Part 1 - Rasa theory and position of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā

Among these six major Schools of Sanskrit Poetics, Rasa School is considered as most of the ancient and very much famous school. Nātyācārya Bharatamuni is considered as the profoundest of the Rasa School. Bharatamuni had considered riding as the essence of drama. According to him, by four types of acting rasa can be created in the minds of audiences. It seems that Bharatmuni had applied rasa in the context of drama rather than as a main poetic school. Ācārya Avinavagupta has also similar views with Bharatamuni.

In his view, the garland is stitched by a thread; likewise rasa is embodied in a drama. C.f.

“eka eva tāvatparamārthato rasaḥ sūtrasthānīyatvena rūpake ___________ pratibhāti |”

- Abhinavabhāratī of Abhinavagupta, Part-I, Pp- 273

Thus it is clear that, both Bharatamuni and Abhinavagupta’s comment on rasa, is related to Nātyaśātra and Kāvyaśāstra. In the first chapter of Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Rājaśekhara has commented that Bharatamuni is the earlier Ācārya of Nāṭyaśāstra and Nāndikeśvara is the founder Ācārya of rasa^[1].

Because,

‘Bharata’s treatment would indicate that some systems of Rasa, however undeveloped or even a Rasa School, particularly in connection with the dramas must have been in existence in his time’^[2].

Though, there is no book which is written by Nāndikeśvara, but in the Kāmasūtra of Vātsāyana, says that the Nāndikeśvara was the follower of Lord Śiva. Nāndikeśvara have complied the Kāmasūtra in one thousand chapters, which later on discussed in detail by Bharatamuni. Possibly Nāndikeśvara demonstration only the arrogance of śṛṅgāra rasa and further Bharatamuni depending on them fixes the eight nātya rasa. In this way Rājaśekhara is mentioned as the rediscoverer of the rasa theory or rasa conception.

Later on, even Abhinavagupta with the reference of Kīrtidhara mentioned about the Nāndikeśvara. On the other hand, Śāradātanaya in his Bhāvaprokāśa, mentions Nāndikeśvara as the drama teacher of Bharatamuni^[3]. According to Dr. M. Mohan Ghosh, Nāndikeśvara is the creator of Abhinayadarpaṇa. It is clear that this book is written after Bhararta’s demise as, because his opinions are contradicted in this particular book. From the reading of ‘Bhāratārṇava’, it is realized that, Sumotī by taking the summary of Nāndikeśvara has written the book^[4]. Therefore along with the various deities, sages and scholars there are Nāndikeśvara’s name is too mentioned in the book Saṅgītratnākar^[5].

On the basis of astute discussions, it can be said that Nāndikeśvara is the first propounder of Rasa School. Along with Vātsāyana and Abinavagupta, Rājaśekhara too considered Nāndikeśvara as the first propounder of Rasa School. On the basis of available literature, Bharata is considered as the ‘Saṃasthāpaka ācārya’ of Rasa School.

His famous rasasūtra is:

“vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisaṃyogādrasaniṣpatti |”

- Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata-VI/ 31

Is the essence of rasa theory propounded by Bharatamuni. Even though, most of the follower rhetoricians of him analyses their rasa theory on the basis of above theory.

Ācārya Rājaśekhara has in his rasa theory has given three points.

1. Rasa is the soul of kāvya (poetry).
2. It is compulsory to have sweet meaning in kāvya (poetry).
3. Sweetness and humourlessness is the individualistic in kāvya (poetry).

Kāvyapuruṣotpattiḥ, named third chapter of Kavirahasya adhikaraṇ of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā by Rājaśekhara by portraying kāvyapuruṣaḥ he says:

“śabdārthau te śarīraṃ , saṃskṛtaṃ mukhaṃ, prākṛtaṃ bāhu: , jaghanamapabhraṃśa: , paiśācaṃ pādau, uro miśram | sama: prasanno madhura udāra ojasvī cāsi | ukticaṇaṃ ca te vaco, rasa ātmā, romāṇi chandāṃsi, praśnottara

pravahlikādikaṃ ca vākkeliḥ, anuprāsopamadayaśca tvāmalaṅku rvanti |
bhaviṣyatoharthasyābhidhātrī śrutirapi bhavantamalistauti |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-III, Pp- 6

In this lively picture of Kāvyapuruṣaḥ, rasa is being presented as the internal theory of kāvya (poetry). Though the earlier ācāryas of Rājaśekhara pondered thought about the theory of kāvya, but none of the ācāryas had recognized rasa as the soul of poetry. Among them Rājaśekhara is of the only one who has called rasa as the soul of poetry by saying ‘rasa ātmā’^[6].

Among the follower ālaṃkārikas of Rājaśekhara, Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaṇa accepted the opinion given by saying:

“vākyaṃ rasātmakaṃ kāvyam |”

- Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha: I/ 3

Following the path of Rājaśekhara, both Alaṃkāraśehkarakār and Agnipurānkāra accepted the rasa as the soul of kāvya (poetry) to follow the way of Rājaśekhara. C.f.

“alaṃkārastu śobhayāṃ rasa ātmātra pare mana: |”

- Alaṃkāraśehkarakār

And,

“vāgvaidagdhyapradhānahapi rasa evātra jīvitam |”

- Agnipurana- 337/ 26

In the ninth chapter arthavyaptiḥ of Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Rājaśekhara refers the theory of Aparājita’s son Bhaṭṭalollata as:

‘astu nāma niḥsīmārthasārthaḥ| kintu rasavata eva nivandho yukto na nīrasasya’ iti āparājitiḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

Means: though the sources of meanings are vast but it is comprehensive it also remains necessary to include aesthetic meanings rather than mere content. According to Bhaṭṭalullaṭa, the description of Jalakṛyā, Puṣpavācaya, Sandhaya and Candryodoya etc. different types of descriptions should be always in favour of rasa. C. f.

“majjanapuṣpāvacayanasandhyācandrodayādivākyamiha |
sarasamapi nātibahulaṃ prakṛtarasānanvitaṃ racayet || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

In a kāvya (poetry), kavi (poets) always try to describe rivers, mountains, oceans, town, village etc. various things by their own poetic power and creative capacity. But the sum of learned would not be approving it.

“yastu saridadrisāgarapuraturagarathādivarṇane yatnaḥ |
kaviśaktikhyātiphalo vitatadhiyāṃ no mataḥ sa iha || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

Bhaṭṭalollaṭa think that, Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara declares his views on different matter by the saying:

‘ām’ iti’ yāyāvarīyaḥ |

There Rājaśekhara also says that:

“asti cānubhūyamāno rasasyānuguṇo viguṇaścārthaḥ, kāvye tu kavivacanāni rasayanti virasayanti ca nārthāḥ | anvayavyatire kābhyāṃ cedamupalabhyate |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

It has been observed that, there are some meanings which are favorable to a particular rasa (aesthetic state of mind) and others which are unfavorable to it. It is an established fact that in poetic composition the speeches of poet adds or detract from the aesthetic effect of the entire creation. Though it does not mean the attract or detract in poetic composition, because a poet with pratibhā (innate faculty) can transform even mundane and common place things into aesthetic wonders and those who lack of pratibhā may diminish the aesthetic meaning and reduce its worth.

C.f.

“etāṃ vilokyatalodari tā_mra_parṇīmambhonidhau vivṛtaśuktipuṭoddhṛtāni |
yasyāḥ payāṃsi pariṇāhiṣu hāramūrttyā vāmabhruvāṃ pariṇamanti paryodhare ṣu || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

Means:

“Look at this Tāmrapaṇī River falling into the ocean, the pearls (water drops) obtained from the hollow of oysters, decorate the expansive bosom of beautiful maidens in the form of garlands of pearl necklaces.”

Then in the description of mountains as:

“etāstā malayopakaṇṭhasaritāmeṇākṣi rodhobhuvaścāpābhyāsanike tanaṃ bhagavataḥ preyo manojanmanaḥ |
yāsu śyāmaniśāsu pītatamaso muktāmayīścandrikāḥ pīyante vivṛtordhvacañcu vicalatkaṇṭhaṃ cakorāṅganāḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XV, Pp- 82

Means:

“These are the shores of the rivers flowing in the highland of the Malayacala Mountain, which are a favorite haunt of Kāmadeva (Cupid, God of love) are his beloved to practice with a bow-string. The female Cakora (Partridge) in the dark nights drink in the pearls like bright moonlight with their open beaks.”

Therefore in the description of sea as:

“dhatte yatkilakiñcitaikagurutāmeṇīdṛśāṃ vāruṇī
  vaidhuryaṃ vidadhāti dampatiruṣāṃ yaccandrikārdraṃ nabhaḥ |
yañca svargasadāṃ vayaḥ smarasuृhannityaṃ sadā[?]mpadāṃ
  yallakṣmīradhidaivataṃ ca jaladhestatkāntamāceṣṭitam || ”

- Bālarāmayaṇa of Rājaśekhara: X/ 44
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

The intoxicating wine which induces a playful and sportive state of mind in beautiful maidens eagerly awaiting the desire union with their lovers, the moonlight which is manifest in the sky and which is capable of putting to an end quarrels between husband and wife, which helps even the gods to maintain their youth and wealth (Lakṣmī) which is considered supreme amongst riches on the earth–all those are the result of the beautiful effort put in by the sea.

Here the significance of this stanza is that wine, the moon, ambrosia and wealth–these four are gifted of the sea. The poet has made use of sṛṅgārarasa while depicting the importance of the sea.

Then Rājaśekhara cited the view of Jain ācārya Pālyakīrti and Avantīsundarī: C.f.

“yathā tathā vā'stu vastuno rūpaṃ, vṛktaprakṛtiviśeṣāyattā tu rasavattā | tathā ca yamarthaṃ raktaḥ stauti taṃ virakto vinindati | madhyasthastu tatrodāste” iti pālyakīrtiḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 46

Means:

“Whatever be the appearance of things, the aesthetic sense of a poet lies in his natural disposition. A contented person may worship something; an indifferent person may criticize the same thing while a mediocre person may be contemplative about it.”

i.e.

“yeṣāṃ vallabhayā samaṃ kṣaṇamiva sphārā kṣapā kṣīyate teṣāṃ śītataraḥ śaśī virahiṇāmulke va santāpakṛt |
asmākaṃ na tu vallabhā na virahastenobhayabhraṃśināmindu rājati darpaṇākṛtirayaṃ noṣṇo na vā śītalaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 46

Means:

“For the person who spends the long nights with his beloveds, the entire night seems to last for a moment and for him the moon is a thing of intense coolness. For the separated lovers the same moon is like hot burning embers. But the person who have not beloved and no pains of separation is free of the two. To whom the moon like a piece of glass, it is neither hot nor cool and it neither gives happiness nor unhappiness.”

Further Rājaśekhara gives the views of his wife Avantīsundarī about kāvya. She thinks that, in poetic composition the nature of things is not fixed; because the poet is cleaver thus he able to present the same things in different forms to suit different context. C.f.

“vidagdhabhaṇitibhaṅginivedyaṃ vastuno rupaṃ na niyatasvabhāvam” ityavantisundarī |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 46

Means:

“The form of a substance is not restricted, rather it is indefinite. It does not possess faults or excellence. It is the poet who infuses these into them with his words.”

C.f.

“vastusvabhāvo'tra kaveratantraṃ guṇāguṇāvuktivaśena kāvye |
stuvannibadhnātyamṛtāṃśuminduṃ nindaṃstu doṣākaramāha dhūrtaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 46

In the poetic world the nature of a thing is not certain. Because the poet’s words (ukti) that it develops certain excellences or faults. Those who wish to worship the moon call in amṛtāṃśu and the rogues who wish to find fault with it name doṣakāra.

Therefore Rājaśekhara also accepted their both concepts, which is may be some influences of Ānandavardhana’s concepts about rasa. Ānandavardhana think that, the śṛṅgara-rasa generated the poets concepts of poetic world is juicy and dampen the entire poem is the poet rasavihīna. In the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Rājaśekhara mentions eight types of kāvya-kavi (literary poets) and among them rasa-kavi is one of the prominent type. Thus Rājaśekhara admits that, Nāṭyaśāstra as the reservoir of rasa theory and established his rasa concepts. In this way in the field of Sanskrit poetics different theories of i.e. Rājaśekhara, Lollaṭa, Saṅkuka and Bhaṭṭanārayaṇa etc. are developed depending on rasa concepts. Which every one theories of rasa are very much affected to each other in the developmental age of rasa.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rajasekhara: Ch-I, Pp- 1, ‘rūpakanirūpaṇīyaṃ bharataḥ, rasādhikārikaṃ nandike śvaraḥ’

[2]:

De, S. K. History of Sanskrit Poetics, Kolkata, Vol-II, Pp-22

[3]:

Bhāvaprokāśa of Śāradātanaya. Ch-III

[4]:

kane, P.V. History of Sanskrit Poetics, MLBD, Delhi, 1971, Pp- 2-3

[5]:

Saṅgītaratnākara: 1-15, 19

[6]:

Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-III, Pp- 6 ‘rasa ātmā’