Rasa theory

 Rasa Theory

The theory of Rasa was formulated by Bharata. It was enriched by Anandavardhana and Abinavagupta.  It constitutes the central tradition in Indian aesthetics.

The American philosopher and psychologist, John Dewey held that there is no word in English which unambiguously signify ‘artistic’ and ‘aesthetic’. Artistic refers primarily to the act of production and Aesthetic to that of perception and enjoyment. In the Indian context, ‘Rasa’ is a term which designates both these processes and also the objective embodiment of the first which causes the second. 

The term ‘Rasa’ means: Sap, juice, water, liquor, milk, nectar, poison, mercury, taste, savor, prime or finest part of anything, flavour, relish, love, desire, beauty etc. It also means the alcoholic soma juice and the meta-physical absolute- the Brahman. In the vedic period, Rasa meant water, cow’s milk, mercury, soma-juice etc. Later flavour, taste and tasting were associated with the word. In the Upanishadic age, the age of intellectual sophistication, Rasa became the essence, the essence of everything, the essence of universe itself. In dramaturgy and in poetics, the word acquired the special meaning of that unique experience we have when we read a poem or witness a play. 

The Indian aesthetic thinking is primarily audience or reader oriented and the centre of much discussion is the response of the readers. The word Rasa denotes, apart from the reader’s aesthetic experience, the creative experience of the poet and the essence of the totality of the qualities which make a poem what it is. Bharata has employed the metaphor of seed-tree-fruit to synthesize all the elements in the poetic process. The term Rasa emphasizes the continuity of the poetic act from the birth of the seed—experience in the poet through its objectification in the body of a poem to the consummation in the reader’s enjoyment. 

Every human being is born with a set of inherited instinctual propensities. His thoughts, actions, and experiences constantly generate impressions which reach his subconscious mind. These impressions are called Samskaras. They are organised around emotions. Emotions can be divided into ‘Sthayibhava’----permanent emotions, because they always remain embedded in human organism and character. There are 9 basic emotions---delight, sorrow, anger, fear, disgust, surprise, trust, courage and love.

There are innumerable transient feelings and moods which accompany the basic emotions. Anxiety, exultation, bashfulness, languor etc are examples. 33 such feelings are recognized. They do not attain the intensity of the basic emotions nor do they last long. They are called vyabhicarins, which rise with well-defined emotions and subside with them. 

The Vibhavas are the characters and situations which determine and define the feeling to be evoked in the reader. To use Eliot’s phrase they are the “Objective Correlatives”. The ancient mariner, his shipmates, the albatross, the sea, the moon, the slimy things in the sea, etc. They are the vibhavas.

The special mode in which the poetic characters exist and are apprehended is indicated by the term alaukika, non-ordinary. In life our reactions to persons and objects can be described in terms of attraction, repulsion, or indifference. Our responses are governed by positive or negative interests. The theory of Rasa strikes a middle path and attempts a reconciliation of opposed points of view. The Indian theory makes a clear distinction between the ordinary life-emotion and the emotional content of aesthetic experience. An emotion is a disturbance, an agitation in the consciousness which tends to result in action. 

In poetic experience, the emotional states are not simply undergone or suffered; they are perceived and tasted. The Sanskrit words which describe this process are carvana which means masticating and rasana which means tasting. These words refer to the reader’s imaginative reconstruction of the meanings and the identity of the poem and to his active enjoyment of the emotions even while they reverberate in his heart.

A detached contemplative attitude is an enemy to the emotional disturbances of the heart. In poetic experience, when we “distance” the emotions, ie; when we apprehend them as having a non-ordinary relation to us, they do not disappear; on the contrary, they gain in clarity and become relishable. The liberative function of poetry, partly, is an outcome of this nature of poetic experience. It helps us free ourselves from being a slave to emotions which are generally chaotic, blind and powerful.

The conventions and stylization play an important role in ancient Indian Literature. The Indian writers and critics recognized the line of demarcation between art and life. Stylization is an essential aspect of art. In Indian art, we do not find realistic or naturalistic movements. Realism and even naturalism have their legitimate places in the realm of art. But in the west, these two movements seem to have reached a blind alley. In drama and even in the novel we find a reaction against them ( eg; Brecht, Ionesco, the anti-novel).

The discussion on the paradox of tragic delights arises from certain fallacious assumptions about the nature and function of poetry. The readers are caught in what may be called the naturalistic fallacy, ie; the belief that the function of poetry is to incite real life emotions in the reader. Among the Indian theorists also there were some who considered that rasas like ‘karuna’, the pathetic, evokes sorrow in the mind of the reader. The Central tradition however considers that the feelings evoked in poetic experience are ‘alaukika’, non-ordinary and therefore there is no question of sorrow. 

Drama always gives delight to the spectator, never sorrow. Bharatamuni devised music and dance to remove such personal feelings as may arise in the minds of untrained and uncultivated spectators. As poetry, tragedy does not give us any delight which is qualitatively different from that given by other genres. For practical criticism the division of literature into tragedy, comedy, lyric etc; is necessary and can be made on the basis of the content and the manner of treatment. In aesthetic experience, there is a sense of ‘visranti’ rest or composure. The apparent evocation of sorrow and other feelings is only a coloration (anuranjana), or resonance of the non-ordinary feelings embodied in the poem.

The Indian theorists do not share the belief of many that romantic poetry is subjective in the sense that the poet sings about his personal experiences. The fact is that all poetry is objective in the sense that the poet has to objectify feelings in terms of images, characters, action etc. The poet’s own experiences can be the subject matter of his poetry; but unless he renders them concrete by creating appropriate correlatives they will remain merely documents from his autobiography. To objectify an experience the poet has to detach it from the subject,ie; himself; and once he objectifies it through appropriate correlatives the experience becomes universal. The personal experience of the poet becomes the transpersonal experience potentially accessible to all mankind. This twin process of objectification and universalization is comprehended by the term ‘sadharanikarana’, transpersonalization. This doctrine implies the elevation of the consciousness of the poet and the reader from the plane of their private everyday world to the plane of collective human experience where poetry is created and enjoyed. 

Indian aestheticians, generally, are of the opinion that poets should not handle contemporary themes, because it is very difficult and full of risks for the poet to keep his theme aloof from his immediate interests. The doctrine of sadharanikarana does not necessarily compel the poet to abandon personal and contemporary subject matter. It only insists on the necessity to detach himself from the experience so that he can make the feelings inherent in the poem, and place them in a proper perspective with a view to investing them with values.

A person is said to possess real individuality (svalaksanya) only when he is contemporary with us (vartamana); only when he is animated by casual efficiency (arthakriya), ie; the power to produce effects in our practical life. A character in literature has no such power; it has the special alaukika status as a configuration of meanings. It does not raise the question of reality or unreality.

Aesthetic experience consists of direct perception (Saksatkara) which requires that the mind must be concentrated (ekagra) and free from all obstacles (vighna). The concept of sadharanikarana does not imply that we deindividualize and departicularize the characters and their feelings. Rasa is manifested by poetic language. The Sanskrit word used is abhivyakti; the word has the connotation of manifestation in individualized form. The basic feelings may be grouped under a limited number of names, but the permutations and combinations of these feelings and their manifestations are infinite and hence the infinite variety in literature. 

It is also necessary to guard against the danger of making the concepts of detachment and transpersonalization rigid and petrified, robbing art of all its warm human emotional interest. Though the feelings are evoked in the framework of transpersonalization yet they retain all their human qualities.

Another important quality of aesthetic experience is stressed in the concept of the Santa Rasa. Santa connotes tranquillity, repose, serenity, the peace that passeth understanding. In India, there were dogmatists who put a narrow interpretation on the concept and asserted that since ‘Santa’ indicates the cessation of all conflicts and activities and since such a state cannot be represented on the stage, it cannot be admitted in dramatic and poetic theory. The Central Tradition does not agree with this narrow interpretation. There is no work in world literature which can rival the Mahabharata in the diversity and intensity of conflicts and tensions portrayed. In spite of this Anandhavardhana considered that the dominant rasa of the epic is the santa. The Central Tradition upholds this ‘Rasa’ and even declares that the ‘santa’ is the great basic rasa (Maharasa). All feelings in aesthetic experience merge out of the santa and are in the end submerged in it. 

All rasas are relished in a state of perfect tranquillity born out of the withdrawal of our ego from our practical interests. There is a sense of repose in consciousness (samvidvisranti) when we are immersed in the aesthetic object to the exclusion of everything else. When our desire is directed to things not in consciousness the mind is agitated. Pain is only another name for the disturbance in consciousness caused by such desires, worries etc. But in the state of Santa, the maharasa, the consciousness is devoid of such agitations caused by egoistic desires.

In ordinary experience, we find either emotional conflicts and the resulting tensions or passive relaxation. But in rasa there is a unique union of the two opposites, tension and tranquillity. The content of a poem, which is man’s social experience pregnant with contradictions, evokes reverberations of feelings in the reader’s heart. The poetic experience unites the tension born out of conflicting emotions with repose resulting from the transpersonalized attitude.