“Raso Val Sah”

“RASO VAI SAH”
(RASA AS BRAHMAN)

S. V. Oriental College, Tirupati

In India aesthetics is regarded as the “Science and Philosophy of fine art.” It is a “fine art” because fine art is recognised to have independent value in as much as its product gives rise to an experience that no product or nature can, unless it be looked upon as a piece of art. And it is also philosophy because the experience that a work of art arouses is accounted for in terms of different schools of philosophy in India, and also because the authorities on three arts–music, poetry and architecture–hold that art presents the Absolute as conceived by them. Thus rasabrahmavaada, naadabhrahmavaada and vastuhrahmavaada are the schools of philosophy ofart. The dance (abhinaya) which represents the devotional feelings towards the Absolute, the music expressing in different notes and tunes, the yearning of the human soul for union with the Divine the poetry which glorifies the Absolute and devotional painting and architecture contain philosophical aspects also.

Theories of Aesthetics

Among the different theories of aesthetics which represents different viewpoints from which “Beauty” has been studied, the theories–illusion (bhramah), Imitation (ahhinaya) and Idealised reproduction (abhiyakti) have been recognised from the point of view of the artist. These three theories show what the artist does in artistically dealing with the object that inspires him.

In the following pages, an examination of the theory of Rasa pertaining to the art of poetry and its relationship to Brahman and is made in the light of these theories of art.

In the realization of Brahmaananda also, there is illusion on the part of the individual who feels himself as different from Brahman and longs for His union, just like the poet with his illusion idealises ! .ome feeling or emotion and reproduces Rasa or Ananda which permanent by its nature. There is imitation on the part of the poet as he represents the universal feelings as his own, and also on the part of the audience who identifies the hero with the actor on the stage and even themselves with the characters. This imitation is also inevitable in the case of the realization of Brahman or in the case of devotion towards the Supreme Lord, in which an individual identifies himself with Brahman as “I am Brahman” or as “I am so and so to the Lord.”

There is also idealised reproduction in both the cases. The poet takes the original permanent emotions (Sthaayibhaavaah) rati, soka vismaya, etc., idealises them by his extraordinary poetic talents and reproduces the same suitably for the relishment of the men of taste (Sahridayaah). For example, as Anandavardhana explained, when Valmiki witnessed the separation of Krauncamithuna, it was only the scene of grief which nobody can relish as Karunarasa.¹ But it was relished by Valmiki, only after idealising that real grief as universal pathos, through his constant contemplation and reproduced the same Soka into the Sloka ofthe idealised form ofpathos.² Sahridaya also undergoes the same process. With regard to Brahman, the individual soul (jivaatma) is Brahman Himself. Through his constant meditation, the individual idealises and reproduces the same as Universal Brahman.

Various means of Rasa-experience

Aesthetic delight or Rasa, like spiritual delight, is one and the only one ³ but the means of its experience may be as many and as divergent as human feelings or emotions so far accepted by critics such as rati, soka, utsaaha, etc. The ninth Rasa (Shaanta) which is disputed has greater philosophical implications. The theory of onlyone prominent Rasa Karuna or Shanta and so on, held by different Alamkaarikaas is of the same type as Kathenotheism which holds the supremacy of a particular God over the others, the others being simply the different aspects of the same. ⁴

The nature of Rasa being only one, all the Rasaas like sringaara, vira, karuna, etc., are onlydifferent forms of the same supernal Bliss. ⁵ These are all identical with the forms of God-realization like Sringaara in the devotion of Gopies towards Lord Krishna, Vira in Raavana’s worship of Siva, and Karuna in the case of Ramadaaa, a popular devotee. Other  types of God-realization: Jnaana, Karma and Bhakti are also to be noted. Jagannaatha holds this view that Rasa is sentience itself which is delimited by rati, with the covering removed. ⁶

Thus in the relish of Rasa this universal soul is particularised in various forms of Rasa: Srinigaara, Adbhuta, etc. But in each and every case it regains its universality. Then it stamps its universality on the content. This is called Saadhaaranikarana in course of Rasa-experience which is of real nature. In this stage the subjective and objective sides of total experience are distinct. The saadhaka or sahridaya is yet to make them one, in his attempts and to experience within the subject itself. Thus this coalescence of both subjective and objective experiences is the stage of becoming one with the Absolute Brahman.

Realization of Rasa

Various theories advanced for the explanation of the knowledge of Reality of the cosmos also find their room in the identity of Rasa, whose process is not to be defined at all. So how the identity is to be explained is an intrinsic problem in aesthetics. According to asatkhyaati of the Soonyavaadins of the Buddhist philosophers the knowledge of the world as exiting is only an illusion of the thing what is not there actually, like the knowledge of silver in pearl oyster suktikaa. This is not found satisfactorily as direct knowledge is being experienced in both the cases. Then atmakhyaati of Vijaanavaadins of Buddhist philosophers explains that, that is only a reflection of the cognition of an individual. Because of his instinctive knowledge of the hero Dushyanta etc., he cognises the actor on the stage as Dushyanta. This theory also needs some support for the admission of instinctive knowledge without object. Thirdly the anyatkaakhyaati of the Naiyayikaas explains that the individual is experiencing his previous knowledge of an object in a different place. As this theory also is not perfect, the mimamsakaas say that there is no illusion at all, but a combination of two cognitions at one place. This theory is also defective because as long as the knowledge of real object is obtained, there is only one knowledge of Dushyanta on the stage for the spectator and the knowledge of silver only in the place of peal oyster. So, at last anirvacaniiyakhyaati of Advaitins seems to be the only solution for this riddle. Thus the knowledge of world in the place of Brahman and the knowledge of the real character in the place of an actor are inexplicable.

Thus the theories of illusion, imitation or identification and the idealized reproduction can be noticed both in the experience of poetic delight and the realization of Brahman. Regarding the means, the means of both are illusory, i.e., karma, yoga, etc., leading to Brahman-realization and the identification of the particular character vibhaavaadicarvana etc., in Rasa-realization while the ends, viz., Rasa-realization and Brahman-realization are real, and only one, ⁷ but, according to some, the former being immediately but shortly experienced and the latter lately but longly. ⁸ Similarly as there is imitation of the qualities of characters by the actors which produces sympathetic feelings in their spectators which helps them in realizing aesthetic delight. So there is identification of the qualities ofSupreme Lord, etc., on the object of worship which helps the meditator or worshipper to develop the feeling of identity with the deity and thus makes him enjoy delight of worship or realization of the Brahman. But in the identity of these two experiences, a concluding line of demarcation may be drawn in terms of their time or duration ofexperience but not in their quality. This is the philosophy of aesthetics so far as the experience of poetic delight is concerned.

REFRENCES

¹ Maa nishaada pratishthaam tvamagamah saasvati ssamaah
Yatkrauncamithunaadeka mavadhih kamamohitam.                        –Ramayana 1-2-15.

² Kaavyasyathmaa sa evaarthastathaa caadikavehpuraa
krauncadvandvaviyogothah sokah slokatvamaagatah.                    –Dhavanyaaloka, 1-5.

³ nahi rasaadrte kascidarthah pravartate.
(Gaekwad’s Edn. of) Natya Saastra, P. 2734.
eka eva tavatparamarthato rasah.
(Gaekwad’s Edn.) Abhinava Bhaarati, P 273.

⁴ Sringaarameva rasanaat rasamaamanaamah. Bhojaa’s Sringaara prakasa
1-6 (Edn. International Academy of Sanskrit Research, Mysore)
tasmaat adbhutamevahakrti naraayano rajah, quoted as Dharmadattaa’s in Saahityadarpana, III.

eko rasah karuna eva nimittabhedaat,
bhinnah prthakprthagloaassrayate Vivartaan.                                  -Uttararaamacartta III. 17.

⁵ Ya ratyaadi sthaayi ratireva nimittabhedaat
Sringaara mukhyanavanaarya rasi bhavanti,
Saamaajikaan sahrdayaan nathaanao yakaadiin,
anandayet sahajapuurna rasosmi soham (quoted in Kumaaraswaamin's commentary on IV-94 from Svaatmayoga pradiipa of unknown author)

⁶ ratyaadyavacchinna bhagnaavarana cideva Rasah.                        -Rasagangaadhara I Ananda.

⁷ See Kumarswamin’s com. on verse 94, as referred by footnote No.5and Dr Raghavan’s introduction Pp. 34-35
⁸ Sadyah paranirvrtaye, vide Kaavyaprakaasa, 1, 2.