Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Date of submission :
by a work of art whose content is an emotion. The Rasa theory originates with
Bharata in Natyasastra. Bharatha, the first enouncer of the theory, gives the most
comprehensive analysis of its sources, nature and its categories. Bharatha’s maxim
the natural element. The natural attraction for lovers will be much more if they
expressed. The arch glances of lady, her inviting smile, all may be regarded as
Anubhava.
diverse emotions that feed the dominant emotion. The anxiety, disappointment,
jealousy and such other emotions passing through the mind of a woman waiting for
her lover come under this category. These emotions feed the dominant emotion of
love.
subconscious or unconscious strata of our mind. They are Rati (amorous), Hasa
Jugupsa (disgust) and vismaya (wonder). Bharatha speaks only of these eight
and may in that sense be called dominant emotions (Sthayibhava). Later aesthetic
psychologist added emotions like Sama (peaceful), Bhakthi (devotional) etc. But,
only the Sama has been recognized. Each emotions in its manifestation shows a
man falls in love with a woman in real life, we cannot say that he is moved by
sringararasa, nor can we say that a man weeping on the death of his son is
3
circumstances or situations.
or artistic means?’ puzzled the old alamkarikas. Bhatta Lottala believed that while
the vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicari bhavas are either ingeniously described or
set forth vividly by mime, they co-operate and in their conjunction, Rasa is
produced.
view that Rasa is related to the vibavas in the relation of the produced and the
communicated. But, Rasa does not exist before. It exists only when it is being
lived through and enjoyed also Bhatta Lollata could not explain the method of how
Samkuka said that an aesthetic experience is both real and unreal just
as of a painted horse of which it can be said that it is not a horse and that it is a
horse. Bhattanayaka said that Rasa is neither produced nor suggested nor created
by anything. He held that, a proper aesthetic creation has the peculiar function of
which we can enjoy it. He calls these two function ‘Bhavakatva’ and ‘Bhojakatva’,
says that a dramatic play is not a physical occurrence. In witnessing a play the
actor does not appear to us in his actual individual capacity and it does not also
somewhere in the midway between pure actuality and pure ideality. This together
with all the scenic associations and those of music produces an exhilarating
experience. The past impressions, memories and associations lying buried in the
mind become affiliated with the present experience and produce new types of
pleasures and pains unlike those which are associated with our ego. This is
effected between the individuals own experience and the expression of art. It is a
new creation involving the personality of the individual and the objective dramatic
content and constituents. If this is true, dramatic experience and art can no longer
be regarded as imitative.
aesthetic composition with its suggestion presents before our minds an aesthetic
situation and an emotion devoid of its local characters. Secondly, the expression of
minds. In next stage this presented whole becomes commingled with various types
experience. Hence, the same work of art will appeal differently to different people.
The experience is free from any association with the ego. It is transcendental or
Alukika, also called Camatkara. The word Camatkara is used in there different
senses. It is the special attitude of the mind produced by the commingling of the
means the artistic pleasure arising out of it, and thirdly, the bodily manifestation of
such an enjoyment. In addition to this, it is also used to denote that special mental
times as the almost unchallengeable gospel truth and as the last analysis of the
WORK CITED
1. Devy G.N, ed. Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation.. Orient
2. Rajan. P.K. ed. Indian Literary Criticism in English, New Delhi: Rawat
publications, 2004.