Text 4.9

स च रसो नानुकार्यादौ, लौकिकत्वात् पारिमित्याद् भयादिसद्भावाच् च, न चानुकर्तादौ, जीविकार्थम् अनुकृत्य्-आदौ प्रवृत्तेः, किन्तु सभ्येष्व् एव स-वासनेषु तत्-तन्-निबन्धनचातुरीभिस् तत्रालौकिकत्व-प्राप्तेः। किञ्च, अलौकिकी हि रस-स्थितिः, यत्र विभावादयो परिज्ञात-विशेषाः साधारण्येण स्फुरन्ति। यद् उक्तं मुनिना, “शक्तिर् अस्ति विभावादेः कापि साधारणी-कृतौ, प्रमाता तद्-अभेदेन स्वं यया प्रतिपद्यते” इति। साधारण्यं च स्व-पर-सम्बन्ध-नियमानिर्णयः, यस्मान् नृणाम् अप्य् अविलङ्घनादौ प्रवृत्तिः सभ्यानां त्रपातङ्काद्य्-अनुदयश् च।

sa ca raso nānukāryādau, laukikatvāt pārimityād bhayādisadbhāvāc ca, na cānukartādau, jīvikārtham anukṛty-ādau pravṛtteḥ, kintu sabhyeṣv eva sa-vāsaneṣu tat-tan-nibandhanacāturībhis tatrālaukikatva-prāpteḥ. kiñca, alaukikī hi rasa-sthitiḥ, yatra vibhāvādayo parijñāta-viśeṣāḥ sādhāraṇyeṇa sphuranti. yad uktaṃ muninā, “śaktir asti vibhāvādeḥ kāpi sādhāraṇī-kṛtau, pramātā tad-abhedena svaṃ yayā pratipadyate” iti. sādhāraṇyaṃ ca sva-para-sambandha-niyamānirṇayaḥ, yasmān nṛṇām apy avilaṅghanādau pravṛttiḥ sabhyānāṃ trapātaṅkādy-anudayaś ca.

[Where is the rasa in a drama?]

The rasa is not in the character that is being portrayed, because the rasa on stage is mundane and limited, and because the characters experience fear and so on.^[1] It is not in the actor either, since an actor is acting to earn a living. The rasa is only in cultured spectators who have the predisposition and who achieved the extraordinariness of the rasa in the character by means of an ingenious dramatical representation.

Moreover, the state of rasa is extraordinary. At that time, the vibhāvas and so on are specifics that are well ascertained and that vibrate in the spectators by means of sādhāraṇya (stereotyping, empathy; and generalization of the uddīpanas and of the emotions). Bharata Muni stated:

śaktir asti vibhāvādeḥ kāpi sādhāraṇī-kṛtau |
pramātā tad-abhedena svaṃ yayā pratipadyate ||

“The vibhāvas and so on have some indescribable power to generalize, by means of which the perceivers think of themselves as nondifferent from a character.” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.103)^[2]

Sādhāraṇya (generalization) is the nonconsideration of a limitation in a connection between oneself and the other (a limitation like: “Such and such emotion relates to the character, but it does not relate to me”). On account of sādhāraṇya, people do not go overboard, and the spectators do not experience a rise of sudden fright, great apprehension, and so on.

Commentary:

Sādhāraṇya, a subconscious automaton, functions in various ways. The sthāyī portrayed on stage becomes generalized in the spectators’ minds, so that by the force of the predisposition the spectators can relish that sthāyī to some degree. The spectators stereotype a character, and sometimes they identify with a character. Most importantly, the emotions and the actions, and even the uddīpanas, portrayed on stage become generalized in the spectators’ minds: The spectators think that what they feel is what the characters felt. The same happens in reading poetry.

The process of sādhāraṇya is greatly facilitated by directly seeing a live performance, because after some time a spectator no longer thinks in terms of “this show is real” or “this show is fiction,” so that the generalization of emotions and actions done by the actors is accepted by the spectators at face value. And when the spectators make no difference between the actors and the characters, the acting is not seen as acting, so that the character’s sthāyī perceived in the actor by the spectators is taken to be the actual sthāyī of the character. Later, people see an actor on the street or in another show on television and think that he is the character he was playing.

The spectators relish a character’s sthāyī, called rasa in the sense that it is relished, but they do not experience the relishment the character felt. Viśvanātha Kavirāja states:

sītādi-darśanādi-jo rāmādi-raty-ādyudbodho hi parimito laukiko nāṭya-kāvya-darśanādeḥ sāntarāyaś ca, tasmāt kathaṃ rasa-rūpatām iyāt, rasasyaitad-dharma-tritaya-vilakṣaṇa-dharmakatvāt,

“The arousal, generated from seeing the actress who is playing Sītā, of the love felt by Rāma is limited, mundane, and accompanied with impediments because of seeing the dramatic representation, hearing the poetry that is being recited, and so forth, therefore how could it possibly reach the state of rasa, since the attributes of rasa are entirely distinct from those three attributes?” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.18).

In that regard, Rūpa Gosvāmī writes:

ratiḥ sthitānukāryeṣu laukikatvādi-hetubhiḥ |
rasaḥ syān neti nāṭya-jñā yad āhur yuktam eva tat ||
alaukikī tv iyaṃ kṛṣṇa-ratiḥ sarvādbhutādbhutā |
yoge rasa-viśeṣatvaṃ gacchanty eva hari-priye ||

“What the scholars of dramaturgy say is correct: “Because of mundanity in a play, the sthāyi-bhāva in the characters does not become rasa.” However, this otherworldly one, rati for Kṛṣṇa, which is more amazing than anything amazing, reaches the state of a special rasa in a person who is dear to Hari, when He is present^[3] (in the form of a character, not to mention when He is seen in person)” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.107-108).

Jīva Gosvāmī comments:

atha tatraiva sva-matānukāryādiṣv api rasam upapādayati, alaukikī tv iti,

“Now, on that same topic, with alaukikī tu (2.5.108) he establishes that there is rasa in the characters, and so on, he is thinking of” (Durgama-saṅgamanī 2.5.108).

On one hand, by the force of sādhāraṇya the actors and the spectators unconsciously superimpose their concepts of material love unto transcendental love, therefore even the nature of transcendental love does not come through, let alone the perception of it in the same way the characters did. On the other hand, those actors and spectators whose predisposition (bhakti) is profound can experience, after stereotyping the characters by the same process of sādhāraṇya, the bhakti-rasa that pertains to their own bhakti-rati, although it is not the same rasa that was experienced by a character portrayed on stage.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Illicit lovers are sometimes afraid of getting caught, but the spectators do not get that feeling.

[2]:

Rūpa Gosvāmī says the verse was written by Bharata Muni. Jīva Gosvāmī concurs: muni-vākye tu (Durgama-saṅgamanī 2.5.103). However, it is not in Nāṭya-śāstra. That verse is a paraphrase of this text by Viśvanātha Kavirāja:

vyāpāro’sti vibhāvāder nāmnā sādhāraṇī-kṛtiḥ |
tat-prabhāveṇa yasyāsan pāthodhi-plavanādayaḥ |
pramātā tad-abhedena svātmānaṃ pratipadyate || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 3.9-10) (quoted in Durgama-saṅgamanī 2.5.101-103).

Rūpa Gosvāmī changed the word vyāpāra (function) to śakti (force, power).

[3]:

The word yoge (in the presence) is a double meaning because it is contrasted with the term viyoge (in separation) in the next verse of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu.