4. Miscellaneous Works

M. Krishnamachariar in his work, History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, provides a list of works come under the Kāmaśāstra literature. But there is no other source of information regarding those works.

They are;

“Śṛṅgāradīpikā of Harihara,
Kāmasamūha of Ananta,
Śṛṅgāramañjarī of King Shahaji,
Rasikarañjana [Rasikarañjanam] of Vaidyanātha,
Rasikabodhinī of Kāmarājadīkṣita,
Rasacandrikā of Viśveśvara,
Jaḍāvṛtta of Mādhava,
Dhūrtānanda [Dhūrtānandam],
Śṛṅgārasāra of Citradhara,
Kāmaprabhṛtaka of Keśava,
Kāmānanda of Varadarāja,
Anaṅgadīpikā,
Ratisāra,
Raticandrikā and Śṛṅgārakutūhala of Kautukadeva,
Tṛtīyapuruṣārthasādhakasaraṇī,
Praṇayacintā,
Bandhodaya (A collection of pictures artistically drawn upon palm leaves illustrating various postures of copulation and accompanied by the verse describing the bandhas.),
Śṛṅgārakanduka,
Jārapañcāśat,
Veśyāṅganākalpadruma,
Raghupatirahasyadīpikā,
Kāmaśāstra of Karṇadeva,
Ratisāra of Mādhavadeva,
Raticandrikā,
Kāmaratna,
Rasikasarvasva,
Kāmaprakāśa,
Nāgaravallabha,
Manmathasamhitā,
Madanamahārṇava of Mandhātā,
Kāmaprabodha of Anūpasimha,
Sadarpakandrapa of Bhāvānanda Thakkura,
Madanasañjīvanī of Anaṅgatilaka,
Anaṅgadīpikā,
Anaṅgaśekhara,
Strīvilāsa of Deveśvara Upādhyāya,
Ratinītimukula of Kṣemakara Śāstrin and
Kavicintāmaṇī” (2009: 893-896).

Kāmaśāstra is a genre which is closely connected with material life and pleasure of human beings. In Sanskrit, a wide range of literary works are written in this area. Classical Sanskrit poetry is rich with the symbols and open descriptions of sexuality. This shows how the ancient people handled the subject easily. The works like Amaruśataka, Bhartṛharai’s Śṛṅgāraśataka, Caurapañcāśikā etc. treated love and sex in their subject matter. Among the works of Kālidāsa, Meghadūta and Kumārasambhava, were the two masterpieces which are mostly blended with erotic and sexual symbols in content. The most celebrated Sanskrit literary critic Ānanadavardhana also looks upon the highly erotic figures of Kālidāsa with a sense of shame^[1]. The entire part of Meghadūta and the eighth sarga of Kumārasambhava enumerates the topmost level of pleasure from sexual union.

The treatment of love in Sanskrit, particularly in the field of literature showed prosperity and a standardized growth in creativity. But in the case of Prakaraṇa or Śāstric texts, this growth and textual richness is shown extremely stumpy. Only countable number of texts are written in a serious scientific methodology which are to be taken as reference manuals. There are many other texts which are composed in later period in the field of Kāmaśāstra. They are enlisted in this chapter, such works are written by the instance of various Kings for their pleasure satisfaction and some of them are perfunctorily written works.

This type of textual deficiency indicates the transition of social seption and decline or degradation of urban privilege in early India.

“The works of Dāmodara and Kṣemendra certainly indicate that from the eighth century onwards there was a steady decline of classical courtesanship. The overall decline and degradation which marked the social, economic and political life of that period was certainly responsible for reducing the abodes of accomplished courtesans into the dens of swindlers and cheats. While such types of women came to predominate over the entire society of prostitutes, prostitution lost all its decency, having fallen into the grip of the anti-socials. This does not mean that the prostitutes of the earlier age belonged to a different type, but their society was guided by a set of values to which a good number of them were committed, despite their greed for wealth and luxury. The reversal of the traditional set of values made prostitution a degraded profession” (Narendranath Bhattacharyya, 1975: 101).

This is also one of the major reasons for the stumpy growth of this genre. Post-Kāmasūtra period witnessed the compositions of erotic treatises like Nāgarasarvasva, Ratirahasya, Pañcasāyaka, Anaṅgaraṅga etc. They show thematic variety in structure. At the same time they are dim-lighted in the excellence of content. The parameters of morality that evolved in India during the colonial period were a kin to that of the Victorian morality. That seems to be the reason for the insufficient of attention received by the Kāmaśāstra discourse in India later.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

mahākavīnāmapyuttamadevatāviṣayaprasiddhasaṃbhogaśṛṃgāranibandhanādyanaucityaṃ śaktitiraskṛtatvāt grāmyatvena na pratibhāsate | yathā kumārasaṃbhave devīsaṃbhogavarṇanam || (dhvanyālokaḥ, pṛ. 346)