Rasa: The Audience and the Stage
its reality as something happening on the stage. In the latter case the performance has become a medium for rasa, which corresponds to the character ascribed to theatre in western aesthetic paradigms. Within this framework theatre is generally seen as a re-presentation of something that exists independently of the performance. Hence, for example, the classification of theatre as 'illusionistic' or 'realistic'—in each case according to the criterion of an extra-theatrical reality which is represented.5 Thus the relationship between the audience and the stage, which is fundamental for the 34 theatric reality described as rasa, does not come in view.
The theoretical assumption that re-presentation is fundamental to theatre has led some to see in rasa a separate reality (a substance), something 'otherworldly', unchanging, immutable and devoid of history.6 Correspondingly also the audience is seen as responding to theatre in a uniform way. Not only does such an interpretation ignore the history of rasa in Indian tradition up to the nineteenth century; it also neglects the fact that rasa is described in the Natyashastra as taking place in the world of theatre which allows a specific experience of the world to arise that cannot be transferred to another context. Another consequence of this view is that Indian theatre is generally defined in terms of rasa, which disregards the diversity of theatre-forms.
'Aesthetics' or 'psychology" may very well exist in the Indian tradition. However, as long as one does not question the claim of western science to have universally applicable criteria which can set norms for what exists in other cultures, one can hardly be in a position to answer the question of whether and in what sense there is an Indian psychology. The fact that the possibility of interpreting the rasa concept along the lines of these criteria is taken for granted shows that they have almost attained a status of self-evidence. However, if one supposes that the western and the Indian discourses are alike, one has to be very clear about what is implied by such a procedure. If we cannot accept the universality of western criteria, then we must attempt to disentangle the western paradigms from the discourse of Indian tradition as far as possible while exploring the different concepts. Thus, before labelling the Natyashastra as 'empirical psychology the significance and the implications of this terminology must be clarified and then brought into relation to what can be gathered from the text. In this connection it is of decisive importance to observe that key concepts of 'psychology, such as the 'autonomy' of the subject—as the 'bearer' of certain 'psychological states' and 'feelings'—are not easily transferable into the Indian context.7
With these general considerations in mind, if one turns again to the Natyashastra, one must ask what are the special features of the sort of theatre (natya) described in the text and whether the interpretative framework discussed above can be applied to the definitions of rasa to be found there. This seems to be quite hazardous with regard to the philological (viz. 'text-critical') difficulties—starting with the problems of establishing a critical edition of the texts.8 In current research the original composition of the Natyashastra is described as a 'compilation' of different materials which preserve their heterogeneity without presenting clear statements.9 This terminology is perhaps one way of resolving the difficulties involved in the
Journal of Arts <& Ideas