share this article
Religion and art are thus names for one and the same experience — an intuition of reality and of identity.
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
The Indian dramatic tradition exalts theatre as a form of art where music, dance, speech and semiotic gesture harmonize as a sacred performance and produce an emotional arousal, or rasa, in a spectator. Of late, Indian theatre tradition has been inundated with realism borrowed from European sensibilities and traditional dramatic forms are all but extinct. Modern Indian films, in a similar vein, are spectacles of pomp and entertainment with little aesthetic sensibility and subtlety, with rare exceptions. Generally, commercial films are formulaic, and art films lack commercial success —Indian cinema needs the “middle film” which balances both. Contemporary cinema, therefore, scarcely offers rich content, and the only antidote to this at present is acclaimed cinema from across the globe. Art is uplifting, and the purpose of watching films is to immerse ourselves in a universally appealing beauty, and revel in the world and vision presented by the filmmaker. Arguably, modern cinema, despite its very modern and Western-inherited style of aesthetics, fits into ancient theories of dramatics and aesthetics, rendering the very heart of cinema timelessly traditional. This essay puts forth the contention that Indian aesthetic theory possesses a strikingly universal validity and potentially has unique insights that can be incorporated into film theory in general.
In the Indian tradition, the aim of art is both instantaneous, short-lived pleasure (through that which is directly perceived, pratyakṣa), and character-building or conveying a moral or ethical precept (through that which is subtle, parokṣa). However, the latter is less important than the former. On this, Dhananjaya, in his Daśarūpakam quips-
As for any simple man of little intelligence who says that from dramas, which distill joy, the gain is knowledge only, as in the case of history and the like (mere statement, narrative, or illustration) — homage to him, for he has averted his face from what is delightful.
To truly study the beauty of film, the doctrines of poetry, art and aesthetics must be clearly interpreted and applied, especially the theory of rasa, for, the schools of poetics like rīti (methods used in drama), and vakrokti (language of the drama) alone cannot adequately explain the aesthetics of any film.
Bharata’s Nātyaśāstra expounds his theory of aesthetic pleasure, the rasasūtra. Rasa is so called because it is worthy of being tasted (rasa ko padārthaḥ, ucyate āsvādyatvāt, Nātyaśāstra, 6:31). Bharata’s theory emphasizes that rasa is not an inherent property of the text or performance but arises through the interaction between the artwork and the audience. ‘Rasavant’ is a work having rasa, ‘rasika’ is a connoisseur - one who enjoys rasa, and ‘rasāsvādana’ is aesthetic contemplation or the tasting of rasa.
The perception of rasa aspires towards leading a fulfilling life in pursuit of puruṣārtha, since according to the 10th century philosopher-aesthete Abhinavagupta, rasa is a momentary state of bliss, akin to mokṣa. In the words of A.K. Ramanujan:
In ‘traditional’ cultures like India, where context-sensitivity rules and binds, the dream is to be free of context. So rasa in aesthetics, mokṣa in the ‘aims of life’, sannyāsa in the life-stages, sphoṭa in semantics, and bhakti in religion define themselves against a background of inexorable contextuality.
According to Mullik, Bharata’s theory can be extended to also classify aesthetic experiences into aesthetic relish (or bhoga, “sensuous enjoyment as rasa experience”), aesthetic saturation (or rasa-viśrānti, “experiencing saturation, rest and repose as rasa experience”), and aesthetic immersion (or samāveśa, āveśa, “experiencing ecstasy as the highest form of rasa experience”).
Ācārya Abhinavagupta states that rasa is a spontaneous perception of sentiments which have formed in our heart and mind. Bhāvas (emotions), which always exist in our consciousness are called the sthāyi bhāvas (dominant sentiments) and those which arise temporarily cause a stir in the mind are called vyabhicāri bhāvas (transitory emotions). The third type, sātvika bhāvas are involuntary or psycho-somatic sentiments.
In such an affective or aesthetized mind, aesthetic pleasure or rasa is produced as a result of the production of an “abiding state” or a sthāyibhāva, which in turn is produced due to a combination of: the “determinants” (vibhāva), which is the dramatic situation that produces a psychological response; the “consequents” (anubhāva), which denotes the so-evoked response, and the transient, fleeting responses (vyābhicāribhāva).
“Determinants”, the physical stimulants to aesthetic reproduction can be enumerated as: the aesthetic problem, plot, theme, etc., viz: the hero and the other characters, the circumstances, the time and the location. The “consequents” are deliberate manifestations of feeling, as gestures, etc. as performed by actors.
Certain emotions by their very nature are more deeply seated in the human heart, and therefore can be expanded upon for a longer duration in dramatic action. One or more of them are always present in the human psyche. Bharata identifies eight “abiding states” (sthāyībhāvas) which give rise to the corresponding rasas:
The erotic, comic, tragic and heroic,
Nāṭyaśāstra, 6.15
The flavors of fury, fear, disgust and wonder;
Such are the rasas which number eight,
That represents the dramatic tradition of our time.
The distinction between the eight permanent moods (nine if śānti rasa is considered) and the identical rasas is that rasa is tasted — as beauty is felt — only by empathy, by “entering into the feeling or the permanent motif, but it is not the same as the permanent motif itself, for, from this point of view, it matters not with which of the permanent motifs we have to do.” (Coomaraswamy 1918)
All the rasas or aesthetic experiences are “pleasurable” for the viewer in their own way, irrespective of whether it is bhayānaka (fear) or hāsya (comedy) or raudra (anger). The experiencing or tasting of rasa itself is a delightful experience because of the audiences’ prior knowledge that the happenings being depicted are fictional. In Bharata’s theory, all of the viewers’ practical experiences of life dissolve as they immerse themselves in the drama. Due to being felt or seen from the “outside”, even tragic experiences evoke a “pleasurable” reaction, sowing the seeds of aesthetic appreciation. Abhinavagupta posited that audiences derive pleasure from fictional events being depicted as they ‘willingly’ identify with the work, generating a state of “suspension of disbelief”.
Every film or drama has one of the right rasas as its dominant, thematic rasa and all other emotions are manifested through this aṅgi rasa (chief rasa). For instance, Kalidāsa’s classic Abhijñāna Śākuntala, considered to be the perfect drama, has śṛṅgāra rasa or the rasa of love as the overarching rasa. In this manner dramas may be categorized into the eight rasas. Aṅgi rasa is slightly different from genre or thematic categories by which films are classified in the Western convention (into comedies, tragedies, romance, drama, etc.). For instance, the classic film Gone with the Wind (1939) is classified as a historical romance, but if the principles emerging from Nāṭyaśāstra are applied, its dominant rasa is that of adbhuta or wonder. For a work to be able to evoke rasa, of the eight permanent moods must form a master-motif to which all other expressions of emotion are subordinate, that is, a well-crafted work evokes a dominant rasa while incorporating secondary emotions for depth.
As a king to his subjects, as a guru to his disciples.
Nāṭyaśāstra, 7.8
Even so the master-motif is lord of all other motifs.
On the contrary, if a transient emotion is stretched or extended to be made the main motif of an entire work, it tends to the absence of rasa. This sentiment cannot be expressed better than Coomaraswamy, who says that petty art which emphasizes passing feelings and personal emotion is neither beautiful nor true: it confuses time and eternity, loveliness and beauty, partiality and love.
Ultimately, rasa is only relished when the heart of the viewer becomes one with the heart of the creator through the shared experience of rasa, that is, through the genesis of sahṛdayata. In the rasa framework, therefore, the viewer (or sahṛdaya, the one with a compassionate heart) is central. Moreover, within the classical Indian theories, the ultimate criterion of success is the empirical results they produce in the world. This is similar to the Indian convention of philosophy as not simply a pure intellectual pursuit of mental gymnastics but rather, as a means to mokṣa, driving avidyā or ignorance, which obscures truth and reality. As Coomaraswamy states, “Philosophy is the key to the map of life, by which are set forth the meaning of life and the means of attaining its goal.”
In other words, Indian aesthetic theory is rooted in the viewers’ response to the world, thus representing the ordinary person’s engagement with cinema at the most basic level of their psyche. The emotions evoked are not passive responses but are shaped by the viewer’s cultural knowledge, empathy, and immersive capability or readiness. This is in contrast to Western film theory which views cinema only through formalist or realist lenses, emphasizing narrative continuity, character psychology, or the medium’s technological potential. The viewer’s emotional experience, while acknowledged, is not always the primary focus. In Indian tradition, however, intellectual intrigue, technological perfectionism, special effects or thematic complexity cannot replace the evocation of rasa in the viewer.
In Western theory, particularly post-modern approaches, there is a growing focus on deconstruction and intellectual engagement, sometimes leading to a diminished role for emotional resonance. There is an overwhelming dependence on the Eurocentric point of view of cinema which foregrounds disembodied vision as its basic tool of theoretical analysis of film. This is the manner in which classical Indian theories can potentially a counterfoil to the Western film theories’ over-intellectualization of cinema. Rasa, on the other hand, prioritizes the experiential over the structural, ensuring that the ultimate purpose of art is preserved, by being immersive and transformative to the viewer. Though ancient, Bharata’s theory of rasa provides fresh and striking insights into our understanding of cinema, though pretty much every aspect of rasa has a Western counterpart. Although rasa theory cannot replace Western film theory, it can certainly supplement it. Indian theories can be incorporated into film theory with the aim to broaden the perspective of Western film theory by decreasing the subjectivity inherent to the Western worldview and foster a more holistic understanding of cinema.
References
- Gupt, Bharat. Dramatic Concepts Greek & Indian: A Study of the Poetics and the Nāṭyaśāstra. India: D.K. Printworld, 1994.
- Pravīra, Pracaṇḍa. Cinema Through Rasa: A Tryst with Masterpieces in the Light of Rasa Siddhanta. India: D. K. Printworld (P) Limited, 2021.
- Mullik, Gopalan. Explorations in Cinema Through Classical Indian Theories: New Interpretations of Meaning, Aesthetics, and Art. Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2020.
- A. K. Ramanujan, “Is There an Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 23/1 (1989), pp. 41-58