ISSN 0976-8645

Rasa and ŚabdaŚakti According to DhanaMjaya

ATHIRA JATHAVEDAN

Research scholar,Dept.of Sahitya,

Sree sankaracharya university of Sanskrit,

Kalady,Kerala.

E-mail :adi.vedan@gmail.com

Mobile:0-9747163005

KEYWORDS

Nátyaśástra

Daśarūpaka

śabdaśaktis

lakŞya lakŞaka bháva

saňchárĩbháva

AbSTRACT

Indian literary theories started with the Nátyaśástra of Bharata.Bharata deals mainly with rasasiddhánta.But the later scholars concentrated mainly on kávyasiddhántás.They included rasasiddhánta in alankára.

The Daśarūpaka of Dhanamjaya is based on Bharata’s Nátyaśástra.In this paper we are discussing how the śabdaśaktis is related to rasa according to Dhanamjaya.

INTRODUCTION

It is believed by a section of scholars that the first reference to alankára is in Agnipurá¸a. They also held that Bharata wrote Náţyaśástra by giving alankára a scientific basis and adding the elements of kávyaśástra also. When Náţyaśástra with 36 chapters became famous, its 6^th, 7^th chapters explaining rasa and bháva attracted special attention. These chapters discusses the then existing kávyaśástra and their ideological sources.Abstract

From time immemorial the scientific enquiry on kávya was based on alankáraśástra. In due course different concepts were originated. Among three the important aspects were alankára, gu¸a, rĩti, dhvani, vakr°kti, aucitya, anumána and rasa. Of these rasasiddánta became famous in the name of Bharatamuni by his Náţyaśástra which dealt with alankáraśástra for the first time. Bhámaha and other followers of Bharata considered rasa as a part of alankára. In this context we recall

xÉ Ê½þ ®úºÉÉoùiÉä EòÎţSÉnùlÉÇ& |É´ÉiÉÇiÉä – (xÉÉ]õ¬ţÉɺjÉ +vªÉɪÉ&-6)

which is well accepted. The rasasūtra

"ʴɦÉÉ´ÉÉxÉÖ¦ÉÉ´É´ªÉʦÉSÉÉÊ®úºÉƪÉÉäMÉÉpùºÉÊxɹ{ÉÊkÉÊ®úÊiÉ' - (xÉÉ]õ¬ţÉɺjɨÉ +vªÉɪÉ&-6)

of Bharata regarding rasaswarūpa is also well known.

There have been many interpretations for the sūtra that rasa is created by the combination of vibháva, anubháva and vyabhicáribháva. Among them the mĩmámsakás Bhaţţalollata and Bhaţţanáyaka, the naiyáyika Śankuka and the śaivádvaidi Abhinavagupta are important.Of them, the most important is Abhinavagupta who gave an interpretation of Náţyaśástra and his abhivyaktiváda is accepted by all.

In the 20^th chapter Daśarūpakavidhana of Náţyaśástra, Bharata classified the ten rūpakas as follows :

xÉÉ]õEÆò ºÉ|ÉEò®úhɨÉRÂóEòÉä ´ªÉɪÉÉäMÉ B´É SÉ

¦ÉÉhÉ& ºÉ¨É´ÉEòÉ®úţSÉ ´ÉÒlÉÒ |ɽþºÉxÉÆ Êb÷¨É&*

<ǽþɨÉÞMÉţSÉ Ê´ÉYÉäªÉÉä nùţɨÉÉä xÉÉ]ÂõªÉ±ÉIÉhÉä, - (xÉÉ]õ¬ţÉɺjɨÉ 20.1)

Daśarūpaka was wrote by Dhanamjaya based on this ten rūpakás. It is divided into four chapters. He dealt with all aspects related to rūpaká in drama in all its variants while Bharata gave prominence for nátya, Dhanamjaya dealt mainly with daśarūpakás. In this paper we discuss the relation between rasa and śabdaśakti dealt in the fourth chapter of Dhanamjaya’s Daśarūpaka.

Rasa and Bháva

In the first chapter of Náţyaśástra dealing with the origin of náţya, Bharata says that the concept of rasa has its origin in Atharvaveda. While dealing with rasa there is the following question in the sixth chapter: ‘what is the concept of rasa?’

The answer was given as follows: ‘sringára, hásya, karu¸a, raudra, vĩra, bhayánaka, bĩbhatsa, adbhuta rasás in náţya. There are eight consistent bhávás related to these eight rasás. They are respectively rati, hása, śoka, krodha, utsáha, bhaya, jugupsa and vismaya.’

Bharata has dealt with only eight rasás in Náţyaśástra. In due course the śántarasa was also included making the total nine-navarasás. The same is considered as the consistent bháva of śánta rasa.

While Bharata deals with rasás in náţya only, Abhinavagupta says ‘rasa is not only in dramas. It is also in poems which is similar to drama. My teacher Bhaţţatauta in his Kavanakautuka has said that in the case of poetry when one obtained the expressed meaning he could enjoy the rasa and this could happen in the absence of action (abhinaya) also.’

According to Abhinavagupta kávya is also daśarūpátmaka in its essence because it creates rasa by the factors like appropriate language, vyápára, accent and adornment. It is because of this that the ten types of rūpakás were considered the most prominent in Vámanás kávyalankára. Disregarding the technical details of structure like sandhi all the works from sargabhandha (mahákávyá) to muktakás are kávyas. Thus there are three forms of poems daśarūpaka, sargabandha and muktaka. Among them the meaning of daśarūpaka is known as náţya. Later this meaning of daśarūpaka itself is called the body of náţya. In fact kávya is itself náţya.

Śabda Śakti

In Mammata’s Kávyaprakáśa he tells about the different meanings of words (śabdárthabheda) as follows:

ºªÉÉnÂù´ÉÉSÉEòÉä ±ÉÉIÉÊhÉEò& ţɤnùÉä%jÉ ´ªÉ\VÉEòκjÉvÉÉ

´ÉÉSªÉÉnùªÉºiÉnùlÉÉÇ& ºªÉÖ& iÉÉi{ɪÉÉÇlÉÉæ%Ê{É Eäò¹ÉÖÊSÉiÉÂ

(EòÉ´ªÉ |ÉEòÉţɨÉ 2.6)

Among these there are three types of śabdás - vácaka, láksa¸ika, vyaňjaka - in poems. There are three types of meanings also for these śabdás known by the same names. According to some others like Abhihitányavádis, the followers of Kumárilabhaţţa, there is a fourth meaning also known as tátparyártha (implied meaning)

ºÉ ¨ÉÖJªÉÉä%lÉǺiÉjÉ ¨ÉÖJªÉÉä ´ªÉÉ{ÉÉ®úÉä%ºªÉÉʦÉvÉÉäSªÉiÉä

(EòÉ´ªÉ |ÉEòÉţɨÉ 1.8)

The meaning that is obtained directly from vácaka is abhidha.

¨ÉÖJªÉÉlÉǤÉÉvÉä iÉtÉäMÉä °üÊføiÉÉä%lÉ |ɪÉÉäVÉxÉÉiÉÂ*

+xªÉÉälÉÉæ ±ÉIªÉiÉä ªÉiºÉÉ ±ÉIÉhÉÉ%®úÉäÊ{ÉiÉÉ ÊGòªÉÉ*

(EòÉ´ªÉ |ÉEòÉţɨÉ 2.9)

When the primary meaning is not obtained, meaning available by other aspects is laksa¸a.

ªÉºªÉ |ÉiÉÒÊiɨÉÉvÉÉiÉÖÆ ±ÉIÉhÉÉ ºÉ¨ÉÖ{ÉɺªÉiÉä

áò±Éä ţɤnèùEòMɨªÉä%jÉ ´ªÉ\VÉxÉÉzÉÉ{É®úÉ ÊGòªÉÉ*

(EòÉ´ªÉ |ÉEòÉţɨÉ 2.14)

When there are different meanings by factors like samy°ga, the one which is obtained as specific by some of these factors is vyaňjana.

The question may arise what is the relation of consistent bhávás and their rasás to the kávya (poem) Is the relation obtained by vácya-vácaka. According to dhvanivádins it is not vácya-vácaka relation because rasa is not vácya and kávya is not the vácaka of rasa. The vácya- vácaka relation is that fixed in sound and meaning by abhidha.

Suppose kávya is the vácaka of rasa and the sense is obtained by abhidha; and also that the śabdás like sringára, vira are applied appropriately. Then only rasa arises as vácya. But we don’t see the rasás like sringára vĩra and their stháyibhávas used as words in any poems. In order to get the śabdárthab°dha one has to hear the word itself. But it is clear that

the source of bháva or rasa is the combined effect of vibháva, anubháva and saňchárĩbháva. Therefore when the words are applied rasa is originated because of the vibháva etc included. Thus kávya is not the sentence of rasa or bháva.

Discarding LakŞya – LakŞaka

There is no lakŞya lakŞaka bháva in kávya and rasa Kávya is not lakŞaka and rasa is not lakŞya. The śabda śakti next to abhidha is lakŞana. Kávya and rasa cannot accept lakŞya lakŞaka bháva because lakŞa¸a is the result of the application of sámánya śabda in the object of viśiŞta dharma. If the lakŞya of kávya is rasa there should have the applications of lakŞaka śabdás which give the effect of rasa not by abhidha but the lakŞa¸a itself. But this is not seen in kávyas. In the sentence ‘MÉRÂóMÉɪÉÉÆ PÉÉä¹É&’, the word Ganga means the flow of Ganga. But a PÉÉä¹É& (village) cannot withstand the flow of ganga or a village cannot exist in Ganga. So the meaning implied is a village by the side of Ganga in which all the virtues of the river are bestowed. Thus when the word village cannot carry all the virtues associated with Ganga, and to imply that it has got similar virtues, it takes the help of Ganga. When a word cannot express its meaning in total, it takes the help of another word in which all these meanings are implied- all the virtues of Ganga are implied in its banks also.

There is a class of people who enjoys rasa from the very words used in the kávya. Rasa is imaginary according to them. If it is so, one should know which technique employed by the poet corresponds to which rasa should be known in order to enjoy it. But the rasa is enjoyed by all. Therefore this argument is not valid. That is, rasa cannot be originated merely by the śabda. It can be only by the association of vibháva, anubháva and vyabhicáribhava.

Not only rasa but vastu and alankára also can be created without the explicit use of śabda. There are two branches for this dhvani- vivakŞitavácya (abhidhámūlaka dhvani) and avivakŞitavácya (laksa¸ámūlaka dhvani). Again there are two types of avivakŞitavácya named atyantatiraskritavácyadhvani and sankramitavácyadhvani. There are two types of vivakŞitavácyadhvani also called asamlakŞyakrama and samlakŞyakrama. When rasa is dominant in kávya, asamlakŞyadhvani is present. When rasa is present as a part of kávya, (a¸garūpa) there is no dhvani. What is present is only rasavadalankára.

This argument of dhvanivádins is opposed by Dhanamjaya by the following arguments.

´ÉÉSªÉÉ |ÉEò®úhÉÉÊnù¦ªÉÉä ¤ÉÖÊrùºlÉÉ ´ÉÉ ªÉlÉÉ ÊGòªÉÉ*

´ÉÉSªÉÉlÉÇ& EòÉ®úEèòªÉÖÇHòÉ ºlÉɪÉÒ ¦ÉɴɺlÉlÉäiÉ®èú&

(nùţÉ°ü{ÉEò¨É 4-37)

When we hear or read a sentence we get its meaning from the word meanings included in structure and at times by our prior knowledge of related matters. At times even the appropriate sense of the word may not be present in the sentence. But we accept the meaning based on our own interest.

Thus whether the dharma is explicit in the sentence (vákya) itself or is according to our own interest, the meaning of the sentence is same. In the same way with the help of vibhávánubhávavyabhicáris, the stháyibháva of kávya is become explicit as vákyártha or tátparya. The stháyibháva also can occur in the same way.Here kávya is vákya, its word meaning vibháva, and sthyibháva is vakyártha or sentence meaning. So it follows that stháyibháva and rasapratĩti are not vyaňgya; the word by word meaning and the image created are not object to its implication and kávya is only the field of tátparya śakti.

Thus it becomes clear that when rasa is implied in the form of vákyartha, the effect of all well known and unknown objects are obtained by abhidha lakŞa¸a and tátparya. So there is no need of another concept like vyaňjana. To conclude, kávya has no vyaňgya- vyaňjaka relation with rasa. Kávya is not vyaňjaka; rasas are not vyaňgya.

Conclusion

The relationship between kávya and rasa is bhávya bhávaka Kávya is bhávaka and rasás are bhávya. The assimilation of rasa or stháyibháva takes place in the mind of sahrdaya. This is known as bhávana. According to this, kávya is bhávaka and rasa is bhávya which is automatically created in the mind of sahrdaya. With the application of appropriate words kávya creates this bhávana.

Bháva by itself or by the abhinaya of bhávas effects the bhávana of rasás. Therefore it is called bháva by the exponents of náţya. Thus it follows that rasa is bhávya. Without the application of bhávaka śabdás the bhávana of rasás will not take place.

Bibliography

1. The Daśarūpaka of Dhanamjaya,T.Venkatacharya(Ed) The Adayar Library and Research Centre, 1969.

2. Kávyaprakáśa of Mammata,R.Shámasastry(Ed) University of Mysore, Oriental Library Publications, 1922.

3. Nátyaśástra of Bharatamuni (in malayalam), Kerala Sahitya Academy, 1987.

4. Kávyalankárasūtravritti of Vamana(in malayalam), Kerala Bhasha Institute, 2000.

5. Bháratiyakávyaśástram by Vedabandhu(in malayalam), Sahitya Pravarthaka Co-operative Society Ltd, 1976.