________________
15
WHAT DID BHARATA MEAN BY RASA'?
S. S. Barlingay
In one of his works, 'Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinava Gupta', R. Gnoli writes, "In this way, Bhatta Nāyaka and Abhinavagupta rescued the idea of Rasa from the primitive and too concrete form which it had been given by Bhatta Lollața and Sankuka. kasa is not a thing in itself, formed previous to the act of consciousness by which it is perceived, but the consciousness itself (and therefore, the perception) which, freed from external interference and from all practical desires, becomes Rasa or aesthetic consciousness. The subject, when immersed in this state, finds in it, the fulfilment of all his desires; in this sense, therefore, Rasa is pleasure, beatitude, rest, lysis !' 1 The remark is based on the present Indian tradition and perhaps correctly describes a particular aspect of aesthetic consciousness. But did Bhara. ta mean Rasa by this particular experience, or was the theory fathered on him by Bhattanäyka, Abhinavagupta, Mammața and their followers? It is not my object in this paper to criticise Abhinavagupta's theory of Aesthetic consciousness, for it may correctly depict the aesthetic experience. It is my object, however, to show that there are reasons for believing that by 'Rasa’, Bharata meant an entirely different thing which is, in fact, an essential element in his whole theory of dramatic art or Natya.? The following study is an attempt to disentangle this extremely important theory of artistic creation which Bharata seems actually to have held from the theories of later ages.
I shall begin by asking the meaning of the word 'Nāļya' The word "Nāļya' should be distinguished from the word Nāțaka, thougb it is not often done. Both these words are
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
