The influence of various darśanas on the interpretation and presentation of the Rasa Theory

Summary

Indian aesthetic theory revolves around rasa, the flavour or sentiment that a work of art evokes in an audience. Rasa theory, codified in the ancient Sanskrit dramaturgical treatise Natyashastra, defines rasa as an experiential essence created through the interaction of determinants (vibhava) such as circumstances and settings, consequents (anubhava) which are the expressive actions and gestures of performers, and transient emotional states (vyabhicaribhava)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasa_(aesthetics)#:~:text=The%20Natya%20shastra%20presents%20the,29. The purpose of theatre, poetry and allied arts, according to the Natyashastra, is to produce rasa so that audiences are transported into an imaginative realm and experience emotions in a refined, aesthetic manner rather than simply witnessing a story. Eight primary rasas are enumerated – śṛṅgāra (erotic), hāsya (comic), karuṇa (compassionate), raudra (furious), vīra (heroic), bhayānaka (terrifying), bībhatsa (disgusting) and adbhuta (marvelous)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasa_(aesthetics)#:~:text=Bharata%20Muni%20%20enunciated%20the,34. Later thinkers added śānta (tranquil) as a ninth rasa. Each rasa corresponds to a presiding deity and colour, emphasising its cosmological importance. Classical philosophical schools (darśanas) interpret and present this theory in different ways. The Sāṃkhya school, with its dualistic framework of puruṣa (consciousness) and prakṛti (nature), sees rasa as a manifestation of the interplay of the gunas of prakṛti. Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika emphasise logical analysis of cause and effect and therefore treat the determinants and consequents as real causal factors that generate aesthetic experience. Advaita Vedānta holds that art temporarily dissolves the duality between subject and object; rasa is realised when the audience’s consciousness recognises its own blissful nature, making śānta rasa the ultimate sentiment. Buddhist thinkers of the Mādhyamika school, who argue that all phenomena lack intrinsic nature, view rasa as a mental construction; the emptiness of all dharmas makes the experience of rasa a momentary appearance that can serve as a meditational aid. Jain philosophers, with their doctrine of anekāntavāda (non‑absolutism), accept multiple viewpoints; they acknowledge the plurality of rasas and emphasise ethical outcomes, linking karuṇa (compassion) rasa to non‑violence. These divergent interpretations influenced the presentation of dramatic works: some playwrights foregrounded heroism or devotion, while others emphasised tranquillity or compassion, depending on the philosophical milieu. Abhinavagupta argued that rasa arises not simply from actors’ performance but from the latent emotional dispositions (sthayi-bhavas) in the spectator. He drew on Kashmir Shaivism to explain that rasa arises from the manifestation of blissful consciousness. The interplay of darśanas enriched Sanskrit aesthetics by providing varied metaphysical explanations for how rasa is generated and why audiences find pleasure in imitation, thus demonstrating the integrative nature of Indian thought.