Aesthetics of Abhinavagupta (Set of 4 Books)

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Aesthetics of Abhinavagupta
Santarasa and Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Aesthetics	The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta
Outline of Abhinavagupta's Aesthetics	Aesthetic Philosophy of Abhinavagupta

I have great pleasure in writing a Foreword to this book by Prof ..M. V. Patwardhan and Mr. J. L. Masson and in introducing the latter whom I have known intimately for some time and who has struck me with his flair for Sanskrit and its cultivation and for the literary study of Sanskrit literature, qualities which, undoubtedly, he has imbibed from his chief teachers L. Renou of the Sorbonne and Prof. D. H. H. Ingalls of Harvard. His association with these two scholars explains his association with me.

This monograph is on Santa Rasa and Abhinavagupta's aesthetics as it emerges out of the philosophy of Rasa as expounded by him. It stems out of my Number of Rasas which at the time of its first appearance in the middle of the forties, was the first detailed exposition of this important subject. In that work, I had also offered a critical edition of the section relating to the santa from Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Nat)Ja Fiastra. Naturally, while the material given in the present study has already been known, the treatment of the authors has given it a freshness, illustrating the principles of novelty elucidated by Anandavardhana in Uddyota IV of Dhvanyaloka. As Max Muller said, at every stage, a fresh study of a branch of knowledge is required. In the introduction, as also in the main part of their work, the authors have traversed a wide ground in respect of literature and response to it. and on the background of the latest writers, critics and philosophers in the West and the attempts of a few of them to interpret or understand the contributions of the Sanskrit writers, they have highlighted some of the most important ideas of Anandavardbana and Abhinavagupta. The thought of these two masters of Sanskrit literary criticism, particularly of the latter, is examined on the background of their school of philosophy, Kashmir Saivism, But as they go, the authors take in their stride many other related concepts which involve parenthetical treatment; added to these are the very large number of references to works and authors, but the reader should be able to follow the main theme of the authors namely the conception of Rasasvada as elucidated by the two great aesthetes Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta.

It would not be possible to fall in line with the authors on some of the literary judgements that they have passed on Sanskrit poems and plays, e. g. those on p. ix of the Introduction. Also in some contexts of textual interpretation, the authors have expressed their disagreement with earlier writers and have given their own interpretation. However, this is not the place to enter into discussion of details

Not only does the study in the following pages show the extensive reading of the authors, but it also expressly mentions a chain of further studies, connected with the present one, which the authors have prepared. As a member of the Indian Advisory Committee of the American Tnstitute of Indian Studies, I am pleased that a Grantee of the Institute, one of the joint-authors of the Volume, has done remarkably well on his grant- programme in India. Quite a few of the younger generation of American scholars are engaged in pure Sanskrit and Siistraic studies, and by assisting them, the Institnte is giving a fillip to Sanskrit studies.

The present study grew out of a much larger work that the authors are presently completing. We have both been long interested in Sanskrit literary criticism. Professor Patwardhan has taught the Dhvanydloka and the Rasagangadhara over a period of fifteen years to students in Fergusson College. Mr. Masson has translated and annotated the Dhvanyaloka and the first chapter of the Locana for his Ph. D. thesis at Harvard.

When we met we discovered a deep mutual interest in Abhinavagupta's Locana, the greatest Indian work on aesthetics, but a text so difficult that even the Pandits hesitate to teach it in the pathasalas. We began meeting twice a week for 3-4 hour sessions to read and discuss textual difficulties in the Locana. We soon found that we shared nearly identical views on the major problems in this work. Gradually most of the textual mysteries began to yield up their secrets, and we decided to translate the entire Locana as a joint work.

The section on santarasa was originally to have been an appendix to this three-volume annotated translation.But we found that so many issues in the Locana had a direct bearing on the problem of siintarasa that it really required a more extensive and separate treatment. Especially in reading the santarasa passage in the Abhinavabharati, a text of notorious difficulty, we found that our readings in the Locana were a great help to its elucidation. It is primarily as an aid to understanding this santarasa passage of the Abhinavabharati that we are publishing the results of our research. We regard this as an introduction to our translation of the Dhvanyiilokalocana which will be published along with the Dhvanyaloka in the Harvard Oriental Series.

It is a pleasant duty to thank those who have helped us: Mr. Masson first read the Dhvanyiiloka with the late Professor L.Renou in Paris, who maintained a lively interest in Sanskrit literary theory and urged on him the necessity of doing serious work in this field. Professor V. Raghavan was kind enough to read with him daily the fourth Uddyota with the Locana. His pioneering work, "The Number of Rosas," and his magnum opus, "Bhoja's Sngaprakasa" provided much of the stimulus for writing the present volume. Professor D. H. H. Ingalls read Mr. Masson's translation of the first and fourth Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka and made many valuable suggestions on method which we have followed here. Mr. Masson also wishes to thank his old friends, Professor B. K. Matilal of the University of Pennsylvania, and Professor K. Bhattacharya of the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, for stimulating discussions over the past years on many of these very topics. Several Pandits of the Deccan College have always been very happy to discuss many of the issues with us. We wish to thank especially Dr. V. W. Paranjpe and Pandit Srinivasashastri for their help. Mr. R. P. Goldman from the Sanskrit department of the University of Pennsylvania helped us to clarify many of our ideas on Sanskrit and general literature while reading the entire work in manuscript. We wish also to thank Mr. J. Losty of the Sanskrit Department at Oxford University for reading' through the work and making numerous corrections in the English text, and for his pointed questions. Mr. Masson wishes to thank the A. I. I. S. for a fellowship from 1968-69 which made this study possible by supporting his research, during which time the present work was published .. It is a great pleasure to thank our good friend Dr. S. D. Joshi for his constant encouragement. Dr. R. N. Dandekar kindly accepted the work for publication in the B. O. R. I. Oriental Series for which we are grateful. We wish to thank Dr. V. Raghavan, whose work in Sanskrit poetics is well-known to all scholars in the field, for writing the foreword to this volume.

A word on methodology: Philip Rawson in a recent article on Indian aesthetics writes: "In fact I believe that in the field of aesthetics ( as in the field of logic) a great series of thinkers who lived in India and wrote in Sanskrit between the fourth century A. D. and the thirteenth have put many ideas which must be brought into our present-day debates on art-ideas which we can use on works of art as one uses a can-opener on a can, to get at the meat. Their writings could extend our conceptual armoury." While we agree with the sentiment, we disagree strongly with the method. In an article subtitled: "A Study in Indian Aesthetics," there is no mention of a single Indian critic! One could contribute an entire negative bibliography on Sanskrit poetics which would illustrate the same fault: an insufficient acquain- tance with the basic texts of Sanskrit literary criticism. Instdad of vgue generalisations ( or reinterpretations such as are found in the special issue of the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism on Oriental Aesthetics, Fall, 1965), we need detailed studies- and especially translations into modern English of the major works of Sanskrit aesthetics. It is disturbing to think that there are no English translations at all of many of the most important works: the Vakroktijivita, the Kavyamimamsa, the Abhinavabharati, the Dhvanyaloka- locana, the Vyaktiviveka or the Rasaganga.dhara. There is no readily availa- ble translation of Dandin, or Bhamaha, or Vamana, and Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka is sorely in need of a new and better translation. We know that the Indians have creative ideas on such important issues as “the nature of poetic imagination," " the dichotomy between learning and inspiration,” “linguistics and poetics," "the tension between pleasure and didacticism,” “poetry and philosophy," "effort and spontaneity," and so on. But what exactly did the Indian writers have to say on each of these issues? We have taken up one of these issues, santarasa, for detailed discussion in this volume.

Santarasa might be translated as "the imaginative experience of tranquil- Iity." It is an issue on which there exists some confusion. Edgerton was able to write, astonishingly, of santarasa: “... that it is forbidden to use it in the drama; it is inherently opposed to the very nature of the drama." This is a simple misunderstanding of the texts. Such misunderstandings arise because many modern writers are not taking the trouble to see just what the sanskrit writers on poetics have said. They are relying on secondary literature instead of going directly to the original sources. In this way errors only Compound themselves. How will one be able to appreciate Sanskrit literature properly if one is unaware of just what it is that a cultivated audience expected from its literature? And how can one know this, unless one reads Sanskrit literary criti- cism? Here we must take sides in what seems to us a major issue COncerning the proper method of understanding Sanskrit poetry: Professor D.H.H. Ingalls has written of A. B. Keith, whose two works, " A History of Sanskrit Literature" and “The Sanskrit Drama" are standard reading in field,: " that for the most part he disliked Sanskrit literature." After illustrating this, Professor Ingalls remarks: "What is unjust in these judgements is that not once does Keith apply the remarks of a Sanskrit critic to any of the Sanskrit works he is judging" Professor J. Brough, a former student of Keith, responds to this criticism by quoting a paragraph from Keith's" History of sanskrit Literature," after which he remarks: "I have re-read this paragraph with close attention, but I have not been able to discover any hidden meaning in it; and I do not understand how such words could be written by one who ‘for the most part disliked .Sanskrit literature.' " Professor Brough may well be correct, for it is perfectly possible that Keith did in fact like much of Sanskrit literature. But surely this is irrelevant. The point is not whether Keith did or did not like Sanskrit poetry ( since one can certainly understand somethine for which one does not have great admiration). but whether he Understood it or not . Brough dose not answer Ingalls’ second charge by far The more important of the two . Did Keith judge Sanskrit literature accord- Ing to the highly developed canons of its own texts on literary criticism? Judging from his chapter on the theories of poetry in ancient India, one would guess not. He seems for the most part innocent of their more detailed doctrlnes.! This is an important point of methodology. Before we can judge or even appreciate Sanskrit literature, we must understand it. As I. A. Richards often remarked to his students at Harvard: “We do not admire what we do not understand." No amount of theory on methodology will help one to understand Sanskrit literature. There is only one method that counts: exposure to, and familiarity with the texts. There is a perfectly straight-forward use of the word "understanding" which is too often ignored in the elaborate treatises now fashionable on "methodology" ( often, it seems to us, merely excuses for not dealing with the texts themselves). The difficul- ties of interpreting a Sanskrit poem are considerably less in India than in the West. The meaning of a Sanskrit poem is rarely subjective. Either you have understood a verse or you haven't. In a traditional Sanskrit class, the Pandit will ask a student after he has read a verse: artho jnato va na va, “Have you understood the meaning or not?" This makes it far more easy to reach a concensus about a poem's worth in Sanskrit than would be true in English literature. When we read a passage in one of these Sanskrit texts we know immediately whether we understand it or not. If we do not, no amount of “hmethodology" will give us instant and magic insight into the meaning. It is only by reading further in the literature that understanding will be gained.

From the Jacket:

Bharata in his famous aphorism 'Vibhavanubhava-vyabhicarisamyogad rasanispattih' explains the way in which the Aesthetic experience originates and the Commentary thereupon by Abhinavagupta constitutes the most important text in the whole of Indian aesthetic thought. This important portion of the Commentary has very ably been edited, translated, commented upon and elucidated by Dr. Raniero Gnoli of Rome. The learned introduction contains all possible informations regarding various Indian and Western theories on aesthetic experience and in the copious notes the readers will find authentic materials quoted from numerous allied texts in justification of the interpretation of the difficult passages.

This book was first printed in 1956. Since then I have never relinquished my researches in the fields of Indian Rhetoric and Aesthetics. Some misinterpretations and mis- takes occurring in the first edition have already been corrected by myself in 1957, in the paper Further Observations On the Abhinavabbarati, East and west, year VIII, N. 1.-April, 1957 pp. 100-103. This new edition represents, I trust, a great im- provement in regard to the first one. The Introduction, the critical apparatus, the translation and the notes have been completely revised. The basic text of Abhinavagupta, i.e, the commentary to the famous sutra by Bharata, VI, after st. 31, vibhavanubhavavyabhicarisamyogad rasanispattib, has been supple; mented by three new texts, viz. the Commentaries on Natyasastra, I, st. 107, on Dhvanyaloka, I, st. 18, and II, st. 4. As to the text I have directly compared the MS of .Abbina- vabharati preserved in the library of Madras (M). References to the Kavi's edition of the .Abhinavabharati are to the second edi- tion of it. The letters He and M. C refer to the viveka of Hemacandra and to the samketa of Manikyacandra respectively. Although the additions and explanations of He do not alter in any way the thought of AG., I have not reproduced them in the text, which I have tried to set forth such as it was before the exegetical activity of the great jaina scholar.

In so many changes, one thing has remained unchanged in these ten years : I mean the profound debt of gratitude I owe to Prof. Giuseppe Tucci, to whom, now as then, this book is dedicated.

1. In India, the study of aesthetics-which was at first restricted to the drama-draws its origin from no abstract or disinterested desire for knowledge but from motives of a purely empirical order. The most ancient text that has come down to us is the Natyasastra (4th or 5th Century A. D. ?), ascribed to the mythical Bharata. This is a voluminous collec- tion of observations and rules concerned in the main with the production of drama and the training of actors and poets. The author, or the authors, with a certain sententiousness and ped- antry typical of Indian thought, classify the various mental states or emotions of the human soul and treat of their transi- tion from the practical to the aesthetic plane. The Natyasastra is a work of deep psychological insight. Drama appeals to sight and hearing at the same time (the only senses that are capable, according to some Indian thinkers, of rising above the boundaries of the limited " I ") and is then considered the highest form of art. In it both sight and hearing collaborate in arousing in the spectator, more easily and forcibly than by any other form of art, a state of consciousness sai generis, conceived intuitively and concretely as a juice or flavour, called Rasa. This typically Indian conception of aesthetic experience as a juice or a taste savoured by the reader or spectator should not surprise us. In India, and elsewhere, sensations proper to the 'Senses of taste and touch, almost devoid of any noetic representation, arc easily taken to designate states of conscious- ness more intimate and removed from abstract representations than the ordinary one-that is the aesthetic experience and va- rious forms of religious ones.

This Rasa, when tasted by the spectator, pervades and en- chants him. Aesthetic experience is, therefore, the act of tasting this Rasa, of immersing oneself in it to the exclusion of all else. Bharata, in a famous aphorism which, interpreted and elaborated in various ways, forms the point of departure of all later Indian aesthetic thoughts, says, in essence, that Rasa is born from the union of the play with the performance of the actors. "Out of the union of the Determinants-he says literally-, the Consequents and the Transitory Mental States, the birth of Rasa takes place". What is then the nature of Rasa? What are its relations with the other emotions and states of consciousness? And how are we to understand this word "birth"? The whole of Indian aesthetics hinges on such questions, which have been an inexhaustible source of polemic material to generations of rhetors and thinkers, down to our own days. But, before undertaking an examination of their various interpretations, let us briefly expound here the essentials of the empirical psychology of Bharata,

According to the Natyasastra, eight fundamental feelings, instincts, emotions or mental states called bhava or sthayibhava1 , can be distinguished in the human soul : Delight Laughter Sorrow Anger Heroism Fear Disgust and wonder These . eight states are inborn in man's heart. They permanently exist in the mind of every man, in the form of latent impressions derived from actual experiences in the present life or from inherited instincts, and, as such, they are ready to emerge into his consciousness on any occasion. In ordinary life each feeling is manifested and accompanied by three elements, causes effects and concomitant elements The causes are the various situations and encounters of life, by which it is excited ; the effects, the visible reactions caused by it and expressed by our face, our gestures and so on; and the concomitant elements, the accessory and temporary mental states accompanying it. These eight bhavas, indeed, do not appear in a pure form. The various modulations of our mental states are extremely complex, and each of the fundamental or permanent states appears in association with other concomitant mental states, as Discouragement, Weakness, Apprehension and so on. These occasional, transitory, impermanent states are, according to Bharata, thirty six. These same causes, etc., being acted on the stage or described in poetry, not lived in real life, give spectators the particular pleasure to which Bharata gives the name of Rasa. The fundamental mental states being eight in number, there are also eight Rasas, i.e., the Erotic the Comic the Pathetic the Furious the Heroic the Terrible the Odious and the Marvellous Later speculation generally admits a ninth permanent feeling, Serenity the corresponding Rasa is the Quietistic When they are not part of real life but are elements of poetical expression, even the causes, effects and con- comitant elements, just as the permanent mental states, take another name and are called respectively Determinants Consequents and Transitory Mental States Of course, from the spectator’s point of view, the consequents do not follow the feeling, as they do in the ordinary life, but they act as a sort of causes which intensify and prolong the feeling, brought about by the determinants.

2. dandin and bhatta Lollata. Bharata's text and the afore- said aphorism in particular became, as we have said, the subject of study and analysis for a whole series of thinkers, each of whom was anxious to contribute to a clearer understanding of the words of the Master. The earliest of these were, so far as is known, Dandin (7th century) and Bhatta Lollata (9th Cent.), who like his great successor, was a Kashmiri and probably a follower of one of the Sivaite mystical schools flourishing in Kashmir. According to them, Rasa is simply the permanent mental state (anger, fear, etc.) raised to its highest pitch by the combined effect of the Determinants, Consequents and Transi- tory Mental States. Bhatta Lollata maintains that Rasa lies both in the represented personage and in the imitating actor. The actor he says, feels the different bhavas and rasas as though they belonged truly, or rather personally, to him. To the objection that, being it so, the actor would fail to maintain or follow the tempo and the other dramatical conventions, Bhatta Lollata answers that, on the contrary, the actor can manage very well with them by virtue of anusamdbi or anusam- dhana1• Anusamdbi-that literally signifies recollection, me- mory and even something more than this, i.e., consciousness, awareness, reflection, etc.2 and I have tentatively rendered by " realisation "3-is at the same time the power thanks to which the actor "becomes " for the time being the represented or imitated personage (e.g. Rama), feels himself as Rama, and the faculty through which he nevertheless does not forget his real nature of actor. Seemingly, Bhatta Lollata's theory does not concern the problem of how the spectators do relish Rasa.

The theory of rasa is Abhinavagupta's major contribution to Aesthetics. His conception of rasa relates to poetry and drama. It can be equally applicable to other forms of art as well.

This monograph deals with the various aspects rasa is laukika or alaukika; whether all rasas are pleasurable or some pleasurable and others painful; where is rasa located – is it in the poet in the character or in the actor or in the spectator; whether the sattvikabhavas are only physical or mental or are they both; whether rasas are connected with the four purusrthas:

An earnest attempt is made here to provide satisfactory answers to these questions. Mahimabhatta's views on Abhinavaguptta's rasa theory are also discussed.

Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, formerly, Professor of Sasnskrit and Prakrit (Maharashtra Educational Service, Class I), Director of Languages, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, Director, B. L. Institute of UIndology (Patan, Now shifted to Delhi) has taught Sanskrit and Prakrit Literature, Sanskrit Poetics and Aesthetics to post-graduate students of various universities for several years. As an Author or Editor he has to his credit several publications.

In the two splendid commentaries, Locana on Dhavanyaloka and Abhinavabharti on Natyasastra, Abhinavagupta sets forth his theory of rasa. It rightly regarded as his major contribution not only to Sanskrit literary criticism but also to Sanskrit Aesthetics as a whole. M. Hiriyanna observes in his Foreword to Dr. V. Raghavan's book The Number of Rasas: "The conception of rasa though it is here dealt with chiefly in its relation to poetry, is general and furnishes the criterion by which the worth of all forms of fine art may be judged." Elsewhere too he says: "Though the theory applies equally to all the fine arts, it has been particularly well-developed in relation to poetry and drama."

In the chapter called Rasadhyaya (Natyasastra, Ch. VI) Bharata declares: 'na hi rasadrte kascid arthah pravartate' – meaning "every activity (on the stage) is aimed at the creation or generation of rasa". Immediately after this statement he sets forth his famous rasa-sutra: Vibhavanubhava-vyabhicari-samyogad rasa-nipattih, that is, "out of the union or combination of the vibhavas (determinants), the anubhavas (consequents) and the vyabhicaribhavas (transitory feelings) rasa arises or is generated".

Now, the ancient writers on dramaturgy, whom Bharata also follows, invented an entirely new terminology to impress on our minds the basic distinction between real life and life in the creative imagination-in the realm of literature-the real world and the world of drama, The vibhavas, anubhavas and vyabhicaribhavas belong only to art and not to real life. They, however, correspond to the karanas, the karyas and the sahakarikaranas. The rasas correspond to the sthayibhavas (the dominant or permanent emotions.) The vibhavasis are therefore called alaukika (nonworldly, or transcendental.)

The four exponents of the rasasutra, Bhatta Lollata, Srisankuka, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta differ amongst themselves in their interpretation of the two words, samyoga and nispatti. They take the word nispatti to mean utpatti (production, generation), anumiti (inference), bhukti (aesthetic enjoyment) and vyokti (manifestation, suggestion) respectively. They understand by the word samyoga, it would seem, utpadya-utpadaka-bhava, jnapya-jnapaka-bhava, bhojya-bhojaka-bhava and vyangya-vyanjakabhava between vibhaadis and rasa respectively. That is to say, (i) The rasa is what is produced and the vibhavadis are the causes that produce rasa; (ii) the rasa is what is inferred and the vibhavadis are the characteristic marks or signs; (iii) the rasa is what is to enjoyed (aesthetically); and finally (iv) the rasa is what is suggested and the vibhavadis are the factors which suggest the suggested meaning.

Abhinavagupta presents the views of Lollata Sankuka and Bhattanayaka; each view if followed by its criticism. Finally, he sets forth his own view in great detail. In spite of the criticism of the earlier writers views Abhinavagupta acknowledges his debt to them before introducing his own position. He informs us that he has built his own theories on the foundations laid by them; and that he has not (completely) refuted their views but only refined them:

Tasmat satam atra na dusitani matani tanyeva tu sodhitani.
Again, in the course of the exposition of his own siddhanta he accepts the views of Lollata, Sankuka and Vijnanavadinas in a modified form: esaiva copacayavasthastu desadyaniyantranat: anukaro'pyastu bhavanugamitaya karanat; visayasamagryapi bhavatu vijnanavadavalambanat.

("We may say equally well that it consists of s state of intensification-Lollata's doctrine-using this to indicate that it is not limited by space, etc; that it is a respoduction-using this word to mean that it is a production which repeats the feelings – its., "to mean that it is an operation temporally following the feeling." – This is the view of Sanskrit; and that it is a combination of different elements – this conception being interpreted in the light of the doctrine of the Vijnanavadin.)

An view of these statements made by Abhinavagupta it was thought unnecessary to deal with the views of earlier writers at length in this treatise but briefly refer to them and concentrate on Abhinavagupta's position in regard to rasa-nispatti (production or generation of rasa) and rasasvada (aesthetic enjoyment of rasa), the nature of rasa and other related matters.

Abhinavagupta in the two commentaries has discussed a series of questions relating to beauty and rasa: What is the nature of beauty? Whether it is subjective or objective or subjective-cum-objective. Whether the permanent emotion itself is rasa-sthayyeva rasah – or rasa is altogether different from the permanent emotion – Sthayivilaksano rasah. Whether rasa is sukha-duhkhatmaka, i.e, some rasas are sukhatmaka (pleasurable) and some other duhkhatmaka (painful). Or whether all the rasas are anandarupa (characterised by bliss, perfect happiness). Whether rasa is laukika (wordly) or alaukika (nonwordly, transcendental). The there is the question of sattvikabhavas (asru=tears, sveda=perspiration, etc., involuntary states). Whether they are physical manifestations (jada and acetana in nature) or sentient (cetana) in their nature & internal? In other words, whether the sattvikabhavas are like bhavas (rati-love, hasa-laughter, etc,; and nirveda – world weariness, glani-physical weakness, etc.) or like anubhavas – the external manifestations of feeling (mental state) such as sidelong glances, a smile, etc., or whether they are of dual nature? Another important question regarding rasa as discussed by Abhinavagupta, is about the asraya (location or seat) of rasa. Could it be poet himself or the character (say, Rama, Dusyanta, etc.) or the actor who plays the role of Rama, Dusyanta, etc., or the spectator himself? Further, whether the rasa are meant to provide sheer pleasure (pri ti) to the spectators or are also meant to give (moral) instruction in the four ends of human life (purusartha)?

Naiyayikas like Mahumabhatta vigorously oppose Anandavardhana's newly invented sabdvrtti (power or function of word) called vyanjana which is readily accepted and defended by Abhinavagupta, and assert that the purpose for which vyanjana is invented is best served by the process of inference (anumiti, anumana). With the sole intention of enabling readers to judge for themselves how far the criticism of Mahimabhatta directed against Abhinavagupta is fair and just, the views of Mahimabhatta on how rasas arise and they are enjoyed by sahrdayas are presented at the end of Abhinavagupta's exposition.

Here I take the opportunity of gratefully acknowledging my indebtedness to A. B. Keith, M. Hiriyanna, V. Raghavan, J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan. I am especially grateful to J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan on whose two works, one on Santarasa and the other on Aesthetic Rapture, I have freely drawn.

Now it is my pleasant duty to thank those who have helped me in bringing out this monograph. I am grateful to Dr. G. S. Bedagkar, formerly professor of English, Elphinstone College, Mumbai and Principal, Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya, Amaravati for going through this monograph and making useful suggestion. I am also very happy to record my sincere thanks to my dear friend, Prof. Sureshbhai J. Dave for all his kind help seeing this publication through. I have also great pleasure in thanking Smt. Mrudula Joshi for editorial assistance. I sincerely thank my friend, Shri Ashwinbhai Shah, Proprietor,, his colleague Shri Hirabhai Vora, Saraswati Pustak Bhandar for readily agreeing to publish this monograph in Saraswati Oriental Series. I also thank the Printers, Dhrumil Graphics for the beautiful printing and attractive get up.

In the West the theory of beauty or aesthetics or the inquiry into the charater of beauty in Nature as well as in art, has come to be recognised there as a regular part of philosophy. Western philosophers study the problem of the beautiful in relation to the good and true. Controversies have prevailed regarding the questions: what are the characteristics of beauty? Whether it is objective or subjective, whether the artist (including the poet) as creating beauty must preach morality? or whether his province is different from a preacher of morality? Various theories of beauty have been propounded by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Coleridge, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Croce and others. Their philosophical discussion of these questions makes aesthetics like ethics an important branch of philosophy.

In India, however, the study of aesthetics does not form a branch of philosophy. It was carried on by a distinct class of thinkers, literary critics, who were not, generally speaking, professional philosophers. Naturally, they nowhere systematically discuss in their works the essential characteristics of art in general and of the fine arts in particular. They deal mainly with beauty in creative literature, one of the fine arts. Further, they do not explicitly or emphatically speak of the distinction between the Fine Arts and the "Lesser" or "Mechanical" Arts - the Fine Arts comprising Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Music, Poetry (including the Drama) and Dancing, and the "Lesser" or "Mechaincal" or "Useful" Arts of the smith, the carpenter, the potter, the weaver, and others like them. According to the Western crictics, "The distinction which separates these two classes is based upon the fact, that broadly speaking the arts of the first class minister to the enjoyment of man, while those in the latter minister to his needs. They are both alike manifestations of the development of man; but the Fine Arts are concerned mainly with his moral and intellectual growth, and the Lesser Arts with his physical and material well-being. "Nor do they speak of the two classifications of the Arts. "The first (classification) divides them into the Arts of the "Eye" and the Arts of the "Ear", according as they respectively use one or other of the senses of sight or hearing as their primary channel of approach to the mind. Thus grouped we get the arts of Architecture, Sculpture and Painting placed in broad contrast to the Arts of Music and Poetry. By the second (classification) they are arranged with reference to the greater or lesser degree in which they severally depend upon a material basis for the realisation of their respective purpose. "Nor do they venture upon a definition of Art, applicable to all the (Fine) Arts. They merely attempt a definition of one of the Fine Arts, namely, poetry (or Creative literature as such) and investigate into the source of literary beauty. Finally, they arrive at the conception of rasa as the first and foremost source of Beauty in Literature. Modem scholars like M. Hiriyanna say" ... the numerous works in Sanskrit on poetics which, though their set purpose is only to elucidate the principles exemplified in poetry and the drama, yet furnish adequate data for constructing a theory of fine art in general." And, "The conception of rasa. is general and furnishes the criterion by which the worth of all forms of fine art may be judged." There is the other view too, expressed by some scholars in their modem writings that in the context of other fine arts the term rasa is used by metaphorical extension only and the rasa theory is not applicable to other fine arts. There is much that could be said in favour of and against these two conflicting views. But without entering into this controversy let us revert to aesthetics investigation carried on by the Sanskrit alamkarikas in relation to the fine art of poetry (including the drama), which is placed among all the fine arts 'highest in order of dignity.'

In the growth or development of Sanskrit literary criticism we discern two distinct stages : The first stage is represented by the early writers on poetics who preceded Anandavardhana, and the second by Anandavardhana, his able commentator Abhinavagupta, and reputed followers like Mammata, Visvanatha, Jagannatha and others, not so reputed. Bhamaha, Dandin, Ubhata, and Rudrata - these early alamkarika-s are regarded by common consent as the protagonists of the view that in kavya (poetry, creative literature) it is the alamkaras that enjoy the pride of place. They were aware of the Pratiyamana sense but they were not aware of Anandavardhana's theory that pratiyamana sense or dhvani is' the soul - the essence of poetry. They, however, include this pratiyamana sense in their definitions of figures like aprastuta-prasamsa, samasokti; aksepa, paryayokta, etc. deal with other sources of beauty, namely, gunas like madhurya (sweetness), vrttis (dictions) like upanagarikn (the cultured) and the like. They fail to notice the central essence of kavya as their attention is concentrated for all practical purposes on its 'body'- the outward expression or externals of poetry, viz. sabda (word), and artha (sense). Certain forms of these are regarded as dosa-s and certain others as gunas; and they hold that what confers excellence on poetry is the absence of the one and the presence of the other. No doubt, there are minor differences in certain matters among these alamkarikas. For instance, some like Udbhata make no distinction between gunas and alamkaras. Varnana, however, makes a clear distinction between them. Dandin defines and distinguishes between the Vaidarbha and the Gauda styles. Bhamaha holds that there are no such two distinct styles. These and such other minor differences apart, these alamkarika-s reveal cognate ways of thinking. We may, therefore, regard them as, on the whole, respesenting the first stage in the growth of literary criticism and aesthetics.

It is Anandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyaloka, an epoch-making work, who completely revolutionized the sansktrit poetics and aesthetics by his novel theory that dhvani (suggestion) is the soul of poetry-the very essence of creative literature. This novel theory he formulated and clearly expounded for the first time. His statement in the opening karika – "kavyasyatma dhvaniriti budhair yah samamnatapurvah" is not to be taken literally. The makes this statement with a view to investing it with authority. He distinguishes between two kinds of meaning – the vacyartha (including the laksyartha or gaunartha) and the vyangyartha, the expressed or denoted or denoted meaning and indicated meaning on the one has and the suggested meaning on the other and holds that the expressed meaning (as well as the indicated meaning) and the words in which it is clothed, constitute the mere body of kavya. They together are the outward embodiment of the suggested meaning – the outward element of kavya and not its inner soul-emotion. He attempts to estimate or judge the worth of a poem by reference to this central essence rather than to the expressed meaning. The words and the expressed meaning are really speaking, external but these alone appealed to the earlier writers on poetics. They misjudged the true importance of the central essence of poetry and assigned to it a subordinate place. Anandavardhana concentrates concentrated his attention on the suggested meaning which forms the real essence of poetry. Whatever in sound (word) or sense subserves the poetic end in view (rasa, bhava, etc.,) is a guna; whatever does not, is a dosa. Dosa-s and guna-s are relative in character. There is no absolute standard of valuation for them. They are judged only in reference to the inner or suggested meaning which forms the poetic ultimate.

The suggested meaning is three-fold:
1.a bare idea, fact(vastu), 2. a figure (alamkara) and 3. rasa, bhava and the like. If the earlier or older alamkarika-s concentrated on an analysis of the outwards expression of kavya, Anandavardhana occupied himself with what this expression signifies or suggests. The expression is important to him as only a means of pointing to the suggested meaning. Anandavardhana's theory of rasadi-dhavai exactly corresponds to the Upanisadic doctrine of atman. The earlier alamkarika-s mistake the body (sarira) of poetry for its soul (atman)-the externals of true poetry for its essence.

Poetry versus Philosophy:
The alamkarika-s often draw our attention to the dichotomy or distinction between poetry and philosophy. We have the oft-quoted verse from Bhamaha on this distinction:

"Even a stupid man can learn the sastra-philosophy from the teachings of the teacher. But poetry is only given to the person who has imaginative (or creative) genius-pratibha and that only once in a while."

Another well-known verse, probably from Bhatta Tauta's Kiivyakautuka, now lost, clearly distinguishes between sastra and kavya, Philosophy and Poetry:

"There are two paths of the goddess of speech: one is the sastra (Philosophy) and the other is kavikarma (Poetry). The first of these arises from intellectual ability (prajna) and the second from genius (pratibha)"

He (Bhatta Tauta) also refers to the twofold gift of the poet, of seeing visions of striking beauty (darsana) and of communicating to others through appropriate language the visions he sees. Rudrata defines sakti which is synonymous with pratibha as follows:

"Sakti is that whereby in a mind, that is free from distractions, subjects of description always flash and words that are perspicuous shine forth."

Rajasekhara defines pratibha as:
"Pratibha" is that which causes to appear in the mind (of the poet) appropriate words, meanings or ideas, alamkaras, diction and style (uktimarga) and other similar things as well." He divides pratibha into two kinds: creative (karayitri - that with which poets are gifted) and appreciative (bhavayitri-which belongs to sahrdaya-s, sensitive and sympathetic .critics or readers).

Abhinavagupta quotes the following definition of Pratibha:
"(Creative) imagination is that form of intelligence which is able to create new things." He further adds: "the speciality of a great poet's creative imagination consists in the ability to produce poetry that is endowed with beauty and clarity due to the onrush of emotional thrill in the heart." Elsewhere he defines sakti in almost identical terms.

The most famous definition of pratibha occurs in the following passage quoted by Vidyacakravartin, in his Sampradnyaprakasini:

"Smrti is that which refers to an object of the past. Mati refers to something that is still in the future. Buddhi deals with that which is present and prajna belongs to all the three times (past, present and future). Pratibha is that (form of) intelligence which shines with ever fresh delineations of pictures of the matters to be described with 'ullekha' or ever fresh flashs of ideas (with 'unmesa')"

Mahimabhatta describes the nature of pratibha in a striking manner:
"Pratibha is that intellectual function of the poet whose mind is concentrated (or fixed) on thinking about words and meanings that are appropriate to rasa (to be portrayed in the poem). It arises for a moment from the contact of the poet's mind with the essential nature (of his own atman)."

"It is that which makes the things that exist in all the three worlds seem as if they were right before one's very eyes, and hence it is known as the third eye of Siva."

In brief, "Pratibha is that power whereby the poet sees the subjects of his poem as steeped in beauty and gives to his readers in appropriate language a vivid picture of the beauty he has seen. It is a power whereby the poet not only calls up in his reader's heart the impressions of the past experiences, but whereby also he presents ever new, wonderful and. charming combinations and relations of things never before experienced or thought of by the plain or ordinary man. A poet is a seer who sees visions and possesses the additional gift of conveying to others less fortunate through the medium of language the visions he has or the dreams he dreams."

We have dwelt on pratibha for long for the simple reason that it is regarded if not universally, generally, as the sole cause of poetry. Whatever is touched by the magic wand- power of pratibha becomes a-laukika, sui generis, unique; the world of beauty, the poet's creation is altogether different and distinct from our everyday world. What renders the poet's creation unique is his pratibhta In other words, creative literature whose hall-mark is originality is the art of pratibhii (genius). And by extension we might as well say that like Creative Literature, Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Music and Dancing are also the arts of pratibha.

Pratibha is undoubtedly as already said, the sole cause of poetry but to appreciate this poetry you require a reader who is also gifted with pratibha. Abhinavagupta recognises this affinity of nature between the poet and the reader of poetry when he declares in the mangala sloka at the commencement of Locana:

"Victorious is the essence of speech called kavi-sahrdaya, (the inevitable pair involved in all aesthetic activity) the poet, the artist, and the discerning enjoyer, the critic."

Of the pair, the word sahrdaya cannot be easily rendered in English. It literally means 'one of similar heart' - 'one who is of the same heart', of like heart with the poet. It may be taken to signify a person whose insight into the nature of poetry is, in point of depth, next only to that of the poet. Abhinavagupta thus defines the sahrdayas: "Those people who are capable of identifying with the subject matter, as the mirror of their hearts has been polished through constant repetition and study of poetry, and who sympathetically respond in their own hearts-those (people) are known as sahrdayas-sensitive spectators."

We thus find what place of supremacy pratibha enjoys in the realm of creative literature, one of the fine arts and we might go a step further and assert, in the sphere of all the fine arts.

Abhinavagupta propound his Aesthetic philosophy in light of his Tantric philosophy. Tantrism is non-dualistic as it holds the existence of one Reality, the Consciousness. This one Reality, the Consciousness, is manifesting itself in the various forms of knower and known. According to Tantrism the whole process of creation and dissolution occurs within the nature of consciousness. In the same way he has propounded 'Rasadvaita darsana' the Non-dualistic philosophy of Aesthetics. The Rasa, the aesthetic experience, lies in the consciousness, is experienced by the consciousness, and in a way, it itself is experiencing state of consciousness. As in Tantric metaphysics, one Tattva, Siva, manifests itself in the forms of other Tattvas, so the one Rasa, the Santa, assumes the forms of other Rasas, the Santa, assumes the forms of other Rasas and finally dissolves in itself.

The present book traces and explains the connecting points, the running threads, between Abhinavagupta's Tantric philosophy o Reality and Aesthic Philosophy logically, philosophically and critically.

Preface

It can not be said categorically that Abhinavagupta propounded his aesthetic theories to support or to prove his Tantric philosophy but it can be said definitely that he expounded his aesthetic philosophy in light of his Tantric philosophy. Tantrism is non-dualistic as it holds the existence of one Reality, the Consciousness. This one of knower and known. According to Tantrism the whole world of manifestation is manifesting out of itself (consciousness) and is manifesting in itself. The whole process of creation and dissolution occurs within the nature of consciousness. In the same way he has propounded Rasadvaita Darsana, the Non-dualistic philosophy of Aesthetics. The Rasa, the aesthetic experience, lies in the consciousness, is experienced by the consciousness and in a way it itself is experiencing state of consciousness. As in Tantric metaphysics, one Tattva, Siva, manifests itself in the forms of other Tattvas, so the one Rasa, the Santa rasa, assumes the forms of other rasas and finally dissolves in itself. Tantrism is Absolute idealism in its world-view and epistemology. It refutes the Realistic and dualistic theories of reality and epistemology. Abhinavagupta too has refuted the realistic and dualistic theories of Aesthetics. And he did it in light of his Tantric philosophy.

Therefore, it was needed to bring out clearly the connecting points or the running thread between his Tantric philosophy and his Aesthetic philosophy. The present work endeavours to discuss Abhinavagupta's Aesthetic theories philosophically and critically. Abhinavagupta's Aesthetic Philosophy is so convincing and logically grounded that it is found difficult to raise some critical points. But it is found, and it is true, that he has propounded his Aesthetic philosophy on the ground of absolute idealism, therefore if is quite natural for him to ignore or underestemate the utility and value of the Realistic theories. To throw flood of light on such issues, along with expounding his theories, is the objective of this present work.

I am indebted to my teachers sitting under whose feet I learnt the alphabets of the Tantric philosophy and, to some extent, got insight in peeping in it. I do not find words to express my gratitudes to them. May Lord Siva grant them long, healthy and happy life.