Rasa Theory and Its Relevance -

I've been contemplating rasa theory lately and last night sat down with a book entitled Aesthetic Rapture that coalesced some of those thoughts. Although I am about to leave, I want to jot these down now and then return to them later. (OK, and I notice that Jagat is about and know that he is one of the few who can shed some light on the topic so I may as well throw this up now):

Why does Sri Rupa Gosvami frame bhakti within the context of the literary or dramatic theory of rasa?

If hearing lila katha is powerful in and of itself, where is the need to define the individual elements therein with such detailed attention? Isn't this somewhat artificial or even a constraint to directly enjoying the katha?

Was his purpose to train Gaudiya Vaisnava writers? To entice writers, sensitive listeners/readers and dilettantes to bhakti? Or is there something intrinsic to rasa theory whereby it either culminates in bhakti or, at least, can directly lead to it?

There are many answers to this question and I think that most of your proposed answers are good. My personal feeling is that Rupa had a theological insight into the personal deity that could only be successfully dealt with through aesthetic understanding. We could call it the "aesthetic proof for the existence of God."

I don't know if that already exists in the West, but in the Indian context it is the best way to differentiate the jumble of gods and goddesses competing for supreme status. (So all who are confused about Shiva or Durga, ponder Rupa's bhakti-rasa theory.)

We see the argumentation throughout the Chaitanya Charitamrita--vicAra korile citte pabe camatkAra. "If you examine the matter, you will be astonished." "Though everyone likes his own particular bhava the best, if you examine impartially, you will see that there is a hierarchy." "Though Krishna and Narayana are equal from the standpoint of pure theology, when understood from the vantage point of aesthetics, Krishna is clearly superior, for he is the complete manifestation of all the rasas."

To say that Rupa was writing a manual for authors would not be entirely out of place, either. He was defining the acceptable and the unacceptable. At the same time, he was himself relishing each detail of the lila through his analysis.

But don't understimate siddhanta as a source of rasa.

siddhAnta boliye citte nA koro alasa,
iha hoite kRSNe pAbe sudRDha mAnasa.

See section 1.2 Rasa and Siddhanta of my article "The Return to Vraja."

I had a few thoughts on this theme, which do not necessarily answer your question braja, but I shall post anyway.

There is a famous shloka from Bharata's Natya Shastra.



Where the hand goes, the gaze follows.
Where the eyes turn, there goes the mind.
Where the mind goes, there comes bhava,
And where the bhava comes, there also will be rasa.

This is instructive to the dancer, whose purpose is to invoke rasa in hearts of the audience members. Perfection of dance entails not only precision of movement, but accurate expression of the soul of the work. Classical dancers must often try to evoke divine sentiments in the audience when, for example, presenting selections from Jaydeva's "Ashtapadi" (Gita Govinda). How is this possible? Can the devotional shakti flow so freely from the words of the kavya, through the dancer's limbs and eyes, and into the heart of the audience? Yes, and that is what the great teachers of music, drama and dance are showing us how to accomplish. But in order for this flow to occur without hinderance, the dance should be perfect. The bhav is present in devotional art like a beautiful gift wrapped and packaged with care by a saint. And the hearts of the audience are ready to receive this bhav. The dancer (or singer, or painter, or dramatist) is merely a vessel of this grace; a duti whose pleasure it is to bring the divine message to the audience. The more perfect the drama, the more the divine sentiments will be received in their unadulterated form.

(I might also say, I think the same is not true for the Lord, as even a heartfelt song sung badly will be received by His heart with full force of love. )

Your post contains basically two points of issue.
(1) Why does Sri Rupa Gosvami frame bhakti within the context of the literary or dramatic theory of rasa? If hearing lila katha is powerful in and of itself, where is the need to define the individual elements therein with such detailed attention? Isn't this somewhat artificial or even a constraint to directly enjoying the katha?


(2)Was his purpose to train Gaudiya Vaisnava writers? To entice writers, sensitive listeners/readers and dilettantes to bhakti? Or is there something intrinsic to rasa theory whereby it either culminates in bhakti or, at least, can directly lead to it?

I think the answer to #1 is that Srila Rupa Goswami wanted to show that bhakti-rasa is not just about emotions and feelings, but that it is a spiritual science with many contributing factors, yet at the same time portray it in a way that can be related to from the mundane position and experience of ordinary dramatics. "Enjoying" the "katha" is not really the purpose, but rather "serving" the process and the principles is foremost. When the mood of "enjoying" the katha gets prominence the very basis of bhakti becomes corrupted.

His purpose was to train bhakti-yogis in the science of devotional service, not to create a school of sentimentalists who think that bhakti is just about emotions and feelings without a foundation in rasa-tattva. Bhakti, as a spritual science, should always be foremost to bhakti as emotionalism.

That's wonderful.

But (and that's a small 'but' so as to not take anything away from the beauty of the verse and the concept) therein lies one of the problems I have: choreography, machination, orchestration. What parts do such specialized forms play in bhakti? Sadhana is one thing--a consistent effort to attain a goal--but "Move your hand like this and then like this" or "Write about x in such a way" seems like imposing something external. Although it's a bad comparison, like saying that all verse must use iambic pentameter or be presented in accordance with Marxist, Freudian or other outlooks, i.e. adhering to a literary style or school of the day. As you've used dance as an example, I'll admit that I do not get Indian dance. Bhangra makes sense but not the traditional stuff. It's pretty and some of it is astonishingly skillful but it does not convey rasa to me. Seriously, the bagpipes have been more potent stimuli.

So I'd ask, is rasa theory relevant now? Was it an addition that was relevant for the day in which Sri Rupa lived? As Jagat points out in the article linked above, Sri Jiva was more involved with siddhanta and the siddhanta of rasa rather than rasa directly. Is it relevant for certain types only? Or perhaps an ideal?



Yes, that is a great response and certainly something that I am becoming more aware of. As I've been reading "Aesthetic Rapture" I've often been reminded of parts of Ananta das Baba's "Rasa Darshan," especially as both refer copiously to "the sensitive reader," to the individual's ability to experience rasa. I've read in other places of the debates concerning the specifics of rasa in dramatic theory--does the author experience it? Do the actors? Everyone seems to agree that the audience does if they are sensitive. That sensitivity seems to be an openness and willingness to be affected. To me, all of this naturally points to the experiential, mystical side of raganuga. It's not religion, not force, not even necessarily understandable to others. It's dasanudas's recent post on causeless mercy, Kovidara's quotes from BRS. Be astonished, be very astonished.



Perhaps Rupa Gosvami needed rasa theory in order to tie bhakti to something of this world? Give it some sense of order? Or what else could be done--make a garland of tears like Das Gosvami?

As for the theological aspect of rasa outside of raganuga, I would define my search in terms of what I understand to be rasa, regardless of the conclusions of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. To read, to live, to love, all in a search of essential experience. That seems to be the hint in Rasa Darshan--the mundane pointing to the divine--perhaps also in 'raso vai saha,' Krsna to be found in the condensed, epiphanous drops of life.

I have started this reply several times and am just gonna go for it. I beg the indulgence of my seniors.

Rupa was obviously interested in the dramaturgical arts as well as the larger studies of rasa popular in his day as well as the controversies between them.
If I may speculate that the life at the court was one of refined pleasures and leisure such that a meaningfull couple of hours could be spent in listening to expositions on a single asthayi of a bandish so as to fully relish the rasa that it gave rise to in the rasik gentleman listening.

For instance, my Tabla Guruji would always show us similar Tabla repetoire treated by various gharanas. Whenever he got to the Delhi Gaharana, from the greatest mughal court, the playing would be so refined and the re-exposition of thematic elements would be far more exhaustive than in the highly athletic and explosive Baranasi or thrillingly virtuosic Lucknow gharanas. He would explain that in the highly refined and genteel Delhi court, the players had to soothe the royal nerves and would play for the relaxation and enjoyment of stressed out government officials and the Delhi Ruler.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Sri Rupa was a product of His environment in that He had a great dramaturgical and poetic turn of mind so that is what He brought to the table. When I first was told "Brahma raso vai sa" I thought, "not the brahman you guys (advaitavadis) are telling me about." It was only when I read the first wave of Sri Rupa's BRS that I was thrilled to the bone with the "AHA" of actually encountering that Brahman that is Full of Rasa!

In addition, it is an amazing thing to define deity by the reaction caused in the individual by an encounter with that deity!

How remarkable, almost a complete 180 degree turn away from the standard, "that brahman is true, omniscient, eternal, that brahman is peaceful, auspiscious, and non-dual...(santam sivam advaitam brahman, etc.). Rather, the genius of Sri Rupa is to say, well, if that person over there really is God or the Supreme Person, then what is happening on a moment by moment psychological level to that jiva in relationship to Him?

Music (art/language/etc)has no Rasa intrinsic to it, it can only be known by a listener in relationship to it.

That Supreme Brahman must be known by an experiencer (in relationship, the Four relationships?)as well- what are the symptoms happening to that experiencer?
I have no idea if I made any sense.

Jay Radhe!

I don't think the actual choreography has much to do with it. Of course Indian dance and art forms are more likely to focus on Krishna. But once could write say, a ballet about Krishna also, which could also invoke devotional ras... is this what you're getting at?



It seems that Rupa really has some great insight on the interplay of personalities, and we should also remember that the leela is not a play but a reality. He deals with all the flavors of relationships with Krishna and Radha, and not just the happy simple ones. The deeper the scar, it seems, the more the soul is marked indelibly with His essence, so that we cannot forget Him. Hafez says



And so it is.



Learning to appreciate a new art form such as Indian dance is like learning a new language. Once you get used to all the dhakadhimis you may get a taste for it.



Well, I'd say so! If you would not like to use it to stage a play, it can be used in our bhajan. Although I must admit, I prefer Das Goswami's (or better yet, Jiva Goswami's ) mood to Rupa's. But I think Rupa must be close to Krishna's heart, because He really is tricky and naughty like that. Sometimes.

I couldn't understand this, Brajaji. Would you mind explaining what you meant here please? What do you mean by "individual elements" and how would they be artificial or a hindrance to enjoying katha?

Wha? No, you are supposed to enjoy the katha. As the reader, you are the one who is supposed to be experiencing the ras. Rupa Goswami did not come to this planet and write these plays just for the hell of it. He did it for the bhaktas. We have a duty to read and speak and love hari katha! Are you going to shirk your dharma, kshamabuddhi?

I'm still a little confused over whether your question relates to sadhana or rasa itself, but isn't it so that akSara-muSTikA-kathana is no. 47 of the 64 arts that the gopis are expert at? It refers to the art of 'telling stories through hand gestures'. I have no idea if dance is included as one of these arts.

Oh, so it is as I've just found out! No.'s 3 and 4: nRtyam and nAtyam, dance and theatricals. 64 Arts in Sanskrit and English.

I think that if you follow on with your idea of Rupa Gosvami "training" us for something, it's quite possible that he was outlining how things go on "up there". If I've misunderstood any of your points, please let me know.

OK, I conceed to that point. But, should not there also be relish in learning rasa-tattva from Srila Rupa Goswami? Enjoyment is incidental, it is not the objective. I just don't see how and why calculations of enjoying lila-katha should be in exception to enjoying the technical aspects of rasa-tattva. There should be relish (enjoyment) in every word and every topic of bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, not just the lila-katha. No? Krishna is the enjoyer. the enjoyment of the devotees is incidental to the enjoyment of Krishna, the devotees are not purusha - rather prakriti. If Krishna gets enjoyment in his devotees learning rasa-tattva from the rasacharya, then the devotees should get enjoyment in that alone. The lila is for the enjoyment of Krishna. We should not be concerned about personal pleasure. Saranagati is not about our pleasure. It is about sacrificng for the pleasure of Krishna. Sacrifice is not always pleasurable with enjoyment.

I did want to follow up on this topic but have taken to reading BRS in order to see if Sri Rupa says something directly.

Some thoughts:

1. Rasa theory is not meant for the audience; it is for the writer/performer as a means to invoke rasa. If the audience is thinking, "Oh, hark an excitant!" Or, "Look, stage left, an exhibition of hasya!" an analytical portion of their brain is working and they aren't participating fully in the performance. They are limited by their knowledge.

2. Furthermore, rasa theory is predicated upon a distance between the performer and the audience. An audience member's participation is necessarily passive. Perhaps that is accurate for most sadhakas but the goal is to bridge that gap, isn't it?

3. lbcVisnudas suggested that the influence of the courtly lifestyle was involved, an interesting observation. But Sri Rupa's focus on rasa theory could also be explained if it was expected that sadhakas would be very active in producing literature, dramas, etc. Certainly Svarupa Damodara's vetting of works brought before Mahaprabhu and the warnings concerning rasabhasa indicate that their was an active literary culture. Bhakti-sandarbha also speaks of the merit of devotional dramas.

Yes, certainly. But my question is why the need for rasa theory--BRS could have been just as relishable without delineating the people, pastimes and paraphernalia in terms of a dramatic theory.

A thought:

I think of learning rasa theory like learning technical things about music. As a musician it's important to learn your scales and chords and stuff. But the idea is not to become a big music geek thats completely wrapped up in theory. A good musician learns good technique to the point that it becomes second nature; he doesn't think about it very consciously but knows it so well that he can produce beautiful music, based on good music theory, naturally.

I think if we really knew rasa theory well, it would enhance our appreciation of books of lila. Not because we'd get all wrapped up in analyzing everything. We'd just have a fuller and deeper understanding of how lila works and be able to naturally appreciate it from a deeper perspective.

Did that make sense?

Is it just me, or did you just express conflicting points as if they compliment each other?
You ask "why the need for rasa theory".
Then you say that BRS could have been relishable without describing lila, the parshadas and the dhama.

You just diverged into two different thoughts and two diametrically opposed statements.

Are you trying to play mind games here, or are you genuinely this confused?

Drama? Is not braja-lila the supreme drama?
How can lila, the parshadas and the dhama be described in any way without all the drama that is intrinsic to Krishna-lila?

No, not "without describing lila," etc., but describing it without the theoretical viewpoint of rasa theory. (Please note I am not referring to rasa but rasa theory, an established dramatic theory that exists outside of, and prior to, Gaudiya Vaisnavism.) The residents of Vrindavan aren't in the habit of partaking in lila in terms of excitants, mellows, etc.; Krishna's flute is Krishna's flute, Yasoda Ma is Yasoda Ma. They are right there without any deep analysis or orchestration. What is relishable to us in BRS? The qualities, pastimes, etc., not the fact that it is framed in terms of vibhava, uddipana, or whatever. I am not criticizing BRS; it works brilliantly, but so do Govinda-lilamrita and Krishna Bhavanamrita and they do so without recourse to that type of analysis. The framework itself is no doubt interesting to some connoisseurs but my questions center on its relevance to sadhakas, its place within GV, its possible theological value, etc.

I am very fond of this topic, yet I have thus far failed to participate. In my own humble view I would like to say this... I have always accepted that rasa-tattva was mercifully given to us by Sri Rupa in order for us to better understand and imbibe the moods of the ragamika in whose anugatya we perform our bhajan. Then, when we hear the lilas in the rasa sastras such as GLA and KBA our bhav will have a greater chance to thicken and mature.

Sri Radhe!

Just sitting here in Vrndavan enjoying this thread. Too excited to contribute anything other than " raso vai sah " and the computer is so slow here.

Oh yes " enjoying " the katha and "serving " the katha aught to be taken as synonemous or one serves the katha by enjoying it.

The semblence of rasa is all around everywhere at all times, you could hardly have any idea about Krsna without it; that's what I'm thinking anyway, and the analasys and synthesis that Sri Rupa presents is also to be relished for it's own sake, unlike wordly text books that are dry and tasteless, this text book is as relishable as the intricate aspects of Krsna's nama, rupa, guna and lila rasa that it defines and illustrates.

How can you say so much with so few words? *swoons*

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Just as the gopis can communicate messages to other gopis with a wink or a nod, in the same way someone who fully understands the dynamics of rasa-theory may be able to access deeper relishable meanings given in the writings/drama of Sri Rupa Gosvami!

Rasadarsan, Sri Ananta Das Baba

As far as drama goes, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu was actually a theological treatise. Most prominently, the dramas of Srila Rupa Goswami were Vidagdha-madhava and Lalita-madhava.
Srila Rupa Goswami also wrote comedy and narrative poems.
Drama had it's place, but it did not consume all the works of Srila Rupa Goswami.

Jaya Radhe!

Braja ji- it is actually part of the theory of Rasa that the beholder of the art needs to be a Rasika, a connisuer (spelling). Otherwise they will be unable to appreciate the finer elements. If you do not know what a tihai or chakradhar is, how will you know when a player does one? This has actually been the subject of many Indian music debates going on right now- "the newer audiences don't appreciate the older more refined subtleties of swara, rag and taal etc etc ..."


which to me ties with the idea that He was trying to let us know how things go on "up there" in the court of the Emperor of loving pastimes and the Love Herself.