Rupa "versus" Abhinava

This weeks readings consist of informative insights on the Bhakti tradition, and the flashing out of Indian aesthetic theories in relation to this tradition especially rasa. The most useful source we have in regards to this theory is the bhaktirasamrtasindhu itself. For the purpose of our word limitations and time, I am going to focus in on the Second reading: Religion in a New Mode: The Convergence of the Aesthetic and the Religious in Medieval India” by Wulff.

Wulff argues that the religious and the aesthetic are usually perceived in the west as two separate entities, and it is not so much the case in India where this duality becomes one. He uses Abhinavagupta and Rupa as examples of this convergence between the aesthetic and the religious. Although, Rupa stands as a sound example, Abhinava does not. Abhinavagupta developed an argument for the relationship between the aesthetic and the religious more so as a response to Bhoja, and his works explicitly state that aesthetic enjoyment arising from rasa is LIKE or similar to religious experience, but these religious explanations are separate from his work on poetic aesthetic theories. His works that tie him to his tantric religious association seem to be the focus of his Wulff’s writings as opposed to Abhinava’s work on rasa itself. Furthermore, Wulff focuses in on the similarities of aesthetic and religious experiences, perhaps for the purpose of his argument, and tends to ignore the differences between the two. Although, it is clear that Abhinava does provide an argument for the relation between both experiences, I think he has also made it just as clear (especially when he discusses rasa) it that which is aesthetic enjoyment separate from religious experience.

In Abhinava’s discussion of rasa theory and the reaching of aesthetic enjoyment through the relishing of emotions, he makes it clear that the spectator has an experience that is separate from or at a distance from the actors in the drama. Whereas, when we look at Rupa’s work we see that the spectator becomes one with the actor or actress and thus, this is the result of aesthetic enjoyment. The distinction between these two works to me is clear; one discusses aesthetic enjoyment in terms of the intake of art or poetry, while the other discusses aesthetic enjoyment as a religious experience. I believe, that the first does not discuss the experience of oneness (as ultimate reality, or the ultimate reality of God) instead it discusses an experience that is transcendent or “other worldly” (which can imply oneness, but does not do so explicitly). The second discusses this oneness and ultimately puts this reality into motion; one cannot deny the emphasis this has on religion and thus, the only outcome, would be a religious experience. With this said, I think it is ludicrous of Wulff to try and put emphasis on something that is barely there.

What I think is important to note is that Abhinava, as well as other poets wrote from a particular perspective, which in turn influenced all their works. All these poets were versed in Hinduism, and in order for their works to gain recognition in the Hindu community they drew upon relational aspects that were understandable in order to fully define their Indian aesthetic theories. Although, works were not meant to be religious in nature, I believe many often perceived them as this. After all these things were far away from what was considered Vedic religion and I think to pass them off as this is in a way to devalue this religious worldview or system. In this case religion and art were two categories that were distinct, where poetry and art was strictly considered leisure and entertainment. In turn this entertainment and enjoyment (I believe) no longer meets the need of the people and there is a turn away from this secular art form, towards art form that brought together religion and art or religious experience and aesthetic enjoyment.