Some reflections on Bharata's Natyasastra.

Mishra, Rajnish

The Natyasastra, (literally "a discipline of dramaturgy" composed and compiled between 1st Century to 5th Century B.C.; (henceforth referred as NS) attributed to Sage Bharata in the tradition, is an encyclopedia of Indian fine arts (lalita kala). It is a text of constitution, analysis and communication of human experiences. Since it pertains to all the dimensions of human life and conditions, it emerges as an authoritative text of knowledge as well. Apart from the analysis of the experential contents, the NS is a culturally central text that invites its insightful readers to visit the semiotic universe of a living community. Like other texts of the Indian intellectual traditions, NS is also a highly coded text that needs re-contextualization and re-interpretation. In a learned tradition this task has been performed by a series of philosophical and literary commentaries. Primarily, this has been a device to enrich the understanding of the text rather than to prove "originality" which has almost become an obsession of the contemporary academia. We are now in the habit of questioning and making use of the text but never even for a moment do we attend to and question our own understanding of the text. Acarya Abhinavaguptapada's celebrated commentary Abhinavabharati, (henceforth Abhi.) composed almost a millennium ago, on NS is an evidence of this learned commentary traditions that have survived the test of time.

TEXT AND TRADITION

The NS is structured around the sound philosophical assumptions. The text of NS, as available to us, is organized in 36 or 37 chapters. The scheme of chapterization is significant as it emerges from the commentary Abhi. The Saiva ontology enumerates 36 elements, which are the basis of this subtle as well as gross world. One may extend the inherent logic to the extent that the world depicted, represented or created in the natya or drama is no less real or valid than the manifest or given world. It is as much real or unreal as the given world. As the world is merely the 36 categories of abhasa (lit. appearances), so is the drama or any work of art. All these categories are real as they are the manifestations of the same substratum. All cognitions, real or imagined/created (as in the work of art) are ultimately constituted in consciousness. Like all other rational discourses, literature also embodies knowledge, however, with a different mode of statement, namely, kantasammita (like the words of a beloved characterized neither by word nor meaning but by aesthetic charm and effect). In a typical Vyasa(n) mode, Bharata clearly states, Na tajjaana na tacchilpa na sa vidya na sakala/ Na sa yogo na tatkarma yanna tyesminna drsyate // NS 1.116. [There is no wise maxim, no learning, no art or craft, no device, no action that is not found/reflected in the drama.]

Again, Brahama states, "Hence I have devised the drama in which meet all the departments of knowledge, different arts and various actions...". Like the other rational discourses, the NS also ensures the four-fold ends (purusartha: dharma, artha, kama and moksa) of life. In a way it also inculcates the moral values in the society. Visvanatha, a 14th century poetician states that drama/literature also helps discriminate between the conducts of Rama and Ravana.

It is this wide range of knowledge contents that ascribes the status of the Fifth Veda to the Natyasastra.

Following are the chapters and their respective themes:

1. Origin of drama (Natyotpatti)

2. Theatre construction (Mandapa)

3. Worship of the stage deities (Rangadaivatapujana)

4. Description of the class dance (Tandavalaksana)

5. Preliminary of the play (Purvarangavidhana)

6. Sentiments/States of being (Rasa)

7. Emotions and other states (Bhava)

8. Gestures of limbs (angika abhinaya)

9. Gesture of minor limbs (Upanga abhinaya)

10. Cari movements (Cari vidhana)

11. Associations of cari (Mandalavikalpanam)

12. Modes of movements (Gati pracara)

13. Description of the parts of stage and cultural modes (Kakya pravrtti dharmi vyaajaka)

14. Lingual enactment (Vacika abhinaya)

15. -do-

16. Prosody and poetics (Chandovidhana)

17. Diction of a play and the Indian languages (Bhasa)

18. Ten types of the play/ Typology of drama (Dasarupaka)

19. Limbs of the segments (Sandhi nirupana)

20. Styles (Vrtti)

21. Costumes and make-up (Aharya)

22. Harmonious enactments (Samanyabhinaya)

23. Courtesans and Erotica (Vaisika)

24. Typology of characters (Patra)

25. Specific gestures (Citrabhinaya)

26. Varied representations (Vikrtivikalpa)

27. Success in dramatic representations (siddhivyanjaka)

28--33 Music (Sangita)

34. Nature of the characters

35. Other characters (Sutradhara, Vidusaka and others)

36. Story of descent of drama from the svaraga and the story of King Nahusa (Natyavatarana).

As stated above, like Panini's Astadhyayi, the NS too is a part of the continuous and cumulative intellectual traditions of India. The NS refers to a number of pre-Bharata exponents of natya such as Parasarya, Silali, Karmanda, Kesasva, Kohala, Vatsya, sandilya, Dhurtila. Among the post-Bharata exponents, Nandikeswara, Tumburu, Visakhila, Carayana, Sadasiva, Padmabhn, Drohini, Vyasa, AAjaneya, Katyayana, Rahula Garga Matrgupta and Subandhu are quite often referred in the Abhi. And other subsequent texts. Among the commentators of Bharata, Bhatta Lollata, Bhatta Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka, Bhatta Yantra are quoted by Acarya Abhinavagupta in his Abhi. Aarangadeva in his Sangitaratnakara also records, vyakhyataro bharatiye lollatdbhatta-sankuka . / bhattabhinavaguptaaca srimatkirtidharo'para . //

Acarya Kirtidhara's view has been referred to Acarya Abhinavagupta in Abhi. with deep reverence. But Abhi. is the only commentary available to us. Henceforth, in the next millennium, a number of seminal theoretical treatises on drama have been composed focusing some of the aspects of Bharata's NS. Some of them are being listed:

* Dhananjaya's Dasarupaka (with commentary Avaloka by Dhanika)

* Sagaranandi's Natyalaksauakosa

* Ramacandra-Gunacandra's Natyadarpana

* Naradatanaya's Bhavaprakasana

* Ningabhupala's Natakaparibhana

* Rupagoswami's Natakacandrika.

The NS is composed in the form of dialogue between Sage Bharata and the other sages. The sages put forth the following queries, O Brahmin, how did originate the Natyaveda (or NS) similar to the Vedas, which you have properly composed? And for whom it is meant, how many limbs does it possess, what is its extent and how is it to be applied? Please speak to us in detail about it all.

The whole text is an exposition of these topics. There are eleven limbs of the drama:

1. rasa, 2. bhava, 3. abhinaya, 4. dharmi, 5. vrtti, 6. pravatti, 7. siddhi, 8. svara, 9. vadya, 10. gana and 11. ranga. In fact one may include rasa, bhava, dharmi, vrtti, pravatti, siddhi and ranga under abhinaya. Three types of abhinaya are based on these components. Svara is a primary constituent of gana. Vadya may be enumerated separately.

Anubandha catustaya (four elements of textual binding) Like a central text in the tradition, NS indicates its four elements of textual binding: purpose (prayjana), subjectmatter/theme (visaya), relation (sambandha) and readership (adhikari). The purpose is to make an exposition of dramaturgy. The theme is drama (natyaveda). The relation of the theme with the exposition is that of pratipadyapratipadaka, i.e. the text is an exposition on dramaturgy. The person who has sincere desire to know a particular sastra automatically qualifies on the readership of that sastra (in this context it is the science of drama).

Vanmaya (the verbal discourse) in India has been classified on various parameters. On the basis of epistemology of senses it has been categorized as sravya (heard--pertains to ears) and drsya (seen--pertains to eyes). Drama uniquely involves both these epistemologies. Visual as well as the acoustic/ aural /linguistic images together constitute the universe of natya. Among the basic means of knowledge, perception is considered as the most primary one. Even within the domain of perception, visual and mental perceptions (aesthetic delight in poetry) are more central than the experiences pertaining to touch, smell or taste. So the content and communication through drama is widely shared by the various strata of the audience or viewer. Kavyesu natkam ramyam (tatra ramyam Sakuntala, i.e. among all the literary discourses, drama is the most charming genre and even among the dramas Abhijaanasakuntalam is the most delightful one) is a widely acknowledged Sanskrit maxim.

SOME KEY ISSUES/CONCEPTS

The concept of natya as mimesis or imitation reminds us of the crucial debate in the Western classical criticism between Plato and his worthy disciple Aristotle. All art forms, including literature, are imitation or representation of reality. It is primarily a device of image making and image by its very nature is more or less than the object which it is an image of. So the issue is what and why do we imitate and with what motive and purpose? In Plato's epistemology, literary images are poor mirror-images ("thrice removed from reality")--a distortion of the ideal/real form. A poet is merely a "semblance" maker who imitates the "forms" (visible, which themselves are the shadows) and not the essence of the objects. Aristotle presents three modes of representation: as it is, as it appears and as it ought to be. Literature does not and need not portray the objects as they are. There is always an attempt to bring out the "ought" of the possible. This imitation is not distortion but to represent universal in particular that accounts for excellence. Moreover, while imitating we learn and it is as well a source of pleasure.

Indian literary theoreticians do not involve this "truth condition" of a work of art and literature. If natya is a prapaaca (a construct) then this given or ideal world is also the same. This is redundant issue in Indian literary theories. We must recall that we are here concerned with a particular form of dramatic representation, i.e. natya. In the first chapter the Sage Bharata defines natya as natyabhavanukirtanam, (natya is reconstruction of bhava / universal mental states of mind or being). In drama, we do not represent "reality" as if it something given but reconstruct it on the parameters of art. This created or constructed world is not entirely dependent on the cause-effect relationship. The causal relationship cannot be the sole criterion or condition for reality. Reality is always beyond and hence involves a perennial quest. Literature operates at the level of universal (anukirtana). Imitation is possible only at the level of individual (aukarana) and this could be the goal of other forms of drama but not that of the natya. Rama or Gandhi is not just an individual but also an aestheticised universal being (not objects but images).

In this context the Indian aestheticians bring in the concept of sadharanikarana (i.e. a process of universalisation) and tanmayibhavana (i.e. a process of becoming one with the aestheticised universal being). This is not necessarily or only a case of superimposition (adhyaropa and adhyavasana) of one object on another (as perception of snake in rope) but also the liberation of a being from his/her narrow self and become one with the universal consciousness or Being. Indian literary/aesthetic theory assumes the dissolution of multi-layered identity/ies. This is an essential condition for the poet who describes, the actor who plays the assigned role of a universal character and the viewer or reader. The reader or viewer of literature is designated as sahrdya--a sensitive-intuitive person who is capable of re-constructing/re-constituting the whole literary/aesthetic experience and becomes one with that. Literature is primarily a communion with the self or the Universal Self. It does not necessarily involve an ideology or identity formation; rather it puts forth pralaya / dissolution as a necessary condition to be a part of this whole aesthetic process. If we use the metaphor of death, it is not only the death of the author but more importantly it is the death of the reader or viewer/reader. Death filters out all identities that veil the universal consciousness.

Rasa or the aesthetic content is the soul/essence of drama. It is the primary goal of a theatrical performance. The process through which this aesthetic communication or communion is made possible is named as enactment or abhinaya (abhi + naya; that which takes forth). It is of four types: angika (of body), vacika (verbal) sattvika (of the sattva or a natural index of the mental state) and aharya (relating to costume). So for example, let us read the very opening verse of the NS: pranmya sirasa devou pitamaha-paramesvarou / natyaaastram pravaksyami brahmana yadudahrtam // [NS 1.1] [With a bow to Brahma and Siva I shall expound the Canons of Drama, as these were uttered by Brahma.]

Bowing the head (with folded hands) is an example of angika. The statement (I shall...) itself is of the nature of vacika and the natural facial expression of calmness and devotion is of the nature of sattvika. NS is a technical/sastra text on dramaturgy. Nonetheless it is also a text of drama. The whole text is in the form of dialogue and various forms of enactments, gestures, music etc. have been visually presented to its readers or more appropriately to its viewers. There are two Bharata-s in the NS, not necessarily two persons--one who is present in the opening verse of the text--welcoming and bowing to the deities (also viewers/readers) and who is the chief exponent of the text and another who is inside the text as the main protagonist who is engaged in the dialogue with the other sages and disciples. The Bharata in the first verse is very much like the sutradhara (lit. thread-bearer) of a dramatic composition. He is identified as muni/sage by means of his costume and appearance. Hence this fourth type aharya abhinaya is also illustrated.

RAJNISH MISHRA

SPECIAL CENTER FOR SANSKRIT STUDIES,

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI--110067

RAJNISH MISHRA

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi