Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 52

SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
day life", "what exists only in the realm of literature (or any other fine art)”. He also uses the term to convey the sense of "what is unique", "in a class by itself”, sui generis, transcendental or autonomous. He lays great emphasis on this aspect of rasa when he, over and over again, remarks that experience of rasa is something that is alaukika, not really of this world, and beyond our concepts of time and space or divorced from time and space and that it approximates the experience of the perfect yogin in which he experiences the undifferentiated bliss of his Self or that it is akin to the enjoyment or relish of Brahman-the Ultimate Reality.
Before comparing Abhinavagupta's position that rasa is alaukika with Kant's position that art experience is autonomous, let me briefly state in the words of Prof. R. B. Patankar, the author of Saumdarya-Mimāṁsā, a unique work on Aesthetics in Marathi, the autonomist position of Kant :
"Two postions have been taken regarding the relation between (i) art experience and (ii) other experiences in life. The first position is that (a) there is a continuity between the two types, (i) and (ii), of experiences (b) and that art experience is valuable because it promotes goals of these other experiences. (E. g., art experience is valuable because it gives us an insight into reality, it makes us morally better.) The second position is that art experience is radically different from other varieties of experiences, the difference is one of kind, not one of degree. Art experience is sui generis; autonomous, selfcontained; art experience is valuable because it is art experience, and for no other reason.
If one wants to maintain the autonomist position, as Kant wants to, one has to show that art experience is different from (i) cognitive experience (ii) practical experience, including moral experience; (iii) experience of sensory pleasure, entertainment, etc. If the autonomy of art experience is to be proved, it will have to be shown (a) that the art object does not have the ontological status that objects in the real world have, and (b) that, art experience is not mediated by any concepts. Sanskrit aestheticians like Sankuka, Abhinavagupta have pointed out that the art object does not have the ontological status that things in the real world have. But no Sanskrit aesthetician has thought it necessary to say that art experience is not mediated by concepts... Sankuka has deontologised the art object. But no Sanskritist deconceptualised art experience."
If we examine the concept of Abhinavagupta, that rasa is alaukika, by applying the above-mentioned criteria we will have to admit that Abhinavagupta is not autonomist. It is true that according to Abhinavagupta the empirical means of valid cognition such as direct perception, inference, etc. simply do not operate in regard to rasa. He explicitly states that no kind of intellectual thinking bears any parallel to the experience of rasa. Further, it is also true that according to him sheer delight is ultimately the sole aim or goal of poetry (or creative literature). Saknuka, and following his lead, Abhinavagupta have deontologised the art-object. But they have not taken