________________
1568
SAHRDAYĀLOKA about enjoyment, which has, as its object, the individuals who are possessed of heart. If in poetry there were, indeed one power only, i.e. the power of denotation, without the other ones, what a difference would still remain between the various ornaments, as alliteration, etc., and the treatises illustrating them ? And together with the ornaments the various styles also would result useless. And, again, what would be the purpose of avoiding cacophony, etc. ? Therefore, there is a second power, called 'revelation of Rasa', thanks to which the language of poetry is different from any other. This power, the so-called revelation, proper to poetry, is nothing but the faculty of generalizing the determinants. Once the Rasa has been revealed, there is the enjoyment of it. This enjoyment, which is different from any other kind of perception, as direct knowledge, and memory, consists of the states of fluidity, enlargement and expansion, is characterised by a resting, by a lysis, in our own consciousness, constituted by sattva, and intermixed with rajah, and tamah, and is similar to the tasting of the supreme brahman. The chief member of poetry is only this, quite perfect. The so-called instruction has only a secondary place.
This is only one of the theories. The critics indeed do not agree about the true nature of Rasa. Indeed, some of them say that, in the first stage, we have only a parmanent state of mind, which, being later nourished by the transitory states of mind, etc., is experienced as Rasa. This Rasa, they add, is perecived as really present in the reproduced personage only, and, being displayed in the theatre, is called "theatre-rasa." This theory is criticised by others in the following way. What is indeed, they say, the sense of this intensification of a state of mind by another one as regards a mental state, which naturally develops in succession ? Surely, neither astonishment, nor sorrow, nor anger, etc., are seen to grow more intense with time! Therefore your thesis, viz. Rasa is [perceived as really) present in the reproduced personage, does not stand to reason. If you, on the other hand, say it is in the reproducing actor, obviously he could not follow the tempo, etc. If, finally, you say that it is in the spectators, what a camatkāra would still subsist ? On the contrary, in front of a pathetic scene, the spectators would necessarily feel in pain. Therefore, this thesis is not sound.
Which is then the right one? Here, because of the infinitude of gradations, no reproduction of a defined (niyata) permanent feeling must be made; this, besides, would be purposeless, because at the sight of this excessive particularity, the
vould remain indifferent, so that there could not be any useful teaching. The true nature of Rasa is therefore the following. When the determinants, the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
