Maria Christopher Byrski
[Examiner’s report on Ph.D. thesis of
Sunthar Visuvalingam]
From: Prof. Maria Christopher Byrski
Subject: Thesis Report:
Date:
Opinion: Recommended
The ancient Indian civilization
is surprisingly homogeneous. Its structure on and on reveals deep logic and
compactness, where each and every aspect fits well into the general framework
There can be no doubt in this context, that the pivot which supports this
magnificent edifice is the Veda or more strictly speaking the Vedic sacrifice.
It is therefore perfectly understandable that the attitude of referring
everything to the Veda, which until recently had been considered solely a
touchstone of the Hindu religious orthodoxy, now becomes also a guiding
principle of modern scientific research in Indology. The remarkable thesis
under review is yet another attempt to see from this angle a problem so far has
been avoided by the Indologists, either because it was considered insignificant
or too elusive. Yet while the second adjective might still be considered valid,
the first one will have to be once and for all abandoned, thanks to the
profound research undertaken and conducted to a very successful close by Mr.
Suntharalingam, and since the subject of humor dealt with the young scholar is
indeed most elusive, the credit that goes to him will have to be proportional
to the degree of difficulty that he had to face. The thesis at hand is an
admirable attempt to collect all that
The very Introduction maps
clearly the problem that the Author intends to tackle and convincingly shows
the depth of what otherwise could have seemed to be a rather limited problem
without far reaching consequences. What strikes one while reading these pages
is that the Author seems to take the sacrificial context of classical Indian
theater in particular for granted, what I for one wholeheartedly endorse, but
maybe a handful of main arguments could have been restated in order to convince
the doubtful. In Chapter I the author comes to grasp with the general
definition of humor and manages to offer what appears to be an altogether
expert and most viable appreciation and criticism of all hitherto important
theories of humor. The postulated separation of humor and laughter is to my
mind most convincing and the remark that humor “the most trivial emotion is in
fact the most deceptively complex of all” acquires great weight and opens many
new vistas for further research. Now in Chapter II,
The following Chapter III was
meant to clarify the theory of bisociation, since it tries to show how laughter
and bisociation go together. Indeed, we find in this part of Mr.
Suntharalingam’s study remarks, mainly drawn from A. Koestler’s
works, which substantially broaden our understanding of the problem. Some of
them open interesting possibilities of looking for purely Indian categories of
apprehending this aspect. For instance, “…‘the sudden dissociation of
intellectual and emotional state, the rupture between knowing and feeling, is a
fundamental characteristic of the comic’ (Insight and Outlook, p.65)” (p.89). Could we say that the comic is generated by a sudden dissociation
between the dharma-sphere
(intellectual, knowing?) and the kâma-sphere
(emotional, feeling)? Consequently a question could be asked whether it
is necessary to look for suitable notions to analyse humour outside the pale of
traditional Indian set of references. We shall return to this problem in our
concluding remarks again. Meanwhile we would like to say that although
initially the further discussion of
The problem of suddenness inherent in humor in general and in jokes in
particular constitutes the
content of Chapter V. The following words taken from it very pointedly sum up, exactly in the
light of the bisociative theory, the main purport of this chapter: “in other words, it
is not the unexpectedness of the total joke-content when heard for
the first time that is responsible for the surprise, but the sudden
juxtaposition of two associative contexts that are habitually never brought into
relation with each other in this particular manner” (p.165). Although on the whole
there is a feeling that it fits well the Indian context, yet certain
doubt persists as to the precise way it should be related to what could be
termed a particular set of Indian references. It seems again that the starting point
of our Author’s investigation, i.e.,
The next Chapter VII does not make for easy reading. Yet, it is finally
quite clear that the
Author managed to clarify the nature of hâsa as the sthâyin and hâsya as the rasa. This has been done referring mainly to Koestler’s theory. The
problem certainly deserved that much toil, especially when seen from outside the
precincts of the classical Indian culture, looking wherefrom certain doubt as to
the right of hâsya to claim the status of a full-fledge rasa could be entertained. The multifaceted enquiry of
this chapter should
remove finally all doubts in that respect contributing also many detailed, interesting
observations among which the most striking seems to be the one concerning the
differing nature of various rasas. Now, it appears obvious that they are not generated in an
identical way although such a suspicion could arise. Technically speaking, all
of them have been described, right from the Nâtya-Shâstra down to the Sâhityadarpana, in almost identical terms. Since the Author apart from hâsya speaks only about shrngâra and karuna, there certainly the
need to tackle the remaining ones is felt. This may be done in a separate study
for the present one is already a bit too extensive. Chapter VIII that follows
brings in a rather unexpected topic of the role of hâsya in shrngâra. The Author fully
substantiates the need to consider separately this peculiar relationship
between love an humor. He shows in the course of a
very detailed study the exact way these two are intertwined and what is the import of their union for the sahrdaya.
All the while the theory of bisociation stands him in good stead, explicating
convincingly the functioning of humor also in the context of love-in-union (sambhogashrngâra). This
chapter also very forcefully argues for the perfect utility and psychological
validity of the traditional Indian aesthetical notions and terminology. Indeed
it seems at times that Western thinking on the subject to certain extent can be
considered deficient without the notions of vibhâva, anubhâva, vyabhicâri-bhâva, et. al. The
argument in this chapter is very well substantiated by the methodical analysis
of chosen examples from the Sanskrit kâvya and mainly from Amaru.
Chapter IX is one of the richest in content and implications. It touches upon many problems in a manner that provokes enthusiastic comments. The Author is at his best when he discusses the vidûshana of the vidûshaka. The argument is clear and direct. Among others it is a very important contribution to our understanding of Omkâra’s role as the patron deity of the vidûshaka. One only wonders when for the first time Omkâra appears in Indian mythology. The answer to this question could contribute towards finding the date of the mythological account found in the Nâtyashâstra. Now the main problem tackled in this chapter, i.e., the rasâbhâsa-hâsya is clear. But after careful and repeated reading of the relevant passages (especially p.322 and 323) there remains a doubt as to what exactly the Author wants his reader to understand under the term hâsyâbhâsa. Is it a process which begins with somebody’s laughter and only then something that initially did not appear as a vibhâva of hâsya is perceived as such? Chapter X also abound in very interesting and often altogether novel observations. A very convincing integration of the hâsya aspect of the vidûshaka with his ritualistic role as visualized, among others, by Kuiper belongs to this category of problems. The masterly analysis of the vîthyangas showing—in the words of the Author himself—“how an elitist vîthî draws inspiration from a traditional ritual milieu (connected with the verbal contests of the sabhâ?)—also belongs here, as well as connecting wit and humor of the Sanskrit drama with the brahman-enigma of the Vedas. This should also be considered a very weighty contribution of Mr. Suntharalingam to our knowledge of the roots and nature of classical Indian theater. On the whole the Author rightly sees the problem as a kind of “transformation of sacrificial ritual into profane drama” (p.424), which to my mind is the most proper perspective. The concluding remarks of this chapter show very clearly how important it is to look for the Vedic under-currents in the entire classical art in order to discover its deeper meaning and multidimensional implications.
The Conclusion of the entire
study that follows pinpoints again remarkably well all the most important
contributions made in the present thesis. At times it even manages to give
sharper contours to some such arguments which tend to lose their sharpness
amidst the detailed discussion in the main body of the thesis. The problem of hâsyâbhâsa may be pointed out
here which now has been very clearly restated in the last sentence of the first
paragraph on page 438. Appreciating the figure of the vidûshaka with reference to
the esoteric sphere as contrasted with the exoteric one (pp.436-37) also
belongs to the same type of sharply redefined arguments. Besides the Author
formulates here very striking thoughts as for instance that the transgressive
praxis recognized by
From the technical point of view the thesis on the whole has to be judged positively. Checking at random the translations from Sanskrit I have not found any serious shortcoming. Further, so far as a non-English-speaking may say, the language of the thesis is correct and readable. Some minor defects have been marked on the margins. The layout of the essay strikes me as very thoughtful, logical and coherent. Yet there is one aspect of it that provokes a difference of opinion. The thesis is at times overburdened with argumentation and information not always directly useful towards the understanding of the main points. The footnotes here and there grow unnecessarily into independent essays. The supplement crowns this tendency. We think that the Author should emulate here the Indian sûtra style or/and lecture on the subject which will certainly have a salutary effect in this regard. All this does not mean that the thesis should be changed before publication. All the material that it contains should appear in print and the present thesis is not meant to be a handbook for students, so it may be published as it is.
To conclude: after careful reading of the thesis of Mr. Suntharalingam, I am sure that his work complies with all the conditions laid down for such a study to merit the award of the Ph.D. degree. It is certainly an example of novel approach towards the interpretation of the way the problem of humor had been so far treated in the classical Indian thought. The work betrays a very wide reading of the Author not only within the broad precincts of Indology but also outside them in the world literature dealing with the problem of humor from different angles of psychology and philosophy. It is therefore certain that Mr. Suntharalingam thus gave a new turn to the research not only in the narrower sphere of Indian aesthetics but in general to the way that we have understood so far the basic trends that have contributed towards the making of classical Indian culture.
Warszawa,
doc. dr. hab. M. Christopher Byrski
Oriental Institute
P.S. While typing my report I omitted one important point announced earlier in the report.
My enthusiastic opinion of Mr.
Suntharalingam’s thesis does not mean that I see eye to eye with him all the
problems tackled. Here I would like to challenge one important aspect of his
approach, not because I consider it to be invalid but because it impresses me
as construed upon, so to speak, external premises. This is so because the general
tendency of the Author’s argument seems to be to confirm in terms of modern
Western psychology all what Indian aestheticians and in particular