Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s6: Rasa Discourse: Debates and Diversities

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s6

Language
English

Rasa Discourse: Debates and Diversities

c10.s6.1

There has been the continuity of a vigorous *bauddhika-vimarda* (intellectual wrestling) with regard to *rasa* discourse. Two factors functioned as catalysts for intensifying the debates on *rasa*. On one hand the diverse world-views that have been developing as parallels percolated in the *rasa* discourse; on the other, *rasa* discourse was also being nurtured by adopting categories and concepts from various systems of philosophy.

c10.s6.2

Jai Shankar Prasad, one of the greatest poets of twentieth century, made an interesting remark in one of his essays on art and art experience — that there are two streams of thought regarding the aesthetic experience in India — Ānandavāda and Duḥkhavāda. The former is represented by Indra and the latter by Varuṇa. The remark was made rather surreptitiously and Prasad did not cite any authentic source to support his thesis. However, we find that the theory of *rasa* as a blend of pleasure and pain (*sukhaduḥkhātmaka*) has been supported long before Abhinavagupta, who cites the Sāṁkhya view of *rasa*.¹⁸

c10.s6.3

*Rasa* was defined as the abiding or stable emotion that emerges when its determinants, ensuants and ancillaries are described or presented.¹⁹ Bharata Muni has equated the emergence of this emotion to creating the taste by mixing various ingradients in the cooking of a recipe. It was basically located in the characters described in a play.

c10.s6.4

*Rasa* is viewed as something lying at the core, and also percolating within the art form. If *kāvya* is a tree, *rasa* is the seed from which the roots of this tree sprout, and *rasa* is its flowers and fruits as well.

c10.s6.5

With this formalistic view or the view related to the structure of an art form — *rasa* was redefined with the change of the medium and form. Mātṛgupta, as quoted by Abhinavagupta and many other authors and commentators, has defined various categories of *rasa* according to the types of *abhinaya*, i.e. *vācika*, *nepathyaja* and *svabhāvaja*. *Vācika-rasa* is the aesthetic experience resulting from the dialogues of a dramatic text; *nepathyaja* or *āhārya rasa* manifests where there is a proper arrangement of external means for beautification; and *svabhāvaja rasa* manifests through the inner qualities of the characters of a play.²⁰

c10.s6.6

Thus like *nāṭya rasa* (*rasa* in the structure of a theatre performance) and *kāvya rasa* (*rasa* in literary structure), there can be *nṛtya rasa* (*rasa* in dance form) and *saṅgīta rasa* (*rasa* in music) as well. *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa* and Bhoja discuss *citra rasa* (*rasa* in painting) and its varieties. Accordingly, there are nine varieties of painting in accordance with these nine *rasas* — *śṛṅgāracitra*, *hāsyacitra*, etc.).²¹ Bhoja however gives eleven types of *citra rasas* by adding *preyān* and one more *rasa* in the list.²²

c10.s6.7

To Lollaṭa, the intensification of the abiding emotion or *sthāyī bhāva* becomes *rasa* after it is originated through its *vibhāvas* (causes) and manifests through *vyabhicārīs* (auxiliaries). The actors are mistaken for the original characters through “a willing suspension of disbelief”. The abiding emotions of the original characters are superimposed on these actors. This process of superimposition is combined with another process which Lollaṭa had termed *tādrūpyānusandhāna* — a searching thereafter for an identification. This search for identity leads an actor to present a semblance of the dramatis personae and the audience to perceive the intensified emotion, which is finally consummated as *rasa*. The process requires the existence of the subject and the object as two separate entities. This process presupposes a conscious effort on the part of the connoisseur for realization of *rasa*.

c10.s6.8

Śaṅkuka, criticized Lollaṭa and explained the emergence of *rasa* through the dual process of *anukṛti* and *anumiti* (inference). He anticipates the whole concepts of *sādhāraṇīkaraṇa* (decontexualization, universalization) when he says that the *anukṛti* done by the actor leads the spectator to cognize this actor as the character but this cognition is different from all the four possible categories of worldly cognitions — *samyak* (real), *mithyā* (mistaken), *saṁśaya* (doubt) and *sādṛśya* (similarity). He also uses the analogy of the horse in painting (*citraturaganyāya*) to describe the trans-mundane or extraordinary nature of this process. This leads to an inference, and inferred emotion becomes *rasa*. This is made possible through the skill and training of the actor in representation, as he also has to undergo through the *anusandhāna vyāpāra*.

c10.s6.9

We thus find that the rhetoricians like Daṇḍin and Vāmana on one hand and the followers of Bharata like Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka on the other hand upheld the formalistic and objective view of *rasa*. But then a subjective view of *rasa* was proposed with all its psychic ramifications. A great turning point in the development of *rasa* theory comes with Bhaṭṭanāyaka. Bhaṭṭanāyaka revolutionized the whole thinking, shifting the emphasis to the experience of *sahṛdaya* (connoisseur). To explain the psycho-somatic process of *rasa* realization, he adopted terms from four philosophical systems — Sāṁkhya, Mīmāṁsā, Vedānta and Śaivism. In earlier views of Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka, the perceiver and the object of perception both are situated on different planes of time and space, and are interrelated only due to *anusandhāna* (search for identification) or *anumiti* (inference). In contrast to this, Bhaṭṭanāyaka found both the subject and the object uprooted from their time and space to stand on a single plane in the state of *bhoga* (bliss). Abhinavagupta, providing a subtle interpretation to his theory, calls this process of uprooting as *ubhayadeśakāla-tyāga*. Śāradātanaya in his *Bhāvaprakāśa* exhaustively explains Bhaṭṭanāyaka's theory and he also shows how the whole process can be explained through the tenets of Śaivism. Accordingly, the three elements — *rāga*, *vidyā* and *kalā* — cause an inclination in a person to the pursuits of art. Because of *rāga* the objects of poetry, even when they are contaminated with sorrow and illusion, produce *sukhābhimāna* (sense of pleasure). He suggests that the process of *bhāvakatva* or *sādhāraṇīkaraṇa* tends to eradicate the intense crisis of human personality — remaining shackled with particularities. Once the mind is liberated from its limits, it attains the state of *bhoga* (bliss). The exuberance of the tranquil state of mind (*sattvodreka*) is characterized by *prakāśa* (light) and *vimarśa* (reflection). This *bhoga* involves a complex psychic process where *bhoktā* (connoisseur), *bhojya* (emotions to be relished) and *bhukti* (process) are integrated.

c10.s6.10

Bhaṭṭanāyaka also postulated Śānta Rasa as a fundamental principle. Before him, Āryarakṣita (third century CE), a Jaina author, postulated the theory of Śānta in his *Anuyogasūtra* and even before Āryarakṣita, Aśvaghoṣa had categorically stated at the end of his *Saundarānanda-mahākāvya* that he has composed this poem for ultimate peace (*vyupaśānti*) and the poem has an inherent purport of leading the listeners towards emancipation (*mokṣārtha-garbhā kṛtiḥ*). Then Udbhaṭa is perhaps the first *ācārya* in this tradition who accepts Śānta as one of the *rasas*.

c10.s6.11

This variety and multifarious nature of *rasa* embraces not only whatever that is supposed to be apparently beautiful, sweet or attractive, it equally subsists on whatever that is terrorizing, hideous or ugly, and tends to encounter the issues that disturbs us that lead to abhorrence and detestation. This is very much true in case of *Mahābhārata* or the plays like *Ūrūbhaṅga* and *Veṇīsaṁhāra*, which are based on the Mahābhārata war. The masters of *rasa* theory say that *Mahābhārata* has an ending which is completely devoid of *rasa* (*virasāvasāna*), leaving its readers in the state of *vimanaskatā* (a mind uprooted from everywhere, dismay). It is a state where we stand in aversion; repulsed by our own repulsion. But then, quite emphatically the masters also say that an ending which is completely devoid of *rasa*, leads to the fountains of real *rasa*. This leads us to the other side of *rasa* discourse, where the concept of ugly, how so ever disturbing and complicated it may be, is taken up for making an aesthetic theory. Bharata Muni therefore counts Bībhatsa (repulsive) and Raudra (terror) as fundamental *rasas* (*mūla rasas*), juxtaposing them with an equal weight with the other two — Śṛṅgāra and Vīra. Bībhatsa is said to be of two kinds — *kṣobhaja* (born out of anguish) and *udvegī* (generated by uneasiness). The former would lead to disillusionment and ultimately to liberation (*mokṣa*).²³ Unfortunately the twist and turn given to this discourse by the non-dualistic Śaivite or Vedāntic philosophers got so much propagandized when the history of our knowledge systems was being written with a colonial bias, that the line of reasoning with dualist approach to the aesthetic concepts was overlooked. In the aesthetics based on absolutist philosophy, *rasa* is treated as a singular, isolated and unique experience. This is however a one-sided picture. Actually the *rasa* discourse did not run in a single stream.

c10.s6.12

Through the aesthetics of Bībhatsa Rasa, therefore, the spectator or reader undergoes the experiences of anguish, uneasiness and disgust which will finally make him liberated from the mundane and the earthly. Abhinavagupta is right in suggesting that the experience of Bībhatsa Rasa would thus lead to Śānta and to salvation.²⁴

c10.s6.13

Bharata Muni was opposed to viewing *rasa* in isolation. He said that *rasa* actually emerges in *rasa-vimarda* (*rasas* crushing and overpowering each other) or *rasavyatikara* (mixture of *rasas*) and that no *rasa* should be allowed to come alone.

c10.s6.14

Abhinavagupta gave a sound but singular philosophical base to Bhaṭṭanāyaka’s views. As corollaries and rejoinders to the system that Abhinavagupta built, there are divergent views of Bhoja, Dhanika–Dhanañjaya, Mahima Bhaṭṭa, Rāmacandra–Guṇacandra and Śāradātanaya. The questions raised and the challenges posed by these return again and again in the history of *rasa* discourse running for more than two millennia, sometimes in the form of theory of *māyā rasa*; or sometimes as *navya-mata* or *para-mata*. The intellectual wrestling continues in the Sanskrit tradition till the present century.

c10.s6.15

The whole discourse assumed new dimension with the introduction of the concept of *ābhāsa* in it. It was Udbhaṭa, a predecessor of Ānandavardhana and Bhaṭṭanāyaka, who used the term for the first time. If there is impropriety in the very idea of *rasa* and *bhāva*, they become *rasābhāsa* and *bhāvābhāsa*. *Ābhāsa* is a technical term in Śaivism. The term *ābhāsa* as used in by Karṇapūra in the *vṛtti* of *Alaṁkārakastubha* also reminds of its philosophical connotation.

c10.s6.16

It would appear that the discussions on *rasa* tend to evolve absolutist aesthetics, positing on metaphysics and holistic view through philosophical interpretations, where *rasa* is treated as a singular, isolated and unique experience. This is however a one- sided picture that presents the view of tradition of *rasa* discourse that grew in Kashmir. *Rasa* discourse would appear to be running almost in a single stream if the theorists like Bhaṭṭanāyaka and Abhinavagupta only are considered. The whole debate on *rasa* has been running in multiple streams.

c10.s6.17

Bhaṭṭanāyaka stages a comeback through Dhanika and Dhanañjaya. Parallel to the idea of *rasa* as bliss, the view of *rasa* as a mixture of pleasure and pain also recurs. Abhinavagupta refers to the *Sāṁkhya* view of *rasa* that holds *rasa* as *sukha-duḥkha-svabhāva*. This view differs from Rāmacandra’s (twelfth century) theory, as it holds the very nature of *rasa* as amalgam of pleasure and pain whereas Rāmacandra would consider five *rasas* as *sukhātmaka* (imbued with pleasure) and four as *duḥkhātmaka* (imbued with pain). It is an altogether different theory based on the Jaina view of *ahiṁsā* (non-violence). The proponents of Sāṁkhya system must have built up their aesthetics as well, if we consider how Īśvarakṛṣṇa in his *Sāṁkhyakārikā* used the metaphor of theatre performance to explain the process of *vivekakhyāti* (enlightenment).

c10.s6.18

Bhoja represents a very important turning point in *rasa* discourse. He establishes an equation between *rasa* and *abhimāna* (ego) and between the identification of self (*ahaṁkāra*) and *śṛṅgāra*. He does not strictly adhere to the theory of eight or nine *rasas* as well. He suggests some new *rasas*. The new *rasas* proposed by Bhoja are — *udātta* with *mati* (wisdom) as its *sthāyī bhāva* and *kṣobha*.

c10.s6.19

Many other *ācāryas* added new *rasas* to the list of eight or nine *rasas* from this point of view. Abhinavagupta himself has referred to the theory of *laulya-rasa*, with *gardha* (greed) as its *sthāyī bhāva*. Abhinavagupta does not altogether discard *laulya-rasa*. He simply rules out the possibility of its independent existence. He says that the *sthāyī bhāva* of this so-called *laulya-rasa* can be incorporated either in *hāsa* or in *rati*. The question of this empiricist view of *rasa* recurs again in the next millennium in the treatment of some of great masters of theory — Bhānudatta, Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha and Viśveśvara Pāṇḍe. The theory of *laulya-rasa*, which some of the predecessors of Abhinavagupta had postulated, reappears with a different name. Bhānudatta in his *Rasamañjarī* has referred to the theory of *māyā-rasa* to refute it. So does Viśveśvara Pāṇḍe in the late eighteenth century. The proponent of the theory argues that if *śānta* with *nivṛtti* (renunciation) as the dominating emotion can be accepted as *rasa*, *māyā-rasa* with *pravṛtti* (empiricism) as the dominating emotion should also be accepted.

c10.s6.20

Some of the *ācāryas* propounded the theory of twofold *rasa* — *laukika* (this-worldly) and *alaukika* (other-worldly). *Laukika rasa* is *svagata* (belonging to the character) and *alaukika rasa* is *paragata* (belonging to the connoisseur). Bhaṭṭanāyaka had stood against the theory of *svagata rasa*. But others continued to argue in favour of the other side of the *rasa* theory. They were standing on the solid ground which Bharata Muni himself had prepared. Defining *nāṭya* (theatre), Vidyānātha in his *Pratāparudrīya* says:

c10.s6.21

*Rasa* in fact resides in the hero (or the character). But because of the delineation by a skilled actor, or by the hearing of a poem like that, the connoisseurs also experience it by perception, then Rasa can be held as *paragata* (belonging to the connoisseur) and a cause of extreme delight.

c10.s6.22

It was Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha in seventeenth century who raised vital issues and introduced some very refreshing ideas in the discourse of *rasa* aesthetics. He not only gave a genuine Vedāntic interpretation to Abhinavagupta’s Śaivite moorings, he even rejected the whole framework of absolutist aesthetics, to suggest two alternate new theories on *rasa* experience as a deliberately created and maintained illusion. He also added a fifth category in the four types of Vīra Rasa. *Dānavīra*, *dayāvīra*, *dharmavīra* and *yuddhavīra* — these are the four types of Vīra Rasa. Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha said that there is a fifth type of Vīra Rasa, i.e. *pāṇḍityavīra*. It would find an expression in intellectual debates and intense philosophical discussions pursued with an involvement and commitment. This is in fact recasting the whole framework of *vāda* in an aesthetic framework.

Linked texts (9)