Dashrupak Aur Natyadarpan Me Ras Swarup Evam Nishpatti Ek Tulanatmaka Vivechan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, focusing on the comparative analysis of rasa (aesthetic sentiment) in the Dasharupaka and Natyadarpan:

Book Title: Dashrupak aur Natyadarpan me Ras Swarup evam Nishpatti Ek Tulanatmaka Vivechan (The Nature and Manifestation of Rasa in Dashrupaka and Natyadarpan: A Comparative Analysis) Author: Kaji Anjum Saifi Publisher: USA Federation of JAINA

This academic work by Kaji Anjum Saifi provides a detailed comparative analysis of the concepts of rasa (aesthetic sentiment) and its nishpatti (manifestation or realization) as presented in two significant works on Indian poetics and dramaturgy: Dasharupaka by Acharya Dhananjaya and Natyadarpan by Acharyas Ramachandra and Gunachandra. Both texts are considered important contributions to Indian dramatic tradition, following Bharata Muni's Natyashastra. The author highlights that the views on rasa presented in these two works significantly differ from traditional interpretations, making their study valuable for knowledge and inquiry.

The study is structured to first explain the viewpoints of each author separately before engaging in a comparative discussion.

1. Nature and Manifestation of Rasa in Dashrupaka (Dhananjaya):

Nature of Rasa: Dhananjaya, in the fourth chapter of Dasharupaka, posits that the rasa is essentially the vakyartha (meaning of the sentence) in poetry. The sthayibhava (dominant emotion) present in the spectator's mind, when evoked by vibhava (causes), anubhava (consequences), and vyabhichari bhava (transitory emotions), transforms into shringara (erotic sentiment) and other rasas.
Analogy with Grammar: Dhananjaya draws an analogy with grammar. Just as a verb in a sentence, when combined with case endings and other grammatical elements, forms the sentence's meaning, similarly, the sthayibhava, when supported by vibhava and other elements, becomes the vakyartha (which he equates with rasa). This means rasa is not something distinct but the very meaning derived from the poetic statement.
Rejection of Suggestion (Vyanjana): Crucially, Dhananjaya's stance implies a rejection of the theory of vyanjana (suggestion) in the manifestation of rasa. He aligns with the Mimamsa school's concept of tatparya-vritti (interpretative power of meaning) where the entire sentence conveys a unified meaning, rather than individual words conveying separate meanings that are then suggested. Rasa, for him, is the ultimate purport or meaning.
Role of Vibhava and Anubhava: Vibhava are equated with grammatical case endings, and anubhava and vyabhichari bhava are like the verb itself in conveying the ultimate meaning.
Rasa as Vakyartha and Tatparya: Dhananjaya's interpreter, Dhanika, clarifies that rasa being the vakyartha implies it is the object of tatparya-vritti, not vyanjana. The purpose of poetry, like all language, is action or result, and in poetry, this ultimate purpose is the experience of blissful enjoyment (niratisaya sukhasvada).
Nature of Sthayibhava: The sthayibhava reside in the spectator's mind as latent impressions (vasana). The vibhava in the poem (e.g., descriptions of Rama and Sita) activate these latent emotions, leading the spectator to experience their own sthayibhava as rasa.
Impersonal Portrayal: Poets do not describe the specific personal characteristics of characters like Rama; instead, they portray generalized noble states (dhirodatta, etc.) devoid of individual peculiarities. Rama and others serve as general bases (ashraya) for these emotions.
Four Stages of Rasa: Dhananjaya outlines four stages of rasa born from self-joy: development (vikas), expansion (vistara), agitation (kshobha), and disturbance (vikshepa). These correspond to different rasas (e.g., Shringara, Virya, Bibhatsa, Raudra).

2. Nature and Manifestation of Rasa in Natyadarpan (Ramachandra-Gunachandra):

Definition of Rasa: Ramachandra and Gunachandra define rasa as the sthayibhava that has reached its full development through vibhava and is clearly indicated by anubhava. They describe it as having a nature of both pleasure and pain.
Adaptation of Terms: They clarify that the karya (effect) and hetu (cause) common in worldly life, and the sancharis (transitory emotions), are respectively called anubhava, vibhava, and vyabhichari in poetry.
Indirect Perception of Rasa: Rasa in poetry is perceived indirectly because it is a mental state, and mental states are beyond direct sensory perception. This indirect perception occurs through anubhava (consequences), which are inseparable from rasa.
Role of the Actor (Nata): The actor's anubhava (like trembling or sweating), even if the actor doesn't personally experience the rasa, are not merely consequences of the rasa but causes of the rasa in the spectator. Conversely, the spectator's anubhava are consequences of the rasa in them.
Distinction between Local and Poetic Rasa: Ramachandra and Gunachandra make a significant distinction between worldly (loka-gata) and poetic (kavya-gata) rasa.
- Local Rasa: This can be of two types:
  - Niyata Vishayata (Specific Subject Matter): When an emotion is directed towards a specific individual (e.g., Rama's love for Sita), the rasa experience is limited to that individual.
  - Samanya Vishayata (General Subject Matter): When emotions are directed towards a generalized object or concept, the rasa experience is more widespread.
- Poetic Rasa: This is devoid of specific or general subject matter. The vibhava presented in poetry or drama, even if not real, evoke the spectator's sthayibhava in a general manner.
Characteristics of Local vs. Poetic Rasa:
- Local Rasa: Is direct (pratyaksha) and personal (swagata).
- Poetic Rasa: Is indirect (paroksha), belongs to another (paragata), and is indistinct/vague (dhyamala). The vagueness arises because the vibhava in poetry are not real, making the rasa and its associated emotions less clear. This is why poetic rasa is called "beyond the ordinary world" (lokottara).
The Actor's Role and Adhyavasaya: The spectator, through the actor's performance and words, develops an assumption (adhyavasaya) that the actor is embodying the original character. This leads to the spectator's identification and immersion in the character's emotions. The actor, in turn, imitates general human behavior rather than a specific individual.
Social Perception of Rasa: When Rama imitates his love for Sita, the spectator experiences a general sense of romantic sentiment towards women, not specifically Sita, because the poetic portrayal generalizes the characters.

Comparative Analysis and Criticisms:

Differing Foundations: The author notes that Dhananjaya's approach is more philosophical, while Ramachandra-Gunachandra's is rooted in the worldly and practical. Dhananjaya's view of rasa as vakyartha and his reliance on tatparya-vritti are contrasted with Ramachandra-Gunachandra's more nuanced understanding of poetic perception.
Dhananjaya's Philosophy: Dhananjaya's acceptance of bhāvakatva (a faculty that makes an emotion manifest) and atmananda (self-joy) suggests a philosophical inclination. His view on rasa being the vakyartha aligns him with the Abhihitānvaya school of Mimamsa. His contemporary Abhinavagupta, a Shaiva Advaitin, also integrated philosophy into rasa theory.
Ramachandra-Gunachandra's Realism: Ramachandra-Gunachandra are credited with breaking away from the traditional philosophical overlay on rasa and grounding their theory in practical, worldly experience. They are seen as closer to the original intent of Bharata Muni.
Influence of Bhatt Nayaka: The analysis suggests that Dhananjaya's views resonate more with Bhatt Nayaka's interpretation of rasa, particularly in his concept of sādhāraṇīkaraṇa (universalization). Bhatt Nayaka's theory of bhāvakatva (a process that universalizes vibhava and sthayibhava) is seen as a precursor to Dhananjaya's less explicit concept.
Criticisms of Dhananjaya:
- Dhananjaya's rejection of vyanjana and his expansion of tatparya-vritti to include suggestive meaning is debated. Critics argue that the relationship between vachayartha (literal meaning) and vyangyartha (suggested meaning) is different from the relationship between words and sentence meaning.
- His assertion that rasa is vakyartha is challenged, as rasa is considered a suggested meaning (vyangyartha), not a literal one.
- Dhananjaya's example of a child playing with clay elephants is critiqued for potentially implying the chitra-turanga nyaya (the illusion of a painted horse) rather than a genuine understanding of sādhāraṇīkaraṇa.
Criticisms of Ramachandra-Gunachandra:
- Their acceptance of loka-gata rasa (worldly rasa) is seen as a deviation from tradition, as the nature of worldly experience and poetic experience is fundamentally different. Worldly events are beyond control, while poetic elements are controlled by the poet.
- Their distinction between direct/personal (pratyaksha/swagata) local rasa and indirect/other's (paroksha/paragata) poetic rasa is questioned. If sthayibhava are in the spectator and vibhava are universalized, then the spectator's experience of rasa should be direct and personal, not indirect and other's.
- Their explanation for poetic rasa being lokottara (beyond the ordinary) based on the vagueness of vibhava is considered weak. They also state rasa is lokottara but not alaukika (supernatural), which is seen as a contradiction.
Sādhāraṇīkaraṇa vs. Adhyavasaya: The core difference lies in their approach to how the spectator connects with the dramatic representation. Dhananjaya implies sādhāraṇīkaraṇa (universalization) of vibhava. Ramachandra-Gunachandra, however, emphasize adhyavasaya (assumption or identification) where the actor's performance leads to the spectator assuming the character's identity.
Modern Psychological Resonance: The author concludes that from a modern psychological perspective, Ramachandra-Gunachandra's views, particularly regarding the spectator's immersion and the qualitative gradation of experiences, appear closer to the truth.

In essence, the book provides a deep dive into the divergent philosophical and psychological underpinnings of rasa theory as presented by two influential scholars, highlighting their innovations, deviations from tradition, and the critical perspectives on their arguments. It positions Dhananjaya within a more philosophical and Mimamsa-influenced framework, while Ramachandra-Gunachandra are placed within a more realistic, psychologically grounded tradition that echoes Bharata Muni and Bhatt Nayaka.