Theory
Dr. Raj Kumar Mishra Asst. Prof. of English, MITS Deemed University,
Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan.
Rasa theory basically examines various kinds of emotions, as well as the logic of their evocation or generation in a sympathetic reader, or how they are depicted, postulated and transmitted through a work of art. The principal objective of a creative writer is to portray emotions and subsidiary feelings which govern actions of a character. Literally Rasa means something to be tasted or savoured. Bharat Muni, the propounder of Rasa theory identified eight ‘sthayibhavas’ (permanent emotions) and thirty three ‘vyabhicharins’ (transitory or temporary feelings). The eight ‘sthayins’ – Rati (Love), Hasa (Humour), Shoka (Grief), Krodh (Wrath), Utsaha (Energy), Bhaya (Fright), Jugupsa (Disgust), Vismaya (Wonder) when they are nurtured by ‘vyabhicharins’(discouragement, apprehension, envy, intoxication, weariness, indolence, depression, recollection, contentment, shame, unsteadiness, jubilation, agitation, stupor, pride, dejection, impatience, sleep or drowsiness, amnesia, coma, awakening, indignation, dissimulation, ferocity, self-assurance, malaise, insanity, death or dying experiences, fright, and deliberation), the particular rasas are generated. All eight ‘sthayins’ in the course of time generate particular corresponding rasas.
The ninth Rasa namely, Santa, is certainly a later addition lies in the beginning and in the end too. There has been great controversy over it. A majority of writers have accepted it. Santa implies the aesthetic experience of spiritual serenity. It is the state of bliss into which all other emotions subside. Abhinavagupta recognized and stabilized Santa Rasa in Sanskrit criticism. According to him, Santa is the chief and all other eight rasas are just transformations (Vikaras). Santa implies a state of calmness or tranquility where sympathetic mind enjoys final bliss or Moksha. Joys and sorrows have no meaning for him. That’s why the Vibhava for this rasa is the knowledge of truth, detachment or purity of mind etc., Anubhava is self-control, meditation, universal sympathy and the like; while the Vyabhicaribhava is purity, firmness, thrill etc. Sama (right knowledge) is Sthayibhava. Sama is the state where one has complete control over his senses or desires. Sama is the primary requirement to have the state of bliss. In short, these rasas arise due to certain subjective and objective factors available in the text. With this conviction I have undertaken Hymns in Darkness to study in the light of Rasa theory.
“Hymns in Darkness” is the title poem of the volume Hymns in Darkness (1976). By common consents of the critics and the readers, it is the best poem from his pen. It marks, I feel, the acme of his poetic sensibility. The phrase “in Darkness” of the
poem is ambiguous. It in literal sense refers to the ignorance of fallen spirit – modern man. And the term “Hymns” do not refer to any sacred song of glorification addressed to God or gods. Instead it refers probably to the wild pursuits of the modern man. Here in the discussion, I use the phrase ‘modern man’ now and then; but it does not refer only some outside entity that excludes the poet. The poem is the sum-total of Ezekiel’s serious religious musings on life. By the use of the technique of the persona, the addressee and the distance, the poet confesses his own guilt in the process of ridiculing some of the common weaknesses of the modern man. The poem is difficult in its thought and structure. Its suggestive force makes it complex for the general reader.
The poem is developed in sixteen sections. I shall analyse each section, followed by the application of the Rasa doctrine.
The first stanza describes some weaknesses shared by all modern mankind. According to the poet, there is no connection between the ideal and the real aspect of modern man’s life. The modern man speaks a lot about the virtue called ‘humility’ but seldom practises it himself. It is the first casualty with the modern man. The modern man pretends to be thoughtful and intellectual, but unfortunately, this bargain proved him harmful:
He has exchanged the wisdom of youthfulness for the follies of maturity.
What is lost is certain, what is gained
of dubious value. (Collected Poems, p.217)
The modern man feels glorified in “self-esteem” but it has interrupted his natural growth. He doesn’t know how to be an ago-free person; otherwise he has been a happy creature. The modern man is burning like his own passion. His state of mind and spirit is compared by the poet to the hustle-bustle of the city. As the matter of fact, he does not know himself adequately. “All truths are outside him” so he remains mere a bundle of ignorances that “mock his activity”. He doesn’t know in real sense what he is doing.
In the poem, the poet refers to the discrepancy between the ideal and the real aspect of modern man’s life. It may evoke the emotion of Hasya, but the nature of the words used in the poem is serious and pregnant with abstract meanings. The seriousness, in a sense is apposite to the emotion of laughter.
Abhinavagupta, in his book Abhinavabharati explores possibilities of the various Sthayibhavas that can lead to Santa separately. About the Sthayibhava of Hasya, Abhinavagupta states:
… we find that a person attains to liberation if he realizes the oddity of everything in the world (Masson and Patwardhan, p.129).
In the light of above quotation, here is the ‘oddity’ of life that is realized and this holds the possibility of the disillusionment that can lead one to Santa.
By overall impressions, the poem suggests Santa Rasa. Sama is its Sthayibhava. The awareness of the discrepancy between the ideal and the real is, of course, resulted from the “Vibhavas such as knowledge of the truth, detachment, purity of mind etc.” (Abhinavagupta). As I have earlier said that the poem is the result of poet’s religious musings. So, his musings are the Anubhavas. Alambana is the addressee of the poem that is the modern man. Ashraya is the poet and the modern man’s life style. So, the disgust with the world (Nirveda) is the Vyabhicaribhava.
In the second section, the poet argues that the self-deception is the eloquent of modern human being. He lives in perpetual self-deception. To be “undeceived” is almost impossible. No immediate redemption looks in sight. The modern man has discovered too many things and with that he has come in the state of utter confusion. He is unable to identify a thing and its proper use. He has “too many keys that unlock no locks”. More knowledge, more confusion. He lives in the mechanical world where desires are satisfied artificially. On its outlook, it seems fanciful but it has, of course, deprived him of his youthfulness. The modern man speaks always keeping truth and falsehood side by side. His truth can not remain uncontaminated. The modern man always wants to be a leader. He only believes in being heard by the others. He views others with the eye of suspicion, the eye “in the centre of his forehead”. Such selfish nature of the modern man has rendered him a tiny creature, ‘a puny self’. This man always wants to exploit all powers of nature (both latent and manifest) for his betterment and advancement. He is quite regardless of other creatures living in the world. In this battle of exploitation, his all attempts get foiled each time. But, still he boasts of his knowledge and as such remains “self-deceived” throughout life.
Here again, the poet exposes the hollowness of modern man’s life. Nissim Ezekiel condemns such life. His condemnation of the modern man’s life style suggests his disgust with the world. He, in fact, by and by wants to know the myth of life. So, the second section evokes Santa Rasa.
In the third movement, Nissim Ezekiel exposes another casualty of modern man. He often harms himself by ignoring the truth. He properly knows the importance of the signs of God’s existence but he is unable to follow the hints of those signs. The modern man is like a sot whom a single burning candle appears multiplied. He has no single aim of his life. Therefore, he has no “fixed star” for guidance. He can not face the truth of life boldly because he is a coward like Peeping Tom. He faces life from the windows only. And yet boasts of his manliness:
He is the man full of his name.
-C.P., p. 218
In this section, Ezekiel again exposes the breach between abstract and practical. This oddity of modern man’s life may lead one to disillusionment and hence to Santa Rasa.
The journey of exposing the shams and pretences of the modern man continues in the fourth stanza. He professes high ideals and principles but acts according to his preference and convenience. The modern man plays various roles but not faithfully. He is a mere symbol of disciple, guru, husband and father. He is not a true performer of these roles. To his wife, he is an impossible husband because he is not loyal and faithful to her. He is lustful. To his children, he is less than loving because he takes them as hindrances. But he never blames himself for all these discrepancies. Instead he blames destiny and circumstances.
In these four sections, Nissim Ezekiel brings the oddities of the modern man’s life under the search-light. In all these, there is the possibility of laughter. According to Abhinavagupta, this emotion (laughter) like other seven emotions (dominant) can lead to the state of Santa. The realisation of the truth of modern man’s life is Alambana. The poet’s disgust with the world (Nirveda) is the Vyabhicaribhava and Sthayibhava as well.
In the fifth stanza the poet expresses astonishment over the lot of modern man. He has gained certainly a lot of knowledge but unfortunately he remains mere a bundle of ignorances. The poet wants to know why “so much light” is placed in fallen spirits. He (the poet) again expresses wonder at the tremendous courage given to the modern living- hell dwellers. The modern man negates “the voice of truth”. Then, why was he forgiven, helped and comforted by Christ? He has lost faith in himself and tries to lean against others. This tendency of the modern man resulted in him total faithlessness which is his faith.
In the process of enumerating weaknesses of the modern man’s life, Ezekiel expresses wonder at the modern man’s destiny. So, here is clearly Adbhuta Rasa. But the emotion of wonder can lead to Santa, however, it is normally inimical to Santa. In this section, by all its impression, it may evoke disgust with the world. As Abhinava himself has accepted the possibility of Santa in the emotion of wonder. So, here is Santa Rasa.
In the sixth stanza the poet says with surprise: How far a man may travel
In the wrong direction!
-C.P., p. 219
The modern man is complacent with his scientific knowledge which the poet calls “hindsight wisdom”. The modern man has nothing to do with religious and moral learnings. The poet says that the modern man holds fast to the old and obsolete traditions. He never likes to question them. He wants to keep alive this “unredeemable relationships”. He believes in scientific conclusions. He does not like to batter his mind in hundreds of thoughts regarding to religion and ethics: “To hell with all directions, old and new”.
Here again the poet expresses the sense of nihilism that has covered all spheres of life. In this regard, the sense of nihilism holds the possibility of disillusionment with the world. So, here is Santa Rasa.
In the seventh hymn, the poet talks about spiritual barrenness in which the humanity is sunk. The poet describes a tarred road that appears bright after the rain. In fact, this is red-light road where sexual bargains are done. This spot is marked by dog- shit surrounded by “wet, green leaves/patterned flat” and a “ragged slippery near an open gutter” against which crows are striking with their beaks. It is the road where prostitutes come before modern man with their “breasts, thighs, buttocks / swinging / now towards / now away from him”.
In this section, the poet describes an unpleasant spot (Vibhava) which is characterised in the poem by the images of “dog-shit” and a tattered slipper at which three crows are pecking. So, here is Bibhatsa Rasa. Its dominant emotion is disgust. The image of “dog-shit” surrounded by “wet-green leaves” and “ragged slipper” are the Uddipana-Vibhavas. The description by the poet is Anubhava. Thinking of tarred road and the other things (Vitarkas) are the Vyabhicaribhavas.
In the eighth section, the poet wants to convey the message that the modern man likes to progress through the ladder of self-love and vanity. The modern man invokes God “for power and stamina”. He finds his position shaky:
His house is built on rock. It shakes in the wind.
-C.P., p. 221
The above lines suggest that this man has no secure household. There is no love- lost between wife and husband. His house is surrounded by a waste-land. In such situation, the modern man has nothing to depend upon except contemplating:
He sits alone and looks out of the window. He contemplates the sources of his life.
-C.P., p. 221
This section evokes the emotion of Santa.
In the ninth stanza, the modern man’s carnal wishes get fulfilled which he has not attained in the previous section. This lustful modern man is rude and harsh to his wife:
Don’t, she says, do not, conniving all the same. short of tearing her clothes he’s using all his force.
soon, he’s had what he wanted, soft, warm and round.
-C.P., p. 221
Such relationship has no trace of genuineness. If there had been genuine love, his house would have been heavenly. In the absence of true love, his house has become truly a living hell. Thought it appears pretty on its outward face.
Here in this section, Srngara is reversed into Bibhatsa. Natya Sastra (VI. 73) writes about Bibhatsa:
Bibhatsa-rasa arises from seeing something one does not like, from unpleasant smells, tastes, physical contacts, words and from many violent tremblings of the body (Masson and Parwardhan, p.55).
Disgust is Sthayibhava. The wrong-doings of the protagonist which are undesirable are the Vibhavas.
In the tenth section, the poet thinks about the essence of man. The poet says that the profession, age, height, colour are not real attributes of man. He is simply a man. They are important only in so far as they help in the understanding of his speech.
This section is neutral from the point of Rasa theory.
In the eleventh section, the poet describes God as the “Enemy” of mankind and “The absentee land lord” like ideologies that rule over people being itself absent. The poet blames Him for creating rifts and divisions in families, castes, communities, clubs and political parties. God victimises both the oppressor and the oppressed. It is religion that keeps young people under control and prevents them expressing themselves frankly and freely. Under the tyranny of “The Enemy” the modern man is rotting and losing all his vigor and originality.
Here, anger of the poet finds full expression. He calls God “Enemy”. So here is clearly Raudra Rasa. Anger is its Sthayibhava. Alambana is God or religion. The modern man’s feeling that he is rotting and losing is the Anubhava.
The twelfth section glorifies the virtue of darkness. The poet asks us not to curse darkness:
It’s a kind of perfection, while every light distorts the truth
-C.P., p. 223
This section is neutral from the framework of Rasa theory.
The thirteenth and the fourteenth section describe a man who remains happy even in the universal darkness. He feels joy by extending his service to all at the expense of his comfort. He is “a tireless social human being” who takes defeat and victory as a “twin brother” Contrary to this man, the poet finds himself grave and grim in his “little light”. The poet sees no hope in the life of a philanthropist.
This mankind-lover daily extends his service selflessly to the beggars, strangers and the foul-smelling populace of his native city. This man teaches the poet “to fear the five senses”. He (the philanthropist) has crossed the limit of worldliness. This baffles the poet very much.
In these both sections, the poet expresses surprise over the life-style of the philanthropist. But no dominant emotion is properly developed.
In the fifteenth section, the poet turns over the theme of death, the common lot of all creatures. The poet disapproves the life of the philanthropist terming it as a living- death because he is cut off all the senses. The poet says if the death is the common lot of all then we should not meddle with it. He (the poet) prefers quick and rapid death to the living-death of the philanthropists.
In the last section, the poet says that it is useless to console one self to know about the mystery of life and death. Since death is inevitable, belief and unbelief does not matter. So it is better to live in presence and try to know the secrets of unfathomable reality that reveals its enigma to a man gradually.
In the last four sections, the poet tries to know the secret of life and ultimately arrives at the conclusion that it is better to live in present and face the reality of life and time. It is the state of Sama. Overall, impressions of the poem suggest Santa Rasa. It is the ruling (Angi) Rasa of the poem. However, this conclusion may differ with the other readers.
Works Cited
- Nissim Ezekiel. Collected Poems. New Delhi: OUP, 1989, second edition 2005. In the body of text it is referred to as C.P. and subsequent references to this edition are given parenthetically.
- Masson and Patwardhan. Santarasa and Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Aesthetics. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Series, 1969. Print.
, Aesthetic Rapture, Vol. I .Poona: Deccan College, 1970. Print