"Rasa = Love"

This weeks reading on the dhvanyaloka further defined (and complicated) the term dhvani, but more specifically focused on the concept of rasa in kavya. The Pollock reading specifically addressed one of the problems we discussed in last weeks class; the issue of weather or not Sanskrit poems need to be put into context in order to understand them. Pollock argues that the poems analyzed in Ingall’s interpretation need to be put into context socially because Sanskrit writings reflect a certain place and time in history. I am not a hundred percent sure, but I think he goes further to say that; we cannot aesthetically enjoy a poem unless this is done. Pollock sates: "Language is only the Mechanism of such poetry, yet it has monopolized theoretical reflection. The poetry is about the people and their world, and is intelligible only through that world. Yet it is a world occluded to theory because it is too far inside consciousness to be rendered an object of consciousness" (208). Point well taken Pollock! How the hell are we suppose to understand someone else’s experience of "their world"?

What I found very interesting was Pollock’s discussion on rasabhasa as "something required to complete that ideal type, but as the literary promulgation of an immoral order, against which theory imposed increasingly harsh strictures" (214) He clearly illustrates feeling that violate the social order, thus they are false feelings. Are they really? The fact that they arouse emotions in the viewer could possibly mean that the viewer has these feelings, but are socially demanded to suppress them. Perhaps Kavya tried to convey a hidden message, in hopes to rearrange an existing social order.

This weeks readings on the dhvanyaloka explicitly point out te realtionship between religious aesthetic enjoyment and the aesthetic enjoyment one gets from kavya. Abhinava states: "aesthetic enjoyment is the cessation of that obstruction of the true nature of the self which is caused by the thick darkness of ignorance" (82). Abhinava admits that the reaching of rasa is similar to the relishing of the ultimate Brahman Therefore, like the Brahman who reaches his ultimate goal of enlightenment through relishing so too rasa is brought about. Here there is only similarity between the processes, but no mention of similarity between the aesthetic enjoyment reached. Ultimately, it is safe to say that the experience is different as the concentration that is needed by the Brahman and the audience memebr or reader differs immensely. The Brahman focuses his attention on God (or a higher being), while the audience memeber concentrates on issues of earthly life.

The last topic that I will touch on is an attempt to relate the Pollock reading with the dhvanyaloka readings. Anada states: "the rasa of love is sweet in comparison to the other rasa's because it gives delight", (280) becase the heart is overcome to a greater degree thany any other rasa. Can we than say rasa is equal to love? since it is the ultimate rasa. Pollock argues "passion alone is rasa", (220) "since passion is shown to be understood fundamentally according to a moral typology." Since the predominate theme of kavya is love (also in the form of passion) as it removes the person from ugliness and darkness and brings them into beauty and lightness. Is this the main function of "rasa"? If it is than I would argue that kavya is religious, as it seeks to take away the individual from the dark evils of the world (devil) and bring them closer to the beautiful and light aspects of heaven (God). Maybe I have taken this too far (too much focus on dhvani and rasa).