Natya As a Theatre of Self Fulfilment

After analysing the history of Western Drama from the point of view of self and self-fulfillment this chapter shall take up the issues of self and self-fulfilment with regard to the plays in Sanskrit literature. Just as the Drama of the West plays in Sanskrit literature also have been throughly discussed from several different points view in the past literature. As already mentioned in the introduction, in the English litrerature on Sanskrit plays, these plays have been referred to as Indian writers in the regional languages and Sanskrit used words like 'drishya Kavya,' 'nataka,' and 'ropaka' while referring to these plays. The poetics of these Sanskrit plays cover even gravya Kavya-s (audible poems, i.e., poems meant to be read for the All these works of poetics trace the origin of their discussion to the Natya Sastra (2nd.cen B.C), the author of which is referred to as Bharata. The Natya refers to its subject matter, which, in the language of the later works of poetics is, drsya Kavya (visible poem), as Natya. Thus, it can be seen that it is more appropriate to consider all these Sanskrit plays as scripts for a kind of theatre being referred to as Natya in the Sastra, Interestingly, Bharata also talks of or imitation as the essential nature of Natya just as Aristotle recognizes mMTTicisrrias the essential nature of art (including Drama). For Bharata, Natya is 'lokavrttanukarnnam' (Natya iastna 1,112) - imitation of the way the World runs (loka = world; vrtta - activity; anukaranam = irritation). Either based on similarities of this type, or simply on account of Natya being a theatre like Drama, scholars hastened to call Sanskrit theatre as •Drama' (for example, Shastri, 1961 : 11,S K.Dey as quoted in Singal, 1977 : 44, Singal, 1977 : 32, Raghavan, 1975 : 103, and Raghavan, 1975 : 52) (also see 2.6.3) and consider Bharata's discussion as a discussion on Sanskrit Drama,' But very rarely scholars like Taflekar (1975) (who maintains the word 'Natya to some extent in his discussion on the have recognized the need to maintain the distinction of the word Natya. Strangely, even Tariekar slips into translating Natya as Drama in the course of his further What has missed the attention and emphasis in most of the past English literature on the Natya Sastra is the bottom line : just as different forms of Western Drama are to be placed in the broader cultural framework of the respective times, Sanskrit plays and Bharata's discussion of classical Sanskrit theatre are to be placed in the cultural of which these works were products. The forthcoming analysis shall show the essentiality of this view of placing the forms of theatre in their respective cultural backgrounds, by showing the problems arising due to the absence of such a view. Bharata, in his Natya shastra , very clearly emphasizes that Natya follows the Vedic worldview in its imitation of nature. He called his subject ratter as Natya Veda (NatyaSastra I.16).2 Abhinavagupta, who wrote a commentary calledAbhinavabharati on the NatyaSastra (in Bharata, 1994 : 6) and other traditional authors Of poetiCS SUCh as Dhananjaya (DaSarGcakam I.4). Simhabhupala (Rasamava Sudhakara 147-46) among others and the Sanskrit poets such as Kalidasa, who write within the Vedic framework of ideas, accept the view put forth by Bharata that Natya is a Vedic art This can be further evidenced in the forthcoming discussion from time to time. Recognizing such a basis of Vedic worldview in Natya helps arriving at an answer to problem of the most conspicuous differences between Drama and Natya, namely : all serious Drama is Tragedy, while mainstream Natya is a Shubhanta (happy ending) play; philosophies of different forms of Tragedy change from time to time, while the philosophy of Natya remains without changing. One the probable reasons for the absence the analysis of Bharata's work from the point of view of Vedic principles in the past literature may be that he does not overtly use such principles in his elucidation of Natya. The Vedic principles in his elucidation are indicated by certain usages and explanations found in his book. When analyzed in the light of these principles propounded directly and elaborately in certain works of Vedic literature like the Bhagavat Gita (hereafter Gita) and Itihasa-S (legendary mythologies) like the Mahabharata, these usages and explanations can be seen to be perfectly fitting into the Vedic worldview elaborated in these works. Even the authors of Sanskrit plays (scripts for were learned in Vedic literature and their works abundantly reflect such knowledge. For example, in his introduction to uttamRamaC&tiam of Bhavabhuti, M.R.Kale writes, "Bhavabhuti had acquired thorough proficiency in the various branches of knowledge which then formed the usual curriculum of Brahmanic study. He gives proofs of his vast erudition in the course of his works. He had mastered the Vedic lokes, the six systems of philosophy, rhetorics, &c. &c, His knowledge of the Yoga philosophy he displays in Mai. - Madh. (Act V.) and in Mv (Act III.). That he was familiar with the literature of the Upanisads is shown by his references to the doctrine of Vivarta in more than one place in the Uttar {111.47; IV.15), by his description for the Vairaja Lotos (11.12) and by his allusion to the Asurya Lokas(Act IV. p103)" (1982 : 16). (Wal Madh = MSlati MSdhavn, Mv = Mahavira Caritam Uttar = Uttam Rama Caritam). While discussing Kalidasa also, Kale says, " His works bear further testimony to his considerable acquaintance with the Vedas, the philosophy taught by the Upanishads, the the Puranas, the systems of Yoga and as propounded by Medicine, and the rudiments of Astronomy" (in Kalidasa, 1969 : 11). Similar comments are often found made about the different authors of Sanskrit Thus, it can be seen that the sources of Vedic overview can safely be used to talk about the worldview underlying both the Natya Sastra and the Sanskrit plays. With this understanding the usages and explanations from the Gita and other sources will be cited from time to time in the forthcoming discussions.

One of the most important Vedic principles in Natya is the law of karma. Varadapande, a modem scholar, in his book Religion and theatre. recognizing the significance of the law of karma says, 'The law of Karma - Karma Siddhanta - has deeply influenced Indian playwrights. On more than one occasion Bharata dearly states that the karma of people is the basic theme of the drama [sic]. It narrates actions of men [namrorn karmasanshrayam], it depicts his various acts [karmani midhari cfta]. "I have created this sdence of dramaturgy taking into consideration the karma of the people, their deeds and their emotions,' says Bharatha. It is no wonder that the entire course of Indian drama [sic] [Sanskrit] was governed by the law of The plots the dassical Indian plays are governed by the tenets all- pervading religio - philosophical theory " (1983 : 3). Abhinavagupta summarizes the law Of karma depicted in Natya as iubhakarimha subham phalam, : Those who perform actions get auspicious results, and those who perform inauspicious actions get inauspisdous results' (in Bharata, 1994 : 33). According to him the auspisdous actions are the actions based on moral order in tune with the laws of nature and inauspisdous actions are the actions which are against the laws of nature. He reveals this idea as he elaborates the law of karma. He says, actions following dharma bring auspiciousness (subham) and hence happiness (sukham) and actions against dharma result in inauspisdousness (asubham) and hence unhappiness (duhkham) (in Bharata, 1994 : 33). The term dharma is commonly understood to be representing morality. But the broader, in fact, fundamental and etymological meaning of the word dharma is natural law or natural order. The Mahabharata (XII.109.11) gives the definition ofdtama as dharanat dharma itiahuhutdharrnena vidhrtaha prajaha - dharma is Called by that name because it Sustains the individuals. This means the natural order that sustains the selves who follow this Often, the word dharma in Vedic literature is interpreted as the duty ordained to human being in the Veda-% and the smrti-s (codes of conduct) in accordance with the VSda-s. But it should be noted that the idea, here, is that the are revelations of natural order. Hence, following the is to follow the order which sustains nature. Thus, the karma, according to Abhinavagupta, is that actions in consonance with the nature sustaining laws revealed in the breed happiness and those against such laws, unhappiness. In fact, Abhinavagupta notes this principle while commenting upon a story in Bharata's Natya &astra. This story is one of the most crucial and key portions of the Natya Sastrs where the Vedic basis of the Natya Sastrn is clearly articulated. Not taking note of the true significance of this portion is one of the reasons for the non-recognition of the distinction of Natya as opposed to Drama, by the scholars mentioned above. Most of these scholars took this story to be merely a story of origin of Natya and considered the purpose of the story to be to attribute the Vedic sanctity through the means of a divine origin to Natya. P.S.R. Appa Rao and P.Sri Rama Shastri, while recognizing this motive in the modem authors on Natya Sastra, say, " The divine nature of Natya $astra has been interpreted by them as only a means of providing a respectable social status to actors, musicians and dancers since they were at one time relegated to a very low order of soaety" (1967 :14). But this story serves lot more serious purposes than such a simplistic one. This story, in fact, articulates in a narrative form, the nature and purpose of Natya, apart from many other crucial issues of Natya going to be discussed in the forthcoming sections of this wrV (2.5, 2.6.1 & 2.8). This significance is recognized by the authors of poetics like Abhinava, who look at this story as meant to reveal the principle of karma incorporated in Natya.

According to the Hindu mythology time is cyclical and runs in the form of infinite cycles of cycles. Each cycle is divided into four^ga-S, namely, krtayuga, tretayuga, dvaparayuga and kaliyuga. In the beginning,, i.e., in krtayuga there is perfect order, peace and happiness as all people of that era follow dharma (the laws of nature revealed in the Veda-s) perfectly. In each of the succeeding yugas people become increasingly immoral and do not follow their duty (dharma) as prescribed in the Hindu mythology holds that dharma stands on four legs (pada-i) in krta yuga, on three legs in treta yuga, on two legs in yuga and on one leg in yuga which is the present age. That is to say that the people's adherence to in each of the is hundred percent seventy five percent fifty percent and twenty five percent respectively (pada also means a quarter). The story under discussion occured during the treta yuga when people acquired base emotions like lust, greed, jealousy and anger as they did not follow dharma (the moral order prescribed in the Veda-s). Due to this they lead a life which was a mixture of both 'happiness and unhappiness' (sukhta duhkhtte) (Natya Sastra 1.9). (Abhinava, while commenting on this phrase, says that here the emphasis is on unhappiness). The rulers of the world headed by (whose duty is to look after the welfare of the world) were worried about this. They wanted a means by which people could be made to follow the VOda-S. So they went to Bramha (the mythical god from the PurSna-s who is believed to be incharge of the creation of the world. He is said to have revealed the four namely veda, Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda at the beginning of the creation) and requested for a fifth Veda (Natya Sastm I.12),3 one which is kridaniyakam, playable, i.e., entertaining and which could both be seen (driyam) and also be heard (sravyam) (Natya Sastrn 1.11). Upon the request of the idkapS'.o-s (rulers of the world), Bramha decided to create Natya (theatre - which is both 'wen' and heard") Bramha created Natya by taking various elements from the Vada-s, such as speech (pathya) from the Rk Veda, song (gita) from Sama Veda, histrionic expression (abNnaya) from the Yajur^da and rasa-s from the Atharva Veda (Natya Sastra 1.17).' After creating the Natya, Bramha handed it to Bharata with a request to compose Natya on the basis of his teachings. Bharata composed and produced a play called Asura Parajaya (the defeat of the demons) which depicts the defeat of the demons asura-s) in the hands of the gods (deva-s). Thea^a-s became angry at this depiction of their defeat in the hands of tfeva-s in Natya. They tried to disrupt the performance with their magical power. When they were questioned by Bramha on the reason for their anger, they replied that they were angry because Natya was favouring the gods and was created to belittle them In order to pacify the asura-s, Bramha revealed to them the nature and purpose of Natya. He said that it imitates the actions and emotions of all kinds of people. According t^m, Natya portrays auspisdous [suttfram] as well as the inauspiscious [asubham] fate that befalls the gods and the demons' (Natya Sastra 1.106). Commenting on this story Abhinava holds that Natya is not interested in depicting particular characters of particular times but depicts the general workings of nature. He insists that when the demons perform auspicious activities, their attainment of auspicious results will be shown in Natya (in Bharata, 1994 : 33-4). In other words, in Natya, the actions and not the actor that matter. To show that Bharata meant that Natya's purpose is to depict the laws of nature, Abhinava cites as an evidence the word nthasa used by Bharata to describe Natya (Natya Sastrn 1.15). The word wasa means past happening = this way, /w + asa = said to have happenend). But there is another sense in which the word itihasa is used. The (legendary mythologies) along with the Puranas (mythologies)5 are believed to be those which reveal the same laws of nature as revealed by the Vedas, but through narrative form. For example, the Mahabharata is called Itihasa and Bhagavata Purana and others are Purana-s. The Mahabharata shows that Pandavas who followed dternia, attained the kingdom and Kauravas who did not follow dharma, were ruined (see Appendix 4). The law of actions revealed in the Vedas is thus exemplified in the itihasa called Mahabharata. According to Abhinava, it is in this sense that Bharata calls Natya as an itihasa (in Bharata, 1994 : 12). Since the story of creation of NStya begins with the description of tmta yuga as, atleast according to Abhinava, predominating in unhappiness due to not following dharma (moral order), it may be concluded that Natya is being considered to be giving happiness by motivating the individuals to follow dharma. It may be noted that within the two parts of the law of karma, namely, the bad results' for bad actions' (actions which are not in compliance with the laws of nature1) and 'good results' for good (nature - bound) actions,' the first one appears to be similar to the principle in Greek Tragedy that the self not complying with the rule of gods gets punished. But there is a difference. In Greek Tragedy, gods are directly mentioned, where as in Natya, it is the laws (dharma) which are given prominance and the gods governing them do not directly come into picture. In spite of this similarity in the depiction of punishment for non-compliance between Natya and Greek Tragedy, Natya maintains its distinction on account of the depiction of rewards for compliance, which is conspicuously absent in the Greek Tragedy. This is what makes the mainstream Natya as seriously happy ending. This difference is rooted in the structures of principle characters in the Greek Tragedy and Natya. In the Greek Tragedy, the character who receives punishment for non-compliance is the principle character. Whereas, in Natya, both the complying and characters are principle characters. But the complying one is the protagonist and the other, antagonist. Such a structure makes the play to be a story the reward for compliance and thus a happy ending one, though it contains the punishment for the non-compliance also. Fact, in maintaining that self is governed by certain laws determining the happiness and unhappiness of self, even the other forms of Drama are similar to Natya. But in Drama, a perennial probe into what these laws are, resulted in the depiction of newer and newer laws. Whereas in Natya, no such probe is evident on account of the ultimate laws of nature being considered to be once for all revealed in the Veda-%. As seen in the articulations of dramatists like Eugene O'Neill and Arthur Miller quoted earlier from the point of view of Drama, such a probe is thrilling and desirable.

Appa Rao, P.S.R and P. Sri Rama Shastri. 1967. A MONOGRAPH ON BHARATHA'S NAATYA SAASTRA (INDIAN DRAMATOLOGY). Hyderabad : Natya Maala Publishers. Auerbach. 1953. MIMESIS : THE REPRESENTATION OF REALITY IN WESTERN LITERATURE. Trans, Willard R. Trank. 4th pr., 1974, Princeton : Princeton University Press. Butcher, S.H. 1968. ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF POETRY AND FINE ART.With a critical text and translation of the poetics. 2nd ed. Ludhiana : Lyall Book Depot. Calderwood, James. L and Harold. E. Toliver, ed. 1969. FORMS OF DRAMA. New Jersey : Prentice Hall Inc. Kakar, Sudhir. 1981. THE INNER WORLD : A PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDY OF CHILDHOOD AND SOCIETY IN INDIA. 2nd ed., 1982. London : Oxford University Press. Kapoor, O.B.L. 1977. THE PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION OF SRI CAITANYA. New Delhi : Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Narahari Chakravarti. 1992. BHAXTIRATNAKARA (Fifth Wave). Trans. Pundarika Vidyanidhi dasa. Vrindavan : ISKCON. O'Neill, Eugene. 1921. NINE PLAYS BY EUGENE O'NEILL. Ed and intr., Joseph Wood Krutch. 1954. New York : Random House. Inc. Raghavan. V. 1975. THE NUMBER OF RASAS. Madras : The Adyar Library. Tariekar G.H. 1975. STUDIES IN THE NATYA SHASTRA : WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE SANSKRIT DRAMA IN PERFORMANCE. 2nd ed., 1991. Delhi : Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Thielemann, Selina. 1998. A MUSICAL STUDY OF RELIGIOUS DRAMA IN VRAJA. New Delhi : APH Publishing Corporation. Wulff, Donna M. 1977. DRAMA AS A MODE OF RELIGIOUS REALIZATION : VIDAGDHA MADHAVAOF RUPA GOSWAMI. Manuscript ofPh.D dissertation submitted to Harvard University (Published in 1984. California : Scholars Press).