Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

ISSN: 0378-1143

EPISTEMOLOGY OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Sabyasachi Sarangi

Assistant Professor, Department of Prakrit and Sanskrit, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute, Ladnun

Introduction:

In the theory of Rasa, other than the interpretations by different authorities, One significant issue is locus
of Rasa. (RasÁÐraya). In different texts this issue has been raised and discussed with arguments. To be
specific, whether Rasa exists or the locus of Rasa is 1. Original character (AnukÁrya), 2. The
actor(Anukrtª), 3. Or the spectator (Sahªdaya). The issue is very interesting and we shall present every
account of it on the basic of different texts.
i. In the poet (Kavi)
ii. In the actor (AnukÁrya)
iii. In the original character (Anukartª)
iv. In the audience (Sahªdaya or SÁmÁjika)

VidyÁnÁtha’s view:
VidyÁnÁtha, at the end of the RasaprakaraÆa of his work (RasadÍrghikÁ), takes up a
fundamental question relating to Rasa viz., its ÀÐraya or locus. Is it the original character (AnukÁrya)?
The actor (Anukartªu) ?or the spectator (sahªdaya)? According to VidyÁnÁtha, the real locus of Rasa is
nÁyaka himself. Though Rasa does not arise in the actor still he is able to represent it very well because
of the skill obtained by constant practice. The spectators or readers get that experience from constant
study and observation of the VibhÁvas, etc., presented in poetry or drama. Thus he feels that there is no
contradiction if the SÁmÁjikas are also taken as the locus of Rasa. The SÁmÁjikas get the experience
of it by virtue of their culture.
रस य सामािजका य वं ितपाद नाह-
अ रसो नायका य एव। यिस परं िनपणु नटचे या तथािवधका य वणबलेन च सामािजकै ः सा ाद् भा यते, तदा परगत यािप रस य स य भावनया पर
िनरितशयान दजननमिव म्। अथवा माल यािदश दे यो योिष मा तीतौ मृ या ढेन त ोिषि शेषेण अनुकायण सामािजका य वमिप न िव म्।
नट यानुअरणमा परतया नैव रसा ययो यता नट यानुकरणमा परतया नैव रसा ययो यता। त य भावक वा युपगमेऽिप सामािजक वमेव।
(PR. 4:205.1-7)
In this connection, the following two verses which come at the end of the RasaprakaraÆa deserve to
be carefully examined.
रसो वा याथः सन िवलसित पदाथाः पुनरमी
िवभावा ा यि मन् िकल दधित िव ाि तमिु चताम्।
अतो भावा एव मसमिु दता यो यिवभवा
रसीभावं िव यथ च पटतां त तव इव॥
भावे थाियिन वधमानिवभवे र यािदके िस धवु त्।
क लोला इव संभवि त िवलयं चायाि त भावाः महु ः॥
िनवदा पु भोगभािवतिनजा वादाितरे को रसो
लोके यादनुकाय एव किथतो नाट्ये तु सामािजके ॥
(PR.4.137:209.5-8; 210:138.1-4)
Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 236
UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

In the concluding line, he reiterates what he has already stated about the locus of Rasa being the NÁyaka.
While doing so, he tries to clarify his position further. Formerly he said emphatically that Rasa has
NÁyaka only as its locus and that it is not incorrect to speak of it as having SÁmÁjikas as its locus,
since it is brought to SÁmÁjikas for relish by the actor. It is interesting to note that he seems to make
amends for what he had emphatically stated earlier, creating a sort of confusion as regards his position-
“in the world, it is only in the AnukÁrya or NÁyaka but in the play it is in the SÁmÁjika”. Taking this
clue from this author, KumÁrasvÁmin (Commentator of RasadÍrghikÁ) defines the position by saying
that what is author says about ‘NÁyakÁÐraya’ applies to Laukika-rasa, while the locus of Alaukika-
rasa is only the SÁmÁjika.
अयं च लोके यात् लौिकक ेिद यथः। सामािजके अनुकाय रामादावेव, ना य । नाट्ये तु अलौिकक ेिद यथः। सामािजके किथत इित। अ रसो नायका य
एवे य ेित शेषः। अत एवो ं लेचने- स च न यित र माधारमपे ते। िकं वनुकायािभमते नतके आ वादियता सामाियकः। तेन नाट्य एव रसा नानुकायािदषु इित।
उ ं च शारदातनयेन- यापारे ण च का य य तदीयािभनयेन च। रसा म वं नीयमानः थायी वा वमे यित। सामािजकािदरे वा य रस या य उ यते। रस य
वतमान वात् नानुकाय य स भवः। अनुकाय य रामादेः कालाित मदशनात्। नाित ा तातुकाय य रसो ावनया किवः। ब नाित का यं यत् त मा सः सामािजका यः।
(PR.4:209.25-33)
With the amendment attempted by VidyÁnÁtha and the defense formulated by his commentator the
position is not convincingly established, because Rasa is accepted as a phenomenon of poetry and drama.
It can be treated only as an Alaukika phenomenon. This would bring VidyÁnÁtha to the only possible
view that the SÁmÁjika is the locus.

ViÐvanÁtha’s view:
Again as regards the locus (ÁÐraya) of Rasa, ViÐvanÁtha follows the tradition and says
that the locus is neither the hero nor the actor, but the SÁmÁjika only. This points is established with
relevant arguments. Firstly, the locus of Rasa is not the hero. The feeling of love in a hero like Rama for
his beloved SÍtÁ is limited to him only and does not belong to a whole theatrical audience. he rejects
also the notion that NaÔa is the locus of Rasa. Actually it is not the actor that gets the experience of
Rasa, because he is only engaged in imitating the actions and moods of the hero like Rama in a
performance. ViÐvanÁtha is justified in reestablishing that the locus of Rasa is the Sahªdaya only. The
conception of Rasa as Laukika is technically without any foundation. Rasa can only be Alaukika and of
that Rasa Sahªdaya is the only locus.
रस य अनुकायगत वमनुकतृगत व च ितर कृ य स दयग वं ितपादयनाह-
त मादलौिलकः स यं वे ः स दयैरयम्।
(SD.3.26:60.6)
रस य अनुकायगत वममक ु तृगत व च िनर यित त था-
पा रिम या लौिकक वा सा तरायतया तथा।
अनुकाय य र यादे ोधो न रसो भवेत्॥
(SD.3.18:57.9-10)
सीतािददशनािदजो रामािदर या ु ोधो िह प रिमतो लौिकको नाट्यका यदशनादेः सा तराय , त मात् कथं रस पतािमयात्? रस यैत मि तयिवल णधमक वात्।
अनकु तृगत वं चा य िनर यित-

Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 237

UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

िश ा यासािदमा ेण राघवादेः स पताम्।

दशय नतको नैव रस या वादको भवेत्॥
(SD.4.19:58.1-4)

Dhanañjaya’s view:
Dhanañjaya follows the tradition and says that the locus is neither the hero nor the actor, but the
SÁmÁjika only. It is not the actor that gets the experience of Rasa, because he is only engaged in
imitating the actions and moods of the hero like Rama in a performance. This he carries out through a
skill derived from his continuous training in the histrionics. Hence Rasa is exclusively the experience
of the SÁmÁjika.

रसः स एव वा वा िसक यैव वतनात्।

नानुकाय य वृ वा का य यात पर वतः॥
ः तीित डे याराग ेष सङ् गतः।
लौिकक य वरमणीसंयु येव द₹शनात्॥
(DR.4.38-39:253.7-8)
का याथ प लािवतो रिसकवत र यािदः थायी भावः स इित ितिनिद यते। स च वा तां िनभरान दसंिवदा मतामापा मानो रसो रिसकवत ित वतमान वात्,
नानक
ु ायरामािदवत वृ वा य। अथ दोपिहत प वेनावतमान यािप वतमानवदभासनिम यत एव, तथािप तदवभास य अ मदािदिभः
अनभु यू मान वादस समतैवऽऽ वादं ित, िवभाव वेन तु रामादेवतमानवदवभासनिम यत एव। िक च न का यं रामादीनां रसोपजननाय किविभः व यते, अिप तु
स दयानान दियतुम।् स च सम तभावक वसंवे एव। यिद चानुकाय य रामादेः शृङ्गारः या तो नाटकादौ त शनेन लौिकके इव नायके शृङ्गा रिण वका तासंयु े
यमाने शृङ्गारवानयिमित े काणां तीितमा े भवे न रसानां वादः, स पु षाणां च ल जा, इतरे षां वसूयानुरागापहारे छादय स येरन्। एवं च सित रसादीनां
यङ् य वमपा तम्। अ यतो ल धस ाकं व व येनािप य यते दीपेनेव घटािद, न तु तदानीमेवािभ य जक वािभमतैरापा वभावम्। भा य ते च िवभावािदिभः
े के षु रसा इ यावेिदतमेव।
(DR.4:254.3-9; 255.1-6)
ननु च सामािजका येषु रसेसु को िवभावः, कथ च सीतादीनां िवभावा वेनऽिवरोधः? उ यते-
धीरोदा ा व थानां रामािदः ितपादकः।
िवभावयित र यादी वद ते रिसक य ते॥
(DR.4.40:255.8-10)
नतके ऽिप रसानभु िू तः भिवतमु हतीित ितपादियतमु ाह-
का याथभावना वादो नतक य न वायते।
(DR.4.42:257.3)

ÏÁradÁtanaya’s view:
ÏáradÁtanaya, the author of BhÁvaprakÁÐana says that the real locus of Rasa is Sahªdaya or SÁmÁjika
only. It is not the actor that gets the experience of Rasa, because he is only engaged in imitating the
actions and moods of the hero like Rama in a performance. This he carries out through a skill derived
from his continuous training in the histrionics. Hence Rasa is exclusively the experience of the Sahªdaya
or SÁmÁjika.

अनुकारतया नाट्ये ि यमाणा नटािदिभः।

Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 238
UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

सामािजकै तु र य ते य मा मा साः मृताः।।

(BP.2:53.7-8)

शृङ्गारा ाः सद यानां भवि त ादतां यतः।

त मा साि जकै ः वा ाः रसवा या भवि त ते॥
(BP.2:58.6-7)
नटे रसा य वं िनर य शारदातनयेन उ म्-

किविभः कि पता का ये विभनेयाि वच णैः।

य वात् सद ये यो नटा यदकुवते॥
त मा नटेषु न वािप रसा यता भवेत।्
(BP.2:57.5-7)

RÁmacandra & GuÆacandra’s view:

The ND states that Rasa primarily belong to the cultural human life and secondarily to the spectators (or
readers in the case of poetry).
रस मु यलोकगत े कगत का य य ोतृ-अनसु धायक यगतो वेित।
(ND.3:293.1)
According to the ND, the process by which the spectators experience Rasa seem to be as follows: - The
Rasa originally resides in the actual character i.e. RÁma, for instance. This sentiment is made known
clearly to the spectators by means of anubhÁvas. As a result the same type of sentiments arises in the
hearts of spectators also. This view of RÁmacandra and GuÆacandra may very well be compared with
that of LollaÔa, who also believes that Rasa originally resides in RÁma and others and being
superimposed on the actor it gives delight to the spectators.
The authors of the ND now lunch upon another interesting problem as to whether or not an actor
experiences Rasa. The ND’s view is as follows: it is true that generally an actor does not experience the
aesthetic delight. His business is to imitate, act or gesticulate inspite of the fact that he might not be
actually experiencing that emotion. He may have to act weeping when acting the role of a lover in
separation, even though he may be delighted at heart. So also perspiration, paralysis etc. are possible
even when the actor himself may not be experiencing the particular feeling. The external manifestations
by the actors cause the rise of the dominant emotion in the heart of the spectators which may result in
similar expressions such as weeping etc. in the case of the Sahªdayas.
An actor while playing the role of a character may be totally one with it and experience
aesthetic delight.

परगतिवभा नुि यायां च परर जनाथ वृ य नट य रसाभावेऽिप त भ वेदादयो भव तीित, नैषां रसा तरीयक वमाशङ् कनीयम्। तेषां
परगतरसजनक वेनाकाय वात्। नटगता िह त भादय, े कगता रसानां कारणम्।
(ND.3:295.1-3)
नटेऽिप च रसं गमयि त एव यदा रसकाया भवि त। न च नट य रसो भवती येका त। प यि यो िह धनलोभेन परर यथ रतािद िवप चय यः कदािचत् वयमिप परा
रितमनभु वि त। गायना परं र जय त कदािचत् वयमिप र य ते। एवं नटोऽिप रामािदगत िव ल भा नक
ु ु वाणा कदािचत् वयमिप त मयीभावमपु या येवेित त ता
अिप रोमा चादय त रसं गमयेयुरेव।

Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 239

UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

(ND.3:296.1-5)

RasavivekakÁra’s view:
Rasa exist in the Sahªdaya or Rasa is recognized in the SÁmÁjika or Sahªdaya. Recording his positions
he quotes some other opinions thus: here is the some others- Rasa resides in original character like
RÁma etc. who is being imitate by actor. On the basic of that imitation Rasa also resides in the actor.
That is not correct. He gives the following regions- it is established as a property of the soul of the
Sahªdaya. He further explains: the actor indeed imitate the principle characters.
तथािह-
सरित प रमाथी कोऽ ययं देहदाहः ितरयित कारणानां ाहक वं मोहः।
रणरणकिविववृि िब दावतमानं वलित दय त त मय वं च ध े॥
इ यािद त ो यकायाभावात् तदभाव भावकानां सवं े ः। त मात् का यनाट्ययोः यािदिवभावानाम यथैवोपयोगः। यथा दशनं िह काय ित कारण यापारः
प रक यते। यते च रामादौ अनुकाय सामािजकानां लोको र वसंवेदनान दः। त मात् त मा ापयवसािय वमेव ीिवभाव यािप। त देव ि जमुिननृपपु जन यािद विप
िवभावेषु तु यिमित नािन ापि ः। अथवा यि वािदनो मते िवभावादीनां य जकता ित ानात् सीतादीनां वासना मक थाियभाव य य जकतया िस ौ दवीय यैव
िवरोधाशङ् का। त मात् यथो यायेन गिलतिनिखलिवरोधकलङ् को लोकानां लोको रो रसः सामािजकानािमित िस म्। त मात्
यथो याया िलतिनिखलिवरोधकलङ् को लोकानां लोको रो रसः सामािजकानािमित िस म्। तेषामेवािधकरण वम्।
(Rasavi.2:40.1-7)
ततः प रशेषात् स दयानामेव। यदु ं -
रसः स एष वा वा िसक यैव वतनात्।
नानुकाय य वृ वात् का य यैत पर वतः॥ इित।
यिद नटेऽिप स दयता यात् तदा त यािप भावक य गाना वादवत का यरसा वादो यु यत एव।
तदु ं - ‘का याथभावना वादो नट यािप न वायते’ इित तत स दय एव रिसका इित। तेषां एव
रसािधकरण वं यु िम यलं िव तरे ण।
(Rasavi.2:40.14-19)
अनक ु ाय रसा य वं िनर य नाह-
अ के िचदाहः- मु ययावृ या रामादावनुकाय रसः, ता ू यानुस धानात् नतके ऽिप तीयत इित। तदयु म्। े यं प यतां, ा यं शृ वतां भावकानां वा मगततयैव
त य सुसंवेदनिस वात्। िक च रामािदषु रसः पूवमासीत्। अ वे स यानां िकमायातम्?
(Rasavi.2:34.3-6)
नटा य व प ोऽिप िनरासः-
अथो यते- नटो िह रामादीननक
ु रोित। तथाभतू े ति मन् रसः सोऽनभु यू ते स यै रित। त न शोभनम्। धनाथमेव यतमान य नट य चेतिस न
भाववासना ाि ः। रस य तु का वाता।
(Rasavi.2:34.7-9)

Abhinavagupta’s view:
Before going to the detail about the experience of rasa it is necessary to think about the
one who experiences it, the Sahªdaya. According to Abhinavagupta, when VibhÁva, AnubhÁva, and
VyabhicaribhÁvas combine they produce rasa in the Sahªdaya.
The Rasa is something that can be relished- “र यते अनेन इित रसः”। the actor act as a bearer and conveyer of
the emotions of the character. He creates a special emotional atmosphere by opening up the inner
emotional world of the character. He introduces and involves the spectator into this emotional ambience.
The emotions of character are passed on to the viewers who relish them collectively. Thus emotions are
Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 240
UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

embodied and transferred from the actor to the audience. In this context, Bharata talks about the
greatness of literature and the ability of the literary writer who can achieve and evoke rasa in the mind
of the spectator.
स एव साधारणीभावः सुतरां पु यित अत एव सवसामािजकानामेकघनतैव ितप ेः सुतरां रसप रपोषाय सवषामनािदवासनािच ीकृ तचेतसां वासनासंवादात्।
(Abhi.BhÁ.6:254.19-21)
अ य मतानुसारं य जनावृ या सामािजके थायीभावसं काराणां िवभावािदसंयोगेनािभ यि तथैव भवित यथा जलसंयोगेन मृि कायाः अ य ग धािभ यि ः।

BhaÔÔÁlollaÔa’s view:
Lollata also raised the issue of locus of Rasa and stated that Rasa is primarily located in the historical
characters e.g., Rama and Dusyanta and also manifested through various theatrical representations.
However, Lollata is unable to explain how the actors are charmed by these representations.

थायी वनुपिचतः। स चोभयोरिप मु यया वृ या रामादावमक

ु ायऽनुकत र च नटे रामािद पतानुस धानबलाद् इित।
(Abhi.BhÁ.6:230.5-6)
ÏrÍsaÉkuka’s view:

This Rasa primarily resides in the original character and secondarily resides in the SÁmÁjika that is
audience in case of drama and the reader, listener, reciter in case of other poetry.
य चो यते िवभावाः का यादनुस धीय ते, तदिप न िव ः। न िह ममेयं सीता कािचिदित वा मीय वेन ितपि नट य। अथ सामािजक य तथा तीितयो याः ि य त
इ येतदेवानुस धानमु यते। तिह थाियिन सुतरां अनुस धानं यात्। त यैव िह मु य वेनाि म नयिमित सामािजकानां ितपि ः।
(Abhi.BhÁ.6:240.6-11)
ीशङ् कुक य मतानसु ारं रसः मु य पेण रामा नक
ु ाय गौण पेण सामािजके ित ित।

BhaÔÔÁnÁyaka’s view:
BhaÔÔanÁyaka says that the real locus of Rasa is Sahªdaya or SÁmÁjika only. It is not the actor that
gets the experience of Rasa, because he is only engaged in imitating the actions and moods of the hero
like Rama in a performance.
अिभधा भावना चा या त ोगीकृ तमेव च।
अिभधाधामतां यते श दाथालङ् कृती ततः॥
भावनाभा य एषोऽिप शृङ्गारािदगणो मतः।
त ोगीकृ त पेण या यते िसि म नरै ः॥

(Abhi.BhÁ.6:249.22-25)
अ य मतानुसारं अिभधा-भावक व-भोजक व यापारे ण च आल बनादयः साधारणीकृ ताः स तः सामािजक य भोगिवषयाः भवि त।

Conclusion:
On the basic of the above discussion it may be conclude that Rasa exists in the Sahªdaya
or SÁmÁyika that is the audience, in case of a dramatic presentation or in the reader or listener in case
of other poetry. It can also reside in the naÔa or actor if he is accepted or treated as sahªdaya. Though
we have arguments and counter arguments regarding the locus of Rasa in different texts this is the
conclusive view widely accepted. There is no addition or novelty in this regard in post PaƱitarÁja
period.
Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 241
UGC Care Group 1 Journal
 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
ISSN: 0378-1143

Bibliography:
1. PratÁprÚdriya of VidyÁnÁtha with Commentary of Kumaraswami (2nd Edition), Edited by
Dr. RÁghvan , Sanskrit Education Society, Madras, 1979.
2. SÁhityadarpaÆa by ViÐvanÁtha, BhÁratiya vidyÁprakaÐan, BÁrÁÆasÍ, 2001.
3. DaÐarÚpaka of Dhanañjaya with Avaloka Commentary, Chowkhamba Vidyabhawan,
Varanasi, 2017.
4. BhÁvaprakÁÐana of SÁradÁtanaya, Edited by Madan mohan Agarwal, Chowkhamba
SurabhÁratÍ PrakÁÐana, VÁrÁÆasÍ, 1983.
5. Rasaviveka of Unknown Author, Edited by T.K.V.N. Sudarsanacharya, Sahitya Akademi,
Delhi, 1957.
6. NÁÔyadarpaÆa of RÁmacandra & GuÆacandra (1st Edn.1986 & 2nd Edn. 1994), Edited by T.
C. Upreti, Parimal Publication, Delhi, 2005.
7. NÁÔyaÐÁstra of Bharata, (Part - 1: Chapter 1-13 ; Part -2: Chapter 14-28 ; Part – 3: Chapter
29-36 ; Edited by PuÒpendar Kumar, New BhÁratiya Book Corporation, Delhi, 2006.
8. History of Sanskrit Poetics by S.K. De, Calcutta Oriental Press, Calcutta, 1925.
9. The Number of Rasas by V.Raghvan, The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madrass,
1975.
10. The Post Jagannatha Literary Criticism in Sanskrit by Dr. M. SivakumaraSwamy, Dvaita
Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, Bangalore, 2009.
11. Introduction Indian Poetics and Aesthetics by Prof. B.K. Dalai and Prof. Ravindra Muley,
Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, Pune, 2014.

Vol. CIV, Issue-2, 2023 242

UGC Care Group 1 Journal