Rasa; The Audience and the Stage 13. N5,1,12. The role of the different sodal groups with regard to the structure of theatre and theatre performance deserves further examination. In particular need of analysis is the connection or non-connection between the accounts in the first and the last chapters of the NS with regard to the status of the actors. 14. See also K. Varma, /. . . abhinaya is an act of communication of the performer, it is not representation", in Nab/a, Nrtta and Nrtya, Calcutta, 1957, p. 51. 15. In his commentary on the 'rasa-sutra''. See also G. Bhat, ".Rflsa-Relish: A Consideration of Pre-requisities', in Amrtadhara (R.N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume), Delhi, 1984. 16. Contra: S.A. Srinivasan, op. dt., p. 36. 42 17. NS, Chapter 6, prose passage before verse 35: vibhavanubhavavyabhicarisamyogad rasanispattih. 18. A.B. Keith, The Sanskrit Drama, Oxford, 1924, p. 315. He thinks the statements of the Natyashastra are "simple". 19. P. Hacker, Grundlagen indischer Dichtung undindischen Denkens, Wien, 1985, p. 26 (my translation). 20. P. Hacker, ibid., pp. 29-30. This implies a reduction of the experience of rasa to mere sensuality. Hacker contrasts this view of rasa with Kant's aesthetic. 21. E. Gerow, Indian Poetics, Wiesbaden, 1977, p. 248. 22. Ibid. 23. E. Gerow, 'Rasa as a Category of Literary Criticism', in R. Van Baumer, J. Brandon (eds), Sanskrit Theatre in Performance, Honolulu, 1981, pp. 226-57 and p. 227. 24. Abhinavagupta's discussion of this concept must be considered in connection with his analysis of the 'rasavighnas''. 25. For example (the nonetheless valuable) translation and discussion by J.L. Masson, and M.V. Patwardhan, Aesthetic Rapture, Poona, 1970. 26. On this see the detailed analysis by P. Szondi, Theorie des modemen Dramas, Frankfurt, 1979. 27. On the context of Samkhya philosophy see: G.L. Larson, Classical Samkhya, Delhi, 1979, pp. 192-94; and J.A. van Buitenen, 'Studies in Samkhya V, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 76, 1957, p. 159. Journal of Arts & Ideas