Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 65

WORLDLY NATURE OF RASA
53
bibhatsa and bhayānaka their determinants etc., being anista' or un- favourable are duhkhatmaka. The ND holds that people see performances with karuņa etc., as principal rasa, only out of their love for the expert presentation on the part of the poet and the actor. It is for this camatkara' or sense of wonder caused by the expert presentation on the part of both the poet and the actor that the spectators take rasa to be pleasurable. But poets develop their themes keeping in mind the pleasurable and painful nature of the original story of Rāma and the like. Incidents such as the abduction of Sitā, the discourtesy shown to Draupadi, the slavery of Hariscandra, the death of Rohitāśva, Lakşmaņa's being hit by an arrow, the attempt to kill Málati, can never cause joy in the hearts of the connoisseurs. If imitation of tragic situation evokes a joyous response in the heart of the spectators, the imitation would cease to be imitation proper -yadi cānukarane sukhātmānaḥ syur na samyag anukaranań syāt (p 182).
All this makes it sufficiently clear that for the ND, rasa is primarily laukika because of the laukika nature of the sthayin concerned, and is only alaukika in the sense that the whole complex of deteminants etc., is unreal.
For Visvanātha who follows the lead of Ananda and Abhinavagupta, and also for Hemacandra, the author of Kavyānuśasana and the guru of Rāmacandra and Guņacandra, rasa is alaukika. But Viśvanātha finds it quite difficult to defend the case of karuna. Dhananjaya also, though he takes sthayin to be rasa (DR IV. i,), falls in line with the Kashmir School in taking rasa to be of alaukika nature. Later eminent writers such as Jagannātha, also accept the view of Abhinavagupta and uphold the a-laukikatva of rasa.
The above presentation of the views of älamkārikas beginning with Bharata onwards shows that their house is divided so far as the problem of laukikatva or alaukikatva of rasa is concerned. But it seems probable that the earlier, writers from Bharata down to Rudraţa emphasized the worldly nature of rasa and it required great courage to hold the fort against the formidable onslaught of the rasălaukikatvavādins like Ānanda and Abhinavagupta, Mammaţa and Jagannātha. The Natyadarpana's was perhaps a lone voice with its heart lying with the laukikatva-vådin and its head bringing around a compromise in holding rasa as a-laukika on the almost flimsy ground that the vibhavadis or the whole complex of determinants, consequents and accessories presented by the poet in either poetry or drama is unreal i. e., artificial.