All the writers who wrote about Rasa admit that Bharata’s Dictum or Sutra, “Vibhava anubhava vyabhichari samyogad rasanispattihi” defines the scope and nature of Rasa realisation. It is the pivot on which all the latter theories move but the terms Samyoga and Nishpatti, in the sutra were variously understood and interpreted by various later authors. Though it was possible to find out what Bharata meant yet the vague nature of his sutra and the fact that he himself has not given a clear and continued exposition of it, added to the fact that Bharata himself uses terms like Udpadyate in connection with Bhavas and Vibhavas and Gamyate in connection with Bhavas and Anubhavas that are likely to be misinterpreted by commentators belonging to schools of philosophy different from Bharata’s, these causes gave rise to many doubts.
Different critics offered different interpretations to the term samyoga in their chronological order:
- The relationship between cause and effect
- The relationship between a thing that is inferred and the thing that forms the ground of the inference
- The relationship between a thing that is enjoyed and the thing that causes the enjoyment
- Lastly the relationship between the revealer and the revealed
Similarly, the interpretations of the term Nishpatti are as follows:
- Generation
- Inference
- Enjoyment
- Suggestion and revelation
Thus, there are four important schools of interpretation:
- Utpattivada by BhattaLolatta
- Anumativada by Sri Sankuka
- Bhuktivada by Bhatta Naayaka
- Abhivyaktivada by Abhinavgupta
Of these four theories, each subsequent one may be easily seen to be an improvement upon its predecessor and the views expounded by Abhinav Gupta, being the last, may therefore be considered the most satisfactory one. It alone seems to have really found out clearly the view of Bharata. It gives us solutions more satisfactory than any of the rest, for the doubts that were raised at it. His theory is the most comprehensive and one which got established later as the norm. In this interpretation, is seen the most advanced stage of Indian Aesthetic thought.
Regarding the sources of our knowledge of interpretations, at present we cannot get copies of the commentaries on Bharata’s Rasasutra written by any of the above four authors, nor are we able to get any other independent work of the above authors. Therefore, their views on Rasa realisation are only to be conjectured from the great commentary Abhinav Bharati of Abhinav Gupta which very briefly quotes and criticises the interpretations of the Rasasutra offered by the above authors. In his Lochana, he also makes some references to their views.
Bhatta Lolatta- Rasotpatti School/ Utpattivada
The first interpretation of Rasa is that given by Bhatta Lolatta in accordance with Mimamsa Doctrines and the representation of the Rasotpatti School. He considered the manifestation of rasa a result of an intensification of Sthayi Bhav through other causes such as Vibhav and Anubhav. Thus, in his theory the Sthayi Bhav and Rasa stand in the relation of cause and effect. When a sthayi is intensified to the highest pitch, it turns into Rasa. The Rasa primarily resides in the character, and secondarily in the actor, who imagines himself to be the character. It does not reside in the poet or in the spectator. Imitation creates Rasa when the performer enacts someone. It has nothing to do with the audience.
In short, his theory expounds that love and emotions like it, are as a fact, first generated by Vibhavas and further developed into Rasa by Vyabhichari Bhavas only in the original personage. By reason of resemblance or imitation, the actor is mistaken for that personage. As a result of his skilful acting, the spectator is deluded into the belief that the actor himself is the original personage and possesses the emotions of the original personage. Through this invalid cognition, the spectator realises pleasure. The truth is the emotions- love and the like were generated in the original character alone and not in the spectator. The spectator on the other hand, superimposes these emotions on the actor whom he mistakes for the original character, consequently he enjoys pleasure. Hence this Sthayi Bhava itself is the Rasa. Rasotpatti is in the artist. This accumulation or Utpatti in the actor, creates Rasa.
This theory has been subject to criticism and is open to the objection that it fails to explain the emotion that arises in the mind of the spectator of the dramatic representation, as according to it, the sentiment is generated in the personated character and secondarily recognised in the personating character. Hence, it goes against the theory of why Natya was created in the first place. It was made for the audiences. This theory defies the presence of an audience. It also does not talk of the degrees of Rasa- mild, moderate or intense. The connoisseur here, is not involved in the evolution of Rasa, which itself goes against the theory of Rasa.
Sri Sankuka- Rasanumiti school/ Anumitivada
Sri Sankuka interpreted Rasa Sutra according to Nyaya doctrines and followed Rasanumiti School. The Anumitivada of Sri Sankuka was based on the premise that Rasa is a process of logical inference where the spectator infers rasa when the Vibhavas etc are placed before him. The actor by his abhinaya, imitates the character of the hero. And the spectator identifies the actor with the hero which leads to his inference of Rasa. He interpreted that Rasa originates by Anumiti, that is, inference. According to him, art cannot be an ordinary imitation but a kind of an indirect inference. Hence the sthayi bhava of the character which is inferred by the actor is called Rasa. Sthayi Bhava cannot be imitated because an actor does not himself experience the pain of the character. There is a distance between the two. The actor must create with his ability a mental state to act on the stage. Thus, Sri Shankuka interprets the Rasa Sutra to mean the basic mental state inferred from Vibhavas and Anubhavas.
Moving on to the spectator, this theory of Rasa specifies the means of knowledge as perception. Knowledge must be transformed into inference. We also find the notion of reproduction that what the actor reproduces must be cognized. This is due to the distance of the spectator. As Sri Sankuka was trained in the Nyaya School, he was a logician. He viewed Rasa not from the perspective of the production of aesthetic object, but rather the matter out of which the aesthetic experience comes. The emotions of the hero in ordinary life are manifested by causes, bodily effects and accompanying mental states and these when imitated by the actor, become Vibhavas and such. The emotion that the audience feels is but a reflex (anukara) of the real emotional mood or sthayi bhava of the characters and is called by a different name, i.e., Rasa.
In brief this theory may be stated as follows:
The actor on the stage, on account of his extraordinary simulating faculty, peculiar costume and other devices of stage makeup, is recognised by the spectator as the original character. By reason of his superior imitative faculty, clever exhibits on the stage, the Vibhavas, Anubhavas, and Vyabhichari Bhavas, the Vibhavas and the rest exhibited by the actor are only artificial and unrea,l but not known to be so, to the spectator. When the spectator witnesses the successful representation of the original character by the actor, he forgets for the moment, the difference between the actor and the original character. By means of the Vibhavas and others exhibited by the actor, the spectator experiences, through the process of a peculiar inference, the Bhavas like love, as existing in the actor now known as the original character. If love in Union or Sambhoga is represented on the stage, the inference of the spectator will be that he is Ram in love with Seeta, and if love in separation or vipralambha is represented, his inference will be he is Ram separated from Seeta. This inference is peculiar and entirely different from the ordinary, logical inferences and is invariably a cause for delight.
The criticism or objection against this view is that inference is a purely intellectual process and hence cannot account for the highly complex emotional phenomena involved in Rasa. Bhatta Nayaka critiqued this view by focusing on the spectators’ subjective experience while engaging with literary work.
BhattaNayaka- Rasabhukti school/ Bhuktivada
The third interpretation by Bhattanayak, based on Shabdavritti, was an improvement on both the above theories and paved the way for the more competent theory of Abhinav Gupta. In Bhattanayaka’s opinion, Rasa is neither produced nor manifested. It is neither expressed, nor produced. If Bhava is evoked as it is, none would experience pleasure from such rasas as Karuna or Bhayanak. The experience would certainly be distasteful. According to him, what is enjoyed is this sthayi bhava or permanent mental condition. The Vibhavas, Anubhavas, and Vyabhichari Bhavas thus make this Sthayi Bhava available for enjoyment by indicating it to the spectator. This universalized sthayi bhava is enjoyed as Rasa by the mind. As the word Rasa signifies happiness of the human mind, the sum total of Bhattanayaka’s view is, that pleasure is enjoyed or experienced by the spectator and the reader of poetry as things are generalised for them and the mind is rendered restful and comes to share the nature of happiness through this process of Saaadhaarikaran.
According to Bhattanayaka, Rasa is not cognized, inferred, generated or manifested, either unconcernedly or as subsisting in the spectator himself. What happens, is that in poetry and drama, words are endowed with a peculiar potency, distinct from direct denotation which tends to generalise the excitants or vibhava, ensuants or anubhava and variants vyabhichari. Hence, it presents to the consciousness, the latent emotion which thereupon comes to be relished by a process of delectation abounding in enlightenment and bliss, due to the abundance of the quality of harmony or sattva. Rasa is not the artists’ or the audiences’ experience. It is an enjoyment or ‘bhog’. According to this view, the relishing of Rasa is the outcome of the purely verbal process of generalised presentation.
This is open to the objection that it makes the unwarrantable assumptions of this verbal process. If Rasa is not an experience, then how can it be enjoyed. This is a hollow theory. It leaves the question as to who is enjoying the Rasa.
Abhinavagupta- Rasabhivyaktivada school based on vyanjan vritti
Abhinavagupta was a Kashmiri Shaivite philosopher. His opinion differs from Bhattanayaka’s on the point that words possess two different specific functions. These two functions of the words are rejected by Abhinavagupta on the ground that there is no valid authority for accepting them as different functions. His contention is that Bhattanayaka’s theory is not different from Vyanjan or suggestion. The process of generalisation is accomplished through the suggestive function in poetry and hence there is no need to postulate another. Abhinavagupta contents that this is none other than Rasapratiti or the enjoyment of Rasa. To call it Bhoj is to give it a different name unnecessarily. According to Abhinav Gupta the spectator has within him latent impressions of emotions experienced previously. These are known as Poorvavasana. The Sthayi Bhavas lie dormant in the form of Vasana. When he reads or witnesses a clear representation of appropriate Vibhavas, Anubhavas and Sanchari Bhavas, these latent impressions are evoked and developed to such a pitch, that they are realised in their universal form, devoid of personal or individual qualities or Sadharikarana. In this impersonalized state, the feelings are always pleasurable and are enjoyed in the form of Rasa through an exuberance of Sattvagun Rasa that manifests itself through a process of suggestion – the instruments of this suggestion being the Vibhavas, Anubhavas etc. The term nishpatti in Bharata’s sutra is interpreted as abhivyakti or suggestion. Abhinav Gupta says that according to Bhattanayaka, Rasa is neither perceived nor produced nor manifested. The key to his concept is Bhavna which is a combination of determinants and consequence. Rasa is inherent in the text. It matures into art, or a more objectified experience. In drama the spectators’ experience is internal. Rasa occurs when the spectator becomes one with what he is watching.
Bhatta Lolallata and Sri Sankuka failed in their attempt as they explained one man’s aesthetic pleasure by what he understood as taking place in another. Bhattanayaka indeed took the true standpoint when he conceived aesthetic pleasure as an inward function of the enjoyer due to things not belonging to others. But to Abhinavagupta belongs the credit of establishing it as an inward function due to elements present in him and profoundly affecting his heart. This was a long stride taken beyond the point reached by previous explorers of the region. Abhinavagupta fastened on suggestion and demonstrated it as the most potent means of appeal used by the poet in charming his reader as the only means by which the pleasures of poetry and drama could be enjoyed at the best.
The difference between Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta’s explanations lies in the fact that according to Bhattanayaka there is relishing of the emotion which is not present in the spectator’s mind while according to Abhinavagupta it is already present in his mind in the form of predisposition. The propriety of this explanation is further strengthened by the fact that the spectator whose mind is free from such redisposition does not feel the Rasa.
The Rasasutra of Bharata was variously understood and interpreted by various later authors. The first impression is that given by Bhatta Lolatta according to Mimamsa doctrines and he represented the Rasotapatti school. He considered the manifestation of Rasa a result of an intensification of Sthayi Bhava through other causes such as vibhav and Anubhav. Sri Sankuka interpreted Rasa Sutra according to Nyaya Doctrines and followed Rasanumiti School. The Anumitivada of Sri Sankuka was based on the premise that Rasa is a process of logical inference where the spectator infers rasa when the vibhavas etc are placed before him. The actor by his abhinaya imitates the character of the hero. And the spectator identifies the actor with the hero which leads to his inference of Rasa. The theory of Bhattanayaka was an improvement on both these and paved the way for the more competent theory of Abhinavagupta. In Bhattanayaka’s opinion, rasa is neither produced nor manifested. Bhattanayaka and his followers call Bhojakatva the relation that exists between a thing enjoyed and the thing causing it to be enjoyed. Abhinavagupta defers from Bhattanayaka on the point that word possesses the functions to create rasa, and he rejects it. His contention is that Bhattanayaka’s Bhoj is not different from Vyanjan or suggestion.
In summary, the evolution of Rasa theories, beginning with Bharata’s seminal sutra, showcases a rich and complex discourse in Indian aesthetics. The various interpretations offered by Bhatta Lolatta, Sri Sankuka, Bhattanayaka, and Abhinavagupta each represent significant developments in understanding how Rasa, the essence of emotional experience in art, is realized.
Bhatta Lolatta’s Rasotpatti theory posits that Rasa is generated in the character and actor but fails to account for the spectator’s emotional experience. Sri Sankuka’s Anumitivada introduces the concept of Rasa as an inferred experience, yet it overly intellectualizes the process, missing the deep emotional resonance Rasa is meant to evoke.
Bhattanayaka’s Bhuktivada, which emphasizes the enjoyment of a universalized Sthayi Bhava, represents a significant shift by focusing on the spectator’s experience but leaves ambiguities regarding the actual process of enjoyment.
Abhinavagupta’s Rasabhivyaktivada, building on and refining the ideas of his predecessors, offers the most comprehensive and nuanced understanding. He argues that Rasa is an internalized experience, manifesting through the suggestion (vyanjana) of latent emotions within the spectator, thus achieving a synthesis that integrates the emotional, intellectual, and experiential dimensions of Rasa. His theory not only resolves many of the debates raised by earlier thinkers but also establishes a framework that has become the cornerstone of Indian aesthetic theory.
In conclusion, while each of the earlier theories contributed valuable insights, it is Abhinavagupta’s interpretation that most effectively captures the essence of Bharata’s original concept of Rasa, cementing his place as a pivotal figure in the development of Indian aesthetics.