Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 82

Rasa Theory and the Darśanas - 3
Bhagavatiprasad Pandya
This happens to be a very, very brief summary of my paper on the above subject.
At the outset it has to be made absolutely clear that it is one thing to trace the influence of various darśanas on the theory of rasa as interpreted by some ācāryas, and it is quite another to hold that such and such an acārya was an avowed follower of such and such a darśana and that his interpretation is completely influenced by it. Modern scholars of eminence have made serious efforts to decide the issue which to my mind remains as open as it ever was. The obvious reason for this is that these acāryas had a very catholic outlook, and when they got themselves busy with the solution of the problem of aesthetic relish, they never allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by their philosophical commitments. Actually their philosophical leanings never clashed with their views on aesthetics, or else how can we explain the great Hemacandra, an advocate of Jain Darsana following Abhinavagupta, the great Saiva. We have therefore to be very careful in arriving at judgements.
We may begin with Bharata himself. Where shall we place him? What were his philosophical leanings? We normally discuss this problem only with reference to the acāryas who tried to interpret his rasa-sūtra. But we lose sight of Bharata himself who is very much in the centre. He talks of 'nispatti'. So do we associate him with Pariņāmavāda for that? Is it proper ? He also talks of abhivyakti' at various places. Shall we call him Vyañjanāvādi for that? I am afraid we cannot. And if we cannot place Bharata correctly would it be useful to try to place any other ācārya so far as aesthetics is concerned ?
This does not aim at side-tracking the issue. Nor do we deny influence of philosophical thought on aesthetics. For example, we come across any number of philosophical terms in the explanations of various ocāryas.
We may begin with the term anusandhāna' appearing in Lollața's explanation of the rasa-sūtra. The Sanskrit commentators explain it either as
āropa' or 'abhimana', while on the other hand Dr. K. C. Pandey takes it to mean Yojana' in the technical sense of the Saiva darśana. Lollata has left no clue. What do we do? He explains 'nispatti' as 'upaciti'. He accepts the fact of emotions and feelings remaining eternally in the form of impressions or 'vāsana'. But does this lead us anywhere ? No. Actually there were certain notions shared equally by various philosophical systems. The Sāṁkhya concept of prakrti which is 'triguņātmikā' or having the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas, is practically acceptable to all darśanas. We cannot therefore brand Lollata either as a Mimāmsaka or a follower of Saiva darśana. We shall have to collect and scrutinise all the references to
ng eternally in apaciti'. He
this lead