Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 64

52
SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
"Siddhicandra, (the author of Kavyaprakāśa-Khandana edn. 53, by Prof. Parikh.) explains a view held by some 'Navinas' who seem to take a laukika view of rasa. Siddhicandra (p. 16) observes: “Tadapekṣayā kāmini-kucakalasa-sparsa-candananulepanadineva nätya-darśana-kavya-śravanabhyam sukhavišeşo jāyate. Sa eva tu rasa iti navināh.". This view puts the aesthetic pleasure on a par with ordinary sensual pleasures. In the discussion of Rasānanda or aesthetic pleasure - observes Prof Parikh in his introduction (p. 10) to Siddhicandra's Kavya-Prakāśa-Khandana -"this is really a moot point-viz., whether the aesthetic pleasure is like any other pleasure of ordinary life or whether its character is different : If the experience of the artistic representation of pleasure and pain is the same as the experience of these in life, what is painful in life would not give pleasure in poetry and therefore such sentiments as those of sorrow, anger, aversion, etc, cannot become rasas in poetry. Consistently with this view the Navinas, therefore hold that, there are only four rasas, viz; śrngāra, Vira, Hāsya and Adbhuta. Siddhicandra says: navināstu śrngara-vira-hasya-dbhuta-samjñaścatvāra eva rasāh. (p. 16). He further refutes the claim of Karuna, Raudra etc; to the title of rasas in the words atha karunādinām katham na rasatvam iti cet,..etc."
It is not clear who these Navinas were. But they certainly held rasa to be of laukika character.
In Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, the joint authors of the Natya-darpana, Edn. G.O.S., 1959), we find an eloquent advocacy of the sukha-duhkhatmaktva of rasa, thus placing its nature, on laukika plane. They hold rasa to be 'a-laukika' only in the sense that the assemblage of determinants etc., as portrayed in a dramatic or poetic composition are not real-(rasa is perceived in a real man and a real woman, an actor and a spectator) but with this difference : in the case of a real man and a real woman the rasa is perceived vividly because its determinants are actually present; and it is because of this fact that the accessories and the consequents produced by rasa (sentiment) are clearly perceptible. In other cases like that of a spectator, however, the sentiment is perceived not vividly but indistinctly for the determinants, etc., presented through kávya (a poem or a drama) have no real existence. As a consequence, the accessories and consequents too which follow rasa are not distinctly perceptible. That is why the rasa, perceived in a spectator, is said to be alaukika-extra-ordinary.32
That the Natyadarpana (ND) takes intensified sthāyī which is of the nature of sukha and duḥkha to be rasa is clear from its definition of rasa, (p. 141, IV-7). It is held that śțngāra, hāsya, vira, adbhuta and śānta having işta i.e., favourable determinants etc., are sukhātmaka, and karuņa raudra
32. केवलं मुख्यत्री-पुंसयोःस्पष्टेनैव रूपेण रसो विभावानां परमार्थसत्त्वादत एव व्यभिचारिणोऽनुभावाश्च रसजन्याः तत्र
स्पष्टरूपाः । अन्यत्र तु प्रेक्षकादौ ध्यामलेनैव रूपेण विभावानामपरमार्थसतामेव काव्यादिना दर्शनात् । अत एव व्यभिचारिणोऽनुभावाश्च रसानुसारेणास्पष्टा एव । अत एव प्रेक्षकादिगतो रसो लोकोत्तर इत्युच्यते । . Nățyadarpana, Revised Second Edition, GOS, Baroda, 1959, P. 143