रसः

nAyaka-s have highly evolved ahaṅkāra due to extraordinary traits. Spectator’s identifies with the character’s ahaṅkāra, and enjoys it. This enjoyment is rasa.
(रसोद्भवे भोजमतम् एव सरलम् अनुभवानुसारि च भाति साधारणीकरणप्रक्रियापेक्षया। राजारामज-शङ्करोऽप्य् अङ्गीकरोति।)

Generalized bhāvas

• In the ideal realm, there are generalized objects, generalized space and generalized time.
• sādhāraṇīkr̥ta vibhāva, anubhāva and sahakāri-bhāva-s are associated with sādhāraṇīkr̥ta sthāyibhāva. (Impersonal, generalized versions of their real world and poetic counterparts).
• These transcend spatio-temporal and personal barriers.
• The 8/9 sādhāraṇīkr̥ta sthāyibhāvas are innately present in even the newborn. They exist in all.

Rasa Properties

• रसः प्रेक्षकय् उदेतीति।
• It is not erroneous (one doesn’t walk out of a movie theater thinking one has been fooled).
• It is not eternal (exists as long as one engages with the kAvya).
• It is as if one is savouring a painting - looking at all times depicted at once.
• It is uninterrupted as there is an absence of “satisfaction”.

Not mundane experience

• It is not everyday perception (hence we throng movie halls).
• Mundane experience is sukha-duḥkha-pradhāna (every happy experience has a seed of unhappiness in it, and vice versa). Aesthetic experience is joyous even when negative mental states are communicated.
• Repose of consciousness (Saṁvid-viśrānti) in aesthetic experience. No other thought arises in consciousness. There is no repose of consciousness in mundane experience. An additional thought (“This experience must continue”/This experience must end”, etc. ) always follows. Discussed by Abhinavagupta under “the obstacles to aesthetic experience”.
  • A connoisseur (sahr̥daya) is free of such intruding thoughts (vimalahr̥daya). He/she is also not at mercy of his/her own experience of pleasure (stemming from objects of desire, rāga) or sorrow (stemming from objects of hate, dveṣa).
  • Objection by viśvāsa
    • not all secondary thoughts oppose saṁvid-viśrānti. They naturally occur, especially while reading. Examples:
      • “what a fine verse! I should save it in my collection.”
      • “Wonder what the real story behind the incident depicted here.” The nature of consciousness is to understand - it naturally finds joy in it.
      • “This movie (e.g. ) is a puzzle. Understanding it is key to cracking open the joy. Let me pause, rewind and think about it.”

Not experience of brahman.

• Aesthetic experience is not enduring.
• Characterizations like “bhrahmānanda” and “ātyantika-duḥkhya-nivr̥ttiḥ” do not apply.
• Yogic experience is characterized by tāṭasthya (neutrality), sakala-vaiṣayikoparāga-śūnyatā/asphuṭa-viṣayāveśa-vaivaśya (fading of the material world). Both these are obstacles in the case of aesthetic experience

Rasya object traits

• Aesthetic experience - possible only through objects that are generalized to a degree.
  • Contrast with mundane experience - stem from specific objects which evoke specific goal-oriented actions
  • Contrast with spiritual experience - transcend subject object binary usually.
  • “तथाविधे हि भये नात्माऽत्यन्ततिरस्कृतो न विशेषत उल्लिखितः । एवं परोऽपि ।” In the aesthetic experience, the subject is neither completely obscured (as in spiritual experience) nor made conspicuous (as in mundane experience). The same is true w.r.t the object.
• Only with such objects can the thought such as “Let this experience continue/end” not arise.
• Generalized objects are not causally effective, (No arthakriyā) – they don’t evoke goal-specific actions from us.
  • One can experience anger at a specific enemy and undertake some specific action such as attacking as a consequence of such anger but one cannot experience anger at the general category of enemy, much less act in response to it.

Rasa effects

• Effects of such rasa-perception - like रोमाञ्च, tears - is also called “camatkāra”.
• camatkāra is a type of experience, conviction, imagination or memory.
• It is a perception unbound by time, place, personhood.
• Abhinavagupta says that camatkāra could be of the nature of unconscious memory - “रम्याणि वीक्ष्य … पर्युत्सुको भवति यत्सुखितोऽपि जन्तुः। तच्चेतसा स्मरति नूनमबोधपूर्वं”.

Rasa Mechanism

• While enjoying a poetic work, sādhāraṇīkr̥ta bhāvas are mirrored in the spectator’s mind, which is directly illuminated by śiva/ saṁvit (they’re able to directly access the ideal realm), which is of the nature of joy. sādhāraṇīkr̥ta bhāva, experienced thus, is rasa.
• Theater and drama technique (eg. presenting actors before and after as actors) facilitate sādhāraṇīkaraṇa.
  • In case of an enactment, the spectator’s mind is faced with conflicting possibilities as to where the vibhāva, anubhāva and sthāyibhāva exists - in the character - or in the actor? It can’t think of the actor as either the actor(←makeup, acting etc..) or as rāma (← memories of other actors, pre-make-up look). So, it goes into a state of “viśrānti”.
  • Auditory and visual senses are suited to easily evoke a shared experience of joy among a large audience (unlike touch, smell and taste)
    • Instrumental and vocal music, painting, sculpture, and dance are regarded as capable of transforming a nonconnoisseur who is under the grip of his/her personal pleasure/sorrow (nija-sukhādi-vivaśībhāva) into a connoisseur. Hence these are taken resort to before a play begins so the audience can be transported gradually to the play’s aesthetic world
    • Their advantage: Being not as rich in meaning as the drama is, but at the same time being appealing to a the audience at large

7 hinderances (vighnas) in rasa experience.

• स्वगतत्व-परगतत्व-नियोगेन देशकालविशेषावेशः - This is the greatest obstacle
  • Appropriation of pleasurable/ painful mental states on to himself; and the resulting “second thought” perturbation.
    • If it’s pleasurable, one is distracted by wanting to preserve it, fear of it ending, to show it off, desire to acquire something similar in real life.
    • If it’s painful, one has the second distracting thought of wanting to be rid of it, hide it.
  • Particularization to someone else (eg. actor).
    • Even when we are vicariously experiencing other’s experience of pleasure/sorrow, a second experience of our own pleasure, sorrow, stupefaction, or neutrality interrupts that experience (because of thoughts such as “He is my friend", “He is my foe”, “He is someone am unconcerned about".
    • Techniques to overcome it - present the actor as himself first; have special stage designs, make the actor use extraordinary language.
• निज-सुखादि-विवशी-भाव। Overcome by setting the mood with music, stage etc.
• अप्रधानता - Consciousness can only settle on some predominant mental state.
  • रति-क्रोधोत्साहनिर्वेदाः प्रधानाः स्थायिभावाः (correspond to कामार्थधर्ममोक्षाः)। Abhinavagupta says that sorrow is also a stable primary mental state on which the mind can rest.
  • The other sthāyibhāvas can act as vyabhicāribhāvas and color the pradhāna-sthāyibhāvas.
• प्रतिपत्ताव् अयोग्यता, सम्भावनाविरहः। Hence, base story on common experience or a well known story (having अखण्डित-प्रतीतिः).
• प्रतीत्युपाय-वैकल्य, स्फुटत्वाभाव - Sometimes, audience needs hints to understand. Overcome using abhinaya, local usages, etc.
• संशययोगः

• साधारणीकरणप्रक्रिया भट्टनायकेन प्रस्तुता।
  • अभिधा-स्तरः
    • विभावः, व्यभिचारिवावः, अनुभावः, स्थायिभावश्च वर्तन्ते पात्रे।
  • भावकत्व-स्तरः (साधारणीकरणम्)
    • विभावः, व्यभिचारिवावः, अनुभावः, स्थायिभावश् च साधारणीकृता वर्तन्ते।
    • एते न प्रेक्षके, न च नटे वर्तन्ते।
    • साधारणीकृत एव स्थायिभावो रसः।
  • भोजकत्व-स्तरः
    • अत्र प्रेक्षकस्य सत्त्वगुणस्योद्रेकः - साधारणीकरणप्रभावेण। ततस् तस्य भोगः - साधारणीकृतस्थायिभावस्य रसनेन। The mind is then like a polished mirror, in which the Self (of the nature of bliss) is clearly reflected. This Self percieves it’s clear reflection. This perception is joyful, and called rasa. (साधारणीकृत एव स्थायिभावो रसः। इति चेत्, कथम् अत्रैवम् उक्तम् ??)
    • भोगप्रकाराः
      • विकासः - सत्त्वोद्रेको ऽधिकः, तमोरजसोर् अविशिष्ट-नैयून्ये। हास्याद्भुत-भयानक-रसाः।
      • द्रुतिः - सत्त्वोद्रेको ऽधिकः, रजोगुणोद्रेको न्यूनः, तमो ऽनुद्रिक्तः। शृङ्गार-करुण-शान्त-रसाः।
      • विस्तारः - सत्त्वोद्रेको ऽधिकः, तमोगुणोद्रेको न्यूनः, रजो ऽनुद्रिक्तः। वीर-बीभत्स-भयानक-रसाः।
      • Abhinavagupta’s objections
        • There should be 9 ways of bhoga - one for each rasa?
        • guNa-s can be combined in many ways. So, there can be innumerable types of bhāva. Why pick just these?
• Generalized mental states are not present in any particular person - so - like other generalized/ ideal objects - cannot be percieved.
  • Abhinavagupta
    • “bhoga” is also perception. Unpercieved object cannot be confirmed.
    • “Generalized mental state” is located everywhere - rather than in a single person.
• Not percieved in spectator as something personal.
  • Not by direct experience
    • Else he would feel sad on experiencing karuNa rasa.
    • Watching a drama about sItA would become a vibhāva for one’s own love IRL.
    • sAdhAraNIkaraNa occurs even in case of supernatural acts like leaping accross the ocean.
  • Not from memory.
    • There is no remembrance of anything personal while watching sItA.
    • There is no spectator memory of rAma as possessing a stable emotion.
  • Not from shabda-pramANa or anumAna. Such intellectual activity cannot provide immediate rasa experience. Also, revelation can happen in gradations - leading to gradations of rasa.
• Not percieved in actor.
  • Would lead to indifference in spectators.
• Generalized mental states are not produced or manifested.
  • Abhinavagupta - Rasa is neither eternal (exists only as long as one engages with the text) nor unreal (is in fact experienced). So it must be either be produced or manifested.

Shankuka’s thesis

• The character’s sthāyibhāva is imitated in the actor/ poetic presentation via a combination of vibhāvas, vyabhicāribhāvas and anubhāvas.
• This imitated sthāyibhāva, when inferred by the audience with the superimposition “This is that rAma who was happy”, it becomes rasa.
• So, he located rasa in the actor (real or imagined).
• Some vibhāvas (which include rainy season) are communicated via poetry/ storyline.

bhaTTatauta’s criticism

• There is no imitation as per spectator experience. Spectator does not actually think that the actor is imitating the mental state of the character.
  • One can’t say that movements of limbs imitates feelings. Especially when these movements are located in different parts of the body and perceived using different senses.
  • No one has knowledge of rAma’s love - original cannot be percieved. To declare something an imitation, one should know both the original and the copy.
  • If the actor’s own love is being termed “imitation of love of the character” - this doesn’t make sense because the actor’s love is then original; and it is being percieved as real life love.
  • How can unreal counterparts “vibhāva and anubhāva” of actual “kAraNa and kArya” lead to perception of sthāyibhāva which seems real to the audience? So it can’t be real sthāyibhāva which is percieved.
  • If you say it is imitated sthāyibhāva which is percieved - no educated or uneducated audience thinks that they are percieving an imitation. One does not infer “imitation fire” from mist looking like smoke.
  • If you say that the actor’s love is similar to the character’s love, then similitude is not imitation. Cow is not an imitation of a gavaya, despite being similar.
  • The cognition “This is that rAma who was happy” is negated after the performance; and by performance by different actors. So, rAmaness is a jAti.
• There is no imitation as per actor’s experience.
  • Actor has never seen rAma. Can’t imitate some protopype - has to be someone particular. So, one ends up in a position where one is imitating oneself (“I imitate someone who cries like this”).
  • If imitation means doing something after someone else has done it - this spills over to the real world. So it is not a “suffcient” characterization.
  • The actor does not really imitate sorrow with one’s own sorrow - since it is not felt as such by the actor (check MRI). Further, feelings cannot be imitated by physical movments or even intonations.
• bharata never mentions that imitation of sthāyibhāva is happening (अनुकरण in the first chapter being taken in a specific different sense). In fact the contrary - actors sing songs when in love - which does not happen in real life.
• vibhāvas are not communicated via the script.
  • The actor does not think- “this is a sItA who belongs to me”. (??)
  • If you say that vibhāvas are communicated by the script, they may as well communicate sthāyibhāvas.

Abhinavagupta said - Correct in a way. rasa follows in the wake of bhAva - so a type of anukAra.

Lollaṭa

lollaTa says that characters (eg. rAma) already has the sthāyibhāva (eg. sadness) before the vibhāva-s, vyabhicāribhāvas and anubhāvas “enrich” it. So, he located ‘rasa’ in the character.

shankuka’s criticism

• How can you discern sthāyibhāva without vibhāva, vyabhicāribhāvas and anubhāvas?
• If it were so, bharata would have dealt with sthāyibhāvas and then rasas. Separate definition of rasas would be superfluous.
• There would be innumerable gradations of rasa-s based on degree of enrichment.
  • If we say rasa is reached when there is utmost enrichment, 6 types of hAsya would not be possible.
  • Gradations in each of shRngAra-rasa’s 10 stages would lead to infinite number of shRngAra-rasas.
• Despite continuous enrichment, how come shoka first is intense and then weakens?
• Inspite of other vibhāvas, vyabhicāribhāvas and anubhāvas enriching krodha, utsAha and rati, these sthāyibhāvas remain weak in the absence of amrSha, sthairya and sevA.

Abhinavagupta said - Correct in a way. sAdhAraNIkaraNa is a type of “enrichment”.