Harmonizing the rivalry of Rasa vs. Alamkara

Rather than delving into the court epic itself, this is an aside introduced in the beginning of the discussion I couldn't resist taking the time to remark on.
In our course so far, in the discussion of the characteristics of poetry the two predominant features of rasa(aesthetic sentiment) and alamkara have been consistently discussed as rivalling features of poetry. Based on Anandavardhana’s ideas of rasa as presented in the Dhavayaloka, he established the paradigm from which Abhinavagupta expands in his commentaries of Anadavardhana’s work and many other authors followed.

What had Anandavardhana laid out as the foundation, basis and inner workings of poetry? There are the sthayibhavas (the eight primary emotions of an aesthetic work or nine if santa is added) upon which the primary purpose and point of the poem is built for the ultimate purpose of a successful poem/drama; the response of the audience in the experience of rasa, the raising of the primary emotion to its highest pitch. (p 40). In his treatise on the theory of suggestion (dhvani) in poetry the Dhvanyaloka, Anandavardhana argues that rasa is suggested to the audience, that the experience belongs to the viewer. Among his three forms of suggestion (suggestion of sense; of figures of speech and rasa) rasa reigns supreme, as the primary feature of excellence in the aesthetic work. The ownership of rasa is in the audience, primarily the refined and developed connoisseur of art the sahrdaya who has polished himself like a mirror, through training in sentiment and poetry to be a receptive vehicle of this supreme sentiment.

Anadavardhana also maintains that only one primary sentiment should be developed and maintained throughout the work “the main function of the poet lies only in making one sentiment principal throughout the poem and in employing both words and senses only in such a way that the former [the principal sentiment] is suggested clearly.” And ….”The works that are built upon sentiment should be regarded as superior.

He also states that this primary purpose of poetry rasa is destroyed by overindulgence in figures of speech (alamkara). Like Lollata he finds fault with the descriptive elements of mahakavya, calling this type of poetry “flashy poetry” (citrakavaya). He says this ornamentation is the death of rasa and an abomination to the sensitive reader.

To achieve the result of the emotional response the elements of the artistic work must maintain all the appropriate and conducive elements, even if the historical or mythical event has to be manipulated and edited in order to do so. He condones the changing of plot to maintain the strength of the primary rasa, as he states “A poet writing a whole work should be entirely bound by the demands made by sentiment……he should not hesitate to invent a new episode …appropriate to the sentiment.”

It is refreshing to have this highly formulaic framework analytically appraised and questioned. Smith puts this formula to a critical review stating that first of all emotions cannot be described empirically, that suggestion and sentiment are beyond the scope of words and perceptible only in the hearts of the sahrdayas. In reference to the contrivance of rasa he suggests that Indian theorists labelled and packaged the aesthetic experience to an extreme that requires a conditioning or contrivance of both poem and audience that threatens to produce a one dimensional universal experience rather than a diverse and multiplicity individual response. In response to Anandavardhana’s lament against poets who recognize no laws, who are obsessed with figures of speech and who wantonly persist in producing works without the least intention of incorporating rasa, he presents the opposite view. In support of the “ornamentalists” in their use of figures and ornate descriptions he posits that there is a freedom in that they found no need to conform and prune their reality to produce a result, rather they used metaphor to “dance freely in their poems and go wherever it liked”

Now the great cloud-cat,
Darting out his lightning tongue
Licks the creamy moon
From the saucepan of the sky (Subhasitaratnakasa 257)

In this poem he says the Sanskrit poet finds illicit indulgence everywhere, the whole universe is a universe of enjoyment, like a cat, the ornamentalist feels free to lick, to taste, wherever he chooses. In the conclusion of this discussion he also argues that in the mahakavyas there are long descriptive passages so in reality they combine ornamental idiom in the midst of developing the rasa and in fact incorporate both rasa and alamkara.

I found this discussion very interesting and satisfying as the elements of poetry are developed through the skilful use of tropes and to dismiss it as not conducive to the development of rasa appears cavalier. The view presented here finally seems to find a more balanced view of the structure of the poem in all its ornamental beauty as supportive and harmonious with the development of an aesthetic emotional response.