History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.76

Language: English

c6.76.1

Important questions arise about शान्तरस and about the number of rasas. Dr. Raghavan dealt with these two topics in J. O. R., Madras, vol. X pp. 1-10, 97-114, 240-250 and vol. XI pp. 12-21, 77-115, 269-284 and in a separate book ‘Number of Rasas’ (1940) in which are included his contributions in the J.O.R. Madras. Vide pp. 12-13 above where this question about शान्तरस is discussed. From the Vikramorvaśīya II. 18 and the काव्यादर्श II. 392 and the text of भरत (VI. 15-16) it follows that there were originally only eight rasas. As उद्भट (IV. 5) and the विष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराण (p. 68 above) mention nine rasas it follows that शान्तरस was certainly included from about the 7th century. The भावप्रकाशन p. 47 states that it was वासुकि who first recognized शान्तरस. Some hold that शान्त may be a रस in poetry but not in dramas; vide दशरूप IV 35 (शममपि केचित्प्राहुः पुष्टिनट्येषु नैतस्य) and भावप्रकाशन p. 47 (नाटकादिनिबन्धे तु तपश्चरणवस्तुनि । अभिनेतुमशक्यत्वात्तद्वाक्यार्थपदार्थयोः । सामाजिकार्ना मनसि रसः शान्तो न जायते ॥). The reasons why it was said that शान्त should not be recognized in a drama were many. One can hardly say that any big audience can be influenced to relish शान्तरस. The very atmosphere of dramatic representation with its songs, music and make-up is rather antagonistic to the development of a mood of शम (tranquility and self-effacement). In a mere poem Śāntarasa may be evolved by reading it in a quiet and secluded spot. The ध्व० (4th उद्योत pp.

c6.76.2

298-300) after a lengthy examination shows that in the Mahābhārata शान्तरस is intended to be the most predominant and करुण is the most predominant rasa in the रामायण. It is not impossible to perform on the stage a drama such as the प्रबोधचन्द्रोदय but the audience may be sparse. If नाट्य is defined (by दशरूप I. 7) as अवस्थानुकृतिः (imitative representation of various conditions), there is no theoretical reason why śāntarasa cannot be represented on the stage by clever actors with appropriate settings. Abhinavagupta went to the other extreme and propounded the view that शान्त was the greatest रस because of its relation to मोक्ष, the highest goal of human life, and because all poetic pleasure is अलौकिक and like ब्रह्मास्वाद. Vide अ. भा. vol. I. p. 340 ‘सर्वरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्वादः’. Acc. to अभिनव and धनञ्जय, शम is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त, वैराग्य and संसारभीरुता are विभावs, मोक्षशास्त्रचिन्ता is अनुभाव, निर्वेद, मति, धृति, स्मृति are व्यभिचारिभाव. Acc. to मम्मट (IV 35. निर्वेदस्थायिभावोस्ति शान्तोपि नवमो रसः) and सङ्गीतरत्नाकर the स्थायिभाव of शान्त is निर्वेद, while others put forward जुगुप्सा or उत्साह as the स्थायिभाव (सङ्गीतर. verse 1374). On pp. 92-106 of his work ‘The number of rasas’ Dr. Raghavan furnishes a corrected text of the section on शान्तरस from the अभिनवभारती. Vide p. 207 above for the view of the चन्द्रिका on शान्त viz. आधिकारिकत्वेन शान्तो रसो न निबध्य:. We saw above that रुद्रट mentions a 10th रस called प्रेयान्. The अ. भा. (vol. I pp.

c6.76.3

341-42) states that other rasas were put forward by some viz. स्नेह (आर्द्रता as स्थायिभाव), लौल्य and भक्ति and explains that स्नेह is nothing but रति and उत्साह, लौल्य would be included under हास or रति and भक्ति under रति. As देवादिषियरति was called भाव (रतिर्देवादिषिवया व्यभिचारी तथाजित: । भाव: प्रोक्त:-काव्यप्र. IV. 35) and not शृङ्गार, others put forward भक्ति as a separate रस. The सङ्गीतरत्नाकर (verses 1370-71, VII. p. 815) says : the नट is like a vessel (पात्र) in which some liquid is kept. As the vessel does not taste the liquid, so the actor does not relish the rasa that is being evolved and further states that some put foreward भक्ति (श्रद्धा as स्थायिभाव), स्नेह and लौल्य as three rasas; but it rejects these. The ध्वन्यालोक¹ says that शान्त and शृङ्गार both pervade the drama called नागानन्द, that तृष्णाक्षयसुख is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त, quotes a verse from the Mahābhārata in support and remarks that even granting for argument that all men have not the experience of तृष्णाक्षयसुख that does not matter. The Locana refers to the words of the नाट्यशास्त्र that in नाट्य are shown sometimes drama, sport, wealth and also śama sometimes (त्रैलोक्यस्यास्य सर्वस्य नाट्यं भावानुकीर्तनम् । क्वचिद्धर्म: क्वचित्क्रीडा क्वचिदर्थ: क्वचिच्छम: ॥ I. 104). It further says that śama is suggested, though all may not like it. But, this last is not the test.

c6.76.4

Śṛṅgāra also may not be liked by some people such as those who are वीतराग (who have subdued all passions) but this does not mean that शृङ्गार is not a rasa. Some said that if śama is held to be the sthāyibhāva of śānta, then, as the actor does not possess that quality of śama, śānta cannot be a rasa in nāṭya. The reply of the सङ्गीतरत्नाकर is quoted below.²