“Nāṭya eva rasaḥ, na tu loke”

A Perspective on Aesthetic enjoyment

Abstract:
The proposed paper will discuss the meaning of rasa as defined in Bharata’s
Nāṭyaśāstra and further, it will be shown how the meaning took a different
shape in the hands of later interpretators and rhetoricians. By way of
introducing the rasa-theory the meaning of a word is also taken into
consideration. Primarily, a word signifies its primary meaning (abhidhā), but
when the meaning is not so easily grasped by the listener, it takes recourse
to lakṣaṇā (secondary meaning), and finally incorporates tātparyavṛtti, and
merges in dhvani as mentioned by Abhinavagupta. The various meanings,
gradually evolving, in and through the primary meaning, emphasize the
richness of the language, transporting the listener to the world of rasa. The
paper unfolds the final culmination of rasa doctrine as interpreted by
Abhinavagupta. detailing the transformation of the loka-bhāva into kāvya-
bhāva.

Key words: śabdārtha, kāvya-bhāva, loka-bhāva, Rasa, dhvani

“Nāṭya eva rasaḥ, na tu loke”—

A Perspective on Aesthetic enjoyment

In our daily usages we are very much familiar with the word Rasa. The
very utterance of the word rasa produces tumult in the rasanendriya being

its object. Charaka in Sūtrasthānaṃ 1.33, says: rasanārtho rasaḥ. However,

rasa is said to be the essential quality of water, which is sensed through the
olfactory sense-organ. Thus, Suśruta in Sūtrasthānaṃ 42.3 writes:
tasmādapyo rasaḥ. Yet, when it is mixed with other elements it produces
variety of rasa. For example, Charaka has accepted six kinds of rasa <
sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, acidity and astringency
(Sūtrasthānaṃ 26.12). The mixture of five primal elements < earth, water,
fire, air, ether < produce rasa in the body. Their disproportionate mixture
disturbs the body; consequently body becomes susceptible to disease. In
order to be healthy one has to bring back the total equilibrium through the
‘cure by opposites’ (vaiparītya cikitsā). In this way, balance among the
primal elements brings back the normal health. What we call the strife of
opposites is nothing but therapeutic principle of attunement in Ᾱyurveda.
The doctrine of rasa as seen in the medicinal texts like Charak-Saṃhitā and
Suśruta-Saṃhitā, is treated as the doctrine of equilibrium (samyāvasthā).
The concept of rasa is directly found in Charaka and Suśruta-Saṃhitā, as the
assistant of the mental and physical health. Charaka says: rasavahānāṃ
srotasāṃ hridayaṃ mūlaṃ daśa dhamanyaśca. This principle is transported
to the domain of art and beauty too by default. In Indian context,
Aestheticians do show that harmony in the artifact or any piece of literary
composition, music etc., is produced by balancing the two opposite
elements, that brings beauty to the concerned piece of art. Rasa—roughly
translated as artistic enjoyment or emotive expression <is one of the most
important concepts in classical Indian aesthetics, having all pervasive
influence in theories of painting, sculpture, dance, poetry and drama. It is
said: that which can be relished – like the taste of food – is rasa – rasyate

anena iti rasaḥ. Though the term is associated with palate, it is equally well
applicable to the delight afforded by all forms of art; and the pleasure that
people derive from their art experience. The present paper approaches with
a perspective on aesthetic enjoyment and focuses on the issue how the
varied elements of brute facts of worldly experiences are transformed into
aesthetic object by an artist. Consequently, it becomes an object of feast for
the different sense organs producing rasa without ignoring the mundane
world.

I
Keeping in mind the brief sketch of the word rasa in the primary sense, it is
worth mentioning here that Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra has taken the word
rasa in technical sense. The main sūtra referred to by Bharata in
Nāṭyaśāstra is ‘vibhāvānubhāva vyabhicārisaṃyogādrasaniṣpattiḥ’ [i.e. rasa
is produced through the combination of vibhāva, anubhāva and
vyabhicārihāva,(……]. Bharata simply states that the essence of rasa is
brought into being, in a theatrical situation, through the combination of the
factors known as vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva
vibhāvādayastrayaḥ samuditā rasaḥ. Bharata viewed that the original
conception of rasa was taken from the Atharva Veda where it is described as
chemical mixture of different ingredients. Bharata clearly stated in his
Nāṭyaśāstra that the main source of rasa is bhāva which is gradually
transformed into rasa.
The main function of a dramatic play is to communicate, which is a kind of
process or kriyā that begins with the artist and other corollary like
decoration, costume, light etc on the stage and ends with the aesthetic
enjoyment of the audience and viewer.
Just as, the flavour of a plate of rice is heightened by other cooked dishes by
the appreciator, who derives pleasure at the time of tasting the food, in a
similar manner the permanent mood (sthāyībhāva) to which extra flavour is
imparted through vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva, is relished by
spectators, initiated into the dramatic act. The nine permanent sthāyībhāva
are supposed to be resident in every human mind which finally elevates the
appreciator to the status of rasa. They are evoked and developed by

adequate causes like vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva.4 But in a

dramatic performance the very emotion is aroused by vibhāva which is not
the cause but a medium of that state of mind. It is called vibhāva because it
is different from ‘cause’ by which emotions are aroused in daily life. The
second factor anubhāva is so called because it brings in all the bodily
changes that make the spectator experience identical daily-life-emotion. The
artist creates such a situation in a masterly manner that no actual situation
can come closer to this. The third factor vyabhicāribhāva is the transient
emotions, come as it were like waves which rise from the ocean of the basic
mental state (sthāyībhāva) and subsides later on. Thus, the aesthetic object
here is rasa which is a configuration of all four taken together. Bharata has
explained it by an analogy of ṣāḍava rasa where various ingredients like
pepper, cardamom, curds etc., herbs like tamarind, crushed wheat etc., are
mixed. Substance such as molace and rice, which have each a separate
flavour of its own are mixed together in due proportion and when cooked
properly gives a new flavour of taste. The same is the case with rasa

presented in the drama with due proportion by the poetic genius.7

The query here is, what kind of rasa, Bharata, is talking about? He himself
asks the question— rasa iti kaḥ padārthaḥ? ucyate—āsvādyatvāt rasaḥ. Rasa

is an object of taste for the subject called rasika. Here Bharata has made a

distinction between āsvādya and āsvādan.

Bharata divides this process into two. First, how the rasa is produced (rasa
niṣpatti prakriyā) and the other is: how it is communicated to the viewer and

how have they tasted it (rasa āsvādya prakriyā). The former is concerned
with the objectivity of the rasa and the latter is concerned with the
subjective experience of the audience and the viewer.

This paper will discuss the view of Bharata on Rasa-doctrine which is

identified with kāvyārtha, because, though he has taken the theory in the
context of drama but it is applicable in other art forms too. It is already
mentioned that without apprehending the meaning the rasa cannot be
apprehended. Thus, a question may be forced upon us whether rasa is prior
to meaning or meaning is prior to rasa. Let us make it clear with an example.
An actor cannot make a choice of costumes and make-up unless he knows
what rasa he has to portray through acting. The spectator goes to the
theatre only to relish rasa in the drama. The spectator is informed, before he
goes for viewing the play that a certain play is going on in the theatre with
lot of satire or tragedy or romantic scenes etc. Unless the actor or spectator
is having the knowledge of rasa, they cannot go either for acting or viewing.
So, they must have some sort of prior awareness of the various kinds of
rasa-s in their live-experience. Thus rasa is vital from every aspect one looks
at drama or any poetic expression, other factors are not very important for
the actor and spectator as long as they can relish rasa.

ato vyakhyātṛnaṭasāmājikābhiprāyeṇa tasyaiva rasasyaiva prādhānyam.

(Abhinavabhāratī, Vol I. p. 273)

Three things are to be kept in mind while discussing this issue— a) an actor
must know the subtlety of a particular rasa, b) the so called spectator must
undergo such an emotional experience in his daily life without having any
aesthetic enjoyment, and c) the spectator must obtain the aesthetic
enjoyment (rasa) while watching a play.

Now the question is what is the status of this new rasa produced by the
mixture of various ingredients? Obviously it is taken as an original and real
new composition, objectively existing there. Similarly the aesthetic object as
presented by Bharata can be classed with any object that we meet in the
physical world. It is true that rasa generated through various combination of
light, costume, setting and bodily changes etc. is the functional aspect of the
written drama. A clear distinction can be made between nāṭya and nāṭaka.
The word nāṭya is derived fron the word ‘nata’ adding the suffix ‘yat’, that
stands for ‘function of the actor’, whereas the word nāṭaka is derived from
the word ‘nata’ adding the suffix ‘ak’ which has been kept in the category of
literature (kavya). It has been duly said: “kavyesu natakam ramyam’. The
latter is the written aspect of the script, narrating some tale. As Bharata says
himself:

nrapatinam yaccaritam nanarasabhavasambhrtam bahudha

sukhadukhotpattikrtam, bhavati hi tannatakam nama.
 whereas the former is the functional, which is the performance of the
nataka. With stage performance a nataka is transformed into natya. It has its
own language called rasa by Bharata. Bharata defines natya as that which is
the imitation of the real world incidents:

nanabhavopasampannam nanavasthantaratmakam/

lokavrttanukaranam natyametanmaya krtam// (NS 1.112)

Here, we are concerned with this aspect of nataka that produced rasa, and
transformed into natya. For Bharata, rasa is a new kind of language of the
stage which is other than the primary (abhidha) and secondary meaning
(laksana), which will be referred in the next section.

In short, this is the way rasa is explained by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra.

II

In order to show that meaning of a word is connected with the Rasa as

mentioned earlier, a little more detail is required regarding this relationship
between a word and its meaning which is generally accepted as fixed and
determined by the community of language speakers. The word which
conveys the meaning is called vācaka — sākṣātasaṃketita’yo’rtha
abhidhatto sa vācakaḥ. The meaning of a word is determined either by the
will of God or by the will of human beings. The relationship between the word
(pada) and word-meaning (padārtha) is called vācyavācakasambandha. The

word is called vācaka and meaning is called vācya. For the successful
communication the precise and specific meaning of the word is required so
that the dialogue, among the language-speakers, can be successfully
accomplished. Now if the fixed structure of the meaning of a word is wrecked
and the multiple meaning is accepted instead, then the pillar of the society,
that is, communication will be collapsed. There are a group of Navya-
Naiyāyikas, looking for precise, unambiguous language meaning, designed a
language that generates the specific meaning of each and every sentence in
question. It is not enough to say that there are table, chair, books, a door,
and two windows in the room. This vague and ambiguous statement can be
made clear by showing their relationships. Which table is in the left side and
which chair is in the right side? Whether the chair is closer to table? Where
are the books? They are on the floor or on the table? Thus the list which has
been enclosed here is not sufficient to describe a room. It requires a lot of
information, without knowing them one cannot draw a perfect picture of the
room. The language analyst of Navya-nyāya intends to de-clutter this
ambiguity by increasing the number of relations and objects. But in due
course, the scholars and philosophers trapped in the network of relations and
creating objects (viṣaya) only. On the other hand, the ambiguity and multiple
meanings are said to be the asset in a literary composition. It not only
enriches but enhances the beauty of the literary composition. It peels off the
layers of meanings and interpretations, bringing more aesthetic flavour and
novelty in the literary piece. Thus, the case of poetic expression is quite
different here from ordinary speech-utterances. Words are impregnated with
multiple meanings in poetic expressions that can be grasped by a sensitive
reader only. The more complex the meaning is, the more enriched it is
aesthetically. Therefore, the world of aesthetic is different from the world of
logical meaning expected from Naiyayika-s, or even from daily language
users. Can we say that they occupy two different domains? We will try to find
out in the subsequent sections.

The title of the paper is quoted from Abhinavagupta in connection with

Bharata’s reference to Rasa-sūtra where it is clearly mentioned that the rasa
cannot be obtained without cognizing the meaning of the word. It is very
much obvious that a word uttered in a foreign language, not known to one,
will not generate any meaning to one; similarly if one does not obtain the
meaning of the word uttered to one, one will not derive any rasa from that.
Now, the question that comes up is: what is the meaning of a word? As soon
as one hears a sentence one immediately understands the meaning of that
sentence if the underlying elements, i.e., the words of a sentence, remind
the meaning of those words; then with the help of auxiliary causes like
ākāṃkṣā, yogyatā, āsatti and tātparya, one understands the meaning of that
uttered sentence (vākyārtha). If the above mentioned four conditions are
fulfilled one grasps the meaning of the sentence called vākyārthabodha. For
example, the sentence, ‘fire burns’ generates cognitive verbal meaning,
whereas the sentence, ‘fire sprinkles’ lacks yogyatājñāna, so at first it fails to
produce any understanding of the sentence-meaning. The former is regarded
as genuine item of verbal knowledge (śābdabodhapramā) and the latter is
considered as apramā.

The power to convey the meaning of a word is called vṛtti. In a sentence like,

‘gañgāyāṃ matsyāḥ’, (i.e. there are fishes in the river gañgā) the word
gañgā signifies the ‘stream of water’ in the primary sense (abhidhā), so there
is no incompatibility in holding a relationship between the two words.

Whereas in the example, ‘gañgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ’ (i.e. there are milkmen’s hut
on the bank of the river), the word gañgā signifies ‘the bank of the river’ in
the secondary sense (lakṣaṇa) because the ‘milkmen’s hut’ cannot be on
‘the stream of water’. If the meaning of the word gañgā would have been
taken in the primary sense then the relationship between the two words, that
is, gañgā and ghoṣaḥpallī will be incompatible. In this way a common user of
a language understands the meaning of a sentence uttered to him. However,
both types of meanings are determined by language users in a very
spontaneous way. The question that forces us to think is: is there any extra-
meaning which is extracted from the word in different circumstances? The
answer is not very difficult to answer because a word can have many more
meanings in different circumstances contexts and taking the intention of the
speakers. The patent example ‘sainadhavamānaya’ is often given in the text
books. It sometimes signifies salt and at other time it signifies horse,
depending on the intention of the speaker. But we are demanding too much
when we ask whether a word or a sentence can signify even more than these
determined/fixed meanings. For example:

पस
ू मास सनि
ु सखिन संग साईं चलत सबार |
लेकर बीन प्रवीन तिय गायो राग मल्हार ||

In the month of Paush (January) when a lady hears from her friends that in
the early morning her husband is going abroad, she started playing Rāg
Malhār on Veeṇā, because she is an expert in playing Veeṇā. The hidden
meaning behind the act is to restrict her husband from going abroad. Here
though there is no hindrance to understand the primary meaning of the
words uttered and there is no need of resorting to lakṣaṇā yet the suggestive
meaning is— she desires to stop her husband’s journey abroad, so she plays
Rāg Malhār, which is believed to produce the heavy rain. In this way, the
husband will not be able to begin his journey because it is prohibited to
travel abroad during rainy time. The suggestive meaning, that is, ‘restricting
him to go abroad’, will not be understood unless one has the special capacity
to extract the meaning from the word or combination of words and connect it
to the mental state of the lady. Thus, Abhinavgupta remarks in
Dvanyālokalochana that there is a fourth vṛtti residing in the word, called
dhvani / dyotanā /vyañjanā / pratyayana /avagaman — all are synonymously
used, which generates a new meaning taking into account the social belief,
intention of the speaker and context.
tasmāt abhighātātparyalakṣaṇāvyatirikta caturtho’sau vyāpārao
dhvananadyotanavyañjanapratyāyanāvagamanādīsodaravyapadeśa
nirūpito’bhyupagantavyaḥ.

Abhinavagupta points out that this fourth separate vṛtti, which is very much
special to sensitive reader, belongs to the domain of kāvya where this new
meaning is evolved and gradually nourished and nurtured by the sensitive
reader or hearer (sahridaya śrotā/pāṭhaka). A sensitive person understands
the deep meaning of the words over and above the primary meaning and
establishes a relationship with the intention of the speaker, that is, his pain
and pleasure, which is technically called ‘tanmayī-bhavana-yogyatā’ by
Abhinavagupta. It is that state of mind where one can easily absorb the
emotional upheaval of actors in a dramatic act and can enjoy it with pure
bliss as it happens when one perceives any play or movies or listen to music
etc. According to Bharata, a sensitive mind by virtue of this special capacity
can identify itself with the emotional state of the actor/artist and obtain the
rasa / aesthetic enjoyment. This ingrained capacity of his mind is like fire in

the dry wood which is ignited as soon as it receives the stimulus. 5 Literature
is, therefore, the reflection of one’s mind in a mirror where one can clearly
see oneself. He completely dives into the bottomless sea of rasa produced
from reading or watching a play or, so to say, from any piece of art. He
emphasized that the sahridaya, the one of attuned heart, is central to that
experience. Without his hearty participation, the expressions of all art forms
are rendered pointless. An educated appreciation on the part of the person is
very important in order to manifest and develop the art forms. And, an
artistic expression finds its fulfillment in the heart of the recipient.
Abhinavagupta agrees with Bharata and narrates the mind of the sensitive

reader in a similar way.6

III
Bharat in his Nāṭyaśāstra tries to explore the nature of rasa by pointing out
that bhāva is said to be the source of all our rasa? Bharata starts all his
discussion on rasa with bhava which is non-mental yet ‘which
exists.’(sthayibhava). Bharata himself has used the word ‘bhāva’ in the
sense of ‘existence’ and also that ‘manifests.’ The existence of rasa, for
Bharata, is a separate quality like ‘rupa’ and ‘sabda’, which should not be
confused with any other qualities.

kiṃ bhavanti iti bhāvāḥ kiṃ vā bhāvayanti iti bhāvāḥ. ucyate—vāgaṅga

sattvopetān kāvyārthān bhāvayanti iti bhāvāḥ.
It implies that the word bhāva with ac suffix designates that either
something is produced or when ṇic suffix is added it conveys that something
inspires others to be emoted. This modification of bhāva is perceived in the
bodily gestures manifesting only sāttvika emotions. (while eliminating
rājasika and tāmasika-bhāva).
Since, rasa is a meaning produced on stage while performance is going on, it
is to be constructed in three levels; a) when it is written, b) when it is
directed and c) when it is acted/ performed. The fourth element is also added
when the viewers derives pleasure from it. The final goal of nataka is
performance (natya), which is referred in the sutra as ‘rasanispatti’. Bharata
says:

yasmatprayogah sarvoyam siddhyarthah sampradarsitah (NS, 1.27)

Bharata distinguishes ‘rasa’ from ‘siddhi’ which appear on two different

points—one at the level of performance and other at the level of viewers’
pleasure.

Abhinavagupta identifies ‘rasa’ with ‘siddhi’ (“rasah siddhireva”). Later on, in

post Abhinavagupta time, ‘siddhi’ has been replaced by ‘rasa’, which will be
shown in the later part of the article, that becomes the one and only goal of

nataka. Bharata has made a distinction between āsvādya and āsvādan, one
is the ‘rasa’ (āsvādya), which is objective and the other is the subjective
which is derived from it. But Abhinavagupa, somehow, identifies the two.

In our ordinary language, we have seen that the meaning of the word is
called vācyārtha. The meaning of the sentence which is over and above the
word-meanings is called vākyārtha, merely conjunction of the words will not
generate a sentence-meaning. Similarly when the meaning of a word
transcends its fixed meaning and signifies a novel meaning which was not
known before, it is called kāvyārtha, literary meaning. kāvyārtha or literary
meaning is something over and above the vākyārtha, which is finally said to
generate rasa. The extra over-arching meaning above the primary and
secondary meaning is called kāvyārtha. For the sake of clarity it is taken at
par with rasa. Abhinavagupta says: tatkāvyārtha rasaḥ. Therefore the
question arises what is that exclusive factor that defines the essential nature
of kāvya and its identity. Bhāmaha defines kāvya as śabdārthau sahitau
kāvyam or kāvya is the treasure house of word and its meaning. The point
that is to be added here is that though the word (śabda) and meaning (artha)
are used as they are used in the normal discourse, but here the meaning is
absolutely improvised over the earlier primary meaning.

VI

It cannot be said as real because it is not created by nature. It cannot be

called unreal in the sense that ‘sky flower’ is unreal. It cannot be called
illusory because an aesthetic object is essentially and apparently there and
is not treated as anything obsolete. In short, it has its own existence in its
own world which is different from the world of daily life and can be called
world of aesthetics. The world of bhāva vis-à-vis world of aesthetics is the
world of mental state. Whatever a man receives through five sense organs
he uses them and enjoys them through his creation in the form of art which
is called aesthetic enjoyment or Rasa. In this way this peculiar
transformation of emotion takes the shape of art form. Mere words are not
transferred to the reader or viewer —along with words the aesthetic

enjoyment is also communicated to them and this is called rasa.

Abhinavagupta says the aesthetic experience is ānanda the unique blissful
experience. He regards such aesthetic experience as different from any
ordinary experience and as a subjective realization. It is alaukika (out of the
ordinary world), he said, and is akin to mystic experience. That experience
occurs in a flash as of a lightening; it is a kind of camatkāra. It is free from
earthly limitations and self luminous (svaprakāśa). Thus the personal
experience is transformed into universal experience and here time-
boundaries gets eroded away i.e., it frees itself from all temporal limitations
and becomes timeless. Long after the artist is no more there on this earth,
his creation keeps him alive.

Abhinavagupta, having made a distinction between and like Bharata, and

unlike Bharata he takes them identical at the same time. He says both
āsvādya and āsvādan is the constituent of āsvāda -world. Just as we talk
about knowledge of knowledge (anuvyavasāya). Similarly we can talk about
the object of āsvādan, i.e., āsvādya of āsvādan. Rasa being of the nature of
āsvāda becomes āsvādyasvarūpa because it is the āsvādan that becomes
āsvādya. An art-object is both of the nature of its causal material, and its
object-nature. For example, the idol of Sarasvatī possesses both the nature
of Sarasvatī and the clay which is its material cause. Thus āsvādya and
āsvādan merged into one to provide rasa to the viewer. nirvighnaṃ
svasaṃvedanātmaka viśrānti lakṣaṇena rasanāparyāyeṇavyāpārāreṇa
gryamāṇatvāt rasaśabdenābhidhīyate. Thus rasa is obtained in its pure form,
it is due to bhāva and at the same time it is bhāva-svarūpa and so there is
an identity between the āsvādya and āsvādan. The whole process is referred
by Abhinavagupta in his Lochan commentary as ‘rasasvatītattva’.

‘sarasvatyāstattvaṃ kaviḥ sahridayākhyaṃ vijayaye

Abhinavgupta interprets twin aspects of Bharata’s Rasa doctrine by co-

mingling them. The conjunction does not take us to rasa as Bharata claims, it
is already there, it is only manifested amid the different spices and medicinal
herbs likewise when all the necessary items, such as costume, decoration
stage music are present there, rasa will be manifested at appropriate time.
The collective items produce rasa and become of the nature of rasa
themselves (rasasvarūpa). For example, in the statement ‘this man is crying’
the act of crying is related to the person concerned and it is his self-
revelation or manifestation that cannot be separated from the person. In the
real world one expresses oneself through bhāva. According to Bharata when
a person acts in a particular role he, for the time being, identifies himself
with the character. His identity is personified with the character.

‘ātmābhinayanaṃ bhāvaḥj (Nāṭyaśāstra 15-40)—

Abhinavagupta further adds— sarvathā rasanātmaka vītavighnapratītigrāhyo

bhāva eva rasaḥ. When an aesthetic situation is presented before the mind,
the mind is filled with the aesthetic attitude; and rejects all conflicting
elements presented at that time. It is technically called tanmayatā or
tādātmayatā. Such consciousness, free from all impediments is nothing but
camatkāra which is an activity of the subject which is essentially a wonderful
bhoga—bhuñjānasya adbhutabhogātmakānandādiviṣṭasya.

camatkāra is called ānanda which consists in the act of experience on

attaining an enjoyable state. A man with a fine sense of taste relishes a
delicious dish with all his sense organs. He does not simply consume it. It is
a very famous saying: ghrāṇena ardha bhojanam. Merely smelling of the
delicious food makes it edible. He rests purely on the subjective aspects of
himself as affected by the particular flavour and is therefore happy. A person
in the state of ānanda rests on his subjective aspect is called bhuñjāna.
Similarly a man of fine aesthetic susceptibility attains the rest on self, when
he sees a good drama presented on the stage. The distinction between the
two states is that in ordinary life the object of taste is related to the
individual subject as identified with its sensitive aspect, while in the case of
aesthetic experience the objectivity is totally lost. Thus the aesthetic
experience involves complete elimination of objective consciousness and is
characterized by the predominance of vimarśa. According to Abhinavgupta
mental modifications (cittavṛtti) of various emotions takes the form of
universalized consciousness with continuous and constant consumption of

them which is called rasanā, carvaṇā, nirvṛtti, pramātṛviśrānti, camatkāra.

This camatkāra is synonymous with rasa, ānanda, paramabhoga. Thus
carvaṇā is of the nature of reflecting over and called back to the conscious
level what has been received through sense organs. kāvyārthabhūto yo’rtha
tasya bhāvanā vācyātirekena anavarata carvaṇā (Lochana).When such a
person goes to a theatre, he goes with an aesthetic attitude. This attitude is
different from the practical attitude of ordinary life. He does not go there as
a matter of moral issue (kartavyatābuddhiratitattva). He goes there just to
live for a short while in the ideal world of beautiful sights and sound. That is
why he can forget his individuality of the mundane world as soon as the
music starts and his heart becomes pure to receive the reflection of the
presented and is ready to get identified with whatever emotion that is
presented to him on the stage. And there he is faced with a situation in
respect of which the elements of time and place, the idea of reality and
unreality of the presented, and all awareness of right and wrong, dubious or

possible are all inhibited from the intellectual grasp of the presented. 8

The presented object of art as said earlier is neither real nor unreal; it is un-
worldly (alaukika) though should not be understood as something
supernatural. The aesthetic object is such as would not allow to be classed
with any of the types accepted in the daily life of the world. The object of the
aesthetic reality is for those only who desire to live in that world. It is the
world of poetic creation and therefore, they are the constituents of that
world and exist as long as that world exists. They have no existence in
worldly life yet their material is outsourced from there only. Hence there is a
rasa in poetic creation and not in the worldly life. An example can be cited.
When any untoward incident occurs in daily life, one participates in it and
suffers; but when such incident occurs in celluloid screen one just enjoys it.
Hence it is true to say that Nāṭya eva rasaḥ, na tu loke. Abhinavagupta
repeatedly emphasized that the aesthetic object is only a medium and not
the object of aesthetic experience which a sensitive person is gifted with
adhikārī cātra vimalapratibhāśāli sahridaya. In Abhinavabhāratī, he clearly
mentions while lodging on the Rasa-sūtra: asmanmate tu
saṃvedanamevānandaghanamāsvādyate tatra ka dukhaśaṅkā kevalaṃ
tasyaiva citratākaraṇe ratiśokādi vāsanā vyāpārastadudbodhane
cābhinayādi vyāpāraḥ. He holds that aesthetic experience at its highest level
is the experience of the self itself, as pure and unmixed bliss. He names this
state as mahārasa. It is in the subconscious state and on the basis of this it is
divided into various types such as sṛngār, karuṇa etc. He says: eka eva
tātvatparamārthato rasaḥ. The function of rasa is to awaken this
subconscious element. He admits that it is an experience in which the

prakāśa (that which is obviously seen) aspect is pushed to the background

and the aspect of vimarśa (that which is reflected over), camatkāra, ānanda
comes to the surface.

In Abhinavabharati term ‘rasa’ has been used in two different senses. At the
first stage in the transcendental level, rasa means the ‘object of relish’
(rasyate anena iti rasaḥ). In the second level where the basic mental stage
sinks to the subconscious and there is the ānanda aspect of the self
consisting of divinity and rests within itself. niravacchinna svātmaparāmarśa
or svātmaviśrānti. Abhinavagupta brought fresh perspectives to the
concepts of Bharata, particularly on aesthetic experience and art creation.
For him the aesthetic experience is ānanda, echoing the upanishad dictum :
‘raso vai saḥ’ , that experience he said is different from ordinary experience.
They are directly observed by the self called sākṣibhāṣya. At this level the
self shines in its own glory and do not borrow the light of any other object.
The artistic process, according to him, is a movement from impure to the
pure, from gross to subtle, and from the particular to the universal, it is a
process of liberation that passes through five stages— Sense level,
Imaginative level, Emotive level, Cathartic level, Transcendental level.
Bhaṭṭanayak endorses the view that rasa is actually one which is mahārasa
but it is presented in various forms due to various emotional expressions.
That is why singular number is apply in Taittīrīya Upaniṣad —‘rasaṃ hi

evāyaṃ labdhavā’anandi bhavati’. According to him various rasas like

sṛngār, karuṇa, hāsya, raudra, etc., mentioned in Bharat-sūtra is nothing but
the expression of this single mahārasa. So mahārasa being eternal, the
expressions like ‘rasa is produced’ or ‘rasa is destroyed’ are nothing but
aupacārika prayoga, consequently, the plural form of the word rasa can be
used. He supports the view of Grammarians that just as vibration in
consciousness manifests different kinds of varṇadhvaniḥ, similarly vibration
in the bhāvacetanā equivalent to sphoṭamahārasa manifests various rasas.

VI

In this connection the view of Ᾱnandavardhana in Dhvanyāloka is to be

noted. According to him dhvani is the soul of poetic expression which is
revealed through rasa— kāvyasyātmā dhvaniḥ. Ᾱnandavardhan establishes
a new kind of meaning other than the vācyārtha; it is called by him dhvaniḥ.
It is compared to the echoes of the bell which is heard long after the bell has
stopped ringing. Just as the beauty of the body is not determined by the
different organs of the body, but it is the harmonious integration of the
different parts of the body that manifests it.9 dhvaniḥ is the poetic feature
concerned with exploiting the beauty of every element in the medium of
language. Poetry possesses two levels of meaning<direct and suggestive.
The suggestive meaning is named as vyaṅgyārtha or pratīyamānārthaḥ
which can never be stated in words but can be felt and realized by reader
having aesthetic attitude. This is same as what we have said in rasa. It
cannot be simply grasped by direct acquaintance with language or of

reasoning. The relationship is called vyaṅgy-vyañjaka-bhāva. Primary

meaning is subordinate to rasadhvani which is called the soul of poetry.
The history of poetics shows that the efforts of the scholars went in vain to
find out the element which made expression beautiful, or in other words,
where does rest the beauty of the poem. The scholars differ in their opinion
regarding the parameter of aesthetic enjoyment. Some say it is alaṃkāra,
others say it is vakrokti some other say it is rasa and again some other say it

is camatkāra According to Vāman-sūtra the quality of best literature kānti.

He says when rasa is manifested in full form it glows like kānti. Bharata also

says: kāntirevātivistīrṇo dīptirityabhidhīyate (Nāṭyaśāstra, Chap.24). It is to

be noticed in this connection that sometimes the audio performance of an
art piece become the object of visual scene as it is seen in the case of
classical Indian music. Rāgamālā paintings are such examples where a
particular Rāga is depicted in a pictorial form which seems to be the object of
bliss for the spectator audience. Abhinavagupta says: tatra sarve amī
sukhapradhānāḥ svasaṃviccavarṇarupasyaikadhanasya prakāśasya ānanda

saratvat…ityānandarūpatā sarvarasānāmj But whatever it may be, they

have place only when they function as suggestive element of rasa vis-à-vis
beauty. ‘The site of the setting Sun looks beautiful’ cannot be realized by
arguments and logic, it can be felt only.

VII

In the concluding remark let us once again recapitulate what has been said
regarding bhāva, the innate source of all kinds of human emotions— love,
anger, hate, wonder etc. bhāva is a kind of a mental state cittavṛttiviśeṣa or
mental modification (vikāro manaso). The term bhāva means both existence
and a mental state, and in aesthetic contexts it has been variously translated
as feelings, psychological states, and emotional expressions. According to
Bharata, the playwright experiences a certain emotion, which then is
expressed on the stage by the performers through words, music, gestures
and actions. The portrayal of emotions is termed bhāva. Rasa, in contrast, is
the emotional response the bhāva evoked in the spectator. Rasa is thus an
aesthetically transformed emotional state experienced, with enjoyment, by

the spectator. Abhinavagupta calls it rasadhvani. Rasa is conveyed to the

enjoyer– the rasika or sahridaya– through words, music, colors, forms, bodily

expressions, gestures etc. These modes of expressions are called bhāva-s.

For example, the collective effort of the playwright, actors, musician and
director is required to employ appropriate words, music, gestures and props
to produce the bhāva called rati (love) among the audience. A play could be
an astute mix of several rasas, but should be dominated by one single rasa
that defines the essence and fabric of that play. It is therefore said, bhāva is
that which becomes bhū, bhava, i.e., to become; and bhāva becomes rasa
which is the essence of art. As soon as certain particular kind of stimulus is
present, emotion of anger or love is produced which is called krodhabhāva,
premabhāva etc. Now the similar bhāva is created in literary composition or
in dramatic situation also. The question which is relevant to ask at this
juncture is: whether this emotion is really produced or somehow imposed
upon the viewer or audience at the time of watching a play? Bharata says
that Nāṭya is the imitation of life (lokānukīrtanam) wherein the various

human emotions have to be dramatically glorified bhāvānukṛtinām, so that

the spectator is able to taste the portrayed pleasure and pain (lokasya
sukhadukha) as Nāṭyarasa. This rasa experience will entertain and enlighten
the spectator who hence becomes the rasika. One enjoys experiencing the
emotions with the artists, and sometimes even visibly expresses it by
shedding tears or laughing spontaneously. But both the artiste and the
spectator are well aware that neither of them is going through it in reality.
This enjoyment is Nāṭyarasa. The 6th and 7th chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra,
known as the rasādhyāya and bhāvādhyāya respectively, together bring out

the concept of the bhāva-rasa theory of Bharata, and become the core for all
deliberations on aesthetics. Although the ingredients or experiences are
taken from the real world but it is presented before the viewer as imitation of
the real one. The poet is not to find new emotions but to use the ordinary
ones and in working them up into poetry with classic mastery . The
experience of the daily life helps to understand the situation of the dramatic
action. Bharata does not distinguish between loka- bhāva and kāvya-bhāva.
He says unless such bhāva is present in our life, there is no possibility of

grasping them in kāvya-bhāva (pratītigrāhytā). In fact, there is no difference

between lokānubhūti and kāvyānubhūti which are not actual emotion at all.

Let us, for instance, take a character from history or mythology, say Rama,
and try to work out how is it possible. The playwright tries to grasp the
essence of the character; and strives to give a concrete form to the abstract
idea of Rama, in his own way. The director tries to interpret the spirit and
substance of the play, and the intensions of the playwright. The actor in turn
absorbs the inputs provided by both the playwright and the director. In
addition, the actor brings in his own creative genius, skill, his experience on
the stage, and his own understanding of the character in order to recreate
the “idea” of Rama. All the while, the actor is also aware that he is just an
actor on stage trying to portray a character , like citraturaga a pictorial horse.
A painting of a horse is not a horse; but it is an idea or the representation of
a horse. One does not mistake the painting for the horse. The artistic
creation though not real can arouse in the mind of the spectator, the
experience of the original object, but cannot reproduce all the qualities of the
original subject.

It can be countered that the difference between loka-bhāva and kāvya-bhāva

is very subtle. For example, when a man is overpowered with grief, he
certainly is not in a position to construct a literary composition; but when he
is presented with similar emotion in drama, he very well enjoys it.  He says
that the feeling that might cause pain in real life is capable of providing
pleasure in an art form. He explains, while viewing a performance on stage
one might appreciate and enjoy the display of sorrow, separation, cruelty,
violence; and one may even relish it as aesthetic experience. But, in real life
no one would like to be associated with such experiences.

According to Abhinavagupta a real work of art, in addition to possessing

emotive charge, carries a strong sense of suggestion and the potential to
produce various meanings. It can communicate through suggestions and
evoke layers of meanings and emotions.  A true aesthetic object,
Abhinavagupta declares, not merely stimulates the senses but also ignites
the imagination of the viewer. With that, the spectator is transported to a
world of his own creation. That experience sets the individual free from the
confines of place, time and ego (self); and elevates him to the level of

universal experience. Thus art is not mundane; it is alaukika+ in its nature.

The pure aesthetic enjoyment comes with the rejection of all kinds of
impediments. He is completely divested of all egoistic feelings and it is due
to his transcendence from the earthly problems and conflict that he derives
aesthetic pleasure. Poetry purges from his inward that which obscures the
wonder of his own being. There is in that state prominence of sattva and
total rejection of the rajasa and tamasa go to oblivion. Hence the state is
characterized by the absence of all physical, mental volitional activity free
from the all attachment, aversion from all that enter into the consciousness.
Thus, in kāvya-bhāva, the necessary part is the exclusion of all enemies like
his own interests, hatred towards foes and attachment towards friends ,
which is not possible in loka-bhāva where at every step man has to struggle
for his existence and he has no spare time to enjoy the aesthetic enjoyment.
In short the multifarious problems of vighnapratītigrāhya must be stopped at
least for the time being to be at one with the similar other kinds—

sarvasāmājikānām ekaghanatā eva pratipattiḥ. In life the experience of fear

is not a blissful experience but in kāvya it is a source of aesthetic enjoyment.
This accounts for the fact that ordinary feelings of pain and hatred, hope and
disgust, horror and despair are not experience by him at the time of
appreciation the play. Therefore, it is true to say vītavighnapratītigrāhyo
bhāvaḥ eva rasa. This interpretation of Abhinavagupta clearly bifurcates two
worlds< the world of our daily experience and the world of aesthetic objects
created by person with sensitive heart. An aesthetic object belongs to such a
world that they do not allow to be classed with any of the types accepted in
the daily life of the world. The object of the aesthetic world and as such has
aesthetic reality and that too for those who desire to live in it. It is the world
of poetic creation and thus the constituents are as such conceived by the

poet. So they are termed vibhāva and not hetu. In actual world the event is
caused by some extraneous factor but in literary composition it is called
vibhāva and it exists as long as poetic world exists. It can be explained in
this way that though bhāva eva rasaḥ is no doubt true but it is possible only
when one comes out of this loka-bhāva and view this bhāva in a different
perspective. The loka-bhāva is lifted to the level of kāvya-bhāva by breaking
the barriers of the daily life and traversing beyond the spatio-temporal
frame. That is why the word ‘āsvādan’ is the term coined for kāvya-bhāva.
The ordinary world stands no closer to aesthetic world. Hence there is rasa in
the nāṭya and other poetic expression only and not in the ordinary world.  In
the artistic process, we are moving from the gross to more subtle forms of
expressions and experiences; we move from individualized experiences to
general representations; and from multiplicity to unity. He asserts, the
voluntarily surrender of certain preconceived notion is a prerequisite for
enjoying any art expression. The moment one starts questioning it or
doubting it and looking at it objectively; the experience loses its aesthetic
charm and it becomes same as a mundane object. One enjoys a play only
when one can identify the character as character from the drama and not as
ones friend or associate. The spectator should also learn to disassociate the
actor from the character he portrays. He says the theatrical experience is
quite unlike the experience in the mundane and the real world.
 Though personal tragedy sometimes inspires like Vālmiki10 to write the
Ramayana spontaneously emanating from his being overpowered by an
intense feeling of pathos, but it is the context of ātma-mukti. It is a way of
catharsis to dilute one’s sorrow through kāvya. The obsession of sorrow
transported the poet to that level which liberates the person from his
personal pathos and elevates to the state of samādhi like stage. Another
difference between the two is this that our daily world is dominated by
mental modifications which bind us but kāvya-bhāva in sublime form
liberates us. The aim of a play or incidentally any art form meant to provide
pleasure that must not, however, bind but must liberate the spectator.

Therefore, our personal sorrows and pains do not arouse rasānubhūti as long
as they are attached to personal emotions and one cannot attain the state of
muktāvasthā within that framework of mind. In kāvya the narrative
transcends life experience (lokottara), yet it is grounded on the earth, as
Bharata uses the term lokānuvartana or lokānubhāvānukīrtana which
signifies something that does not absolutely go beyond loka-bhāva. The
peculiar relationship between the two world cannot be defined specifically. A
true connoisseur of arts has to learn to detach the work of art from its
surroundings and happenings; and view it independently.

sarvasya trailokasyāyaṃ nāṭyaṃ bhāvānukīrtanam.

nānābhāvopannaṃ mānavāsthāntarātmakam.

The point that Abhinavagupta made repeatedly is this that art is not about
imitation; it is all about inspiration (pratibhā). It is not distortion of mental
state (manovikāra) rather reconstruction of the mental state. There is
absolutely no way an artist on stage could become the real character
represented on the stage. The actor has to innovate on the inspiration of the
real character. He talks of inspiration begetting inspiration (nava nava
unmeṣaśālinī pratibhā); and remarks what is important is to find out whether
the actor can transfer that inspiration to the spectator.
The question which often irritates me in connection with epistemological
segment is: whether ‘I know’ and ‘I feel’ are same? A doctor, though,
understands my pain and prescribes exact medicines needed for the time,
but he does not feel it. He certainly knows my pain. It is me only who can
feel the pain. The question is raised in connection with deal we have done
with ourselves that these two states are different, and we must respect the
sanctity of each of the domain without encroaching the others’ territory. And
thus we will not go into any kind of analysis of the ‘Rasa’ feeling that will be
a kind of post mortem; rather we will try to view the feeling as equating it
with a kind of sublimation, beauty, wonder and a sense of satisfaction in the
ultimate sense. We must note that when a series of words are transferred to
the listener, it is not only the words but the intention and the rasa is also
communicated to the listener with it, so that he can have the vision of
beauty within himself. Bhaṭṭanāyaka supposes that beauty cannot be
logically known but it can be felt. ‘na pratīyate, na utpadyate na
abhivyañjyate…apitu abhyupagamyate.. Though there is no parameter to
measure this achievement of beauty yet a presupposed parameter is there.
For example, when 1 kg sugar is measured with the help of weighing
balance, it is assumed that the weighing balance is of 1 kg otherwise
measurement is not possible. Similarly, unless the unquestionable parameter
of beauty is assumed, there will be no logical justification for the feeling of
beauty. In Sanskrit the verbal form ‘mā’ is used both for knowledge and
measurement so it is not very unusual to say that ‘to know’ sometimes
replaces ‘to measure’.

Thus kāvya starts with the assumption that there is no ugliness in this world,
that the world stands as the manifestation of highest beauty that the human
mind cannot even conceive in its own capacity. With the experiences
collected from the life, artist creates beautiful objects and allows readers and
viewers to delve deep into his created world and have the same beautiful
experience which he had at the time of composing. Thus one has to open
one’s eye to behold and draw the rasa from this worldly experience too. Only
then this whole world will stand as the projection of that ultimate universal
rasa which knows no demarcation – epistemological or metaphysical,
sensitive or logical. Kāvya springs from this very ocean of rasa and blooms
with full affluence, thus though very much rooted to this world yet
manifesting beyond the phenomenal territories. Herein artistic creation
triumphs with its own glory—creating rasa from the ingredients of life but
uplifting it to the status of something that has to be enjoyed going beyond all
prescribed criterion. With this note we end quoting Abhinavagupta:

evaṃ mūlabījasthānīyaḥ kavigato rasaḥ tato vṛkṣasthānīyaḥ kāvya

tatra puṣpasthānīyaḥ abhinayādivyāpāraḥ tatra phalasthānīyaḥ sāmājika

rasāsvāda

tena rasamayam eva viśvam.

End notes:

1. êF_k;FFÞFPÊ ÚFæFW¶Fh ùFõÜFFW ÞFY½F¸F] =àµFX ÞõF:—

æFUÞF˜˜FYæFFWN¼hÚF]¶FFW¸ÑFP¸F æFUÚF¶õFF˜˜F ÚFÜFFÎF=+:

(Nāṭyaśāstra 6.40)

2. E¶FJæF ˜F ÎF©W ÎF ÞõF:— =]+·F ¶FPùa PæFõÛF_P¶FèFUáFX ÎF ÙFXÍÜF¶FW?

Hƒ¶Fk Pù ¼WèF=+FáF ÒÛFF¶F_ÚFW¼PÎFÜFPηF¶FX ÞõF: =W ÜFk EFèFk=+F
— ÎF©W ¶FPùa P=+k EFõæFF¼ÎFXÑFFÜF E¶FJæF ˜F ÑFF·Fk GP¶F
 H˜ÜF¶FW ... ÎFPù ÑFF·FW ÛFÃFõæFF¼: EPÑF¶F] ¶F¼]ÑFFÜF=+:— ¶FWÎF
ÒÛF]&F ÑFF·FW ÎF©XÑFÜFX;F: G¶ÜFáFÛFh— (Nāṭyaśāstra)

3. E·FFù P=+ÛFÎÜFW ÚFFæFF: õF¸æFWÎF PæFÎFFPÚFÍFUÜFζFW ÜF¸F J¶FW

õFFP¸æF=+F G¶ÜF]˜ÜFζFW? E·FFW˜ÜF¶FW Gù õF¸æFk ÎFFÛF ÛFÎF:

ÒÚFæFÛFh— ¶F˜˜F õFÛFFPù¶F ÛFÎFõ¶æFF¶Fh H¶ÑFöFW— ÛFÎF:

õFÛFFÍFFÎFF˜˜F õF¸æFPÎFæF_P¸FÚFaæFP¶F— (Nāṭyaśāstra, EÍÜFFÜF 7)

4. ÎFFÎFFPÚFÎFÜF õFkÙFÎÍFF¶Fh ÚFFæFÜFPζF ÞõFFPÎFÛFFÎFh —

ÜFõÛFF¸FõÛFF¶ÛFU ÚFFæFF PæF£FWÜFF ÎFF©hÝÜFXƒ¶F_PÚFO—

ÞõFÜFX;ÜFFÎFh P˜F¸FæF_P¸FPæFèFWðFFÎFh

ÚFFæFÜFPζF ;FÛFÜFPζF ÙF]PÀPæFðFÜFFÎFh ÒFÑÎF]æFPζF — GÛFFk

õFFÛFFP¡F=FÎFFk ÚFFæFÜFPζF GÜFÛFWæF ˜F EPÍFæFFõFÎFF¶ÛFF ÚFFæFÎFF

(EPÚFÎFæFÚFFÞ¶FU 1.307)

5. ÜFXN»FUa B¼ÜFõFkæFF¼U ¶FõÜF ÚFFæFX ÞõFX¼hÚFæF:

èFÞUÞk æÜFFÑÜF¶FW ¶FWÎF èF]ð=k+ =+FòPÛFæFFP;ÎFÎFF— ( Nāṭyaśāstra
F 7/7)

6. ÜFWðFFÛFh =+FæÜFFÎF]èFUáFÎFFÚÜFFõFæFèFF¶Fh PæFèF¼UÚF[¶FW

ÛFÎFXÛF]=]+ÞW æFµFaÎFUÜF ¶FÎÛFÜFU

ÚFæFÎF ÜFX;ÜF¶FF ¶FW B¼ÜFõFkæFF¼ÛFFµF: õFB¼ÜFF: (ÍæFÎÜFFáFX=+,
HÃX¶F I)

7. ÜF»FFPù ÎFFÎFFæÜF¦¡FÎFZðFPÍF¼eæÜF õFkÜFX;FF½õFPÎFðÑFP¸F:ÚFæFP¶F,

ÜF»FF Pù ;F]°FP¼PÚF¼eæÜFYO æÜF¦¡FÎFYÞXðFPÍFPÚFè˜F

ðFF°æFF¼ÜFX ÞõFFPÎFæF¶FaζFW ¶F»FFiÎFFÎFFÚFFæFXÑF;F¶FF EPÑF
õ»FFPÜFÎFX ÚFFæFF ÞõF¶æFÛF EFÑÎF]æFPζF < Nāṭyaśāstra 6

8. ÑFF»ÜFF=µFaÎFÎFÑFF∙FFζFÞÒæFWèFF¶Fh õFÛF]¶ÑFÎÎFW

¼WèF=FãPæFèFWðFFæFWèFFÎFFPãkP;FhPÎF õFÛFÜFk PÛF»ÜFF õFkèFÜFk

õFkÚFFæFÎFFP¼£FFÎFPæF£FWÜF¶æFsÑFÞFÛFèFFaÂÜFÎFFõÑF¼k—

(EPÚFÎFæFÚFFÞ¶FU. 1.37)
9. ÛF]ƒ¶FF×+áFWðF]˜šFÜFFÜFFõ¶FÞáF¶æFPÚFæFFζFÞF—
ÒP¶FÚFFP¶F ÜF¼”Y~ðF] ¶FááFFæFµÜFPÛFùX˜ÜF¶FW— (quoted from
ÍæFÎÜFFáFFW=+)
...... ……. ..
Ò¶FUÜFÛFFÎFk ÑF]ÎFÞÎÜF¼WæF æFõ¶æFPõ¶F æFFµFUðF]
ÛFùF=+æFUÎFFÛFh —
ÜF¸F¶ÒPõFÊFæFÜFæFFP¶FPÞƒ¶Fk PæFÚFFP¶F áFFæFµÜFPÛFæFFk;FÎFFõF]
—— (ÍæFÎÜFFáFFW=+ I.4)

10.=+FæÜFõÜFF¶ÛFF õF JæFF»Faõ¶F»FF ˜FFP¼=+æFW: ÑF]ÞF—

=e+Zk˜FÂÎÂPæFÜFX;FX¶»F: èFX=+: èáFX=+¶æFÛFF;F¶F:—

(ÍæFÎÜFFáFFW=+ 1 / 5)
Bibliography
1. Barlingey, Surendra S. 2002. Bhāratiya Saundarya Siddhānta Ki Nayī Paribhāṣā.
Translated in Hindi by Dr. Ramaji Tiwary. Bhartiya Jnanapitha, New Delhi.
2. Bharata Muni, 1984. Nātyaśāstra. Commentary by Abhinavgupta. Edited by Pandit
Shivadatta Kashinatha Panduranga Paraba. Tukarama Jawaji Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Bombay
3. Deshpande G. T.. 2009. Abhinavagupta, Sahitya Akedemy.
4. Kane Mahamahopadhyaya P.V., Translated in Hindi by Dr. Indrachandra Sastri, 2011.
Sanskrit Kavyasastra Ka Itihas, Motilal Banarasi Das. Delhi
5. Mukherji Ramaranjana. 1990. Literary Criticism In Ancient India, Sanskrit Pustak
Bhandar, 38, Bidhan Saranee , Calcutta-6
6. Śreeānandavardhanācārya. 1987. Dhvanyāloka. Lochana commentary by
Sreemadbhinavgupta with Hindi interpretation by Acharya Jagannatha Pathaka.
Chowkhamba Vidya Bhawan, Varanasi.
7. Śreerudraṭa. 2010. Kāvyālaṇkar. Svetambar Jaina Pandit sadhu. Poona University
Library.
8. śree Viśvanātha. 1982. Sāhitydarpaṇa, Motilal Banarasi Das. Delhi.
9. Singh Yogendra Pratap, 2009. Bharatiya Kavyasastra (Hindi), Lokabharati
Prakashana, Allahabad.
10. Sen Ramendra Kumar, A Brief Introduction to A Comparative Study of Greek and
Indian Poetics and Aesthetics, Sen Ray & Co., Ltd.

Madhu Kapoor

Former Associate Prof., Philosophy

Vivekananda College, Thakurpukur

Kolkata-700063

Email: mattoo_k@yahoo.co.uk

Mb. 9433749985

We can see that in Indian classical music the performer repeatedly comes
back to the rhythmic beat of sama, that keeps the harmony and melody
intact which incidentally is the source of appraising the beauty of the music. ,
beautifully brings out how different opposite rasa-s are combined to keep the
balance of a dramatic presentation. Thus, anger comingles with eroticism;
eroticism form clots with the comic and bravery conjoins with horrible

therein provides the harmonious flow of rasa.1

Life in this earthly world is constantly driven up and guided by the

parallel flow of different sentiments and conflicting emotions. The art of
balancing these varied elements that form a mass with each other bring out
the true essence of life.

While rasa-s are created by bhāva, the bhāva by themselves carries no

meaning in the absence of rasa —na hi rasādṛte kaścidarthaḥ pravartate. In
other words, the meaning of a word cannot be understood without the help
of rasa, or it is the rasa that facilitate the meaning of a word ‘bhāva’ in its
different aspects.
It is sāttavika transformation of the bhāva because when a viewer perceives
a dramatic performance, for the time being he is bereft of his personal
agonies, that is rājasika and tāmasika-bhāva. Otherwise he would not have
enjoyed the play. Abhinavagupta makes it clear that the rasa is in the viewer
(prekṣaka) not in the actor who is acting. The actor is like a cup in which the
wine is served. The cup has no taste of wine; it is the drunkard who obtains
the rasa (pātre na madyāsvādya). The actor is, like the cup who displays

different emotions, but himself free from that. 2 When a sensitive person
receives certain stimulus from external world or from any other source he
churned it and reaches to that level of mind where he totally absorbs it in the

feeling (bhāva) which is described in Yoga-Sūtra as ‘manaḥ samādhānacca’.

Bharata echoes the similar view3. It is a complete absorption of mind into the
act which is relished by refined appreciators in the same way as a fine drink
is relished by a connoisseur of taste. In both the cases the distinctive
flavours have their distinctiveness.
The rasa which is derived from watching a play is something different from
undergoing the same emotional state in one’s everyday life. In our daily life
anger is caused by some stimulus in the external world with various bodily
and psychological changes and emotion lasts till the desired end is achieved.

‘bhāva’ sabdena cittavṛtti—viśeṣā eva vivakṣitāḥ. According to

Abhinavagupta, mental modifications (cittavṛtti) of various emotions takes
the shape of rasa in art, since if there would not have been these cittavṛtti
we would not have been able to obtain rasa. They are so called because they
bring rasa into being by means of acting, music, literature etc. And they
pervade the mind of the viewer.