365bet娱乐

178 2
The epics show a deprecatory attitude towards
drama and the rarity of references in the Upanisads and
S奴tras also displays the same attitude. By the time of
Panini, the dramatic literature seems to have grown so
much in bulk that there were already Nata-sutras by
艢ilali and K峁浥浤伵泇a,-the first fruits of the labours of
ancient Indian dramatic theoreticians.' In the Mah膩bh膩峁�ya
of Patanjali (III.2.III) we get undeniable evidence of
actual, full-fledged dramas. The Mah膩bh膩峁�ya passage
mentions three kinds of representations, the latter two of
which refer to those (ii) by means of paintings or picture
scrolls, and (iii) by a set of professional reciters-
granthikas or kathakas. The first kind of representation
was that given by Sobhanikas who actually performed
Kansavadha or Balibandhana. (啶�啷� 啶むぞ啶掂う啷囙い啷� 啶多�嬥き啶ㄠた啶曕�� 啶ㄠぞ啶�啷堗い啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶曕�嵿��
啶曕�傕じ啶� 啶樴ぞ啶むく啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶曕�嵿し啶� 啶�啶侧た啶� 啶�啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶�啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啶囙い啶� 啷� ) [ye t膩vadete 艣obhanik膩 n膩maite pratyak峁�a
ka峁僺a峁� gh膩tayanti pratyak峁�a峁� bali峁� bandhayanti iti | ) ] The word 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶曕�嵿し啶�啷� [辫谤补迟测补办峁�a尘 ] clearly
shows that Sobhanikas were human actors who assumed
different roles of Kamsa and K峁涐梗峁嘺 and performed the
whole piece on the stage. Keith's theory that Kamsavadha
and Balibandhana were mere dumb-shows does not stand
to reason, as such an interpretation would defeat the
very purpose for which these representations were intended.
Without dialogue, the whole performance would amount
to mere manual acts of wrestling or binding which would
be quite unintelligible for understanding of the epic
stories. There is, further, no evidence of any dumb-show
in ancient India. Keith objects to the meaning 'actor
attached to the word Sobhanika or Saubhika. The word
is rarely used in that sense; but the word 'lena sobhika
appears in a Mathura inscription, and L眉ders himself,
who in his paper on the Saubhikas has tried his
best to prove that they were anything but actors
and has caused a great deal of confusion by insisting
on an etymological interpretation of the passage in the
Mah膩bh膩峁�ya, has admitted that it should be translated
3 as:
1 Levi, Theatre Indien, 1, p. 300. 2 The passage
啶�啷� 啶むぞ啶掂う啷囙い啷� 啶多�嬥き啶ㄠた啶曕�� 啶ㄠぞ啶�啶む�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶曕�嵿し啶� 啶曕�傕じ啶� 啶樴ぞ啶むく啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�嵿く啶曕�嵿し啶� 啶�啶侧た啶� 啶�啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶�啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啶囙い啶� 啶氞た啶む�嵿ぐ啷囙し啷� 啶曕ぅ啶�啷� [ye t膩vadete 艣obhanik膩 n膩mate pratyak峁�a峁� ka峁僺a峁� gh膩tayanti pratyak峁�a峁� bali峁� bandhayanti iti citre峁�u katham ] !
啶氞た啶む�嵿ぐ啷囙し啷嵿さ啶�啶� 啶夃う啷嵿�椸�傕ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶� 啶ㄠた啶�啶距い啶苦い啶距ざ啷嵿�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶灌ぞ啶班�� 啶︵�冟ざ啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶曕�傕じ啶曕ぐ啷嵿ざ啶｀�嵿く啶多�嵿�� 啷� 啶椸�嵿ぐ啶ㄠ�嵿ぅ啶苦�曕�囙し啷� 啶曕ぅ啶�啷� [citre峁�vapi udg奴r峁嚹� nip膩tit膩艣ca prah膩r膩 d峁浥泍ante ka峁僺akar艣a峁噛a艣ca | granthike峁�u katham ] ! 啶�啶む�嵿ぐ 啶多が啷嵿う啶椸う啷佮ぎ啶距い啷嵿ぐ啶�
啶侧�曕�嵿し啷嵿く啶む�� 啶む�囙そ啶�啶� 啶灌た 啶む�囙し啶距�� 啶夃い啷嵿お啶む�嵿い啶苦お啷嵿ぐ啶�啷冟い啷嵿く啶� 啶掂た啶ㄠぞ啶多ぞ啶� 啶嬥う啷嵿ぇ啶苦さ啷嵿く啶氞た啶曕�嵿し啶距ぃ啶� 啶膏い啷� 啶�啷佮う啷嵿ぇ啶苦さ啶苦し啶�啶距え啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぞ啶多く啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啷�
啶呧い啶多�嵿�� 啶膏い啷� 啶掂�嵿く啶距ぎ啶苦ざ啷嵿ぐ啶� 啶灌た 啶︵�冟ざ啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啷� 啶曕�囙�氞た啶む�� 啶曕�傕じ啶�啶曕�嵿い啶� 啶�啶掂え啷嵿い啶� 啶曕�囙�氞た啶︵�� 啶掂じ啷佮う啷囙さ啶�啶曕�嵿い啶距�� 啷� 啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶距え啷嵿く啶む�嵿さ啶� 啶栢げ啷嵿さ啶�啶�
啶�啷佮し啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啶� 啷� 啶曕�囙�氞た啶む�� 啶曕ぞ啶侧ぎ啷佮�栢�� 啶�啶掂え啷嵿い啶� 啶曕�囙�氞た啶︵�� 啶班�曕�嵿い啶�啷佮�栢ぞ啶� 啷� [yatra 艣abdagadum膩tra峁�
lak峁�yate te'pi hi te峁Ｄ佱箖 utpattiprabh峁泃y膩 vin膩艣膩ta 峁沝dhivyacik峁Ｄ佱箛膩 sato buddhivi峁�ay膩n prak膩艣ayanti |
ata艣ca sato vy膩mi艣r膩 hi d峁浥泍ante | kecit ka峁僺abhakt膩 bhavanti kecid vasudevabhakt膩岣� | var峁嚹乶yatva峁� khalvapi
pu峁�yanti | kecit k膩lamukh膩 bhavanti kecid raktamukh膩岣� | ] 3 SD, pp. 31-36 "The obvious view,
that of Weber, that we have a reference to a pantomimic killing and binding, seems
irresistible". (p. 33). 4 SD, pp. 32-34.