Now the sthāyibhāva is a state of mind which because it is more deeply felt, dominates all other emotions.  It belongs to both the character and to the spectator 

is not a translation , nor paraphrasing of a part of a Sanskrit text. 

It is an explanatory sentence. 

It belongs to both the character and to the spectator 

is the restatement of the Rasanishpatti explanations in which the question of yannishThah ?  is discussed. 

 Rasa exists in both anukaarya = character, saamaajika/ prekshaka  = spectator is one of the positions taken in this regard. 

But in the case of sthaayeebhaava its existence in both anukaarya and saamaajika / prekshaka is not disputed.  

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:24 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:
Vol I is available at 

https://poeticgenre.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/drama-sanskrit-aesthetic-rapture.pdf 

Vol II at 

https://archive.org/details/AestheticRaptureVol.IIJ.L.MassonM.V.Patwardhan 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:02 PM Tieken, H.J.H. via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Harry, I do not have the books at hand. However, you might have a look at an article of mine, titled "On the Use of Rasa in Studies of Sanskrit Drama" IIJ 43/2 (2000), pp. 115-138. In this article I show, among other things, that in the Natyasastra the distinction between bhavas and sthayibhavas is less stable than is often assumed. You may find a pdf of the article on my website.
Herman 

Herman Tieken
Stationsweg 58
2515 BP Den Haag
The Netherlands
00 31 (0)70 2208127
Van: INDOLOGY [indology-bounces@list.indology.info] namens Harry Spier via INDOLOGY [indology@list.indology.info]
Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2019 22:01
Aan: Indology
Onderwerp: [INDOLOGY] Statement on sthāyibhāva

Dear list members,

On page 23 of Aesthetic Rapture by Masson and Patwardhan , their work on chapter 6 of Nāṭyaśāstra by Bharata is given a definition of sthāyibhāva .
"Now the sthāyibhāva is a state of mind which because it is more deeply felt, dominates all other emotions.  It belongs to both the character and to the spectator".

But the authors don't give a textual reference for this statement.  Can anyone give me a textual reference that supports the part of the definition: ". . . It belongs to both the character and to the spectator". 

Thanks,
Harry Spier
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
 
 
 


--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )