“RASO VAI SAH”
(RASA AS BRAHMAN)
I. VENKATESWARA RAO
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 of art. 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.
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 of the
idealised form of pathos.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.
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 only one 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 only
different 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.
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 of Supreme
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 of experience but not in their quality. This is the
philosophy of aesthetics so far as the experience of poetic delight is
concerned.
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.5 and Dr Raghavan’s
introduction Pp. 34-35
8 Sadyah paranirvrtaye, vide Kaavyaprakaasa, 1,
2.