Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s10: Kālidāsa’s Kāvyas as Debates

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s10

Language
English

Kālidāsa’s Kāvyas as Debates

c10.s10.1

Out of the seven *kāvyas* attributed to Kālidāsa (most probably first century BCE), six are imbued with inbuilt debates.

c10.s10.2

*Kumārasambhava* offers a refutation of Bhogavāda in the sense of Epicureanism. Śiva, the deity of piousness, cannot be obtained by physical charms; to get Him, one has to purify oneself within through *tapas* (penance). Pārvatī who was proud of her charms ultimately decries *rūpa* (beauty of the physical body) from the core of her heart (*nininda rūpaṁ hṛdayena pārvatī*) and starts vigorous penance to be united with Śiva. The later appeared before her in disguise to test her resolve and faith. This led to an altercation and argument between the two.

c10.s10.3

The fifth canto of *Kumārasambhava* of Kālidāsa presents a fascinating debate between Śiva disguised as a *brahmacārī* (celibate) and Pārvatī. The former, having learnt that Pārvatī is performing extremely rigourous penance to obtain Śiva as her husband, feigns surprise and starts condemning Śiva. His arguments are — Śiva is given to inauspicious things, he wears elephant hide dripping with drops of blood, he lives in cemetery ground, he besmears himself with funeral ashes, rides on an old bull. He then concludes by saying:

c10.s10.4

What is there in Śiva? He is ugly and uncouth because of his three eyes, the source of his birth is

c10.s10.5

unknown, and his nakedness shows how rich he is! There is not a slightest trace in Śiva of whatever that is sought in a prospective bridegroom! Now two things have become deplorable by their desire to unite with that Śiva — that shining crescent of the moon and now you who are the moon light for the eyes of the world. Therefore turn your mind away from this unseemly desire. What a disparity is there between him of that type and you of auspicious qualities! Wise men do not expect the honour of a sacrificial post for a spear of cemetery!

c10.s10.6

Parvatī is extremely disturbed at such inapt remarks and she gives a very strong refutation of all the statements made by the celibate in the following words:

c10.s10.7

You do not know Śiva in his true nature, therefore you are talking this way. Men of lesser intelligence are zealous of the extraordinary and inscrutable motives of the great. An auspicious thing is sought by one who seeks to counteract adverse circumstances, or by one who longs for prosperity. What has one, who has no desire, and is the refuse of the world, to do with the impulses that are marred by expectations? Śiva may be miser, but he is the source of all prosperity, he may be living in the cemetery, but he is the Lord of the three worlds. He appears frightful, but he is known to be auspicious. Actually no one knows Him in true nature. He is a cosmic form, one cannot comprehend his character. The funeral ashes having acquired the contact of his body attain the capacity to purify. So that, when he dances and they drop down, gods put them on their heads. Indra riding on his elephant, toes both the feet of him who rides on his bull and is reduced to penury.

c10.s10.8

Pārvatī concludes her arguments by saying that the celibate has talked too much, but at least one thing he said is right — that the source of birth of Śiva is unknown. How can one know the source of birth of the one who is the source of everything? She adds that she does not want to enter into any further arguments, let Śiva be what he is, her heart is completely absorbed in *bhāva* for him, such are the ways of love that the defects (of the beloved) do not matter there.

c10.s10.9

The debate between Pārvatī and the celibate in *Kumārasambhava* also reflects the controversy on Śiva's acceptability in the Vedic pantheon as a God. The initial reluctance to admit Śiva in the fold of Vedic pantheon continued in some form or the other in the later period as well when Śiva was already been given a place in the trinity of great gods along with Brahmā and Viṣṇu.

c10.s10.10

In *Raghuvaṁśa* of Kālidāsa, the discussion between Dilīpa and Kumbhodara — the lion — is as exquisite and lively from the point of view of subtle employment of categories of *vāda*. Dilīpa offers himself as the food in lieu of the cow Nandinī and Kumbhodara laughs at this proposition pointing out the irrationality of his proposal. Dilīpa countering all his arguments proves the logic of his proposal. Whatever Kumbhodara said, forms *pūrva-pakṣa*, which is perfectly answered and resolved by Dilīpa. But this debate between the King and the lion is suggestive and symbolic in many other ways. Kumbhodara (lion), as his very name suggests, represents the views of Niyativādins and Svabhāvavādins — the fatalists and the naturalists, placed against which is the philosophy of action and *dharma* which Dilīpa advocates.

c10.s10.11

In all the three plays, Kālidāsa participates in contemporary debates on philosophy through *nāndī* and *bharatavākya* — the propitiatory and concluding stanzas, by presenting a glorious, queer and subtle image of Śiva and also stating his vision of life. The eulogy to Brahmā in canto III of *Kumārasambhava* and to Viṣṇu in the eleventh canto of *Raghuvaṁśa* brings out divergent views of Sāṁkhya, Vedānta and Śaivism with Kālidāsa's poetic fancies soaring above them and bringing out their inherent unities. All the heroines of his plays debate with men, present an alternate and feminist view. In *Mālavikāgnimitram*, supposed to be his first play, Kālidāsa initiates a debate with the traditionalists, who look down upon the contemporary creativity in comparison to the great poets of yore like Bhāsa. Kālidāsa offers a refutation to it, directly and in more subtle and suggestive way through his creativity by presenting parallel images, alternate views and critiques to Bhāsa's dramatic universe. He also agrees and disagrees with Vātsyāyana's postulations in *Kāmasūtra* and Bharata's concepts in *Nāṭyaśāstra*.²⁸

Linked texts (5)