6 Interpretations of Rasasutra

R. Thiagarajan

1. Introduction

All the later writers on the subject of Rasa do admit that Bharata’s dictum Vibhava anubhava vyabhichari samyogad Rasanishattih

defines the scope and nature of Rasa realisation. It is the pivot on which all latter theories move.

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 Vibbavas 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. Hence, the variety of interpretations the sutra was subjected to. Four different interpretationswere offered of these two terms by different critics at different times. The interpretations offered to the term Samyoga are in their chronological order

the relation between cause and effect
the relation between a thing that is inferred and the thing that forms the ground of the inference
the relation between a thing that is enjoyed and the thing that causes the enjoyment
and lastly the relation between the’ revealer and the revealed Similarly the interpretations of the term Nishpatti are
generation
inference
enjoyment
suggestion and reyelation

Thus there are four important schools of interpretation. Of these four theories each subsequent one may be easily seen to be an improvement upon its predecessor and the views expounded by Abhinavagupta 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 giyes us solutions, more satisfactory than any of the rest, for the doubts, that were raised at.

2.Sources of our knowledge of interpretations

At present we cannot get copies of the commentaries on Bharata’s Rasasutra written by Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka; nor are we able to get any other independent work of the above authors. Therefore their views on ‘Rasa realisation’ are onIy to be conjectured from the great commentary Abhinava bharati of Abhinavagupta which very briefly quotes and criticises the interpretations of the Rasa-sutra offered by the above authors. In his Lochana also he makes some references to their views.

3. Four different Interpretations

These four interpretations – designated as utpattivada, anumitivada, bhuktivada and abhivyaktivada-were put forward by Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka and Abhinavagupta respectively. Out of these, the abhivyaktivada of Abhinavagupta is the most comprehensive, which got established later as the norm. In this interpretation is seen the most advanced stage of Indian aesthetic thought.

3.1 Bhattalollata’s interpretation

Rasotpatti school

The first interpretation is that given by Bhatta-Lollata according to Mimamsa doctrines and he represented Rasotpatti school. Bhatta Lollata considered the manifestation of Rasa a result of an intensification of Sthayibhava through other causes such as vibhava and anubhava. Thus in his theory, the Sthayibhava and Rasa stand in the relation of cause and effect. When a Sthayin 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).

In short Bhattalollata’s theory is this:

Love and emotions like it are, as a fact first generated by Vibhavas and further developed into Rasa by yyabhicharibhavas only in the original personage. By reason of resemblance 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 (Bhattalollata says) the emotions, love and the like, were generated in the original character alone and not in the spectator. He, on the other hand, superimposes these emotions on the actor whom he mistakes for the original character; the consequence is that he enjoys pleasure.

This theory of Bhatta lollata 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 recognized in the personating actor.

3.2 The second interpretation-Put forward by Sri Sankuka Rasanumiti school

Sri Sankuka interpreted Rasasutra 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 abhinayas, imitates the character of the hero. And the spectator identifies the actor with the hero, which leads to his inference of Rasa. Shri Sankuka interpreted that Rasa originates by anumiti i.e. 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, by his ability, a mental state in order to act on the stage. Thus Sri Sankuka interprets the Rasa Sutra to mean that the basic mental state inferred from vibhavas and anubhavas.

Moving on to the spectator, in Shri Sankuka’s theory of rasa, the means of knowledge is perception. Knowledge must be transformed into inference. We also find the notion of reproduction, that what the actor reproduces has to be cognized. This is due to the distance of the spectator. The objective cognition has to become a part of the spectator’s consciousness. It cannot be directly perceived either through language or movement. Shri Sankuka put the stress on the role of the spectator. As he is trained in Nyaya school (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 audiences is, ‘but a reflex (anukara) of, the real emotional mood-Sthayibhava-of the characters; and is called by a different name, viz. Rasa.’

Abhidha is the commonly accepted power of denotation or indication. Bhavakatva – peculiar to the poetic language-is the power of generalization, through which the vibhavas and so forth are grasped in a universal way, without any individual specific properties. This generalization is called sadharanikarana. Through the third function bhojakatva, the Sthayibhava thus generalized is enjoyed, through an exuberance of sattvaguna over and above rajas and tamas in the mind of the spectator, which makes the experience always pleasurable.

In brief the theory of Sri Sankuka may be stated as follows :-

The actor on the stage on account of his extraordinary simulating faculty, peculiar costume and other devices of stage make-up is recognised by the spectator on the the original character. The actor by reason of his superior imitative faculty cleverly exhibits on the stage the vibhavas, anubhavas and vyabhicharibhavas. The vibhavas and the rest exhibited by the actor are only artificial and unreal 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 and by means of the vibhavas and others exhibited by the actor he experiences through the process of a peculiar inference the bhavas such as love as existing in the actor now known as the original character. If love in union sambhoga is represented on the stage the inference of the spectator will be that he is Rama in love with Sita and if love in separation’ Vipralambha Is represented his inference will be He is rama searated from Sita. This inference is peculiar and entirely different from the ordinary logical inferences (aloukika) and it invariably causes delight.

The 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 the formalist’ view by focusing on the spectator’s subjective experience while engaging with literary work.

3.3 The third interpretation by BhattaNayaka based on “Sabdavritti” Rasabhukti school

The theory of Bhatta Nayaka was an improvement on both these, and paved the way for the more competent theory of Abhinavagupta. In Bhatta Nayaka’s opinion, Rasa is neither produced nor manifested. If bhava is evoked as it is, none would experience pleasure from such Rasas as karuna or bhayanaka. The experience would certainly be distasteful. He postulated three functions of words, viz. Abhidha, Bhavakatva and Bhojakatva. Bhattanayaka and his followers call Bhojakatva the relation that exists between a thing enjoyed and the thing causing it to be enjoyed, If that is the significance of samyoga, that of Nishpatti is enjoyment (Bhoga). What is enjoyed is the sthayibhaya or. permanent mental condition. The vibhavas, anubhavas and vyabhicaribhavas thus make the sthliyibhavas available for enjoyment by indicating it to us, The relation then. between them is Bhojyabhojaka bhava. Now, as they themselves are generalised, the sthayibhava indicated ‘by them also exists. This universalised sthayibhava is enjoyed as Rasa by the mind in which Sattva predominates. As the word Rasa signifies happiness as a result of the prevalence of Sattva over the other qualities or states 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 by Bhavakatva and the mind is rendered restful and comes to share the nature of happiness.

This theory of Bhatta Nayaka appears to have been well-received at the time, and it was also in conflict with the dhvani theory. Hence, Abhinavagupta takes great pains to refute this and deals with it at length. Nevertheless Abhinavagupta too benefitted greatly there from, and his own interpretation of the RasaSutra , incorporates the salient features of Bhatta Nayaka’s interpretation.

According to Bhatta Nayaka` Rasa‘ is not cognised (inferred), or generated, or manifested,— either unconcernedly (as not concerning the spectator at all, as held by Bhatta Lollata), or as. subsisting in the spectator himself (relished by him, as held by Sri Sankuka);—what happens is that in poetry and drama words are endowed with a peculiar potency, distinct from direct Denotation (and indirect Indication) which tends to generalise the excitants’,( vibhaava) , Ensuants ( anubhaava) and variants (vyabhicari)’ and thereby ‘presents to 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 (Sattva).

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 assumption of this verbal process.

3.4 The fourth interpretation (Rasabhivyaktivada School) by Abhinavagupta based on

vyanjana vritti following the Alankarika’s such as Anandavardhana

Abhinavagupta differs from Bhatta Nayaka on the point that word possesses two functions called bhavakatva and bhojakatva. These two are rejected by Abhinavagupta on the ground that there is no valid authority for accepting them as different functions. His contention is that Bhatta Navaka’s bhavakatva is not different from vyanjana (suggestion).

The process of generalization is accomplished through the suggestive function in poetry, and hence there is no need to postulate another. Regarding the other function ‘bhojakatva’ of Bhatta Nayaka, Abhinavagupta contends that this is none other than Rasapratiti-the enjoyment of Rasa. To call it ‘bhojakatva’ is to give it a different name unnecessarily. According to Abhinava,the responsive reader (or spectator) has within him, latent impressions of emotions experienced previously. These are known as purvavasana. The Sthayibhavas lie dormant in the form of vasana. When he reads or witnesses a clear representation of appropriate vibhavas, anubhavas and sancharibhavas, these latent impressions are evoked and developed to such a pitch, that they are realized in their universal form, devoid of personal or individual qualities (sadharanikarana). In this impersonalized state, the feelings are always pleasurable, and are enjoyed in the form of Rasa, through an exuberance of sattvaguna Rasa is a suggested sense and manifests itself through a process of suggestion-instruments of the suggestion being, vibhavas anubhavas etc. The term nishpatti in Bharata is interpreted as abhivyakti suggestion.

Abhinavagupta says that according to Bhatta Nayaka, rasa “is neither perceived (prati), nor produced (utpad), nor manifested (abhivyaj)”. The key to his concept is bhavana, a particular combination of determinants and consequents. Rasa is inherent in the text. It matures into art, more objectified experience. In drama, the spectator’s experience is internal. Rasa occurs when the spectator becomes one with what he is watching.

Bhattalollata 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. There is another credit of Abhinavagupta. He 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.

4. Difference between Rasabhukti and Rasabhivyakti

The difference between the fourth and the third explanations lies in the fact that according to the third, there is relishing of the emotion which is not present in the spectator’s mind, while according to the fourth, it is 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 predisposition does not feel the Rasa.

5. Summary

The Rasa sutra of Bharata was variously understood and ,interpreted by various later authors. There are four interpretations – designated as utpattivada, anumitivada, bhuktivada and abhivyaktivada-were put forward by Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka and Abhinavagupta respectively. Out of these, the abhivyaktivada of Abhinavagupta is the most comprehensive, which got established later as the norm. In this interpretation is seen the most advanced stage of Indian aesthetic thought.

The first interpretation is that given by Bhatta-Lollata according to Mimamsa doctrines and he represented Rasotpatti school. Bhatta Lollata considered the manifestation of Rasa a result of an intensification of Sthayibhava through other causes such as vibhava and anubhava. Sri Sankuka interpreted Rasasutra 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 abhinayas, 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 Bhatta Nayaka was an improvement on both these, and paved the way for the more competent theory of Abhinavagupta. In Bhatta Nayaka’s opinion, Rasa is neither produced nor manifested. If bhava is evoked as it is, none would experience pleasure from such Rasas as karuna or bhayanaka. The experience would certainly be distasteful. He postulated three functions of words, viz. Abhidha, Bhavakatva and Bhojakatva. Bhattanayaka and his followers call Bhojakatva the relation that exists between a thing enjoyed and the thing causing it to be enjoyed, Abhinavagupta differs from Bhatta Nayaka on the point that word possesses two functions called bhavakatva and bhojakatva. These two are rejected by Abhinavagupta on the ground that there is no valid authority for accepting them as different functions. His contention is that Bhatta Navaka’s bhavakatva is not different from vyanjana (suggestion).

Web links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natya_Shastra
www.shadjamadhyam.com/rasa_theory_with_reference_to_bharatas_nat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natya_Shastra
https://online.vmou.ac.in/oldweb/studymaterial/MAfinEnglishpapV.pdf
enfolding.org/wikis-4/tantra-wikiwikis-4tantra-wiki/…/rasa-theory/
https://www.questia.com/library/…/sanskrit-poetics-as-a-study-of-aesthetic
www.britannica.com/topic/Natyashastra
rinistudytable.blogspot.com/…/bhava-and-rasa-in-bharatas-natyasastra.ht..
nptel.ac.in/courses/109104050/lecture13/13_4.htm
https://archive.org/details/NatyaShastraOfBharataMuniVolume1
nasa2000.livejournal.com/55628.html