Rasa as Emotion and Feeling

This weeks readings discussed the fine details of rasa and its relation to religious experience. Aesthetic Rupture, specifically explored Abhinava’s views on the concept rasa, and noteworthy to mention praises his genius along with other Sanskrit scholars versed in poetics. Gerow and Aklujkar discuss the concept of santa rasa and its position in rasa theory as a concept forced into the existing function of the term rather than reconstituting a novel reinterpretation of rasa. Santa rasa as they (Gerow and Aklujkar) state is "the single inner reality brought out, but not created, by the dramatic multiplicity which informs it." (82) Therefore, it is like Brahman, the one real basis of all multiplicity. In contrast, "The Concept of Rasa" illustrates that the aesthetic enjoyment one obtains from art does not assume or speculate any religious suggestions, that it is a feeling aroused in the individual, dependent upon their feelings. Thus, very interestingly the article refers to the Universalism of the human heart, as it is the one source that each person has in common when experiencing aesthetic enjoyment. In "Feeling, Poetics and Religion" Mohanty outlines a religious philosophy based on feeling.

What I find interesting about this weeks reading is the heavy emphasis on feelings and emotions (categories that are usually controversial in the study of religion). The concept of rasa itself is void of scientific reason. How do we know if we have had an aesthetic experience if it is that which is beyond words? If there is nothing that validates an aesthetic experience how can we speak of it in such detail? Since experiences are different according to each individual, and cannot really be tested how do we measure this experience? I believe that the rasa experience is irrational because it is that beyond words, but the initial feeling or emotion that the spectator receives can be discussed rationally. For example, Love experience is a Universal emotion that can be understood across boundaries, as we have all felt this in our lifetime, however the way that the spectator experiences love by relishing upon it transcends the universal notion of love and it becomes something that is irrational or unexplainable. In other words the bhavas are Universal, but the feelings that they arise in the form of rasa is beyond this universalism. (I hope this makes sense)

Interesting enough while reading these articles passion plays crossed my mind. These plays are art representations that I believe reflect the concept of rasa. Patwardhan states: "rasa is meant to mean emotion, this is not an objective thing in the real world it is a private experience." (16, on the margins) Thus, the spectator is overcome by sensitivity, which is in turn aided by the vibhavas. Passion plays strive to accomplish a similar aesthetic experience as the spectator, as a result of viewing these plays, is overcome with a relished emotion. I guess Passion plays create an atmosphere where rasa can be viewed as rational, as did the theatrical re-enactments of the Ramayana. As stated in last weeks and this weeks reading the rasa of compassion is usually what is conveyed. Perhaps these passion plays started to become more and more centered on the idea of God, and as a result aesthetic experience became religious experience.