History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.82

Language: English

c6.82.1

Dr. De in his paper ‘on the theory of Rasa’ contributed to the Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee vol. III (pp. 240-253) gave the text of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the *rasasūtra* in chap. VI of the नाट्यशास्त्र (corresponding to vol. I pp. 274-288). It is in these pages that the views of लोल्लट, शङ्कुक, नायक and अभिनवगुप्त are set out at length. It is impossible in the space that I can afford to expound in detail the views of these writers and the objections raised against them. I shall briefly indicate the special characteristics of the theory of early writers on the question of *rasa* realization. The important questions are : ‘where does *rasa* reside’,¹ ‘what the nature of *rasa* is’ and ‘how it is evolved and realized’. Briefly put, Lollaṭa’s view is as follows: *Rasa* in the primary sense belongs to the hero, Rāma etc. (i. e. Rāma loves Sītā and the dramatist describes this love in appropriate words). The spectator ascribes to the actor, on account of the latter’s clever acting, the same mental attitude that belonged to Rāma and the spectator’s apprehension of imputed love in the actor brings to him delight. This is the meaning of the words विभावा...रसनिष्पत्तिः. This view does not treat of *rasa* as a matter of the spectator’s aesthetic appreciation of the inner meaning of the representation.

c6.82.2

All that Lollaṭa means is that the spectator is delighted by the fact that the actor cleverly represents by his acting that he is Rāma himself, feels the same love that the historic or legendary person (Rāma) felt towards the heroine. The spectator is charmed by this. The view of Lollaṭa is not very clearly expressed by अभिनवगुप्त or by मम्मट (तेन स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिरुपचितो रसः। स्थायी भवत्यनुपचितः। स चोभयोरपि मुख्यया वृत्त्या रामादावनुकार्येडनुकर्तरि च नटे रामादिरूपतानुसन्धान-बलादिति। अ. भा. vol. I p. 274; रसस्वरूप एव तावदिप्रतिपत्तयः प्रतिवादिनाम्। तथा हि पूर्वावस्थायां यः स्थायी स एव व्यभिचारिसम्पातादिना प्राप्तपोषोऽनुकार्यगत एव रसः। लोचन p. 83; नटे तु तुल्यरूपतानुसन्धानवशादारोप्यमाणः सामाजिकार्ना चमत्कारहेतुः। प्रदीप p. 74 on काव्यप्र. 4. 5-6). Here real *rasa* (शृङ्गार) is produced in राम and therefore this view is called उत्पत्तिवाद. शङ्कुक thinks that *rasa* is a matter of inference. The actor who has been well trained in the art of giculation cleverly simulates the actions of real heroes and the spectator apprehends for the moment the actor as non-different from the real hero and infers love (of Rāma etc.) from the अनुभावs, व्यभिचारिभावs presented by the actor and mentally contemplates such love and relishes it. Here *rasa* is no doubt spoken of in relation to the spectator; but it is said to be a matter of inference due to clever imitation (अनुकररूपो रसः). It would be noticed that Śaṅkuka speaks of *rasa* from the standpoint of the spectator.

c6.82.3

It is his view that *rasa* is inferred by the spectator. The स्थायिभाव in the original hero is inferred to exist in the actor (though not actually existing in him) on account of *vibhāvas* cleverly represented by him in his acting, so as to give rise to the notion that the actor experiences feelings identical with those of the hero and makes the spectator forget for the time being the difference between the actors and the characters they represent. This inferred mood possesses peculiar charm entirely different from ordinary perceptions and inferences. Hence the realisation of *rasa* by the spectator is a logical inference. This view is elaborated and criticized in several pages of the अभिनवभारती (vol. I pp. 274-278). Numerous objections are raised against it. But the important one is that it is direct apprehension that produces strikingness and not mere inference (एतदप्यहृदयग्राहि यतः प्रत्यक्षमेव ज्ञानं सचमत्कारम्, नानुमित्यादिरिति लोकप्रसिद्धमवधूयान्यथा कल्पने मानाभावः । प्रदीप p. 77 on काव्यप्र. IV. 4-5). For the view of भट्टनायक, vide above pp. 212-213. भट्टनायक denies that *rasa* is a matter of inference; nor does he accept the view that *rasa* is manifested as something relished by the spectator. He looks upon रसास्वाद as in the same category with परब्रह्मात्कार. As परब्रह्म is आनन्दमय, so is the apprehension of *rasa*. He held that besides *abhidhā* there were two more powers of word viz. भावकत्वव्यापार and भोग or भोगीकृति.

c6.82.4

By the first the *vibhāvas* like Rāma and Sītā are represented to the audience or reader stripped of their individual aspects (साधारणीकरण or साधारणगुणयोग) and the sentiment of love is aroused in the mind and then the audience or reader enjoys a thrill which is आनन्दमय, is different from ordinary experience (अनुभव) or recollection (स्मृति) and is like परब्रह्मास्वाद. The अ. भा. (नाट्यशास्त्र vol. I pp. 278-279) remarks: ‘तस्मात्काव्ये दोषाभावगुणालङ्कारमयत्वलक्षणेन, नाट्यै चतुर्विधाभिनयरूपेण, निबिडनिजमोहसङ्कतानिवारणकारिणा विभावादिसाधारणीकरणात्मना अभिधातो द्वितीयेनांशेन भावकत्वव्यापारेण भाव्यमानो रसोऽनुभवस्मृत्यादिविलक्षणेन रजस्तमोऽनुवेधवैचित्र्यबलाद्हृदि विस्तारविकासलक्षणेन सस्वोद्रेकप्रकाशानन्दमयनिजसंविद्विश्रान्तिलक्षणेन परब्रह्मास्वादविधेन भोगेन परं भुज्यत इति’। It appears from the Locana that Nāyaka accepted that Rasa was the soul of poetry or drama and that it was व्यंग्य. ‘रसः । स च काव्यव्यापारैकगोचरो रसध्वनिरिति । स च ध्वनिरेवेति स एव मुख्यतया- त्मेति' (लोचन p. 18) and 'रसस्य शब्दवाच्यत्वं तेनापि नोपगतमिति व्यङ्ग्यत्वमेव' (लोचन p. 23). He differed from the ध्वनि school in two respects, viz. that रस realisation cannot be described and analysed and that रस is the only suggested sense as the soul of poetry and not वस्तु or अलंकार as the ध्वन्यालोक admitted (on p. 18). अभिनवगुप्त holds the view that rasa is अभिव्यक्त (and not कार्य or ज्ञाप्य).¹ He does not accept the two functions of भट्टनायक (other than अभिधा).

c6.82.5

He thinks that love and other moods are dormant in the minds of spectators, are roused by the stimulus of विभावs etc. and reach the state of rasa. Vide काव्यप्रकाश (IV) for a detailed statement of these views and लोचन (pp. 30, 68-70). भरत's view that रस is the soul of poetry was accepted by रुद्रभट्ट in the शृङ्गारतिलक, even by the अग्निपुराण (वाग्वैदग्ध्यप्रधानेपि रस एवात्र जीवितम्, chap. 336. 33), काव्यमी० p. 6 (रस आत्मा), by मम्मट and रुय्यक, by शौद्धोदनि (अलंकारस्तु शोभायै रस आत्मा परे मनः।' अलंकारशेखर p. 6) and a host of other writers. अभिनवगुप्त says that rasa becomes abhivyakta by the power of vyañjanā and one has rasa realization (rasapratīti) which can be analysed and described. He gives up the भावकत्व (or साधारणीकरण) of Nāyaka and does not speak of भोग but रसप्रतीति or रसास्वाद or रसचर्वणा. It may be noted that Bharata states (VI p. 71) 'नानाभाविनयव्यञ्जितान् वागङ्गस्रोपेतान् स्थायिभावाना-स्वादयन्ति सुमनसः प्रेक्षकाः तस्मान्नाट्यरसा इति व्याख्याताः।' and again 'एवमेते काव्यरसाभिव्यक्तिहेतव एकोनपञ्चाशद्भावाः प्रत्यवगन्तव्याः। एभ्यश्च सामान्यगुणयोगेन रसा निष्पद्यन्ते'। भट्टनायक presupposes (नाट्य. vol. I, p. 80 G.O.S.) two व्यापारs viz. भावकत्व (i. e. साधारणीकरण²) and भोजकत्व. The principal objections against Nāyaka's view are two viz.

c6.82.6

there is no evidence to prove that the two व्यापारs are required over and above abhidhā and what is called bhukti as transcending all knowledge is really nothing but a kind of experience and the latter ultimately ends in the theory of abhivyakti.