Home > Positioning > Subjects > Rasa

Rasa

Rasa is the central concept of classical Indian aesthetics — a theory of what aesthetic experience is and how art produces it. The word means juice, sap, taste, flavour: the relish of a thing on the tongue. Carried into the theory of art, it names the savour an audience tastes in a drama or a poem — not the ordinary emotion the work depicts, but that emotion transmuted into something relishable, an aesthetic flavour the cultivated spectator dwells in for its own sake. A tradition of more than two millennia turns on this single image of tasting: art gives its emotion to be savoured as a connoisseur savours a dish, and the theory’s work is to explain how the raw material of feeling — grief, fear, desire, anger — becomes, in art, an object of delight rather than of suffering.

The tradition moved across three registers without abandoning any. It began as a practical poetics of the theatre, set out in Bharata’s Natya Shastra; it became, through the theory of poetic suggestion, the governing principle of all literature; and in the hands of the Kashmiri philosophers it became an account of a generalised, depersonalised state of consciousness, aesthetic relish held to be the near kin of the bliss of spiritual liberation. Its enduring debates — above all the question of where and how rasa comes to be — are not settled doctrine but a long argument the tradition conducted with itself.

The Natya Shastra

The source is the Natya Shastra, the foundational Sanskrit treatise on the performing arts, attributed to the sage Bharata and traditionally received as a single revelation though generally regarded by scholars as a composite text that reached its form over centuries — the usual range is c. 200 BCE to 200 CE. “Bharata” is best understood as a legendary or eponymous figure rather than a documented author; the word itself denotes an actor in the text’s own usage, the manual’s “author” being in effect the personified performer. The work opens with a myth of origin: drama (natya) is a fifth Veda, fashioned by the god Brahma from the four existing Vedas and — unlike them — open to all, regardless of caste or sex. From the start the theory frames art as something universally available, a making accessible to everyone.

Its sixth chapter states the formula that the whole tradition would expound, the rasa-sutra: rasa arises from the conjunction of the vibhavas, the anubhavas, and the vyabhicaribhavas. Each term names a component of dramatic emotion. The sthayibhava is the stable, durable emotion that a work sustains — love, sorrow, anger. The vibhavas are the determinants, the depicted causes that occasion it: the beloved who is its object, the moonlit garden that excites it. The anubhavas are the consequents, the outward signs through which it is shown — glances, gestures, tears. The vyabhicaribhavas (or sancaribhavas) are the transient feelings that pass across it — anxiety, joy, impatience, of which the tradition counts thirty-three. To these are added eight sattvikabhavas, the involuntary bodily responses that cannot be feigned — weeping, trembling, the hair standing on end. Of the durable emotions there are eight, each yielding its rasa:

Stable emotion (sthayibhava)	Rasa
love (rati)	the erotic (shringara)
mirth (hasa)	the comic (hasya)
sorrow (shoka)	the pathetic (karuna)
anger (krodha)	the furious (raudra)
energy (utsaha)	the heroic (vira)
fear (bhaya)	the terrible (bhayanaka)
disgust (jugupsa)	the odious (bibhatsa)
wonder (vismaya)	the marvellous (adbhuta)

Bharata’s own analogy is culinary, and it governs the tradition: as the cook produces a relishable flavour by combining condiments and spices, so the durable emotion, combined with its determinants, consequents, and transient feelings, becomes a rasa that the audience tastes. The connoisseur fit to taste it — the rasika or sahridaya, the “one with heart” — is as much a part of the theory as the work itself.

How rasa arises: the commentators’ debate

Bharata had left the crucial words of the formula — conjunction and arises — undefined, and the unfolding of the tradition is largely the unfolding of that gap. Where does rasa come to be: in the character, the actor, or the spectator? And by what process: is it produced, inferred, or something else? Four positions, transmitted and adjudicated in Abhinavagupta’s commentary, mark the development.

Bhatta Lollata held that rasa is produced (utpatti): the durable emotion is intensified by the determinants and resides primarily in the depicted character, and through him in the actor who takes his part.
Shri Shankuka held that rasa is inferred (anumiti): the spectator infers the character’s emotion from the actor’s performance, as one infers a hidden cause from its visible signs.
Bhatta Nayaka held that rasa is neither produced nor inferred but relished (bhukti). His decisive contribution was the idea of sadharanikarana, generalisation: a poem does not present this individual’s particular grief but grief made universal, lifted free of any private reference, and so available to be enjoyed rather than suffered. His own treatise survives only in the quotations of those who answered him.
Abhinavagupta held that rasa is manifested (abhivyakti) — revealed, made present — in the cultivated spectator, not produced in a character or inferred from a stage. His was the position the later tradition took as settled, and it absorbed Nayaka’s generalisation into a fuller account.

That this central question was carried as an open dispute, each theorist preserved through the criticism of the next, is characteristic of the tradition: rasa is less a doctrine than a problem the commentators kept reworking.

Suggestion: from drama to the soul of poetry

Rasa began as a theory of the theatre. It became the principle of all literature through the theory of dhvani, poetic suggestion, set out by the Kashmiri theorist Anandavardhana (ninth century, at the court of Avantivarman) in his Dhvanyaloka. Anandavardhana argued that the highest meaning of a poem is neither its literal sense nor a figure of speech but what it suggests — and that the supreme thing a poem suggests is rasa. This is rasa-dhvani: aesthetic flavour conveyed not by statement but by intimation, arising in the reader who can receive what the words do not say. The move carried rasa out of the playhouse and made it the inner aim of poetry as such, the criterion by which the value of any literary work is finally judged. It also drew rasa into the orbit of Kashmir’s philosophers, and so toward Abhinavagupta.

Abhinavagupta and the philosophy of relish

Abhinavagupta (c. 950–1016), commenting on both Bharata and Anandavardhana, gave the tradition the form it would keep and raised it to a philosophy of consciousness. He took Nayaka’s sadharanikarana and made it central while discarding the special apparatus Nayaka had built around it: in the aesthetic moment the depicted emotion is generalised, freed at once from the particular character it belongs to and from the spectator’s own ego and circumstances, so that what is tasted is grief or love as such. What the cultivated spectator then undergoes Abhinavagupta called camatkara — an active wonder, a relishing that is a kind of repose in the bliss of one’s own consciousness, distinct from any ordinary feeling.

To Bharata’s eight rasas he gave philosophical foundation to a ninth, shanta, the peaceful, whose object is tranquillity and ultimately liberation — its admissibility had been disputed, since pure quietude has no action to dramatise, and Abhinavagupta defended and established it (an earlier theorist, Udbhata, having first proposed it) as in a sense the ground-tone from which the others rise and into which they subside. And here his aesthetics meets his metaphysics: the generalised, egoless relish of rasa resembles, he held, the bliss of resting in pure consciousness — the twin, alike in its self-luminous and objectless joy and unlike only in that the relisher remains an individual. The full development of this account, and its place in his non-dual Shaiva thought, belongs to Abhinavagupta’s own work.

The later tradition

After Abhinavagupta the rasa-dhvani synthesis became the mainstream of Sanskrit poetics, carried by a long line of theorists. Mammata’s Kavyaprakasha (“Light on Poetry,” eleventh century) consolidated the position in the textbook that taught it to all who came after, attracting its own vast commentarial literature. Not all dissented quietly: King Bhoja of Dhara (eleventh century), in his enormous Sringaraprakasha, made a single rasa fundamental — shringara, understood as a kind of self-regard or ego from which every other flavour derives. Vishvanatha Kaviraja’s Sahityadarpana (“Mirror of Composition,” fourteenth century) defined poetry itself as “the sentence whose soul is rasa” and gave the tradition its most quoted phrase for aesthetic experience — brahmasvada-sahodara, the “twin of the tasting of brahman” — crystallising an analogy the Kashmiri thinkers had already drawn. Jagannatha’s Rasagangadhara (seventeenth century) is generally reckoned the last great work of the classical line. By this stage the navarasa, the nine rasas with shanta among them, had become the settled canon.

A living tradition

Rasa is not only a chapter in the history of theory; it remains the working aesthetic vocabulary of Indian performance. The classical dance forms — Bharatanatyam, Kathakali, Odissi, Kathak, and others — are organised around the navarasa and realised through abhinaya, the art of expression by which a performer embodies each flavour, broadly in some forms and with great subtlety in others. In the modern period rasa became a resource for thinking about art across traditions: Ananda Coomaraswamy interpreted Indian aesthetics to the West and drew on rasa for a theory in which “beauty is a state” rather than a property of objects; the filmmaker Satyajit Ray brought the rasa method to cinema. Recent scholarship, notably Sheldon Pollock’s A Rasa Reader (2016), has made the long arc of the tradition’s primary texts available and renewed its study as a theory of meaning and aesthetic experience in its own right, set beside rather than beneath the aesthetics of other traditions.

Where rasa stops

Rasa is, throughout its development, a theory of reception — of the relish that arises in the spectator or reader. Its centre of gravity is the moment of tasting and the connoisseur fit to taste; the making of the work, the labour and intention of the poet or performer, and the social and historical life of art among audiences are not where its analysis concentrates. It is an account of how the cultivated receiver experiences art, more than of how art is produced or of what it does in the world.

And its frame is contemplative, and after Abhinavagupta increasingly soteriological. The worth of aesthetic experience comes to be measured by its nearness to a spiritual end — rasa as the twin of the bliss of liberation, the ninth flavour as the gateway to peace — so that the value of art is settled by reference to something beyond art, and the question of the autonomy of the aesthetic, of art weighed on terms that are not the spiritual tradition’s, is not one the theory raises. Its address, too, is to the sahridaya, the refined connoisseur whose cultivated sensibility the work requires; the experience of the untrained, and the forms of art outside the Sanskrit cosmopolitan world for which the theory was built, lie at the edge of what it set out to explain. The tradition gave the inner side of aesthetic experience — the savour, and its kinship with the highest states of mind — an analysis of extraordinary depth; the outer life of art it left largely to one side.

Persons

Abhinavagupta