Dr. Dhananjay Vasudeo
Dwivedi,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Sanskrit,
Ranchi College,
Morhabadi Ground,
Ranchi
Pin-834008
Home address-
R-22/6, Harmu Housing
Colony, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
Pin Code-834002
‘Rasa’ is an exceedingly
significant word in Indian literature. It is one of
those words in Sanskrit whose precise significance is as indefinite as its
usage is widespread. According to Bharat no meaning can proceed from
speech without any kind of Rasa- ‘nahi
ras¹dÅte kascidarthe pravartate’1.
In ordinary demeanour it
is used in four senses- i)the six flavours of objects, such as pungent,
astringent, saline, acrid, acid and sweet; ii) The rasa of Ayurveda; iii) The
literary sentiment and iv) The devotional ecstasy. Viewed deeply it would be
clear that some sort of relish is predominant element pervading all the
aforesaid senses of Rasa. Here the goal is, however, not to examine all types
of Rasas. The concern is only with the Poetic Rasa and sentiment.
Poetry occupies a
pre-eminent position among the innumerable achievements of mankind. It is a
unique creation of a person endowed with poetic genius possessing wide and
profound knowledge of diverse scriptures and a sound experience of the going of
the world. According to ¸c¹rya Mammaa-
“NiyatikÅtniyamrahita‚ hl¹daikmay»mananyaparatantr¹m
Navarasarucir¹‚ nirmitim¹dadhat» bh¹rat» kaverjayati” 2
i.e. Supreme is the poet’s
speech which projects a creation, free from the restraints of nature’s laws,
full of delight alone, independent of anything else, and charming on account of
nine fold rasa.
Brahma’s (Creator’s)
creation is subject to the well set laws which no object of the world can violate.
A particular fragrance can be found in a particular flower. The fragrance of
lotus cannot exist without lotus. But there is vast difference between the
world of God and that of the poet. Inn the poetic world the charming fragrance
can be brought about in the lotus like face of lady by the poetic genius. In
the world the moon is known for its natural delighting property as cool rays.
People are enraptured, feasted and fed to see the rays of moon. Hot rays can
never be expected from moon. But on contrary, the poet can convincingly render
it inflammatory and rays hot. For a love stricken person been separated from
his beloved every pleasing thing of the world appears contrary. It is clear
from following expression of Du¬yanta as described by Kavikulakal¹dhar Mah¹kavi
K¹l»d¹sa-
“Tava kusum¶aratva‚ ¶»tara¶mitvamindordvayamidamayath¹‚
dÅsyate madvidhe¬u
VisÅjati himgarbhairagnimindurmayukhaistvamapi
kusumb¹ª¹nvajras¹ri karo¬i” 3
i.e. O’ flower armed God!
The multitude of lovers is being hoodwinked by you and by the moon when on you
two they rely for comfort. For having flowery arrows, and the moon’s cool rays;
both these things appear top be quite untrue in the case of persons like me
suffering the pangs of separations of his darling ˜akuntal¹; for the moon
showers fire with rays, having cold in the interior and you, too, render your
flower arrows having the hardness of adamant.
Similar is the position of
R¹ma during the separation of S»t¹. Hanum¹na narrates the state of R¹ma to
S»t¹. ˜r» R¹ma says: Ever since I have been separated from you, S»t¹,
everything to me has become it very reverse. The fresh tender leaves on the
trees look like tongues of fire; night appears as dreadful as the night of the
final dissolution and the moon scorches like the sun. Beds of lotuses are like
so many spears planted on the ground, while the rain clouds pour boiling oil as
it were. Those that were friendly before have now become tormenting; the cool,
soft and fragrant breezes are now like the breath of serpent. One’s agony is assuaged
to some extent even by speaking of it; but to whom shall I speak it? For, there
is no one who will understand my sentiments. The reality about the chord of
love that binds you and me, dear, is known to my soul alone; and my soul never
abides with you. Know this to be the essence of my love. ¸c¹rya Mammaa has
also expressed this fact in a stanza which is the example of L¹t¹nuprasa figure
of speech. He says-
“Yasya na savidhe dayit¹
davadahanastuhinad»dhitistasya
Yasya ca savidhe dayit¹ davadahanastuhinad»dhitistasya” 4
i.e. to one who has not
his beloved near him, even the cool-rayed moon is like the
forest-conflagration; while to one who has his beloved near him, even the
forest-conflagration is like the cool-rayed moon.
In the world of the
creator the doctrine of cause and effect is invariably set in operation. The
cause must always precede the effect. But in poetry such rule is, at times, set
aside. For example, Du¬yanta is uniquely blessed by the sage M¹r»ca. Du¬yanta
says- Holy one, first came the fulfilment of my desires, and afterwards, the
sight of you; thus the favour you showed me is without parallel. For, first
appears the flower, then the fruit; first the clouds and then come the showers;
such is a regular course of cause and effect; but fortunes came before your
grace-
“Udeti pØrva‚kusuma‚ tataå phala‚ ghanodayaå pr¹ktadantara‚
payaå
Nimittnaimittikayoraya‚ kramastava pras¹dasya purastu sa‚padaå” 5
According to the creator’s
rule the Heaven can be attained only after the end (death) of virtuous person.
In this world it is impossible to acquire it. But the poet, by dint of his rare
sapience, can make one attain the Heaven in this very life-
“Svargapr¹ptiranenaiva
dehena varvarªin»
Asy¹ radacchdaraso
nyakarotitar¹‚ sudh¹÷” 6
i.e. This handsome woman
represents the acquisition of the Heaven in this human form, and the loveliness
of her lips puts nectar itself into the shade.
In fact, the poet is the
only creator of the boundless poetic world. He can bring about any type of
transposition in his world according to his sweet will. If the poet is amorous
in poetry, the entire world will be made full of flavour. But if he himself
happens to be a person whose thirst for pleasures has altogether disappeared
and who is free passion from everything becomes platitudinous. The talented
delineates freely even the inanimate objects as animate beings and animate
beings like inanimate objects. That is to say the poet’s imagination and genius
has immense and immeasurable capacity to create the things according to his
will. Agnipur¹ªa says:
“Ap¹re K¹vyasa÷s¹re
kavirekaå praj¹patiå
Yath¹mai rocate vi¶va‚
tatheda‚ parivartate” 7
The creation of Brahma is
full of pleasure, pain and delusion etc. but the world of the poet is full of
delight alone. How? Somebody can opine that the poetry composed by one’s foe
may cause jealousy and sorrow, pain may be quite obvious in poetry suffused
with pathetic sentiment and the non-availability of desired things may generate
sometimes delusion. But that is not so. The connoisseur will certainly
experience pleasure after listening to the poetry of the foe. Similar is the
case with Karuªa rasa. Although to have any amount of pleasure in the case of a
worldly sorrow is normally impossible, but in the case of the relish of
pathetic sentiment, in the realm of poetry alone, we can pass on to a state of
aesthetic delight through the experience of sorrow. The theorists who hold that
all the rasas lead to an aesthetic bliss also acknowledge that ‘¶oka’ consists
of unalloyed sorrow. But through rumination that very sorrow is transmuted by
the touch of the poet and becomes pathetic sentiment and provides pleasure in
the manner of the painful nail scratching and biting etc. in the time of an
erotic dalliance leading to an inexplicable joy. It is true that the sorrowful
is equally sorrowful both in the ordinary world and in the poetry. But it
cannot be gainsaid that in the latter the cultured readers pass on from the
ordinary experience to a state of aesthetic experience, where there is the
unalloyed bliss. It is due to the wonderful power of ‘s¹dh¹raª»karaª’ i.e.
generalisation that the pleasure derived in case of pathetic sentiment is not
owing to nay blind appreciation of the dramatist or the actor, for in time of
the aesthetic relish of even the Karuªa rasa, the absorbed spectator cannot
afford to think of the dramatist or the actor or anything outside the dramatic
situation which has a mesmeric effect on his mind. Will any connoisseur be
unhappy to learn that a new author of Shakespeare’s or BhavabhØti’s or
˜aratcandra’s talent is writing new volumes of high class tragedy? It has
rightly been observed by Kavir¹ja Vi¶van¹tha-
“Karuª¹d¹vapi rase
j¹yate yatpara‚ sukham
Sacetas¹manubhavaå
pram¹ªa‚ tatra kevalam” 8
The paramount bliss is
produced even in the karuªa rasa. Here the experience of good hearted people is
the only proof. If there would be any sense of melancholy, nobody would be
ready to read the poetry. In that case even the exquisite poetry like R¹m¹yaªa
etc which is the perennial source of the utmost delight will become the cause
of sorrow. It is true that the sorrow is the permanent feeling of the pathetic
and that sorrow can produce nothing but pain and not pleasure. But in poetry we
get only pleasure from sorrow. The reason of all these is that all the worldly
experiences become unworldly when they are adopted in poetry. This reality
cannot be refuted-
“Alaukikavibh¹tva‚pr¹ptebhyaå
k¹vyasa‚¶ray¹t
Sukha sañj¹yate tebhyaå
sarvebhyoap»ti k¹ k¬atiå” 9
The creation of Brahma is
not independent. It is dependent upon material causes such as atoms and
auxiliary causes such as Karma (action) etc. but the poetic creation is quite
independent. The poet’s imagination and blissful genius are enough and enough
to create the limitless poetic word. In fact his faculty overflowing with bliss
creates itself through itself. Poetry needs no other cause. There are only six
flavours in the creation of Brahma such as pungent, astringent, saline, acrid,
acid and sweet. These flavours are not always invariably pleasant. Different
from Brahma’s creation, however, is the creation of the poet which is full of
ever delighting nine principal rasas such as i) the Erotic, ii) the Comic, iii)
the Pathetic, iv) the Furious, v) the Heroic, vi) the Frightful, vii)the
Disgustful, viii) the Marvellous and ix)Pietistic. These rasas purify our heart
and provide immediate bliss par excellence. In fact, all sorts of worldly
objects when depicted in poetry become full of rasa-
“Ramaya‚ jugupsitamud¹ramath¹pi
n»ca-
mugra÷pras¹di gahana‚
vikÅta‚ ca vastu
Yadv¹pyavastu
kavibh¹vam¹na‚
tann¹sti yanna
rasabh¹vamupaiti loke” 10
Whether one takes a
subject that is delightful or disgusting , exalted or lowly, cruel or kindly,
obscure (as in the original story) or adapted to be more intelligible or
whether one takes a subject originated by the imagination of a poet there is
not subject that cannot be succeed in conveying sentiment among mankind.
Thus, the poetic creation
is a transcendental achievement of poetic genius and the rasa is the
quintessence of that creation. Poetry owes its being to the depiction of rasa,
which is regarded, as the soul of poetry. The propriety of the use of different
types of the elements like vÅitti (style), guªa (excellence), ala÷k¹ra (figures
of speech), vakrokti (equivoque), etc is determined by rasa. The Agnipur¹ªa
declares-
“V¹gvaidagdhyapradh¹nepi
rasa ev¹tra j»vitam” 11
It means that, though,
there is the predominance of dexterity of speech in poetry, it is only the
rasa, which has its soul. It is worthwhile to quote Vi¶van¹tha who give the
very definition of poetry in terms of rasa recognised as the soul-
“V¹kya‚ ras¹tmaka‚ k¹vyam”
12
Poetry is a sentence, the
soul whereof is ‘Rasa’. Declaring poetry as a sentence with Rasa as its soul
¸c¹rya Vi¶van¹tha, excludes all such compositions devoid of Rasa from the realm
of poetry the chief function of great poet, observes ¸nandvardhana, lies in the
incorporation of emotional mood in his poetry in such a way as to make it
primarily an object of communication. It is not befitting a true poet to convey
anything other than emotional experience.
It would not be out of
context to point that rasa has many meanings and it is used in Upani¬adas to
signify the highest, super-mundane relish or bliss. The famous statement of the
Taittir»yopni¬ada ‘Raso vai saå’ 13 boldly asserts
that the highest reality, Parabrahma is in essence rasa or bliss. ¸c¹rya
Bharata tells us that nothing materialises or evolves without rasa. Poetry is a
sentence, the soul whereof is rasa. ¸c¹rya Vi¶van¹tha declares rasa as the soul
of the poetry. Even old and hackneyed
ideas assume new values and charms in association with rasa. The objects though
delineated in the past appear as if they were all fresh coming in contact with
the poetic rasa as trees look novel in the spring season.
Poetry is primarily an
expression of the poet’s overflowing emotion and is a medium to transmit this
emotion to the readers in succession, and it because of this that emotions
(rasa) are truly styled as the soul of poetic composition. Abhinavagupta in
Natya¶¹stra-has admirably represented this idea-
“Yath¹
b»j¹dbhavedvÅk¬o vÅk¬¹tpu¬pa‚ phala‚ yath¹
Tath¹ mØla‚ ras¹å sarve
tebhyo bh¹v¹ vyavasthit¹å” 14
i.e. as from seed grows
plant, from plant blossom and fruit, so ‘rasa’ is the root of balanced feeling.
Perhaps the above points
will go a long way to prove that ‘rasa’ is the sin-quo-non of the poetic art.
Defining the ‘Rasa’, ¸c¹rya Bharat Muni says-
“Vibh¹nubh¹vavyabhic¹risa‚yog¹d
rasani¬pattiå” 15
The above aphorism (sutra)
of Bharata is the basis of the entire deliberation of the rasa. The rasa gets
accomplishment through the conjunction of the excitant, the ensuant, and the
variant. Here one has to keep in mind that Vibh¹vas are the determinants,
Anubh¹vas, the consequents and Vyabhic¹ribhavas, stand for the transitory
mental states, which is a necessity for the realisation of Sth¹yibhava or the
basic disposition.
The sutra has been
interpreted differently by different ¸c¹ryas and each interpretation forms the
basis of distinct theory regarding the genesis of rasa. Prominent among them
are Bhaa Lollaa, ˜ri ˜a‚kuka, Bhattn¹yaka and Abhinavagupta. But before
dwelling upon them the following k¹rik¹ of ¸c¹rya Mammata are quoted here for an
easy grasp of different views on rasa-
“K¹rª¹nyatha k¹ry¹ªi
sahak¹r»ªi y¹ni ca
Raty¹deå sth¹yino loke
t¹ni cenn¹tyak¹vyayoå
Vibh¹v¹ anubh¹v¹stat
kathyante vyabhic¹riªå
Vyaktaå sa
tairvibh¹v¹dyaiå sth¹y»bh¹vo rasaå smÅtaå” 16
i.e. what are known, in
the world, as causes, effects and auxiliaries of the permanent feeling of love
and the like, -come to be spoken as excitants, ensuants and variants, when
found in drama and poetry; and when the latent emotion comes to be manifested
by these excitants, it is known as rasa.
It should be clear now
that the poetic ‘rasa’ is the manifestation of the permanent emotion of the
reader of the poetry. According to our ¸c¹ryas there are nine permanent
emotions (basic feelings) which usually lie dormant in the heart of each human
being. They are- Love, Mirth, Sorrow, Anger, Enthusiasm, Fear, Disgust,
Astonishment, and Self-disparagement. These latent basic feelings are the
sources of delight par excellence. They never perish. A permanent emotion may be compared to the ocean.
Whether salty or sweet- all types of water assume the flavour of the water of
the ocean immediately after entering into it. No good or water can influence
the water of the ocean. Similarly, no other feeling whether consistent or
inconsistent with it, can exercise its power on it. It, in effect, brings the
other into harmony with it. These latent feelings become rasa when manifested
through the excitants, ensuants, and variants.
An excitant (Vibh¹va) is
that which causes the development of the feelings by it being recognised. It is
of two types- Fundamental (¸lambana) cause and Inflaming cause (Udd»pana). The
fundamental causes are hero, heroine and other characters of the poetry or
drams and the inflaming causes are the circumstances, time and place. An
Ensuant (Anubh¹va) on the other hand, is an extreme manifestation that serves
to indicate feeling. The Variant emotions are those that especially accompany
the permanent emotion in co-operation, emerging from it and being submerged in
it like the waves of the ocean. According to ¸c¹rya Mammaa Variants are
“Nirvrdagl¹ni¶a¡k¹khy¹stath¹asØy¹mada¶ram¹å
¸lasya‚ caiva dainya‚ ca
cint¹ mohaå smÅtirdhÅtiå
Vri©¹ capalat¹ har¬a ¹vego
ja©t¹ tath¹
Garvo vi¬¹da Autsukya‚
nidr¹apasm¹ra eva ca
Supta‚ prabodhoamar¬¶c¹pyavahitthamathograt¹
Marvy¹dhistathonm¹datath¹
maraªmeva ca
Tr¹sa¶caiva vitarka¶ca
vijñey¹ vyabhic¹riªå
trayastri‚¶adam» bh¹v¹å
sam¹khy¹t¹stu n¹mataå” 17
Going by the
abovementioned k¹rik¹, the variants are thirty-three in number- Despair,
Debility, Apprehension, Hatred, Intoxication, Lassitude, Indolence, Depression,
Anxiety, Distraction, Recollection, Steadiness, Bashfulness, Unsteadiness, Joy,
Excitement, Stupefaction, Arrogance, Despondency, Impatience, Drowsiness,
Epilepsy, Dreaming, Awaking, Animosity, Constraint, Irreversibility, Resolve,
Sickness, Mental Derangement, Moribundness, Alarm and Alternating thought.
As has already been said
several doctrines of ‘rasa’ have come into being based on the interpretation of
the aforesaid Bharata sutra. The prominent among them are succinctly given
here-
Generative Theory-
Bhaalollaa is the first
interpreter of the RasasØtra of Bharata. According to him Sa‚yog¹ta means ‘from
conjunction’ and Ni¬patti means production (generation). By the conjunction of
the excitants, ensuants and variants rasa is generated. There functions,
however, are not of similar nature. The rasa is generated by the Excitant.
Hence rasa is producible and Excitant in the shape of women etc. (basic cause)
and garden etc. (the inflaming cause) is the generator. It (rasa) is rendered
cognizable by the ensuants, namely, effects, such as the amorous glances and
the tossing of arms and the like and lastly it is consummated by the variants
such as self-disparagement, intoxication, impatience, indolence etc. This rasa
primarily exists in the character to be acted dramatically such as R¹ma, but it
is also apprehended in the stage player on account of his having assumed that
character, and when thus recognised it is called ‘rasa’, passion.
¸c¹rya Mammaa has
summarised it as follows-
“EtdvivŪvate
vibh¹vairlalanody¹n¹dibhir¹lambanoddipanak¹raªai raty¹diko bh¹vo janitaå
asubh¹vaiå ka¹k¬abhuj¹k¬epaprabhÅtibhiå k¹ryaiå prat»tiyogyaå kÅtaå
vyabhic¹ribhinirved¹dibhiå sahak¹ribhirupacito mukhyay¹ vÅtty¹ r¹m¹d¹vanuk¹rye
tadrupat¹nusa‚dh¹n¹nnarttakeapi prat»yam¹no rasa iti bhaalollaa
prabhÅtayaå” 18
This theory is incapable
of explaining the emotion that arises in the mind of the spectator of the
dramatic representation, as according to it, the rasa exists primarily in the
personated character and secondarily recognised in the personating character.
Inferential Theory:
This theory has been put
forward by ˜ri ˜a¡kuka. According to him rasa is inferable and the
Determinants, Ensuants and the Variants are the grounds of inference. Here
Sa‚yog¹t stands for the conjunction of the inferable and the ground of
inference and ‘Ni¬patti’ means inference. According to ˜ri ˜a¡kuka when an
actor is personating R¹ma, the spectator has with regard to him, the idea that
‘this is R¹ma himself’; but this idea of a peculiar kind, being of the same
nature as the idea of ‘horse’ that one has in regard to the picture of horse;
it is different from all four kinds of ordinary notions:
(1)
It is not of the nature of the ordinary right notion that one
has in the case of real R¹ma. ‘R¹ma is the person’, which is also confirmed by
the subsequent cognition ‘this is R¹ma himself’ [the cognition in question
cannot be of this kind as R¹ma is not present there]
(2)
It is different also from the ordinary wrong cognition ‘this
is R¹ma’, which appears in regard to one who is not really R¹ma, and which is
sublated by the subsequent cognition ‘this is not R¹ma’ [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 R¹ma’.
(4)
Nor lastly is it of the nature of the cognition of mere
similarity, ‘he is like ‘R¹ma’ [the cognition in question cannot be of the
nature of these last cognitions, as it partakes of the notion of
identification]
And this actor gives
expression to the causes, effects and auxiliaries by the display of his art
acquired through instruction and practice, and pondering over such poetry as
the following-
“Seya‚ mam¹¡ge¬u
sudh¹rasaccha¹ supØrakarpØra¶l¹kik¹ dŶoå
Manoratha¶r»rmanasaå¶ar»riª»
pr¹ªe¶var» locanagocara‚ gat¹
Daiv¹dahamadya tay¹
capal¹yatanetray¹ viyukta¶ca
Aviralavilolajaladaå k¹laå
samup¹gata¶c¹ya‚” 19
That is ‘that lady, the
mistress of my life, a splash of nectar to my body, unguent of camphor to my
eyes, the very embodiment of the glorious longings of my heart, glided within
the range of my vision. Unfortunately I have today been separated from her,
with eyes large and tremulous, and that season has arrived wherein clouds are
constantly flitting about’
Here though all these
causes, effects and auxiliaries are only artificially assumed by the actor, yet
they are not regarded as such by the spectators. They consider them as real.
Hence they are spoken of as ‘excitants’, ‘ensuants’ and ‘variants’. The
‘Sa‚yoga’, conjunction of these three i.e. through the relation of the
indicative and the indicated, subsisting between these three and the resultant
feeling leads to the inference of the ‘latent emotion’ of love e.g. though thus
inferred, the emotion is be reason of the peculiar charm, different from all
other objects of inference and hence it is recognized as something subsisting
latently, and as, though thus inferred, this emotion is recognized, through its
peculiar charm, as something recognized, and as such different from other
ordinary inferred thing, it is imagined to be subsisting latently in the actor,
and even though not really present in him it is relished by the spectators
through their predisposed tendencies.
Under this view, the
causes, effects and auxiliaries are the invariable concomitants of the emotion,
and the inference of this non-existent emotion explained as being due to the
predisposition of the audience.
The objection against this
view is that inference is a purely intellectual process and hence cannot account
for the highly complex phenomenon involved in rasa. Here though somehow the
perception of rasa has been shown in the audience but the notion that the
spectator is enraptured by imagining the sentiment like love etc. in the Actor
is by no means acceptable. It goes without saying that inferred object cannot
provide transcendental delight. If the permanent emotions like love etc are not
present in the heart of the spectator then he cannot be delighted merely by
inference. Thus this theory is also not totally acceptable.
Enjoyment theory:
It has been propounded by
Bhaan¹yaka. He is the first ¸c¹rya who has admitted the importance of the
spectator and audience. According to him ‘Passion’ is not cognised (inferred),
or generated or manifested, either unconcernedly (as not concerning the
spectator at all, as held by Bhaalollaa), or as subsisting in the spectator
himself (relished by him, as held by ˜ri ˜a¡kuka); what happens is that in
poetry and drama words are endowed with peculiar presentative potency, distinct
from Denotation (and indirect Indication), which tends to generalise the
Excitants, Ensuants and Variants, and thereby presents to consciousness the
‘latent emotion’, which thereupon comes to be relished by a process of
delectation abounding in enlightenment and bliss, due to the plenitude of the
quality of Harmony (Sattva).
¸c¹rya Mammaa has
summarised it as follows-
“Na t¹asthyena
n¹tmagatatvena rasaå prat»yate notpadyate n¹bhivyajyate api tu k¹vye n¹tye
c¹bhidh¹to dvit»yena vibh¹v¹dis¹dh¹raª»karaª¹tman¹ bh¹vakatvy¹p¹reª bh¹vyam¹naå
sth¹y» sattvodrekaprak¹¶¹nandamayasa‚vidvi¶r¹ntisatattvena bhogena bhujyate iti
Bhaan¹yakaå” 20
It is Bhaan¹yaka who has
first given us the brilliant principle of generalisation (Universalisation) of
Excitants, Ensuants and Variants. The only objection raised against this theory
is that the two vy¹p¹ras i.e. Bh¹vakatva and Bhojkatva given by him are
unwarranted.
Manifestation Theory:
This is the most
acceptable theory propounded by the revered ¸c¹rya Abhinavagupta. He has
removed all defects found in the abovementioned theories and has made the
position of rasa most venerable in the realm of poetry and drama. According to
Abhinavagupta two extra functions of poetry such as Bh¹vakatva and Bhojkatva
are unwarranted and uncalled for. These are included in the scope of ‘Vyañjan¹’
(suggestion) function of the words and the meaning. The poetry itself with its
appropriate guªa and figures of speech etc brings rasa to the realm of
realisation i.e. Bh¹van¹. The function with which the poetry does so is nothing
other than suggestion i.e. Vyañjan¹. The relish of Rasa, which is regarded to
be due to the bhojakatva function, also can be had by suggestion. Because what
is conceived as Bh¹van¹ (realisation) is nothing other than Bhoga (relish).
Thus, if rasa is to be suggested the bhoga also happens to be suggested along
with rasa. Hence Abhinavagupta’s conclusion is that rasa is suggested, and it
is relished in manner of realisation.
In this way there is a
relationship of suggestged (Vya¡gya) and suggesting (Vyañjaka) between the rasa
and excitants etc. the excitants, ensuants and variants are suggesting
(Vyañjaka) elements and the rasa is suggested (Vya¡gya).
According to Abhinavagupta
a particular permanent emotion is already present in the heart of the audience
and that permanent emotion assumes the form of rasa after having been
manifested by the excitants, ensuants and the variants. The existence of a
particular emotion in the form of ‘predisposition’ is very important. If the
audience is devoid of such emotions, he cannot experience rasa.
At the time of realisation
of rasa all the causes of the manifestation of rasa i.e. the excitants,
ensuants and variants are recognised in their most generated forms. For example
we can take a blossomed rose in the garden. The very sight of the rose delights
the onlooker.
But then what type of
feeling is awakened in his heart? If he considered it of his own he would
proceed to pluck it. If considered it of an enemy it would give rise to
aversion. If treated it as of some neutral man, that would cause a feeling of
detachment. Thus this rose is neither of yours, nor of your foe and nor of any
neutral person. In this connection neither any relation is accepted nor
discarded-
“Parasya na parasyeti
mameti na mameti ca
Tad¹sv¹de vibh¹v¹deå
paricchedo na vidyate” 21
Thus in the realm of
literature all the objects are taken merely in the generalised forms. Rose
flower is simply a symbol of beauty. R¹ma is recognised not as a son of
Da¶aratha, but, as a valiant man; and similarly S»t¹ not the wife of R¹ma but,
mere charming lady. The realisation of rasa is not possible till all the objects
are generalised form. And the generalisation is the outcome of the genius of
the poet.
The pleasure of rasa is
unworldly, for all the worldly, for all the worldly enjoyments are limited and
are mixed with an element of dissatisfaction on account of lack of satiety. The
concept of ‘Rasa’ happens to be one of the most fundamental concepts of Indian
Aesthetics, and this concept constitutes the central pivot, around which other
concepts revolve and on which all poetical entities depend for existence. The
literary merit and the literary embellishment apparently appear to reside in
the external texture of poetry, but this also goes to heighten aesthetic
effect. ‘Rasa’ is usually explained with reference to poetic art, but this is
applicable to all expressions of art, because all these lead to the attainment
of aesthetic relish. The very designation ‘Rasa’ given to the state of
beatitude produced from experience of art shows that, on one hand, it has
similarities with fine beverage, the differing tastes of all ingredients in
which merge themselves completely in the ultimate taste of the drink, and bring
into being a separate flavour, and, on the other hand, it is practically
identical with the experience of the Infinite. Indian Aesthetics projects the
idea that in course of his attempt to transplant an emotive experience into the
mind of the connoisseur, the literary artist is required to create characters
and chains of events, situations and feelings: the magic wand of poetry,
however, universalises these characters and situations and places them in a
generalised pedestal. The process of universalisation, it is said operates in
two aspects: on one hand, it universalises the object of experience and, on the
other hand, generalises the subject of experience. In this peculiar state the
artist, the connoisseur, the characters and the situations, all are
universalised, as a result of which the self of the man, divested to all
particularities rests on the universal self, which is nothing other than
Infinite. It is not without reason, therefore, that the Upani¬ads describe
‘Rasa’ as identical with the Infinite, - the Grand and the Sublime. When Indian
aesthetics proclaim that ‘Rasa’ constitutes the be-all and end-all of Poetry,
it does not simply mean that the aim of poetic art is to generate emotive
experience: it brings into expression the idea that poetic experience and
poetic exercise are nothings but roads of leading to a glimpse of the Infinite.
This affirmation of Indian Aesthetics rests itself on the assumption that like
other forms of Yogic exercise leading to a vision of the Grand and Sublime, the
Poetic exercise also is a Yoga terminating ultimately in the experience of the
magnificent self of the universe.
The rasa relished in the
same manner as before the eyes, penetrating into the inmost recess of the heart
embracing the entire body and overpowering everything else, it makes one feel
the rapturous bliss of Brahm¹- the emotion thus manifested becomes the source
of transcendent charm and is spoken of as ‘rasa’.
Hence, it should be borne
in mind that the poetic rasa is not an effect. A prima facie the study of the
excitants etc many lead one to think that rasa is an effect of them. But in
fact that is not true. They are helpful only in making the rasa manifested and
relished. If it were an effect, it would continue to exist even after the
destruction of the stick and other causes of the jar. However, such is not the
case with rasa. It cannot exist in the absence of its so called causes names
excitants etc. hence one may raise a very pertinent question-Can anything exist
without any material cause? Our answer to this objection is-‘nowhere’- but this
fact serves, not vitiates the transcendental nature of rasa.
It is also not cognisable,
for the cognizance or illumination of only that thing is possible, the
existence of which is already proved but is covered due to certain reason. But
this is not the case with Rasa. It does not exist before the perception of
excitants etc. This fact also bears out the extraordinary character of Rasa. It
is the secret of the transcendence of Rasa that the thing, which produces fear
or grief in the world or is the case of anger, that pours only bliss, par
excellence, when depicted in poetry. This is why that even the ‘Furious’
(Raudra) rasa based upon its permanent emotion, ‘Resentment’ (Krodh) produces
bliss, Frightful (Bhayanak) is also rasa. ‘Disgust’ (Jugupasa) generating
‘Disgustful’ (Vibhatsa) Rasa is also delight and delight alone. At the time of
relishing poetic Rasa all types of feeling of ‘Rajas’ and ‘Tamas’ are banished
and those of ‘Sat’ only come into prominence. The rapturous state may be
compound with Brahamananda. It fact, such a pure state of Rasa deserves to be
designated as Brahma.
References
1.
Dvived»
P¹rasan¹tha (Editor), N¹tya¶¹stra of ˜ri Bharata Muni (Part II), Sampurnananda
Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1996, pp 33.
2.
Singh
Satya Vrata (Ed.), K¹vyaprak¹¶a of ¸c¹rya Mammaa, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan,
V¹r¹nas», 2009, pp 2
3.
Malaviya
Dr Sudhakar, Abhijñ¹na¶¹kuntalam of Mah¹kavi K¹lid¹sa, Chowkhamba Krishnadas
Academy, Varanasi, 2008, pp 158
4.
Singh
Satya Vrata (Ed.), K¹vyaprak¹¶a of ¸c¹rya Mammaa, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan,
V¹r¹nas», 2009, pp 357
5.
Malaviya
Dr Sudhakar, Abhijñ¹na¶¹kuntalam of Mah¹kavi K¹lid¹sa, Chowkhamba Krishnadas
Academy, Varanasi, 2008, pp 598
6.
Singh
Satya Vrata (Ed.), K¹vyaprak¹¶a of ¸c¹rya Mammaa, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan,
V¹r¹nas», 2009, pp 346
7.
Up¹dhy¹ya
Baldeva, Sa÷skÅta ¸locan¹, Prak¹¶ana, SØcan¹ Vibh¹ga, UP, 1957, pp 14
8.
Regmi Acharya Sheshraja Sharma (Ed.),
S¹hityadarpaªa of ˜ri Vi¶van¹tha Kaviraja, Chowkhamba Krishnadas Academy,
Varanasi, 2007, pp 90
9.
Ibid,
pp 92
10. Vy¹sa Dr. Bhol¹¶ankar (Ed.), Da¶arupaka of
Dhanañjaya, The Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, Varanasi, 1967, pp 292
11. Up¹dhy¹ya ¸c¹rya Baladeva (Ed.), Agnipur¹ªa
of Mahar¬i Vedavy¹sa, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1966, pp
490
12. Regmi Acharya Sheshraja Sharma (Ed.),
S¹hityadarpaªa of ˜ri Vi¶van¹tha Kaviraja, Chowkhamba Krishnadas Academy,
Varanasi, 2007, pp 24
13. Goyandaka Harikrishnadas (Comm.), ½¶¹di Nau
Upani¬ad, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, Samvat 2029, pp 321
14. Dvived» P¹rasan¹tha (Editor), N¹tya¶¹stra of
˜ri Bharata Muni (Part II), Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1996,
pp 107
15. Ibid, pp 34
16. Singh Satya Vrata (Ed.), K¹vyaprak¹¶a of
¸c¹rya Mammaa, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan, V¹r¹nas», 2009, pp 65
17. Ibid, pp 91-92
18. Ibid, pp 66
19. Ibid, pp 69
20. Ibid, pp 72
21. Regmi Acharya Sheshraja Sharma (Ed.),
S¹hityadarpaªa of ˜ri Vi¶van¹tha Kaviraja, Chowkhamba Krishnadas Academy,
Varanasi, 2007, pp 96
