Indian Rasa Theory

Speculation in classical India concerning the effects of art and language arguably began in a fully developed form with Bharata's Natyas'astra (composition dates range from 100 BCE to 400 CE). A vital concept in explaining the impact of the dramatic (and later, poetic) arts was the notion of rasa. Later writers, such as Abhinavagupta in his commentary (c. 1100 CE) on the Nātyaśāstra, expand the range of rasa and aesthetic psychology, making it a more useful theory to explain the aesthetic experiences of certain audiences. The concept of rasa will be detailed here, as well as its connection to issues in communication.

Rasa literally means taste—both in the sense of a taste and the ability to taste some object. Thus, rasa refers to both an experience and an ability. The rasa theory holds that artworks operate by suggesting or exemplifying one of several universal moods or emotions (rasas) in an attending audience. Rasa theory holds that ordinary emotions (bhavas) typically involve a specific agent reacting to a specific situation. These emotions exist primarily as latent impressions (samskāras) due to the person's past experience. Our everyday experience of emotion, then, is thoroughly idiosyncratic and centered on an individualized notion of self (one's own self, in other words). These changing and everyday emotions are known as fleeting or temporary emotions (vyabbicānbbāvas).

Contrary to these particularized ways of responding to one's exact situation and needs or desires are permanent emotions (stbāyibbāvas), which then attain the status of rasa. The former (stbāyibbāvas) are the moods that one experiences, and the latter (the rasas) are the moods used in response to some situation or object experienced by some auditor. Eight of these permanent bbāvas (stbāyibbāvas) are identified by Bharata: pleasure (rati), humor (hasa), sorrow (soka), anger (krodha), courage (utsāha), fear (bhaya), disgust (jugupsā), and wonder (vis-may a). These are said to be caused by a subject's reaction to some specific situation containing various causes (kārana) and to lead to certain effects (kārya) in terms of the bodily reactions of a subject (facial expressions, bodily gestures, etc.).

These signs of emotions are then incorporated into the writing and staging of dramatic artworks. A sympathetic auditor attends to the artwork and experiences certain emotions. Due to the removal of his or her interests from the aesthetic situation, the audience member does not feel real fear, since there is no actual threat to his or her life. This detachment in the aesthetic situation is vital to producing the experience of rasa, universal experiences or moods that transcend everyday, particularized reactions of actual individuals. Bharata lists eight such rasas: the erotic (śrngāra), the comic (hāsya), the compassionate (karuna), the furious (raudra), the heroic (vīra), the terrible (bhayā naka), the odious (bībhatsa), and the marvelous (adbhuta). Abhinavagupta, in his commentary on Bharata's categories, adds a ninth rasa—the peaceful (śānta).

The important factor about all these states (rasas) is that they all occur in the detached and disinterested state engendered by attending to a work of art such as a play. These qualities hit a high point in the culminating sānta rasa. For example, in regard to anger (raudra rasa), one is not focused on anger toward those threatening one's interests; one feels or experiences the anger of that fictional character. Thus, classical Indian drama tended to ignore modern artistic demands such as the use of realistic and complex characters, naturalism in setting, and realism in plot. Instead, the play was seen as a highly artificial and contrived way to create these rasas in auditors who usually experience emotions (bhavas) as they relate to themselves and their projects. The qualified auditor, one with a “similar heart” (sahridaya), is also a vital part to the experiencing of rasas. If the auditor is not prepared for the artwork, or if he or she is focused too much on issues centering on himself or herself, the details of the play will not interact with him or her to form the universal emotion (the rasa). Some classical commentators such as Bhattanayak (10th century CE) discuss the communicative potential of Bharata's rasa theory as Sadharanikaran (literarily, “simplification”) and emphasize the simplification of the I-other relationship through one's relatively impersonal sharing of the mood or emotion of some portrayed character. Thus, the parallel experience of rasa is not only precipitated by a sympathetic heart (sahridaya); it also encourages states of convergence between an agent and other individuals (even fictional ones). This point of decreasing the distance [Page 511]between self and others made rasa theory particularly valuable to Indian approaches to morality.

...