The Contribution of Theory of Rasa to the Art Field

Introduction

The Theory of Rasa comes from an ancient Sanskrit text Natyashastra. The author of this text is unknown, but it is attributed to Bharat Muni, an ancient Indian saint. The name ‘Natyashastra’ can be broken into two words, ‘Natya’ which means ‘Act’ and ‘Shastra’ which means ‘treatise.’ So, the text is a treatise on dance and drama, and it also contains information on poetical compositions. It was penned down somewhere between 200 BCE and 200 CE. The text has thirty-six chapters in total comprising of 6000 ‘shlokas’ or poetic verses describing various theories on performance arts. Out of many theories that the text has talked about, Rasa Theory is the most phenomenal one. Its sixth chapter, called “Rasadhyaya” (‘Rasadhyaya’ comes from two Sanskrit words ‘rasa’ and ‘adhyaya’, where ‘rasa’ refers to the Rasa Theory and ‘adhyaya’ means ‘chapter’ in Sanskrit), deals with an in-depth analysis of ‘Rasa Sutra’, wherein it gives an analytical summary of the factors involved in relishing of the Rasa. ‘Sutra’ here means an ‘aphorism’ in a Sanskrit text.

Though both Natyashastra and Rasa Theory is attributed to Bharat Muni, its true authorship is unknown. Some theorists suggest that the text was written by many authors, and later compiled and popularized by Bharat Muni. It’s also said that the text, and the Rasa Theory in particular, was inspired by “Natasutras” of Shilalin and Krishasva mentioned in the texts of Panini. Yet, Natyashastra is the first text to have given a scientific analysis of the concept of Rasa. And it was Abhinavgupta’s commentary on Natyashastra called Abhinavbharati which is by far the best commentary on Natyashastra, and which popularized the Theory of Rasa in modern times.

Rasa

The word ‘rasa’ is derived from the Sanskrit word ‘rasah’, and it literally means ‘sap’ or ‘juice.’ Although in literary sense, one may translate it as ‘essence’, ‘taste’ or ‘flavour’, the word has no true equivalence in any other language. The closest way to understand rasa is ‘aesthetic relish.’ And it is this aesthetic relish that the Theory of Rasa talks about.

Rasa Theory is a “concept of aesthetic flavour, an essential element of any work of visual, literary, or performing art that can only be suggested, not described. It is a kind of contemplative abstraction in which the inwardness of human feelings suffuses the surrounding world of embodied forms” (Britannica, “Rasa”). This means that Rasa talks about the aesthetic relish which is present in all genres of art like dance, drama, and poetry, and it can only be felt, not explained. So, it’s the taste of a fruit, or fragrance of a flower which can’t be seen but enjoyed. This aesthetic relish, i.e. Rasa, makes a spectator feel the emotions already present inside them. Performers, through various ‘bhavas’ (emotions) bring the spectators into another world, where they come face to face with the emotions buried inside them and which they can’t feel in daily life. In other words, “the awareness of the emotions has to be elicited in the minds of the spectator for them to relish it” (Thiagarajan, “Indian Aesthetics and Fine Arts”).

Natyashastra mentions three things, ‘Lokanukriti’, ‘Bhavanukirtanam’, and ‘Lokasya sukhdukha’. Lokanukriti means that Natya (any kind of act) is an imitation of life. Bhavanukirtanam means that in Natya, emotions must be shown dramatically. And Lokasya sukhdukha means that spectators, when they see the Natya, are able to feel the pain and pleasure portrayed. Thus, Natya is imitation of real life, but it is not real, it has dramatic portrayal of emotions. Since the spectator is always aware of the fact that Natya is not real, Natya has to be a little dramatic in order to have its audience feel the pain, pleasure and various other feelings that it wants to portray. And ironically, all these emotions (bhavas) are already present in daily life, but people do not encounter these emotions as a form of entertainment. Natya provides one such platform, where people can become spectators and face the daily emotions which becomes entertainment for them and enlighten them. This experience is Rasa. And the spectators while experiencing Rasa, become what is known as ‘Rasika’.

The same Rasika can become ‘Sahridaya’ by having a similar thinking to the creator of the Natya. ‘Sahridaya’ means ‘similar heart’ and its concept is given in Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka. So, when the spectator and the creator have the same heart, i.e., they have same thingking, the spectator who is feeling the Rasa, feels it on a greater magnitude, and becomes ‘Sahridaya’. In simple terms, one can say that if a person is able to relate the performance to his or her personal life, they tend to enjoy the performance even more, and true Rasa is achieved. The process of achieving the Rasa can also be done by without actually relating to the performance, by educating oneself of the aesthetic art, and by making the mind free from any hinderances, so that true Rasa can be enjoyed.

According to Bharat Muni, without actually feeling the Rasa of any performance, the true meaning of that performance can’t be conveyed. And this works both ways, in the sense that both spectator and presenter must feel the Rasa for the success of the performance. For an actor to show the right bhava, it is necessary to feel the Rasa, and only then can the spectator too feel the Rasa. On the spectator’s side, they should be free of any hinderances when seeing the performance, so that they can relish the Rasa portrayed on stage. And thus, all kinds of dramas, dances, poems, and even the modern-day films, are aimed at producing the Rasa in a way that its audience feel it.

Bhava

The concept of Rasa is a very significant contribution in the field of aesthetics. The study of aesthetics deals with the realization of beauty in art, its relish, or enjoyment, and the awareness of joy that accompanied and experience of beauty. When studying the aesthetics of Rasa, one must look at various ‘bhavas’ (emotions) which are actually responsible for creating Rasa. Natyashastra encapsulates the creation of Rasa in one line: “Vibhava-Anubhava-Vyabhichari-Samyogad Rasa Nispattih”.

1. Here, ‘Vibhava’ comes from the Sanskrit words ‘vishesh’ and ‘bhava’ where the former means ‘special’ and the latter means ‘emotion.’ So, Vibhava is the special emotion displayed in the act.
2. ‘Anubhava’ means an enhancer of Vibhava. It enhances the special emotion displayed in the act.
3. ‘Vyabhichari bhava’ refers to the fleeting emotions in an act.
4. ‘Samyogad Rasa Nispattih’ means that ‘together they create Rasa.’

Therefore, with a harmonious balance of Vibhava, Anubhava, and Vyabhichari bhava, Rasa is created. These terms refer only to stage representations of emotions, thus, the Rasa created is also ‘Natyaras’ (Rasa in art). Just as various ingredients of different tastes combine to form a new relishing taste, different Bhavas combine to form a relishing Rasa. Bhava can also be further divided into three categories:

1. ‘Sthayi bhava’
2. ‘Vyabhichari bhava’
3. ‘Satvika bhava’

Sthayi bhavas refer to the pervading stable emotions in a play. This means that each play, or any other performance for that matter, has many emotions. But it will certainly have one predominant emotion. This predominant emotion is called Sthayi bhava. Secondly, Vyabhichari bhavas, as mention earlier, is the fleeting emotion in a performance. It’s an emotion which is affected by surrounding of the play and stays only for a while, supporting the Sthayi bhava. Lastly, Satvika bhava is are the physical manifestations of the dramatized emotions displayed on the stage. For example, when the spectator sees a comic scene on the stage, he or she may laugh. Laughing is a physical response to what is being enacted on the stage. And this physical response is known as Satvika bhava.

Shanta Rasa

The text Natyashastra contains only eight type of Rasas. Later however, another type of Rasa was introduced by Udbhata, called ‘Shanta rasa’. This Rasa refers to tranquille. The debate revolves around the fact that this rasa cannot be portrayed on stage and spectators cannot relish it. But out of all the elements in the epic Mahabharata, Shant Rasa is the predominant Rasa. And if not all, some of its readers can go into that tranquility and enjoy the Shanta Rasa. Shanta Rasa is also the main sentiment in Nagananda of Harsha who is said to have commented on the Natyashastra. So, the claim that Shant Rasa cannot be treated as a Rasa based on the ground that it has limited appeal may be wrong. And this is the reason why Shanta Rasa is also included in the number of Rasas in the Rasa Theory. Hence, the test of the value of Rasa does not lie only in its appeal to a large audience.

Conclusion

The contribution of Rasa theory in the field of art aesthetics has been one of the most phenomenal one an Indian mind has given to the world. Today, Rasa theory, which has no parallel concept, is popular all over the world. Along with the ancient Greek theories on drama and poetry given by Aristotle and Plato, Bharata’s Natyashastra also holds a significant position in the field of aesthetic studies.