Rasa-Vyākti

As stated above Bhāva and Rasa are the objects of suggestion and not of denotation. They should not be directly expressed by manifested through such words and sense (and accents when read) as being out the suggestion. The expression in such cases becomes the vehicle of suggestion, for the expression is the means and the suggestion is the end. All the same, wonder (camatkāra) is, in fact, common to both inasmuch as even the expression can be embellished in a variety of ways by the article of the poet, and posses a charm which may be of its own kind. In a piece of composition, therefore, there may be a charm (camatkṛti) in expression (vācya) as well as in suggestion (vyaṅgya). No doubt the type of wonder would differ and there may be a keen struggle between the two, where both remain present. In such a case the wonder may vary in degress; and relative appreciation will abide by the rule of quantum meruit.

For instance, when a feeling or an emotion is suggested, there is wonder in it as such; and suppose the mode of expression there, is also creative of wonder, then there is duality of wonder which presents a threefold possibility:

(i) wonder in suggestion surpassing in merits the wonder in expression,

(ii) the latter subduing the former, and

(iii) both of them ranking pari passu.

In the first case, the wonder in suggestion becomes what is technically called Dhavni and rules over the charme of expression like an Imperatrix, the Queen Empress. In the second case, the wonder in suggestion, paling before the luster of the denotative charme, is distinguished, no doubt, by its conspicuous existence, but it is regarded as one in a trodden state like a queen put under arrest by a commoner in a mob-rule. In the third case also, the situation of the wonder in suggestion is not much better than that in the second case, and its status is like that of a queen, a constitutional monarch in a bureaucratic regime. It is, therefore, rightly said that in the latter two cases, wonder in suggestion is a mere subordinated suggestion in (gūṇībhūtavyāṅgya). It follows that only in the first case the suggestion of Bhāva is a dhvani, a pre-dominent suggestion.

It may be noted in this connection that the Vyabhicārībhāva may, in this way, belong to both the types; and according to its prominence, it may either be a subordinated suggestion or a dominant one. Similarly, an emotion (sthāyin) may also be a sub-ordinate or a dominant suggestion. In its sub-ordinate capacity, it may have two forms: one, where it is secondary to the wonder in expression (vācya-camatkāra) like any other feeling; and the second, where it may be sub-ordinate to any other feeling suggested there. In the latter case, an emotion may subserve a feeling even though it may dominate over the charm of expression. In both these alternatives, where the emotions manifests itself as sub-ordinate either to the charm of expression or the charm of suggestive feeling, the emotion remains only as emotion, a sthāyin but does not ripen into that mellow form of a charm known as rasa, which is the transcendent characteristic of poetry. It is, therefore, to be clearly understood that the manifestation of rasa is always a dhvani, for it always excels all charms presented by denotation or suggestion of another feeling. Rasa knows subordinate to none, but in its own group may permit one of its own kind to lead the trend of the composition and behave as its best ally and foster its development in a play to its summum magnum.

The permanent emotions, when they are thus predominantly suggested by means of their respective vibhāvas, anubhāvas and consonont vyabhicārins, culminate into the manifestation of the following sentiments (rasas)^[1] in a dramatic compositions:—

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

“Vyaktas sat air vibhavadyais sthāyī bavo rasah smrtah” (K. Pr. IV, 5)