The concept of Devegefceefle as ascribed to ïIz»‚k.

By
Dr.Malhar Kulkarni and Rajashree Barve-Oak1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Background :

The aesthetic experience, its nature, its elements are discussed extensively in the
Indian tradition of poetics. The aesthetic experience in any art, especially poetry and
drama, is termed as jme. In the tradition of Indian Poetics, the discussion begins with
veešŸeMeeŒe of Yejle, who propounds ‘jmemet$e’ (a formula for Rasa) as follows,
efJeYeeJe-DevegYeeJe-JÙeefYeÛeeefj-YeeJeeod-jmeefve<heefòe: ~2
From the combination of efJeYeeJe, DevegYeeJe, JÙeefYeÛeeefj-YeeJe, is born jme. The theorists after

Yejle were mainly interested in the meaning and interpretation of the ‘jmemet$e’.
There was much controversy regarding the words mebÙeesie and efve<heefòe in the ‘jmemet$e’. From

the various interpretations of the word efve<heefòe, all the theorists have expressed their

views on the process of the ‘experience of the jme’. Various theorists interpreting jmemet$e

included Yeóueesuueš, ïIz»‚k, YeóveeÙekeâ, DeefYeveJeieghle etc.

Texts of all these theorists are not available today. We come across all these theorists
in DeefYeveJeYeejleer of DeefYeveJeieghle. cecceš in his keâeJÙeØekeâeçe, also quotes the same theorists.

Among these theorists, ïIz»‚k interpreted the ‘jmemet$e’ with the help of the concept of

Devegceeve or inference, and hence he is considered as a scholar from the ancient Indian
school of logic.

ïIz»‚k states that the aesthetic experience is in the form of Inference.

mLeeÙeer is not mJeMeyoJeeÛÙe i.e. it cannot be presented by uttering its denotative word.
 2

Hence, Meyo ØeceeCe does not apply hear and hence it has to be inferred. Thus, Meyo ØeceeCe

is not applicable in case of jme, but one must rely on Devegceeve ØeceeCe.

According to ïIz»‚k, “The aesthetic experience is an ‘inference’ on the part of

audience. The mLeeÙeer of the character is inferred by the audience in the actor. The efJeYeeJe
etc. imitated or represented by the actor play the role of nsleg in the inference.”3

Figure1

2. The Problem:

• What is the form of the inference ?

• Is this inference identical with concept of Devegefceefle as given in the school of vÙeeÙe ?
• whether the vÙeeÙe concept of Devegefceefle with five-steps-syllogism, is applicable in the
Devegefceefle given by Mebkegâkeâ?
• what Mebkegâkeâ meant by the concept of Devegefceefle ?
 3

3. Survey of literature:

3.1. Textual sources:

As stated before, the individual text of this theorist is not available. The available

textual source is the theory of ïIz»‚k quoted in DeefYeveJeYeejleer and keâeJÙeØekeâeçe. These texts

present the theory as a hetJe&he#e. Both these texts discuss ïIz»‚k’s theory and refute it to

support the theory of DeefYeveJeieghle. Both the texts do not discuss anything about the form
and the interpretation of Devegceeve.

DeefYeveJeYeejleer although gives emphasis on the Devegceeve part of the theory, it does not talk

about the structure of Devegceeve.

3.2. Commentaries:
efJeceuee šerkeâe, meeefnlÙeohe&Ce discusses the Devegceeve and tries to give the probable syllogism

of the Devegceeve. Yet, it does not discuss the difference in the form of Devegceeve in art from

the Devegceeve in logic. keâeJÙeØeoerhe šerkeâe and yeeueyeesefOeveer šerkeâe of keâeJÙeØekeâeMe discusses on the same line.

3.3. Critical works:

The works of History of Sanskrit poetics by Prof. Kane, Prof. De, Shrikrishna

Chaitanya etc. treat ïIz»‚k as one of the undeveloped theorists before DeefYeveJeieghle.

The critical books by Jog, Gadgil etc. do not discuss the theory in detail.

Prof. R.B.Patankar puts up some arguments defending ïIz»‚k. He defends him based

on efÛe$e-legjie-vÙeeÙe. He also has not discussed anything about the form of Devegceeve.

keâeJÙeØekeâeMe keâe oeMe&efvekeâ Oejeleue by Prof. Sharma discusses in detail the concept of Devegceeve

as used by ïIz»‚k.There, too, there is not much discussion about the comparative

study of the two concepts of Devegceeve.

Thus, hardly any discussion is found about the concept of Devegceeve by ïIz»‚k and its
 4

comparison with the concept of inference in Indian Logic.

4. Purpose of the paper :

The purpose of this paper is to study the nature and form of Devegefceefle which is used by

ïIz»‚k while establishing his theory in the light of the general concept of Devegefceefle as

given in the school of vÙeeÙe. The purpose is also to check whether the vÙeeÙe concept of

Devegefceefle with five-steps-syllogism, is applicable in the Devegefceefle given by ïIz»‚k and also

to examine what ïIz»‚k meant by the concept of Devegefceefle.

4. Concept of Devegefceefle :

Devegceeve is that cognition which presupposes some other cognition. It is knowledge

which arises (Deveg) after another knowledge. It is mediate and indirect and arises
through a mark, efueÁ or nsleg (middle term) which is invariably connected with the meeOÙe
(the major term). Invariable concomitance (JÙeeefhle) is the nerve of inference. The
presence of the nsleg in the he#e (minor term) is called he#eOece&lee. The invariable association
of the efueÁ with the meeOÙe is called JÙeeefhle.
In the technical terminology of vÙeeÙe, Devegefceefle is knowledge that arises from hejeceMe&. hejeceMe&
is a complex cognition which arises from a combination of the knowledge of
invariable concomitance (JÙeeefhle%eeve) and that of the presence of the efueÁ in the he#e --
technically known as he#eOece&lee%eeve.4
The example of mountain, fire and smoke is well known.
If we apply the same concept of Devegefceefle to the example of actor acting the character of
og<Ùevle,
meeOÙe is mLeeÙeer say jefle of og<Ùevle, he#e is the actor, nsleg are the efJeYeeJe etc. represented by the
actor.

The syllogism of Devegefceefle as given in the commentary of meeefnlÙeohe&Ce -

Øeefle%ee- og<ÙevleesÙeb MekegâvleueeieesÛejjefleceev~~

 5

nsleg- leoeÅeeuecyeveefJeYeeJe-GöerheveefJeYeeJe-DevegYeeJe-mebÛeejerYeeJeeefoceòJeeled ~
JÙeeefhle- Ùees Ùeoe DeeuecyeveefJeYeeJeòJes meefle ÙeefÉ<eÙekeâevegYeeJemeÃeeefjYeeJeJeeved me leûesÛejjefleceeved5 ~

On seeing smoke at the mountain, one recalls the association of fire and smoke and
hence infers that this smoke must also be accompanied by fire.
In the same way, on seeing the efJeYeeJeeefos in actor, one recalls the association of these

efJeYeeJeeefos with the mLeeÙeer of character and hence infers the mLeeÙeer.
Here, the problem arises about the he#e. efueÁ i.e. efJeYeeJeeefos are perceived in the actor
which is he#e, but the meeOÙe i.e. mLeeÙeer is inferred on some other he#e namely character.
If we apply the definition given by leke&âmeb«en, the jefle is inferred from hejeceMe&. Here hejeceMe&
is the cognition which arises from a combination of the knowledge of invariable
concomitance i.e. the association of mLeeÙeer and efJeYeeJe and that of the presence of the efueÁ
in the he#e -- technically known as he#eOece&lee%eeve, here, the knowledge of the presence of
efJeYeeJeeefos in the actor. Here, although meeOÙe and efueÁ are associated, yet the definition
does not fit in because the meeOÙe is associated with some he#e and the efueÁ is associated
with some other he#e.

Thus, neither the general concept of Devegefceefle nor the particular definition given by
leke&âmeb«en applies to the concept of Devegefceefle given by Sankuka. The argument will be more
precise by analysis of the definition of JÙeeefhle in vÙeeÙeMeeŒe. The definition of JÙeeefhle in

vÙeeÙeefmeOoevlecegòeâeJeueer is as follows,

JÙeeefhle: meeOÙeJeovÙeefmceved DemecyevOe: Goeùle: ~

JÙeeefhle is the statement that the nsleg is not associated with any other he#e other

than the one possessing meeOÙe.

In case of this JÙeeefhle , the meeOÙe, the mLeeÙeer which is associated with the meeOÙeJeod,
character, is inferred in the meeOÙeJeovÙe he#e i.e. the actor.
 6

Figure 2

Figure 3
 7

5. Difference between the Devegefceefle in logic and Devegefceefle in art:

The nsleg is observed on he#e. mebefoiOemeeOÙeJeeved he#e: ~6 Here, the efJeYeeJeeefos are the nsleg. They are
the emotions of the character, hence their substratum turns out to be the character and
not the actor. In this case if we assume that the actor is the he#e then the emotion will
belong to the actor and the spectator is least interested in the personal emotions of the
actor. Hence some arrangement should be made so that even if the he#e is the actor7,
the nsleg will belong to the character. Hence the he#eOece&lee%eeve should be defined here in a
new way.8
ïIz»‚k deals with this problem in detail. He establishes his he#e as the actor and states that
the actor should be perceived by a special Øeefleheefòe9, cognition. This special cognition of
he#eOece&lee is different from our other experiences of the knowledge of he#eOece&lee, in the
following way:

5.1. mecÙekeâ : The spectator does not have the notion that the actor himself is jece.10
5.2. efceLÙee : actor is not jece.11 The perception is efceLÙee when it is refuted afterwards by
the mecÙekeâ. Here, the perception is not refuted by yeeOe. It is not the case that spectator
assumes the actor to be jece only in the performance and after the performance is over,
he suddenly realizes that the actor was not at all jece. Spectator always remembers the
experience of the mLeeÙeer as the emotion of jece and not the emotion of the actor. Thus in
this particular cognition, yeeOe never appears.12 Sometimes there is possibility of yeeOe
when during the performance, the actor loses his bearing of the character, and the
spectator is forced to realize the fact that this is not jece but the actor. Then there is
possibility of yeeOe, which then proves the cognition of jece to be efceLÙee and turns out as
jmeefJeIve.

5.3. meeÂMÙe: actor is similar to jece.13

Spectator does not even think that the actor is a person resembling jece.

5.4. mebMeÙe: is actor jece ?14

Spectator does not experience the doubt, whether this is actor or jece. The vÙeeÙe believes
 8

that, the knowledge is ØeceeCe if it is resulting in some action i.e. DeLe&ef›eâÙee. If not, it is efceLÙee
e.g. mirage. There is perception of water but the action of bathing etc. is not possible,
hence the perception is efceLÙee. Here, the knowledge is efceLÙee yet there is action of
pleasure jmeemJeeo.15 This proves that the perception is not efceLÙee.
This also distinguishes this Devegefceefle from the general Devegefceefle. This Devegefceefle has DeLe&ef›eâÙee i.e.
this necessarily results in some action that is pleasure. The Devegefceefle in general may or
may not have DeLe&ef›eâÙee.
Thus this cognition of he#e is different from the cognitions mentioned above.

6. Concept of DevegkeâjCe :-

ïIz»‚k states that this cognition is different from mere resemblance or even imitation

because it involves Devegke=âefle.16 Here Devegke=âefle does not mean similarity or imitation but it is
the representation of the original in which there is almost unawareness of the
difference owing to the excellent skill and the command on the art.
17
ïIz»‚k uses the word DevegmevOeeve for this sense. This DevegmevOeeve is acquired by many

factors, which include the perfect depiction of emotions on the level of the script i.e.
the dialogues, speeches, the language used etc. Also responsible are the factors in the
performance part of the script, viz. the expertise in acting which is acquired by
training, deep study and a good deal of practice of the same. This skilled acting
enables the spectator to perceive the actor as the representation of the character
18
ignoring the difference. This is what ïIz»‚k refers to the special cognition of he#e,

actor.
Thus, even if meeOÙe is not present in he#e, yet the he#e should necessary be the
representation of the known he#e of the meeOÙe, here the character.
This factor of Devegke=âefle distinguishes the Devegefceefle in art from the common Devegefceefle, because
in this Devegefceefle, one infers the meeOÙe which is actually not present in the he#e, but the
spectator infers the meeOÙe in the he#e assuming he#e to be the representation of the
character due to the excellent Devegke=âefle.
 9

Devegefceefle or inference of an emotion is also experienced in real life, e.g. on seeing the
reactions like crying, weeping etc., one infers that the particular person is sad i.e. he
infers the emotion of pathos from particular reactions. Yet, this inference is not an
object of relish because unlike the inference in art, this does not contain Devegke=âefle.
Whereas, the inference in art is relishable owing to the involved Devegke=âefle. Thus Devegke=âefle is
the factor that makes the inference an object of relish.

7. The special Mekeäefle of DeefYeveÙe : DeefYeveJeieghle’’s approach.

Indian poetics gives three different powers of a word namely DeefYeOee [denotative
meaning], ue#eCee [connotative meaning] and JÙeÀevee [suggestive meaning]. The DeefYeveÙe,

on the other hand, possesses an extra type of power, which is known as DeJeieceveMeefòeâ.19
The meaning conveyed by DeefYeveÙe is due to this DeJeieceveMeefòeâ which is different from the

others DeefYeOee etc. and the base of this Meefòeâ is Devegke=âefle. As DeefYeOee resides in the word, this
resides in the actor. Thus DeefYeveJeieghle states that the Devegefceefle in art due to the excellent

Devegke=âefle, is an intrinsic power of DeefYeveÙe.

8. The efÛe$elegjie-vÙeeÙe:

ïIz»‚k states that the actor is perceived with a special type of cognition, which is

different from all the other real-life –cognitions. To support this, he gives the axiom
of the picture-horse.20

This vÙeeÙe is the contribution of ïIz»‚k to the Indian Poetics as well as criticism of art

in general.
The picture of horse is a mere imitation of the original horse in some other media.
Hence, the efÛe$elegjie, the picture-horse is not real as a horse. Yet, it does not altogether
lack reality. The horse may not be real as a horse, but it is surely real as a picture-
horse.
In the same way, the actor is not the real jece , but he is real as a veš-jece.
 10

9. The status of art: the concept of mebJeeoer-Yeüce:

Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that, ïIz»‚k admits the virtual status of art.

Yet it is necessary to examine the virtual nature of art as given by him when he
compares it with the example of a picture-horse.
Here we can compare this concept with the classification of illusion Yeüce, given by
Oece&keâerefle& in his ØeceeCeJeeefle&keâ. He classifies the Yeüce as mebJeeoer Yeüce and efJemebJeeoer Yeüce.21 mebJeeoer Yeüce is
an illusion but it is an illusion closer to reality. He gives the analogy of the fire and
glory of jewel. Perception of both of them as jewel is an illusion. The former is a
efJemebJeeoer Yeüce and the later is mebJeeoer Yeüce as it leads to reality i.e. it leads to the original.
In the same way, the perception in art is an illusion yet it is closer to the reality and it
leads to the perception of the original.

10. Conclusion: Deveg ef ceef l e in art according to Mebkegâkeâ:

According to the words ‘’Fefle ØeefleheòÙee «ee¢es vešs...’’ as given in the text ascribed to Mebkegâkeâ by
keâeJÙeØekeâeçe, the Deveg e f c eef l e in art is based on the following assumptions:

• The actor is perceived as the representation of the character.

• The eJf eYeeJeeefos should be acceptable by the spectator as associated with the character.
This depends upon cultural background of the spectator.
• The efJeYeeJeeefos should be portrayed according to the particular form of drama or
performance.
 11

NOTES:

1
This paper was presented at the BrihanMaharashtraPracyaVidyaParishat, Mumbai, May 2007 in the Philosophy
and Religion section. The paper was awarded first prize in the section.
2
Yejle, veešŸeMeeŒe.
3
efJeYeeJeeefoMeyoJÙeheosMew: ...DevegceerÙeceeveesefhe ...mLeeefÙelJesve mebYeeJÙeceeve: jlÙeeefoYee&Je: ...keâeJÙeØekeâeMe Guueeme 4.
efJeYeeJeeefo$eÙeb efueÁceJeiecÙeles... keâeJÙeØeoerhe
4
hejeceMe&pevÙeb %eevecevegefceefle:~ JÙeeefhleefJeefMe°he#eOece&lee%eeveb hejeceMe&:~ leke&âmeb«en,he=.75
5
efJeceuee šerkeâe; meeefnlÙeohe&Ce, ßeerceppeerJeevevo YeóeÛeeÙe&
6
leke&âmeb«en he=.76
7
ieJeÙes ieewjÙeced FefleJeled DeefYevesleefj og<ÙevleesÙec~ ~ efJeceuee šerkeâe- meeefnlÙeohe&Ce.
8
JÙeehÙemÙe he#eJe=efòelJeb he#eOece&lee ~ leke&â. He=. 75
9
Fefle ØeefleheòÙee «ee¢es vešs...keâe.Øe.
10
jece SJe DeÙeced SJe jece:...keâe.Øe.
11
ve jeceesÓÙece... keâe.Øe.
12
De$e Ûe yeeOe-DeveJeleej: mhe° SJe ~ keâe.Øe. yeeueyeesefOeveer šerkeâe. He=. 89
13
jecemeÂMeesÓÙeefceefle . keâe.Øe.
14
jece: mÙeeÉe ve Jee DeÙeced ... keâe.Øe.
15
DeLe&ef›eâÙeeÓefhe efceLÙee%eeveeod °e ~ DeefYeveJeYeejleer, he= 272
16
Devegkeâleg&mLelJesve efueÁyeuele: ØeleerÙeceeve: mLeeÙeer YeeJees...DevegkeâjCe¤he: ~ DeefYeveJeYeejleer, he= 271
Devegke=âefleceefnce>e meceglheeefolemÙe...efJeceuee šerkeâe- meeefnlÙeohe&Ce
17
keâeJÙeevegmevOeeveyeueeled ... ke=âef$ecewjefhe leLee DeveefYecevÙeceevew:...~ keâe.Øe. he=.89
18
efMe#eeYÙeemeke=âle-DeefYeveÙevewhegCÙesve JeemleJe®hesCewJe ØeoefMe&lemÙe... ~ efJeceuee, mee.o.
19
DeJeieceveMeefòeâefn& DeefYeveÙeveb JeeÛekeâlJeeovÙee~ DeefYeveJeYeejleer, he= 272
20
efÛe$elegjieeefovÙeeÙesve jeceesÙeefceefle ØeefleheòÙee «ee¢es vešs...~ keâe.Øe. he= 88
21
ceefCeØeoerheØeYeÙeesce&efCeyegOÅeeefYeOeeefJelees: ~
efceLÙee%eeveefJeMes<esefhe efJeMes<eesÓLe&ef›eâÙeeb Øeefle ~~

References

Primary sources
 12

Abhinavabhārati of Abhinavagupta,
Gayakwad Oriental Series-36, Vadodara, 1926.
Kāvyaprakāśa of mammata,
ed. K. S. Arjunvadkar, Arvind Mangrulkar, Deshmukh Publication, Pune, 1962
com. Bālabodhinī by Zalkikar V.R.
ed. Karmarkar R.D., B.O.R.I., Pune, 1921
com. Kāvyapradīp a by Govinda Thakkur,
ed. Abhyankar Vasudevshastri, Anandashram Sanskrit granthavali
no.66, pune, 1948.
Nātyaśāstra of Bharata,
Kāśī samskrŗt series-60, Banaras,1929.
Sāhityadarpańa of Viśvanātha,
Com. Vimalā by Shrimad Jivananda Vidyasagar, published by
Ashubodh Vidyabhushan, Kolkata, 1934.
Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta,
Trivendram Sanskrit series-5, Trivendram, 1909.
Secondary sources

Abhyankar Vasudevshastri,
1928, Nyāyakośa, B.O.R.I., Pune

De, S.K.,
1953, Some problems of Sanskŗt poetics,Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyaya Publishers, Kolkata.
1963, Sanskrit Poetics as a study of aesthetics, Bombay-Oxford University Press, Mumbai.

Deshpande, T.G.,
1958, Bharatīya Sāhityaśastra, Popular Publication, Mumbai.

Gadgil, S.R.,
2003, Kavyashastrapradeep, Venus Publication, Mumbai.
 13

Gnoli, Raniero,
1956, The aesthetic experience according to Abhinavagupta,Series orientale, Roma 11, Roma.

Jog, R.S.,
1997, Abhinav Kavyaprakash, Venus Publication, Mumbai.

Kane, P.V.,
1971, History of Sanskrit Poetics, Motilal Banarsidas Publication, Delhi.

Krishna Chaitanya,
1968, Sanskrit Poetics, Asia publishing house, London.

Mason, J.L., Patwardhan, M.V.,

1970, Aesthetic Rapture: The rasādyāya of Nātyaśastra, Volume 1,2., Deccan college of
Postgraduate and Research institute, Pune.

Patankar, R.B.,
1974, Saundarya-Mimansa, Mauj publication, Mumbai.

Sahay, Rajvansh,
1973, Bharatīya Sāhityaśastra Kośa,Bihar Hindi Grantha Academy, Patna.

Shah, K.J.,
1987, The theory of Rasa, an essay from 'India's intellectual tradition', ed. Daya Krishna, New
Delhi

Sharma, Balkrishna,
1997, Kavyaprakāśa ka dārśanika Dharātala, Pratibha publication, Delhi.

Tandon, Premkant,
 14

1983, Sādharanīkaraņa aur saundaryānubhūti ke pramukha siddhānta, Lokbharati Prakashana,

Ilahabad.

Tivari, Balendushekhar,
1980, Vastuniştha kāvyaśāstra, Classical publishing company, New Delhi.

Upadhyaya, A.M.,
1996, Kāvyānuśasana of Hemacandra: acritical study, Ahmedabad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Dr. Malhar Kulkarni, Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social sciences,
IIT, Powai, Mumbai, 400076.

Rajashree Barve-Oak, Research Scholar(Ph.D.), Department of Humanities and Social

sciences, IIT, Powai, Mumbai, 400076.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------