9058009391

178 V. M. KULKARNI

«ł>MtH)4    ^THT f^FT: ...I

p. 406    -MS.

The second etymology of the word ‘rupa’ above underlined, is lefl out while printing in the GOS edn. The Natyadarpana (ND) ignores the first etymology and records the second etymology only as his work deals wilh

dramaturgy (p.23) :

ęfrt «tid«hi<(lft i

2. Rig wpm,

-p. 407

'ęrg łHjjw <rri ^Nhr;

5JW4tdlf^rK«I^MPldPl|lrWKHI4^«!l«|-ffcT I

-Kangle p.6

Here Abhinavagupta points out that KSvya-nStya poetry including dramatic poetry dilTcrs from itihSsa - pur&na (hislory, mythology, etc.), as its chief aim is to depict rasas and through them give delight to the sahrdayas, sensitive and sympathctic readers and spectators. He lurthcr States that the fourfold division of itivrtta or canta into uhya (to be inferred), sucya (to be suggesled), etc. is eąually seen in itihSsa, purSnas, etc.

3.    ^    stro* ^

SMFR1    5WFRI

-p.410    -Kan. p. 18

The highcst of the ten main forms, rupakas is generally cosidercd to be the nStaka. The stalcment underlined above is, therefore, obviously wrong. As the two poetic composilions natSka and prakarana, make use of all the four vrttis (dramatic styles) they are to be considered equally high or important (NS XVIII 6-7). The ND (p.24), while commenling upon 1.3, brings out the equal importance of the two forms in these words:

Incidentally, it may be pointed out here that a lillle later in his commentary Abhinavagupta makcs the following statement:

wś y<wun<ft tofri p.411

Which apparently seems conlradictory. He makes this statement having regard to the subject-matter of the two forms or types. The subject-matter of a nStaka is drawn from well-known tradition and is rooted in experience, whereas that of a Prakarana is invented. Hence the former is morę important than the lalter.