Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 67

RASA THEORY AND THE DARŠANAS
is an imitation of the sthayin in the original character like Rāma. This sthayin in the actor is inferred from his acting. Both the sthayin and its correlatives are thus unreal and hence are named by Bharata by specially newly coined terms like vibhāva. How can such an unreal apparatus lead to the real enjoyment of rasa ?-As does the picture of a horse lead to the cognition of a real horse', (citra-turaga-nyaya) says Sankuka; he deems it 'samvādi-bhrama' and quotes Dharmakirti, the Buddhist philosopher, for a support. Imagine a person who sees rays of a lamp at a distance, thinks that it is a jewel, rushes to secure it, reaches the spot and, to his disappointment, finds a lamp there. Imagine also another person who sees rays of a jewel (and not the jewel itself, it being too small and too far from him), thinks that it is a jewel, reaches the spot and actually finds a jewel. In fact, both are mistaken in as much as they take as a jewel something other than a jewel. But this false knowledge (bhrama) produces a real action in them, with the only difference that one of the two is rewarded with what he sought (a case of samvādi-bhrama:) while the other is not (a case of visamvådi-bhrama).2
This is how Sankuka argues, conceding that the inferred sthāyin in the actor and its apparatus are unreal. Personally he thinks that the cognition of the sthayin in the actor defies definition, that it cannot be included in any of the known varieties of cognition, but, at the same time, its existence cannot be denied as it is a matter of direct experience for every rasika.3
It is customary to deem Sankuka a Naiyāyika because of his view that rasa, that is the imitated sthāyin, is inferred. I do not subscribe to this view; for nothing typical of the Nyaya system is involved in this view. A farmer does not need to study Nyaya to infer that it would rain before long when he sees dark and heavy clouds in the sky. If Sankuka's theory of inference is an adequate ground to deem him a Naiyayika, his reference to Dharmakīrti can be regarded as sufficient ground to deem him a Buddhist : I would consider the second claim to be more plausible, as the verse quoted from Dharmakirti is closely related to the theory of knowledge of the Buddhists who deny the existence of the objective world. This sort of naive tagging of names based on a flimsy ground is of little consequence in a serious study.
NAYAKA
Nāyaka would like to explain rasa as a joint outcome of two operationsbhāvakatva' and 'bhojakatva.' By the first he means the process of sådharanikarana' or generalization, i. e. shearing rasa and its correlatives of 2. मणिप्रदीपप्रभयोमणिबुद्धयाभिधावतोः।
PARTranaatesha fazlasersei fa ll Pramana-vårttika, 2.57 This is alluded to in šankuka's view by the words riffsunfa fezaię ta' Kangle's edn. p. 130 प्रतिभाति न संदेहो न तत्वं न विपर्ययः। धीरसावयमित्यस्ति नासावेवायमित्यपि ॥ विरुद्धबुद्धपसंमेदादविवेचितविप्लवः । EROT alaysia yangua: || Kangle's edn. p. 130
3.