The Moral of the Story, the Story of the Moral: A Meditation on Bhoja’s Contribution to Sanskrit Literary Theory

Pollock, in his essay, “The Social Aesthetic and Sanskrit Literary Theory” explores the extent to which one can viably resuscitate “the social” from the remains of Sanskrit literature and literary theory (199). By social, Pollock refers to a sphere whereby social and moral are unified (197). Pollock here problematizes the notion that Shastra alone is the domain of instruction, while Literature, in contrast, is regarded as a “form of abstraction from, even transcendence of, the social by way of aesthetic self-transcendence” (198). According to this view, teaching is not the aim of literature. Pollock writes that “in the same way that literary theory itself now became less prescriptive about the writing process and more descriptive about the reading process, the notion of rasa was radically displaced from text to reader” (198). In other words, forget about the extent to which the text embodies the experience of the author: how, rather does the reader experience the text? Pollock proceeds to outline the influence of the Kashmiri commentarial tradition (850-1050 CE) - e.g., Anandavardhana, Abhvanagupta – by treating dhvani and rasabhasa. It is here where we get the idea that aesthetics is about experience rather than instruction. However, I wonder, to what extent may we regard these commentators and literary theorist as representative of Sanskrit readership as a whole? I suppose we have little choice but to heavily consider the thoughts of these commentators, since the opinions of the non-commentating readership remains unknown to us. I wish to focus this entry on the third and final section of Sheldon Pollock’s essay, “Moral Passion”, where he specifically addresses Bhoja’s Srngaprakasa. Pollock, by invoking Bhoja, demonstrates the extent to which Sanskrit literature’s purpose is a didactic and therefore indicative of "the social".

For Bhoja, a literary work involves a “connected series of sentences that make an episode, a connected series of episodes that make a total meaning, and a total meaning that makes a moral argument” (218). The overall aesthetic impact of a work, then, for Bhoja at least, stems from an “elimination of faults” which occurs as a result of avoiding impropriety. In the case of the object of my study, the Ramayana, this is overwhelmingly clear: act like Rama, not like Ravana. But I wonder whether or not the didactic element is merely a substratum of its aesthetic appeal. If all Sanskrit literature is equally didactic – that is, centered around advancing and preserving certain values – then why does the Ramayana so stand out in this regard? Wouldn’t other works be celebrated in a similar fashion? Why is this tale the didactic example of all literature, according to Bhoja, is crafted explicitly with social values in mind? I’m not sure what to make of this, though is seems true in the examples that Bhoja/Pollock give, e.g., Nirosadasaratha (Faultless Dasaratha), Bhavabhuti’s Mahaviracarita, Bhatta Narayana’s Venisamhara, Harivamsa, and Kalidasa’s Sakuntala (219).

I am also very intrigued by Bhoja’s original contribution to literary theory, particularly that all of the stable moods (and associated rasa) stem from the erotic impulse, i.e., srngara, passion. Ok, let’s think about this. The eight sthayibhavas / rasas (emotional moods) are: rati-srngara (love), hasa-hasya (laughter), soka-karuna (sorrow), krodha-raudra (anger), utsaha-vira (energy), bhaya-bhayanaka (fear), jugupsa-bibhatsa (repugnance), vismaya-adbhuta (wonder). And how does "passion" for into all of these? Well, Bhoja argues that one can love to quarrel (srngara manifesting as krodha) or love to joke (srngara manifesting as hasa). Dull indeed would be an individual bereft of passion, but does passion really come into play with bhaya (fear), jugupsa (repugnance), or vismaya (wonder), for example? One might be able to love to laugh, love to fight, but can one love to fear or love to grieve? I would be interested in hearing more about how Bhoja constructs srngara as the basis for all of the other sthayibhavas.

This construction of passion intriguingly fits into Bhoja’s contruction of the hero and how he fits into the purpose of literature. The hero is the moral exemplar, who is the personification of the work’s didactic element. This concept is clearly exemplified in the extent to which Rama is the hero of the epic and also a moral exemplar for society at large. Bhoja painstakingly discusses the need for the hero – he possessing the sought agter qualities – to come out on top. The protagonist must defeat the antagonist in order to advance the moral theme of the work, and in so doing validate the purpose of literature itself. If Rama does not defeat Ravana, what kind of lesson does the reader take away from the tale? The hero, for Bhoja, is a moral agent. This is interesting because of associations with heroic and chivalrous in English. The protagonist almost necessarily sports an air of righteousness. I wonder if I can think of a modern example where the bad guy wins, and it’s ok. The more I think about it, actually, the more convincing the association between virtue and protagonist go hand in hand: the hero is more often than not heroic.

I overall find Pollock’s conclusion convincing, that Bhoja clearly demonstrates how literary theory recapitulates social theory in the Indic context. I would like to at some point tweak these ideas more finely in application to the Ramayana and its reverence as a tale of ideals. It is interesting that that in both epics, particularly in the Mahabharata, the reader is very frequently taken on a detour from the main plot so as to be told a story (for example, the story of Nala in the Mahabharata) which invariably carries moral and social significance. It appears that every story has a moral. Is also appears that, generally speaking, the moral, for Bhoja is the basis of story-telling.