2023-03-29 18:09:50 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
81
The final, almost absurd consequences of this alliance of poetry and
religion were admitted in the sixteenth century by the school of Rūpago-
svāmin in Bengal, who chose to express their theology in poetic terms.
Bhakti is elevated into the 'regal' rasa (bhaktirasarāt), qne other forms of
affection are considered subordinate rasas.
CONCLUSION
(V) CONCLUSION
We have come a long way from the expressionistic poetics of Bhāmaha
and Dandin. The transition is harsh and seemingly total-the grammarian
has become the devotional mystic-but the civilization has also changed,
and the theory reflects the change. Certain fundamental ideas and
approaches are held in common: the expressionistic bias, precluding, even
in theories so evidently psychological as the dhvani-rasa, an explanation
(if any is needed) of the origin of individual poems; the striking parallelism
of the theory as universal poetic and the poetry as stylized creation; the
explicit borrowing, by the poetician, of his principles from another dis-
cipline, and the consequent absence of doctrines emphasizing the unity
of all the arts-"art for art's sake". The final cause is never made to
predominate over the efficient cause, the mechanism of poetry. Its aim
is always an extension of its operation, not an ultimate justification of
means viewed as disparate and secondary.
The dhvani, for all its culturally and historically imposed limitations,
was not an attempt at such a universal poetic, but one which did at least
reconcile drama and literary poetry. No school attempted to define a
category of art encompassing not only literary, but truly aesthetic
subject matter, such as sculpture, music, and painting. The notion of such
a universal or analogical aesthetic did not suggest itself to Indian thinkers,
as it has to our own since the Renaissance, because the creative act had
always been considered a matter of technique and style embodied in a
tradition, evolving from its own material, and not a manifestation of
the freely intuiting intellect, the genius. This applies equally to the
plastic and the verbal arts. India had art of a high order; but analogical
interpretations of different art forms were unknown. We have seen how
difficult it proved even to reconcile drama and kavya, similar in many
respects. An aesthetic would be impossible to conceive.
What are the intellectual foundations of the alamkāraśāstra, and what
are its claims to poetic relevance? We cannot discuss here in great detail
the interesting question of the dhvani in the context of medieval poetry-
The final, almost absurd consequences of this alliance of poetry and
religion were admitted in the sixteenth century by the school of Rūpago-
svāmin in Bengal, who chose to express their theology in poetic terms.
Bhakti is elevated into the 'regal' rasa (bhaktirasarāt), qne other forms of
affection are considered subordinate rasas.
CONCLUSION
(V) CONCLUSION
We have come a long way from the expressionistic poetics of Bhāmaha
and Dandin. The transition is harsh and seemingly total-the grammarian
has become the devotional mystic-but the civilization has also changed,
and the theory reflects the change. Certain fundamental ideas and
approaches are held in common: the expressionistic bias, precluding, even
in theories so evidently psychological as the dhvani-rasa, an explanation
(if any is needed) of the origin of individual poems; the striking parallelism
of the theory as universal poetic and the poetry as stylized creation; the
explicit borrowing, by the poetician, of his principles from another dis-
cipline, and the consequent absence of doctrines emphasizing the unity
of all the arts-"art for art's sake". The final cause is never made to
predominate over the efficient cause, the mechanism of poetry. Its aim
is always an extension of its operation, not an ultimate justification of
means viewed as disparate and secondary.
The dhvani, for all its culturally and historically imposed limitations,
was not an attempt at such a universal poetic, but one which did at least
reconcile drama and literary poetry. No school attempted to define a
category of art encompassing not only literary, but truly aesthetic
subject matter, such as sculpture, music, and painting. The notion of such
a universal or analogical aesthetic did not suggest itself to Indian thinkers,
as it has to our own since the Renaissance, because the creative act had
always been considered a matter of technique and style embodied in a
tradition, evolving from its own material, and not a manifestation of
the freely intuiting intellect, the genius. This applies equally to the
plastic and the verbal arts. India had art of a high order; but analogical
interpretations of different art forms were unknown. We have seen how
difficult it proved even to reconcile drama and kavya, similar in many
respects. An aesthetic would be impossible to conceive.
What are the intellectual foundations of the alamkāraśāstra, and what
are its claims to poetic relevance? We cannot discuss here in great detail
the interesting question of the dhvani in the context of medieval poetry-