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.