Creation and Criticism

Indian and Western literary theories have different take on aesthetic pleasure creative literatures offer. While Indian theorists take it to the level of spiritual bliss, the Western scholars confine themselves to psychological levels only. This paper is a humble attempt to address this gap with special reference to Indian theory of Santa Rasa and a host of theories from the West. The issue has been examined by taking illustrations from scholars such as Aristotle, Richards and Freud from the West and Mammata, Abhinavagupt and Ashvaghosh from India. For the West, literature carries therapeutic value while in India it can take to the level of liberating experience. This study offers further insight into literature prompting readers to grasp its full import as to why literature matters.

Keywords: Brahmasvadsahodara, Katharsis, Sant Rasa, Nirveda, Asamprajnta Samadhi.

Western scholars, especially Aristotle and I.A. Richards, have confined themselves to psychological effects of literature. None of them have risen above psychological level or to the level of spiritual delight gained through literature.

In a clear contrast to the above attitude, the Indian literary theorists have described the aesthetic delight offered by literature as ब्रह्मास्वादसहोदरः (sibling of the state of supreme bliss (Sahityadarpan 105). It takes us to a higher spiritual state of delightful equilibrium which goes far beyond the scope of literature. This means going beyond literature through literature. This will be clear when we shall examine the full implication of Rasa in Indian poetics later in this paper.

Coming back to Aristotelian theory of Katharsis, it is to be noted that this key word of Aristotle occurs in the sixth chapter of his book Poetics in which tragedy is defined as:

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude, in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play, in the form of action, not of narrative, through pity and fear effecting the proper Katharsis or purgation of these emotions. (Poetics 240)

Aristotle’s theory of catharsis is considered to be his reply to Plato’s charge against tragedy that it debilitates our emotions. Two kinds of emotions, pity and fear, are aroused when we witness a tragedy staged. Pity is aroused at the undeserved suffering of the hero and fears at the thought of the worst that may befall him. Pity and fear describe a process of moral and imaginative identification with the agent. When the audience or the reader comes out of this involvement, they find themselves inwardly transformed and feel a sense of release and serenity. Catharsis is a description of this very process.

The meaning of the term catharsis has given room to a lot of discussion out of which at least four may be highlighted. These four has been analysed as (1) therapeutic, (2) moral, (3) structural and (4) intellectual aspects of the reward. Taking reference from homeopathic system of medicine which holds the view that right cure for an illness is administering an agent similar to disease; catharsis is translated as purgation which means by presenting the emotion of pity and fear to the audience they are cured of their excesses.

Similarly, the moral interpretation is similar to the therapeutic one which renders the term as ‘purification.’ This means that by seeing a tragedy the audience is able to refine the excess amount of pity and fear. True tragedy unfolds an inner process wherein the audience undergoes a conflict with oneself, others and subconscious level which is beyond his control. During their process the apparent loss of virtue, goodness and evil strikes terror but finally we realize that although virtuous and innocent souls can be destroyed, the values of goodness, virtue and innocence endure. This awareness creates in us a feeling of serenity and exaltation. Thus, we do not see tragedies only as emotions. It was in this context that F. L. Lucas had once remarked that “the theater is not a hospital.” The structuralist interpreters of catharsis put forth the view that tragedy staged offers an occasion for a protagonist to get himself absolved of his supposed evils with empathy of the audience.

Finally, the intellectual interpretation takes the view that catharsis is a kind of insight experience which results out of the protagonist’s perception of symmetry and deeper awareness. This kind of wise and virtuous man feels emotions of pity, fear, anger and pleasure with reference to right people, right object, and right motive and in the right way. This is the principle of moderation.

Hence, we can say that catharsis is beneficial either as therapy or as a moralising agent or as a release from guilt or as a supreme form of learning but it never reaches the level of spiritual experience of the supreme bliss.

Now let us move on to I. A. Richards. The position taken by Richards on the process and purpose of literature is one of psychological balance. For him mind is nothing but the nervous system so that satisfaction ultimately is physical. But the satisfaction for him is the number and weight of impulses satisfied within the individual mind. Explaining the pleasure that one derives from reading literature he says, “The delight we take in tragedy is certainly not either a recognition that “all is right with the world or that “somewhere, somehow, there is justice; it is indication that “all is right here and now in the nervous system” (Principles of Literary Criticism 30). He, further, explains two kinds of languages—scientific and emotive: “there is an emotive use of language which is designed not so much to promote references on which the scientific use of language relies to arouse attitude and emotions associated with them. The kind of “truth” proper to fiction may reside rather in internal coherence than in correspondence with actual facts.” (Principles of Literary Principles 61).

I. A. Richards assigns to literature, especially poetry, the role of reestablishing balance by reconciling the contending or opposite urges and by removing the psychological conflicts. The position taken by Richards has two clear advantages. It is applicable to all spectators or readers of poetry and not to those only who are suffering from some ailments. Secondly his psychological theory deals with establishment of psychological balance or equilibrium through the agency of literature.

In this connection, we may glance through Freud’s theory of complexes. According to Freud, neurosis is a general condition and every human being suffers from it. This may be related to Richard’s idea of conflicting and discordant impulses which weaken the mind.

In contrast to this line of thought when we approach to Indian theory of rasa, we find that rasa has been understood at two levels, rasa is the aesthetic delight which we experience in seeing stage play or in reading poetry. But it must be noted that the aesthetic delight which we experience has been taken to be highest experience very close to if not identical to self-realization of supreme bliss. In Buddhist terms this should mean Buddhist enlightenment or nirvana i.e. release from bondage.

For proper understanding of rasa and aesthetic delight, we must enter into some detail regarding the theory of Rasa. When we read creative literature, we get pleasure out of it as a reader and when we watch a drama on the stage or on the screen, we enjoy it as spectators. This pleasure is termed as rasa in Indian poetics. This is variously translated in English as aesthetic bliss, poetic pleasure or delight etc.

When we consider the Indian Poetics in general, we find that they have associated the rasa with higher level of pleasure. For example, Abhinavagupt has likened the concept of rasa with Saiva sadhana and suggested that rasa in literature bring to the audience the supreme bliss and total liberation. According to Mammata, enjoyment of literature is a means to सद्यःपरनिर्वित्येः i.e.it instantly brings the experiences of liberation to the spectator.

When we consider this higher function of rasa in literature, we find that Santa rasa as a state of quiescence is the best means for achieving Brahmananda. It should not be forgotten that this experience has been equated to Bramhanandasahodara.

Once we accept Santa rasa as the best means to salvation, we are led to the images of Lord Buddha which are universally accepted by art specialist as the best expression of the Santa Bhava. It is surmised that Santa rasa has already been accepted in Indian Poetics. Sir Ganganath Jha in his preface to the translation of Kavyashastra as observed that Santa rasa has been added to the list under Buddhist Influence. He writes, “The times of Mammata seems to have been times of a general outburst of literature and learning in Kashmir which had most likely something to do with Buddhist literature and learning then on its way out of India to its Tibetan home across Himalayas” (Sir Ganganath Jha XII).

Ashvaghosh in his epic Buddhacarita writes that his literature is a means to reach the level of supreme bliss or nirvana and not for worldly pleasures. His other composition Saundrananda also reflects Santa rasa. The other two Buddhist texts The Psalm of the Sisters (Therigatha) and The Psalm of The Brothers (Theragatha) also reflect the Santa rasa. Thus, we find Ashvaghosha to be the earliest who used Santa as a dominant rasa (V. Raghavan 35).

The nature of aesthetic experience of Santa consists in the experience of the self as free from the entire set of painful experiences which are due to the external expectation and therefore is blissful state of identity with the universal. It is the experience of the self in one of the stages on the way to perfect self-realisation. (Comparative Aesthetics 250)

Now the question is often asked as to the nature of rasa; whether it is spiritual or mundane pleasure. In this regards it should be noted that poetry is a kind of sadhana, poetic approach to supreme bliss. Thus, it not identical to supreme bliss but it leads to a state comparable with the experience. The rasa is neither mundane emotion nor feeling like love, sorrow and grief etc., which do not vanish away nor is its spiritual pleasure which endures forever. In fact, it is quite different from other pleasures of life. Joy of a father which he derives from his child is between two individuals. In case of pleasure derived from reading literature being sublimated, it becomes universal.

Then the question arises as to what is the position of rasa. It has been turned as lokottar i.e. hyper-physical. By this we mean that it is a super-mundane blissfulness which supersedes all sorts of other worldly pleasures. Owing to the fact that the mind of a Sahridya as said earlier, becomes magnanimous, the poetic pleasure is accepted neither mundane nor spiritual but super-worldly, that is though it is a worldly pleasure it surpasses all other such pleasures. (Choudhary 82)

Another question often raised about Santa rasa is which of the two Nirveda or Sama should be accepted as the sthayibhava of Santa rasa. In this regard point can be put forth that the Sama which denotes the equilibrium of mind, keeps the people away from desires, ego, greed illusion and attachments towards worldly affairs is the sthayibhava of Santa rasa:

काम, क्रोध-लोभ-मन मायाद्यनुरक्त

परोन्मुखता विविजिर्ताऽक्लिष्ट-

चेतोरूपषम स्थायी शान्तो रसो भवति। (Natyadarpan 3.17, translated by S.K. De, Ganganath Jha)

Mammata has placed Nirveda both in the list of sthayibhava and sanchari bhava of Santa rasa, the point well explained by his commentators:

स्थायी स्याद् विषयेष्वेष तत्त्वज्ञानाद् भवेद यदि।

इष्टानिष्ट-वियोगाप्ति-कृतस्तु व्यभिचार्य सौ।। (Kavyaprakasa B.B.P.116)

The Nirveda would be called sthayibhava only when is caused by Truth and Sancharibhava is produced by worldly separation and bereavement. Along with Vishvanath Ramchandra-Gunchandra have also accepted separate entity of Sama and Nirveda. In Conclusion we may say that Sama should be accepted as the sthayibhava of Santa rasa and Nirveda its sancharibhava according to occasion.

Responding to a question whether Santa rasa can be proper subject of drama as it is in poetry, Abhinavagupt’s opinion who himself had a practical knowledge of Yoga, becomes important.

The dramatist who intends to present Santa rasa has got to be very careful in the choice of the hero who has to be Yogi who has practised Asamprajnta Samadhi and is at a stage immediately preceding the Kaivalya, the immediate self-realization. For such a hero will naturally have the flow of the current of the pure-sattva (prasantvahika) even from the rise of Samadhi. We have already examples of it from the life of Lord Buddha. The five monks who thought the Buddha had corrupted himself by eating milk boiled rice and decided not to greet him when he was approaching them after enlightenment. But the aura of piece reflected of his countenance enchanted them so much so that instantly they became his disciples. Similarly, Angulimal, the famous murderer and dacoit, being enchanted by the presence of the Buddha’s peaceful appearance accepted his discipleship.

Works Cited:

Blamires, Hary. A History of Literary Criticism. Macmillan press Ltd, 991.

Jha, Ganganath. Tr. Kavyaprakash of Mammata. Bharati Vidyaprakash, 1967, p-xii.

Kaviraj, Vishvanath. Sahityadarpan, edited by Dr. Satyavrat Singh. Chowkhambha, Vidyabhawan, 2007.

Natarajan, M.S. English Literary Criticism and Theory. Orient Longman Private Ltd, 2006.

Panday, K.C. Comparative Aesthetics. Choukhambha Sanskrit series, 1959.

Raghavan, V. Number of Rasa. The Adyar Library, Adyar 1940.

Richards, I.A. Principles of Literary Criticism, 1924.

About the Author:

Prof. Shrikant Singh is the founder Head of the Postgraduate and Research Department of English, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda (Deemed University under Ministry of Culture, Govt of India)), Bihar, India. He was formerly Dean Academic and Registrar of the University. He has authored, edited and translated a number of books besides publishing over 50 research papers in different journals and books. He has been founder co-editor of Research Journal of the university, Sri Nalanda. His research area of interest includes Buddhism in English literature. He has delivered talks on Nalanda Studies, The Buddha and Vivekananda: Millenia Stars, Bihar Studies and Peace Poetry of Thich Nhat Hanh etc. He can be contacted at dr.shrikant.singh@gmail.com.