ननु च शान्तरसस्यानभिनेयत्वाद् यद्यपि नाट्येऽनुप्रवेशो नास्ति तथापि सूक्ष्मातीतादिवस्तूनां सर्वेषामपि शब्दप्रतिपाद्यताया विद्यमानत्वात् काव्यविषयत्वं न निवार्यते । अतस्तदुच्यते—1066पुष्टिर्नाट्येषु नैतस्येति । अभिनेयापेक्षया चावधारणनष्टाविति ।

शमप्रकर्षोऽनिर्वाच्यो मुदितादेस्तदात्मता ॥ ४५ ॥

शान्तो हि यदि तावत् अभिनेये न रसः किं नस्ततो गतम् ?1067 स च यदि—

न तत्र दुःखं न सुखं न चिन्ता न द्वेषरागौ न च काचिदिच्छा ।
रसस्तु शान्तः कथितो मुनीन्द्रैः सर्वेषु भावेषु समप्रमाणः1068 ॥
इत्येवंलक्षणः, तदा तस्य मोक्षावस्थायामेवात्मस्वरूपापत्तिलक्षणायां प्रादुर्भावः । तस्य च स्वरूपेणानिर्वचनीयता । तथा हि—श्रुतिरपि तं स एष नेति नेति1069 इत्यन्यापोहरूपेणाह । न च तथाभूतस्य शान्तरसस्य अभिनेये तद्धृदयाः1070 स्वादयितारः सन्ति । अथापि तदुपायभूतः शमो यदि 1071मुदितामैत्रीकरुणादिलक्षणः विवक्षितस्तर्हि तस्य रूपकेषु न पोषः । काव्ये संभावितस्य तस्य च स्वादे मनसो विकासविस्तारक्षोभविक्षेपरूपतैवेति तदुक्त्यैव काव्यसंबन्धिशान्तस्वादो निरूपितः ।

अधिकस्य शान्तस्य सद्भावादवधारणमनुपपन्नमिति पुनरपि चोदयति ननु चेति । यद्यपि शान्तो नाम कश्चिद् रसो विद्यते । तथापि श्राव्यबन्धगोचर एव सः । न तु दृश्यबन्धगोचरः । तस्यानभिनेयत्वात् । तदपेक्षया चाष्टावित्यवधारणमित्यभिप्रायेणाह अतस्तदुच्यत इत्यादि । काव्ये224 संभावितः स निरुच्यतामिति चेदाह अनिर्वाच्य इति1072 अनिर्वाच्यतामेवदर्शयति शान्तो हि यदि तावदित्यादिना । स्वरूपेणेति । यदि परं, कारणादिना निर्वचनीयता विवक्षिता सा भवेदित्यर्थः । स्वरूपेणानिर्वचनीयतामेवोपपादयति तथा हीति । किं च रसो रसिकापेक्षया । ते च रूपकेषु संसारिणः संसारिणामतद्धदयत्वात्1073 तस्य स्वादयितारोऽपि न सन्ति । विरागिणस्तु रूपकं न पश्येयुः । अतोऽपि तस्याभिनेये 1074नाटकादौ नानुप्रवेश इत्याह न चेति । अथापीति । तत्स रूपकेषु स्वरूपेण प्रवेशाभावेऽपि कारणात्मनानुप्रवेशोऽस्तीत्यर्थः । तस्य च रूपकेषु पोषो न संभवति तर्हि काव्ये संभावितस्य तस्य स्वादे मनसो रूपस्य चित्तभूमिविशेषस्य वक्तव्यत्वाद् तस्य चातिरिक्तत्वे अष्टावित्यवधारणानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् तत्राह तस्य चेति । अष्टौ स्थायिनो मता इति त्वभिनेयापेक्षया ।

  1. The portion within square brackets is my surmise on the basis of Bh.Nṛ’s comments.

  2. See Laghuṭīkā here, and Note 258 thereon.

  3. N.S.P. śamapradhānaḥ.

  4. बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि, ३।९।२६
  5. N.S.P. sahṛdayāḥ in place of taddhṛdayāḥ.

  6. See Patañjali’s Yogasūtra, maitrīkaruṇāmuditopekṣāṇāṃ sukhaduḥkhapuṇyāpuṇyaviṣayāṇāṃ bhāvanātaś cittaprasādanam (I. 33). atha is the reading in the MSS. of Avaloka, but Bh.Nṛ’s pratīka shows athāpi. The significance of this sentence of the portion of the Avaloka and the L.T. is not very clear to me. On the basis of the clear statements of Bh.Nṛ., I have surmised some linking words and expressions (which I have given in square brackets) in the Avaloka and L.T. to have some consistency in the context. There seems to have been some difficulty in understanding the portion even in the past, and consequently two schools of interpretation seem to have existed. One understood Dhanika as rejecting the śāntarasa even in śravyakāvya, though not expressly but in an implied manner. The second understood Dhanika as rejecting the śānta only in the abhineya, and giving approval to its possibility in a śravyakāvya (sarvathā nāṭakādau abhinayātmani śamasya sthāyitvaṃ neṣyate). Bh.Nṛ. seems to belong to the second school of thought.

  7. N.S.P. does not contain the portion na rasaḥ kiṃ nas tato gatam shown within brackets in the Avaloka. A.T.A. reads with some mistakes śānto hi yato vana-rasaḥ kiṃ nas tato gatam ? This seems to be a mistake of the scribe, and the reading should be as given in the text within square brackets, and this line is also given by Bahurūpamiśra. From the comments of Bh. Nṛ. it seems that abhineye is to be understood here before na rasaḥ, etc.,if this portion (na rasaḥ kiṃ nas tato gatam) was the reading known to Bh. Nṛ. also, which is however not clear. The last word of the verse is samapramāṇaḥ instead of śamapradhānaḥ (which is the reading in N.S.P.).

  8. In place of śahṛdayāḥ (N.S.P.) A.T.A. reads taddhṛdayāḥ in the Avaloka, and this is confirmed by Bh. Nṛ’s comments.

  9. From these and previous comments yady api śānto nāma kaścid raso vidyate. tathāpi śrāvyabandhagocara eva saḥ. na dṛśyabandhagocaraḥ, tasyānabhineyatvāt, tadapekṣayā (=dṛśyabandāpekṣayā) ca aṣṭāv ity avadhāraṇam, Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha seems to interpret clearly that Dhanika (and Dhanaṃjaya) did not object to śāntarasa completely, but only in drama it was not accepted by him (and by Dhanaṃjaya—puṣṭir nāṭyeṣu naitasya and nāṭakādau … neṣyate, Dhanika). In a śrāvyabandha its possibility was not denied (by them). See Note 309a to Daśarūpāvaloka. But Prof. V. Raghavan interprets in a different way. See his The Number of Rasas, 1940, pp. 46–7. The available text of B.M.’s com- mentary on the DR is defective in this place. B.M.’s interpretation in this context seems to be different from that of Bh. Nṛ., and it also seems to be inconsistent with his own previous explanation running as śamasya tu …… nātye abhinayena darśayitum aśakyatvāt na (sa) rasātmanā poṣayituṃ śakyate iti.