________________
128
V. M. Kulkarni
any other) deity on hearing his description is only proper. There is not even the slightest touch of sorrow or grief in listening to such descriptions of deities (And yet they shed tears; therefore it is quite eviden: that these tears are of pure joy and not of sorrow). It may be asked: "If the sensitive spectator or reader who has completely identified himself with sorrow-stricken Dasaratha, etc., experiences in relishing the sentiment of pathos etc., joy, then in a dream or in sannipata (a dangerous fever a combined derangement of the three humours of the body causing fever which is of a daugerous kind) by such identification also he ought to experience sorrow in this case (viz. relishing the sentiment of pathos, etc.)". To this it is said in reply: "That even matters like sorrow, etc., which are in themselves distasteful (unwelcome), produce extra-ordinary or transcendental joy is due to the glorious power of the extra-ordinary poetic function, called vyanjana (the power of suggestion). The sweet aesthetic relish arising out of this extra-ordinary poetic function (of vyanjana) is altogether different from the experience of joy produced by any other means of cognition (like perception, inference, analogy, scriptures, etc.)"19
This discussion reveals that conflicting views are held by Sanskrit literary thinkers regarding rasa and its pleasurable nature: (i) Some. are of the view that rasas, one and all without any exception, are pleasurable. They define and describe rasa as a manifestation of the joy.. or delight or the bliss of the self (Atmanandu) or one's own consciousness circunisoribed by or coloured with a particular permanent emotion with its veil of ignorance uncovered or rent asunder.
Consequently, in this enjoyment of one's own consciousness which is a mass of bliss or of one's own mental state with the preponderance of the element of sattra and with the light and bliss of self reflected in it there can be absolutely no question of any unhappiness, pain, grief or sorrow. These literary critics are known as 'Kevalalhadavādins' (ii) Some other literary critics are of the view that some rasas like the erotic (frigara) etc., are pleasurable but some others like the pathetic (karuna) are painful as in our actual everyday life. These literary critics are known as Sukhaduḥkhatmakavadins, (iii) The modern (navya) literary critic, Siddhicandragani is alone in holding the view that there are only four rasas. Singara, etc. as the are pleasurable, and the rest of the so-called (eight or nine) rasas do not deserve to be called a rasas.
Of the four well-known commentators of Bharata's rasasütra, Bhatta, Nayaka and Abhinavagupta are undoubtedly of the view that all rasas
