The Rasa Theory & Rayaprolu Subba Rao

Dr. S. LAXMANA MURTHY

It is assumed to be true in respect of almost all the major Indian literatures that nearly every one of them had shown necessary measure of resilience to accommodate the impact from abroad, and make use of it to forge a new mode of expression as a viable evidence of synthesis. The sway of the British Romantics was irresistible, and for various reasons the age of Wordsworth had a welcome appeal to the creative writers in Indian languages who were widely read in Indian classics and had deep roots in the indigenous literary tradition. The poetry of Romantics and their literary theory provided the writers of the early decades of this century a strategy to enquire into the individual consciousness and the springs of creativity. They began to speak of the limits of objectivity and put accent on subjectivity as truth. They came “to look within” and explore the infinite I AM.

Telugu was, of course, no exception to it. In the case of Telugu, the influence of Tagore was strong in addition to that of the Romantics. Telugu poets quoted in admiration frequently passages from Tagore’s Gitanjali, Gardener and also the pithy lines from his Stray Birds. The worshipful submission to Tagore changed the Telugu literary perspective in the formative years during the early ’Twenties. This was evident both in theory and practice. Tagore was for them the confluence of the best of the two independent equally valid and therefore no longer mutually exclusive traditions. They found in him an effort to negate the long-cherished dichotomy between the individual and the universal, the one and the many, the objectivity and the subjectivity, a preoccupation so dear to Indian mind. They could readily repeat with some proof “Sarvabhutastham aatmaanam sarva bhulanicha aatmani eekshate yogayuktaatmaa.” They found themselves on a familiar ground. It was often stated that literature was a means to samadarsana.

One has to study, therefore, the literary theory and practice of Telugu poets of the early decades against this background. If Rayaprolu introduced this literary change it was defined unmistakably in the practice of Abburi, Krishna Sastry, Nayani, Vishwanatha, Nanduri and Sivasankara Swami – to name only the most important. They realised the need to extend the limits of reality to include in it the imaginative ecstasy and creative vision. They wrote often and in detail about the concepts of manas, buddhi, ahankaara and chitta. The disquisitions were not infrequently in the light of the Western psychological theories, and their terminology was pressed into service. The human response of authentic sensitivity, they felt, would make for qualitative difference in one’s experience of reality and one’s creative expression. This view of reality, however, inspired a kind of poetry that took delight in maintaining considerable distance from the facts of man’s life. The literary form became lyrical, and its subject matter remote and hardly responsive to ordinary human concerns. The expression was thus inevitably symbolic. It could be said that the poetry tended to isolate the components–Aalambana or Uddeepana or Sanchaari Vibhavas and address itself exclusively to one of them. It was in sharp violation of the famous Rasa Sutra “Vibhaava anubhaava vyabhichaaribhaava samyogaat rasanishpattih” The Rasa school of criticism seemed to be inapplicable to the new poetry. The critics began to ask whether this poetry had any Rasa at all. Devoid of concrete human experience, it was not possible to accept the old and familiar subject matter, and this made it hard for the poets, to celebrate the principal Rasas like Sringaara. This was an additional point of criticism that the new poetry could not yield Rasa, and thus it was outside Rasa, an outside tradition. It was, in sum, alien.

In this context Rayaprolu made an important contribution to literary criticism by offering an interpretation of Rasa theory. As remarked earlier, Rayaprolu was perhaps the first of the modern poets. He took it upon himself to formulate a theory which could defend the new poetry and place it, within the resourceful tradition of Rasa school of criticism. This effort was made in his Ramyaaloka, He made it explicit there:

Karuna and Sringaara are the only two Rasas which

achieve the state of Vipaaka and Bhoga essential

to nija rasas. These two rasas alone lead

respectively to Soka mathita manodosha suddhi and

Sahaja puma chinmaya sukhaasvaadanam.

The two long compounds need explanation. Karuna leads to the state of mind–tranquil and cleansed of all impurities by the experience of tragic passion. Sringaara makes it possible to partake, however briefly, of the state of Brahmic bliss full and self-manifest. The pull of tradition in Rayaprolu is evident. It is necessary to learn further the importance of his interpretation in terms of Rasa.

Right from the start there has been a controversy among the Alankarikas with regard to the number of Rasas. Eight or nine was generally the approved one. But claims were made for others like Vatsala and Bhakti in later centuries. While the debate on number of Rasas was raging, efforts were also made to advocate the primacy of individual rasas like Karuna, Sringaara, Adbhuta or Shaanta as mula rasa. The theory of the primacy of individual Rasas has been found incomplete. This has led Rayaprolu to recognise two Rasas as primary instead of one, and this in his opinion could effectively subsume all the other Rasas. These two Rasas (Karuna and Sringaara) are termed as nija. Rayaprolu favoured the use of Vipaaka in the place of nishpatti of the Rasa sutra. Haasya, Veera, Adbhuta, Roudra, Bhayaanaka and Beebhatsa are not nija Rasas and therefore they have no potential of Vipaaka. The term bhoga suggests the experience of Rasa. Only nija Rasas have the potential of Vipaaka and they alone provide bhoga or the experience of Rasa. In the absence of Vipaaka, Rasa is not experienced.

Bhoga can take either of the two forms: Soka mathita mano dosha suddhi or Sahaja purna chinmaya sukhaasvaadanam. The latter is close to what Bhoja has chosen to call Samvit anubhuti hetuh.

In the context of Karuna Rayaprolu has evidently followed the tradition of Western poetics. The cleaning of mind under the impact of tragic passion is close to the Aristotelian concept of Catharsis. It remains to be seen why Rayaprolu has opted for the Western interpretation of Koruna. The chief reason appears to be that he has not accepted the view that the experience of Karuna and Sringaara are equal and of the same quality.

Human experience inescapably constitutes antinomies like pain and pleasure. The entire experience is participative or pravritti. Sringaara and Karuna uncover these basic facts of experience in a symbolic way. Sringaara is the genesis of Veera, Haasya and Adbhuta, while Karuna subsumes Roudra, Bhayanaka and Beebhatsa. Veera is manifest action released by Sringaara. In the failure of action, the consequent absurdity releases Haasya. The cheerful vigour in the fulfilment of action gives rise to Adbhuta. The conflict with the agent of negation of fulfilment leads to Roudra and Bhayaanaka. The consequent disharmony leads to Beebhatsa. The ultimate death brings about Karuna. Thus Sringaara and Karuna explain the eight rasas.

Rayaprolu has excluded Shaanta. The new poetry has no room for Vairaagya. The poet loves the sensuous experience to get at the beauty and delight of all that exists. Rayaprolu has regarded Shaanta as the Absolute where senses cease and all the antinomies disappear. The experience is not participative (Pravritti). Hence Shaanta cannot be Rasa. But he has said that Shaanta may be regarded as the ultimate goal, and the experience of literature could be a means towards reaching that. This is again akin to what the tradition has often characterized the experience of literature as Brahmaanandasahodara.

`Why did Rayaprolu discuss at length Sringaara and Karuna? It was necessary for him to establish the validity of the new lyrical mode in the traditional matrix, and thus explore the possibility of extending the application of Rasa school for the poetry which has opted for a strategy to enquire into the individual consciousness with its accent on subjectivity to encompass the whole reality and universal consciousness. In his efforts to realise this, the poet chooses a lover, or a scene or an incident as the centre of his feelings. He tries to make it a means to obliterate tne distinctions “I” and “thou” and “it”. The fulfilment of his yearning is Sringaara, while the yearning is Karuna. The new poetry could, therefore, be interpreted in the context of the dual Rasa. The Aalambana vibhaavaas like a flower, a cloud, a river or a broken song as “subject matter” are good enough to yield Rasa.

Viswanatha Satyanarayana expressed a similar view. The impassioned search for the lost Eden – to borrow the phrase of Romantics – has been acclimatized as the agonised longing of Jiva for the experience of the native Brahmic bliss. Every soul yearns for it. It is a search for fulfilment. Gods and demons, men good and bad all seek it and pine for it. This agony is at the base of manifestations of life. Nothing can adequately conceal it. This is the substance of what Kalidasa has said Paryutsuko bhavati yat sukhitah api jantuh. Poetry, music and all other arts are expressions of this agonised longing for the lost bliss. Art is a means to express Jeevuni vedana, the agonised longing of the Jeeva. This explication read with Rayaprolu’s views sheds light on the nature of Karuna and its importance in the new context.

Sringaara also has been redefined to set it free from the crude physicality of it as evidenced in abundance in the old prabandhas. Rayaprolu called Sneha suratha and Vaatsalya as the attributes of prema. The sensitive soul will make use of them as an ascending stair. Sneha in companionship, Suratha in conjugal life, Vaatsalya between the old and the young are manifestations of Sringaara which finds its sustenance in prema. The new poets have largely disregarded the Suratha aspect which has long dominated the old classical poetry. The expression of prema in other human contexts has been celebrated with insight and tenderness. Love as a feeling has become the gospel of the new poetry albeit with the implicit danger of monotonous expression over the decades. It has however dislodged the Prabandha mode forever.

Rayaprolu has thus tried to fuse to the extent possible the two schools of literary theory in a bid to welcome the imminent change while being loyal to the tradition.

Back