काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

54 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA ‘सेयं ममाङ्गेषु सुधारसच्छटा सुपूरकर्पूरशलाकिका दृशोः । मनोरथश्रीर्मनसः शरीरिणी प्राणेश्वरी लोचनगोचरं गता ॥ २५॥ दैवादहमद्य तया चपलायतनेत्रया वियुक्तश्च । अविरलविलोलजलदः कालः समुपागतश्चायम्’ ॥ २६ ॥ इत्यादिकाव्यानुसंधानबलाच्छिक्षाभ्यासनिर्वर्तितस्वकार्य- प्रकटनेन च नटेनैव प्रकाशितैः कारणकार्यसहकारिभिः (B) The second interpretation put forward by Śrī Śaṅkuka is as follows :—When an actor is personating Rāma, the spectator has with regard to him, the idea that ‘this is Rāma himself’ ; but this idea is of a peculiar kind, being of the same nature as the idea of ‘horse’ that one has in regard to the picture of a horse ; it is different from all the four kinds of ordinary notions : (1) it is not of the nature of the ordinary right notion that one has in the case of the real Rāma. ‘Rāma is the person’, which is also confirmed by the subsequent cognition ‘this is Rāma himself’ [the cognition in question cannot be of this kind as Rāma is not present there] ;—(2) it is different also from the ordinary wrong cognition ‘this is Rāma’, which appears in regard to one who is not really Rāma, and which is sublated by the subsequent cognition ‘this is not Rāma’ [the cognition in question cannot be of this nature, as there is no such sublation in this case] ;—(3) nor is it of the same nature as the doubtful cognition ‘this may or may not be Rāma’;—(4) nor lastly is it of the nature of the cognition of mere similarity, ‘he is like Rāma’ [the cognition in question cannot be of the nature of these last two cognitions, as it partakes of the notion of identifica- tion] ;—and this actor gives expression to the causes, effects and auxiliaries by the display of his art acquired