Discussion of the Dhvani-Rasa Theory

In Indian Theories of Meaning, Kunjunni Raja outlines most of the issues under discussion in Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka. A lot of attention is given to poets like Ananda who aim to look at poetry beyond its literal limits. Unlike the mimamsa’s that are concerned with structural, grammatical and stylistic arrangements of poetry, Ananda and reaches beyond this into a secondary meaning or purpose (dhvani). This week’s 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.