Kuntaka’s evaluation of Sanskrit literature

by Nikitha. M | 2018 | 72,578 words

This page relates ‘Shishupalavadha in Kuntaka’s treatment’ of the study on the evaluation of Sanskrit literature with special reference to Kuntaka and his Vakroktijivitam from the 10th century CE. This study reveals the relevance of Sanskrit poetics in the present time and also affirms that English poetry bears striking features like six figurativeness taught by Kuntaka in his Vakroktijivita, in which he propounds the vakrokti school of Sanskrit literary criticism.

2. Śiśupālavadha in Kuntaka’s treatment

Śiśupālavadha is a famous mahakāvya in Sanskrit written by Māgha. It has twenty cantos and one thousand six hundred and fifty verses. Māgha does not give much information about himself except the name of his father and grandfather respectively as Dattaka and Suprabhadeva. Māgha must be not later than Ānandavardhana, because Ānandavardhana cites one or two verses from Śiśupālavadha and most probably assigned him to the latter half of the 7th century C.E. It is another mahākāvya like Kirātārjunīya whose theme has been adapted from Mahābhārata. There are lot of similarities between Śiśupālavadha and Kirātārjunīya in plot construction, division of cantos, inclusion of subject matter etc. This makes it clear that Māgha wrote this mahākāvya on the model of Kirātārjunīya of Bhāravi. The theme of it is taken from the sabhāparvan of the Mahābhārata. This story is also found in Bhāgavata and briefly in the Purāṇas like Padmapurāṇa, Viṣṇupurāṇa and Brahmavaivartapurāṇa. It is believed that the demon named Hiraṇyakaśipu in his next birth became Rāvaṇa. He was again born as Śiśupāla. Though it is written on the model of Kirātārjunīya, it has its own unique beauty.

In the first canto Nārada approaches Kṛṣṇa with the message of Indra to kill the demon named Śiśupāla. In the second canto, Māgha explains the dilemma of Kṛṣṇa whether he should attend the Rājasūya sacrifice conducted by Yudhiṣṭhira or he should kill Śiśupāla. Moreover the words of Uddava make it clear that Māgha was well versed in statecraft too. The third canto is a journey of Kṛṣṇa towards Indraprastha. The fourth canto has the detailed description of the Raivataka Mountain. The subject matter of the next canto is the arrival and enjoyment of Kṛṣṇa and his army in the Raivataka Mountain. The sixth canto has the beautiful description of six different seasons. The next two cantos respectively describe the enjoyment of the yādava damsels in the forest and the water sports of the yādavas with their beloveds. Māgha describes the sun set, moon rise etc. in the ninth canto. The tenth canto has the depiction of drinking parties and different amorous-sports.

The eleventh canto gives the beautiful description of the morning. The twelfth canto has the beautiful picture of the setting out of the army of Kṛṣṇa and their passing over of the river Yamunā. The eagerness of the women of Dvārakā to watch Kṛṣṇa is the subject described in the thirteenth canto. Next canto explains the sacrifice and the worship of Kṛṣṇa and here Māgha express his skill in the fields like philosophy, mīmāṃsā and karmakāṇḍa. In the fifteenth canto Śiśupāla shower hard words towards Kṛṣṇa, Bhīṣma and Yudhiṣṭira by arousing anger due to their worship towards Kṛṣṇa. In the sixteenth canto the envoy of Śiśupāla conveying the harsh message of him that either Kṛṣṇa should surrender him or ready to prepare for a battle. Next canto depicts the preparation of the yādavas for the fight being annoyed by the words of the envoy of Śiśupāla. The eighteenth canto gives the description of the battle between the armies of Kṛṣṇa and Śiśupāla. The description of the duel fight between Kṛṣṇa and Śiśupāla along with their armies is described in the nineteenth canto. In the twentieth canto poet ends the story of this mahākāvya by the description of the extermination of the devil Śiśupāla by Kṛṣṇa.

There have been controversies regarding the influence of this poem over Bhāgavata. There are some uncertainties about the date and authorship of Bhāgavata. The language of this Purāṇa is different from other Purāṇas and it comprises of some Vedic and non-pāṇinīyan usages. Kunjunni Raja in his saṃskrita sahitya charitram presents a view which says that it was written by Vopadeva of 13th century C.E. But according to him it was written after 9th century C.E, because Śaṅkarācārya does not cite from it; instead he cites from Viṣṇupurāṇa. The text is believed to have its origin from south India. Setting aside the controversies, the most accepted view is that Bhāgavata was written after Māgha. Bhāgavata also describes the dilemma of Kṛṣṇa inspired from Māgha, but Jarāsandha is mentioned as the demon, instead of Śiśupāla. The uniqueness of Māgha is clear from his brilliant depiction of the dilemma of Kṛṣṇa which is not found in the original source. The sayings like upamā kālidāsasya…māghe santi trayo guṇāḥ, navasargagate māghe navaśabdopi na vidyate etc. denote the value of Māgha. The use of vocabulary of Māgha is highly appreciable. Because as far as possible Māgha does not use a word for the second time for denoting the same meaning. The situations illustrated by Kuntaka from this mahākāvya to substantiate his two important vakratas like contextual and compositional figurativeness are given below:-

1. Compositional figurativeness

Kuntaka cites the below mentioned two verses for explaining one of the varieties of compositional figurativeness.

The definition given for this particular variety is as follows:-

pradhānavastusambandhatirodhānavidhāyinā/
kāryāntarāntarāyeṇa vicchinnavirasā kathā//
tatraiva tasya niṣpatternirnibandharasojjvalām
prabandhasyānubadhnāti navām kāmapi vakratām//[1]

“Supposing the even flow of the main story has been broken and its sentiment impaired by the intrusion of some incident whose connection with the main story is almost indiscernible; the poet might give the incident such a turn that it will become inevitable for the conclusion of the main story and thus maintain the unbroken course of ‘rasa’ and invest his whole work with a very unique novelty thereby.”

For substantiating this variety Kuntaka cites a beautiful instance from this mahākāvya and is as follows:-

tadindrasandiṣtamupendra yadvacaḥ kṣaṇam mayā viśvajanīnamucyate/
samastakāryeṣu gatena dhuryatāmahidviṣastadbhavatā niśamyatām//[2]

These are the words of Nārada towards Kṛṣṇa.

‘Nārada says that he is going to announce the message of Indra within a second, which is helpful to the whole world. Kṛṣṇa, who always solves the problems of Indra, should hear this message.’

From this verse Nārada starts to discusses about the cruel deeds of Hiraṇyakaśipu, Rāvaṇa and Śiśupāla for making Kṛṣṇa’s anger towards Śiśupāla through certain verses.

At last, hearing such encouraging words, Kṛṣṇa’s anger aroused towards Śiśupāla, which is explained through the verse given below:-

omityuktavato'tha śārṅgiṇa iti vyāhṛtya vācam nabhastasminnutpatite puraḥ suramunāvindoḥ śriyam bibhrati/
śatrūṇāmaniśamvināśapiśunaḥ kruddhasya caidyam prati vyomnīva bhrukuṭicchalena vadane ketuścakārāspadam//[3]

Nārada departed to the ether after saying those words. ‘Bearing the beauty of the moon and hearing the words of Nārada, Kṛṣṇa says ‘om’ means ‘it will happen so’. Then his anger gets aroused towards Śiśupāla of Kṛṣṇa. The star named Dhūmaketu, like in the sky, which denotes the annihilation of the enemies, took position by disguising as an eyebrow in the face of Kṛṣṇa.’

In the first canto, through these verses Māgha beautifully denotes that the primary theme of this kāvya is the assassination of Śiśupāla. But at the same time Kṛṣṇa was being called for attending the sacrifice conducted by Yudhiṣṭira. After the discussion about this matter with Uddhava and Balarāma, Kṛṣṇa decided to attend the rājasūya sacrifice of Yudhiṣṭhira. Then the journey of Kṛṣṇa towards Indraprastha etc. are described in certain cantos. So the readers may feel that the poet has completely deviated from the main theme. But then in the fifteenth canto, Śiśupāla showers harsh words towards Kṛṣṇa and others, unable to tolerate the worship being given to Kṛṣṇa by Yudhiṣṭira, Bhīṣma etc. Śiśupāla has got a boon that he will not be killed until he commits hundred faults. He completed his hundred and one faults through the showering of his harsh words. Actually Kṛṣṇa is waiting for the proper time to kill him. Thus the poet after indicating the main theme in the first canto, discusses it again after a long gap. This makes the readers to think that the poet has completely deviated from the main theme. But it is brought to the fore again surprisingly again. It is impossible to point out such beautiful techniques applied by the poet by reading only one or two cantos of the kāvyas. This reveals Kuntaka’s complete vision of this particular text.

Kuntaka again signifies that the straight forward title given to this mahākāvya is charmless. The poet should take utmost care in selecting the name of title because the name itself plays an important role in the overall beauty of a composition. Title name should be connected with the pivotal incident of that composition. Straight forward title of a composition never creates any curiosity in the mind of readers. According to Kuntaka, the relevance of the name of title should be reveal only while going through the text.

3.2.2. Contextual Figurativeness

In one of the varieties of contextual figurativeness, Kuntaka says that the incorporation of appropriate junctures that have some continuous relation between the succeeding one and the previous one will really contribute to the extreme charm of dramatic plot construction. He also reminds that the deliberate incorporation of junctures only for satisfying the rules of junctures said by Bharata will never contribute any charm to a literary work, instead it would adversely affect the plot.

He describes this point as:

mukhādisandisaṃhlādi samvidhānakabandhuram/
pūrvottarādisāṅgatyādaṅgānām viniveśanam//
na tvamārgagrahagrastavarṇakāṅgaiḥ kadarthitam/
vakratollekhalāvaṇyamullāsayati nūtanam//
[4]

Here as an example for the inappropriate incorporation of episodes to satisfy the traditional frameworks, Kuntaka quotes the situation from Śiśupālavadha which describes the city of Dvārakā when Kṛṣṇa commences his journey towards Indraprastha. In Mahābhārata there are no descriptions about the journey of Kṛṣṇa towards Indraprastha and the places he has travelled etc. But the epic just mentions that Kṛṣṇa reached Indraprastha travelling through few places. Bhāgavata gives a more detailed description that Kṛṣṇa travelled in a chariot having a flag with a symbol of Garuḍa accompanied by some armies. He passed some cities like Ānarta, Sauvīra, some mountains and some rivers like Dviṣadvatī and Sarasvatī, the capitals of the kings of Pāñcāla and Matsyadeśa etc. Māgha gave a lengthy description of the journey in ten cantos.

In Śiśupālavadha, Kṛṣṇa starts his journey in the third canto and reach Indraprastha only in the twelfth canto. In these ten cantos, Māgha beautifully incorporates all the descriptions essential for a mahākāvya like the six seasons, moonrise, amorous-sports, drinking parties etc. Most of the other critics except Kuntaka appreciate such attempt of Māgha as he describes the recipes of mahākāvya in unique and innovative style. But Kuntaka firmly points out that such long description of Dvārakā is really improper. The bold opinion presented by Kuntaka is highly remarkable because such a long description contribute nothing for the further development of the story. Māgha develops this portion through seven hundred sixty six verses in ten cantos, which is mentioned in Māhābhārata only through the first portion of two verses. In Bhāgavata, it is described through ten verses. Through pointing out such impropriety Kuntaka again proves his critical acumen.

3.2.3. Kuntaka’s appreciation of individual verses in Śiśupālavadha

The first verse cited by Kuntaka from this mahākāvya is as an example to show the disagreement between the words. It is from the tenth canto.

He cites this verse also as an example of the figure of speech named dīpaka, which is as follows:-

cārutā vapurabhūṣayadāsām tāmanūnanavayauvanayogaḥ/
tam punarmakaraketanalakṣmīstām mado dayitasaṅgamabhūṣaḥ//[5]

“Beauty adorned their body and was (adorned) in turn by the upsurge of blooming youth; youth again (adorned) by charm of love; and charm itself by drunkenness (adorned) by union with the beloved.”

Here the first one illuminates the second one, but in the second line the poet uses a compound word by saying that the fascinating love is being adorned by the drunkenness caused by the union with the beloved. This will really hampers the charm of this verse and does not delight the connoisseur, moreover it breaks the flow of the figure dīpaka. So Kuntaka suggests a simple and apt solution by saying that it is better to avoid the compound word and just say that the fascinating love being adorned by the union of beloved. This is really a beautiful assessment of Kuntaka; here he never firmly criticizes Māgha; he just points out the impropriety found in a single verse. Thus Kuntaka thrice pointed out the impropriety of Śiśupālavadha. Such observation of Kuntaka reveals that undoubtedly he is a brilliant literary critic.

One of the varieties of Kuntaka’s phonetic figurativeness is same as that of the rhyme (yamaka) of the early rhetoricians and the definition given for it by Kuntaka is as follows:-

samānavarṇamanyārtham prasādi śrutipeśalam/
aucityayuktamādyādiniyatasthānaśobhi yat//
yamakam nāma kopyasyāḥ prakāraḥ paridṛśyate/
sa tu śobhāntarābhāvādiha nātipratanyate//[6]

It has same sound with different meaning and will express the meaning of the sentence without any difficulty by being agreeable to the ear. Moreover it should be apt to express the nature of the described subject though there may be difficulty in satisfying the rhyme. The repetition of sound should be at particular intervals like in the beginning, middle or at the end of the each lines of a verse. Then Kuntaka says that it is almost equal to the rhyme and it has no special charm except its beauty in the use of words and so he does not explain it in detail. Here Kuntaka does not directly cite any particular verse for the rhyme but just says that the some verses of the fourth canto of Śiśupālavadha and some verses found at the place of description of spring season in Raghuvaṃśa are rare examples of it.

An example from Śiśupālavadha is given below:-

vahati yaḥ paritaḥ kanakasthalīḥ saharitā lasamānanavāṃśukaḥ/
acala eṣa bhavāniva rājate sa haritālasamānanavāṃśukaḥ//[7]

This is the twenty first verse of the fourth canto of Śiśupālavadha and here the poet uses the word ‘saharitā lasamānanavāṃśukaḥ’ twice in different meanings. This verse means that the Raivataka Mountain with new glittering rays is bearing the golden yellow colour earth in the four directions and it shone like the new yellow dressed Lord Kṛṣṇa. Here in the first line the word ‘haritā’ means ‘hariteti ca dūrvāyām haridvarṇayutenyavatiti viśvaḥ (kośaḥ),[8] and ‘lasamāna’ means ‘dīpyamāna’ or glittering and then ‘navāṃśukaḥ’ means ‘nūtanakiraṇaḥ’ or new rays. In the second line ‘sa’ means the already said Raivataka Mountain and ‘haritālasamānanavāṃśukaḥi’ means ākāśalatāsamānanūtanambaro vā pītāmbara iti bhāvaḥ. ‘haritālam dhātubhede strī dūrvākāśarekhayoḥiti medinī.[9] Thus the verses of the fourth canto of this mahākāvya show the beauty of the rhyme as said by Kuntaka. It is the thorough knowledge about a text, which helps Kuntaka to points out such examples without any doubt.

Kuntaka cites yet another portion of a verse as an example of viśeṣaṇavakratā.

sasmāra vāraṇapatirvinimīlitākṣaḥ svecchāvihāravanavāsamahotsavānām//[10]

“With eyes closed, the lordly elephant recalled old memories of free sports and mighty pleasers in the forest.”[11]

Here the epithet given to the word ‘sasmāra’ is very apt. Here the epithet svecchā etc evokes the memories of the sportive part times of the elephant in the forest.

Yet another verse cited by Kuntaka as an instance of tulyayogitā, accepted by the early rhetoricians and also for kalpitopamā is given below:-

ubhau yadi vyomni pṛthak pravāhāvākāśagaṅgāpayasaḥ patetām/
tenopamīyeta tamālanīlamāmuktamuktālatamasya vakṣaḥ//[12]

“If in the sky, two streams could flow downward from Gaṅgā in parallel courses, then could one cite it as a comparison for his chest so dark as the Tamāla tree with a dangling bright pearl-necklace.”

According to Kuntaka, tulyayogitā is none other than upamā.

Vāmana in the fourth adhikaraṇa of his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra define kalpitopamā as:-

guṇabāhulyataśca kalpitā//[13]

Depending upon the abundance of the quality, the similarity of upamāna and upameya is considered and so it is called as kalpitopamā. It has got the name kalpitopamā because the upamāna should always an imagination of a poet.

Definition given for tulyayogitā in Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṅkāra is as follows:-

nyūnasyāpi viśiṣṭena guṇasāmyavivakṣayā/
tulyakāryakriyāyogādityuktā tulyayogitā//[14]

‘In tulyayogitā though the one object like upameya is inferior in quality, it is explained as achieving deeds equal to the other object.’

In the verse mentioned above the concept of heavenly Ganges is the imagination of the poet and the quality of it is much greater than the upameya. So it can undoubtedly be cited as an example of both tulyayogitā and kalpitopamā.

While discussing compositional figurativeness, Kuntaka mentioned only the names of some literary works without citing any verse from them. According to Kuntaka, the way to reveal one’s poetic genius is not only through the depiction of innovative incidents, but also through the proper naming of a composition.

Kuntaka says about this as:-

āstām vastuṣu vaidagdhī kāvye kāmapi vakratām/
pradhānasamvidhānāṅkanāmnāpi kurute kaviḥ//[15]

Kuntaka disagrees with the straight forward titles given to the compositions and he cites the names of such works like Hayagrīvavadha, Śiśupālavadha, Pāṇḍavābhyudaya, Rāmānanda and Rāmacarita. He says that such titles do not create any charm but the title denoting some of the vital essence of that particular composition is highly significant. Some of the examples of such innovative titles are Abhijñāna-śākuntala, Mudrārākṣasa, Pratimāniruddha, Māyāpuṣpaka, Kṛtyārāvaṇa etc. Kuntaka does not mention the author of these works. Among them some of the works are well-known and some of them are less important. Here are the names of mahākāvyas mentioned by Kuntaka are Śiśupālavadha, Rāmacarita and Hayagrīvavadha. Śiśupālavadha has discusses already. Kuntaka does not give any information about Rāmacarita and Hayagrīvavadha except its name. Brief information about them is given as appendix. Some Prakrit mahākāvyas cited by Kuntaka are discussed below.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

idem.

[2]:

Pt Sivadutta Dādhīca (Ed.), Śiśupālavadha of Māgha, p.16.

[3]:

ibid,p.28.

[4]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.272.

[5]:

ibid,p.12.

[6]:

ibid,p.81.

[7]:

Pt. Sivadutta Dadhīca (Ed.), op.cit,p.96.

[8]:

Srī Rāṃjīlāl Śarmā, Śiśupālavadha, p.318.

[9]:

idem.

[10]:

K. Krishnamoorthy, op.cit,p.97.

[11]:

Srī Rāṃjīlāl Śarmā, op.cit,p.385.

[12]:

ibid,p.204.

[13]:

Shri Gopendra Tripurahar Bhupal, Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra of Ācārya Vāmana,p.146.

[14]:

P.V.Naganatha Sastry, Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha,p.64.

[15]:

K. Krishnamoorthy, op.cit,p.281.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: