IGNOU BHDC-106 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU BHDC-106 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU BHDC-106 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Briefly discuss the major schools of Indian poetics.

Ans. In Indian poetics, deep contemplation on the ‘soul of poetry’ by various scholars led to the emergence of six major schools (Sampradayas). Each of these schools considers one particular element of poetry as the most important and declares it the ‘soul of poetry’. A brief discussion of them is as follows:

1. Rasa School (रस सम्प्रदाय): This is the oldest and most important school of Indian poetics. Its proponent is Acharya Bharata Muni , who in his treatise ‘Natyashastra’ , considered Rasa (aesthetic relish) as the soul of poetry. According to him, ‘Vibhāvānubhāvavyabhichārisaṃyogādrasaniṣpattiḥ’ , which means Rasa is produced from the combination of Vibhavas (determinants), Anubhavas (consequents), and Vyabhichari Bhavas (transitory states). This school considers aesthetic pleasure or relish as the ultimate goal of poetry.
2. Alankara School (अलंकार सम्प्रदाय): Its proponent is Acharya Bhamaha . According to this school, Alankara (figures of speech) is the soul of poetry. They give paramount importance to the charm and beauty of word and meaning in poetry. Dandin, Udbhata, and Rudrata are other prominent scholars of this school. They believed that poetry without figures of speech is as unappealing as a woman without ornaments.
3. Riti School (रीति सम्प्रदाय): Acharya Vamana established this school and declared Riti (style) as the soul of poetry by stating ‘Rītirātmā kāvyasya’ . According to him, ‘Viśiṣṭa pada-racanā rītiḥ’ i.e., a special arrangement of words is Riti. He mentioned three styles: Vaidarbhi, Gaudi, and Panchali, and considered poetic qualities (Gunas) as the basis of Riti.
4. Dhvani School (ध्वनि सम्प्रदाय): This is considered the most influential school of poetics, pioneered by Acharya Anandavardhana . In his work ‘Dhvanyaloka’ , he proposed ‘Dhvani’ or suggested meaning as the soul of poetry. According to him, the best poetry is that in which a charming suggested meaning (Vyangyartha) surpasses the literal and metaphorical meanings. Mammata and Abhinavagupta further established this view.
5. Vakrokti School (वक्रोक्ति सम्प्रदाय): Its proponent is Acharya Kuntaka . In his ‘Vakroktijivitam’ , he considered Vakrokti, i.e., ‘oblique or artistic expression’, as the life of poetry. According to him, it is the extraordinary and unique expression born out of a poet’s genius that distinguishes poetry from ordinary speech.
6. Auchitya School (औचित्य सम्प्रदाय): Its proponent is Acharya Kshemendra . In his ‘Auchityavicharacharcha’ , he regarded Auchitya (propriety/appropriateness) as the vital element of poetry. According to him, all elements like Rasa, Alankara, Riti, etc., are meaningful only when they are used appropriately according to the place, character, and context. Without propriety, poetry suffers from aesthetic flaws and loss of beauty.

In conclusion, all these schools highlight different aspects of poetry and are complementary to each other, collectively building the rich tradition of Indian poetics.

Q2. Critically discuss the development of poetics during the Ritikal.

Ans. The Ritikal (approx. 1650-1850 AD) in Hindi literature is extremely significant from the perspective of the study, imitation, and application of poetics. During this period, there was a strong tendency to write treatises on the characteristics, types, and principles of poetry alongside composing poems. A critical discussion of this development can be done based on the following points: Development and Achievements:

• Advent of Sanskrit Poetics into Hindi: The scholars of the Ritikal deeply studied the works of Sanskrit poets like Mammata, Vishvanath, Jayadeva, Bhanudatta Mishra, and presented their principles in the Braj Bhasha. This made poetic knowledge accessible to the common people.
• Tradition of Acharya-Kavi (Poet-Scholars): ‘Acharya-Kavis’ emerged in this period, who would first state a principle (lakshana) and then present their own poetry as an illustration (lakshya). Keshavdas (Kavipriya, Rasikpriya) , Chintamani (Kavikulkalpataru) , Matiram (Rasraj) , and Dev (Bhavavilas) are the main figures of this tradition.
• Comprehensive and Specific Treatises: Some poets discussed all aspects of poetry (Rasa, Alankara, Guna, Dosha, Shabda-Shakti), who were called ‘Sarvanga-Nirupak’ Acharyas (e.g., Chintamani, Dev). Others wrote treatises on a specific aspect, especially Shringara Rasa (the Erotic sentiment) and Nayika-Bhed (classification of heroines) (e.g., Matiram).

Criticism and Limitations:

• Lack of Originality: There is a general lack of originality in the poetic thought of the Ritikal. Most works are mere translations, summaries, or imitations of Sanskrit treatises. No new theory was established.
• Narrow Perspective: The focus of the scholars of this period was mainly on Shringara Rasa and its object, ‘Nayika-Bhed’. Other serious aspects of poetry, such as philosophy of life, social depiction, and sublime emotions, were neglected.
• Conflict between Scholarship and Poetic Art: The main aim of these poets was to please their patron kings and display their erudition. Consequently, their role as a scholar often overshadowed their poetic artistry, leading to artificiality and a tendency for exhibitionism in poetry.

In conclusion, while poetics was widely disseminated during the Ritikal, it did not see any original development. This period was an era of presentation and application of Sanskrit poetic principles in Hindi, rather than the creation of new thought. Nevertheless, it prepared a classical background for Hindi criticism.

Q3. Explain Ajneya’s poetic thought.

Ans. In modern Hindi literature, Sachchidananda Hirananda Vatsyayan ‘Ajneya’ was a transformative poet, writer, and thinker. His poetic thought broke away from traditional beliefs and pioneered a new direction, which can be understood in the context of ‘Prayogvad’ (Experimentalism) and ‘Nayi Kavita’ (New Poetry). The key points of his poetic thought are as follows:

1. Experimentalism: Ajneya believed that the poet’s work is to experiment with truth. In the preface to ‘Tar Saptak’, he clarified that “the poet is an experimenter.” For him, experimentation was a means, not an end. This experimentation was not just in craft or language, but also at the level of feeling and sensibility. He believed that new tools and new media were necessary to express the changing reality.
2. Individuality and Authenticity of Experience: Ajneya gave importance to the individual’s personal experience, his inner conflicts, and the crisis of existence, rather than collective ideologies. He believed that honestly lived reality is the truth of poetry. He spoke not of the dissolution of the ‘ego’ but of its elevation. His poem ‘Yeh Deep Akela’ (This Lonely Lamp) is a symbol of connecting this individual consciousness with the collective.
3. Crisis of Language and Communication: Ajneya felt that traditional language and symbols were inadequate to express modern complex sensibilities. He wrote, “These similes have become tarnished.” Therefore, he emphasized refining language and creating new images and symbols. For him, ‘silence’ was also a powerful form of expression. He believed that the full meaning of a poem is not communicated to the reader; rather, the reader completes it with his own experience.
4. Modern Understanding of Tradition: Ajneya was not against tradition but against its blind imitation. He believed that tradition is not a static object but a living flow. We should take from tradition what is still relevant today and connect it with our contemporary consciousness.
5. Importance of the Moment: Ajneya emphasized living and experiencing each ‘moment’ of life with full intensity. For him, the intensity of experience is possible only in the moment. He tried to connect the ‘moment’ with the universal truth, which gives his poetry a philosophical depth.

In short, Ajneya’s poetic thought is based on individual truth, intellectualism, experimentalism, and a consciousness of language, which deeply influenced subsequent Hindi poetry.

Q4. State Acharya Mammata’s views on the definition of poetry.

Ans. In the tradition of Indian poetics, Acharya Mammata holds a very significant position. The definition of poetry (kavya-lakshana) presented in his work ‘Kavyaprakasha’ is considered the most systematic, logical, and syncretic. After refuting and refining the views of his predecessors, Mammata presented his well-considered definition of poetry as follows: “Tadadoṣau śabdārthau saguṇāvanalaṅkṛtī punaḥ kvāpi.” Meaning, “That (poetry) is a combination of word and meaning which is free from faults, possesses merits (gunas), and may sometimes be without figures of speech (alankaras).” This definition has four main components, which can be analyzed as follows:

1. Adoshau (Faultless): Mammata made the ‘absence of faults’ the first and foremost condition for poetry. This is his originality. He believed that if poetry contains faults (doshas) that diminish Rasa (e.g., harsh sounds, grammatical errors), it cannot be considered good poetry. However, he also acknowledged that a completely faultless composition is rare, so the implication is that poetry should be as free from faults as possible.
2. Sagunau (With Gunas): The presence of poetic qualities or merits (Gunas like Madhurya/sweetness, Oja/vigor, Prasada/clarity) is essential in poetry. Gunas are properties of Rasa and are necessary for the elevation of Rasa in poetry. Through this term, Mammata indirectly accepted the existence of Rasa, as Gunas cannot exist without Rasa. Thus, he incorporated the Rasa school into his definition.
3. Shabdarthau (Word and Meaning): Like Bhamaha, Mammata considered the combination of ‘word and meaning’ as the body of poetry. He gave equal importance to both, not just one. Poetry is not merely an arrangement of beautiful words, nor is it just the contemplation of beautiful meaning, but a harmonious combination of both.
4. Analankriti Punah Kvapi (Sometimes without Alankaras): This is the most revolutionary and debated part of the definition. With this, Mammata refuted the Alankara school’s belief that figures of speech are essential for poetry. He argued that if a composition fully expresses Rasa, it will be considered poetry even if it lacks alankaras. Yes, the presence of alankaras enhances the beauty of poetry, just as ornaments enhance the beauty of a body, but they are not essential parts of the body.

In conclusion, Acharya Mammata’s definition successfully synthesizes the views of his predecessors. By excluding faults, giving importance to Gunas and Rasa, and making alankaras optional, it presents the nature of poetry in a very balanced and comprehensive manner, which is why it became the most accepted definition in the subsequent era.

Q5. Clarifying the meaning of Rasa, critically discuss the views of any one Acharya on Rasa theory.

Ans. Meaning of Rasa In Indian poetics, ‘Rasa’ is the central element of poetry. Literally, ‘Rasa’ means ‘juice’, ‘essence’, or ‘extract’. In the context of poetry, it means the transcendental pleasure that a Sahridaya (a sensitive reader or spectator) derives from reading, listening to, or watching a work of art (poem, play, etc.). The proponent of the Rasa school, Acharya Bharata Muni , in his treatise ‘Natyashastra’, gave the famous Rasa-Sutra : “Vibhāvānubhāvavyabhichārisaṃyogādrasaniṣpattiḥ.” This means that the Sthayibhava (permanent emotion) is transformed into Rasa through its combination with Vibhavas (determinants – Alambana and Uddipana), Anubhavas (consequents or physical manifestations), and Vyabhichari/Sanchari Bhavas (transitory states). For example, when Dushyanta (Alambana Vibhava), upon seeing the beauty of Shakuntala and the secluded grove (Uddipana Vibhava), exhibits shyness, glances (Anubhavas), and joy, anxiety (Sanchari Bhavas), the permanent emotion of ‘Rati’ (love) latent in the heart of the Sahridaya is awakened and culminates into ‘Shringara Rasa’ (the Erotic sentiment). This relish is Rasa. Acharya Abhinavagupta’s Theory of Rasa (Abhivyaktivada) Among the scholars who interpreted Bharata Muni’s Rasa-Sutra, the view of Acharya Abhinavagupta is the most authentic and widely accepted. His theory is known as ‘Abhivyaktivada’ (the theory of manifestation). He provided a psychological and philosophical solution, overcoming the limitations of the views of his predecessors (Bhatta Lollata, Shankuka, Bhatta Nayaka). A critical discussion of Abhinavagupta’s views:

• Theory of Manifestation: According to Abhinavagupta, Rasa is neither created (Lollata), nor inferred (Shankuka), nor enjoyed in a worldly sense (Bhatta Nayaka), but is ‘manifested’ (abhivyakta).
• Latent Permanent Emotions as ‘Vasanas’: He believed that in the mind of every Sahridaya, permanent emotions like love (rati), grief (shoka), enthusiasm (utsaha), etc., exist in a dormant state as ‘Vasanas’ or ‘Samskaras’ (impressions from past lives).
• Process of Sadharanikarana (Universalization): When the Sahridaya reads a poem or watches a play, a special process called ‘Sadharanikarana’ takes place due to the effect of Vibhavas, etc. In this process, the characters (like Rama, Sita) and events are freed from their specific time, place, and personal relationships. They cease to be ‘mine’ or ‘other’s’ and become universal.
• Relish of Rasa: Through Sadharanikarana, the Sahridaya rises above personal attachments, aversions, and self-interest. In this state, the dormant permanent emotion within them is awakened and manifested. This manifested, universalized permanent emotion, originally existing as a Vasana, is ‘Rasa’. This pleasure is transcendental ( alaukika ), conscious, and akin to supreme bliss ( Brahmananda-sahodara ).

Critical Evaluation:

Abhinavagupta’s theory successfully answers the complex question of why we derive pleasure from witnessing someone else’s sorrow (as in Karuna Rasa or the Pathetic sentiment). According to him, due to universalization, that sorrow no longer remains personal but becomes a universal human emotion, the relish of which is blissful. His theory is a wonderful synthesis of psychology and philosophy and explains the process of Rasa-realization in the most logical way. That is why all subsequent scholars have accepted it.

Q6. Write an essay on ‘Rasa Deliberation in Hindi Literature’.

Ans. The tradition of Rasa-deliberation in Hindi literature is essentially an extension of Sanskrit poetics, but it has also presented original ideas in its course of development. The history of Rasa-discourse in Hindi extends from the Bhaktikal to the modern era, and it is necessary to understand its various stages. Bhaktikal (The Devotional Period): This period was not one of formulating Rasa theories but a golden age of their practical application. Surdas took Vatsalya (parental affection) and Shringara (erotic sentiment) to their zenith in his compositions. Tulsidas coordinated almost all Rasas in his ‘Ramcharitmanas’, but its primary Rasa is Shanta (the quietistic). The greatest contribution of this period was the attempt to establish ‘Bhakti’ (devotion) as the eleventh Rasa, which scholars like Rupa Goswami and Jiva Goswami provided with a classical basis. Ritikal (The Scholastic Period): During this period, Rasa-deliberation reached its peak. ‘Acharya-Kavis’ (poet-scholars) like Keshavdas, Chintamani, Dev, Matiram, and Bhikharidas wrote treatises on Rasa in Braj Bhasha, based on Sanskrit texts. Keshavdas’s ‘Rasikpriya’ and Matiram’s ‘Rasraj’ are excellent examples. However, the Rasa-discourse of this period was narrow. Its focus remained largely confined to Shringara Rasa and its component, ‘Nayika-Bhed’ (classification of heroines). Due to a lack of originality and the tendency to please patrons, the sublime form of Rasa was often suppressed, and it became a tool for depicting sensuousness. Adhunik Kal (The Modern Period): In the modern period, Rasa-deliberation found a new direction. The tradition of classical analysis continued during the Bharatendu and Dwivedi eras. The real and original thinking began with Acharya Ramchandra Shukla . Shukla ji viewed Rasa in the context of Western psychology and literary theories. He called Rasa the ‘liberated state of the heart’ and linked it to the ‘aspirational stage of social welfare’ (lok-mangal ki sadhanavastha). His interpretation of Sadharanikarana (‘universalization of the objective correlative’ or alambanatva dharma) was an original contribution. He provided Rasa with a social and moral foundation. After Shukla ji, Dr. Nagendra viewed the Rasa theory from a psychoanalytic perspective. He interpreted Rasa as the ‘dissolution of the ego’ and the sublimation of repressed desires. According to him, through the process of Sadharanikarana, the Sahridaya’s ego is dissolved, and they experience the bliss of self-realization. He established Rasa as an ‘aesthetic-based psychological theory’. On the other hand, Marxist critics like Ramvilas Sharma criticized the Rasa theory as feudal and individualistic, emphasizing the social aspect of literature. In conclusion, the journey of Rasa-deliberation in Hindi begins with the imitation of Sanskrit, attains emotional heights in the Bhaktikal, becomes bound by scholastic rigidity in the Ritikal, and finally, in the modern era, acquires new psychological and philosophical dimensions at the hands of thinkers like Acharya Shukla and Dr. Nagendra.

Q7. Discuss the explanation of Sadharanikarana given by Acharya Vishvanath.

Ans. In Indian poetics, ‘Sadharanikarana’ (universalization) is the most crucial part of the Rasa process. It is the process through which the Sahridaya (reader/spectator) is freed from personal narrowness and is able to relish the emotions depicted in the poetry. Although this theory was initiated by Bhatta Nayaka, it was Acharya Vishvanath who presented its clearest and most influential explanation in his work ‘Sahityadarpana’ . According to Acharya Vishvanath, when the Sahridaya savors a literary work, the Vibhavas, etc. (like characters, setting) shed their specific identity and assume a general or common form. Explaining this state, he writes: “Parasya na parasyeti mameti na mameti ca. Tadāsvāde vibhāvādeḥ paricchedo na vidyate॥” Meaning, “At the time of relishing [Rasa], the Vibhavas, etc., are perceived neither as belonging to another, nor as not belonging to another; neither as one’s own, nor as not one’s own. At that time, there is no limitation or distinction of the Vibhavas.” Considering this explanation, the following points become clear:

1. Cessation of Personal Relationships with ‘Others’: In the state of Sadharanikarana, the Sahridaya does not see the characters of the work (like Rama, Sita, Dushyanta, Shakuntala) as specific individuals (e.g., Dasharatha’s son, Janak’s daughter). They do not become indifferent by considering them as ‘belonging to another’.
2. Cessation of Personal Relationships with ‘Self’: At the same time, they do not establish a personal relationship with those characters (like ‘they are mine’). If a spectator were to see Shakuntala as his own daughter or wife, he would feel worldly sorrow at her separation, not the transcendental bliss (Rasa).
3. Universality of Emotion: With the dissolution of this distinction between ‘mine’ and ‘other’s’, the characters and their emotions become universal. Shakuntala’s love is no longer just her own but becomes ‘the love of a woman’s heart’. The Sahridaya identifies with this generalized or universal emotion.
4. Dissolution of Ego: In this process, the Sahridaya’s ‘ego’ or sense of self-interest temporarily dissolves. They forget their personal joys and sorrows, profits and losses, and become immersed in the world of the literary work. It is in this ego-free state that the relish of Rasa is possible.

Acharya Vishvanath’s explanation is highly psychological and precise. It clarifies why the pleasure of poetry is different from worldly pleasure and how one can experience bliss even while watching tragic scenes. Accepting Bhatta Nayaka’s concept of ‘Bhavakatva’ (the power of generalization), he made the process of Sadharanikarana more comprehensible. His explanation provides a realistic depiction of the Sahridaya’s mental state and is the key to understanding the Rasa theory.

Q8. Explain the importance of ‘word’ in poetry.

Ans. In poetry, the ‘word’ (Shabda) is not merely a medium for conveying ideas; it is a living, meaningful, and beautiful entity in itself. Recognizing the paramount importance of the word, Indian poetic scholars gave definitions like “Shabdarthau sahitau kavyam” (The unity of word and meaning is poetry). The importance of the word in poetry is evident in the following ways:

1. As the Body of Poetry: Scholars have considered word and meaning as the body of poetry. Just as a body is necessary for the soul, a body of words is essential for the expression of emotion or Rasa. The poet uses words to give a concrete form to his feelings. The selection of the right word (‘uchit pad-vinyas’) is the touchstone of a poet’s craft.
2. Expansion of Meaning through Word-Powers (Shabda-Shakti): The importance of a word lies in its powers.
   • Abhidha (Literal Power): This is the word’s common, denotative power that gives its dictionary meaning. It is the foundation of poetry.
   • Lakshana (Indicative Power): When the primary meaning is obstructed, Lakshana provides another, related (indicative) meaning. For instance, in ‘The whole house went to see the fair’, ‘house’ indicates ‘the people of the house’. It brings brevity and obliquity to poetry.
   • Vyanjana (Suggestive Power): This is the most important word-power in poetry. It reveals a third, suggested meaning (Dhvani) after Abhidha and Lakshana are exhausted. The sentence ‘The sun has set’ can suggest different things depending on the context: ‘time to return home’ for a cowherd, ‘time for evening prayers’ for a priest. The highest elements of poetry, ‘Rasa’ and ‘Dhvani’, are based on this power of suggestion.
3. Auditory Beauty and Creation of Gunas: Words not only convey meaning but also create sound. A mellifluous diction (e.g., avoidance of harsh consonants) creates the Madhurya Guna (sweetness) and euphony, which is suitable for Erotic and Pathetic sentiments. Conversely, the use of harsh consonants and compound letters creates the Oja Guna (vigor), which is necessary for Heroic and Furious sentiments.
4. Basis of Alankara (Figure of Speech): The figures of speech that enhance the beauty of poetry are also dependent on words. Shabdalankaras (figures of speech based on sound), such as Alliteration (Anuprasa), Pun (Yamaka), and Paronomasia (Shlesha), are entirely based on the repetition, phonic similarity, and polysemy of words. The beauty of these figures is lost if the words are changed.

In conclusion, the ‘word’ in poetry is not a passive tool but an active, creative force. Through its various powers, sonic potential, and ornamental capacity, the word makes emotion communicable, meaning profound, and poetry beautiful. That is why a poet is called a ‘craftsman of words’.

Q9. Discuss the concept of ‘Auchitya’ in the context of Western thought.

Ans. In Indian poetics, the credit for establishing ‘Auchitya’ (Propriety) as an independent school goes to Acharya Kshemendra , who declared it the ‘soul’ or ‘life’ of poetry. Auchitya means ‘the state of being proper’—that is, the suitable, harmonious, and congruous use of various poetic elements (like Rasa, Alankara, Riti, Guna, character, language, etc.) with each other. Interestingly, a similar concept has existed in Western literary thought since antiquity, known as ‘Decorum’ or ‘propriety’. The discussion of Auchitya in the context of Western thought can be as follows:

1. Aristotle: In his ‘Poetics’, Aristotle did not directly use the term ‘Auchitya’, but his entire discourse is inspired by this principle. In the characterization of a tragic hero, he states that the character must be ‘appropriate’—meaning a woman’s character should be womanly and a slave’s character should be servile. The principle of the ‘Unity of Plot’ is also a form of Auchitya, where all events must be coherently related to the main action.
2. Horace: The Roman critic Horace, in his ‘Ars Poetica’ (The Art of Poetry), placed great emphasis on ‘Decorum’. He clearly states that there should be conformity between subject matter and style. A sublime style is appropriate for a serious subject, and a simple style for a light one. He instructed that the language and behavior of a character should be depicted according to their status, age, gender, and social position, which is very close to Kshemendra’s theory of Auchitya.
3. Longinus: In his treatise ‘On the Sublime’, Longinus emphasized grandeur and impact. However, he was also conscious that sublimity must be used on the proper occasion. The use of grand words and ideas in an inappropriate place becomes bombast, which is the opposite of the sublime. Thus, the effectiveness of the sublime also depends on propriety.

Comparative View:

• In the Indian tradition, Kshemendra elevated Auchitya to a comprehensive, independent theory, giving it the status of the ‘soul of poetry’. He conducted a very minute analysis by enumerating 27 types of propriety.
• In the Western tradition, ‘Decorum’ was considered a necessary rule or quality of good writing, but it was never given the status of the soul or central theory of poetry. It was more prevalent as a practical guideline.

In conclusion, the need for harmony, conformity, and suitability in art is a universal truth, known to Indian thinkers as ‘Auchitya’ and to Western thinkers as ‘Decorum’. Both concepts hold that the success of any work of art depends on the proper combination of its various components.

Q10. Write short notes on any two of the following: (a) Lakshana word-power (b) Abhyasa (c) Anumitivada (d) Nagendra’s thought on Rasa

Ans. (a) Lakshana Word-Power (लक्षणा शब्द-शक्ति) Lakshana is the power of a word that, when the primary meaning (Vachyartha) is obstructed, conveys another related meaning (Lakshyartha). It is the second of the three word-powers, following Abhidha and preceding Vyanjana. For Lakshana to function, three conditions are essential:

1. Mukhyartha-badha (Obstruction of the Primary Meaning): A blockage in applying the literal or primary meaning of the sentence. For example, saying “The village is in the Ganga” obstructs the primary meaning because a village cannot be inside the river’s current.
2. Mukhyartha-yoga (Connection with the Primary Meaning): There must be a relationship between the primary meaning and the implied meaning. In the above example, there is a relationship of proximity between the Ganga (primary meaning) and the bank of the Ganga (implied meaning).
3. Rudhi or Prayojana (Custom or Purpose): The use of Lakshana is either due to a long-standing custom (Rudhi) or for a specific purpose (Prayojana).

Rudhi Lakshana:

When there is no special purpose behind an indicative usage but only popular custom, e.g., “Punjab is brave.” Here, the indicative meaning of Punjab is ‘the people of Punjab’, and this usage is based on custom.

Prayojanavati Lakshana:

When Lakshana is used for a special purpose, e.g., “The village is in the Ganga.” Here, the purpose of saying ‘in the Ganga’ instead of ‘on the bank of the Ganga’ is to suggest the coolness and sanctity of the village. This purpose gives rise to ‘Vyanjana’ (suggestion), hence Prayojanavati Lakshana is considered the basis of Vyanjana.

(c) Anumitivada (Theory of Inference) ‘Anumitivada’ is the theory propounded by Acharya Shankuka , the second interpreter of Bharata Muni’s Rasa-Sutra. It was presented in refutation of Bhatta Lollata’s ‘Utpattivada’ (theory of origination). Shankuka’s theory is based on the Nyaya school of philosophy. The main points of his theory are as follows:

1. Imitation and Inference: According to Shankuka, the actor on stage imitates the original character (e.g., Rama). The spectator, observing the actor’s skillful performance (Vibhavas, Anubhavas, etc.), ‘infers’ the permanent emotion (e.g., Rati/love) of the original character in the actor.
2. Chitra-Turaga-Nyaya (The logic of the painted horse): This inference is different from ordinary logical inference. Shankuka explains it with the ‘logic of the painted horse’. Just as seeing a picture of a horse gives us the knowledge ‘this is a horse’, which is neither entirely true (as it’s not a real horse) nor entirely false (as it is a picture of a horse), similarly, the spectator infers the emotion of the original character in the actor.
3. State of Rasa: The spectator relishes this inferred permanent emotion, and this relish is ‘Rasa’. Thus, in Shankuka’s view, Rasa resides in the spectator (Sahridaya), but its cause is the permanent emotion inferred in the actor.

Criticism:

Later scholars criticized this view, arguing that the relish of Rasa is a direct and blissful experience, not a logical and intellectual process of inference. The emotional immersion and transcendental bliss that are the lifeblood of Rasa are not possible through inference. Despite this, Shankuka made the significant contribution of being the first to connect the experience of Rasa with the spectator.