Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology

Page 14

SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
worthy of the name.5 Quite obviously, Svabhāvokti can have quite an insignificant place in this scheme of things.
A serious consequence of accepting such a position is that a large mass of Sanskrit and Prakrit poems would be consigned to a very inferior status. Svabhāvoktis would be put down either as specimens of weak poetic exercises, or alternatively, they would be accepted as secondary poems, by associating with them a shade of emotion on the basis of some supposed context (Jagannatha). Possibly there were historical reasons for this downright devaluation of the poetic beauty deriving exclusively from Alankāra and Svabhāva-varṇana.
Bhoja has recognized three types of poetic beauty, based on three distinct modes of expression : Svabhāvokti, Vakrokti and Rasokti, i. e. natural description, figurative description and delineation of emotion respectively.7 When the poetic beauty primarily derives from Guna we have Svabhāvokti; when it derives from Alankāra, we have Vakrokti; when it derives from the delineation of Rasa, we have Rasokti.
The credit, however, goes to Kuntaka for working out basic principles of categorizing the poetic expression. His treatment of the problem is marked by perception, lucidity and logical rigour. The introduction to his treatment of Alankāras in the Vakroktijivita (III-1-16) establishes that the poetic beauty deriving primarily from non-figurative description of objects (as in Svabhāvokti) and delineation of emotions (as in Rasavat) inheres in the poetic subject-matter or content, Vastu, while that deriving primarily from the embellishment, Alankāra, of the poetic content inheres in the verbal expression. In Kuntaka's words, in the former case the Saundarya is Svābhāvika, while in the latter case it is Racanā-vaicitrya-yukta.
Dhvanivāda and Rasavāda cannot account for the whole range of the experience of beauty in poetry. Some types of experiences have quite a different basis. The aesthetic experience produced by natural description of objects remains unaccounted for by the Dhvani theory, and that produced by rhetorical description remains unaccounted for by the Rasa theory.
Ruyyaka and Jayaratha have pointed out the psychological basis of Svabhāvokti and Rasavat Alankāra (which closely corresponds to Rasokti). In poetry the Sahşdaya cxperiences Hşdaya-samvāda, the correspondence or
5. Dhvanyaloka, Vștti on III 41-42; Locona on the same. 6. यत्तु रसवदेव काव्यमिति साहित्यदर्पणे निर्णीतम् , तन्न। वस्त्वलंकारप्रधानानां काव्यानामकाव्यत्वापत्तेः। न
चेष्टापत्तिर्महाकविसंप्रदायस्याकुलीभावप्रसंगात् ।...न च तत्रापि यथाकथंचित् परंपरया रसस्पर्शोऽस्त्येवेति वाच्यम् । (Rasagangadhara. Nirnaya-Sagar, edn, 1939, pp 8-9) See also K. Krishnamoorthy, 'Essays in Sanskrit Criticisin. 1964' pp. 234-240.
fina Tatranea ahaliftica 9192941 (Sarasvatīkanthäbharaṇa, V.8.) flag: gerai: 1 alfa:,' alimi:,'Tini Rai anhelarga qaft:, warfego
to water:, faHarghiaoufaIRÉTTU Thlaspil afera I (śrngäraprakāśa, p. 438)