Location of Rasa
Summary
The article examines the historical debate on the location of rasa in Indian aesthetics, focusing primarily on the Natyasastra of Bharata and subsequent commentaries. The author argues that the location of rasa has been variously identified in the drama itself, the character portrayed, the actor, and finally the spectator, with Abhinavagupta establishing the spectator as the ultimate location. The text begins by citing Bharata's own view from the Natyasastra, where traditional verses suggest that permanent emotions (sthayibhava) are themselves rasas located within the drama, relished by sensitive spectators. The author then outlines Bhatta Lollata's position, which locates rasa in the character being portrayed (anukarya), intensified by dramatic elements like vibhava and anubhava, and also present secondarily in the actor (anukarta). Sankuka is presented as criticizing both Lollata and the drama-centric view, arguing that rasa is merely the reproduction of the character's permanent emotion, located solely in the actor (anukarta) and inferred by the spectator. The Locana commentary on the Dhvanyaloka further supports Sankuka by rejecting both the character and actor as locations, noting practical difficulties in each case, and implicitly confirming the spectator's role. Bhattanayaka is discussed as holding a complex view where rasa is not located in any external entity but is perceived by the spectator through a process of universalisation (bhavanaparamapam), leading to aesthetic bliss. The author infers from Bhattanayaka's theory that the spectator is the location of rasa. The article then details Abhinavagupta's definitive stance, drawn from his commentaries on the Natyasastra and Dhvanyaloka. Abhinavagupta categorically states that rasa is not found in the everyday world or in the actor, who is merely a vessel (patra). Instead, rasa is located in the sensitive spectator, who tastes their own self, a mass of bliss, with varied emotions serving only to lend variety to this enjoyment. Finally, the author notes that while Abhinavagupta's view became dominant, other thinkers like Dhananjaya, Dhanika, Bhoja, and Ramacandra and Gunacandra offered alternative perspectives, with Bhoja locating rasa in the soul of all cultured men and Ramacandra and Gunacandra allowing for the possibility of an actor experiencing rasa. The author concludes by noting Panditaraja Jagannatha's firm defense of Abhinavagupta's position that the actor can never be the location of rasa.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The article examines the historical debate on the location of rasa in Indian aesthetics, tracing its evolution from Bharata’s foundational view to later theoreticians. Bharata locates rasa within the drama itself, as permanent emotions relished by sensitive spectators. Bhatta Lollata argues for its presence in the portrayed character and, secondarily, the actor. Sankuka contends rasa is solely located in the actor, while Bhattayaka proposes the universalized permanent emotion is enjoyed by the spectator, making them the location. Abhinavagupta decisively resolves this by categorically stating rasa is not in the drama, character, or actor, but primarily in the sensitive spectator, who experiences a blissful aesthetic enjoyment. The implication is that rasa is a subjective, universalized aesthetic experience, not an objective entity within the performance, fundamentally shaping the understanding of Indian dramatic and poetic theory.