Indian Literary and Aesthetic Traditions: Rasa, Dhvani and the Schools of Sanskrit Poetics
2. Rasa and Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra
The oldest layer is the rasa theory of the Nāṭyaśāstra, traditionally attributed to Bharata and conventionally dated between about the second century BCE and the second century CE. Its famous rasa-sūtra states that “rasa arises from the conjunction (saṃyoga) of vibhāva (determinants — the situation and its causes), anubhāva (consequents — the outward reactions) and vyabhicāribhāva (transitory states).” A durable emotion latent in the audience (the sthāyibhāva) is, through this combination on stage, raised into rasa — the relished aesthetic emotion. Rasa is thus a quality of the spectator’s experience, not merely of the character.
The Nāṭyaśāstra is a manual of theatre first and of poetics second: it treats drama as performance and names four kinds of abhinaya (representation) — āṅgika (bodily gesture), vācika (speech), āhārya (costume and make-up) and sāttvika (involuntary signs of inner feeling, such as tears or a tremor). Rasa is therefore first a theory of how performance moves an audience, and was only later extended to poems read on the page.
Bharata enumerates eight rasas, each paired with a durable emotion: śṛṅgāra (the erotic, from rati/love), hāsya (the comic, from hāsa/mirth), karuṇa (the pathetic, from śoka/grief), raudra (the furious, from krodha/anger), vīra (the heroic, from utsāha/energy), bhayānaka (the terrible, from bhaya/fear), bībhatsa (the odious, from jugupsā/disgust) and adbhuta (the marvellous, from vismaya/wonder). A ninth rasa, śānta (the tranquil, from śama/serenity), was added later and its acceptance is particularly associated with Abhinavagupta.
3. The four interpreters of the rasa-sūtra
The word niṣpatti (“arising”) in the rasa-sūtra provoked four classic interpretations, preserved mainly through Abhinavagupta’s commentary. The debate is over where and how rasa comes to be — in the character, the actor or the spectator — and the last view became the standard one in the tradition.
- Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa — utpattivāda (production): rasa is actually produced in, and belongs to, the original character (and by extension the actor) through the combination; it is a straightforward origination.
- Śrī Śaṅkuka — anumitivāda (inference): the spectator does not directly feel the emotion but infers it in the actor, as one infers fire from smoke; rasa is known by inference.
- Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka — bhuktivāda (enjoyment): rasa is neither produced nor inferred but enjoyed, through a special power that generalises (sādhāraṇīkaraṇa) the emotion, lifting it free of the individual so the spectator relishes it impersonally.
- Abhinavagupta — abhivyaktivāda (manifestation): building on Nāyaka’s generalisation, rasa is already latent and is manifested/suggested to the spectator, relished as a self-luminous, otherworldly bliss (akin to the bliss of the self). This became the standard, most influential reading.
4. Alaṅkāra and Rīti: figure and style
The Alaṅkāra school makes figures of speech the essence of poetry. Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin (whose Kāvyādarśa is a foundational manual) classify figures into those of sound (śabdālaṅkāra, such as alliteration) and those of sense (arthālaṅkāra, such as simile upamā and metaphor rūpaka), and treat ornament as what raises ordinary statement into kāvya. For this school a poem is beautiful because it is adorned.
The Rīti school of Vāmana declares instead that “style is the soul of poetry” (rītir ātmā kāvyasya). Rīti is a distinctive arrangement of words marked by particular guṇas (qualities) such as mādhurya (sweetness), ojas (force) and prasāda (lucidity). Vāmana names regional styles — Vaidarbhī (the polished, southern manner he most admires), Gauḍī (the ornate, forceful eastern manner) and Pāñcālī — so that for him poetic excellence is a matter of the right diction and qualities rather than of ornament alone.
5. Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya
The most influential turn is the Dhvani theory of Ānandavardhana (ninth-century Kashmir) in the Dhvanyāloka: the soul of poetry is suggestion (dhvani), the unspoken sense that the words evoke beyond their literal and figurative meanings. He distinguishes three word-powers — abhidhā (denotation, the literal), lakṣaṇā (indication, the metaphorical) and vyañjanā (suggestion) — and sorts suggested meaning into vastu-dhvani (a suggested fact or idea), alaṅkāra-dhvani (a suggested figure) and rasa-dhvani (suggested rasa), the last being the highest. Abhinavagupta, in his commentaries the Locana (on the Dhvanyāloka) and the Abhinavabhāratī (on the Nāṭyaśāstra), fused rasa and dhvani: rasa is realised precisely through suggestion.
Ānandavardhana also divides dhvani by how the literal sense behaves. In avivakṣita-vācya (also called lakṣaṇā-mūla) dhvani the literal meaning is not intended and is set aside, as in “the village on the Ganges”, where the literal sense gives way to “on its bank” and a further sense of coolness and sanctity may be suggested. In vivakṣitānya-para-vācya (abhidhā-mūla) dhvani the literal meaning is intended but leads on to a further, suggested meaning. Suggestion differs from metaphor because indication (lakṣaṇā) needs a break in the literal sense, whereas suggestion works even when the literal sense stands.
Two further positions complete the set. Kuntaka, in the Vakroktijīvita, makes vakrokti — the “crooked” or artful turn of speech born of the poet’s creative skill (vaidagdhya) — the life of poetry; he analyses deviation at many levels, from the single phoneme and word up to the whole composition. Kṣemendra (eleventh century, traditionally described as a pupil of Abhinavagupta), in the Aucityavicāracarcā, argues that aucitya (propriety) is the very life of poetry: every element must be appropriate to its context, and a single impropriety can spoil the rasa, so aucitya governs figure, style and suggestion alike.
6. Mammaṭa’s synthesis and other indigenous frameworks
Mammaṭa (around the eleventh–twelfth century), in the Kāvyaprakāśa, wrote the most widely studied textbook of Sanskrit poetics, defending dhvani and organising the whole field. He defines kāvya as word and sense that are faultless (adoṣa) and possess guṇas, with ornament only sometimes necessary; he names the causes of poetry as śakti (innate genius, pratibhā), learning (vyutpatti/nipuṇatā) and practice (abhyāsa); and he grades poetry into three ranks — uttama (dhvani-kāvya), where the suggested sense predominates; madhyama (guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya), where suggestion is subordinate to the expressed; and the lowest avara/citra, mere verbal or figurative display with no real suggestion.
Beyond the Sanskrit tradition, India has other indigenous poetics. The Tamil Tolkāppiyam classifies poetry into akam (the “interior” poetry of love) and puram (the “exterior” poetry of war and public life), and maps emotional situations onto five landscapes (tiṇai) — hills, forest, cropland, seashore and wasteland, each conventionally tied to a phase of love. These frameworks interpret a work by asking which landscape and mode it belongs to, much as rasa theory asks which emotion it aestheticises.
7. The poet, the reader and the later poeticians
Rājaśekhara (about the late ninth to early tenth century), in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, distinguishes two kinds of pratibhā (creative genius): kārayitrī, the poet’s, which composes, and bhāvayitrī, the reader’s, which appreciates. The responsive reader is thus a partner in poetry. The ideal reader is the sahṛdaya (“one whose heart is in tune”), a term used by Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta for the connoisseur through whom rasa is realised.
Later definitions show which school each author inherits. Viśvanātha (fourteenth century), in the Sāhityadarpaṇa, defines poetry as “a sentence whose soul is rasa” (vākyaṃ rasātmakaṃ kāvyam), the rasa school’s slogan. Jagannātha (seventeenth century), in the Rasagaṅgādhara, defines it as a word that conveys a delightful (ramaṇīya) meaning. Within devotional traditions, Rūpa Gosvāmī (sixteenth century), in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu, treats devotion (bhakti) itself as a rasa, showing that the rasa framework outlived its theatrical origin.
Key takeaways
- Sanskrit poetics (kāvyaśāstra) asks what the ātman of kāvya is; the six schools answer with rasa, alaṅkāra, rīti, dhvani, vakrokti and aucitya, each with a chief theorist and text.
- Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra gives the rasa-sūtra: rasa arises from vibhāva + anubhāva + vyabhicāribhāva acting on a sthāyibhāva. Eight rasas, with śānta added later; a sthāyibhāva such as śoka is not itself the rasa karuṇa.
- The rasa-sūtra had four interpreters: Lollaṭa (production), Śaṅkuka (inference), Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka (enjoyment, via sādhāraṇīkaraṇa) and Abhinavagupta (manifestation/suggestion), the last becoming the standard reading.
- Alaṅkāra (Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin) makes figures central; rīti (Vāmana) makes style the soul — rītir ātmā kāvyasya — with guṇas (mādhurya, ojas, prasāda) and styles Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī, Pāñcālī.
- Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka makes suggestion the soul: abhidhā/lakṣaṇā/vyañjanā, and vastu-, alaṅkāra- and rasa-dhvani (highest). Abhinavagupta’s Locana and Abhinavabhāratī fuse rasa with dhvani.
- Kuntaka’s Vakroktijīvita makes vakrokti the life of poetry; Kṣemendra’s Aucityavicāracarcā makes aucitya its life; Mammaṭa’s Kāvyaprakāśa synthesises all, grading poetry uttama (dhvani), madhyama (guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya) and citra.
- Later poetics: Rājaśekhara’s two pratibhās (kārayitrī and bhāvayitrī) and the sahṛdaya reader; Viśvanātha’s “a sentence whose soul is rasa”; Jagannātha’s “delightful meaning”; Rūpa Gosvāmī’s bhakti-rasa.
Practice questions (16)
Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.
The theory of rasa is first set out in which work, traditionally attributed to which author?
Show answer
Answer: D — The Nāṭyaśāstra, attributed to Bharata
Rasa theory originates in the Nāṭyaśāstra, traditionally ascribed to Bharata. The Dhvanyāloka (Ānandavardhana) is the dhvani text, the Kāvyaprakāśa (Mammaṭa) is the later synthesis, and the Vakroktijīvita (Kuntaka) argues for vakrokti — all later works that presuppose rasa rather than founding it.According to Bharata’s rasa-sūtra, rasa arises from the conjunction of which three elements?
Show answer
Answer: A — Vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva (determinants, consequents, transitory states)
The sūtra names vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva. The durable emotion (sthāyibhāva) is what these act upon, not one of the three conjoined factors, which is why the option that inserts sthāyibhāva is wrong. Abhidhā/lakṣaṇā/vyañjanā belong to dhvani theory, and rīti/vakrokti/aucitya are rival schools.The durable emotion (sthāyibhāva) that underlies the śṛṅgāra rasa is:
Show answer
Answer: C — Rati (love)
Rati (love) is the sthāyibhāva behind śṛṅgāra. Śoka underlies karuṇa, utsāha underlies vīra, and hāsa underlies hāsya; matching each rasa to its distinct durable emotion is the standard test here.One interpreter of the rasa-sūtra held that the spectator does not directly feel the emotion but infers it in the actor, much as one infers fire from smoke. Whose view is this?
Show answer
Answer: B — Śrī Śaṅkuka, who held rasa is inferred (anumiti)
Inference of a hidden state from visible signs, as of fire from smoke, is the logic of Śaṅkuka’s anumitivāda, which models rasa on inference. Lollaṭa says rasa is actually produced in the character; Nāyaka says it is enjoyed through generalisation; Abhinavagupta says it is suggested and manifested — none of which is an inference from a sign.Which interpreter argued that rasa is neither produced nor inferred but relished, through a special power that generalises (sādhāraṇīkaraṇa) the emotion beyond the particular individual?
Show answer
Answer: D — Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka
Generalisation (sādhāraṇīkaraṇa) and the “enjoyment” account are Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s contribution, which Abhinavagupta then built upon. Lollaṭa (production) and Śaṅkuka (inference) give different mechanisms, and Daṇḍin belongs to the alaṅkāra school, not the rasa-sūtra debate at all.Which of the following statements about rasa theory are correct? P: Bharata enumerates eight rasas. Q: the ninth rasa, śānta, was added later and its acceptance is associated with Abhinavagupta. R: a sthāyibhāva is simply identical with its rasa. S: Abhinavagupta’s abhivyakti (manifestation) became the standard, most influential reading of the rasa-sūtra.
Show answer
Answer: A — P — Bharata lists eight rasas; B — Q — śānta added later, linked to Abhinavagupta; D — S — abhivyakti became the standard reading
Bharata gives eight rasas, śānta is the later ninth linked to Abhinavagupta, and his abhivyakti reading became the standard one. R is false: a sthāyibhāva becomes a rasa only when aestheticised through the vibhāva–anubhāva–vyabhicāribhāva combination, so the two are not identical.The ninth rasa, not in Bharata’s original list of eight and added by the later tradition, is:
Show answer
Answer: A — Śānta (the tranquil)
Śānta, the rasa of tranquillity, is the ninth, added after Bharata’s eight. Vīra, adbhuta and bībhatsa are all among the original eight, so they cannot be the later addition.Match each interpreter of the rasa-sūtra to his theory. P: Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa — production (utpatti). Q: Śrī Śaṅkuka — inference (anumiti). R: Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka — enjoyment (bhukti). S: Abhinavagupta — style (rīti). Which pairings are correct?
Show answer
Answer: A — P — Lollaṭa / production; B — Q — Śaṅkuka / inference; C — R — Nāyaka / enjoyment
Lollaṭa (production), Śaṅkuka (inference) and Nāyaka (enjoyment) are correctly paired. Abhinavagupta’s theory is abhivyakti (manifestation/suggestion), not rīti; rīti (style) is Vāmana’s doctrine, so S is the wrong pairing.The doctrine that the soul of poetry is dhvani (suggestion) is set out by Ānandavardhana in which work?
Show answer
Answer: C — The Dhvanyāloka
Dhvani theory is founded in Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka. The Nāṭyaśāstra is Bharata’s rasa text, the Kāvyādarśa is Daṇḍin’s alaṅkāra manual, and the Aucityavicāracarcā is Kṣemendra’s work on propriety.In dhvani theory the suggested meaning of a poem is produced by which of the three powers of the word?
Show answer
Answer: B — Vyañjanā (suggestion), which gives the suggested sense
Vyañjanā is the power that yields the suggested (vyaṅgya) meaning, and dhvani is poetry in which this predominates. Abhidhā gives the literal and lakṣaṇā the metaphorical sense; pratibhā is the poet’s genius, a cause of poetry rather than a semantic power.The maxim “rītir ātmā kāvyasya” — style is the soul of poetry — is the central claim of which theorist?
Show answer
Answer: D — Vāmana
“Style is the soul of poetry” is Vāmana’s dictum, founding the rīti school. Kuntaka champions vakrokti, Bharata rasa, and Kṣemendra aucitya — each a different candidate for the soul of poetry.A theorist holds that the life of poetry lies in vakrokti — the artful, “crooked” turn of speech born of the poet’s creative skill (vaidagdhya) — analysed at levels from the single sound up to the whole composition. Whose position is this?
Show answer
Answer: A — Kuntaka, in the Vakroktijīvita
Vakrokti as the life of poetry, defined through vaidagdhya and analysed across levels, is Kuntaka’s Vakroktijīvita. Kṣemendra makes aucitya central, Ānandavardhana makes dhvani central, and Vāmana makes rīti central — so each names a different soul of poetry.Abhinavagupta’s two celebrated commentaries, the Locana and the Abhinavabhāratī, are commentaries respectively on:
Show answer
Answer: C — The Dhvanyāloka and the Nāṭyaśāstra
The Locana comments on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka and the Abhinavabhāratī on Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra; through them Abhinavagupta fused rasa with dhvani. The option that reverses the pairing is the tempting error, and the others name texts he did not comment on in this way.In Mammaṭa’s Kāvyaprakāśa, poetry is ranked in three grades. The highest, uttama kāvya, is that in which:
Show answer
Answer: B — The suggested sense (vyaṅgya) predominates over the expressed
Uttama kāvya is dhvani-kāvya, where the suggested sense predominates. Suggestion subordinate to the expressed is the middle grade (guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya), and mere verbal/figurative display with no suggestion is the lowest (citra). The style-only option is not Mammaṭa’s criterion of rank at all.Which of the following text-and-author attributions are correct? P: Vakroktijīvita — Kuntaka. Q: Aucityavicāracarcā — Kṣemendra. R: Kāvyaprakāśa — Mammaṭa. S: Dhvanyāloka — Vāmana.
Show answer
Answer: A — P — Vakroktijīvita / Kuntaka; B — Q — Aucityavicāracarcā / Kṣemendra; C — R — Kāvyaprakāśa / Mammaṭa
Kuntaka wrote the Vakroktijīvita, Kṣemendra the Aucityavicāracarcā and Mammaṭa the Kāvyaprakāśa. The Dhvanyāloka is Ānandavardhana’s, not Vāmana’s (who founded the rīti school), so S is the wrong attribution.In the Tamil poetic tradition of the Tolkāppiyam, the distinction between akam and puram is the distinction between:
Show answer
Answer: A — Interior poetry of love versus exterior poetry of war and public life
Akam is the “interior” poetry of love and private experience, and puram the “exterior” poetry of war, kingship and public life; the akam situations are further mapped onto five landscapes (tiṇai). The distinction is thematic, not one of language, medium or devotion.