does for the first time) to Samsarānanda and not with Brahma- nanda." Yatiraja Swami rightly feels that such an approach gets support in the sayings of Kālidāsa and Dhanañjaya1 and in the enunciations of NS itself. For, as we remember, its definition of Nätya says that it is the representation of the true state of the Three Worlds. This true state, in its turn, is more elaborately described in another verse of the same passage of NŚ which co-defines Natya from another angle. It says that Natya is of the nature of the world with its happiness and despair. If these definitions are to be taken seriously, then that true state of the entire Three Worlds, with its characteristic

1 Similar criticism has been levelled by Rājacūdāmaņidīkșita against Śańkuka's theory of inference (Rakeśa, PSR, p. 47). z Raghavan, NR, p. 157. 3 BP. GOS, p. 39-40. 4 Kālidāsa, MA, 1. "trāiguņyodbhavam atra lokcaritam rānārasam drś- yate." DR, 1. 7. "avasthānukrtir nātyam" both quoted in BP. GOS, p. 39.

158 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

features of happiness and despair, has to reach in some way the very consciousness of a spectator. So that the postulate expressed in still another verse elaborating the same definition of Natya, namely that Natra should generate good instruction in the worid,' would be fulfilled. It is difficult to visualise how Nātya can fulfil its teaching mission otherwise than by making that joy and sorrow of existence really felt by those who watch the performance. In such circumstances experiences of different rasas even at their highest pitch have to differ. If this was not so why then should NS attach so much importance to the cnumcration and description of the eight different rasas. The fact that. nevertheless, we can in a way speak about enjoying sorrow or fear in the theatre seems to be sufficiently explained by the concept of sadhāranikarana and does not necessarily imply the superstructure of camaikāra understood as quintes. sence of joy. We hold, therefore, together with Ramachandra and Gunacandra' that the many rasas, the presence of which in a play NS makes obligatory, preserve their distinct identity cven at the highest level of aesthetic experience. Yet because of sadharanīkarana the experience of either joy or sorrow is of a non-particular character and this is why we readily expose ourselves to such an experience, feeling at least satisfaction if not joy itself.3 It remains now to find out whether Nātya offers to a spectator anything more than an experience of these generalised emotions called rasas. As the reader can judge from the pre- ceding sections of this chapter, our answer is in the affirmative. At the same time this brings us to the problem of the climactic character of aesthetic experience. Neither Abhinavagupta nor any other theoretician seem to have paid much attention to this problem. It is only Pandey who deals with the subject in brief.1 It appears from the general

1 The problem raised by critics like Abhinava who hold that all rasas are pleasurable has been convincingly criticised by Rakeśagupta (PSR, p. 75if). Dr. Raghavan also discusses this problem in NR (p. 1ssff) and in BSP (p. 433-4). ª HND, p. 234. 3 Here we differ from Säradātanaya as well as Rakeśagupta who do not seem io see any particular difference between ordinary and theatrical emotions.

The Essence 159

attitude of Abhinava that the experience of rasu is more or less the steady companion of a play during its entire duration. The process of building up this experience seems to be limited to the introductory music, the pürvaranga and prastāvana The rest of the time, if the play is successful and spectators are 'possessive of heart', this experience flows smoothly at the highest level of camatkara. Pandey's opinion is different. He submits that "aesthetic experience does not persist throughout the presentation, because the aesthetic image on which it depends slowly develops. Hence it is a climactic experience. It arises when the image reaches compietion, when the basic emotion rises to the highest pitch."2 Whatever be the source of Pandey's view it expresses almost exactly our approach. For as we have already shown the configaration of rasus in the plot postulates certain mutations of aesthetie experience along with the progress of the itivrita. The culmination of that process comes about in the nirvahanasandhi when the many rasas hitherto evoked by a play integrate into the last one of them-the Adbhuta rasa which is the rasa of Brahma himself. Although we do not feel that this rava itself should be singled out, follo- wing Narayana, as the highest form of acsthetic experience,3 yet it is only after the Adbhuta rasa born of the achievement of a desired object4 prepares the mind and heart of a spectator. that we can speak about an aesthetie experience as comparable or even identical with the experience of Brahmananda. We have by now collected and discussed ali elements of what we venture to call our theory of aesthetic experience which we shall restate briefly below. The decision of a prospective spectator to witness a theatrical performance implies his heart consent (hrdayasamrada)- the most necessary precondition permitting one to appreciate a work of

1 Pandey, IAe, p. 174. 2 Ibid. Discussing this problem Pandey quotes DH.L. But the quota- tion appears to be little relevant. It seems that both in the abinnang- bharati and in the Locana Abhinavagupta i not consider the Progress of itivetta as a substantial element i generaung the bighes evper.ace of rasa which may be brought about by reading a short poem er even a mukraka. 3 for the reasons see page 152. * NŚ. GOS, VI, p. 329. "ipsitamanorathāvāpti".

160 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

art. He enters a theatre-hall the very atmosphere of which tends to weaken his mental absorption with the problems of his everyday life. For as we remember, a theatre-hall is not only beautifully ornamented but is also invested with the divine defences against interruption (vighna).1 The host of gods shields actors as well as spectators from all dangers which the art and its relish may incur including the encroachments of reality upon the consciousness of the spectator. Crossing the ante-chambers of the theatre-hall where Krtanta and Kala are posted and passing between two sentries Nirrti and Mrtyu, playing the role of the doorkeepers, a spectator enters a new world leaving behind the one he belonged to. So prepared, the spectator's consciousness is now subjected to the cleansing influence of music.2 When the heart of a spectator has thus bccome spotless as a mirror,3 then he is confronted with the events of pūrvaranga and pravtāvanā. Here the last requirement of a perfect sādhāraņīkarana is fulfilled. For at this stage the reality of the hero is contrasted against that of the actor, thus removing the last vestiges of particularity which might have been still lingering in the consciousness of the spectator. By now "the spectator whose awareness of his own self is lost in the events represented endowed with camatkāra, continues by means of his own self to see everything in this light."+ This supra-temporal and supra-spacial atmosphere of the witnessed events with which a spectator identifies himself conditions his reactions into equally non-particular emotional responses. Thus a spectator finds himself in a perfect state of generality. Under such circumstances the progressive unfolding of the itivrtta leads a spectator through the whole cycle of existence epitomised in each play. By means of aesthetic perception he experiences happiness and despair of the world, uncircumscribed by any particular time or space. Now slowly the multiplicity of exis- tence, which underlies the duality of joy and sorrow, comes to

1 see p. 43ff. 2 Gnoli, AEAA, p. 112. 3 Ibid. 4 op. cit, p. 113. Here our interpretation differs from that of Abhinava since we do not consider this stage of aesthetic experience as an ultimate one. We hold that at this stage aesthetic relish is still differentiated into many rasas.

The Essence 161

an end. The obstacles and barriers which divide humanity from the objects of its desire fall to the ground and only now the true state of inner fullness (trpti) becomes emotionally experienc- ed by a spectator. There is no more place in his heart for pity, mirth, love, fear, heroism, violence or disgust which are all inherent to multiplicity. Emotionally the spectator reaches a plenum of perfect satisfaction or marvellous harmony which is reflected in his heart as the Adbhuta rasa, the rasa of Brahmā. In such a way the spectator becomes aware of the ultimate destiny of all human endeavours which find their fulfilment in perfect rest-the unity and identity with Brahman. This may for the spectator become a prolonged awareness of the harmony of the universe and the purposefulness of human life or it may descend upon him at the highest pitch of the Adbhuta rasa like a lighten- ing. For "the level of pure aesthetic experience is indeed that of the pure angelic understanding, proper to the Motionless Heaven, Brahmaloka ... " where the vision of Brahman is com- pared to a 'sudden flash of lightening."1

1 Coomaraswamy, TNA, p. 50.

Part IV

REACTION

THE ESSENCE OF PEACE (ŚANTA-RASA)

The original concept of Nātya as presented in the Nātyotpatti adhyãya did not remain unaffected by subsequent changes in its cultural milieu. Certain new developments had already taken place before the final compilation of NS. They were promptly noticed and incorporated into the text. The change in the status of actors which necessitated a special justification in the form of the last chapters of NS was one of them. Besides, the grow- ing cults of Siva and Vişnu found their expression in the form of the mythological accounts of Chapter IV and Chapter XX respectively. Yet the most important change took the shape of a hidden erosion which was weakening what had been the found- ation of this theory since its very inception. The sacrificial weltanschauung which constitutes the backbone of the earliest theory of Nātya considers desire and its fulfil- ment as the central preoccupation of existence. In expectation of the joy of fulfilled desires the Absolute became many and embarked upon the eternal Yajña which fulfills all desires. This was the concept of life cherished by the robust Aryan conquerors of India. It permitted them to achieve the tremendous task of colonisation of the entire subcontinent. The new environment in which they found themselves began to exert its influence upon their thinking. This is not the proper place to discuss in detail the character and the historical background of this influence. Suffice to say that already the Upanisads betray new tendencies which later on brought a wholesome condemnation of any action motivated by desire. It might be of interest to compare in this connection the two following passages taken from the Māndūkya and the Brhadāranyaka Upanișads respectively. 'For him whose desires have been fulfilled and who has realised himself all

166 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

his desires vanish here.1 And 'He who has not desires, who had no desires, who has freed himself from all desires, is satisfied in his desires and in himself, his senses do not go out. He being Brahma attains Brahmahood. Thus the verse says, when all his desires that are in his heart are got rid of, the mortal becomes immortal and attains Brahma here.'2 While the first of these quotations still reflects the positive Vedic and Brāhmaņic attitude towards desire-the second one announces a powerful trend of Indian thinking aimed at the total elimination of all desire. The Upanisads formulated the course and destination of meditation which was growing in importance as a tool for realisation of the Ultimate. The Katha Upanisad says: 'The dis- criminating man should merge the (organ of) speech into the mind; he should merge that (mind) into intelligent self; he should merge the intelligent self into the Great Soul, he should merge the Great Soul into the peaceful (Santa) self.8 Yet at the same time this text apparently reflects an older view point accor- ding to which peace (Santi) is for those who sacrifice and engage in works.4 A statement made still further on seems to mark an intermediary stage at which the assertion is made that eternal peace (Sānti) is gained through meditative technique which brings the realisation of the Supreme conceived as the only dis- penser of the desired object.5 Here the fulfilment of desire still constitutes a means of obtaining peace. The attitude towards desire is not, of course, the only aspect differentiating the Upa- nişads from the Vedas and the Brähmanas. Dr. Keith discusses extensively other differences.® Our particular concern with this

1 Hume, TPU, p. 56. 2 BUP, 4.4.1-7. 3 Gambhira, EU, Kāțha. 1.3.13. 4 op. cit, 1.1.17 'one who getting connection with three, piles up the Naciketa fire thrice, and undertakes three kinds of work crosses over death. Getting knowledge of this omniscient one who is born of Brahma and realising Him he attains this peace (santi) fully'. 5 op.cit, 2.2.13. 'Eternal peace (sänti) is for those-and not for others- who are discriminating, and who realise in their hearts Him who-being the ephemeral, the consciousness among the conscious-alone dispenses the desired object to many.' € Keith, RPVU, p. 441-2. 'The distinction corresponds we may fairly say, in the main to a change of time and still more to a change of view. The Upanișads hold in some degree at least of doctrine of transmigration, and

The Essence of Peace 167

subject is limited to the question of the attitude towards action motivated by desire. We shall not therefore further consider the Upanişads here. It was probably the Samkhya-Yoga school within Hinduism,1 and Jaina trends outside it that exerted influence on Upanişadic thinking. Yet the true revolution had still to come. This was fulfilled by the Buddha. For this particular attitude of desireless- ness which the Upanisads anticipated received its fullast inter- pretation from him. Dr. Murti quotes the following verse which is attributed to Buddha himself, 'Desire, know I thy root; from imagination thou springest; No more shall I indulge in imagina- tion; I will have no desire any more."2 The Sutta-Nipäta in the Book of Octads says: 'The man whose heart's desires are gratified is glad indeed to see success secured. But, if his heart's desires and aims be foiled, he smarts as if a dart had wounded him. Yet, should he shun desires as he would shun a snake's head underfoot, by vigilance he overcomes the world's seductive lures. Whoso with boundless appetite desires fields, lands, or gold, herds, horses, women, serfs, and kinsfolk,-him tumultous desires (weak though they seem) o'ercome at

though not in a developed condition the pessimism which follows it; these views are not those of Brähmanas, which taken all in all, know not trans- migration, have no conception of pessimism and, therefore, seek no rel- ease from the toils of life, for which in reality there is no ending. These are fundamental distinctions, and they give an essentially different aspect to the speculations of the Brähmanas as compared with those of the Upa- nişads. A further distinction lies in the fact that the Brāhmanas are esse- ntially connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice. The sacrifice clearly occupied the minds of the priests to the practical exclusion of all else, and their theories are in large measure devoted to the consideration of its rela- tion to the Universe, to the gods and to men. In the Upanisads this is not the case; the sacrifice is still here and there the subject of speculation, but the speculation is no longer based on the view that sacrifice is all in all. 1 Johnston (ES, p. 80) derives Såmkhya from the Brähmanas and the Upanişads. Keith (SS, p. 7) says that 'it is impossible to find in the Upa- nişads any real basis for Sarkhya system.' But later on he says that 'just like Vedānta of Samkara or Vedānta of Badarāyana the Sāmkhya system is a built on the Upanisads.' (Ibid.) Zimmer (PI, p. 281) believes that 'Sämkhya ideas do not belong to the original stock of Vedic and Brāhma- nic tradition. ª Murti, CPB, p. 223.

168 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

last; they crush their victim. Hereon Ills come surging in, like waves that flood some wrecked ship's crazy hold, Therefore by watchfulness discard desires; expel them, bale your ship; and cross the Flood to safety's haven on the Further Shore.'1 This is a most outspoken challenge of all that for which men hitherto stood. It found its most powerful expression in Bud- dha's outright condemnation of the sacrifice when asked 'why hosts of sages-nobly born, or brahmins-sacrificed on earth to gods?' Buddha says in answer to this question that 'they sacri- ficed because they cherished hopes that by sacrifice to gods they may win some earthly bliss. But in spite of their zeal in craving, lauding, praying and sacrificing which is to be repaid in sensory pleasures, these sacrificing folk who pine for future life- have not escaped birth and eld. For only that man whose tho- ught has scanned the entire universe, who does not know wave- ? 2. rings, who, good and without a smouldering vice, is free from tremors or desires-he is saved from birth and eld.'2 Buddha struck at the very root of Vedic Hinduism leaving in its place only 'the atheistic soul denying philosophic teaching of a path to personal Final Deliverance consisting in an absolute extinct- ion of life.'8 Since 'subjectively minded, Buddhism is little interested in cosmological speculations and constructive expla- nation of the universe,4 it had to denigrate the sacrifice which offers exactly this constructive explanation of the universe. 'The Buddha-says Dr. Keith-had no such faith as would render it possible to lay down a doctrine applicable to all aspects of life.'5 Thus Natya was contested by early Buddhism not only as a simple manifestation of worldliness6, but also in its very nature which in the form of Yajña appeared totally incompatible with everything for which the utterly austere teaching of the Buddha stood. It was little probable that in such circumstances Bud-

1 Chalmers, BT, p. 185. 2 op. cit, p. 244-7. 3 Stcherbatsky quoted by Murti, CPB, p. 5. 4 op. cit, p. 12. 5 Keith, BP, p. 146. 6 Keith, SD, p. 43.

The Essence of Peace 169

dhism would in any way affect the theory of Nātya. Its conse- quently negative attitude precluded any form of influence save the one aiming at a total extermination of this art.1 Nātya had to wait for the change of this attitude until the emergence of Mahāyāna Buddhism. For as V.A. Smith writes 'the rigorous doctrine of the earliest form of Buddhism was too chilly to retain hold upon the hearts of men unless when quickened and warmed by human emotions."2 According to Dr. Keith the Mahāyāna movement became effective in the first century AD.8 Dr. Dasgupta in turn believes that 'the distinct Mahayanic trends within Buddhism existed already in 100 BC. if not earlier.' T. Stcherbatsky on the other hand suggests the Fifth Century of the history of Buddhism as the time of Mahayana's birth.5 It is thus around the beginning of the Christian era that Mahāyāna Buddhism emerged as a new and potent force which exerted tremendous influence on the Indian culture as a whole. The seed of the Mahāyana was already present in the fateful decision of the Buddha to share his enlightenment not only with one or two or even a dozen of śisyas, who might have found him somewhere in the forest, but to share it with all. In order to satisfy this urge he goes out to preach his truth to the world.6 It was a very stern and severe truth. For 'salva- tion was imagined and cherished as a state of absolute quies- cence (nirodha-sānti-nirvāņa). Therefore life, ordinary life (samsāra), was considered as a condition of degradation and misery.'7 Yet even this attitude already anticipates the later concept which puts an equation mark between Samsāra and Nirvāna. For the human life seemed to be always of ' .. supreme

1 This supposition is supported by the well known negative attitude towards prekşās and samājas of the Buddhist scripture and of such pro- pagators of Buddhism like king Asoka for instance. 2 Smith, OHI, p. 153. 8 Keith, BP, p. 218. 4 Dasgupta, HIP, p. 125. 5 Stcherbatsky, BL, p. 7. 6 Schayer, MDS, p. 16. ' ... in ancient Buddhism ... we encounter for the first time the form of a 'knowing man' who after many years of persis- tent seeking finds the Path of Liberation, and who does not keep his knowledge to himself, but goes out into the world giving this teaching to everyone without distinction ... .. ' ? Stcherbatsky, BL, p. 4.

170 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

value to the Buddhist as the only condition from which the highest good can be reached ... '1 In the all-out effort of the Mahāyānist to secure universal salvation Samsāra gained a much more positive character than it had for the early Bud- dhists. By now a theory was promulgated according to which 'the Samsāra and the Nirvāna are mere appearance; the truth is stainless, changeless, and quiescent from the very beginning and illumed.'2 Still elsewhere Nāgärjuna says that 'there is not the slightest difference of Samsāra from Nirvāna .... In between them not the slightest shade of difference is found.'3 In this way Samsära, although considered a mere appearance which should by all means be transcended, loses its predominantly negative character. It becomes now more evident that the negative aspect of Samsära conceived as a veil obscuring the face of truth can be removed only through the positive aspect of the same Samsāra conceived as the path of liberation. The sense of responsibility for the salvation of every being and the missionary zeal of the Mahayanists made them look for effective means of preaching. There was no reason any more why art in general and Nātya in particular should not be utilised for this purpose. The more so as the very definition of Nātya must have sounded attractive to a Buddhist ear. Nātya, as we remember, is termed a repre- sentation of the Three Worlds, the nature of the world with its happiness and despair and a representation of the Seven Islands. Besides, Nāțya generates good instruction.4 It is obvious that for a Buddhist with missionary temperament this sounded like a description of a perfect medium for propagation of the Bud- dhist view of the nature of the world conceived as a path of salvation. Thus Natya gained the attention of the Buddhists who undertook the study of it, for which the Lalitavistāra promptly provided a sanction listing the knowledge of drama as included among Buddha's accomplishments.5 Aśvaghosa was the first who followed this illustrious predecessor.6

1 Coomaraswamy, B and GB, p. 171. 2 Bhattacarya, MV, N. 16. 3 Nāgārjuna, MMK, XXV. 19-20 quoted by Guenther, PPA, p. 295. · NŚ. MMG, I, 106, 118, 121, 113. 5 Keith, SD, p. 43. 6 The Lalitavistara was probably written during First and Second Century AD. (Dasgupta-De, HSL, p. 614). Our argument should not be

The Essence of Peace 171

Aśvaghoșa's interest in poetry and drama alone is enough to make his Hinayanist orthodoxy highly suspicious. If we add to this coincidence in time with the rise of Mahayāna Buddhism and the extremely interesting and usually reliable testimony of the Chinese tradition,' as well as the fact that 'despite their religious zeal, the literary works of Aśvaghoșa could not have been approved wholeheartedly by learned monks for his free- dom of views and leaning towards Brahminical learning,'2 then it will be difficult not to agree with Lévi3, and Suzukid, who hold that Aśvaghosa was a pioneer of Mahāyāna Buddhism.5 It was not only in the sphere of religion in which Aśvaghoșa could claim to be a pioneer. The same term will apply to him in the field of Buddhist belles lettres.6 Though Aśvaghosa's literary works bear the distinct features of a well accomplished art, it does not seem probable that he had any Buddhistic antecedents in this domain. It is much more possible that his

taken in a strict sense of the chronological priority. Its validity would not have changed even if Aśvaghoa was earlier than the particular state- ment of the Lalitavistāra. The most important here is an effort to esta- blish the highest authority for the activities like those of Aśvaghoșa. 1 Suzuki, ADAFM, Introduction. 2 Dasgupta, HIP, p. 138. Dasgupta-De, HSL, 78. 3 Lévi, MSA, A. p. 13. 4 Suzuki, ADFF, M, p. 1. 5 La Vallée Poussin would not agree to this view (Law, A, p. 33). Also Dr. Keith does not seem to be convinced by those who ascribe the Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra to Aśvaghoșa and thus connect him with Mahāyāna Buddhism. (Keith, BP, p. 228). 6 And not only belles lettres. Music also seems to have had in him a great exponent. We shall quote here in extenso the Chinese legend which becomes very probable indeed in the light of Asvaghosa's other accom- plishments. 'He then went to Pataliputra for his propaganda-tour, where he composed an excellent tune called Lai cha huo lo (rastavara?), that he might by this means convert the people of the city. Its melody was classical, mournful, and melodious, inducing the audience to ponder on the misery, emptiness, and non-atmanness of life. That is to say the music roused in the mind of the hearer the thought that all aggregates are visionary, and subject to transformation; that the triple world is a jail and a bondage with nothing enjoyable in it; that since royalty, nobility, and the exercise of supreme power; are all characterised with transitoriness, nothing can prevent their decline ; which will be as sure as the dispersion of clouds in the sky; that this corporeal existence is a sham, is as hollow as a plantain tree, is an enemy, a foe, one not to be intimately related with; and again that like a box in which a cobra is kept it

172 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

only forerunners were the Brahminical writers.1 The surmise that Aśvaghosa was a real pioneer in the field of Sanskrit Bud- dhist poetry and drama is supported (apart from the fact of the lack of earlier works of this type) by a certain urgency with which he states at the end of the Saundarananda that 'he has written this work for extinction of desire and not for enjoyment of pleasures' 'in the form of a kāvya', 'but making it contain teachings of salvation', that its readers (lit. listeners), who are by nature turned to other thoughts, may understand it (and take it to heart); 'what has been written elsewhere in the form of a religious text' is being repeated .. ' in the way of a kāvya, as a bitter medicine is mixed with honey 'when given to a patient to drink that it may be acceptable to him' ... He would rather write directly about moksa as he says he has done already, but men are 'mad after things of enjoyment and averse to salvation'; 'he has therefore no help but 'to teach salvation (which involves abandonment of all enjoyment)under the cloak of a (pleasant) kāvya).2 Consequently it will not be surprising to take Aśvaghoşa for a precursor of the Buddhist kāvya written in Sanskrit, who had to convince his Buddhist confréres about his sincerity as a partisan of the new faith on the one hand, and

should never be cherished by anybody, that therefore all Buddhas denounce persons clinging to a corporeal existence. Thus explaining in detail the doctrine of the non-ätman and the sūnyatd, Aśvaghoșa had the melody płayed by the musicians, who however, not being able to grasp the significance of the piece failed to produce the intended tune and harmony. He then donned a white woolen dress, joined the band of musicians, beating the drum, ringing the bell, and tuning the lyre, and this done, the melody in full perfection gave a note at once mournful and soothing so as to arouse in the mind of the audience the idea of the misery, emptiness and non-åmanness of all things. The five hundred royal princes in the city thus moved all at once were fully awakened, and abhorring the curse of the five evil passions abandoned their worldly life "and took refuge in the Bodhi. The king of Pataliputra was very much terrified by the event, thinking that if the people who listen to this music would abandon their homes, like the princes, his country would be depopulated and his royal business ruined. So he warned the people never to play this music hereafter. Suzuki, ADAFM, p. 35. 1 K. Chattopadhyaya in the paper 'The Date of Kalidasa' (Allahabad University Studies, vol. II, 1926) suggests pre-Aśvaghoșan time even for Kālidāsa. ª Chattopadhyaya, DK, p. 82.

The Essence of Peace 173

about the utility of his new medium of preaching on the other. In such circumstances Aśvaghoșa's encounter with Nātya be- comes very meaningful. Especially since 'the function assigned by Aśvaghoșa to the kāvya poetry goes to. make it only a handmaid of religion and philosophical thought .. 21 As is well known, the fragments of all three 'Turfan' dramas can justifiably claim Aśvaghosa's authorship. These dramas were written to propagate the teachings of Buddha. The Sāriputra- prakarana is certainly the most interesting among them. First of all because it is a prakarana, i.e., the fullest dramatic form be- sides nāțaka and, therefore, reflecting. Aśvaghoșa's attitude and treatment of a form which, as we have already said, claims to be an epitome of the entire human existence. Secondly because it contains a theme well known in Buddhistic scriptures. This permits us to reconstruct its plot with a fair chance of remaining true to what Aśvaghosa actually wrote. The last words of this play put into the mouth of Buddha speak about increasing knowledge, restraining the senses and gaining release2 -- a state- ment similar to that made by Aśvaghosa at the end of the Säundarananda. Besides, both the heroes of the prakarana, Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana, become 'the highest in knowledge and magic power of Buddha's disciples.'8 It is obvious that the fate of the heroes of this prakarana must have followed the common Buddhistic pattern for the stories, of such type exem- plified in both the Säundarananda and the Buddhacarita. Since it is difficult to say much more about the character of the itivrtta of this prakarana, we shall therefore base our subsequent remarks on his two poems. Besides, we shall take recourse to the Bud- dhist scripture since 'the two sources of poetic emotion, viz., the profound veneration for the person of Buddha and the keen sense of the impermanence of all things and the utter worthlessness of all worldly goods, are in no way peculiar to Aśvaghoșa. For the same are precisely the sources of the emotion which over- flows in the psalms or inspired verses of the early Buddhist brothers and sisters.'4

1 Law, A, p. 24. 2 Keith, SD, p. 83. 8 op.cit, p. 81. 4 Law, A, p. 46.

174 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Discussing a postulated indebtedness of Aśvaghoșa to Kāli- dåsa, Chattopadhyaya makes a statement which perfectly conveys Aśvaghoşa's attitude towards life in general and towards his art in particular. 'Aśvaghoșa's purpose was to rescue men from vişaya-rati and he would best serve his purpose by making his characters begin with enjoyment and end with renunciation, as in the case of the Säundarananda.'1 This is not the pattern only of the Säundarananda, but it is also equally valid for the Buddha- carita and almost certainly for the Sāriputraprakaraņa, where the Vidūsaka, a companion of the hero's enjoyments, disappears at the end of the play.2 It is not difficult to guess that this pattern is nothing else but the life of the Enlightened One him- self. It was he who decided to challenge the established way of life. By his decision to abandon family, duties, responsibilities and privileges; by his decision to embark upon the course of renunciation Buddha disregarded the basic principle governing that way of life-the principle of Yajña. For it is Yajña that rules the life of man. It is the universal sacrifice that manifests itself in man's desire, in his action and in its fulfilment. Refusing to heed this principle of life, Buddha, the greatest revolutionary of human history, refused to be an obedient participant in the univeral Yajña and attempted to free himself and others from what might have appeared to him the cosmic slavery thrust upon men by an omnipotent eternal sacrifice. In this way a new hero was born. It was not any more a hero of the fulfilled desires like Indra before, but it has become a peaceful hero of renunciation. Similarly, the background of the new hero's achievement changed from the däivasuram into the Path of Salvation. Indra was a hero of the integration of multiplicity. Buddha has become a hero of the destruction of multiplicity through renunciation. The itivrtta which has Indra for its nāyaka begins with multiplicity and ends in union. The itivrtta which has Buddha for the ndyaka begins with union which for a Bud- dhist is also a veiled multiplicity charged with despair and ends in total extinction of multiplicity through renunciation. How should such a horo act and what is his reward? These were the questions repeatedly directed to Buddha. One among the enqu-

1 Chattopadhyaya, DK, p. 110. ª Keith, SD, p. 82.

The Essence of Peace 175

irers was Sāriputra who asked the Buddha: 'what pious works should mark him' (961), 'who abhors the world?' (958). Buddha gives a long answer to this query, saying among other things, that such a man should 'make an end to likes and dislikes, once for all' (968). 'Then come the world's five stains-continues Buddha-which he must set himself to shed by discipline, till he subdues the lust of eye, ear, taste, smell, touch' (974).1 Another enquirer asks Buddha to expound aloofness and the way of peace (santipadan). What outlook leaves man calm with life's stuff spent?' (915) 'Let him pluck out obsession's root-the craze 'I am' (916)-answers Buddha and adds-'For inward Peace (upasame) let Almsmen seek nor look for calm (santim) elsewhere. With inward peace (upasantassa), no Self-no non- Self-dwells (919). As no waves break the calm of ocean's depth, unruffled be the Almsmen's tranquil breast' (920). In order to emphasise our point let us quote still another query in which the Buddha is asked 'In pity, Holy One teach me to live Aloof, that I may clearly see how-calm as th'ether-I may dwell in freedom's Peace' (santo) (1065). The Lord puts his answer into following words : 'That peace (santim) will I expound to thee. 'Tis here and now; 'tis based on thought not hearsay vain. Walk thou by it with constant watchfulness, leaving the world's entanglements behind.' (1066) And the elated enquirer answers: 'This matchless peace (santim uttamam), great sage, rejoices me,-to walk thereby with constant watch- fulness and leave the world's entanglements behind.' (1067)." To wind up this review of the Scripture's enunciations we shall quote the following advice of the Sutta-Nipāta: 'Steer clear of worldly trammels ; stab to death pleasures of sense; Nirvāna be thy goal; (940)' 'hug not to the past or what today brings forth; bewail not loss; nor sigh for bliss 'Above' (944)'. 'The sage, the Brahmin true, who never strays from truth, on solid ground has set his foot; all things forsaking, he to Peace (santo) has come; (946)'. 'He that has triumphed over appetites and burst all worldly shackles here on earth, knows neither grief o'er loss, nor haunting dread (948)'. And finally 'Consume to ashes

1 Chalmers, BT, p. 229-33. 2 op. cit, p. 221. 3 op. cit, p. 251.

176 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

past iniquities; thereafter let no fresh defilement grow; if- meantime-thou contract no further guilt, thy feet shall tread the tranquil path of Peace (upasanto) (949)'.1 In this manner, desire, action which brings its fulfilment, delight in worldly pleasures and grief following the unfulfilled desires-all this which makes Nätya has been contrasted with the matchless Peace or with 'Salvation in the sense of eternal Quiescence of every vestige of life, the absolutely inactive condition of the Universe where all elements or all 'syngeries' will lose their force of energy and will become eternally Quiescent.'2 This Quiescence is nothing else but Nirvana itself.3 It is only natural to suppose that Buddhist men of letters and especially Aśva- ghoșa, who, as he says himself, wrote for upaśānti,+ noticed difference between his aim and the aim of Nätya which, after all that we have said, can be termed as exhausting desires through the enjoyment of desires just exactly as the sacrifice itself. Besides, the aim of Nātya was not to uproot desires to- gether with the emotions- inherent in them but to sublimate these emotions into rasas. By no stretch of imagination could Nätya be said to fulfil this requirement of Buddhism. The reasons for this discrepancy are not difficult to find. According to NŚ Nâtya is the faithful representation of the world with its joys and sorrows and this is why it is giving good instruction as well. For confrontation of man with true reality always gene- rates hitopadeśa. The Buddhists on the other hand must have put more stress on the instructive aspect of Nātya first and foremost. The other aspect of it ceased to be viewed as an impartial representation of the world but became a partisan view of human life envisaged as the path of Peace (santi-maggam).5 How did it happen then, that Nätya became such a convenient tool in the hands of the propagators of Buddhism? We have already partly given an answer to this question when discussing the rise of Mahayana Buddhism. Below we shall submit some

1 op. cit, p. 227. " Stcherbatsky, BL, p. 6. 3 Poussin, VS.HT, p. 669. 'evam cabhidadhati šāntam nirvanam iti, Levi, MSA, A. XVIII. 80 'santam nirvanam' etc. 4 Johnston, SA, XVIII. 63, p. 141. 5 For this term see Jennings, VBB, p. 487. Khuddaka-Nikāya, Dham- mapada verses.

The Essence of Peace 177

more arguments serving the same purpose. Because of his direct Brahminical background (he was a convert) Aśvaghoșa commanded a good understanding of Hindu theoretical thinking in many fields. This was probably the reason why he noticed difference between the aspect of Nätya which earned the condemnation of early Buddhism as a part of worldly and sensuous pleasures and Nātya conceived as a means of good instruction given through the faithful representation of the world and life but, understood in a Buddhistic way, as reflecting man's effort to follow the path of Peace and to attain Buddhahood. Understood in this way, the theoretical interpretation of Nātya which we have outlined in these pages could have been somehow acceptable to Buddhism. The only aspect which no good Buddhist could ever agree to was the concept of the eight rasas as the more or less ultimate purpose of Nātya. An enjoyment of sublimated emotions is not much better than an enjoyment and attachment to the ordinary emotions of life. The objective of the whole Buddhist discipline is to destroy attachment to things of the world or the desire of them which lies at the root of all emotions. For as Dr. Guenther says, 'the Path of Seeing the Truths destroys the views we hold about ourselves together with the emotions that attach to these views.' Thus a Buddhist will hold either that rasa is not a positive value and therefore cannot be considered an ultimate aim in any sense, or, as it actually happened, he will refuse the rasatva to all the eight emotions regarding them as mere kleśas which have to be finally discarded by any truly Buddhist hero who becomes an Enlightened One or a Sānta himself. In order to convince a spectator that it is worthwhile to follow the illustrious examples of Sariputra, Maudgalyāyana, Nanda, Jīmūtavāhana or the Buddha himself, a Buddhistic play has to make it clearly felt that none of the eight rasas is truly the rasa and that none can equal the blissful calm of the man who has discarded them all and whose common appellation in the Buddhist Scripture is Sānta. Under such circumstances a surmise made by Dr. Raghavan who looks towards Buddhism for the origin of śānta rasa acquires a not unexpected gravity.2

1 Guenther, PPA, p. 345. 2 Raghavan, NR, p. 50.

178 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

From what we have already said it follows that the encounter of Nätya and Buddhism must have resulted in a radical change in the interpretation of the emotional aspect of this art. That Buddhism was fully qualified to offer its own interpretation cannot be doubted. It even seems that psychology was more extensively studied by the Buddhists than by their Hindu coun- terparts. In any case we would refer the doubtful to the comprehensive study of this subject in Dr. Guenther's Philoso- phy and Psychology in the Abhidharma. In our view the passage on the santa rasa inserted in NS bears testimony to the fact that the Buddhists actually had their separate aesthetic theory or at least their separate theory of rasa. The passage in question appears to be the oldest known text on the Sänta rasa. The latest date possible for it may even be the beginning of the IXth Century AD since 'Bhattanāyaka seems to have accepted as genuine the Santa text found in Bharata." It will be quite reasonable therefore to suppose that a fairly long period of time elapsed between the actual insertion of the text and Bhattanayaka's time2 when the memory of that fact was already indistinct and Bharata's alleged authorship of the passage has become a subject of legitimate controversy. Besides Abhinavagupta himself says that the passage appears only in some old books.8 The date of the final compilation of NS (round the IInd or the IlIrd Century AD) can be accepted as the earliest date possible for this passage. The very doubt as to its genuineness as well as the fact that it has been found only in one manuscript4 and that it presents ideas about rasa which are radically different in both language and content from these presented in other parts of the text, speak convincingly for its being later in origin than the final compilation of NS. Since the text in question is very important for our subsequent discussion and since it is very short we shall therefore take the liberty of quoting it here in extenso. 'atha śānto nāma śamasthāyibhāvātmako mokşapravartakah/ sa tu tattvajñānavāirāgyāšayasuddhyādibhir vibhāvāih samu-

1 op. cit, p. 45. De, SP, p. 139. ' De, SP. p. 41. 'Bhattanāyaka, therefore, flourished between the last quarter of the 9th and the last quarter of the 10th century. * HABH, p. 635. · NŚ. GOS, I. Preface, p. 12.

The Essence of Peace 179

tpādyate| tasya yamaniyamādhyātmadhyānadhāraņopāsana- sarvabhūtadayālingagrahaņādibhir anubhāvair abhinayah prayoktavyah/vyabhicāriņaś cāsya nirveda-smrtidhṛtisarvā- śramaśāucastambharomāñcādayah/ atrāryāh ślokāś ca bhavanti-

mokşādhyātmasamutthas tattvajñānār thahetusamyuktah/ nāihśreyasopadistah śāntaraso nāma sambhavatiļ/ buddhīndriyakarmendriyasamrodhādhyātmasamsthitopetah/ sarvaprāņisukhahitaḥ śāntaraso nāma vijñeyah// na yatra duhkham na sukham na dveșo nāpi matsarah/ samah sarveșu bhūteșu sa śāntah prathito rasaḥ// bhāvā vikārā ratyādyāh śāntas tu prakrtir matah/ vikārāḥ prakṛter jātaḥ punas tatrāiva līyate// svam svam nimittam āsādya šāntād bhāvah pravartate| punar nimittāpāye ca śānta evopalīyate|/'.1

Many arguments implicating Mahāyāna Buddhism in the cre- ation of the śānta rasa have already been adduced. It remains now to analyse from this point of view the santa rasa text of NS which in our view can be claimed with most justification only by the Mahayanist philosophical schools.2 The most convincing

1 NŚ. KM, VI, p. 103-4. 2 It is very difficult to determine on the basis of the internal evidence alone the exact philosophical character of this text. Dr. T.R.V. Murti holds that it can be interpreted in terms of almost any school of thought. Abhinavagupta's commentary suggests at least three possibilities besides Mahayāna which somehow creeps in when he discusses the Nāgānanda of Harsa and mentions Buddha as the deity of santa. These three possibili- ties are: the Samkhya (quotes Patañjali and Iśvarakrșņa), the Vedānta (quotes Bhagavadgīta) and the Kashmiri Sāiva philosophy which he him- self professes. To make the case of the Samkhya convincing it is neces- sary to introduce a concept of prakrtilaya-a rather far-fetched device since most obviously sånta in proper Sämkhyan terms would be rather associated with Purusa and not with Prakrti. Besides there is negligible external evidence permitting to connect sāmkhya and Nātya. Iśvarakrșņa twice draws his comparison from the field of Nātya (SK. 42, nata, 59. nartaki). The Vedānta does not seem to fare better. For it is highly improbable that having to his disposal the adbhuta rasa accorded an exceptional position already in NŚ and known as the rasa of Brahmā, a Vedäntin would try to introduce an altogether new concept instead of claborating the one with clear sanction of the basic text. The claim of the Kashmiri Saiva philosophy of this text, although theoretically possible, .

180 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

argument against considering the santa rasa concept of NS as belonging to any of the Hindu philosophical systems is the fact that Buddha himself is considered the deity of śanta by all these who acknowledge the existence of this rasa.1 To begin with, it may be noted that the prose portion of the šānta rasa text employs the technical terminology of Yoga and therefore can easily be considered a product of any school of philosophy including Buddhism; for, as Dr. Lévi rightly remarks there is 'an evident similarity of a certain quantity of technical terms in Buddhism and Yoga."2 Yet there is in these lines at least one indication that this passage owes its inspiration to Buddhism in particular. It is an anubhāva called sarvabhūta- daya. Although not totally absent from other (non-Buddhistic) Yogic denominations, in Buddhism it has received much more attention and has become one of the most characteristic features of a Bodhisattva.3 This contention is supported still more strongly by the versi- fied part of the text. The first śloka and half of the second one repeat in different words what has been said in the prose passage. But already the second line of the second śloka and the third śloka bring out strong Buddhistic associations. They speak about śānta rasa as beneficial to the happiness of all beings and as a state of equanimity present equally in all beings. The

does not seem to be very probable. The main argument against is the fact that Abhinava himself reveals its doubtful connection with the rest of NŚ, an information which he would not volunteer if he or any of his teachers would have made this insertion. Secondly according to Abhi- nava a sthāyibhāva of sānta is ätman and not śama as in the text. Further he first tries to establish the existence of sänta independently of the text (Raghavan, NR, p. 15). Finally if a Sāvita is to be held responsible for it then it is difficult to understand why Buddha and not Siva was chosen as a patron deity of śanta. Besides the whole passage in the eyes of Abhi- nava himself was very old and therefore cannot be connected with a late school of Kashmir (see Abhinava's commentary on śānta rasa prakaraņa). 1 It is obvious that Buddha here means the divine Buddha, the god, for he is in company of Brabma and other gods. Buddha standing merely for 'wise' will be out of place here. 2 Lévi, MSA. A, p 19. 3 It may be interesting to note that Aśvaghoşa in the Sāundarananda uses another term mentioned in the prose passage. It is lingam pari- grahya. This appears almost like following the rules set in this passage of NŚ.

The Essence of Peace 181

Mahāyānavimšaka of Nāgārjuna has a following verse: 'All things by nature are regarded as reflections. They are pure and naturally quiescent, devoid of any duality, equal and remain always and in all circumstances in the same way.' The chara- cteristic of the Tathata offered by Hiuen Tsang in the Vijñapti- mātratāsiddhi is similar. He holds that Tathatā, which is the nature of all Dharmas and which is anādikālika, prakrti-śuddha and nirvāna itself, is characterised among others by the fact that it is equal (sama) and common (sādhārana) for all beings and that it is free from all nimittas (for it is not apprehensible; it lacks the grāhyanimitta quality). The Tathatā, which is essen- tially quiescent (prakrtiśanta, ādišānta) is given the name of Nirvāņa.2 This Tathata is also identified with the prakrti-prabhā- svara-citta (essentially and originally pure mind).3 If we may trust the Chinese tradition4 then all these concepts were already familiar to Aśvaghosa who says 'that the essence of all things is one and the same, perfectly calm and tranquil and shows no signs of becoming.'5 Further he states that 'all beings are uniformly in possession of suchness' and adds later that 'the true nature of all objects is free from relativity, is one and the same, making no distinction between this and that, and is absolutely calm and tranquil.'7 These ideas Aśvaghoșa repeats often and concludes that 'things, in their essence, are uncreated, eternally tranquil and Nirvāna itself.'8 In this connection one more concept needs to be mentioned. It is the concept of the ālavavijñāna. We may be permitted to quote here the opinion of Dr. Zimmer which brings out some of the qualities of the ālaya-vijñāna which might have accounted for the concept of

1 Bhattācarya, MV, N. 4. 'sarve bhāvāh svabhāvena pratibimbasamā matāh| suddhāh țāntasvabhāvāś ca advayās tathatāsamāh! / 2 Poussin. VS. HT, p. 670-1. 3 Jaini, AD, p. 116. 4 Regarding the Mahayānaśraddhotpādaśāstra Dr. Keith writes: 'It is of course, illegitimate a priori to hold that such doctrines could not have been adopted or promulgated by Aśvaghoşa but the evidence for his authorship is not very convincing.' (Keith, BP, p. 228) Dr. Dasgupta seems to accept the authorship of Aśvighoșa (Dasgupta, HIP, p. 129). 5 Suzuki, ADAFM, p. 82. 6 op. cit, p. 89. 7 op. cit, p. 118-9. 8 op. cit, p. 143.

182 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

śānta rasa. 'Whatever seems to exist is the result of parikalpa creating from within', i.e., imagination. But such magically creative thought is possible only because there exists a kind of eternal repository (ālaya 'abode') from which can be drawn the substance of every possible image and idea. The individual ceases to exist upon contact with this 'repository consciousness'; for the rippling mental states that constitute the self-awareness of the ego dissolve in it. The term (ālaya-vijñāna) is practically synonymous, therefore, with nirvāna as well as with śūnya-yet it suggests always a positive state. Ālaya-vijñāna is a kind of Buddhist brahman, which is to be realised by pure mental yoga-absolutely pure consciousness. Indeed, pure consciousness is itself identical with the ālaya-vijñāna. And since everything else is but contingent consciousness this pure consciousness is the ultimate reality, the abstract quintessence of all that is.'1 Discussing the possibility of the Sämkhyan origin of the śānta rasa we mentioned that it cannot be thought of as in any sense separate from purușa, i.e., speaking in general terms it cannot be separate from the subject. As a matter of fact śānta is a state of consciousness of the subject. This is why the equation of šānta and Sāmkhyan Prakrti is misleading if not nonsensical. Speaking in Buddhistic terms prakrti (meaning naturally) can be an adjective of consciousness or even better it can denote the nature of the mind.2 Describing the alaya-vijñana Dr. Zimmer said that the mental states which constitute the self-awareness of the ego dissolve in it. The ālaya-vijñāna is according to him an eternal repository from which can be drawn the substance of every possible image and idea. Dr. Dasgupta in order to illus- trate this concept quotes 'the simile of the water and the waves which are stirred up in the ocean. Here the water can be said to be both identical and non-identical with the waves. The waves are stirred up by the wind, but the water remains the same. When the wind ceases the motion of the waves subsides but the water remains the same. Likewise when the mind of all creatures, which in its own nature is pure and clean, is stirred up by the

1 Zimmer, PI, p. 526. 2 The reason of that confusion might have been that svabhāva which is synonymous with prakrti in the sense of nature, which occurs frequen- tly in Sämkhya text, is much employed in Buddhist philosophical treatises to express the idea of ultimate reality (Johnston, ES, p. 67).

The Essence of Peace 183

wind of ignorance (avidyā), the waves of mentality (vijñāna) make their appearance.' Thus we approach the next problem posed by the comparison of bhāvas and vikāras. The vikāra-concept of the Vijñānavāda and the related Tathatā school of thought (Aśvaghoșa) seems to be the probable source of that comparison. All the eight sthayibhāvas are nothing else but these waves of mentality which rise from the ocean of the ālaya-vijñāna. For whatever rises above the level of the prakrtiśānta ālaya-vijñāna due to avidyā all belongs to the sphere of the three vikāras i.e., indriya, vişaya, vijñāna.2 These mental mutations which characterise the sphere of the vikāras cease to exist when igno- rance ends and, therefore, the nimittas i.e., the mental images3 disappear. Consequently, bhävas, which in the technical parlance of the Buddhists are kleśas, return to their source which is termed prakṛtiśānta.4

1 Dasgupta, HIP, p. 132. 2 Poussin, VS.TH, p. 144. 8 op.cit, p. 47 n.2 and p. 546. Guenther, PPA, p. 313 says. ' ... by essence the Path is imageless (animitta).' 4 It can be illustrated in purely Buddhistic terms by a following series of quotations drawn from Guenther's PPA. 'It is this tendency to react by emotions that is called the world', samsara, as opposed to the tranquil equanimity of Nirväna which is attained by radical change of attitude. Sthiramati has dealt with this problem of power of emotions and necessary change of attitude in connection with the idea of an exis- tent substratum of the phenomena of Samsāra and Nirvāna (ālaya- vijñaān (ālaya-vijñāna) (p. 12). Quoting Sthīramati's Trimśikāvijñapti- bhāsya, p. 38. Guenther says that 'the emotions are, indeed, the root of the fact that the way of the world (samsāra) continues to exist ...... For this reason it is necessary to assume a substratum (ālaya-vijñāna) which is affected (charged, bhāvyate) by the various emotions (kleśopakleśa) ... (p. 13). This substratum is nutritive soil for the mutations of the emo- tions lying in it in a potential state. (p. 14). Spiritual development is essentially a restoration of the psychic equilibrium that has been distur- bed by the emotional outburst ...... the Mahayanic demand that emotiona- lity as well as interpretation has to be changed into feeling of bliss and comprehensive understanding.' (p. 16). In the field of dramatic literature it can be best illustrated by the Ngan- anda, which most obviously was written fallowing the injunctions of the passage on the sänta rasa inserted in NS. Modern literary critics persis- tently ignore in their criticism the theoretical principles of Indian art. Dr. De's opinion regarding the Nägănanda is the best example of this attitude (Dasgupta, HSL, p. 258). It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate approach. Yet one would expect a historian of literature to give, not

184 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

only his own subjective appreciation of a work of art, but also to give its estimation based, so far as it is possible, on the principles of criticism contemporary to the discussed work of art. The Nāgānanda viewed in the light of the sānta rasa definition of NS appears to be a very consciensciously composed drama. It opens with the santa rasa. Its vyabhicaribhäva is hinted at in the stage direction referring to the verse recited by Jīmūtavāhana at his first entrance. It is nirveda (Harşa, Nāgā- nanda, I. 6). But even without this direct reference to nirveda it is quite obvious that the dominant sentiment of this passage is the śānta. Jīmūta- vähana knows that 'youth is the season of rising passion' but he also is not 'unaware of its transcience' (Ibid). This is why he chooses to wait upon his parents instead of taking upon himself the duties and privileges of kingship. He has done whatever he was supposed to do. He has entrusted his kingdom to able officers only after satisfying all needs of the people (op.cit, 1.8). The equanimity of the hero is perfect: yet the delightful surroundings of the Malaya mountains do not leave him unaffected and his mind becomes to be filled with anxious desire (op. cit, 1.9). This, followed by eye's throbbing-an auspicious omen indicated in the stage-direction as nimitta (an interesting coinci- dence with the nimitta of the śânta rasa text which is responsible for appearance of bhāvas from the śānta rasa), makes Jīmūtavāhana exclaim: 'My right eye throbs, but I have no desire for any boon'. (op cit, I 10). Here the sänta rasa recedes into the background and gives place to the śrngara, which lasts till the end of Act. II. being sometimes sambhoga and sometimes vipralambha. This is followed by the hasya of Act III, which lasts till the close of this act and ends with the entrance of Mitrāvasu, who announces Matanga's annexation of the kingdom of Vidyadharas and brings with him the raudra rasa (op cit, III. 10). The remaining two acts lead a spectator through a whole gamut of aesthetic experience consisting of all rasas with the exception of the śrngära and hasya. The leading rasa is, of course, the śanta which emanates from the person of Jimutavahana, and is continuously accompanied by the vīra which is almost equally inherent to hero's behaviour. The appearance of Sankhacūda and his mother in Act IV and the appearance of Jīmūta- vähana's family in Act V is strongly charged with the karuna rasa, while the person of Garuda gives rise to the bhayānaka, raudrā and bībhatsa rasas. Besides the bibhatsa is connected with the hero's attitude of loathing his own body (op.cit, IV. 7.V.24). The end of the play brings the miraculous appearance of Gauri, which evokes the adbhuta rasa. A non-Buddhistic drama would end here. But the require- ments of the sänta rasa theory made the Buddhist author of the play put at the end of it a verse which brings to the surface once again the šānta rasa (op. cit. V.39. also bharatavākya) which all the time was underlying the rippling surface of other rasas. It seems that emanating from his drama, Harsa's interpretation of the santa rasa passage of NŚ, was nearer to that of Abhinavagupta than to ours. Apparently Harsa does not negate rasatva to the other rasas than santa. Yet he clearly accords to the santa a leading role in the drama. Besides Abhinava's

The Essence of Peace 185

In order to wind up our brief discussion of the Buddhist sources of the santa rasa we shall mention one more concept of Mahāyāna Buddhism which seems to give additional force to our theory. Here we have in mind the concept of ekarasa. This concept expresses ' .. the sameness of the emotional feeling, tone and value (ekarasa, samarasa) as to the arbitrary division of life into a part called Samsāra and another called Nirvāna .. '1 'The thinking associated with samatājñāna ...... establishes the apratişthita-nirvāna, which is said to be ekarasa."2 Ekarasa is also a state in which all dharmas enter through the absence of mental images and through the peace of nirvikalpa mind.'3 Besides 'the Absolute (Nature) is like Space whole of one single taste.'4 Thus it appears that ekarasa is one more attribute of Nirvāna or rather of ālaya-vijñāna (since it is common to both Samsāra and Nirvāna) expressing the perfect mental equipoise of this state. It is possible that Aśvaghosa had in mind the ekarasa concept when he wrote that 'in essence of suchness there is neither anything to be excluded, nor anything which has to be added.'5 Finally Asanga makes in his Sūtrālamāra a state- ment which puts together both the idea of peace and of ekarasa. 'If one takes initiative of saving all beings; if he is a good con- noisseur of the universal knowledge of the Vehicle; if he finds in Nirvāna the unique taste of transmigration and of Peace; such a wise (man) is to be known as universal himself.'6 This concept of the ekarasa throws an interesting light on the fact that the santa rasa apparently negates the existence of all the

comparison of the santa and the other rasas to a string and to the beads strung on it seems to apply to the Nāgānanda also. This would indicate that it is not an original idea of Abhinavagupta. 1 op cit, p. 213-4. 2 Poussin, VS.HT, p. 683 3 op.cit, p 598. 'tasmimś ca nirabhiļāpye vastumātre nirnimittayā nirvikalpacittaśāntyā sarvadharmasamatāikarasagāmī/' 4 Lévi, MESV, p. 117, ekarasa: sarvāikarasārthena. 5 Suzuki, ADAFM, p. 57. 6 Lévi, MSA. A, 11.3. 'sarvān satyāms tārayitum yah pratipanno yāne jñāne sarvagate kāusalyayuktah| yo nirvāņe samsrtišāntyekaraso' sāu jñeyo dhīmān eșa hi sarvatraga evam//. Lévi chooses samsarane' pi ekaraso and gives a variant reading samsrtiśålyekah raso. I have followed the reading suggested in the Japanese Index to the Sūtrālamkāra of Asańga. For ekarasa see also op. cit, XIV. 7.

186 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

eight rasas. For NS's text on it says that the bhāvas like rati etc. arise from santa and find their repose in it. Thus it denies to the bhāvas the privilege of becoming rasas since there is only the one rasa of Peace (sāntyekarasa). We face here, therefore, not an effort to add one more rasa to the existing eight but a total challenge to the basic aim of Nātya expressed in a famous sūtra of NŠ, 'vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisamyogād rasanispattih'. For if śānta rasa is the source of other bhāvas and their desti- nation, it means that it cannot have nispatti since it is eternal. The above sūtra therefore may concern only bhāvas. The obje- ctive of the Buddhist Nätya appears to be the destruction of the eight rasas (to which a true rasatva has been refused) for the sake of the one true rasa which is sänta. The Buddhist re- action offered in this way a totally different interpretation of Nätya in concert with Buddhist philosophical thinking. But. soon the rapid stream of reaction was lost almost beyond re- cognition in the quiet lake of Hindu eclecticism into which Bud- dhism and its revolutionary concept of rasa were absorbed.J It remains only to answer how ideas so diametrically opposed to these contained in all the rest of NS found its way into it. At the best we can offer only a hypothetical explanation of this process. At the very beginning we shall recall some already known features of the test of NŚ. We saw how Vedic and Brā- hmaņic ideas coexist there with Sāiva and Vāișnava traits. We have seen also how the first adhyãya and the last one seem to be controversial. In this light NS emerges already before its final compilation as a collection of many conflicting ideas. It is not surprising, therefore, that even later on, the nātyacāryās might have followed the same pattern and might have tried to incorporate into the basic manual of their art everything which took roots in the society. Pursuing our hypothesis further we may suggest that the Buddhist Nātya beginning with Aśvaghoșa who might have already had in front of him a Buddhistic work on poetry,1 down to Harsa including that mysterious Rahula who wrote a treatise on Nātya, must have been well developed theoretically and quite popular among the people. As the names mentioned above suggest, there existed Buddhist theoretical works, probably propounding sänta rasa theory, formulated on

1 Law, A, p. 24.

The Essence of Peace 187

the basis of the Vijñanavada philosophy or the related Tathatā school. Under such circumstances the traditional exponents of Nätya might have been forced by a popular demand to include the Buddhistic plays into their repertoire.1 This was followed by an effort to insert the theoretical tenets of the Buddhist Nātya into NS, thus providing the sanction of the most respected authority in the field for this type of repertoire. That it was done perforce and that the nātyācārya responsible for this ope- ration was not a trained philosopher is evident. In his eyes first of all śānta could have been only one more rasa. Besides he had to give to the passage dealing with it a form similar to the passages dealing with other rasas. The result of his labour betrays the existence of a highly philosophical and speculative source of his material. But the unfamiliarity of this hypotheti- cal nātyācārya with philosophy on the one hand and his unwil- lingness to see the total divergence of both views on the other, resulted in the philosophical vagueness of the text. Besides, the requirements of an ideal falsification introduced the vibhāvas, anubhāvas etc .- concepts altogether unsuited to the śānta rasa since as we have said it is a state existing eternally and only obscured by the vikāra-like bhāvas. Despite all this, the basic allegiance of the concept of śānta rasa to Mahāyāna Buddhism cannot be doubted.

1 It is interesting to note that the Sanskrit theatre of Kerala (Kūdiyā- ttam) has still in its repertoire the Nāgänanda of Harşa. At the same time the only manuscript which contains the santa rasa text was found in Kerala (NŚ.GO.S, I. preface, p. 12). It might be therefore that the fusion of bøth trends actually happened in the South.

12

CONCLUSION

NŚ is an outstanding work in its class. It marks an apogee in the history of theatre. This is not merely an attempt to boost the source of our own inspiration; it is the assessment of one who was bred-so to speak-in the green-room of the European theatre. It is enough to compare the curriculum of any of the most advanced schools of theatre, with the content of NS in order to conclude that this treatise embodies all that is still today considered the essentials of theatre. NŚ is a manual of the art of theatre. It is a thoroughly practi- cal treatise designed to be a convenient guide-book for a man of theatre in his professional life. The material which NS contains is enormous and, we can safely say, marks one of the highest tides in the development of histrionic art. The character of the technical analysis, which NS presents, indicates that fairly long and certainly many-sided theoretical inquiry into the nature of theatre must have preceded the actual formulation of the laws and regulations of NS. In our study we have made an attempt to discover or rather to reconstruct this theoretical thinking which underlies the practical formulae of NS and which in our view found its most direct expression in its mythological pass- ages. NŚ accords to theatre a place second to none but life itself. Actors consecrated by the great sacrificial session of the Nātya- veda become Brahmins-the priests whose only King is Soma, the illuminer of heaven-the Sacrifice itself. A yajamāna of this wonderful Sacrifice is the spectator-the one possessed of heart. Rasa is the oblation poured into the heart's flame. Recitations are the Rc verses; Abhinayas are the Yajus formulae; songs are the Säman chants. The reward of this Sacrifice is the commu-

Conclusion 189

nion with Brahman. The pulse of Nātya beats in accord with the pulse of the Universe, or of life which is none other than the Sacrifice itself. The heart's consent-a concept of the aes- theticians-was not only a requirement of theatre but also of life itself. The great Sacrifice of the Universe inspired awe and enthusiasm. Man born of desire was looking for the bliss of eternity in the fulfilment of desire. The Essence of Wonder which transpires from the Vedic prayers expresses man's relation- ship to the mystery of Creation-the mystery of Yajña. Immo- rtality for the man of that epoch was to live the full span of life and to be happy. In other words immortality was partici- pation in the eternal Nätyottama of existence with the heart's willing consent. Man's identity with the cosmic Sacrifice was willingly acknowledged and accepted. Yet this attitude slowly began to change. Without the previous enthusiastic heart's consent, man, no longer uninhibited, could not any more play his part in the sacrificial ritual of life. More and more he felt himself a slave of a cosmic robot whose name was Yajña. Look- ing for answers to the questions which tormented him man in- dulged in mortifications and meditations. Finally awakened (Buddha); he challenged the claim of the Universe of himself. That man found the only meaning of the drama of life in its cessation. The tumultuous joy and sorrow of movement, form, colour, sound and light which make the stream of life flow, was nothing but a painful appearance. Renunciation appeared then to be the only possible course of action in life as well as on the stage. Once deprived of his heart's consent, man found his only true destiny in transcending Yajña. He saw his reward in the eternal quiescence of an uninterrupted Peace. The rapid and sparkling streams of the Essence of Wonder, Love, Mirth, Pathos, Fury, Heroism, Terror, and Disgust, stopped by the rocks of renunciation, turned out to be a cool and motionless lake of the Essence of Peace; what before appeared to be a stream was only the rippling surface of that lake-a mere appearance not deserving attention. The previous participation in life's Sacrifice was replaced by the Path of Liberation from it. In the terms of theatre the eight rasas with the Adbhuta as their king disappeared in the all-embracing ocean of the Sänta rasa. Indra, a hero of the Sacrifice, was succeeded by Buddha, a hero of the Path of Salvation.

190 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Our conclusion belongs to the field of the philosophy of Nātya This is the earliest stage of it. We have ended with the Bud- dhist reaction to the earlier sacrificial theory of Nātya. But this was only the beginning of a process which continued further on. Nãtya never stood apart from the main currents of intellectual life. The pursuers of this discipline interpreted Nātya in terms of their philosophical convictions. Thus we can speak about the Vedantic interpretation which Nātya received from the hands of Bhattanāyaka.1 Further a Sāiva interpretation was given to it by Abhinavagupta. Sāradātanaya viewed it from the Vāișņava position and Bhoja was influenced in its treatment by Sāmkhya philosophy.2 These names may be easily multiplied. But it does not any more belong to the scope of the present study. We shall therefore end here signalling a forgotten chapter in the history of Indian aesthetics which we venture to call the philosophy of theatre (nātya-darśana).

1 Raghavan, NR, p. 44. 2 Raghavan, BSP, pp. 479 and 757.

POSTSCRIPT

Several years have passed since the completion of this work. Now, from the perspective thus acquired I see its merits, and above all its shortcomings, in a new light. There has, of course, been a temptation to rewrite some portions of it. But finally I decided to place it in the hands of the readers in its more or less original form. This is because my subsequent readings and discussions left my basic thesis intact although proving beyond doubt my great limitations and handicaps in presenting it. Availing myself of this opportunity I would like to add a few thoughts to this study which may clarify some of the points which have been found controversial, among others by Professor J. Gonda of Utrecht to whom I am greatly indebted for his criticism. One of the most important problems of this nature concerns the identity of Nātya and Yajña. I would ask the reader to return for a moment to the conclusion of the discussion of the itivrtta. Here I would add only one more observation: the iden- tity of the world and the mystical oneness of reality is a cliché of the Indian thinking, yet to a European the same still sounds blasphemy. Passing over to more detailed problems I would like to state that while reviewing all the earlier contributions to the know- ledge of the classical Indian theatre, I was fully aware of their historical approach. But this fact cannot absolve those contri- butions from the guilt of missing the mythological account of the Nátyotpatti adhyāya for historical ends. In that discussion I have omitted two rather important books which were not available at Banaras at that time. The first is that of S. Lévi, Le Theatre Indien, Paris 1890 and the second is that of S. Konow, Das Indische Drama, Berlin 1920, also available in an English translation entitled The Indian Drama, by S. N. Ghosal, Calcutta 1960. Both books are now somewhat obsolete and contribute little new material. There is however, one point

192 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

which might be mentioned and this is Konow's rendering of the term niyatäpti which, according to him is "the delayed obtainment (and) the confidence that this will succeed after the obstructing impediments are wiped out." (p. 31). Although the rendering of the term in question tallies substantially with mine, the subsequent remark proves that Konow understood this con- cept in the traditional way. A much more important contribution regarding the sandhis is that of T.G. Mainkar entitled The Theory of the Samdhis and the Samdhyangas, Poona, 1960. The author brings out a lot of material directly relevant to what I discuss but while admit- ing of disruption or frustration in the vimarśa sandhi he never- theless understands the niyatāpti avasthā in the traditional way and thus does not sound very convincing. Considering the mythology of the Nâtyotpatti I quite consciously limited myself in my argumentation, trying to marshall just enough arguments and evidence to prove my point and yet not to enter into controversies belonging to the early history of the Hindu religion as well as the character of the gods and their worship. Here I would additionally like to mention the book by H. Lüders entitled Varuna, Göttingen, 1951 in connection with my discussion of the character of that god. Lüders does not make much of Varuna as the god of space and thus seems to contradict what I have said on the subject. He is inclined to consider him through and through a god of waters. Yet since at some instances Varuņa is undoubtedly associated with the space above (of which fact Lüders takes duly a note, pp. 54-56 he explains it away by saying that even there, Varuna is a denizen of the heavenly receptacle of waters. Far from challenging this argument I shall only point that the space aspect of the god in question cannot be denied and since it almost totally disappears from later accounts, to be traced only in the Veda, I still feel justified in believing that this aspect of Varuna may be taken as indicating a considerable antiquity of the image of him which the Nātyasāstra presents. At this point I may also draw the attention of the reader to the book by T. Bhattacharya, The Cult of Brahma, Patna, 1957, which, though highly controversial, contributes some interesting infor- mation concerning that god. Considerably less important for my main thesis is the problem

Postscript 193

of the puranas and the intricacies of the mythological world that they present. Since it is quite obvious that their claim on the mythology of NS can be but almost none, I have permitted myself to treat this problem very briefly, while it has been treated in all detail in the works of W. Kirfel and P. Hacker. As regards my treatment of the Indramaha festival and the concept of wrestling competitions, I would like to stress that my aim in the present work was neither to offer an exhaustive study of the Indramaha nor a similar study of the connection between drama and the wrestling competitions. My main preoccupation was with the relationship between theatre and Yajña as well as dāivāsuram. I have touched upon the Indra- maha and the wrestling competitions only in so far as they are helpful in understanding that relationship. For a more detailed discussion of these aspects I would refer the reader to J. J. Meyer, Trilogie altindischer Machte und Feste der Vegetation. Zürich-Leipzig, 1937 and L. von Schroeder, Mysterium und Mimus, Leipzig, 1908. Having completed my studies in 1964 at Banaras, I was completely unaware of the study of J. Gonda entitled The Vision of the Vedic Poets, The Hague, 1963 published, as the date shows, almost simultaneously. This book contains extremely valuable and rich material, almost in its entirety relevant to that part of my work which deals with the role of the sages in the revelation of the Nātyaveda. After careful perusal of this book, to my great satisfaction, I have been confirmed in my views. In the history of religion the problem of dating naturally becomes a subject of controversy. In my work, though, I do not claim any originality in this respect and I tried to follow those opinions which appeared to me the most convincing and the most widely accepted. It is not impossible, though, that the dates I suggest could be reconsidered in the light of new findings. I myself attach importance only to the relative chro- nology, insisting that the content of the Nātyotpatti adhyāya should be considered as old as the close of the period of the brähmanas and the beginning of the epic period. A further aspect of my study which seems to require an additional gloss on my part, is the manner I discuss the itivrtta and especially the arthaprakrtis. Here I did try to follow the

194 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre time honoured method of the traditional Indian scholarly enquiry-i.e., an interpretation of the basic text which takes its initial impulse from it and elucidates it claiming for itself fidelity of spirit rather than of letter. Considering the nature of my subject, I felt justified in this approach. Finally, I would like to beg indulgence of the reader for quoting a rather antiquated translation of the Rgveda. Being neither an Englishman nor a Vedic scholar, I did not feel quite qualified to undertake a new translation and I decided to chose Wilson's prose rendering for my quotations. Nevertheless, whenever the situation demanded I did refer directly to the original.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(The dist of books quoted or referred to in the present thesis. Capital letters between brackets are the abbreviations of the titles used in the foot-notes) AGRAWALA, V.S., (IP). India as known to Pānini, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, 1953. ---- , (SVF), Sparks from the Vedic Fire, School of Vedic Studies, Varanasi, 1962 -- , (IV), Vedic Lectures, Proceedings of the Summer School of Vedic Studies, Varanasi, 1963. ANANDA, M.R., Bhāratīya Nātya Sāhitya, a collection of essays in Hindi, ed. by Seth Govindadas Hirak Jayanti Smarak Samiti, New Delhi. ATHARVA PARISISTAS ATHARVAVEDA, See Bölling. BALLANTYNE, J.R., AND MITRA, P.D., (MC), The Mirror of Composition, Reprinted from Bibliotheca Indica, ed. 1865, Motilal Banarasidass, Banaras, 1956. BHAGAVADGITA, See Radhakrishnan. BHANDARKAR, R.C., (VS and MRS), Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, Trübner, Strassburg, 1913. BHARATIYA, K.K., Samskrta Nāțakakāra. BHAVABHUTI, (URC), Uttararāmacarita, ed., notes and transl., by Kane, P.V., and Joshi, C.N., Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1962. BHAVAPRAKASANA, (BP. GOS), of Śāradātanaya, ed., Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Baroda. BHASA, URUBHANGA, See Devadhar. BHATT, S.C., Drama in Ancient India, Amrit Book Co., New Delhi, 1961. BHATTACHARYA, V., (MVN) Mahāyānavimšika of Nāgārjuna, ed. by, Santiniketan, Calcutta, 1931.

196 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

BHAWE, S.S., (SH), The Soma-Hymns of Rgveda, Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1962. BOLLING, G.M., AND NEGELEIN, J.V., The Parisistas of the Atharvaveda, ed. by. Otto Harrasowitz, Leipzig, 1909. BUHLER, G., (LM), The Laws of Manu, transl. by, The Sacred Books of the East, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1886. BUDDHACARITA of ASVAGHOSA BYRSKI, M.C., Studies in Nāțya, Bharati, Bulletin of the College of Indology, Banaras Hindu University, No. 6, Part II, 1962-3. -, Theatre and Sacrifice, Prajña, Banaras Hindu University Journal, vol. IX (1), Oct. 1963. CALAND, W., (PBr), The Pañcavīmśa Brāhmana, transl., by, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1931. -, (SSS), The Sankhāyana Śrāutasūtra, transl. into English by, The International Academy of Indian Culture, Nagpur, 1953. CHALMERS, LORD, (BT) Buddha's Teachings, being the Sutta- Nipata or Discourse Collection, ed. and Transl., by, Harvard Oriental Series, Cambridge Mass., 1932. CHATTOPADHYAYA, K., (DK) The Date of Kālidāsa, Allahabad University Studies, vol. II, 1926. -, The Sandhis or the Five Parts of a Sanskrit Drama, The Allahabad University Magazine, vol. VI, No. 1, Oct. 1927. CHATURVEDI, S.R., (ANS), Abhinavanāțyašāstram, Akhila Bharatiya Vikrama Parişad, Banaras, 2008. COOMARASWAMY, A.K., (B and GB), Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprinted, New Delhi, 1974. -- , (TNA). The Transformation of Nature in Art, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprinted, New Delhi, 1974. DASGUPTA, H.N., The Indian Stage, Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House, Calcutta, 1934. DASGUPTA, S.N., (HIP), A History of Indian Philosophy, Cambridge, 1957. -- , and De, S.K., (HSL), A History of Sanskrit Literature, University of Calcutta, 1962. DB, S.K., (SP), History of Sanskrit Poetics, second edition, Firma K.L, Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, 1960.

Bibliography 197

-- , (SPSP), Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyaya, Calcutta, 1959. DESHPANDE, G.T., Sanskrit Drama, in the collection of essays entitled Indian Drama, The Publication Division, Govern- ment of India, New Delhi, 1952 DEVADHAR, C.R., The Orubhanga of Bhasa, ed. and transl. by, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1940. DHAMMAPADA. DHVANYALOKA and Locana of Abhinavagupta (DH.L.), See Tripathi. DIKSHITAR, U.R.R., (PI), The Purana Index, University of Madras, Madras, 1952. DILLON, M., FOWLER, M., and RAGHAVAN, V., (NLRK), The Nāțakalakșanaratnakośa of Sāgaranandin, transl., by. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1960. EGGELING, J., (SB), The Satapatha Brāhmana, transl. by, The Sacred Books of the East, vols. XII, XXVI, XLI, XLIII, XLIV. GAMBHIRNANDA, SWAMI, (EU), The Eight Upanisads. transl. by, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, 1943. GAWRONSKI, A., (PDI), Poczatki dramatu indyjskiego a sprawa wplywow greckich, Memoires de la Commission Orientaliste No. 35, Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci, Krakow, 1946. GHOSH, M.M., (CHHD), Contributions to the History of the Hindu Drama, Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyaya, Calcutta, 1958. -- , (NS. MMG.), The Nātyaśastra, transl. by, The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. I, 1950, vol. II, 1961, vol. II, text, 1956. Nos. 272, 272A. --- , The Nātyaśāstra and Abhinavabhārati, IHQ, vol. X, Calcutta, 1934. -- , (PNS), Problems of the Nātyasāstra, IHQ, vol. VI, Calcutta, 1930. GHURYE, G.S., (IS), Indian Sadhus, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1953. GLASENAPP, H.V., (BB), Brahma et Bouddha, transl. from i German by Toutzevitch, O., Payot, Paris, 1937. GNOLI, R., (AEAA), The Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta, Serie Orientale Roma XI, Roma, 1956. GONDA, J., (AEV), Aspects of Early Visnuism, Oriental Book- shop, Utrecht, 1954. -- , (NBr), Notes on Brahman, Beyers, Utrecht, 1950.

198 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

-- , (FUWID), Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung und Wesen des Indischen Dramas, Acta Orientalia, vol. XIX, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1943. GUENTHER, H.V., (PPA), Philosophy and Psychology in the Abhi- dharma, Buddha Vihara, Lucknow, 1957. GUPTA, C.B., The Indian Theatre, Motilal Banarasidass, Banaras, 1954. HAAS, G.C.O., (DR), The Daśarūpa, ed. and transl. by, Motilal Banarasidass, reprinted, Delhi, 1962. HARIVAMSA. HARSAVARDHANA, Naganandam, ed. and transl. by Sadhuram, Atmaram and Sons, Delhi, 1953. HARSAVARDHANA., Ratnāvalī, ed. and transl. by Ramanuja- swami, P.V., Sastrulu and Sons, Madras, 1936. HOPKINS, E.W., (EM), Epic Mythology, Trübner, Strassburg, 1915. -, (RI), The Religions of India, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprinted, 1970. HUME, R. E., (TPU), The Thirteen Principal Upanisads, transl. from the Sanskrit by, Oxford University Press, Second revised edition, 1931. JAGIRDAR, R. V., (DSL), Drama in Sanskrit Literature, Popular Book Depot, Bombay, 1947. JAINI, P. S. (AD), The Abhidharmadīpa, with Vibhāșaprabha- vrttī, ed. by, Patna, 1959. JENNINGS, I. G., (VBB), The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, Oxford University Press, London, 1948. JHA, G. N., The Tattvakāumudī, of Vācaspati Miśra, ed. and transl. by, Poona, 1934. JOHNSTON, E. H., (ES), The Early Sāmkhya, Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1937. (SA) The Sāundaranāndā, of Aśvaghoșa, ed. by, Oxford University Press, London, 1928. KANE, P. V., (HDS), History of Dharmašāstra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1941. -- , (HSP), History of Sanskrit Poetics, Motilal Banarasidass, Third revised edition, Delhi, 1961. KALIDASA, (MA), Mālavikāgnimitram. -- , The Abhijñāna-Sakuntalā, ed. and transl. by Gajendra- gadkar, A.B., The Popular Book Store, Surat, sixth edition.

Bibliography 199

KATYAYANA, rāutasūtra. KEITH, A. B., (AA), The Aitareya Aranyaka, ed. and transl. by, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1909. -,1 (BP), Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford, 1923. -, ( RPVU), The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and the Upanișads, Harvard Oriental Series, vols. 31-2, Harvard University Press, 1925. --- , (MAR|I|), Mythology of All Races, (Indian & Iranian), Boston, 1917. -- , (RVBr), Rigveda Brāhmanas, The Aitareya and Kauşitaki Brāhmaņas of the Rigveda, transl. from the original Sanskrit by, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. XXV, Harvard University Press, 1920. -, (SS), The Sāmkhya System, Indian Heritage Series, Calcutta. -, (SD), The Sanskrit Drama, Oxford University Press, 1924. -, (SA), The Śānkhāyana Āranyaka, Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1908. -, (VBYS), The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittirīya Samhitā. transl. by, Harvard University Press, 1914. KULKARNI, K.P., Sanskrit Drama and Dramatists, Satara City, 1927. LALITAVISTARA. LAW, B.C., (A), Aśvaghosa, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1946. -, (DS), La Doctrine du Sacrifice dans led- Brāhmanas, Ernet Leroux, Paris, 1898. , (MSA. A.), Mahāyāna-Sūtrālamkāra de Asanga, ed. and transl. into French by Paris, 1911. -, (MESV), Matériaux pour l' Etude du Systéme Vijñapti- mātra, Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris, 1932. MACDONELL, A.A., (BD), Brhaddevata, attributed to Saunaka, ed. and transl. by Harvard Oriental Series, vol. VI, Harvard University Press, 1904. MACDONELL, A.A., (HSL), A History of Samskrit Literature, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprinted, New Delhi, 1962. -- , (VM), The Vedic Mythology, Indological Book House, reprinted, Banaras, 1963.

200 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

-- , AND KEITH, A.B., (Veln) Vedic Index of the Names and Subjects, reprinted, Motilal Banarsidass, Varanasi, 1958. MAHABHARATA. MONIER-WILLIAMS, SIR, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, (contd. from sr. no. 93 p. 269), Clarendon Press, reprinted, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi. MURTI, T.R.V., (CPB), The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1960. NAGARJUNA, Mūlamadhyamakārikā. NAMBUDIRIPAD, P.C.K., Kūtiyāttam, a thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Letters of the Uuiversity of Madras, January 1962 (No. T 1427). NATAKALAKSANARATNAKOSA, See Dillon. NATYASASTRA, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, Baroda, Nos. XXXVI, CXXIV, CXLV. NATYASASTRA, Kāvyamālā, Nirņaya Sāgar Press, Bombay, No. 42. OJHA, D., Hindi Nātaka, Delhi 1954. PANDEY, K.C., (IAe), Indian Aesthetics, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, vol. II, Varanasi, 1959. PARGITER, F.E., (MP), The Mārkandeya Pūrana, transl. by, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1904. POUSSIN, L. de Vallée., (MP), Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, La Siddhi de Hiuan-Tsang, Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1929. RADHAKRISHNAN, S., (BG), The Bhagavadgita, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1960. RAGHAVAN, V., (BSP), Bhcja's Šrngāra Prakāśa, Madras 1963. --- , (NR), The Number of Rasas, The Adyar Library, Adyar, 1940. -- , (SL), Sanskrit Literature, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1961. -- The Vrttis, Journal of Oriental Research, vols. VI, VII, Madras, 1932. RAJA, C.K., Dasopanişad, ed. by, Adyar Library, Madras, 1935. RAKESAGUPTA., (PSR), Psychological Studies in Rasa, Banaras, 1956. RAMAYANA. SAMAVEDA. SAUNDARANANDA of ASVAGHOSA., See Johnston.

Bibliography 201

SCHAYER, S., (MDS), Mahāyāna Doctrines of Salvation, transl. from German by R.T. Knight, London, 1923. SHASTRI, HARAPRASAD., (OID), The Origin of Indian Drama, JPASB, vol. V, Calcutta, 1909. SHASTRI, J.K., (DR) The Daśarūpakam of Dhanañjaya, Gondal, 1942. SHASTRI, S.N., (LPSD) The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol. XIV, Varanasi, 1961. SHEKHAR, I., (SDOD) Sanskrit Drama: Its Origin and Decline, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1960. SINGH, C.P., Bhāratīya Nāțya Paramparā, Nāgarī Pracārinī Patrikā, No. 1-2, Banaras, 1958. SINGH, I., Samskrta Nāțaka Samīkșā, Kanpur, 1960. SMITH, V., (OHI). The Oxford History of India, third edition, Oxford, 1961. SORENSEN, S., (INMBH) Index to the Names in the Mahā- bhārata, Motilal Banarasidass, reprinted, Delhi, 1963, STCHERBATSKY, T .. (BL), Buddhist Logic, Leningrad, 1923. SUDRAKA., Mrechakațika. SUZUKI, T., (ADAFM), Aśvaghoșa's Discourse on the Awaken- ing of Faith in the Mahāyana, transl. by, Chicago, 1900. SHEVTASHVATARA UPANISAD. TRIPATHI, R.S., Dhvanyāloka of Śri Ānandavardhanacharya ... ... , ed. and transl. into Hindi by, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1963. UNADI SUTRAS. UPADHYAYA, B., Samskṛta Sāhitya kā itihāsa, Kāśi, 1960. VARMA, K.M., (NNN), Nātya, Nrtta and Nrtya, Orient Long- mans, Calcutta, 1957. -- , (SWB), Seven Words in Bharata. What do they signify, Orient Longmans, Calcutta, 1958. VIDYABHUSHAN, A.C., The Origin of Indian Drama, in The Theatre of the Hindus, Sushil Gupta Ltd., Calcutta, 1955. VIRA, R., and Chandra, L., Jaiminīya Brāhmana, ed, by Saras- vati Vihara Series, Nagpur, 1954. VISVESVAR, ACHARYA, (HABh), Hindi Abhinavabhāratī, ed. and transl. into Hindi, Hindi Vibhaga, Dilli Viśvavidyalaya, Delhi, 1960. -- , (HND), Hindi Nātyadarpana, ed. and transl. into Hindi,

202 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Hindi Vibhaga, Dilli Viśvavidyalaya, Delhi, 1961. WELLS, H.W., (CDI), The Classical Drama of India, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1963. (SSP), Six Sanskrit Plays, ed. by, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1964. WILSON, H.H., (RV), Rig-Veda Samhita, translated from the original Sanskrit by, Poona, 1925. -- , (VP), The Visnu Purana, transl. by, Trubner and Co., London, 1866. WINTERNITZ, M., History of Indian Literature, vol. III, transl. from German by S. Jha, Motilal Banarasidass, Banaras, 1963. ZIMMER, H., Philosophies of India, Bollingen Foundation, New York, 1951. Yajurveda Sāmhitā (Mādhyandina) (YSM).

INDEX

Abhinavabhāratī, XVI, 3, 5, 48f, 68, Atharvaveda, 27, 34, 60ff, 123ff Avasthā, 103ff, Ipassim Abhinavagupta, XII, 3-5, 16, 24, 34, 55-56, 59-60, 65-66, 68f, 69, 73-74, 85, 101ff, 104, 106ff, 1141T, Bādarāyana, 167f 134f, 147, 152ff, 178-179f, 184f Ballantyne, 114f abhinaya, 66, 69, 188; Sattvika, 66 Bhagavadgita, 43, 146, 179f Abhinavadarpaņa, 14 Bhāgavatamelānāțakam, 67f Abhiplava, 99 Bhāna, 12 Actor, 7, 9, 19-20, 73, 129, 147, Bhandarkar, 26f, 70f 152ff, 188 Bharata Muni, 6-10, 21-22, 24, 26, Adbhutarasa, 150, 152, 159, 161, 38f, 46, 62, 67ff, 75-76, 85, 115f 189 178 Adhvaryu, 50 Bhāratas-tribe, 11, 15, 68f, 70, 72 Ādityas, 36, 88 Bhása, 138 Agni, 31-32, 35, 37f, 80, 87ff, 95ff, Bhatțacharya, 192 100f Bhatțanāyaka, 147, 152, 155, 157, Agrawala, IX, XV, 19, 35f, 38f, 178,190 78f Bhāva, 10, 183, 186 Ālayavijñāna, 181, 185 Bhavābhūti, 112, 138 Amarasinha, 21 Bhāvaprakaša, 114f, 157 Amrtamanthana, 12f Bhave, 33f Anubhāvas, 147ff, 180, 187 Bhoja, 48, 114f-115f, 121-122, 124ff, Anuşțubh, 65 190 Āpastamba Śrāuta Sūtra, 38f Bodhisattva, 180 Araņyakas, 42; Āitareya, 65; Śan- Brahmā, 28 passim; Brahmānanda, khāyana, 58 145ff, 152, 157, 159 Arthaprakrti, 103, 107f, 114ff, 193 Brahman, 53-54, 59-60, 79, 94, 99, Aryaman, 87 145, 151, 161, 182, 189; brahman/ Aryan, 6-11, 62-65, 70-71, 165 priest, 61 Asanga, 185 Brāhmaņas, 17, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37- Aśoka, 169f 38f, 42, 65. 74, 80, 93f, 94ff, 98, Aştadhyāyī, 21, 45 140, 144, 166, 167f, 193; Aitareya, Aśvaghoşa, 19, 170f 34f, 44, 78- 87; Kāuşītaki, 28, 35, Aśvamedha, 95, 98 44, 46, 60, 65, 74, 99, 142, 151; Aśvins, 95 Tāittiriya, 28; Śatapatha, 31, 34f,

204 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

53-54, 56, 59, 65, 74, 78ff, 85-86; Dikshitar, 26f-27 Şadvimśa, 37; Gopatha, 37, 44, 61; Śāilālī, 38f; Pañcavimśa, 49, Dima, 12 Dravidians, 64 98-99; Jāiminīya, 49-50, 58, 65; Tāņdya, 146 Brāhmanical-denomination, 23, 26, Ekarasa, 185ff 42; period-denomination 86; my- Epic Mythology, 26-27, 37 thology, 88f Epics, 27-28 Brāhmins, 8-9, 34f, 36, 70, 188 Brhaddevata, 34f Brhaspati, 94 Buddha, 167ff; Buddhacarita, 173ff Gawroński, A., 14, 17, 20f, 68f, 143f

Buddhism, 29, 38f, 42, 168ff; Mahā- Ghosh, M.M., 6-8, 10-11, 17, 21,

yāna, 169, 171, 176, 179, 185, 187 24, 26f, 62, 65, 68f, 74, 114f, 127, 129ff, 134 Ghurye, G.S., 70f Glasenapp, H. Von, 43 Caland, W., 49 Gnoli, R., 154f-155f Chanda, R.P., 70f Candramas, 33, 86 Gonda, J., Xf, 15-17, 21f, 31-32f, 48. 80, 191, 193 Chattopadhyaya, Pandit, 103, 108f, 172f, 174 Gopis, 14f Greek Influence, 14 Chaturvedi, S.R., 41 Guenther, H., 177ff, 183f Consecration of the stage, 46 Commaraswamy, A.K., 44 Haas, 129f, 131 Hacker, P., 193 Daivāsuram, X, XI, 12f, 76ff, 139ff, Hara, 24 174, 193 Haraprasād, Śāstri, 47 Dance, 6, 8, 11, 14f-15; 64-65, 69 Harivamśa, 44 Dasgupta, 21, 46f, 137, 145f, 169, Harşa, 110, 179f, 184f, 186-187f 181f-182 Hinduism, 42, 167ff Daśarūpaka, 105ff, 114f, 120f-121, Hiuen Tsang, 181 123, 129, 131 Hopkins, E.W., 25-27f, 28-30, 32- De, S.K., 21, 24f, 183f 33f, 34f, 35, 36f, 37 Demons/Demigods, 89; Apsarases, 10, 88f: Asuras, 46-47, 49, 50f, 63, Hundred, 74ff

65, 70, 76ff, 86ff. 96ff, 100, 136ff, 139ff; Dāityas, 46; Dānavas, 36, Ijya-see Yajña, 46; Gandharvas, 36, 49, 88f; Indra, 30, 96ff, 139ff, passim Nāgas, 36: Răkșasas, 36, 78ff, Indramaha, XI, 15-16, 32, 47ff, 65, 86ff, 96, 100, 136, 138; Yakşas, 36 77, 193 Denouement, 130ff Indrāņī, 142f Desire, 94ff, 98ff, 104, 135ff, 144ff, Indus Valley, 63; Mohenjo-Dāro, 165ff 64, 70; Harappa, 64 Dhanañjaya, 104ff, 125, 129f, 130, Iśvarakrsņa, 179f 131f, 133, 157 Itivrtta, XI ff, 101ff, 147, 149, 156, Dhanika, 105, 108, 129f 159-160, 173ff, 191, 193 Dhar ma, 151 Itihāsa, 102

Index 205

Jagirdar, R.V., 11-13, 17-18, 41, 53f, Maruts 36, 86, 142f 68f Maypole, 47f, 48 Jainism, 42 Meyer, 193 Jambudvīpa, 36, 72 Mitra, 36, 86-87, 89f Jarjara, 13, 23, 24, 31, 32, 47-50, 76 Mrcchakațika, 122 Jha, XVI Muni, 68ff Johnston, E. H., 167f Murti, T.R.V., XV, 167, 179 Mystery Plays, 14

Kāla, 88f, 160 Kālidāsa, 110ff, 126, 157, 172f, 174 Nagānanda, 179f, 183f, 187f Kane, P.V., 3f, 9f, 27f, 50, 68f, 70f, Nāgarjuna, 170, 181 102f Nāgas, 32; Śeșa, 32; Vāsuki, 32; Kārtikeya, 32 Takşaka, 32 Kavi, 33-34, 128-129 Nahuşa, 11f, 43 Kāvya, 33-34, 102, 108f Namuci, 25f Keith, A.B., passim Nandī, 32-34 Kirfel, 193 Nandīkeśvara, 14 Konow, S., 191 Nārada, 69 Krśāśva, 21 Narain, XV Krşņa, 14f-15, 25 Nārāyaņa, 25f; Nārāyaņācarya, Krtānta, 88f, 160 152,159 Kūțiyațțam, Xf, XV, 20f, 67f, 187f Nața, 6-8, 15, 19-21, 46, 72, 68f; Nața-Sūtra, 19, 21-22, 38 Nāțaka, 20, 66, 135, 150, 173 Lalitavistāra, 170 Națarāja, 9, 64 Lāsya, 14f Nāțyadarpaņa, 114f, 120f-121, 129f, Lévi, S., 58, 72, 78, 171, 180, 185f, 133

191 Nīlakaņțha, 10, 24 Lewis, XVI Nirrti, 88f, 89f, 160 Lokapālas, 36, 89f Nrtta, 12 Lüders, H., 192 Nrtya, 12

Macdonell, A.A., 27f, 33f, 34f, 35f, Paderewski Found, XVI 37, 42, 49, 140 Pandey, K.C., 107, 110, 114f, 156, Magic, 16 158-159 Mahābhārata, 26f, 28-30, 32, 50, 108f Pāņini, XI, 19, 21-22, 26f, 36f, 38, Mahāyānaśraddhopādaśāstra, 171f, 45-46

181f Pargiter, F.E., 37f Mahāyānavimśaka, 181 Patañjali, XI, 19-21, 26f, 179f Maheśvara, 4, 24-25, 26 Pathak, V.S., XV, 126 Mainkar, T.G., 192 Pischel, 45 Makha, 95 Pitāmaha, 4, 25 Mallayudha, 46 Plot-see Itivrtta Mantra, 48, 50 Poussin, La Vallée, 171f Manu, Svāyambhuva, 36; Vāivas- Prajāpati, 28, 30, 49, 53-54, 58, 79, vata, 36; Smrti, 59, 68f 81f, 86, 94ff, 136ff, 140, 145

20 Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre

Prakaraņa, 135, 173 Śruti, 55 Prakrti, 115ff, 179f, 182 Śūdra, 6-9, 15, 52, 70 Purāņa, 26f, 27-28, 30, 37, 193; Śūdraka, 111 Bhavişya, 47f; Mārkaņdeya, 37f, Sacrifice-see Yajña 54; Vişņu, 53f Sādhāraņikaraņa, XII, 153, 155, Purāņic Mythology, 26-27 158,160 Purușa, 74, 179f, 182 Sädhya Gods, 94 Puruşārthas, 55-56, 129f Sāgara/muni, 73 Pūrvarańga, 16, 48f, 159-160 Sagaranandin, 66 Sāhityadarpana, 106ff, 114f, 129- 130, 133 Rakesagupta, 158f Samavakāra, 12 Raghavan, V., X, XII, XV, 32-33f, Sāmaveda, 59 46-48, 50, 77, 114f, 121, 124ff, Sāmkhya-yoga, 167, 179f, 182f, 190 152f, 157-158f, 177 Sandhi, 101ff, 107f, 116ff, 124, 133ff, Rājacūdamaņidīkșita, 157f 149ff, 159 Rāmacandra/Guņacandra, 158 Sandhyāńgas, 147ff Rāmāyana, 10, 20, 26f, 126 Sangeet Natak Akademi, XVI Rasa, XIff, 10, 53, 60, 114ff, 144ff, Sarasvati, 36, 139ff 177ff, 184f, 186ff Saundarananda, 172ff, 180f Ratnāvalī, 105, 107, 109 Sayana, 48 Renou, L., 34 Schraeder, L. von, 30, 193 Rgveda, 9, 27-28, 30, 32-35, 47-48, Searle, XVI 59, 65, 70, 74, 86ff, 141, 194 Shastri, S.N., 105ff, 114f, 121, 129f Rsi, XI, 62-63, 66ff, 94f Shekhar, I., 6-11, 17, 53, 62, 65, 68f, Rudra, 25; Rudras, 36, 88 70,138 Rūpaka, 135 Singh, C.P., 13-14, 17, 43, 48, 49f, 85 Skanda, 36 Śāivism, 23 Suszkiewicz, XVI Śakra, 25f Smith, V.A., 169 Śakuntalā, 105-106, 110, 118, 122, Soma, 31-32, 33-34, 77, 80, 86, 94ff, 126, 138, 154, 156f 100f, 188 Śankara/Śiva, 24; Śankarācarya, Sorensen, 25f, 26f, 27f 145, 167f Spectator, 158ff Śańkuka, 157f Staff-see Jarjara Šānta/Sānti, 166ff, 175ff Stage, 87-88, 89f Śānta rasa, XII, XVI, 177ff, 189 Stcherbatsky, T., 168f, 169 Śāradātanaya, 10, 114f, 157-158f, Sthāpaka, 45 190 Styles- see Vrttis Śariputraprakaraņa, 173ff Sūrya, 23-24, 36-37f, 141 Śilalin, 21 Sūtradhāra, 45 Śilpa, 44ff, 56ff, 60, 65 Sūtrālamkara, 185 Šiva, 6, 8-11, 23, 29, 32, 34f, 37, 42, Sūtras, 28; Buddhist, 29 54, 63-64f, 65, 165, 180f Sutta-Nipāta, 167, 175 Srautasūtras, Šankhāyana, 50; Kāt- Suzuki, D.T., 171 yāyana, 65 Svāti, 69 Śrngāraprakāşa, 48

Index 207

Tanmayībhāva, XII, 153f Wedika, 87 Tathatā, 181, 183, 187 Vibhāvas, 147ff, 187 Theatre-Hall, X, 30, 34, 35, 84ff, 160; Play-House, 33 Vidūsaka, 143f, 174

Tragedy, 137ff Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, 181

Trāilokya, 57, 60, 83, 100, 138, 151, Virūpakșa, 26 Viśvakarman, 30, 89f 157,170 Viśvanātha, 106, 108, 130, 133; 152 Trayī. Vidyā, 57-58, 60, 79, 93 Viśve devah, 95 Viśveśvār Acharyn, 3, 68, 153f

Upadhyaya, XVI Vişņu, 4, 6, 14" 24.26-32, 35, 37,

Upahavya, 49-50 42-43454 Prşakapi, 143f Upanişad-Brahmā-Yogin, 145 Vṛttis, 6, 11, 15, 22, 24; Kāiśiki, 24; Upanişads, 17, 28, 42-43, 145, 165- Sāttvati, 46 166ff; Brhadāraņyaka, 66, 72f, 80, Vyabhicāribhāva, 147f 145, 165; Chandogya, 70; Kātha, 66, 166; Māņdūkya, 74; Śvetāśva- tara, 74; Tāittirīya, 60, 145, 151 Wells, H.W., 55 Orubhanga, 138ff Wilson, 194 Uttararāmacarita, 112, 138

Yajamāna, 50, 188 Vāc, 65, 140 Yajña, 13-14, 16, 41ff, 58ff, 67, 75, Vahni, 87 77, 78ff, 90, 93ff, 135ff, 140ff; Vāişņavism, 23 Ijya, 34, 100 Vajra, 31-32, 49, 79 Yajurveda, 10f, 44, 59 Vālmīki, 10 Yama, 89f Varma, K.M., 11-12, 17, 21, 25f, Yati, 70

33f, 68f Yatirāja Swami, 157

Varņa, 7-8 Yoga, 180 Varuņa, 23-24, 34, 35-36, 86-87, 89f, Yuga, 27, 36-37; Dvāpara, 37;

192 Khārvā, 37; Krta, 36-37; Pușya,

Vasudeva, 26f 37; Treta, 36

Vāyu, 23, 36 Yūpa, 13, 48-49 Veda, IX, XI, 6-7, 17, 27, 37, 52ff, 67, 71-72, 79-80, 83f, 141, 144, 151ff, 166, 192 Zimmer, H., 167, 181-182 Vedic Mythology, 26