ARY 28, 2008

Discussion of the Dhvani-Rasa Theory

In Indian Theories of Meaning, Kunjunni Raja outlines most of the issues under discussion in Anandavardhanas Dhvanyaloka. A lot of attention is given to poets like Ananda who aim to look at poetry beyond its literal limits. Unlike the mimamsas that are concerned with structural, grammatical and stylistic arrangements of poetry, Ananda and reaches beyond this into a secondary meaning or purpose (dhvani). This weeks reading was concerned with the understanding of dhvani and the rasa theory. Most discussion went into the complications of this theory. Raja outlines that, the formal or intellectual, imaginative and emotional elements of a poem blend into a predominant sentiment, and making a simultaneous appeal awakens the reader (289) In this explanation Raja explains the coming together of rasa and dhvani illustrated in the works of Abhinavagupta. He shows that dhvani which is when the power of the imagination realizes the suggested meaning is felt through the blending of moods or emotions, then rasa is manifested. This is of course just a brief summary of the themes outlined in the dense readings done this week. (Taking into mind that we all did the readings I will not get into the technicality of what these terms mean) Within these readings there are just a couple of ideas that captured my attention. The first issue that was brought up in the first chapter of the dhvanyaloka readings is this complication of defining dhvani. Ananda illustrates that, there is no such thing as dhvani distinct from the figures and qualities. (55) Through this expression dhvani becomes non-existent because to say figures and qualities is to say dhvani and vice versa. However, within this part of the book, Ananda expresses that all figures and qualities are present with their associated meanings and if a meaning or quality does not exist it becomes irrelevant to the poet. In this regards in order for dhvani to exist, there is a secondary meaning. I think that even though words whether they are in Sanskrit or not, imply different meanings dependent on the context they are put into. However, with the complexity of translations or figuring out the meanings of words, one could see how the dhvani theory can be problematic. This is because grouping words together to suggest an implied meaning, is not only required for the poetic master, but

also can become inaccessible to audiences who are not poetic specialists. More precisely, because the dhvani theory is used by experts and as Raja puts it, only men of equal scholarship and literary taste can fully appreciate their poems. This leads one to believe that these poems then are created only for the enjoyment of poets and men alike. In this regard, audiences cannot enjoy the poem or artwork on the same level as the poet or characters of the play. For example, specialists whether they are magicians, mathematicians, or architects will have a different understanding of their specialties than those who share no common ground with them. In this light, the meanings that they would associate with different things would parallel the meanings that others would extract from similar situations. Keeping this in mind, once different meanings are given, it only makes sense to say that different emotions and feelings/moods arise in audiences who are not poets or poetic masters. Having said this, the rasa theory then is undermined since the audiences would not be able to experience the same moods as the poet or characters intends. However, if I was to just undermine the structuring of these tropes, then understanding or appreciating poetry would not even be something of importance to discuss. On the contrary, this is not the case since poetry has not only marked Indian culture, but also has been important in understanding key concepts. Ultimately, I have a hard time understanding the mechanics behind having the same experiences. I guess this is what made this weeks reading very confusing and frustrating to grasp at times.

JANUARY 29, 2008

The Dhvanyloka of nandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta Until he is filled with this rasa The poet does not spill it forth.

In this weeks discussion of Indian poetic aesthetics two terms predominated the readings, that of rasa and dhavani. Rasa being essentially the ultimate purpose of poetry and dhavani the method by which this is achieved. To give some background and highlight some of the discussion.... In the analysis of the achievement of a great poem there are fundamentally three aspects, the poets creative inspiration, the result in the form of the words of the poem itself and the effect upon the receiver of the poem, the reader. In the theory of Indian poetics there emerged two great authors Anandavardhana, a Kashmir author of the 9th century and Abhinavagupta, another Kashmiri philosopher who wrote a commentary on Ananda's treatise in the 10th century. In their theories of Indian poetics a central purpose was to distinguish, define and analyze what constitutes a superb poem. Without any question this is an elusive pursuit however there are a few direct statements that define the view of these authors. The early authors of this subject Bhamaha and Dandin outlined and defined alankara, figures of speech used in poetry, the good and bad qualities in writing poetry and remarked on various styles ritis. Their analysis of various qualities such as sweetness madhurya focused primarily on formal arrangements of words in achieving effects which was summarized as "style is the soul of poetry". However, it was with the writings of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta (with some credit due to the lost works of Udbhata) that the Bharata's doctrine of the rasas, the flavours or moods of a theatrical piece was introduced into a general theory of literature and through which this analysis of what constitutes excellence in poetry could be explored and the new paradigm of "the doctrine that the beauty of particular words depends on the rasa that the author wishes to achieve" and that rasa, not style that is the soul of poetry. With Ananda what Bharata had introduced, the importance of rasa, Ananda made paramount. It is the two concepts of dhavani (suggestion) and rasa (flavor) that comprise the two main building blocks of Ananda's theory of poetics. Dhavani falls into the area of the discussion of meaning in poetry into which there are two main catgories, direct meaning (abhida) and inferred meaning (laksana). Suggestion itself is further subdivided into that which shifts to something else (arthantarasankramita) an example

of which Ananda cites from the Ramayana by Valmiki, the first poet: The sun has stolen our affection for the moon, Whose circle now is dull with frost, And like a mirror blinded by one's breath Shines no more. In this example "blinded" qualities of an animate creature to an inanimate object, the moon embuing it with various other qualities such as loss of beauty. An even greater form of suggestion (vivaksitanyaparavacya) is that which reveals the ultimate purpose of poetry the leading to the potential for the experience of rasa by the reader. Rasa is defined as juice, flavor, taste. In terms of a play or poem, it is the mood that characterizes the piece. These have been described as eight kinds (with the 9th peace santa added by Ananda) as the erotic (srngara), the comic (hasya), the tragic (karuna) the furious or cruel (raudra), the heroic (vira), the fearsome or timorous (bhyanaka), the gruesome or loathsome (bibhatsa) and the wonderous (abhuta). These moods are based on human emotions, of which Ananda did not elaborate but the discussion was taken up by his commentator Abhinava. The Rasasutra explains that rasa is produced by the combination of the determinates (vibhavas), the consequents (anubhavas) and the temporary or transitory state of mind (vyabhicarinah). The determinates are the object towards the emotion is focused (such as the lovers in erotic rasa), the determinates are the setting or conditions (such as a springtime garden in which we find the lovers). The consequents are the subsequent characteristics (such as the twirling of the bracelet by the young shy girl or sidelong glances of the lovers). The transitory mind is states such as jealousy, discouragement and the secondary involuntary states such as trembling. In the exposition by Ananda these elements are explained as experienced by both the poet who forms them into the expression in words and the sensitive reader who responds from the heart. Ananda conceives this rasa to abide in the character invented by the poet or in the poet himself as well as in the audience. As for the poet himself, it is when he is under such a heightened state of emotion as rasa that he becomes capable of

writing the suggestive poetry that will transfer this rasa to his hearers/readers. He has the inspiration needed to produce poetry that is enlived by suggested meanings. For example the first poet Valmiki was so saddened by the wailing of the curlew bird who had lost its mate that Valmiki's grief was transformed into the tragic rasa of the Ramayana (p 18 intro).

Ananda maintained that rasa could not be directly expressed but is dependent upon suggestion (dhavani). It is through suggestion (dhavani) that rasa arises (rasadhavani). Beauty of poetry by which the reader is delighted, the flavor (rasa) comes through the judgment of the heart and although this may be elusive, it may be defined and clarified as arising through specific qualities and elements. For example in the expression " Only when flavoured by the rays of the sun are lotuses lotuses." Implies that with the light of the sun on the lotus the full beauty of the object becomes evident. The words then become enveloped in an emotional atmosphere that moves the meaning from a literal sense to an evocative sense of implied beauty that when felt through the refined sensibility of the reader becomes a joyous experience the true purpose of poetry "the bliss [which arises] in the hearts of sensitive readers". (p 68) Where the poet and the reader connect is as Abhinava defines literary sensitivity (sahrdayatva) as the faculty of entering into identity with the heart of the poet ( p 72). In Abhinavas theory vastudhavani and alankaradhavani are merely parts of poetry being superior to direct designation but not being the real soul of poetry, which is rasachavani. To create poetry that reaches a point of excellence it was considered that there must be appropriate matching of the emotions, the determinants and the consequents for the rasa to arise. The other attributes of poetry such as alamkara figures of speech support were secondary but contribute to the strengthening of the experience of rasa. What Ananda proposed, Abhinava elaborated and clarified. In only one major point did Abhinava differ from Ananda and that is discussion of the emotion of the poet. This interesting difference is that were Ananda viewed the melting of experience in the poet and outflowing of this empathy as inspired poetic form in words this role of the poet was

defined by Abhinava as a more impersonal and generalized state of creative intercessor in the removal of the author from the emotion and sympathy of the experience into a position of a more impersonal observer expressing human experience in poetry as an intermediary and in this point his views differ from that of the rasa theory as proposed by Ananda. These blog comments express only a small portion of the interesting reading we had this week but perhaps one of the aspects I enjoyed most was the respect and reverence the writers of Indian aesthetics confer to the sensitivity (sahrdayatva) of the heart of the reader a most subtle and refined analysis of the transformative quality of poetry.

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008

The Suggestive Power of Language

Hey Mr. Tambourine man play a song for me In the jingle jangle morning I'll come following you.

Though I know that evenings empire has returned into sand Vanished from my hand Left me blindly here to stand But still not sleeping. ~Mr. Tambourine Man, Bob Dylan

Dylan the poet versus Dylan the recording artist shaped this song, many speculate, to sound like its saying one thing while its actually saying something quite different. The particular song has become, in pop culture, a mythical drug-referencing poem. A Rasa for the Woodstock generation, one might say! I begin with this reference not only because Im a Dylan fanatic but because it was important for me to culturally contextualize the concepts about which I was reading for this weeks class. It is only through the lenses that I wear that I can hope to interpret any incoming information! Seeing as how I am desperately late in the posting of this blog, I will focus entirely on

the Raja article, and be prepared to discuss the Dhvanyaloka articles in class. I felt that there was enough meat to the Raja article that I could sufficiently provide some fodder in one blog post without embarking on the epic adventures that Raj and Jackie seem to have taken! So here goes Mimamsaka-s and Naiyayika-s the original developers of literary theories in India cannot say that, according to Raja, that the literal meanings of words induce the emotions that language often provokes. Nay. Rather, these emotions are nursed out by what lies around, between and under these literal words. This Raja calls the suggestive power [of] language (Raja, 281). This suggestive power (vyanjana) is what Anandavardhana extrapolated upon in the Dhvanyaloka, albeit the work focuses mainly on poetic composition rather than all of language. His (Anandavardhanas) inspiration for this dissertation came from another great literary theorist Bhartrhari, who developed the sphota doctrine, which emphasized the importance of the whole utterance, rather than a singular, as one unit of language (Raja, 277). What vyanjana is to linguistics, dhvani is to poetry. This is the foundation of Anandavardhanas theory of poetic suggestion. Raja mentions that just as the sound of utterances reveal integral linguistic (283) similarly the sound in combination with the literal sense makes a good poem. This marriage of sound and sense is what draws out the true aesthetic value of poetry. One might even call this the flavour of the poetry the Rasa! Indeed as Anandavardhana says, the integral function of the singular words when in the form of poetry is to aid in the development of Rasa (Raja, 307). Criticism of the dhvani theory, to my understanding, comes from the fact that it tries to tackle too large a portion of language and the way in which it behaves in different situations. Furthermore, it is difficult to express and comprehend how a theory of linguistics could fathom entrance into the emotive and psychological realm. To which, my response is to point to the Dylan song that I quoted at the beginning of this post. No, there may not be a theory to explain why the song resounds with college students, criminals, and everyone in betweenhowever, for some inexplicable reason, it does. Its meaning means something, even though its words are saying something else.

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008

A Better Understanding of Rasa Theory

The Dhvanyaloka and Raja readings this week stressed the literary conventions of poetry that were detailed in the Dhvanyaloka by Ananda and Adhinava. The book clearly illustrates the theories of dhvani and rasa, which they consider to be the soul of poetry. Dhvani is related as the suggestive power of words and senses (literal and implied), and rasa which is dependent upon dhvani, is the relishing of the emotion one gets from dhvani. As a result of these poetic conventions the inner mental state of the individual (poet, audience member, participants) is transformed and he/she has some sort of aesthetic experience. Is religion, be it spiritual, ethical or a value-based religion, a feeling or an emotion elicited in the devotee? Then, can we speak of religion void of aesthetic enjoyment? The readings this week encourage an association between religion and poetry, as I believe that poetry become an ulterior way to experience God (bhakti). Something that is striking and interesting is that most religious texts are written within the conventions of poetry (verse, meter etc..). Can this mean that all poetry can be considered religious because of the aesthetic experience it raises in the individual? On the other hand it could be possible that the only thing poetry and religion have in common is this aesthetic component? From the readings, I gathered that the difference between dhvani and rasa, is a matter of degree. Dhvani suggests an emotion, and in turn rasa results by the relishing over of that emotion (or "aesthetically enjoying") that emotion (Ingalls, 117). Therefore, the emotion has to affect the heart of the listener, by the connection of ones own experiences with the particular emotion being displayed. This element is what gives a poem its merits, and thus lack of this element is an example of an ineffective poet. How do poets bring about this emotion? According to dhvani through the use of words and senses that have a suggested power. Since the meanings of words are so important in order to have an aesthetic value, than it becomes central (as argued) to study the primary text. Does this mean that the experience of the primary text, and the interpreted text is different? Is there ONE TRUE experience? According to the readings, the poet is effective if he or she

is able to express the rasa through dhvani (word choice). If the poet is effective the audience is able to gain one (overall) emotional experience or rasa. In relation to the experience one gets from poetry the readings define Bhakti "as the intense desire one may have to express such a concept as proximity or fierceness" (Ingalls, 65). This definition was interesting to me because I believe that poetry on the whole raises this desire in every individual. By this I mean that every individual when relating their emotional experiences with that that the poet tries to convey, is in a sense seeking a desire to obtain a proximate relationship with them. This relationship becomes important and central, because it is this that gives the rasa of poetry. P O S T E D B Y A N E I S H A A T 7: 49 P M 1 COMMENTS:

Jackie Barber said... Hi Aneisha! I find so many parallels in this discussion to discussions from our Method and Theory class during the topic of experience. Are there universal experiences that poetry manages to manifest in words thanks to its suggestive nature, as emotions are so difficult to describe? Are there prescriptions and conventions one should follow and use in order for others to understand the similar feelings, or is this description really how one feels? The majority of people in this class have taken both so I think we can all build on the previous discussions we had that are so similar to this! I would not say all poetry is religious, but that some poetry can be used for religious purposes quite well, and some of the worlds best poetry is (I keep thinking Rumi, who somehow managed to make poems about getting wasted religious in nature... which may go towards all poetry being religious...!!) But I also think there is more in common between poetry and religion than just the aesthetic component. Both manage to express the unexpressable a lot of the time, and bring about strong emotions.

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008

A Better Understanding of Rasa Theory

The Dhvanyaloka and Raja readings this week stressed the literary conventions of poetry that were detailed in the Dhvanyaloka by Ananda and Adhinava. The book clearly illustrates the theories of dhvani and rasa, which they consider to be the soul of poetry. Dhvani is related as the suggestive power of words and senses (literal and implied), and rasa which is dependent upon dhvani, is the relishing of the emotion one gets from dhvani. As a result of these poetic conventions the inner mental state of the individual (poet, audience member, participants) is transformed and he/she has some sort of aesthetic experience. Is religion, be it spiritual, ethical or a value-based religion, a feeling or an emotion elicited in the devotee? Then, can we speak of religion void of aesthetic enjoyment? The readings this week encourage an association between religion and poetry, as I believe that poetry become an ulterior way to experience God (bhakti). Something that is striking and interesting is that most religious texts are written within the conventions of poetry (verse, meter etc..). Can this mean that all poetry can be considered religious because of the aesthetic experience it raises in the individual? On the other hand it could be possible that the only thing poetry and religion have in common is this aesthetic component? From the readings, I gathered that the difference between dhvani and rasa, is a matter of degree. Dhvani suggests an emotion, and in turn rasa results by the relishing over of that emotion (or "aesthetically enjoying") that emotion (Ingalls, 117). Therefore, the emotion has to affect the heart of the listener, by the connection of ones own experiences with the particular emotion being displayed. This element is what gives a poem its merits, and thus lack of this element is an example of an ineffective poet. How do poets bring about this emotion? According to dhvani through the use of words and senses that have a suggested power. Since the meanings of words are so important in order to have an aesthetic value, than it becomes central (as argued) to study the primary text. Does this mean that the experience of the primary text, and the interpreted text is different? Is there ONE TRUE experience? According to the readings, the poet is effective if he or she

is able to express the rasa through dhvani (word choice). If the poet is effective the audience is able to gain one (overall) emotional experience or rasa. In relation to the experience one gets from poetry the readings define Bhakti "as the intense desire one may have to express such a concept as proximity or fierceness" (Ingalls, 65). This definition was interesting to me because I believe that poetry on the whole raises this desire in every individual. By this I mean that every individual when relating their emotional experiences with that that the poet tries to convey, is in a sense seeking a desire to obtain a proximate relationship with them. This relationship becomes important and central, because it is this that gives the rasa of poetry. P O S T E D B Y A N E I S H A A T 7: 49 P M 1 COMMENTS:

Jackie Barber said... Hi Aneisha! I find so many parallels in this discussion to discussions from our Method and Theory class during the topic of experience. Are there universal experiences that poetry manages to manifest in words thanks to its suggestive nature, as emotions are so difficult to describe? Are there prescriptions and conventions one should follow and use in order for others to understand the similar feelings, or is this description really how one feels? The majority of people in this class have taken both so I think we can all build on the previous discussions we had that are so similar to this! I would not say all poetry is religious, but that some poetry can be used for religious purposes quite well, and some of the worlds best poetry is (I keep thinking Rumi, who somehow managed to make poems about getting wasted religious in nature... which may go towards all poetry being religious...!!) But I also think there is more in common between poetry and religion than just the aesthetic component. Both manage to express the unexpressable a lot of the time, and bring about strong emotions.