I studied rasa theory in my literature MA and Aristotle's Poetics in a single comparative class. My professor said they're answering the same question: why do we enjoy art that shows painful emotions? But I'm not sure.
Can someone explain what rasa actually is, and how it relates to catharsis? Are they answers to the same question?
Members reply here. Reading is always free.
Fellow
On the Greek side: in Poetics 6, Aristotle says tragedy, through pity and fear, accomplishes the catharsis of such emotions. That's almost all he says about it, and interpretations differ: purgation (a medical metaphor), purification (moral refinement), or clarification (an intellectual understanding of the emotions). It's frustratingly brief.
Fellow
On the Indian side: the Nāṭyaśāstra, attributed to Bharata, says rasa arises from the combination of determinants (vibhāva), consequents (anubhāva) and transitory states (vyabhicāribhāva). Abhinavagupta (around 950–1016) developed the theory that the spectator savours a universalised emotion, freed from personal interest. So grief on stage becomes karuṇa rasa, a pleasurable savouring of pathos.
The crucial difference: catharsis seems to be about what happens to the emotions; rasa is about a transformed aesthetic experience. One is closer to therapy, the other to contemplation.
Fellow
"One is closer to therapy, the other to contemplation" is exactly the distinction I was looking for. And Claire's point about learning from imitations makes the comparison much richer. Thank you all.
Fellow
On "clarification", I'd add that Aristotle says in chapter 4 that we take pleasure in learning from imitations, even of things painful to see. That links catharsis to understanding, which brings it closer to Abhinavagupta than people think.