Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.74

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c82.s1.74

Language
English

v2.c82.s1.74

Although *rasa* requires these factors for its manifestation and cannot exist without them, it cannot yet be regarded as an ordinary effect, and the cause-and-effect theory is inapplicable; for in the transcendental sphere of poetry, it is said, the connexion between cause and effect gives place to an imaginative system of relations, which has dissociated from personal interests and not to be likened to ordinary pleasure and pain in which personal or egoistic impulses predominate. The mind is so entirely lost in its contemplation that even when the sentiment of grief or horror relished in such a state, pain is never felt, and even when felt it is a pleasurable pain. This fact is borne out by the common experience that when grief is represented on the stage, the spectator says ‘I have enjoyed it’. Hence Viśvanātha remarks (iii 6-7 and *vṛtti*) that those very things which are called causes of pleasure and pain in the world (e. g. banishment of Sītā in the forest), when consigned to poetry and drama, possess the right to be called, in consequence of their assuming such an impersonalised form, *alaukika vibhāvas* etc., and from them only pleasure ensues, as it does from bites and the like in amorous dalliance. It is also maintained that tears constitute no proof that anything but pleasure is felt in poetry; for the tears that are shed by the reader are not those of pain but those of sentiment. Jagannātha’s remarks in this connexion are interesting. He says (p. 26) that the shedding of tears and the like are due to the nature of the experience of particular pleasures, and not to pain. Hence in a devotee tears arise on listening to a description of the deity; in this case there is not the slightest feeling of pain. Such is the power of detachment which poetry produces that even unpleasant things like sorrow generate dissociated pleasure, and this pleasant relish of impersonalised or idealised artistic creations should be distinguished from the ordinary experiences of life.