by Anuru Ranjan Mishra | 2015 | 106,293 words
This page relates ‘Similarity between the Dasharupaka and the Natyashastra’ of the English study of the Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya: an important work on Hindu dramaturgy (Natya-shastra) from the tenth century dealing with the ten divisions of Sanskrit drama (nata), describing their technical aspects and essential dramaturgical principals. These ten types of drama are categorised based on the plot (vastu), hero (neta) and sentiment (rasa)
Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra is vastand provides information about all aspects of dramaturgy. However, Dhanañjaya’s Daśarūpaka is concise and provides information about only the essentials of the Nāṭya. Dhanañjaya has followed the Nāṭyaśāstra to a great extent; however, he has modified it, whenever it is necessary. Dhanañjaya’s Daśarūpaka focuses on three things, i.e. plot (vastu), hero (netā) and sentiment (rasa), whereas the Nāṭyaśāstra deals with all things like dance (nṛtya), music (vādya), stage construction (maṇḍapavidhāna), figures of speech (alaṅkāra). Dhanañjaya avoids dance (nṛtya) etc., because his aim was only to discuss ten types of dramas or daśarūpakas.
Bharata has used both the terms Vastu and Itivṛtta for the plot, but Dhanañjaya has used only the term Vastu, which establishes that both the term Vastu and Itivṛtta are synonymous. Both Bharata and Dhanañjaya deviate when discussing the plot but both have divided plot into two types, i.e. Principal (ādhikārika) and Subsidiary (prāsaṅgika). Principal attains the result through the leading character and Subsidiary attains the result through the auxiliary things or context.
Further, both have divided them into equal numbers, i.e.
Five types of stages (avasthās):
Five types of elements (arthaprakṛtis):
And five types of junctures (sandhis):
Again, both Bharata and Dhanañjaya agree in their applications of ten types of dramas. The five kinds of elements are applied according to the use of junctures, because junctures are created by the combination of elements and the stages. For instance, Opening juncture (mukhasandhi) is created by the combination of beginning (ārambha) and seed (bīja); and Progression juncture (pratimukhasandhi) is created by the combination of effort (prayatna) and drop (bindu). Further, Development juncture (garbhasandhi) is created by the combination of prospect of success (prāptyāśā) and episode (patākā); and Pause juncture (avamarśasandhi) is created by the combination of certainty of success (niyatāpti) and episodical incident (prakarī); and then Conclusion juncture (nirvahaṇasandhi) is created by the combination of denouement (kārya) and attainment of success (phalāgama). Further, Nāṭaka and Prakaraṇa have all five types of junctures; Ḍima and Samavakāra have four junctures, but are without pause (avamarśa) juncture; Vyāyoga and Īhāmṛga have three junctures but are without development (garbha) and pause (avamarśa). Again, Prahasana, Aṅka, Vīthī and Bhāṇa consist of two junctures each, i.e. opening (mukha) and conclusion (nirvahaṇa).
Again, both Bharata and Dhanañjaya opine to apply other technical aspects like episode indication (patākāsthānaka), intermediate scenes (arthopakṣepaka), conversation with imaginary person (ākāśabhāṣita), aside (svagata), aloud (prakāśa), confidence (apavārita), personal address (janāntika) with little difference.
Dhanañjaya’s division of hero is almost similar to that of Bharata. Both divide heroes into four categories, i.e. exalted (dhīrodātta), vehement (dhīroddhata), lighthearted (dhīralalita) and calm (dhīrapraśānta). However, both define the characteristics of heroes differently because Dhanañjaya has differentiated the characteristics of heroes in a play. Further, Dhanañjaya has discussed the divisions of heroines in minute details.
Further, Dhanañjaya’s treatment of sentiments is similar to that of Bharata who states that sentiment (rasa) is produced by the combination of determinants (vibhāva), consequents (anubhāva) and transitory states (vyabhicāribhāva), excepting that of the erotic sentiment (śṛṅgārarasa), though he includes permanent mental state (sthāyibhāva), determinants (vibhāva), consequence (anubhāva), transitory states (vyabhicāribhāva) in the discussion of sentiments. He also agrees with Bharata that sentiment is experienced through the three kinds of representation. Further, Dhanañjaya, like Bharata, has accepted eight kinds of permanent emotions. Dhanañjaya also agrees with Bharata that sentiment is realized through determinant (vibhāva), consequence (anubhāva), transitory states (vyabhicāribhāva) and is enjoyed by the spectators who are cultured and aestheticians. The sentiments are eight in number as accepted by both Bharata and Dhanañjaya. They both also accept that the four principal sentiments, i.e. erotic (śṛṅgāra), furious (raudra), heroic (vīra) and odious (bibhatsa) produce four other sentiments from mental tendencies such as pathetic (karuṇa), terrible (bhayānaka), laughter (hāsya) and marvellous (adbhuta). However, the natures and functions of the sentiments are explained differently, by both theorists and most probably Dhanañjaya is more logical in the treatment and division of sentiments. For example, Bharata states that the states like indolence (ālasya), cruelty (augrya) and disgust (jugupsā) are not applicable to the erotic (śṛṅgāra) sentiment (NŚ.VII.109); whereas, Dhanañjaya states that the states like indolence (ālasya), cruelty (augrya), death (maraṇa) and disgust (jugupsā) are not independently applicable to the erotic sentiment, but they are applicable taking resort of other states (DR.IV.49).
It should be noted that Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that the erotic sentiment (śṛṅgārarasa) is caused by the permanent state of love (rati).
However, both Bharata and Dhanañjaya differ in the divisions of erotic sentiment (śṛṅgārarasa). Bharata divides the erotic sentiment (śṛṅgārarasa) into two categories, i.e. union (sambhoga) and separation (vipralambha); whereas, Dhanañjaya divides it as three types, i.e. privation (ayoga), separation (viprayoga) and union (sambhoga). Again, Dhanañjaya accepts Bharata’s view of laughter (hāsya) and the division of laughter, viz. self-centered (ātmastha) and centered in other (parastha). Thus, he states that the laughter is caused by the strange actions of one’s own and others. Dhanañjaya even has closely followed Bharata’s six types of laughter, i.e. gentle smile (smita), smile (hasita), gentle laughter (vihasita), deriding laughter (upahasita), indecent laughter (apahasita) and reeling laughter (atihasita). Again, Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that pathetic sentiment is produced from the permanent mental state of grief or sorrow, caused by something happening undesirably.
Further, Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that furious sentiment is produced from the permanent mental state of anger (krodha); but he does not agree with Bharata’s differentiation of consequents (anubhāva) and its actions. Again, Dhanañjaya accepts Bharata’s view on the heroic sentiment, which is found in the superior type of persons and provides energy to their unassailable nature. Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that terrible sentiment is produced from the permanent mental state of fear (bhaya), but he does not agree with Bharata’s divisions of fear. Again, Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that odious sentiment is produced from the permanent mental state of disgust (jugupsā), but he does not agree with the division of the sentiment. Again, marvelous sentiment is produced from the permanent mental state of astonishment (vismaya), which is acceptable to both Bharata and Dhanañjaya. However, Dhanañjaya does not agree with Bharata’s divisions of marvellous sentiment. In some editions of the Nāṭyaśāstra (like the one edited by Pandit Kedarnath, P.103), an additional sentiment, i.e. tranquility sentiment (śāntarasa), whose permanent mental state is tranquil (śama) is added. The tranquility as a sentiment is not accepted by Bharata, Dhanañjaya and others. They have only accepted eight kinds of sentiments. Only the commentators such as Abhinavagupta and Ānandavardhana have accepted the tranquility as a sentiment. However, Dhanañjaya states that though some have accepted the tranquility as a separate sentiment, it could be applied only in the poetry (kāvya), but not in the drama (śamamapi kecitprāhuḥ puṣṭirnāṭyeṣu na tasya –Daśarūpaka.IV.35).
Now as regards styles (vṛtti); Dhanañjaya, like Bharata, has accepted four styles; but unlike Bharata, Dhanañjaya distinguishes them in two categories, i.e. Arthavṛtti and Śābdikavṛtti. Dhanañjaya includes grand style (sāttvatīvṛtti), violent style (ārabhaṭīvṛtti) and graceful style (kaiśikīvṛtti) under Arthavṛtti and verbal style (bhāratīvṛtti) under Śābdikavṛtti. However, it looks that Bharata too intends that verbal style is Śabdavṛtti and hence calls it “Vākpradhānā”, which gives importance to words and languages (yā vākpradhānā puruṣaprayojyā strīvarjitā saṃskṛtavākyayuktā–Nāṭyaśāstra.XX.25). Dhanañjaya agrees with Bharata that grand style is free from grief and loveand based on the sentiments like heroic, furious and marvellous and representations like verbal and physical. Dhanañjaya also accepts the view of Bharata on graceful style that it (graceful style) is a delightful style, based on love, song, dance etc. Dhanañjaya, however, deviates from Bharata when he narrates Arthavṛtti. He accepts four varieties of violent style as proposed by Bharata (saṃkṣiptaka, avapāta, vastūtthāpana and saṃpheṭa –Nāṭyaśāstra.XX.57); but instead of saṃkṣiptaka, avapāta and vastūtthāpanam, he uses the terms saṃkṣiptikā, vastūtthāna and avapātana. Dhanañjaya also agrees with Bharata in the case of verbal style, which is applied in the prologue by Naṭa (Sūtradhāra). Dhanañjaya also agrees with Bharata that it has four divisions, i.e. prarocanā, āmukha, vīthī and prahasana (Daśarūpaka.III.5).