Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

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

Page 96

84
SOME ASPECTS OF THE RASA THEORY
Glorious indeed is the truth singular (or attitude identical) of Poetry, designated by two alternate names viz., the poet and the responsive critic. He is identifying them on account of this vital affinity between them in the partaking of rasa. The world of nature which is hard as stone is made instinct with life by means of this creative rasa within each of them; creative fully in the poet and re-creative in the critic : 8
What else but this creative-recreative emotion is involved in Vālmīki's śoka becoming.instantly a śloka? Lest we should confuse the sorrow as a life-emotion of the pained sage. Abhinavagupta comments that it is quite different from it and also of the nature of repose, within his creative spirit or soul, which melts his heart as it were and floods it with an afflatus of selfdelight : 9
The adjuncts nijа and sva governing rasa in both these excerpts from Abhinavagupta deserve further notice. But we shall take it up later. The creative afflatus called rasa, karuna, here, overflows spontaneously and takes the art-form of a śloka. The creative rasa then is existentially co-terminus with the created art-form itself. As a citation in Pratihārendurāja states :
The poet's creative soul which delights in rasa shines bright when it finds a ready reflection in the clear mirror of word and meaning, a mirror
embellished elegantly by literary qualities like perspicuity and power. The poet's rasa is a lamp and his creation a mirror which adequately reflects the lamp-light. It has nothing to do with the creator's private emotion which his diary might record. Abhinavagupta emphatically 'asserts :
One should not take it as the personal sorrow of the sage'..
Why?-one might ask. Abhinava's answer is: 'If it were personal sorrow on his part, Anandavardhana would have no reason to regard rasa as the atman or soul of literature. For, no sorrow-stricken person turns suddenly creative like this. '12
I need not labour this point any more. Whatevar be the worldly emotion in question-love or sorrow-, the creative state of rasa is identical in each case; that is why the poet and the critic can both share in that 'tragic pleasure' which is not at all a paradox. Only this common rasa state, which is creative through and through, and underlying all worldly emotions, pleasurable or otherwise deserves the status of ätman or life-essence of literature. In the
7. Sarasvatyāstattvam kavi-sahsdayākhyam vijayate-Ibid., Invocatory verse. 8. cf. jagad grävaprakhyam nija-rasa-bharat sarayati ca-op. cit. 9. karuna-rasa-rūpatām laukika-soka-vyatiriktāṁ svc-citta-drti-samāsvādyasārāṁ pratipa
nno rasa...-op. cit., p. 31. 10. rasolläsi kaverātmā svacche sabdārthadarpane! mādhuryaujoyuta-praudhe prativindya prakāśatel --Laghuvrtti on Udbhata's Kāvyāla
kātasangraha, N. S. P. edn., pp. 79-80. 11. na tu muneh soka iti mantavyam-Loc. cit. 12. evam hi sati...so'pi duhkhita iti rasasya ātmeti niravakāśam bhavet; na ca duḥkha-samtap
tasya eşā daśeti. -Loc. cit.