________________
Appendix-11
Does the Rasa theory have any modern relevance ?
R. B. PATANKAR
In modern times the rasa theory appears to have suffered at the hands of two groups of critics. (a) Those who are totally ignorant of the literary thought in pre-British India do not feel the need to develop any acquaintance with it. They find the Western critical framework adequate for their purposes. In his The Languages of Criticism and the Structure of Poetry, R. S. Crane could argue convincingly for the readoption of the Aristotelian approach to the problem of poetic structure on the ground that the modern contrastive and assimilative methods do not lead to the discovery of the particular structuring principles underlying individual literary works as does the Aristotelian method. Readoption of the rasa theory cannot be recommended on similar grounds, although the moderns might find something thoughtprovoking in it. It does not appear to satisfy an urgent need of Westernized people as perhaps does yoga. (b) Most of the Sanskritists have started looking upon the theory as a sacred relic of the past which has to be studied, labelled, and preserved in a museum but which is not supposed to be put to mundane uses like analysis and evaluation of modern literary works, even of works produced in Indian languages.
However, a comparative study of the Western and the ancient Indian critical traditions is worth attempting. It will show that there are significant points of contact between the two, and this might lend support to the view that there is a universal human mind which responds to similar situations in similar ways, irrespective of age and country. The comparison might also make an interaction between the two traditions possible. Modern Indian thinkers would profit a great deal if this were to take place. A bridge would thereby be built, not only between India and the West but also, between ancient India and modern India.
When we study a conceptual structure like the rasa theory across many centuries, we find that it contains parts which are completely unintelligible to us, and others which possess only historical interest. Consider, for example, the lists Bharata has given of sthayibhāvas and vyabhicãribhävas. The first list includes mental occurrents like fear and mental dispositions like love. And the second includes mental states like joy and bodily states like languor and sleep. If we take into account the all-round intellectual achievement of the ancient Indians we shall see why it would be wrong to dismiss the preceding classification as patently absurd. All that we shall be justified in saying is that we are unable to understand the principles of classification that Bharata used. The problem regarding the number of rasas is one of historical significance only. On one view, Bharata studied the dramatic compositions which were available to him and saw that most of them expressed eight for nine)
