P v dr Sanskr e Ho OBSER the sor And commoners r pleasur tales Stor simulating will ar dr dr kno as w w plagued It them. (Bhv an and indif situations. r ha it, ber T of br encour perf people r s w since T Bharat ARIPEX -INDIANJOURN www ecr eplete ef P Ar p ar n his her or or ell

will ts, amatists, ama ama lo a v o as ga w w er allur* educational r ious v ea lik e wledg k, lds r eation o w ies pleasur orm

e ell a) por er f ag e it and ABSTRACT t pr as ences un K g ws, er w s anditwillpr v concei .w v (Itihasa) e intellig the is alle is e , er y that it in

o ed, ag ell ainst .T languag theor is Abhina r and beha Accor ent, e (Bhaa as VERS Muni's (W glor inter d or der with asa t vides no

to called . , is o v it, his

w with dr g es the ld e dr

It ar viate

T educate as w or and tr ener

co the hich

por

is e , m of been i and his ama, and

e theor y widejour authors, to v i a ious v is in ama viour no xclusi umar ds, pr self-contr y t the , , teaches a not ding ence w v ed o calm y

ed r

h . & as long

asa di aanikiir w ed initandthr v this the sor tr n It etations.

r (hints ar r will w

e all a ar Naty ef w agupta, ar Costume ang COMMENT the tool e t it or a will v

w o contained w fr ar it, acts. ds, beg Gods; e y dr y y e is ersions , e er r t r y

chastises , concept ell , ld om to br , v xtensi ed as ecognized, w

o omote thepr

,

ad and appl f encounter the b or lif b

ama is e e or r a

suf r w t embellished

or ener to f eg pr e o with ashastra: ed ut the imming f an. or and por nals.com as e not

v in of or depiction T duty a c

cr ol tana).It V ld. , and the entur f o

populace

hus, this p o wisdom ar

er y edic lo intellig a DRAMA N par counsel.T vide r f all, aft, AL to w emotions acquir Naty m v e or epr tr , ORIGIN in g until to ded Kashmir its

v f and el ing a A hen cr or y a e mentall e-making has as c

stud od in sadness O to men's y (O y those

TY no both the es Se to those itics e, esentation al A t F RESEARCH| te with kings, ashastr them discussed ough thesentimentselicitedb h it T

of as all y

a contains human the T those v her daity

The ence e xts emper e of ing) Scholar used, unit, a (Naty of y to ASHASTRA -A en actice ofser ORS of v dr dr

of n unf . the br

will y olv thr m f T i a hus, acts, the d oic w to mid-nineteenth or y w ou and Di ama ama Gods, human TURGY as philosopher her the with anches

Essence v o

capital ho as), or stability , ho ough and agitated.T

a, , ed t or r

ar s visions

and w a). o the inter oot or wise people o and/or ament). t natur

w tunate

and e the

the AL RESEARCHP ho w iety v condition depicting ar

ar

thr r ell and c ar (Naty l y has As er in the br is a ef hether ,

o no ou

e of e g Utkal u e Asur point dr . n ar the pla pr ough Sanskr er a acts no ener a of g f of e as to disciplined, tw ill-br t v Gods V or the o should been mo e e (Sapta vice (dharma)as ama , made h r et ences (of : er

, olume -10|Issue04 v people a).A science esult,

with emotions y INREVIEW n o wise t enlightens questioned acts erw semi-histor the those e determined as, he t and y depicts v and i r al g r and millennia Gestur , mind) o of ed asa ement

, Uni ood, will

amusement, it of in u a e w dr helmed its a dr kings,

centur mur s maxim, Dvipa). and I dr xtensi a anal ha TREA to pr s v ell-being or it

beha aesthetician, cr the pursuing ama, theor

ama v ar jo t , ser w point

ama (Naty

o v w poor o v duty eated ersity unr f der e ys es viding ho iety p ar the and

e yz or in states gi thr v

i no l men vior

c v y ious l e and and and e is ical as y v to

ul ar the the ,

el

, f

thr b b . TISE ONINDIAN

no ee a), that es a or or as

it por i ill to to of of of Abhina y n e y y y y a a become s I , , , thr

ee of tr f ough ormal a w Cultur

wr APER ying pr p pr e d in pr or ' i Bhattana c v It Appr intellectual the to Abhina a 1 Rang sour i tr m beginning tr a N T ar m en attr e h inter F contr d s T commentators cr S Ger inter t T d t n h v i a i Apr e s m 1 e hese h u s r a h o h eatises ote ansf e a g ew h u is e f lds ticulation abhar itic oposed e e inciple inciple t

its n unciating all e t v s r s e v l t b the m a n s e the v h a v ibuted u ya u i s t t o i t e Abhina a

i bl the ce i a r a h r ar r h a i n il -202 h k

pr n pr e s c f w eciation'. achar m a dominant n s

ism ib o g

in orm later i t n e e c v

s r d i , e n e e c i b ar most , i e c

ticulations u , book m i n lens etation eters i

h s ar o

i e r v

e t utions. n e a t t among t c l o , their

s the e

ati i h onl

g a i

i abhar e f

( i y n n g o r n c Bhubanesw , o

that m t a

t r c , iety t e

s e P s ,

s aka, h e t t of the h

c

d it a that

t n t l f i h in t

t u n d o y 1 |PRINTISSNNo medie h m pr

or ra v e a I with y a a ra a to w e a of t achie d e b contentious f a into a n Naty e r

c e titled h abhar

p t o o n n r a t

e cur y r (Ka p

y h sour e t d o e t t e

of o asa w

co o e

r its a d r 2010), u

p i

h the n n ati w tw vided and the of

go i c v xplain i i each c sutr m

m such y e r or f r r others) r i c a e n t re , C situations. o o s t n r n a asa. e, a a

' dr s r vi, s n ashastr h most h

a g o

m ' o v the m r l ent g ks r

tr v (as s t t E ce t in of , c

f basic

e j ( Abhina v

f ement natur h i ati

w i h m

p al a u ama o

irst

e D e ast Bhattatauta. p e . a m i i i f i a

i a t e a n a De r subsequent actors: e that r n

as

n e Sanskr s n n s all h h Ananda

n of h that n A

and a r state i n discussed think e t n t c r

, s r g n the d t t K i i asa e

i author e v d e c epr n d t l y a

b o c t philosophical o Bhamaha, , time l t to

o i with

a a n a enormous e n ar liter l f

i t r and

aesthetic f

o i a issue h ha n n p Kane k u s a o

u n s c n e n y i o s a in

r n of v r i o . o its n e t p n . e y h esents pr (as r .

y e d i u t t

ers o n n T f

asa o

a v abhar Bha Naty KEY Ar It a w p

l

*Cor

f h

c o a it T r vie a m o the g th a he y a an r e ar l i l l the B e p m intr h s inciple l v - dance m e

u is l

. h l itati n s n most l g v o

2250-1991|DOI: dr . y o c been i y xpanding h p , e i ar r i c

t tr e y

ts e and

Numer d r c a g a p e theor ws m v e b i r

aesthetic a s e k a

r i o e Kr e , c n A ashastr y anslated Abhina a ama asa g a dhana's n k oducing s a e i

e -

b g nu

i a n v commentator f satir p c s s f v ati. l

1 c

t g e an n e

a W i u n Udbhata, B m irst y the enr

olution ishnamoor r

i idea t e t the l n w 0 i ra d o m u a u esponding ga u p i f d pr i psychological 9 moder o i h n cr Gnoli r t v a c def g n sour cie and

n n ORDS: i o o t y r t h a T n t in a g a a s c concepts a e n h h es

e ominent a ,

y

d edited g u r t ous

he f m

pinnacle

a .

is t lost t t l s b d oundation

a o k , o

c e i s on i a a f i n inition ' a, aesthetic c t

t v s

T o t c or e g ut n e e r f

h c e a ' d v and ce s a o sound t agupta its s

w pr r

Bhar w h n e e w Bhar h re y ne d of

d o b n e a v asa l tr

r in a human n an e s n this all d t or o m or i o o

, e t

y rd

d R m

p

ogr eatises n

Bhatta

t u c r the the r t w r m r Sanskr

l a r a l h a i h o 1956). e each o u o b

e k d iginal th o r e r Ghosh k m s a a a h

p Indian

s sutr i einter f a ata's i

y s f r y at Muni, c has Rasa, e

perspecti g g s . c n

cr a essing t

could l

m stud a y in p t a y r e

theor i a 'Rasa . o Naty m t a of the e

e t t n b , 10.36106/par t

p n t r

h also N h

l a s n h itique o s a

T

, s appr n e i i Author P a a l o e actions f the C

r o i

e t c o de t a f u i Lolata, o r or u h be cr insight s

a t ande ' i

die n a clar o a o S of y it e d s major a

t Accor Naty t , w p E f o

b i br n n pr

ya h e

ashastr t r s

k a a itical ar 1961 t

v i e y n will School ) be h y u the o scholars, or g wr s p i m t i

Bhar English o

c s e p

eloped , e n eciation h s n v thr o ond Dr eted

m e e

c i r s of o e t i r a ify c s s vity n al ks r ) e l by b c n k s w h a y i ote q r f f m l l v t e f

e e a t orms, i

a,

, a

i l y r

h ound

ough n a r u a , base

and es u Sr ama, ity f ding h n y r s c l

asa r r the asa- a r a i ata a u 7 e s

and and and

and and

ag t l o k e a a i n i t a the the

i

i e t n n n b l i a a. t i v c all an v s u s s ra r n t o l a a of in to a of i S d d l d d h e y o e e e e e ipex c a a s

l l t f l , .

PARIPEX - INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH | Volume - 10 | Issue - 04 |April - 2021 | PRINT ISSN No. 2250 - 1991 | DOI : 10.36106/paripex realm of drama to include all other forms of art, such as music. and its interpretations discussed by Kane and De, K. Bharata's text is placed first since it is widely acknowledged Krishnamoorthy's Essays in Sanskrit Criticism (1974) distills as the source of the principle of rasa and serves as the earliest the rasa doctrines and points-of-view pertinent to and most fundamental, if concise, template for all subsequent contemporary aesthetic criticism. Edwin Gerow's Indian discussions and commentaries. However, Abhinavabharati Poetics (1977), a landmark review of Indian aesthetics written endowed the rasa principle with a solid philosophical basis, by a Western scholar, engages the relevant themes of the rasa elevating it to an accepted truism in Sanskrit Poetics, 'never to theory in an aesthetic study set against the twentieth-century be discarded by rival systems and strengthened only in detail commentary of interpreters such as Gnoli, De, Kane, by subsequent speculations'. Gnoli emphasizes rasa Krishnamoorthy, and others. criticism's subsequent rise, stating:With few exceptions, Abhinavagupta's conclusions in Abhinavabharati were REFERENCES: universally acknowledged by all subsequent Indian aesthetic 1. Vatsyayan, K. (1996). Bharata The Natyasastra. Sahitya Akademi. 2. Dimitrova, Z. The Unsavoury: Aesthetic Codification from Natyashastra and thinkers as the most important text in the history of Indian the Poetics to Postdramatic Theatre. aesthetic thinking. 3. Bharat, M. (1951). Natya Shastra. 4. Dhawan, R. (2010). Semiotics of conceptual structures in Aristotles poetics and Bharatas Natyashastra. Kumar, D. (2011). A Practical Guide to Indian Additionally, there was a significant lull in the study of Aesthetics. Bharata's rasa sutra following Abhinavagupta in terms of the inclusion of some radical new contributions or theoretical c h a n ge. Ja ga n n a t h a ' s l a t e s eve n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Rasagangadhara, the final major medieval translator of Bharata's rasa sutra, demonstrates the text's strong influence on Abhinavagupta, who is quoted in numerous passages. Formal articulations of Sanskrit drama principles in the English language did not begin until the mid-nineteenth century, with the appearance of English translations of ancient Sanskrit dramas and the resurfacing of manuscripts of the Natyashastra, beginning with William Jones' 1789 translation of Kalidasa's Abhijnana Shakuntala (The Recognition of Shakuntala, 5th century CE) (1826).

In the modern era, a critical re-engagement with Sanskrit aesthetics occurred only after M. Hiriyanna's pioneering and imaginative Art Experience (1919), which inspired a generation of twentieth-century scholars (Ghosh, Pandey, Gnoli, Krishnamoorthy, Raghavan, Sankaran, Rangacharya, and Gerow, among others) to'carry his observations as a talisman for investigating the contours of Indian aesthetics. Ramakrishna Kavi edited the Natyashastra's first critical edition (1926). Manomohan Ghosh (1950/1956), an anonymous board of scholars (1980s), and Adya Rangacharya have all contributed significant English translations (latest reprints of which are dated 1990s onwards). Additionally, the twentieth-century commentaries and translations of the Natyashastra, Dhvanyaloka, and Abhinavabharati, as well as their interpretations of the rasa theory, were included. Kapila Vatsayan, an art historian, observes the paradigm-shifting status and power of Hiriyanna's work:

It is no longer possible to comprehend Indian aesthetics through the lens of Plato, Aristotle, and others. Nor is it appropriate to demonstrate the existence of a lengthy and sophisticated philosophical debate on aesthetics.

Comparative Aesthetics 1 & 2 by K.C. Pandey (1950) is one of the earliest notable post-independence compendium c o m m e n t a r i e s . A l t h o u g h Pa n d ey d i s c u s s e s t h e Abhinavabharati against the backdrop of Indian aesthetic thinking, his work examines aesthetic issues from the perspectives of various dramaturgs and poets against the backdrop of Eastern (Sanskrit drama) and Western (Aristotle's Poetics) thought. Kane, De, and Krishnamoorthy's critical engagement with the evolution of rasa theory also centers on a comparative study of the Rasa School's various commentators. Kane's The History of Sanskrit Poetics (1994) offers a chronology of the Natyashastra commentaries.

However, its style is more encyclopedic and educational than argumentative. Though S.K. De's Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics (1959) is reasonably argumentative, it attributes a regression in the study of Indian aesthetics in the post- Abhinavagupta era to the medieval commentators' misunderstanding. From the numerous laws, canons, meandering divisions, and sub-divisions of the Natyashastra 8 www.worldwidejournals.com