Exploring Bhatta Lollata’s Utpattivada: The Genesis of Rasa Theory

In the long history of Indian aesthetic thought, few questions have sparked as much debate as this: where exactly does Rasa come from? Bharata Muni laid the foundation with his Rasa Sutra in the Natyashastra, but his formulation was deliberately compact – almost cryptic. It fell to later thinkers to dig into its philosophical implications. Bhatta Lollata, a 9th-century philosopher from Kashmir, was the first to take up that challenge seriously. His theory, known as Utpattivada, or the theory of the origination of Rasa, set the entire tradition of Rasa commentary in motion.

Who was Bhatta Lollata? 🔗

Bhatta Lollata was a Kashmiri philosopher of the early 9th century CE, a follower of the Mimamsa school of philosophy, and a contemporary of Bhatta Kallata. He produced a commentary on Bharata’s Rasa theory, earning the distinction of being the first thinker to subject it to systematic philosophical scrutiny. None of his original works have survived – what we know of him comes entirely through the writings of later scholars, most importantly Abhinavagupta’s Abhinavabharati and Dhvanyaloka Locana, as well as Raj Shekhar’s Kavya Mimamsa and Mammata’s Kavyaprakasa. That his ideas survived at all – even through the writings of critics – is testimony to how foundational his contribution was.

Lollata belonged to a remarkable intellectual cluster. Three Kashmiri scholars – Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, and Bhatta Nayaka – each rooted in a different philosophical tradition, each pursued the same central question: what is Rasa, and how does it arise? Lollata took the lead in this direction, and what he proposed became the first landmark in post-Bharata Rasa philosophy.

The Rasa Sutra and its interpretive challenge 🔗

To understand Lollata’s contribution, we need to first revisit Bharata’s famous formulation. The Rasa Sutra states: “Vibhava-anubhava-vyabhichari-samyogad rasa nishpattih” – meaning that aesthetic relish arises from the union of Vibhava, Anubhava, and Vyabhicari Bhava. But this formula raised more questions than it answered. What exactly does “union” (samyoga) mean here? What does “arising” (nishpatti) signify – is it creation, inference, or revelation? And crucially, in whom does Rasa actually reside?

These ambiguities made the sutra a philosophical battleground. Four different schools of interpretation emerged, designated as utpattivada, anumitivada, bhuktivada, and abhivyaktivada, put forward by Bhatta Lollata, Sri Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka, and Abhinavagupta respectively. Lollata’s was the first, and it shaped everything that followed – even if largely through the objections it provoked.

What is Utpattivada? 🔗

The word Utpattivada breaks down simply: Utpatti means origin or creation, and Vada means theory or doctrine. Lollata’s core claim was that Rasa is not a pre-existing state that is merely revealed during performance – it is actively produced. More specifically, he argued that Rasa is what a Sthayibhava (a permanent or dominant emotional state) becomes when it is sufficiently intensified.

According to Lollata’s Utpattivada, the Sthayibhavas residing in the human heart are transformed into Rasa through a structured process: Vibhavas act as the cause, Anubhavas as the effect, and Vyabhicari Bhavas as collaborators. This process is sometimes also called upacitivada – from upaciti, meaning intensification or accumulation.

In his reading of the Rasa Sutra, Rasa-nishpatti (the realization of Rasa) effectively becomes Rasa-utpatti (the creation of Rasa). In Lollata’s framework, Sthayibhava and Rasa stand in the relation of cause and effect – when a Sthayibhava is intensified to its highest pitch, it crosses a threshold and transforms into Rasa.

The three building blocks: Vibhava, Anubhava, and Vyabhicari Bhava 🔗

Lollata’s framework for how Rasa originates is built around Bharata’s three elements, each playing a specific role in the intensification process.

Vibhava – the determinant 🔗

Vibhava refers to the stimulating cause that triggers an emotional state. As described in classical Sanskrit dramaturgy, it comes in two forms: Alambana Vibhava, the fundamental determinant (such as the hero or heroine), and Uddipana Vibhava, the environmental or situational factors that reinforce the emotional context – a moonlit night, a fragrant garden, or a particular time of year. In Lollata’s scheme, Vibhava is the direct cause of Rasa; it is what sets the emotional process in motion.

Anubhava – the consequent 🔗

Anubhava is the external, physical manifestation of an internal emotional state – the outward expressions that communicate what a character is feeling. These are the mental expressions of an emotive state, conveyed through gestures, facial expressions, vocal modulation, and bodily movement. A trembling hand, a catch in the voice, tears welling up – all of these are Anubhavas. They serve as the bridge between the inner emotional world of the character and the perception of the audience.

Vyabhicari Bhavas – the transitory states 🔗

Vyabhicari Bhavas, also called Sanchari Bhavas, are the fleet of fleeting, shifting emotions that surround and enrich the central Sthayibhava. The Natyashastra recognizes these transitory states as combining with the dominant emotion to intensify it further. Jealousy, longing, confusion, pride, anxiety – these are not the main emotional note of a scene, but they colour and deepen it. In Lollata’s understanding, Vibhavas awaken, Anubhavas support, and Vyabhicari Bhavas strengthen the Sthayibhava, enabling it to attain the status of Rasa.

Where does Rasa reside? The question of locus 🔗

One of the most consequential aspects of Lollata’s Utpattivada is his answer to the question: in whom does Rasa actually reside? His answer was precise and somewhat surprising. Rasa primarily resides in the character being portrayed, and only secondarily in the actor who imagines himself to be that character. It does not reside in the poet, and crucially, it does not reside in the spectator either.

To illustrate this, Lollata used the example from the Ramayana: the emotion of love (Shringara Rasa) is first generated in the character Rama himself. The actor who plays Rama then reproduces this emotional state through his training and theatrical skill. The audience, through the actor’s performance, is drawn into the belief that the actor is Rama – and through this identification, they experience pleasure.

The locus of Rasa and the focus of attention are the characters; the imitating actors come secondarily. The spectators are captivated by the grandeur of the theatre and the performing skills of the actors, but what they are actually experiencing are the intensified permanent emotions (upacita Sthayibhava) of the characters – and only indirectly those of the actors. The communication happens through the actors and their craft.

The role of the actor in Utpattivada 🔗

Even though Rasa primarily belongs to the character in Lollata’s model, the actor is far from peripheral. Trained performers are responsible for faithfully reproducing the emotional states of the characters they portray – and this reproduction is what makes the transmission of Rasa possible for the audience. In Lollata’s framework, Vibhavas are the cause, Anubhavas are the effect, and Vyabhicari Bhavas are the collaborators – and the actor’s skill in handling all three is what determines whether the audience reaches the experience of Rasa or not.

The actor, in this sense, is a conduit rather than a creator. He does not originate the Rasa; he transmits the already-intensified Sthayibhava of the character to the audience by embodying it convincingly. The spectator then superimposes those emotions onto the actor, mistaking him for the original character. It is through this process – which Lollata acknowledged involves a kind of productive illusion – that aesthetic delight arises.

Lollata’s philosophical roots: Mimamsa influence 🔗

Lollata’s Utpattivada is not just a theory of theatrical emotion – it is a philosophical position shaped deeply by the Mimamsa school, one of the six classical schools of Indian philosophy. Mimamsa is primarily a philosophy of ritual action and the nature of linguistic meaning, and it emphasizes the causal efficacy of actions in producing their effects. This emphasis on production and causation directly informs Lollata’s reading of the Rasa Sutra.

By interpreting samyoga (union) as a causal relationship and nishpatti (arising) as actual generation or creation, Lollata grounded his aesthetics in a rigorous philosophical framework. The first interpretation of the Rasa Sutra was given by Bhatta Lollata according to Mimamsa doctrines, making Rasa a real product of real causes – not a matter of inference, revelation, or generalization.

Lollata’s contribution and its limits 🔗

Lollata’s Utpattivada was a genuine intellectual milestone. He is credited with being one of the first to initiate a philosophical discussion on Rasa theory, and his work set the stage for every subsequent debate in the tradition. By clearly identifying the key terms of the Rasa Sutra – particularly nishpatti and samyoga – and offering a coherent philosophical interpretation of them, he transformed what was essentially a performer’s handbook into a subject of serious philosophical inquiry.

However, later thinkers found significant gaps in his account. The most pointed criticism was this: if Rasa truly resides in the character (a fictional entity) and only secondarily in the actor, then how does the spectator actually experience it? Lollata’s theory is open to the objection that it fails to explain the emotion that arises in the mind of the spectator, since the sentiment is generated in the personated character and only secondarily recognized in the personating actor. The audience is left somewhat on the outside of the emotional event – a problem that Sri Sankuka’s Anumitivada and Bhatta Nayaka’s Bhuktivada would each attempt to resolve in their own ways.

It was ultimately Abhinavagupta who synthesized the tradition most comprehensively, arguing in his Abhivyaktivada that Rasa is neither created nor inferred but revealed – and that this revelation occurs in the spectator, not just the character or the actor. But that resolution would not have been possible without the foundation that Lollata laid. His insistence on asking precise questions – about causation, about locus, about the nature of intensification – gave the entire tradition its philosophical spine.

Why Utpattivada still matters 🔗

Lollata’s theory raises questions that go far beyond 9th-century Sanskrit dramaturgy. His framework asks us to think carefully about where aesthetic experience actually originates: is it in the work of art itself, in the performer, or in the audience? Is emotion in art something produced, something inferred, or something that was always latent and is simply brought to the surface?

These are not merely historical questions. They are live debates in contemporary aesthetics, philosophy of mind, and even cognitive science. The Utpattivada’s emphasis on the structured intensification of emotion – through determinants, consequents, and transitory states – anticipates modern discussions about how complex emotional responses are built up through layered stimuli. The Natyashastra’s emotional framework has captivated performers, psychologists, and neuroscientists for centuries, and Lollata’s interpretation remains a foundational entry point into that conversation.

For students of Indian aesthetics, Utpattivada is more than just a historical position to be compared and contrasted with its successors. It represents the first serious effort to explain, in philosophically rigorous terms, how a human being sitting in the audience of a drama can be moved to tears, to joy, or to awe – and why that movement is not incidental, but the very purpose of art.

What do you think? If Rasa primarily resides in the fictional character rather than in the audience, does that mean the spectator’s emotional experience is always a kind of borrowed feeling – or is there something more personal happening? And can a theory of aesthetic experience built around theatrical performance meaningfully extend to other art forms like poetry, painting, or music?

References

1. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/icp04/chapter/the-rasa-theory-of-bharata/
2. https://docslib.org/doc/2573398/unit-2-theories-of-rasa
3. https://imp-art.org/articles/rasa/
4. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/icp04/chapter/interpretations-of-rasasutra/
5. https://www.citefactor.org/article/index/95066/vottolollot-o-tar-utpottibd-ekti-somikkha
6. https://kalyanikalamandir.com/rasa-bhava-vibhava-anubhav-sanchari-and-sthayi-bhava/
7. https://mapacademy.io/article/bhava/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthayibhava
9. https://mahavidya.ca/2017/12/26/4110/
10. https://natya-shastra.in/bhava-rasa-vibhava-anubhava-sanchari-and-sthayi-bhava/