Part 2 - Rasa or the sentiment

The term rasa or the sentiment primarily denotes taste or favour, however in literature; it has the connotation of emotional experience of beauty. Bharata, the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra, is said to be the first exponent of the theory of rasa. His famous rasa-sūtra runs as follows- ‘rasa is the outcome of the combinations of vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva.^[1] It can be mentioned here that in the earliest literary treatises, rasa was not treated as an indispensable and separate canon for assessing a kāvya. The purport of the remark is that rasa did not enjoy the principal status in a kāvya, which it gets later on. Even Bhāmaha^[2] and Daṇḍin^[3] include rasa within the range of Rasavat, the figure of speech. Again, Vāmana recognizes it within the purview of kānti^[4], the arthagūṇa. Bhamāha and Daṇḍin, as two propagators of the school of alaṃkāra and Vāmana as the propounder of the rīti school, are seen to have assigned a secondary status to rasa. It was only after the advent of Ānandavardhana and Viśvanātha Kavirāja, a distinct exposition of rasa, along with its relation with poetry comes into light. In his commentary Locana^[5], upon the Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta enunciates precisely that the Rasadhvani is the principal type of dhvani or suggestion, the soul of poetry. Mammaṭa maintains that rasa and alaṃkāra are different, from each other.^[6] He also acknowledges the rasa-sūtra of Bharata.^[7] Viśvanātha Kavirāja, in his rhetorical masterpiece defines a literary piece to be a kāvya proper, only when it is consisting of rasa.^[8] Viśvanātha opines that, of the rasas, Śṛṅgāra, Vīra and Śānta, any one of them, should be predominant in a mahākāvya, all the other rasas should be auxiliary to it.^[9]

Following the thread of the discussion that rasa was not treated as an essential phenomenon in the works of the older literary critics, it should not be assumed that the earlier writers on poetics were not at all conversant with the concept of rasa. It will not be justified to take a hurried assumption that they either, lack the idea of rasa or they fail to understand the aesthetic appeal in poetry neither, their treatises are without rasa. Not to speak of others, even Bhāmaha^[10] asserts that a mahākāvya should delineate all the eight rasas separately. Again, Daṇḍin was quite aware of the difference between sthāyibhāvas and rasa. Rudraṭa also treated rasa in his rhetorical work Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Rudraṭa). Bharata states clearly in his Nāṭyaśāstra, that nothing can be done without rasa.^[11]In the Rasagaṅgādhara, Jagannatha says that rati comes out from the ālambanavibhāva i.e. Duṣyanta, Śakuntalā etc. and the uddīpanavibhāva i.e. moonlight etc., with the help of flowing of tears etc. as rasa.^[12] Thus, there is difference between the older and later poeticians, regarding rasa, in their approach only.

It has been already mentioned that different rasas are depicted in a mahākāvya and among them, either Śṛṅgāra or Vīra is delineated as the principal sentiment, Śānta is also treated in some; all others are subordinate sentiments. Viśvanātha states that sthāyibhāvas like rati etc. are suggested by vibhāva, anubhāva and sañcāribhāva and thereby rasa is manifested.^[13] The rasas are as follows-Śṛṅgāra or the erotic, Hāsya or the comic, Karuṇa or the pathetic, Raudra or the furious, Vīra or the heroic, Bhayānaka or the terrible, Bībhatsa or the disgustful, Adbhuta or the marvellous; these eight are flavours and so is the Śānta or the quietistic held to be by some.^[14]

In the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita of Maṅkhaka, various kinds of poetic sentiments are found to be depicted. Maṅkhaka himself states that his poem is full of rasas.^[15] In his poem, Maṅkhaka delineates all the sentiments, some in broad details and some in short; however, his claim is quite justified as all the rasas get attention from the poet. Ofcourse, his depiction of the rasas is in conventional manner, like that of Kālidāsa, Bhāravi and Māgha; even then, it can attract the heart of its readers. The poet shows his unprecedented mastery in making fusion of different rasas, which is much appealing. The aṅgīrasa or the predominant sentiment of this poem is Vīra or the sentiment of heroism. Next to the heroic sentiment, Śṛṅgārarasa or the sentiment of love occupies its place to be number two. Maṅkhaka provides a full-fledged description of the parting scene of the lovers from their beloveds in canto XXI. 20-29 and thereby heightens the beauty and grandeur of the sentiment of heroism, by interlinking it with that of the sentiment of love. Similarly, cantos VI-XV creates background for gradual development of the heroic sentiment from XVIII-XXIV, by mixing it with the sentiment of love. Raudra or the sentiment of fury comes next to the erotic sentiment and thereafter Hāsya or the sentiment of humour comes. Whereas according to Bhatt, Bhakti and Śānta occupy next place to that of erotic. All the other sentiments are treated as subordinate ones. Of these, the sentiments of pathos, terror, disgust, wonder and tranquility are delineated in brief, however with equal importance as far as possible. Maṅkhaka gives detailed delineation of Śrṅgāra, Raudra and Hāsya, along with the main rasa i.e. Vīra. Anyway, on the basis of preponderance, a discussion on the rasas delineated in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita is presented below-

[1. Vīra or the sentiment of heroism]

[2. Śṛṅgāra or the sentiment of love]

[3. Raudra or the sentiment of furiousness]

[4. Hāsya or the sentiment of humour]

[5. Karuṇa or the sentiment of pathos]

[6. Bhayānaka or the sentiment of terror]

[7. Bībhatsa or the sentiment of disgust]

[8. Adbhuta or the sentiment of wonder]

[9. Śānta or the sentiment of tranquility]

[10. Bhāva]

[11. Vatsala or parental affection]

Thus, Maṅkhaka employs all the rasas as well as Bhāva and Vatsala in his poem with grand success. However, as it is the case with his other poetic embellishments also, regarding the soul of poetry i.e. rasa (as evinced by Viśvanātha), the poet commits some mistakes. Firstly, it seems that he lacks the sense of proportion or balance, as sometimes subordinate rasa surpasses the principal rasa, that is to say the extensive delineation of Śṛṅgāra over that of Vīra makes him fall prey to the demerit of exaggeration. Secondly, the expression of flavour by its own term i.e. by the word flavour or relish (rasa) or such words as amorous desire (Śṛṅgāra) and the like, is the defect occurred in some instances. This means Maṅkhaka commits a rhetorical mistake called rasasya svaśabdavācyatā, wherein, he suggested the sentiment by direct expression with the name of the sentiments or their permanent mood i.e. sthāyibhāva and concomitant mood i.e. sañcāribhāva.^[16] The examples are vismaya in III. 77; adbhuta in V. 13; śṛṅgāra in XV. 13; rati in XV. 47; vīra in XIX. 43; śṛṅgāra and bībhatsa in XXIII. 41. Except these two instances, the overall delineation of rasa in Maṅkhaka’s Śrīkaṇṭhacarita is praiseworthy.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

tatra vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisaṃyogadrasaniṣpattiḥ/
Nāṭyaśāstra., V, page 292

[2]:

rasavaddarśitaspaṣṭāśṛṅgārādirasaṃ tathā /
Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha)., III. 6

[3]:

rasavad rasapeśalaṃ/
Kāvyādarśa., II. 235

[4]:

dīptarasatvaṃ kāntiḥ/
Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti., III 2. 14

[5]:

yastu svapne’pi na svaśabdavācyo na laukikavyavahārapatitaḥ kintu śabdasamarpyamānahṛdaya saṃvādasundaravibhāvānubhāvasamucitaprāgviniviṣṭar atyādivāsanānurāgasukumāra-svasaṃvidānandacarvaṇā vyāpārarasanīyarūpo rasaḥ sa kāvyavyāpāraikagocaro rasadhvaniriti, sa ca dhvanireveti sa eva mukhyatayāmeti// Dhvanyāloka., vol. I, page 74

[6]:

rasābhāvatadābhāsabhāva śāntyādirakramaḥ/
bhinno rasādyalṃkārādalaṃkāryatayā sthitaḥ // Kāvyaprakāśa., IV. 26

[7]:

kāraṇānyatha kāryāṇi sahakāriṇi yāni ca ratyādeḥ sthāyino loke tāni cennāṭyakāvyayoḥ….../
vibhāvā anubhāvāśca kathyante vyabhicāriṇaḥ vyaṅktaḥ sa tairvibhāvaiḥ sthāyībhāvo rasaḥ smṛtaḥ// Ibid., IV. 27, 28

[8]:

vākyaṃ rasātmakaṃ kāvyaṃ/
Sāhityadarpaṇa., I. 3

[9]:

śṛṅgāravīraśāntānāmeko’ṅgī rasa iṣyate/
aṅgāni sarve’pi rasāḥ// Ibid., 317

[10]:

caturvargābhidhane’pi bhuyasārthopadeśakṛt yuktaṃ/
lokasvabhāvena rasaiśca sakalaiḥ pṛthak //
Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha)., I. 21

[11]:

na hi rasādṛte kaścidarthaḥ pravartate/
     Nāṭyaśāstra., vol. I

[12]:

samucita lalita saṃniveśacāruṇā kāvyena samarpitaiḥ sahṛdayahṛdayaṃ pravistaiṣṭadīyasahṛdayatāsahakṛtena bhāvanāviśeṣamahimnā vigalitaduṣyanta/
ramaṇitvādibhiralaukikavibhāvānubhāvavyabhicāri-sabdavyapadeśaiḥ śakuntalādibhirālambanakāraṇaiḥ, candrikādibhiruddīpanakāraṇaiḥ, aśrupātādibhiḥ kāryaiḥ//
cintādibhiḥ sahakāribhiśca sambhūya prādurbhavitenalaukikena vyāpāreṇa tatkālanivarttitānandāṅśavaraṇjñānenāt eve pramuṣṭaparimitapramātṛtvādinijadharmena……ratyādireva rasaḥ//
Rasagaṅgādhara., I

[13]:

śṛṅgārahāsyakaruṇaraudravīrabhayānakāḥ /
bībhatso’dbhuta ityaṣṭau rasāḥ, śāntastathā mataḥ// Sāhityadarpaṇa., III. 182

[14]:

vibhāvenānubhāvena vyaktaḥ sañcāriṇā tathā/
rasatāmeti ratyādiḥ sthāyī bhavāḥ sacetacām// Ibid., III. 1

[15]:

i)svayaṃ maulīndupīyūṣapūraiḥ sikteva śaṃbhunā/
sarasatvaṃ dārḍhyaṃ ca vāktasyāvyagramagrahīt//
     Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXV. 3
ii) udyadvaidyutadīptisodarasaratsārasvatajyotiṣā pūtastadvacasāṃ rasaḥ śrutipuṭaiḥ saṃsatsadāmāpape/
teṣāmunmiṣitālasālasagatau dṛkśuktipaṅktau śanai-rānandāśrupṛṣanmayī tu jaghaṭe muktāphalānāṃ tatiḥ//
     Ibid., XXV. 146

[16]:

rasasyoktiḥ svaśabdena sthāyisañcāriṇorapi/
Sāhityadarpaṇa., VII. 12