rasa theory
Mina Kumar
someone in the audience made an interesting remark: according to
classical Sanksrit rasa theory, each rasa had permissible and verboten
subject matter. The only permissible subject for the sad rasa was the
separation from/death of the beloved, so even the death of the child was
considered an unesthetic subject, much less hunger or something.
Does anyone know the proper subjects for each rasa? Does Tamil have the
same rules? Any new and well-written books on the subject?
-->btw, a mea culpa regarding search engines. I looked up rasa* book*
India* in metacrawler and got lots of sex sites. I won't even begin to
guess.
--
Mina Kumar
http://www.concentric.net/~Minak
Sid Harth
I remember you being a person, I do not know and don't care whether you
are a man or a woman, who brings very interesting topics for discussion.
Sadly, internet discussion groups are a place for the idiots of Dr. Jai
Maharaj ilk, things would get better if you and yours bring the discussion
to a higher level.
"rasa," theory deals with "naaTyashaastra," basically. "rasasasya iti
rasaH," that which can be tasted, in literary sense, not culinary sense, is
"rasa." In gastronomic science, if there is such a thing as that, in
Sanskrit, there are six varieties. "kaTu," "tikta," kashhaaya," "madhura,"
"lavaNa," "aamla," pungent/hot, bitter, astringent, sweet and sour
respectively.
In literature, especially in plays and dramas, stage productions, there
are eight rasas, mimicking gastronomic rasas. ShR^igaara, haasya, karuNa,
raudra, viira, bhayaanaka, biibhatsa, and adbhuta, love, laughter,sad,
angry, heroic, terrific, hideous and magical, respectively.
Even though Bharata's "naaTyashastra," is considered the vademecum of
this science, prior to him there were two giant, independent rasa theory
proponents, "dR^ihiNa," and "vaasukii." Bharata says, succinctly in his
famous definition:
"vibhaavaanubhaavasaJNchaarisa.nyogaadrasanishhpattiH |
"vibhhava," "anubhaava," and "sa.ncharri bhaava," make rasa, freely
translated in English, "judgment, what appears to one as, personal
experience, witness, eye witness, leading, guiding, directing are the
ingredients of rasa."
Volumes are written on this subject and no amount of time or space would
be sufficient for me to make it any simpler for you. Get Bharata's
"naaTyashastra," if your query is not properly addressed.
Sid
Mina Kumar wrote:
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>Does anyone know the proper subjects for each rasa? Does Tamil have the
>same rules? Any new and well-written books on the subject?
>
The book `Indian Theater : Traditions of Performance',
by Farley P. Richmond, Darius L. Swann & Phillip B. Zarrilli,
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1990, discusses rasa
theory, although I do not remember if it answers your specific
question. But you may find other references in that book that
may lead you to your answer.
Dorai Sitaram
There doesn't seem to be a pure-Dravidian analog of the
rasas, although it is hard to prove a negative. It may
be another of those endless categorizations that
Sanskrit lit is often lampooned for (sometimes
affectionately, sometimes not).
I don't claim to note an extensive trend, but there
seems to be an off-by-1 quality to the Sanskrit
categories. It is not clear if the number of the rasas
is 9, or just 8. Similarly, it is not clear if the
goals of human endeavor are supposed to be 4, or just
3. I've heard it said that the (n+1)st item is the
subverting item that represents the dismantling of the
category, thereby satisfying both the categorizing
instinct and the urge to break free from it. Raghu?
--d
Mina Kumar
>
> I don't claim to note an extensive trend, but there
> seems to be an off-by-1 quality to the Sanskrit
> categories. It is not clear if the number of the rasas
> is 9, or just 8. Similarly, it is not clear if the
Shanti is a later addition to the rasas.
Raghu Seshadri
: I don't claim to note an extensive trend, but there
: seems to be an off-by-1 quality to the Sanskrit
: categories. It is not clear if the number of the rasas
: is 9, or just 8. Similarly, it is not clear if the
: 3. I've heard it said that the (n+1)st item is the
: subverting item that represents the dismantling of the
: category, thereby satisfying both the categorizing
: instinct and the urge to break free from it. Raghu?
Pretty acute observation, I must say. This sort
of thing IS fairly extensive - it is one of the
abiding themes in Indian philosophy, religion, art,
drama , ...
Note that the Gita, after expostulating for 6 chapters
on the 3 constitutive elements of the world (sattva,
rajas, tamas ), then says 'nishtraigunyo bhavaarjuna"
(transcend these 3, O Arjuna). The recurring theme
can be describes thus - everything in this world is
a composite, which needs to be analyzed into its elements
for proper understanding. But one should not mistake
a comprehensive understanding of this world (which is
vital), as a comprehensive understanding of everything
there is - Ultimate Reality is uncategorizable, it is
not within the purview of our analytical mind, it can
only be reached (and it can definitely be reached) by
transcendence.
This idea, which flowers to its fullest extent in
philosophy, is to be found in all other fields of study
as well. So the 8 rasas, which classify modes of human
experience, and therefore are fit and proper elements
of apprehension, are finally transcended by the
true goal of the rasika - the 9th, which is thus at once
a category and a negation of all categories.
I could go on, but the scriptures counsel mercy :-)
RS
Mina Kumar
>
> Dorai Sitaram (ds...@bunny.gte.com) wrote:
> : I don't claim to note an extensive trend, but there
> : seems to be an off-by-1 quality to the Sanskrit
> : categories. It is not clear if the number of the rasas
> : is 9, or just 8. Similarly, it is not clear if the
> : goals of human endeavor are supposed to be 4, or just
> : 3. I've heard it said that the (n+1)st item is the
> : subverting item that represents the dismantling of the
> : category, thereby satisfying both the categorizing
> : instinct and the urge to break free from it. Raghu?
>
> Pretty acute observation, I must say. This sort
> of thing IS fairly extensive - it is one of the
> abiding themes in Indian philosophy, religion, art,
> drama , ...
>
> Note that the Gita, after expostulating for 6 chapters
> on the 3 constitutive elements of the world (sattva,
> rajas, tamas ), then says 'nishtraigunyo bhavaarjuna"
What is rajas? Is it the same word that is part of "rajaspanah"?
Raghu Seshadri
: What is rajas? Is it the same word that is part of "rajaspanah"?
What is rajaspanah ?
Rajas is the quality that is associated with energy -
it is responsible for growth, aggression, passion,
lust, violence, activity ...
RS
Mina Kumar
>
> Mina Kumar (mi...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : What is rajas? Is it the same word that is part of "rajaspanah"?
>
> What is rajaspanah ?
I made a spelling mistake, as I was spelling it from memory.
"Tantric text Kaulachudamani ...mentions the rajahpana or drinking of
rajas, the female discharge, as one of the...eight modes of love of the
Tantrikas"
--Devangana Desai, Erotic Sculpture of India.
> Rajas is the quality that is associated with energy -
> it is responsible for growth, aggression, passion,
> lust, violence, activity ...
>
> RS
--
Mina Kumar
http://www.concentric.net/~Minak
Raghu Seshadri
: > : What is rajas? Is it the same word that is part of "rajaspanah"?
: >
: > What is rajaspanah ?
:
: I made a spelling mistake, as I was spelling it from memory.
:
: "Tantric text Kaulachudamani ...mentions the rajahpana or drinking of
: rajas, the female discharge, as one of the...eight modes of love of the
: Tantrikas"
: --Devangana Desai, Erotic Sculpture of India.
The word is the same, but the meaning, ofcourse, is
different. The root is "raj" meaning red. That would
explain why your meaning is one of the many meanings of
this word. Another derivative is "roja", the red rose.
The philosophical meaning is as I have stated it.
RS
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>What is rajas? Is it the same word that is part of "rajaspanah"?
_rajas_ is one of the three _guna_s (loosely translated as `qualities').
The other two are _sattwa_ and _tamas_ .
Traditionally, the three goons are associated with colors. _sattwa_
with white, _tamas_ with black (literally, _tamas_ means night) and
trajas_ with red (literally, _rajas_ MEANS `red'; actually the word
_rajas_ comes etymplogically from the same root as the word french
_rouge_ or, in fact, the english word _red_ -- note the phonetic
similarity).
Just as the ninth rasa could be taken as the transcendental rasa, the
rasa that is beyond all other rasas, as Raghu and Dorai pointed out --
similarly the goal of the seeker is to transcend the three _guna_s,
the _triguna_s, and to become _trigunateeta_ (`beyond the three
guna_s').
The conventional, worldly meaning of _guna_ is `quality'.
A late mediaevel Bengali text, the _Annadamangal_, has a clever pun on
this. In this, the goddess (wife of Shiva), who is in disguise as
a village woman, is being asked to describe her husband. She cleverly
replies: `kono gun nai tar kopale agun' (He is a man without any _guna_s
--qualities --, his forehead is burnt (the latter a popular curse)) -- a
description which apparently sounds like one for a good-for-nothing peasant
but which is apt for Shiva, who is, of course, beyond all _guna_s (hence
without any _guna_s and has a third eye burning in his forehead).