Organizer: David Buchta, University of Pennsylvania
Chair: Deven M. Patel, University of Pennsylvania
Discussant: Laurie Patton, Emory University
A hard division cannot be drawn between the fields
of theology and literary theory in the context of Sanskrit literature. Between
them, there exists a membrane allowing permeation in both directions. Thus,
one finds much in the way of theological or religiously oriented explanations
of literary theory, as well as theological arguments and religious aims pursued
by employing the categories and concepts of Sanskrit literary theory. This
panel will explore examples of such permeation in both directions, ranging
from the 5th to the 18th centuries. Kalidasa’s
(5th c.) Abhijnana-sakuntala is given a fresh reading examining the role of
the alaukikatva (otherworldliness) of rasa (aesthetic flavor) as portrayed through
the text, highlighting its similarity to brahmänanda (the bliss of the
Absolute). The shift in emphasis from chivalry (vira-rasa) to pathos (karuna-rasa)
in the portrayal of Rama in Bhavabhuti’s (8th c.) Uttararamacarita is
examined as element in the construction of Rama as a divinity and object of
devotion. A consideration of Abhinavagupta’s (11th c.) use of a metaphor
comparing the agency of literary suggestion (dhvani or vyanjana) in poetry to
that of the acarya in tantric initiation addresses the more than metaphorical
parallels between the efficacy of a religious rite and of the penetrating power
of literature. Rupa Gosvami’s (16th c.) poem about the Bengali saint Caitanya,
together with the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana (18th c.), is explored
as an instance where standard literary devices become part of the working
mechanism of an elaborate theological argument embedded with the poem. By bringing
together such diverse examples, the panel hopes to probe more deeply the inextricable
interrelation of these two fields.
l
Ronita Bhattacharya, University of Georgia
This paper discusses Bhavabhuti’s usage of karuna rasa in the Uttararamacarita
(Later Story of Rama) as a significant tool in the deification process of Rama.
This 8th-century play is not only a fantastic example of Sanskrit literature
that excelled in the usage of karuna rasa, but it is also a pioneer among Indian
literature that romances with the idea of Rama as god in the making. This affirmation
of deification that comes through a successful play influenced numerous literary
works in Sanskrit and other vernaculars of a later age. Instead of the traditional
vira rasa of epics, Bhavabhuti digresses from the path with his use of karuna
rasa or pathos, a masterstroke that enabled Rama’s evolution from a man-hero
to a god. Bhavabhuti thus presents a more human form of the epic hero who is
unabashed about his vulnerability and its manifestation. Bhavabhuti’s
Rama is a victim of circumstance, a dutiful king who must sacrifice his own
happiness for his subjects and pine for his beloved. This apparent “flaw” in
the epic hero endears him to his immediate audience, making him more human
and hence believable as a Hindu deity. The method used by Bhavabhuti was so
successful that it gave birth to its own genre of Rama plays that were precursors
of the Bhakti literature whose impassioned fervor had made the deification process
possible. This paper analyzes this effective and intelligent usage of pathos
by Bhavabhuti in the identity construction of Rama on this path to deification.
David Mellins, Seton Hall University
In his famous commentary on the Dhvanyaloka, the Locana, Abhinavagupta presents
a striking metaphor comparing the agency of literary suggestion (dhvani or
vyanjana) in poetry to that of the acarya in tantric initiation. He states that
suggestion is “consecrated” (abhisikta) the chief (murdha) in the revelation
of aesthetic rapture. This identification provides unusually cogent evidence
for the congruence of literary and soteriological revelation in eyes of the
great Kasmiri Master. This paper investigates Abhinavagupta’s explanation
of literary suggestion, as presented in the Locana, in the light of his descriptions
of the activities and powers of the Tantric Acarya in tantric treatises such
as the Tantraloka and the Tantrasara and considers the extent that these metaphorically
conjoined processes are indeed parallel. In particular, it examines Abhinavagupta’s
contention that literary suggestion has a privileged capacity to penetrate otherwise
sequestered states of universalized sentiment and the significance of “consecration” in
a literary context.
David Buchta, University of Pennsylvania
The Caitanyäñöakas of Rüpa Gosvämé (16th c.),
commented on by Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa (18th c.), are a
series of religious poems in Sanskrit praising the Bengali saint, Kåñëa
Caitanya, believed by his followers to be the Supreme Lord, Kåñëa
Himself. However, these texts, particularly as interpreted by Baladeva, show
a much closer link between the poetic and the theological than is seen in most
religious literature. Baladeva shows how, in the first three stanzas of the
first of these poems, Rüpa Gosvämé utilizes particular poetic
ornaments as steps in an underlying, implicit theological argument for the divinity
of Caitanya. To do this, he draws on the language of the field of alaìkära-çästra
(Sanskrit poetics), showing a profound example of the close relation between
theology and literary analysis in Sanskrit literature. This paper examines
these stanzas and their commentaries as models for under-explored methods in
the reading and writing religious literature.
Nadine L. Berardi, Emory University
A subtext of aesthetic comment runs throughout Kalidasa's drama,
Abhijñanaśakuntala, surfacing most clearly in the third
and sixth acts. While the third act provides opulent scope for rasacarvaṇa
and comments on the success of rasa, the sixth act brings rasa to a temporary
standstill. The usually seamless experience of rasacarvaṇa is deranged,
its imperceptible sequence refracted to reveal component stages.
These stages, now visible, are analyzed in a new reading of the play, using
the Dhvanyaloka and the Abhinavabharati as both critical apparatus
and intertext. According to Abhinavagupta, alaukikatva informs the entire
sequence of rasacarvaṇa, enabling a real albeit ephemeral state of bliss
inherently similar to brahmananda. In Abhijña naśa kuntala,
Kalidasa prefigures Abhinava's classic statement. His dramatic representation
of the absence of alaukikatva allows both analysis of rasacarvaṇa through
its malfunction and the concurrent production of rasapraśanti in
the spectator.
|
