An important historical shift in Indian aesthetics is from concern with the character as the locus of emotional responses (anubhāvas) to the spectator or “audience” as the locus. Andrew Ollett provides a concise reflection on that shift.
In his Ten Forms (Daśarūpa), the tenth-century scholar Dhanañjaya takes the rather counterintuitive position that the “responses” (anubhāvas) of traditional aesthetic theory—typically the outward physical signs of an emotion, such as trembling, crying, and so on—belong to the reader or spectator, and not to the character who is represented (the anukārya). This position follows the revolution in aesthetic theory, as Sheldon Pollock has recently described it, introduced by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, the ninth-century theorist who sought to understand how aesthetic response is produced in us. Dhanañjaya’s commentator Dhanika makes it very clear that the standard “affective responses” are actually to be understood as our responses to reading a work of literature, or watching a play: it is we who tear up, gasp, and so on. But this was a relatively new idea, and according to the older theory, it is the character—or even the actor who represents her—who is thought to have these “affective responses.”
He continues on his own blog, here.