Prachin Jainacharya Aur Ras Siddhant - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Prachin Jainacharya aur Ras Siddhant" by Dr. Anand Prakash Dixit, focusing on the contributions of Jain scholars Ramachandra and Gunchandra:

The article discusses the significant contributions of Jain scholars, particularly Hemachandra Suri and his disciples Ramachandra and Gunchandra, to the field of Sanskrit poetics and dramatology, primarily during the 11th-12th centuries CE. While Hemachandra's "Kavya-nushasana" is a valuable compilation, it's Ramachandra and Gunchandra's "Natya-darpan" that stands out for its original and sometimes contrarian views on the concept of rasa (aesthetic sentiment).

Ramachandra and Gunchandra's Distinctive Views on Rasa:

Rejection of Anandavada (Hedonistic Theory): Unlike the dominant anandavada school championed by scholars like Abhinavagupta, Ramachandra and Gunchandra reject the idea that rasa is solely a source of pure bliss. They propose a novel classification of the nine rasas, dividing them into five enjoyable (sukhatmak) and four unenjoyable (dukhatmak). This controversial stance significantly influenced subsequent discussions among literary critics.
Rasa as the Lifeblood of Poetry: Despite their divergence from anandavada, they deeply value rasa, considering it the vital principle of poetry, akin to the soul in the body of words and meaning. However, they differentiate the role of rasa and alankara (ornamentation) across different poetic forms. They believe alankara is more prominent and easily achieved in narratives and standalone verses (muktak), while rasa is crucial and its manifestation is more complex in dramas and narrative poems (prabandha kavya).
Challenging "Vakyam Rasatmakam Kavyam": They implicitly reject the extreme view that "a sentence imbued with rasa is poetry" (as stated by Vishvanatha Kaviraja). Furthermore, they question Anandavardhana's notion of rasa development in standalone verses, suggesting that poets like Amaru, despite their poetic brilliance, cannot be considered masters of rasa in the same way as those who achieve it in extensive narratives.
Rasa Creation is Difficult, Not Trivial: Ramachandra and Gunchandra strongly counter the prevalent notion that composing rasa-filled poetry is an easy task, equating it to playing with emotions. They argue that while composing ornamental narratives might be relatively smooth due to the influence of alankaras, crafting dramas overflowing with rasas is extremely challenging. True poets are those whose words dance with waves of rasa in dramas, making their poetry akin to nectar for mortals.
Distinction Between Scholar and Poet: They criticize poets who, lured by the cleverness of words (like shlesha – pun), neglect rasa. Such individuals, while knowledgeable in wordplay, are merely "scholars" (vidwan) and not "supreme poets" (kavindra). They compare verse devoid of rasa and rich in wordplay to unappealing women.
The Superiority of Rasa over Alankara: Their perspective establishes rasa as the benchmark of poetic excellence. Poets skilled in rasa are considered superior, and their work is not only pleasurable but also life-sustaining, like amrita. In contrast, alankaras are seen as mere wordplay, accessible to word-skilled scholars, and offering only momentary pleasure. The skillful execution of alankaras is deemed easier than the nuanced delivery of rasa.
Rasa as Essential, Alankara as Secondary: While rasa is deemed crucial and indispensable, the use of alankaras is not condemned; rather, their position in the hierarchy of poetic elements is defined. Poetry adorned solely with alankaras is not considered the highest form because its creators are "scholars," not "supreme poets." The demarcation between scholarship and poetry lies in the use of words and rasa. Wordplay is linked to lexical knowledge and offers transient joy, whereas rasa connects directly to the heart and human emotional capacity, making its creation profoundly difficult and its impact lasting.
The Difficulty of Sustaining Rasa in Extended Works: They highlight the challenge of successfully portraying various rasas and emotions within a complete narrative or drama, culminating in a dominant rasa. This is distinct from merely injecting a touch of emotion in a single line. This intricate emotional management, being dependent on inner feeling rather than mere verbal cleverness, is a much more arduous undertaking than the arrangement of alankaras.
Rasa-filled Poetry is Not Merely Entertainment: While acknowledging the joy and delight derived from rasa-filled poetry, Ramachandra and Gunchandra don't view it as mere entertainment. They present a sound argument for the superiority of such poetry, maintaining its artistic integrity rather than lamenting its potential to be seen as light amusement. Their argument remains relevant even for those who prioritize intellectual poetry over emotionally resonant works.
Nuances in Rasa Application Across Genres: They acknowledge that while rasa is essential in drama, ornamental embellishment can suffice in standalone verses (muktak). The ease of using alankaras stems from their reliance on wordplay. However, this doesn't preclude rasa in muktak; it simply means that the complete framework of vibhava (causes of emotion) might not always be present. They also suggest that prose, when it effectively conveys rasa, is a testament to the writer's skill, as infusing rasa into prose is more challenging than introducing alankaras. They subtly disagree with the notion of universal talent, emphasizing that proficiency in all areas, including poetic creation, is rare.

Specific Contributions to Rasa Theory:

Sequence of Rasas: Ramachandra and Gunchandra follow Bharata Muni's classification of rasas and their order. Their explanations align with Abhinavagupta's commentary on Bharata. However, they diverge from Bharata and Abhinavagupta in not elaborating on the concept of the primary and secondary nature of rasas or their mutual generation.
Introduction of New Rasas: They introduce several new rasas, including Laulya (greed/craving), Sneha (affection), Vyasan (obsession/addiction), Duhkha (sorrow), and Sukha (happiness). Their proposed sthayibhava (permanent emotions) for these are griddha (covetousness), ardrata (wetness/emotionality), asakti (attachment), arati (disgust/sorrow), and asantosh (dissatisfaction). However, they do not provide detailed descriptions or examples for these, suggesting they might have been less convinced of their independent status, as some scholars had already attempted to integrate them within the existing nine rasas. Their introduction of these new rasas is seen as a step beyond their guru, Hemachandra Suri, who primarily cited Abhinavagupta. Notably, they do not mention Bhakti (devotion) or Vatsalya (parental affection) as separate rasas.
Rasa Classification by Happiness and Sorrow: Their classification of rasas based on happiness and sorrow is a significant point of discussion. While not elaborated upon here due to length, it remains a noteworthy contribution.
The Role of the Wonderful (Adbhuta) Rasa in Drama: A crucial point of their theory is the emphasis on the inclusion of Adbhuta rasa (the wonderful or marvelous) in the concluding part of a drama. They argue that for a play to be truly engaging and impactful, it must present elements that are extraordinary and seemingly impossible. This "wonder" element, when combined with the extraordinary actions of the hero, highlights the grandeur of achievement and the pleasure of obtaining the unobtainable, or in case of failure, transforms the play into a powerful tragedy.
Adbhuta as a Necessary Element for Impact: They believe that while all actions have consequences, presenting mere straightforward outcomes in a play would negate the effort of composition. The extraordinary and seemingly impossible elements elevate the drama, making it seem beyond ordinary human capacity and thus desirable. This element of wonder, they argue, is crucial for achieving special impact.
Adbhuta's Placement and Nature: While acknowledging the importance of this "wonder element," they insist on its placement at the end of the drama. They do not consider it a primary rasa but rather a contributory element to the overall effect. They believe it should be present in a subtle, symbolic form, creating a mild wave of astonishment rather than a fully developed rasa.
Reconciling Wonder with Traditional Concepts: The authors clarify that by introducing the concepts of the extraordinary and the seemingly impossible, Ramachandra and Gunchandra are not discarding traditional concepts like pratipattavayogya (unbelievability) or samavanavirah (lack of combination) which refer to obstacles to rasa. Instead, they aim to convey that a purely factual and simple presentation lacks dramatic appeal. While easily incorporated in divine or semi-divine narratives, such elements can also be woven into human stories through unexpected plot twists or the exceptional abilities of characters. They suggest that this element of wonder can be present throughout the play, contributing to its overall dramatic quality.
Adbhuta's Applicability and Western Parallels: The article notes that while the inclusion of Adbhuta at the end might be particularly relevant for dramas dominated by Shringara (erotic) and Veera (heroic) rasas, it is not essential for all plays, especially those in the Shanta (peaceful) rasa, like "Prabodhachandrodaya." They also suggest that this concept of wonder can be interpreted through Western lenses of character variety and inner nature variety, as described by Acharya Shukla, relating to surprising satisfaction, surprising dissatisfaction, and the fulfillment of curiosity.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Ramachandra and Gunchandra hold rasa in paramount importance in drama, thereby aligning with tradition. However, their unique perspective on drama as an art form, considering all its elements, demonstrates significant originality. They not only follow Abhinavagupta but also forge their own paths, even opposing their guru at times. Their insights remain relevant today, offering avenues for understanding the nature of poetry, its various forms, and the process of its appreciation. Their classification of rasas based on happiness and sorrow, in particular, warrants further in-depth study. The authors conclude that it is precisely these innovative ideas that have garnered Ramachandra and Gunchandra significant attention among Jain scholars.