3.8 (e): Contextual figurativeness or prakaraṇa-vakratā

[Full title: A brief sketch of the contents of Vakroktijīvita, (8): Six divisions of Vakratā, (e): Contextual figurativeness or prakaraṇa-vakratā]

Changes in particular context for making the situation more attractive comes under contextual figurativeness. In the first variety of contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka shows the technique used by poets to depict the energetic performance of some characters without revealing their importance and specialty until the middle of a work. Here the poet tries to keep the suspense for a long time and reveals it only at the proper time. Such suspense helps to create some curiosity in the mind of readers also. Moreover breaking of the suspense at the proper time by explaining the unbelievable generosity or some other good qualities of an ideal character will definitely delight the readers.

One of the examples cites by Kuntaka for this figurativeness is from the fifth canto of Raghuvaṃśa wherein the conversation between Kautsa and Raghu is taking place after the viśvajit sacrifice conducted by Raghu. In this sacrifice, Raghu offers all his possessions without leaving even a bit and at that time Kautsa, the disciple of Varatantu, approaches him to ask fourteen thousand crores of gold coins as a present to his teacher. Kautsa starts to return from Raghu after understanding his pathetic situation but Raghu stops him and advises him to live in the fire house for two or three days till he could give the money to Kautsa. He does not reveal his aim that he should earn sufficient money from fighting Kubera, the god of wealth. But Kubera himself showered boundless wealth from heaven to Raghu before the fight and Raghu offered all of this to Kautsa.

Here Kālidāsa brilliantly depicts the generosity of Raghu in its maximum extend because here Raghu compelled Kautsa to convey his need though he had nothing in his hand and then he also offered to Kautsa all the wealth that he obtained from Kubera without keeping anything for himself. Moreover nobility of Kautsa is also appreciable because he hesitates to accept more than what is essential to give to his teacher. Until this canto, Kālidāsa depicted Raghu as a normal ideal hero explaining some of his energetic activities and then in the fifth canto Kālidāsa unexpectedly depicts the generosity of Raghu and also of Kautsa in an extreme beautiful manner to please the readers.

There are two divisions in the second variety. First one is the addition of an innovative concept in the new plot apart from its original source. Kuntaka cites Abhijñānaśākuntala as an example to this. It is well known that this is a plot taken from the well-known source Mahābhārata, but in Mahābhārata there is no any explanation for the forgetfulness of Duṣyanta towards Śakuntalā. For avoiding such impropriety and making this drama more interesting Kālidāsa add the innovative concept of the curse of sage Durvāsa as the reason of the forgetfulness of Duṣyanta and this really contribute perfection to this drama instead from the impropriety find in Mahābhārata. Here at the time of the arrival of sage Durvāsa to the hermitage of Śakuntalā, she did not give due respect to him because she was lost in thought of her beloved Duṣyanta and was unaware about the arrival of the sage. Being humiliated by this Durvāsa cursed Śakuntalā that the person would never remember her though being reminded. After the request of her companions Durvāsa gave a boon that the person will remember her only after seeing something like a souvenir. Unfortunately Śakuntalā lost her ring on the way back to Duṣyanta’s plea. Later he gets that ring from a fisherman. Thereafter Duṣyanta starts to remember all the previous things and feels very miserable. He then gives up all the pleasures of the palace life and spends his time by looking at the portrait of Śakuntalā drawn by him. Undoubtedly this innovative concept made Śākuntala the best one among the Sanskrit plays.

In the second division of this second vakratā the poet makes some developments in the new plot from its original source. For example in Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma went to catch the golden deer and then Lakṣmaṇa goes to help him by the compulsion of Sītā. But according to the author of Udāttarāghava, it is not proper for Rāma to chase the golden deer when his younger brother Lakṣmaṇa was with him. Moreover it is also not proper that Lakṣmaṇa goes to help his elder brother Rāma when he hears Rāma’s cry. For avoiding such impropriety the author of Udāttarāghava changed the context and here first of all Lakṣmaṇa goes to catch the deer and only then Rāma went to help him by hearing the cry of Lakṣmaṇa. This is really a proper development made by the poet to make this plot attractive and also to delight the readers.

The interrelation between segments of the whole compositions is the further variety of contextual figurativeness. Here the connection between two or more incidents of various sections may lead to the intended conclusion of a poet. This is not an easy task and is possible only to a poet who has extraordinary creative genius. One example cite for this is from Puṣpadūṣitaka. In the second act after returning from his long journey Samudradatta eagerly goes to meet his wife Nandayantī very secretly but the watchman named Kuvalaya happens to see him. So as a bribe Samudradatta offers his ring to Kuvalaya. Then in the fourth act Kuvalaya conveys these matters to Sāgaradatta, the father-in-law of Nandayantī. Hearing this, Sāgaradatta suspects the chastity of Nandayantī. On seeing the ring he comes to know that it is none other than his son and becomes happy. Here the inter-relation between the incidents help to prove the chastity of Nandayantī and the plot became really appealing.

Another instance of this variety is taken from a famous drama Uttararāmacarita. In the first act for pleasing Sītā in her advanced pregnancy, Rāma shows some portraits of their former life spend in forest. Here he explains that the victorious jṛmbaka missile was handed down from great sages to him and this in all means will protect Sitā’s progeny. Then in the fifth act the use of Lava’s jṛmbaka missile against the armies of Chandraketu helps him to recognize the identity of Lava.

In the next variety, Kuntaka explains the uniqueness of a brilliant poet while explaining same fact frequently. One of the examples cite for this is from Raghuvaṃśa, here the pathetic plight of Daśaratha is explained in numerous verses delineating the sentiment karuṇa. It is enough to say that Daśaratha killed a young ascetic, mistaking him as an elephant. Then the father of the young ascetic cursed Daśaratha that he would also die due to grief caused by the loss of his son. But such a statement will completely taint the prestige of the king of the solar dynasty and will not please the readers. For avoiding such impropriety the brilliant Kālidāsa depicts Daśaratha as a king having great compassion towards all creatures and not as a cruel hunter. He is shown to have withdrawn his arrows from the pairs of birds and animal that reminds him of his beloved many times. Having such great qualities it is unfair that Daśaratha happens to kill a young ascetic near the Tamasā River even after seeing some ascetics engaged in some religious austerities. Here avoiding the impropriety of sudden and unfair act of Daśaratha, Kālidāsa says that sometimes even great personalities, afflicted with passion, also move towards wrong path. Another notable fact is that, no one will become happy by hearing a curse. But Daśaratha considers this curse as a blessing for him because he had been waiting for a long time to have a child. Here the poetic excellence of Kālidāsa is highly remarkable because only a master poet can depict such unfair incidents very convincingly in such a brilliant way to delight the readers.

The incidents essential for a mahākāvya according to the definition given by Daṇḍin are the description of mountain, ocean, raises of sun and the moon, water sport etc.^[1] In the next variety of figurativeness, Kuntaka substantiates how these small incidents are helpful in the development of the main theme. As an example to this contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka cites the water sport of Kuśa from Raghuvaṃśa. Here at the end of the water sport Kuśa comes to know that he had lost his favorite armlet. A fisherman then informs him that it must be in the hand of Kumuda, the king of serpent. Kumuda with her sister Kumudvatī then appears before Kuśa fearing the arrow of Kuśa. Kumuda then presents the armlet along with her sister Kumudvatī saying that she eagerly took his armlet at the time of her ball-play. Here, before explaining the water sport, Kālidāsa describes the summer season for showing the necessity of water sport and this incident leads to the union of Kuśa and Kumudvatī. Later they are blessed with a child named Atithī, which ensure the continuity of the solar race. Here Kālidāsa has very beautifully connected each and every situation for the continuous development of the plot. It shows how the small incidents are helpful to the main theme by the gradual explanation of summer season, water sport, union of Kuśa and Kumudatī etc.

In the next variety of prakaraṇavakratā the poet exclusively incorporates the main sentiment of the play only in one act and the sentiment is not seen to be dominant in any other act. Kuntaka cites an example for this from Vikramorvaśīya. Love in separation, the dominant sentiment of the play, is very beautifully depicted in the unmādāṅka of Vikramorvaśīya more than in any other act. Being separated from Urvaśī, Purūravas is completely out of his sense and starts to behave like a mad man. On seeing the rainy cloud and rainbow Purūravas thinks that it is a demon with a bow in his hand and that the arrows of the demon will not pierce his heart so painfully as the showering of the rain. Moreover he says that the lightning of the sky can be seen for at least one minute or two, but not his beloved Urvaśī. Here the sentiment love in separation is very touchingly depicted in this act than in any other act of this play. This is really a beautiful example cited by Kuntaka for contextual figurativeness because from this it is clear that a context or an act contribute a lot to the beauty of the whole work.

In another variety of contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka explains how a small incident becomes helpful in the development of the main theme. For example in the sixth act of Mudrārākṣasa a person under the play of Cāṇakya, acted like committing suicide pretending as if he had not noticed the presence of Rākṣasa. On Rākṣasa’s compulsion, the person mention about the reason of committing suicide. He says that as one of his friends wants to die before the execution of his friend Candanadāsa, he too would like to do the same. Though understanding the diplomacy, Rākṣasa also believed this person and decided to go to rescue the life of Candanadāsa offering his own body and this is what Cāṇakya actually expected to happen for Rākṣasa to surrender.

A play within a play which is also known as garbhāṅka sometimes contributes an extraordinary charm to the whole plot, which is another variety of contextual figurativeness. Here the actors also play the role of a spectator and it will really delight the readers though they have a passive role with some minute expressions. Including such a garbhāṅka in a drama is really a great task and only a brilliant one can depict it properly. As one of the examples to this, Kuntaka cites the garbhāṅka, the seventh act of the Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti. Here the pathetic plight of pregnant Sītā who is left alone in the forest by Lakṣmaṇa on the advice of Rāma is very beautifully depicted as garbhāṅka. In the play within a play Sītā cries deeply and says that she would end her life jumping in to the river Bhāgīrathī because nobody is there to rescue her from the wild beasts. Here Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa as spectators really shed tears seeing Sītā’s helpless situation and doubtlessly their artistic innovation will cause charm to the readers too.

The organic unity of junctures or sandhis like mukha and pratimukha etc. in a plot for the continuity of the story is the final variety of compositional figurativeness, Kuntaka reminds that there should not be a deliberate attempt to incorporate the junctures but it should be natural so as to please the readers. For example in the first act of Puṣpadūṣitaka the hero Samudradatta feels great grief throughout his journey because of the separation from his wife and also for not asking due farewell from her. In the second act, after returning from his journey Samudradatta approaches her wife Nandayantī very secretly by giving his ring as a bribe to the watchman. But here the author does not reveal the reason of the secret meeting of Samudradatta with his wife. In the third act, Nandayantī is banished by Sāgaradatta, her father-in-law, suspecting her of losing her chastity. In the fourth act, by seeing the ring given to Kuvalaya by Samudradatta, Sāgaradatta comes to know that she was pregnant from his own son. Repenting the cruel banishment of his daughter-in-law at the time of her advanced pregnancy, he went forth a pilgrimage. In the fifth act Nandayantī came to know about the welfare of Samudradatta from Kuvalaya and then the proper reunion of all the characters in the sixth act results in the natural organic unity of each incidents by following the rules of junctures laid down in Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

sargabandho mahākāvyamucyate tasya lakṣanam etc. Daṇḍin, Kāvyādarśa, 1-14,p.20.