Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c86.60

v2.c86.60

The author of the *Daśarūpaka*, however, contends that there can be no such *sthāyi-bhāva* as *nirveda* or *śama*, for the development of that state (if it is at all possible to destroy utterly love, hatred and other human feelings) would tend to the absence of all moods; and in the drama, the object of which is to delineate and inspire passion, it is inadmissible. Others, again, hold that the Quietistic *rasa* does exist, as it is experienced by those who have attained that blissful state, but it has no *sthāyi-bhāva* in dramatic composition; for *nirveda*, being the cessation of all worldly activity, or *śama* being freedom from all mental excitement, it is not fit to be represented. Hence Mammaṭa takes eight *rasas* in the drama (p. 98) and nine in poetry (p. 117). Bhoja, in accordance with the views of the school which lays special emphasis on the *śṛṅgāra*, accepts only one *rasa*, the Erotic, in his *Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa*; and although he mentions as many as ten *rasas* in his cyclopaedic *Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa*, including the *śānta* and the *preyas*, he appears to devote almost exclusive attention to the *śṛṅgāra* in his treatment of the *rasas* in this work. The views about the admissibility of the *śānta* are discussed by the author of the *Ekāvalī* (pp. 96-7) who maintains that Bharata has mentioned *nirveda* as a *vyabhicāri-bhāva* immediately in context after the enumeration of the *sthāyi-bhāvas* and at the beginning of the list of the *vyabhicāri-bhāvas*; and this fact is interpreted as indicating that the sage meant it both as a *sthāyi-bhāva* and as a *vyabhicāri-bhāva*; but Hemacandra (p. 81) anticipates and rejects this quibble of verbal interpretation, though agreeing with him in the general proposition as to the admissibility of *śānta* as the ninth *rasa*.