Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 75

Rasa Theory and the Darsanas-2
P. R. VORA
Scholars, both ancient and modern, associate the interpretation of the Rasa-Sūtra given by the early writers on Dramaturgy with the one or the other of the darśanas (Systems of Philosophy). Thus Lollața is thought to be a Mimāṁsaka, Sankuka is considered to have based his interpretation on the Nyāya darśana, Bhatta Nayaka is understood to have followed the Samkhya darśana, while Abhinavagupta is mostly accepted to have interpreted the rasa-sūtra according to the Kashmir Saiva Philosophy. We shall discuss how far these claims are justifiable and proper.
Lollata's theory : It is unfortunate that we do not have sufficient information about Lollata's view regarding rasa and its enjoyment. Scholars have even seen discrepancies in the presentation of his theory as available in the Abhinava-Bharati and Locana on the one hand and the Kävyaprakasa (K.P.) on the other. Dr. K. C. Pandey, for example, thinks that the word 'pratīyamanan' in the K. P. is 'a slight emendation (by Mammața) of the text of Abhinava', it is, therefore, very difficult and even rash to judge Lollata's attitude towards rasa 'from the meagre evidence that can be gathered from these aforesaid sources. However the following points may be noted :
(i) rasa is a product of the combination of the determinants (vibhāvas), consequents (anubhāvas) and the auxiliaries (vyabhicăribhāvas) (ii) rasa abides primarily in the original character (anukārya) and only secondarily in the actor (anukartā/nartaka) (iii) rasa is perceived by the samājika, who derives pleasure therefrom.
According to Lolloța the spectator enjoys rasa in this way: As he witnesses a dramatic performance, he allows himself to forget for the time being that he is witnessing a dramatic performance-this happens because of the clever acting of the nața. He identifies (anusandhāna) the actor with the original character (anukārya, e. g. Rāma). This identification is due to the former's peculiar movements, etc. (anubhāvas). He is not able to account for the various mimetic movements of the actor otherwise than by construing them as the indications of love (rati) etc. He does so by resorting to laksanā -secondary function of word (abhidheyāvinābhūta-pratitih). This avinabhava is not necessarily an invariable connection like that between smoke and fire.
Is this identification of the actor with the original character an áropa (superimposition) or a bhrama (illusion)? Yes, of course it is an aropa, and not a bhrama. It is a voluntary (ähārya) superimposition. The samājika suspends his consciousness of the difference between the nața (anukarta) and the (original character) (anukārya). It is due to this sort of superim