PGIHS-RC 2018

Permanent URI for this collection

https://ir.lib.pdn.ac.lk/handle/20.500.14444/4074

Browse

Browsing PGIHS-RC 2018 by Subject "Abhinavabhāratī"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The definition of śāntarasa: a critical study in the light of abhinavabhāratī and rasagangādhara
    (University of Peradeniya, 2018-04-03) Ven.Seelananda, K.
    The concept of Rasa (sentiment) has a very wide scope in the field of Sanskrit literary criticism. Abhinava who was the author of Abhinavabhāratī mentions Śānta as the seventh out of eight sentiments of literary criticism. According to him Sthāyin is Śānta. Furthermore, he gives various arguments to show why Bharatamuni did not speak about Śānta. Abhinava comments on why Śānta should be considered a Rasa in the Abhinavabhāratī although there are several studies touching upon Śāntarasa and Abhinava’s insights in the Abhinavagupta, none of them appear to have attempted to approach this topic using the text Rasagaṅgādhara, which analyzes it in depth, critically and comprehensively. The reason for this disregard may be due to Jagannata, the author of Rasagaṅgādhara, being a later critic, and his different approach to Sanskrit poetics than others although later sources such as Śāntarasa, Daśarupaka, Sāhityasarpaṇa, Kāvyaprkāśa and Rasagaṅgādhara discuss Śāntarasa. Rasagaṅgādhara is one of the major sources that records Jagannata's remarks on Śāntarasa since no other critic has expounded Jagannata's remarks on Śāntarasa including Abhinava. Therefore, this study is crucial, and contributes immensely to the field of literary criticism. It examines Abhinava's insight into Śāntarasa and how it could be connected with the definition of Śāntarasa in Rasagaṅgādhara. In order to understand the critical aspects of this research, comparative and analytical methods are used. Moreover, to strengthen the prospective answers to the research problem, primary sources are read in the original Sanskrit. When Abhinavagupta explains the origins of Śāntarasa, he could not help but use his philosophical views from the school of śaivadvaita. He studied Jainism, Buddhism, Tarka śāstra, Mīmānsa, and Nyāya. With the helping of that observation, he pointed out stāyin of Śānta as Tattvagñāna according to his perception. ''Iha tattvagñānameva tāvan mikṣasādhanamiti tasyaiva mokṣe sthāyitā yuktā’’ (Knowledge of the truth alone is the sthāyibhāva of mokṣa). Similarly, he used śaiva siddhānta and tāntric religious teachings to describe Śāntarasa. Considering everything, it is clear that there is influence of Abhinava's philosophical views on his descriptions of Śāntarasa. In the same way, Jagannātha who was the author of Rasagaṅgādhara has mentioned Śāntarasa as the ninth one in the aesthetic experience. He also accepted that the Śama is sthāyībhāva of Śānta and it can be used in drama, though Dhanañjaya, Dhanika etc. assert that Śama is impossible in drama. He says that if it is not, an actor would not be capable of acting in a manner congenial to fear, anger, etc. also. Therefore he mentions that Śama is a peculiar state of mind which is also called viṣayavirāga. The study concludes that Jagannātha accepts the definition of Śāntarasa according to Abhinava's insights.