Two Sages and a Poet

Mechanics of Kalidasa’s creative art and influence on Indian literature

If rivers irrigate a country, poets irrigate the people. Poets are the rivers of metaphors that work on the genetics of the human race.

While Sindhu and Ganga were the centres of Indian culture, Vaalmiki and Vyaasa were the sources or Indian culture. After the centre of gravity shifted in Indian life from Sindhu to Ganga, that is, after the Vedic period expired, the new era of Epic was opened by the great sage Vaalmiki.

Vyaasa followed the footsteps of Vaalmiki in perpetuating the Indian culture as represented in Ramayana, and adopted the architecture, the building materials of art and the mortar of language, as designed by Valmiki. He was later followed by Kalidasa in the same line.

A study of Kalidasa’s literature in its entirety gives the unmi­stakable impression that he is the synthesis of the two epics in regard to culture, art and language. Simplicity, subtlety and dignity tinctured with a touch of human feeling are the principal elements in the art of these three poets. In fact it must be said that the two sages and Kalidasa are the Trinity of Indian literature.

It is amazing how the large seas of time that interceded these three poets, and devoured without doubt extensive literature of the times between the three, left these three poets only and upheld them as the chosen ones among scores of poets who intervened them, and also perhaps with some distinction.

History of Indian literature shows that Kalidasa was the last outpost of that literary culture which the two sages bequeathed to the nation and, after him it showed a steady downward curve, of deterioration never again to recover. Perhaps Kalidasa represented the zenith of the art of literature in India.

Enormous work hail already been done on Kalidasa by eminent persons but some vital points escaped notice and they happen to be the most illuminating ones in the study of Kalidasa.

II

Unless the origins of Kalidasa are discovered, the art of Kalidasa and its functions cannot be properly appreciated. Such an adventure necessitates a proper perspective and comprehension of the role of Valmiki, the father of Indian literature.

The pre-Valmiki period had no unified literature capable of exercising a massive influence on people. It was scattered in obsolete Sanskrit and a score or more of Prakrit dialects.

Though it was enormous it was like a tangled fabric. The epic of Valmiki integrates the spirit of all literature, and presents the unified picture of a well-defined Indian culture and the Indianity of its literature. Thereby, it turned literature for the first time perhaps into a mass force and Valmiki was therefore really the first maker of literature for the people.

Due to the compulsions of the function it chose, the epic for the first time turns out thousands of literary expressions unknown before created for the first time and evoking a pleasant surprise in the listeners. Valmiki was the first and the biggest mint of literary coinage which alone by and large has been in circulation till now in the literary world in one form or other. The description, of cities, rivers, forests, hills, seasons, human beings, culture, learn­ing, a whole life received new expression at his hands.

Grihaischa Giri-Samkaashiah, Shaaradaambuda Sannibhaiah. Aaalikhanteemivaamaram Nadeem Pushpodupavahctam Padmagandhi. Shivam, Vaari Sukha-sheetamanoamayam Dvija-Samgha-Nishevitah; Kokilaakulasannadam; Meghakrishnaajina-dharaah, dhaaraayajnopa­veethinah. Maarutaapuurithagrihaah. praddheetaa iva pavataah; Sathya-paraakramah; Vaakya-visaradah, Naaga-naasoru, Naaham oupayikee bhaaryaa: gatha-jala sethum bandhitum icchasi; thadidam kaaka-thaaleeyam; Sathyenaivacha the shape; salile kheeram aasaktam Nishpanniva saarasah.

These are only few examples. The last three may have been picked up by the poet from the common parlance of the times. All of them are used by almost all poets later on in similar con­texts upto the time of Harsha’s Naishadha (who used “Subhroo” oupayikee, etc.).

Then the techniques of story were also followed from Valmiki; Vyaasa used Hanuman’s flight across the sea, for his Garutman’s flight across the sky to reach swarga in Sambhava Parva. The literary language and the imagery were lifted from Raamaayana by Vyaasa for his purpose. Similarly in Nalopakhyaana the des­cription of Damayati in Chedi is virtually the same as that of Sita in Ashokavana. Vyaasa was the first poet to follow Valmiki in this manner, and then we find Kalidasa a third follower, a most faithful successor in line to the heritage or Valmiki. Some more details will be given in suitable contexts.

Among the many values that Valmiki projected in this epics, the most significant one was the essential equality of the king and the sage; in other words, the State and the intellectual. It was this value which Vyaasa and Kalidasa perpetuated in their works wherever occasion arose. Valmiki describes Dasaratha as “Maharshi”. “Makarshikalpo raajarshih”; Vyaasa describes Dushyantha as “evea mukthavaa sa raajarshih, thaam anindithagaamineem”.

The king in Ramayana is humble before the sage; and the sage also keeps the king on a higher pedestal than himself. The sages in Aranyakanda approach and request Rama to save them from the Raakshasaas.

“Paripaalaya no Raama Vadhyamaanaan nishaac harai”
Now, see the reply of Rama:
            Naivamarhatha maam, vaktum aanjnaapyoham thapasvinaam.
This line finds its echo in the first Act of Abhijnauna Shaakuntalam. Dushyanta says to Brahmanaas,
            “Parigrihiitham braahmanavachanam.”

Whatever we find in Shakuntalam we find it in Vyaasa and earlier in Valmiki. In Aranyakaanda, Rama sees the hermitages from a distance. At once he relaxes his bow from the string.

            “Abhyagacchan mahaathejaah vijyam kritvaa mahaddhanuh” ...

It is meant to be a discipline which the king observes whenever he is in the vicinity of a hermitage. He pays his visit with all the royal emblems stripped off. Because Rama was a lone figure in the woods followed only by his wife and brother, it was enough to string his bow in order to observe the discipline. But in Vyaasa, Dushyanta was followed by an army and an elaborate retinue. So what was consequential to Valmiki’s principle in the situation, was followed to the last limit by Vyaasa. Dushyanta asks his army to stay at the gate of the hermitage.

            “Dhvajineem ashvasambaadham padaathi gajasamkulaam dvast­haapya vanadwaari senamidamuvaachaha Sthiiyataam athra yaa­vadaagamanam mama Thatogacchan mahaabadhu reko maatyaan visrijya thaan.

Picking up the thread Kalidaasa says in Abhijnana:

            “Thapovanavaasinaam uparodho maabhut etaavadeva rathan sthaaptlya”

Vyasa says:

            “Saamaatya raajalingaani sopaneeya”
Kalidaasa turns this into:

            “Idam thaavat grihyataam iti suthahasthe
            dhanuscha aabharanaani upaniiya”

Coming to ‘“Shakuntal Opaakhyaanam” of Vyaasa, I shall show how it is a mainiature Ramayana. When Sita comes to meet Raama in Yuddha Kaanda, after separation, Raama says:

            “Deepo Netraaturasyeva Pratikuulaasi me dridham.”

Then Sita turns round and reprimands Rama:

            “Kimmaam asadrisham vaakyam eedrisam shrothra daarunam ruukshnam shraavayase veera praakritah praakritaam iva apadeshena Junakaat notpatthir vasudaathalaath, mama vrittam cha vrittajna bahu the na puraskritam”

In the corresponding situation in Vyasa, Sakuntala rebukes Dushyanta:

            Kshitau atasi rajendra, antarikshe charaamyaham
            aavayorantaram pashya merusarshapayoriva
            raajan sarshapamaatraani paracchhidraani pasyasi
            aatmano bilvumaatraani pashyannapi na pushyasi.

Kalidasa avoided this
Vyasa ends Shakuntala like Valmiki ends Sita. After Brahma, gods of Heaven and Agni ask Rama to accept Sita. Rama says:

            “anayna hridayaam sitaam macchittaparirakshineem ahamapyavagacchaami maidhileem Janakaatmajaam pratyayaarthantu lokaa­nam, thrayaanaam sathya samshrayah upekshechaapi vaideheem pravisanteem hutaasanam.”

In Vyaasa Asareeravani takes the place of Brahma, Agni etc., of Ramayana. Asareervani asks Dushyantha to aceept Sakuntala:

            “Bhurasva puram Dushyanta Maavamamsthaah: Shakuntalam

Like Raama, Dushyanta also says, receiving Sakuntala:

ahamchaapyevamevainam jaanaami vayamaatmajam
            yadyaham vachanaadasyaah griheneyamimamaatmajam
            bhavet hi sankyo lekashya naiva shuddho bhavedayam.”

Kalidasa’s Abhijnaana Saakuntalam is assembled of part taken from the warehouse of Vyaasa. Similarly, his Meghadootam is an artistic amalgam of the materials drawn from Aranyakanda, Kishkindha Kanda and Sundarakanda of Ramayana;

Kalidasa has an eye for the subtle. The fourth act of Saakunthalam is the very life-breath of the play. The rest are only those that lead to and support it.

But lo and behold: Kalidasa’s most moving spot in his famous play is however based on three slokas of Vyaasa’s Sakunthalopaakhyoanam, coming in the farewell scene.

A large gathering of the inmates of the hermitage headed by Kanva bid farewell to Sakunthala. They were all steeped in sorrow of the moment.

Sakuntala then makes a Pradakshina around her father:

            “Shakunthalach pitaram abhivaadya kritaanjalih pradakshineekri­tya Duhithaa pitharam vaakyamabraveet ajnaanaat me pitacheti duruktam chapi vaanitam, akaaryam vaapyanishatam vaa, kshantu-marhasi kashyapa evamuktvaa natasiraa muninovaacha kinchana manushyabhaavaan kanvopi munirashrunyavartayat.”

Crammed with feeling, Vyaasa moves his listeners to tears with these three petit Sloakas. On the other hand in the 4th Act of 4 Abhijnaana, Kanva enters the stage reciting the Shardoola vrittha!

            “Yaasyatyudya Shakuntalethi, hridayam samsprishtamutkantha­yaa,kanthah sthhambhita baashpa vritti kalushah chintaajadam darshanam...”

thereby actually rendering Rasa into Vaachya.
Kalidasa’s Kavna was eloquent of his feelings
Vyaasa’s Kanva was silent, but expressive only
in action. Munirnovaacha kinchana.

But, we cannot say that the 4th Act of Abhijnaana did not receive the admiration of the audience of those times.

The blemishes in Kalidasa as a playwright are more genetic than merely technical. In the synthesis of his system, there is a predominant element of Valmiki which overshadows the feeble element of Vyaasa that exists in him. It is important to note here that Valmiki is essentially metaphorical and not so much dramatic. This is an irksome statement, no doubt, which can be neglected in some instances of Valmiki. But it cannot be denied that there is a larger measure of metaphor than drama in Valmiki, even though the skill displayed by him in handling the dramatic situations is of a rare order.

It is necessary here to explain the fundamental difference between the art of Vyasa and that of Valmiki. In the farewell scene given above. Vyaasa was dramatic pure and simple. Given the same situation, Valmiki tends to be metaphorical, even if he wants to be anything else. A similar situation in Ramayana is when Raama comes to take leave of his father and leaves for Vanavaas. The situation was heart-rending. The two given situation in Vyaasa and Valmiki are exactly identical in that in both the cases the separation of the child and the parent is the piognant point. The difference in sex is merely nominal and makes no difference whatever in the matter of emotional stress of the scene.

Dasaratha the father in Ramayana cries and cries himself to death in metaphors. Dasaratha beseeches the night to stay eternally without turning into dawn because leaves for Vanavasa at dawn.

            Na prabhaatam thvayecchaami nishe nakshatra shaalini
            kriyataam me dayaabhaadre mamaayam rachithonjalih”

Sumantha describes the atmosphere of the said moment:
            Vishaye the mahaaraaja Ramavyaasana Karshitaah
            api vrikshaah parimalaanaa sapushpaankura korakaah
            Nischeshtaahaara Sanchaaraah Vrikhaikasthaana
            Nischitaah, pakshinopi prayaachante sarvabhutaanukampinam”

This is surely not a dramatic description. It is turning the whole scene into metaphors. This is the chief characteristic of Valmiki not only here but all through the epic.

I think it can now be seen easily how closely interrelated are the three poets under study. Without a preface like this, the genesis of Kalidasa will remain unexcavated.

Now, we reached a stage when we should enter the dialectics of Kaavya and try and unravel its profound truths. By a natural tendency Vyaasa creates drama whose essence is action. Action is the result of a combination of Vibhaava, Anubhaava and Vyabhi­chaareebhaava. This leads us finally to the point that Vyaasa is basically a Rasa poet. Valmiki on the other hand, in the same emotional situation bursts out like a cloud into a shower of metaphors. So, he is an Alankaara poet. Kalidasa obviously contains in his system more of metaphorical faculties like Valmiki and less of dramatic. For the Indian critics, it is well to know therefore that there is such a basic difference among poets as the Rasa poets and the Alankara poets. Those that cling instinctively to story and dramatizing it, that is, those that come under the purview of the Sargabandha, Akhyaayikaa, Kathaa and Abhineyaartha are Rasa poets. In the modern times they are writers of short stories, novels and plays. Those that indulge in Muktaka poetry, that is, Anibaddha Kavita, where Vakrokti is the crucial element, are Alankaara poets.

The Rasa poets suffered a decline in Indian literature after the advent of Kalidasa’s Meghadutam. Perhaps the “Sargabandha” and the “play” both based on story, were thriving from ages before Kalidasa by sheer force of tradition and must have reached eventually the point of monotony when Meghadootam appeared on the scene as a reaction to the established trend. Meghadootam marks a total breakaway of the Kaavya from the element of story. Kalidasa refused to give at least a name to his hero (‘Kaschit’) thereby meaning to say that it is not the individual but any individual in the given situation will pass through the same emotional experience. It is such emotional experience that is the subject matter of art and not the particular individual, the particular place or time. The Ramagiri Ashram, the month of Aashaadha, the Yaksha and the other constituents of the Kaavya lose their significance in art, if the particular emotional experience did not exist to colour them with an aesthetic meaning. So, what happened in Meghadootam was to throw overboard the story and only play on the emotional content of the given human situation. In Meghadootam, only Bhaava was developed without its culmination into Rasa. It is therefore a Bhaava Kaavya. Critics called it Khandakaavya or Laghu Kaavya and and Shri Dwijendranatha Shastry in his “Samskrith-Saahitya Vimarha” called it Geeti Kaavya.

In fact, Kalidasa’s outstanding contribution to Indian literature is his Meghadootam. The reputation of Abhijnaana as a play is only educational. In fact, it lacks the intensity of drama in it as already explained, though it had the flowers of genius in it. “Raghuvamsa” is not a Sargabandha in the strict sense of the term. It was a string of stories, without a unified plot and was a cross between a Rasa Kaavya and Alankara Kaavya. None-the-less, it cannot be denied that it marks the advanced stage of the journey of a great poet whose genius evolved ultimately into simile, the simplest of the figures with the vastest grandeur.

But, Meghadootam marks a turning point in Indian literature, a revolt against the monotony of the repeated productions of Rasa ­Kaavya, that is, the plays and the Sargabandhas. Time at last needed something fresh and sophisticated, less cumbersome and pithy.

With the advent of Meghadootam. Alamkara emerged for the first time like a full moon from the clouds of a Rasa-biased world of those times. Later poets began laying chief emphasis on Alamkara. Even in a Sargabandha wherein the emphasis has to be on Rasa. Poems like “Sishupaalavadha” are enjoyed more for their Alam­kaara rather than for any skill in handling the plot. Nobody bothered about Rasa in those Kaavyas any longer. Naturally this led to tremendous repercussions on the contemporary literature and critics. Meghadootam had more commentaries than Raghuvamsam: while the former had twenty-four commentaries, the latter had twenty. It had a spate of imitations, being a totally new genre. From “Parasvaabhudaya” of Jinasena in the 8th century A.D. to “Nemidoota” of Vikrama of 17th century, the imitations are numerous. As a result of all this, Sandesa Kaavya became a separate species by itself in lyrical literature.

However, the most epoch-making event that Meghadootam led Indian literature to, was that ‘Bhamaha’, closing the era of Rasa in Indian poetics, inaugurated for the first time the era of Alankara. Naatya-Shasthras came to an end and Alamkara-Shasthras began appearing. Bharatha was the last to write Naatya Shaasthra and Bhaamaha was the first to write Alamkara Shastra. In his ‘Kaavya Alamkara’ Bhaamaha in the prefatory chapter itself said:

            “Naatakam shamyaadeeni Raasdka skandhakaadi yat
            Thaduktamabhineyaardham Uktonyaistasya vistarah”

With this declaration, dispensing with discussion of Rasa, he simply referred his readers to Naatya Shasthras for the subject and launched the Alamkara on the oceans of literature, opening the present epoch of Alamkara Shastra which has not yet ended. So, it must be noted that due to the terrific impact of Meghadootam all the Rhetoricians later on in India only followed Bhaamaha, rejecting discussion of Rasa as a part of Kaavya Shastra.

Dindi said:

            Mishraani naatakaadeeni theshaam anyatra vistarah

Vaamana said:

            “Tallakshanam naateeva hridyamiti Upekshitamamaabhih
            thadanyathah graahyam”

Then Udbhata declared:

            “Alamkara eva kaavye pradhaanamiti praachyaanaam matam.”

It was only Aanandavardhana, many centuries later, who introduced some confusion by taking the extreme stand that:

            Muktakeshu prabandheshu rasabandhaabhinivesinah Kavayah drishyante yathaa amarukasya kaveh muktakaah Sringararasa nishyanidinah prasiddhaa eva.

But, Abhinavagupta the renowned commentator of Aananda, clarified the position and dispelled the confusion in his “Lochana Vyaakhya”.

With this the confusion ended and Alamkaara got firmly entrenched in its position.

VI

Lastly a word about Meghadootam is unavoidable. It will be interesting to make a disclosure here. Meghadootam was produced by Kalidasa by developing a solitary Shloka lying hidden behind the leaves and bushes of the Aranyakaanda of Valmiki.

            “Iti vaishravano raajaa rambhaasaktam puraanagha,
            anupastheeya maano maam samkruddho vyaajahaara ha.
(The episode of Viraadha)

It can be easily seen that it was this Shloka that blossomed into:

“Kaschid kantaavirahagurunaa svaadhikaaraat pramattah
            shaapenaastamgamitamahimaa varshabhogyena bhartuh”

and developed into the famous Kaavya.

            Meghadootam was produced by integrating several parts and interweaving several silken threads drawn from Valmiki’s Aranya, Kishkindha and Sundara kandas. A close scrutiny of Meghadhootam clearly reveals to us that there is not a single verse in, Meghadootam which does not have its original in the aforesaid three Kaandas of Valmiki. The phrase Meghadootam itself came to be coined because Hanuman in Sundarakaanda was repeatedly compared to a Megha.

            Babhau megha ivaakese vidyudgana-vibhushithah

Hanuman was called “doota” several times:

            “Thasyaah sakaasam doothoham gamishye Ramasaasanaat”
            “Aham ramsya sandesaat devi dutasthavaagathah”

Hanuman entered Lanka reducing himself to the size of a cat. Correspondingly in Meghadootam, the megha was asked to reduce itself to the size of a child-elephant to enter Alaka.

            “gatvaa sadyah kalabitatanutoom”

In Ramayana Sita’s left eye quivers as an auspicious omen before the event of the arrival of Hanuman in Lanka:

            “Praaspandathaikam nayanam sukeshnyaah meenaahatam
             padmamivaabhitaamram”

Similarly when Megha reaches Alaka the eye of the Yakshini twitters:

            “Thvayyaasanne nayanamuparispandi shanke mrigaakshyaa,h
            meenakshobhoot chalakuvalaya shreetulaameshyateeti”

The only difference is in the images chosen for comparison. In the case of Sita the eye twittered like a lotus shaken by the tail of a fish, whereas in the case of Yakshini the eye twittered like a lily shaken by the tail of a fish. It may be noted that in both cases the fish is there to shake the flower delicately with its tail.

The curse of the master on the employee has the same duration in the Shloka of Aranyakanda and the Shloka or Meghadootam; and it is also described in terms of Mytho-Astronomical symbolism in both cases. In Meghadootam the description is:

            “Shaapanto me bhujagashayanaat utthite shaamgapaanau”

This was obviously taken from Kishkindhakaanda where it lies in its obverse form:

            “Nidraa shaanath keshavamabhyupaiti”

I have only attempted here to give a few examples. Meghadootam taught in our villages in one’s adolescent years remains like a hypnotic power, like a fragrant memory haunting him his old age, recovering to him his bygone world. It enshrines in its creation the elemental power of the earth which throws out a tree and a flower as gifts of man.