Tradition of Rasas in Indian Literature: A Critical Insight
Dr. Ghanshyam Kumar,
Assistant Professor,
Department of English,
MKS College, Fatuha,
Patna, Bihar, India.
Abstract:
Rasas are the elixirs of life and literature. Life is sapless without rasas. So
is the case with artwork. Literature must feasibly reflect life and society
with no prejudice. But practically it does not happen so. Unfortunately,
Mainstream Literature has been a great failure in perceiving society and
literature with undivided aims. The Hindi equivalent of literature is Sahitya wherein implies the very sense
of inclusion (sahit). But the conventional mainstream literature has been a
great failure in depicting social life with justice and sincerity. Proudly
speaking, Marginalized Literature has marked a significant impact amidst world
literature. Notwithstanding, it is still awaiting the due response and
recognition among mainstream Indian writers. This attitudinal behaviour of
Lalit (Savarna) writers, barring very few ones, towards marginalized life and
its literature has never been justifiably impartial. To enhance the utility of
Indian Aesthetics, the aesthetic concepts of Marginalized Literature must be encouraged
and appended to the traditionally established Indian literary theory,
facilitating its wider readership. It is known to us that Bharatmuni
conceptualized as many as eight rasas. Later in the 11th and 16th century two
more rasas, shantrasa (equipoise
rasa) and bhaktirasa (devotion
rasa) respectively, were added to the list. All these rasas are unable to
explore or assess the aesthetic aspects and elements in Marginalized
Literature. Five centuries ago, there existed neither the conception of Marginalized
Literature nor that of Dalit Aesthetics. Indian literature has travelled a
pretty long distance since then with the evolution of many literary trends and
traditions, literary theories and philosophical thoughts. Inclusion of two more
rasas, Aakrosh/Chitkar Rasa (cry rasa) and Vidroh Rasa (revolt rasa) in the
traditionally established Rasa Theory, as suggested by renowned Marathi writer
Yadunath seems to be a necessity to augment the dimensions of Indian literary
theory.
Keywords: Rasas, Indian Aesthetics,
Dalit Aesthetics, Cry Rasa, Revolt Rasa
Introduction:
In
our times, Indian literary criticism seems to have been facing a profound
crisis of identity.
–
G N
Devy
Rasa
Theory is part and parcel of Indian Literary Theory. It is the foundational
theory of Indian literature. Rasa originates from Sanskrit for ‘taste’,
‘flavour’, ‘juice’, ‘relish’ and so on. Rasa is presumed to be the soul of
literature. Bharatamuni is said to have conceptualized the rasas in his seminal
book ‘Natyashastra’ between 200 BC and 200AD. In his ‘Kavya Mimansa’,
Rajshekhar considered Nandikeshwar to have propounded the theory of rasa
pretty before Bharatmuni. But just because of the nonavailability of any work
on the rasa theory by Nandikeshwar, it is Bharatamuni who is supposed to be the
first and foremost Acharya of this theory Natyashastra contains.
Rasa
is the essence of life and artwork. It adds to the pleasure of the connoisseur.
Only suhriday (the kindred) can relish a work of art to the fullest. Rasa
stands for extract and nectar, too. Rasa remains inherent in every work of art
ranging from performing arts to sensory arts, music to poetry.
Bharatmuni's
Eight Rasas
Natyashastra, ascribed to Bharatmuni, is considered
to be an additional veda, so important has it been in the history of Indian
literary thought. Bharatmuni, the polar star of Indian Aesthetics, has been the
maker of rasa theory. His Natyashastra,
a compendium of performing arts: drama, music, dance, is not devoted solely to
the exposition of rasa theory.
The
eight rhetorical sentiments (Rasas) in drama and dramatic representation are
named as follows: Erotic
(Shringar), Comic (Hasya),
Pathetic (Karun), Furious (Roudra), Heroic (Vir), Terrible (Bhayanak), Odious
(Vibhatsya), Marvellous
(Adbhut).
The
term rasa has a twofold significance: It means the ‘aesthetic content’ of
literary art and also ‘aesthetic relish’ which the reader-spectator enjoys.
Rasas arise from a proper combination of the stimulants (vibhava), the physical consequences (anubhava), and the transient emotional states (vyabhicharibhava).
Bharatmuni
authored his much talked-of-book ‘Natyashastra’
sometime between the 200 BC and the 200 AD. The exact year of this seminal book
cannot be determined with authenticity.
Abhinavagupta:
Shant Rasa
In
the 16th century one more rasa, namely, ‘shant
rasa’ was introduced to the rasa theory by Abhinavagupta, who is
considered to be the very greatest theorist next to Bharatamuni. Rasa,
originating from the Sanskrit term for "juice" or "taste,"
is a foundational Indian aesthetic theory, conceptualized by Bharata Muni in
the Shant Rasa as the ninth rasa in Indian Aesthetics represents absolute
tranquility peace and detachment (sama). It symbolizes the cessation of
emotional turmoil, leading to liberation or spiritual contentment. It is
characterized by calmness, self-control, non-violence (ahimsa). It stands for sthayi bhava (permanent emotion) that
is also known as Sama (equanimity). It depicts inner peace and total absence of
worldly desires. Shant rasa focuses upon the peaceful stillness of the soul.
Rupa
Goswami: Bhakti Rasa
Rupa Goswami is popularly known for his Sanskrit
masterpiece ‘Bhakti-rasàmrita- sindhu’ (The
Ocean of the Nectar of Divine Love) that conceptualizes bhakti as rasa in the
16th century. The inclusion of the ‘bhaki
rasa’ in the list of nine rasas was intended to be emphasized. Thus we
find that the number of rasas Bharatmuni propounded could not remain fixed and
static. It is because all these rasas were supposed to be insufficient to
express every shade of emotion of modern literature. It means the need to
increase the number of rasas is essentially felt these days with the changing
circumstances. However, the rasas amounted upto ten in number by the sixteenth
century and numerically stayed static and constant to date. The entry of
other rasas continued to be denied. G N
Devy peruses, “Though
Abhinavagupta completed his life mission by the first quarter of the 11th
century, the tradition of Sanskrit poetics continued till the middle of the
17th century. Jagannath was, probably, the last important theorist in that
tradition… Rupa Goswami alone among the post-Abhinava critics tried to
modernise Sanskrit poetics by conceptualizing Bhakti as Rasa.” (Devy
Preface xiii)
The
influence of Sanskrit and Western literary theory can be easily perceived in
Indian literature. Indian literature has not evolved the literary theory
of its own that can stand alone with self-pride. Just because of the rigid
attitude of the sawarna aestheticians, it has become impeccable, denying the
entry of the novel ideas, beauty and new idioms from the other indigenous or
similar literary outputs, namely, Dalit literature and Black literature. It is
undoubtedly true that both Black literature and Dalit literature are the
essences of almost the same ingredients, the ingredients being suffering,
oppression, discrimination, anguish, revolt and so on. Indian literature and
the theory thereof is commonly termed as Mainstream literature and its theory
the Mainstream, or occasionally Manustream, literary theory that is
directly based on Sanskrit and Western poetics. The leading Hindi literateur Premchand in 1930's had acutely felt
the essentiality of new literary theory. He expressed his deep concern to
change the parameters to assess the new liliterature– the literature of
pity/sympathy. The old literary theory cannot be forcibly imposed on the
literatures that deal with oh and aah, woes and pain–the literatures that
revolve round the life and struggle of the worst sufferers of Indian society. Premchand opines,”We will have to change the touchstone of
beauty or aestheticism and coming down from the minarets of luxury we will have
to portray that black beauty with her children who is shedding sweat after
making them (her children) sleep on the mound of the field.” (G Kumar
29) He posits, “I do not hesitate to
say that I weigh art like other things else on the equilibrium of utility… An
artist makes the circumstances useful by virtue of his art, creating beauty for
progress… We will have to change the touchstone of beauty. Till now this
touchstone has been as per the taste of prosperity and luxury. For him, beauty
lies in a beautiful lady, not in the poor woman, deprived of beauty… But it is
nothing but the guilt of myopia or shortsightedness. Those who are desirous of
wealth or riches deserve no room in the temple of literature.” (abid)
Mulk Raj Anand, the pioneer of Dalit literature in Indian
English, championed the genuine concern of the exploited and the oppressed. For
the first time in the history of Indian English literature, M R Anand, the doyen of literature in
Indian English, drew the attention of the writers across the globe to his
fiction named Untouchable,
brought out in 1935. Anand opens the door of Indian Dalit literature in the
colonial era, giving vent to his pity and sympathy to the worst suffering lot,
struggling hard for their survival in society. Thus, such literature of pity
caused the emergence of protest or resistance literature based on the firsthand
experiences of the writers. And its aesthetics discards the traditionally
established Indian literary theory, taking quite different courses for its
assessment and evaluation.
Acharya
Jawdekar's proposal for the inclusion of Cry Rasa and Revolt Rasa:
The
aesthetic is a product of circumstances. But in the process of taste, the
aesthetic is as important as the artist and the artwork. If beauty is the
cornerstone of the aesthetics of Savarna (Lalit) literature, pain or suffering
is the bedrock of Dalit aesthetics. Dalit literature is intended to make
readers restless or angry. Aestheticism in discussions of beauty in
conversational terms cannot be reconciled with Dalit consciousness in Dalit
literature. The revolutionary consciousness is based on ideas of equality,
liberty, justice, solidarity, rather than pleasure. That is why it is essential
for Dalit critics to change the imagery of beauty. In every age, the imaginary
of beauty is linked to prevailing ideas. Long back, kings, queens and
emperors used to be the subjects of literature. But today the life lived
in ghettos, huts and cottages situated outside the boundary of the village has
become the subject of literature. It has become necessary to transform the
imaginary of beauty because it is not possible to investigate the creation of
Dalit literature and its commitment to revolt and rejection within the
framework of traditional aesthetics.
How
will the taste of the pain, anger, rejection, rebellion, problems, struggles,
injustices and ill treatment contained in Dalit literature be known through
Bharatmuni's theory of rasas? In terms of Dalit literature, the rasa theory of
aesthetic appreciation seems insufficient. This is why Yadunath Thatte has demanded an
increase in the number of rasas. He “has
proposed that, with Acharya Jawdekar having recognized revolt as the tenth rasa, cry should be accepted as
the eleventh rasa.” (Limbale 115)
It
is Acharya Jawdekar (1894-1955), a freedom fighter and noted Marathi writer,
who proposes for the inclusion of ‘revolt’ and ‘cry’ as new rasas
(aesthetic emotions) in the context of Indian literature,
particularly to reflect the spirit of Dalit and progressive literature.
Whereas the Revolt rasa (Vidroh rasa) signifies rebellion and injustice, the
Cry rasa (Aakrosh rasa) represents the anguish of the oppressed.
These
proposals are part of the discourse on Dalit Aesthetics, which argues that
traditional Indian rasa theory, originating from Bharatamuni, is insufficient
to express the pain, misery, and protest found in literature portraying the
lives of marginalized communities. Sharankumar Limbale, discussing these rasas,
argues that Dalit literature is not just about sentimental pity but about
awakening Dalit consciousness through the rasas of cry (intense pain) and
revolt.
(AI
Overview)
Lalit
aesthetics i.e. Mainstream aesthetics reckons as many as ten rasas. The rasa
theory containing eight rasas in his Natyashastra was propounded by Bharatmuni
and far later, two more rasas were added to the list– Shantrasa (Equipoise rasa) and Bhaktirasa (Devotion rasa). If these two rasas are incorporated
with the previous list of ten rasas, the aesthetic concepts of Indian
literature will adopt the pan-Indian approach, adding to its feasibility.
Regretfully mentioning, Lalit critics, displaying his prejudiced attitude and
arrogance, do not consider any such need for the inclusion of any more rasas in
the list of ten rasas. When they underrate the Dalit writings by Dalit authors,
then why and how they will be positive and practical enough to consider the
emergence of the newly proposed rasas: Revolt Rasa and Cry Rasa. (Kumar 51). R.
B. Patankar observes, “Sanskrit poetics does not tell us how to discuss the
moral problems presented in the contemporary novel…” He cautions Dalit critics
not to use the theory of rasa or the conventional theory of aesthetics as it is
not relevant to assess contemporary resistance literature. Patnakar rightly holds that “To ask us to use theories like that of rasa
will be a form of cultural tyranny..” (Devy 393)
Debjani Ganguly remarks that "In European thought the
aesthetic has not been limited to the study of art and specific artworks.” (Ganguly
205) She continues to specify that “The
aesthetic is concerned with the whole domain of the subjective, which includes
among other things feelings of pleasure, pain or wonder at the beauty of the
world around…” (ibid)
Here,
it is clearly stated that aesthetics includes both pain and pleasure.
Sharankumar Limbale, in one of his interviews, puts forth his view that the
pain described can have therapeutic effects on both the oppressed and the
oppressor. Pain that ultimately leads to revolt is the essential ingredient of
the aesthetics of Dalit literature whereas pleasure which is the fountain of
the catch phrase ‘art for art's sake’ is the seminal feeling of the aesthetics
of Lalit literature. (Kumar 31) Tagore
remarks, “The idea of the art for
art's sake has its origin in the region of the superfluous.” (Devy
141)“...we in the East know that Truth,
Power, Beauty lie in simplicity, …where it is transparent, where things do not
obstruct the inner vision.” (Devy 145)
To
be concluded, Indian poetics, if traditionally taken, including Rasa
Theory, does not suit the sense and sensibility of the marginalized literature.
And it cannot justify the literature depicting pain, suffering, anguish and
resistance. So the increase in the number of rasas, as proposed by Acharya
Jawdekar, will add to the significance and the feasibility of Indian
artwork and aesthetics.
Works Cited
Devy,
G N. Indian Literary Theory. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited, 2009.
Limbale,
Sharankumar. Towards an Aesthetic of Dalit Literature. New Delhi: Orient
Blackswan Private Limited, 2010.
Valmiki,
Omprakash. Aesthetics of Dalit Literature (Translated by Ghanshyam Kumar).
New Delhi: Integrity Media & The Publisher, 2022.
Ganguly,
Debjani. Caste and Dalit Lifeworlds: Postcolonial Perspectives. New
Delhi: Orient Longman Pvt Ltd, 2008.
Kumar,
Ghanshyam. Dalit Discourse in Indian English Narrative. Chennai: Notion
Press, 2019.
Kumar,
Neeraj (Ed). The Interiors (Research Article: Lalit Aesthetics and Dalit Aesthetics by Ghanshyam Kumar). Gaya:
Shivam Computer Press. 2019.
Choudhary,
Ram Vilas. Sanskritrit Sàhitya kà Samàlochanàtmak Itihàs. New Delhi:
Motilal Banarsi Das, 1998.
Wikipedia:
Rasa Theory
AI
Overview: Acharya Jawdekar