[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Science, technology and education](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science) › [Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021) › c10 # Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10: 6. Vāda in Literary Theory and Literature Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c10.s1 Nāṭyaśāstra as a Saṁvāda Text](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s1) — 4 parts - [c10.s2 Vāda Reflected in the Conceptual Framework of Nāṭyaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2) — 16 parts - [c10.s3 Concepts and Categories of Vāda in Literary Theory](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s3) — 4 parts - [c10.s4 Major Debates in Literary Theory](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s4) — 4 parts - [c10.s5 Kāvyamīmāṁsā as a Vāda Text](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s5) — 3 parts - [c10.s6 Rasa Discourse: Debates and Diversities](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6) — 22 parts - [c10.s7 Debates on the Theory of Alaṁkāra](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7) — 5 parts - [c10.s8 Naṭāṅkuśa: A Vāda with the Cākyārs](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8) — 5 parts - [c10.s9 Vādas in Kāvya Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s9) — 2 parts - [c10.s10 Kālidāsa’s Kāvyas as Debates](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s10) — 11 parts - [c10.s11 Bhavabhūti's Plays as Vāda Texts](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11) — 14 parts - [c10.s12 Bṛhattrayī: As a Vāda Discourse](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s12) — 10 parts - [c10.s13 Dhuttakkhāṇa (Dhūrtākhyāna): Debates by Rogues](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s13) — 3 parts - [c10.s14 Āgamaḍambaraprahasana of Jayanta Bhaṭṭa](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s14) — 1 part - [c10.s15 Vāda in Kāvya and Kāvya in Vāda](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s15) — 97 parts ### 6. Vāda in Literary Theory and Literature ### [c10.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.2) IN THE history of Indian intellectual discourses, \*Alaṁkāraśāstra\* (aesthetics and literary theory) presents some of the most fascinating and enduring debates. These debates subsist on looking at a literary discourse or a piece of art from two angles — objective and subjective. ### [c10.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.3) The term \*vāda\* was adopted from the intellectual discourses in the realm of arts and aesthetics, especially in music and theatre. The seven musical notes (\*svaras\*) were classified in four categories — \*vādī\*, \*saṁvādī\*, \*vivādī\* and \*anuvādī\*.¹ ### Nāṭyaśāstra as a Saṁvāda Text ### [c10.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s1.1) \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* is one of the most voluminous texts on performing and visual arts, theatre, aesthetics, poetry and drama produced more than two thousand years ago. Bharatamuni who is said to be the author of the \*Nāṭyaśāstra\*, came to be regarded such a great authority on \*nāṭya\* (theatre) in his life, so that some other \*munis\* (sages) out of their curiosity and a keen desire to understand \*nāṭya\* approached him and asked him a number of questions about it. Bharata’s replies to their questions and counter-questions in the presence of his actor-students, led to the compilation of a voluminous text — the \*Nāṭyaśāstra\*, which was structured in the form of a dialogue. This is the structure adopted in the Āgama texts also. ### [c10.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s1.2) \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* starts with a debate and ends in the resolution of another debate. In the series of replies to questions and counter-questions, Bharata Muni narrates how \*nāṭya\* originated and evolved. He recounts his experiments and the failure of the debut performance under his direction. \*Samudramanthana\*, the play he chose to present on the occasion of the festival of Indra was disrupted by the demons who thought that the performance is a humiliation to them. Virūpākṣa, their leader started arguing and questioning the propriety of the performance. Then followed a discussion on the nature of \*nāṭya\* and the demons were reconciled.² ### [c10.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s1.3) The debate with the demons involved physical violence, as they tried to disrupt the performance. The debate in the last chapter of \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* suggests that the violence of speech is much more dangerous. Bharata was aware of diverse regional theatre practices represented by the minor forms of drama which were later on termed as \*uparūpakas\*. In the last chapter of \*Nāṭyaśāstra\*, he informs that his sons, trained by him in Nāṭyaveda, later on began to perform the \*śilpakas\*³ of rustic nature (\*grāmyadharmaka\*). The sons of Bharata, in the \*śilpakas\* performed by them, presented the life and deeds of the sages residing in the vicinity of Himalayas by the way of \*viḍambana\* (caricature) and \*vyaṅgyakaraṇa\* (satire). The sages being laughed at in this way, got infuriated and cursed the actors to be expelled from the divine region of the Himalayas and to become \*śūdras\*. ### [c10.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s1.4) The first production of a play by Bharata Muni aroused a fierce debate on the character of demons portrayed there. The performance of the \*uparūpaka\* described at the end of dialogues and discussions by Bharata Muni also generated a heated debate. But like the first debate, this also finally resulted in reconciliation. The sages did not revoke their curse, but the disciples of Bharata who have been arguing with their mentor agreed to move from north to south to continue their activities of the \*nāṭya\* in a more meaningful way.⁴ ### Vāda Reflected in the Conceptual Framework of Nāṭyaśāstra ### [c10.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.1) In \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* several categories reflect \*vāda\* concepts. Out of the nineteen items of \*pūrva-raṅga\* (preliminaries to be performed before producing a play on the stage), \*trigata\* consists of a loose talk between \*sūtradhāra\* (stage manager) and his two associates involving questions, objections and sarcastic remarks on the very performance of the play to be produced. One of the two associates of the stage manager in \*trigata\* is necessarily the \*vidūṣaka\* (jester). An impromptu debate is created through \*trigata\* in a theatric manner by his interjections. The very concept of \*pūrva-raṅga\* presents the \*vidūṣaka\* as a character who would use his debating skills for humour. ### [c10.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.2) \*Vāda\* and its categories are conspicuously employed in the theory of \*vācika abhinaya\* involving speech for performance. A content of a dramatic piece is structured in dialogues. The presentation of these dialogues with \*abhinaya\* creates theatre. The verbal content of a play in this way may have exchange of views, discussions involving repartees and rejoinders. In chap. XXII of \*Nāṭyaśāstra\*, Bharata has discussed twelve types of \*vākyābhinaya\*, some of the categories of which are imbued with skills of debate. These twelve types are: \*ālāpa\* (addressing), \*pralāpa\* (gibberish talk), \*vilāpa\* (lamentation), \*anulāpa\* (repetition), \*saṃlāpa\* (exchange of words, verbal dual), \*apalāpa\* (refutation of what has been said earlier), \*sandeśa\* (message), \*atideśa\* (agreement), \*nirdeśa\* (instruction), \*vyapadeśa\* (concealed speech), \*upadeśa\* (advice) and \*apadeśa\* (suggestion).⁵ ### [c10.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.3) In his treatment of thirty-six \*kāvya lakṣaṇas\* (characteristics of a literary discourse), Bharata Muni has incorporated some of the categories related to \*vāda\*. \*Dṛṣṭānta\* is one of the \*kāvya-lakṣaṇas\*. An illustration which comes in attestation to the context of \*pakṣa\* exemplifying the (cause \*hetu\*) is \*dṛṣṭānta\*.⁶ This is an application of one of the techniques of debate as given in \*Nyāyadarśana\*. ### [c10.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.4) In fact, the practice of \*dṛṣṭānta\* — exemplification of a philosophical discourse or argument by an illustration involving an episode — is very old. In Buddhism, a dārṣṭāntic sect, known for giving \*dṛṣṭāntas\* (illustrations) developed along with the four well-known sects (Sautrāntika, Vaibhāṣika, etc.). However, the idea of \*dṛṣṭānta\* as a \*kāvya lakṣaṇa\* in \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* has been directly borrowed from \*Nyāyadarśana\* as the use of terms \*hetu\* and \*pakṣa\* clearly suggests. ### [c10.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.5) \*Prāpti\* is another \*kāvya lakṣaṇa\* envisaging the techniques of \*vāda\*. \*Prāpti\* incorporates the concepts of \*anumāna\* and \*pañcāvayava vākya\* from \*Nyāyadarśana\*. It occurs when a \*bhāva\* (situation) is inferred by visualizing some of the \*avayavas\* (components).⁷ In \*akṣara-saṃghāta\* (confluence of letters) \*chala\* as defined in Nyāya philosophy is adopted. Abhinavagupta has cited dialogues from the play \*Ubhayābhisārikā\* to illustrate \*akṣara-saṃghāta\*. In the dialogue between a \*viṭa\* (pander) and a \*parivrājikā\* (nun), the former tells his name as Vaiśikācala and the nun adopting \*chala\* (cheating), understands the meaning of his name in the sense of an adherent of the Vaiśeṣika philosophy, and quickly retorts that she has nothing to do with a person who sticks to the Vaiśeṣika philosophy. In this way the dialogue goes on presenting a fake debate.⁸ ### [c10.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.6) The \*sandhyaṅgas\* (components of junctures of plot in a drama) also incorporate elements of debate. In the third juncture named as \*garbhasandhi\* (embryo) the tussle reaches the peak. Some of the components of \*garbhasandhi\* naturally are imbued with sharp exchange of words. We can see the use of techniques of debate like \*jalpa\*, \*vitaṇḍā\*, \*chala\*, \*jāti\* or \*nigraha-sthāna\* in them. \*Vyavasāya\* is arriving at a decision through \*pratijñā\* and \*hetu\*. A speech in challenging tone is \*dyuti\*. Dialogues attributing blemishes are \*paribhāṣaṇa\*.⁹ ### [c10.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.7) ⁹ 9 ### [c10.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.8) Dhanañjaya in his \*Daśarūpaka\*, however, uses the term \*jalpa\* (debate) to define \*paribhāṣā\*.¹⁰ ### [c10.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.9) ¹⁰ 10 ### [c10.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.10) Some other \*sandhyaṅgas\* imbibing the tenets of \*vāda\* are \*yukti\*, \*samādhāna\*, \*anumāna\*, \*ākṣepa\*, \*apavāda\*, \*gurukīrtana\* and \*nirṇaya\*. ### [c10.s2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.11) Amongst the ten major forms of drama — the \*daśarūpakas\* — the definitions of \*prahasana\* and \*vīthī\* as given in \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* include some categories of debate. In fact, \*vīthī\* is a theatre of debate. Unfortunately, \*vīthīs\* exemplifying the definition in \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* are not available. There are thirteen \*vīthyaṅgas\* (components of \*vīthī\*). Some of them are in fact built in by various forms of debate. These thirteen \*vīthyaṅgas\* create the structure of the prologue of a play and they also make two of the major forms of drama – \*prahasana\* and \*vīthī\*. In \*prahasana\*, characters like a recluse, an ascetic, a brāhmaṇa and others engage themselves in \*hāsyavāda\*, i.e. arguments for creating laughter. Then the play also presents \*dhūrtapravivāda\* (debate between the rogues).¹¹ ### [c10.s2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.12) ¹¹ 11 ### [c10.s2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.13) Out of the thirteen constituents of the \*vīthī\*, the following are imbued with some form of debate or the other — \*udghātyaka\*, \*nālikā\*, \*asatpralāpa\*, \*vākkelī\*, \*prapañca\*, \*mṛdava\*, \*chala\*, \*trigata\*, \*adhibala\* and \*gaṇḍa\*.¹² ### [c10.s2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.14) ¹² 12 ### [c10.s2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.15) Of these \*udghātyaka\* is an accidental interpretation, suggestive of the meaning of a sentence otherwise obscure. \*Avaspandita\* is a transferred significance, where the meaning is intrepretated otherwise. \*Nālikā\* is an enigmatic speech making fun of others. \*Asatpralāpa\* is a jittering in the form of an advice given to a fool who rejects it outright. \*Vākkelī\* is formed of repartees in course of a playful conversation. \*Mṛdava\* is advancing arguments for praise and condemnation, the intention being just opposite. It involves sarcasm. \*Chala\* is misrepresentation of a sentence in order to deceive another or to provoke him. \*Trigata\* has been discussed as one of the constituents of \*prastāvanā\* (prologue) of a play. \*Adhibala\* is strengthening an argument during the course of dialogue between two persons, each defending his own position through reasoning. \*Gaṇḍa\* is verbosity with anger and excitement in the form of altercation casting several aspersions. ### [c10.s2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s2.16) Finally, \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* also opens the gateways for a \*svarāja\* in theatre in the treatment of an inner \*vāda\* which goes on inside an actor. Bharata Muni presents his own paradigm for the autonomy of his discipline and freedom of the artist. \*Loka\* (world), \*veda\* (theory) and \*adhyātma\* (self of the artist), these three are defined by him as the \*pramāṇas\* (criteria) for theatre.¹³ An artist has to search his own way in the context of the world around him and the framework of theories and methods that he has been tutored in. ### Concepts and Categories of Vāda in Literary Theory ### [c10.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s3.1) Alaṁkāraśāstra (literary theory) has especially adopted categories and concepts from the philosophy of \*vāda\*. \*Vākovākya\* a figure of speech defined by Bhoja comes as a direct reflection of the concept of \*vāda\* in poetics. As per Bhoja’s definition, \*vākovākya\* is formed by exchange of words between two or more persons by the way of strong assertions and repartees.¹⁴ Viśveśvara in his \*Camatkāracandrikā\* reproduces this definition. ### [c10.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s3.2) There are \*alaṁkāras\* (figures of speech) based on the \*pramāṇas\* (means of knowledge). Bhoja in his \*Śṛṅgāraprakāśa\* has given a very profound and subtle treatment of \*pramāṇālaṁkāras\*. Other \*alaṁkāras\* based on the techniques of logic (\*vāda\*) are \*kāvyaliṅga\* (also called \*hetu\*), \*kāraṇamālā\* (series of causes), \*uttara\* (reply) and \*asaṅgati\* (incongruity). ### [c10.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s3.3) \*Alaṁkāras\* like \*Kāvyaliṅga\* and \*Kāraṇamālā\* are based on concepts of causality in Nyāya philosophy. Whereas \*alaṁkāras\* like \*Vakrokti\* are based on the concept of \*chala\*. In \*alaṁkāras\* like \*Saṁśaya\* and \*Bhrāntimān\* a world of aesthetics is created on the edifice of their concepts of \*vāda\*. ### [c10.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s3.4) \*Vakrokti\* as an \*alaṁkāra\* is defined as “the utterance of one person misconstrued by the other on the basis of pun or intonation”.¹⁵ \*Vakrokti\* in this way is an aesthetic rendering of \*chala\*. In Sanskrit lyric poetry, this idea of \*vakrokti\* led to the cultivation of a genre entirely resting on debate between two persons and thousands of stanzas, and even long poems were created as \*vakrokti-kāvyas\*. This is being taken up in a next section. ### Major Debates in Literary Theory ### [c10.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s4.1) One of the debates that continued in the history of \*Alaṁkāraśāstra\* (literary theory) from Bhāmaha (sixth century CE) to this date revolves around the question as to what constitutes a \*kāvya\* — the word or the meaning or \*sāhitya\* of both? Bhāmaha after spelling out the two opposite views argues in favour of \*sāhitya\*. ### [c10.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s4.2) Debates have been raging in the form of agreements and disagreements as well as refutations and correspondences amongst the proponents of the six systems or theories holding one out of \*rasa\*, \*dhvani\*, \*alaṁkāra\*, \*vakrokti\*, \*rīti\* and \*aucitya\* (propriety) as the most essential element in \*kāvya\*. The tradition does not regard these systems as isolated schools of theory. They are related to the three aspects of literary activity — creative process, form and reception of a literary discourse involving the triangle of \*kavi\*, \*kāvya\* and \*sahṛdaya\*. The theory of \*vakrokti\* and \*alaṁkāra\* is concerned with the first, theory of \*rīti\* generally with the second and the theories of \*rasa\*, \*dhvani\* and \*aucitya\* with the third, i.e. receptivity. ### [c10.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s4.3) In the realm of \*rasa\* discourse, Śaṅkuka and Mahima Bhaṭṭa were devout Naiyāyikas and also Ālaṁkārikas (literary critics) who understood \*rasa\* experience as inference. They applied the logical apparatus of inference (\*anumāna\*) to prove that the realization of \*rasa\* is \*anumiti\*. The Anumitivādin proves to be the most potential challenge for the Vyañjanāvāda (the theory of suggestion). Mahima Bhaṭṭa’s \*Vyaktiviveka\* is a text in refutation to \*dhvani\*. ### [c10.s4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s4.4) In additional to this, there are a number of texts which subsist on \*vāda\* for their structural design. There are texts in which \*vāda\* percolates in its broad sense — the whole text is conceived in a dialogic nature. \*Kāvyamīmāṁsā\* of Rājaśekhara (tenth century CE) may be cited as an example. ### Kāvyamīmāṁsā as a Vāda Text ### [c10.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s5.1) Rājaśekhara’s views on knowledge systems and argumentative philosophies have been referred earlier (see Chap. 2). He had modelled his \*Kāvyamīmāṁsā\* on Kauṭilya’s \*Arthaśāstra\*, so that the whole text is designed in the \*vāda\* style. He states various prima- facie views and then expounds his view. He refers to various views under the denominations such as \*tad āhuḥ\* (as they say), \*iti ācāryāḥ\* (thus speak the masters), \*iti apare\* (the others say this), \*iti kecit\* (some say so), or he will cite the names of the theorists. For example, his discourse on \*vidyās\* may be cited.¹⁶ ### [c10.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s5.2) Rājaśekhara in this lively style presents some very fascinating debates on certain fundamental issues related to poetry or belles- lettres. Amongst these debates, discussion on the relationship between poetry and the worldy phenomena is noteworthy. Rājaśekhara has referred to divergent views; some holding that the phenomena exist independent of \*kāvya\* or belles-lettres, while the others going to the extent of insisting that the worldly phenomena do not exist on their own, they exist as per their representation in poetry. Rājaśekhara attempts at reconciliation between these two polarities. ### [c10.s5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s5.3) Another important debate elucidated by Rājśekhara pertains to the value of \*kāvya\*. The puritans insist on doing away with all forms of \*kāvya\*. Rājaśekhara has cited three statements from these opponents of \*kāvya\* with the respective arguments advanced by each. The detractors of \*kāvya\* say that no one should engage with \*kāvya\* because \*kāvya\* subsists in falsehood, sin and vulgarity. Rājaśekhara enumerates these as three different prima-facie views¹⁷ and after elaborating upon their arguments, he takes them one by one for refutation with profuse examples. This in fact is a fight against the puritans with their Platonic ideas. ### Rasa Discourse: Debates and Diversities ### [c10.s6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.1) There has been the continuity of a vigorous \*bauddhika-vimarda\* (intellectual wrestling) with regard to \*rasa\* discourse. Two factors functioned as catalysts for intensifying the debates on \*rasa\*. On one hand the diverse world-views that have been developing as parallels percolated in the \*rasa\* discourse; on the other, \*rasa\* discourse was also being nurtured by adopting categories and concepts from various systems of philosophy. ### [c10.s6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.2) Jai Shankar Prasad, one of the greatest poets of twentieth century, made an interesting remark in one of his essays on art and art experience — that there are two streams of thought regarding the aesthetic experience in India — Ānandavāda and Duḥkhavāda. The former is represented by Indra and the latter by Varuṇa. The remark was made rather surreptitiously and Prasad did not cite any authentic source to support his thesis. However, we find that the theory of \*rasa\* as a blend of pleasure and pain (\*sukhaduḥkhātmaka\*) has been supported long before Abhinavagupta, who cites the Sāṁkhya view of \*rasa\*.¹⁸ ### [c10.s6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.3) \*Rasa\* was defined as the abiding or stable emotion that emerges when its determinants, ensuants and ancillaries are described or presented.¹⁹ Bharata Muni has equated the emergence of this emotion to creating the taste by mixing various ingradients in the cooking of a recipe. It was basically located in the characters described in a play. ### [c10.s6.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.4) \*Rasa\* is viewed as something lying at the core, and also percolating within the art form. If \*kāvya\* is a tree, \*rasa\* is the seed from which the roots of this tree sprout, and \*rasa\* is its flowers and fruits as well. ### [c10.s6.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.5) With this formalistic view or the view related to the structure of an art form — \*rasa\* was redefined with the change of the medium and form. Mātṛgupta, as quoted by Abhinavagupta and many other authors and commentators, has defined various categories of \*rasa\* according to the types of \*abhinaya\*, i.e. \*vācika\*, \*nepathyaja\* and \*svabhāvaja\*. \*Vācika-rasa\* is the aesthetic experience resulting from the dialogues of a dramatic text; \*nepathyaja\* or \*āhārya rasa\* manifests where there is a proper arrangement of external means for beautification; and \*svabhāvaja rasa\* manifests through the inner qualities of the characters of a play.²⁰ ### [c10.s6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.6) Thus like \*nāṭya rasa\* (\*rasa\* in the structure of a theatre performance) and \*kāvya rasa\* (\*rasa\* in literary structure), there can be \*nṛtya rasa\* (\*rasa\* in dance form) and \*saṅgīta rasa\* (\*rasa\* in music) as well. \*Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa\* and Bhoja discuss \*citra rasa\* (\*rasa\* in painting) and its varieties. Accordingly, there are nine varieties of painting in accordance with these nine \*rasas\* — \*śṛṅgāracitra\*, \*hāsyacitra\*, etc.).²¹ Bhoja however gives eleven types of \*citra rasas\* by adding \*preyān\* and one more \*rasa\* in the list.²² ### [c10.s6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.7) To Lollaṭa, the intensification of the abiding emotion or \*sthāyī bhāva\* becomes \*rasa\* after it is originated through its \*vibhāvas\* (causes) and manifests through \*vyabhicārīs\* (auxiliaries). The actors are mistaken for the original characters through “a willing suspension of disbelief”. The abiding emotions of the original characters are superimposed on these actors. This process of superimposition is combined with another process which Lollaṭa had termed \*tādrūpyānusandhāna\* — a searching thereafter for an identification. This search for identity leads an actor to present a semblance of the dramatis personae and the audience to perceive the intensified emotion, which is finally consummated as \*rasa\*. The process requires the existence of the subject and the object as two separate entities. This process presupposes a conscious effort on the part of the connoisseur for realization of \*rasa\*. ### [c10.s6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.8) Śaṅkuka, criticized Lollaṭa and explained the emergence of \*rasa\* through the dual process of \*anukṛti\* and \*anumiti\* (inference). He anticipates the whole concepts of \*sādhāraṇīkaraṇa\* (decontexualization, universalization) when he says that the \*anukṛti\* done by the actor leads the spectator to cognize this actor as the character but this cognition is different from all the four possible categories of worldly cognitions — \*samyak\* (real), \*mithyā\* (mistaken), \*saṁśaya\* (doubt) and \*sādṛśya\* (similarity). He also uses the analogy of the horse in painting (\*citraturaganyāya\*) to describe the trans-mundane or extraordinary nature of this process. This leads to an inference, and inferred emotion becomes \*rasa\*. This is made possible through the skill and training of the actor in representation, as he also has to undergo through the \*anusandhāna vyāpāra\*. ### [c10.s6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.9) We thus find that the rhetoricians like Daṇḍin and Vāmana on one hand and the followers of Bharata like Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka on the other hand upheld the formalistic and objective view of \*rasa\*. But then a subjective view of \*rasa\* was proposed with all its psychic ramifications. A great turning point in the development of \*rasa\* theory comes with Bhaṭṭanāyaka. Bhaṭṭanāyaka revolutionized the whole thinking, shifting the emphasis to the experience of \*sahṛdaya\* (connoisseur). To explain the psycho-somatic process of \*rasa\* realization, he adopted terms from four philosophical systems — Sāṁkhya, Mīmāṁsā, Vedānta and Śaivism. In earlier views of Lollaṭa and Śaṅkuka, the perceiver and the object of perception both are situated on different planes of time and space, and are interrelated only due to \*anusandhāna\* (search for identification) or \*anumiti\* (inference). In contrast to this, Bhaṭṭanāyaka found both the subject and the object uprooted from their time and space to stand on a single plane in the state of \*bhoga\* (bliss). Abhinavagupta, providing a subtle interpretation to his theory, calls this process of uprooting as \*ubhayadeśakāla-tyāga\*. Śāradātanaya in his \*Bhāvaprakāśa\* exhaustively explains Bhaṭṭanāyaka's theory and he also shows how the whole process can be explained through the tenets of Śaivism. Accordingly, the three elements — \*rāga\*, \*vidyā\* and \*kalā\* — cause an inclination in a person to the pursuits of art. Because of \*rāga\* the objects of poetry, even when they are contaminated with sorrow and illusion, produce \*sukhābhimāna\* (sense of pleasure). He suggests that the process of \*bhāvakatva\* or \*sādhāraṇīkaraṇa\* tends to eradicate the intense crisis of human personality — remaining shackled with particularities. Once the mind is liberated from its limits, it attains the state of \*bhoga\* (bliss). The exuberance of the tranquil state of mind (\*sattvodreka\*) is characterized by \*prakāśa\* (light) and \*vimarśa\* (reflection). This \*bhoga\* involves a complex psychic process where \*bhoktā\* (connoisseur), \*bhojya\* (emotions to be relished) and \*bhukti\* (process) are integrated. ### [c10.s6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.10) Bhaṭṭanāyaka also postulated Śānta Rasa as a fundamental principle. Before him, Āryarakṣita (third century CE), a Jaina author, postulated the theory of Śānta in his \*Anuyogasūtra\* and even before Āryarakṣita, Aśvaghoṣa had categorically stated at the end of his \*Saundarānanda-mahākāvya\* that he has composed this poem for ultimate peace (\*vyupaśānti\*) and the poem has an inherent purport of leading the listeners towards emancipation (\*mokṣārtha-garbhā kṛtiḥ\*). Then Udbhaṭa is perhaps the first \*ācārya\* in this tradition who accepts Śānta as one of the \*rasas\*. ### [c10.s6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.11) This variety and multifarious nature of \*rasa\* embraces not only whatever that is supposed to be apparently beautiful, sweet or attractive, it equally subsists on whatever that is terrorizing, hideous or ugly, and tends to encounter the issues that disturbs us that lead to abhorrence and detestation. This is very much true in case of \*Mahābhārata\* or the plays like \*Ūrūbhaṅga\* and \*Veṇīsaṁhāra\*, which are based on the Mahābhārata war. The masters of \*rasa\* theory say that \*Mahābhārata\* has an ending which is completely devoid of \*rasa\* (\*virasāvasāna\*), leaving its readers in the state of \*vimanaskatā\* (a mind uprooted from everywhere, dismay). It is a state where we stand in aversion; repulsed by our own repulsion. But then, quite emphatically the masters also say that an ending which is completely devoid of \*rasa\*, leads to the fountains of real \*rasa\*. This leads us to the other side of \*rasa\* discourse, where the concept of ugly, how so ever disturbing and complicated it may be, is taken up for making an aesthetic theory. Bharata Muni therefore counts Bībhatsa (repulsive) and Raudra (terror) as fundamental \*rasas\* (\*mūla rasas\*), juxtaposing them with an equal weight with the other two — Śṛṅgāra and Vīra. Bībhatsa is said to be of two kinds — \*kṣobhaja\* (born out of anguish) and \*udvegī\* (generated by uneasiness). The former would lead to disillusionment and ultimately to liberation (\*mokṣa\*).²³ Unfortunately the twist and turn given to this discourse by the non-dualistic Śaivite or Vedāntic philosophers got so much propagandized when the history of our knowledge systems was being written with a colonial bias, that the line of reasoning with dualist approach to the aesthetic concepts was overlooked. In the aesthetics based on absolutist philosophy, \*rasa\* is treated as a singular, isolated and unique experience. This is however a one-sided picture. Actually the \*rasa\* discourse did not run in a single stream. ### [c10.s6.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.12) Through the aesthetics of Bībhatsa Rasa, therefore, the spectator or reader undergoes the experiences of anguish, uneasiness and disgust which will finally make him liberated from the mundane and the earthly. Abhinavagupta is right in suggesting that the experience of Bībhatsa Rasa would thus lead to Śānta and to salvation.²⁴ ### [c10.s6.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.13) Bharata Muni was opposed to viewing \*rasa\* in isolation. He said that \*rasa\* actually emerges in \*rasa-vimarda\* (\*rasas\* crushing and overpowering each other) or \*rasavyatikara\* (mixture of \*rasas\*) and that no \*rasa\* should be allowed to come alone. ### [c10.s6.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.14) Abhinavagupta gave a sound but singular philosophical base to Bhaṭṭanāyaka’s views. As corollaries and rejoinders to the system that Abhinavagupta built, there are divergent views of Bhoja, Dhanika–Dhanañjaya, Mahima Bhaṭṭa, Rāmacandra–Guṇacandra and Śāradātanaya. The questions raised and the challenges posed by these return again and again in the history of \*rasa\* discourse running for more than two millennia, sometimes in the form of theory of \*māyā rasa\*; or sometimes as \*navya-mata\* or \*para-mata\*. The intellectual wrestling continues in the Sanskrit tradition till the present century. ### [c10.s6.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.15) The whole discourse assumed new dimension with the introduction of the concept of \*ābhāsa\* in it. It was Udbhaṭa, a predecessor of Ānandavardhana and Bhaṭṭanāyaka, who used the term for the first time. If there is impropriety in the very idea of \*rasa\* and \*bhāva\*, they become \*rasābhāsa\* and \*bhāvābhāsa\*. \*Ābhāsa\* is a technical term in Śaivism. The term \*ābhāsa\* as used in by Karṇapūra in the \*vṛtti\* of \*Alaṁkārakastubha\* also reminds of its philosophical connotation. ### [c10.s6.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.16) It would appear that the discussions on \*rasa\* tend to evolve absolutist aesthetics, positing on metaphysics and holistic view through philosophical interpretations, where \*rasa\* is treated as a singular, isolated and unique experience. This is however a one- sided picture that presents the view of tradition of \*rasa\* discourse that grew in Kashmir. \*Rasa\* discourse would appear to be running almost in a single stream if the theorists like Bhaṭṭanāyaka and Abhinavagupta only are considered. The whole debate on \*rasa\* has been running in multiple streams. ### [c10.s6.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.17) Bhaṭṭanāyaka stages a comeback through Dhanika and Dhanañjaya. Parallel to the idea of \*rasa\* as bliss, the view of \*rasa\* as a mixture of pleasure and pain also recurs. Abhinavagupta refers to the \*Sāṁkhya\* view of \*rasa\* that holds \*rasa\* as \*sukha-duḥkha-svabhāva\*. This view differs from Rāmacandra’s (twelfth century) theory, as it holds the very nature of \*rasa\* as amalgam of pleasure and pain whereas Rāmacandra would consider five \*rasas\* as \*sukhātmaka\* (imbued with pleasure) and four as \*duḥkhātmaka\* (imbued with pain). It is an altogether different theory based on the Jaina view of \*ahiṁsā\* (non-violence). The proponents of Sāṁkhya system must have built up their aesthetics as well, if we consider how Īśvarakṛṣṇa in his \*Sāṁkhyakārikā\* used the metaphor of theatre performance to explain the process of \*vivekakhyāti\* (enlightenment). ### [c10.s6.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.18) Bhoja represents a very important turning point in \*rasa\* discourse. He establishes an equation between \*rasa\* and \*abhimāna\* (ego) and between the identification of self (\*ahaṁkāra\*) and \*śṛṅgāra\*. He does not strictly adhere to the theory of eight or nine \*rasas\* as well. He suggests some new \*rasas\*. The new \*rasas\* proposed by Bhoja are — \*udātta\* with \*mati\* (wisdom) as its \*sthāyī bhāva\* and \*kṣobha\*. ### [c10.s6.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.19) Many other \*ācāryas\* added new \*rasas\* to the list of eight or nine \*rasas\* from this point of view. Abhinavagupta himself has referred to the theory of \*laulya-rasa\*, with \*gardha\* (greed) as its \*sthāyī bhāva\*. Abhinavagupta does not altogether discard \*laulya-rasa\*. He simply rules out the possibility of its independent existence. He says that the \*sthāyī bhāva\* of this so-called \*laulya-rasa\* can be incorporated either in \*hāsa\* or in \*rati\*. The question of this empiricist view of \*rasa\* recurs again in the next millennium in the treatment of some of great masters of theory — Bhānudatta, Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha and Viśveśvara Pāṇḍe. The theory of \*laulya-rasa\*, which some of the predecessors of Abhinavagupta had postulated, reappears with a different name. Bhānudatta in his \*Rasamañjarī\* has referred to the theory of \*māyā-rasa\* to refute it. So does Viśveśvara Pāṇḍe in the late eighteenth century. The proponent of the theory argues that if \*śānta\* with \*nivṛtti\* (renunciation) as the dominating emotion can be accepted as \*rasa\*, \*māyā-rasa\* with \*pravṛtti\* (empiricism) as the dominating emotion should also be accepted. ### [c10.s6.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.20) Some of the \*ācāryas\* propounded the theory of twofold \*rasa\* — \*laukika\* (this-worldly) and \*alaukika\* (other-worldly). \*Laukika rasa\* is \*svagata\* (belonging to the character) and \*alaukika rasa\* is \*paragata\* (belonging to the connoisseur). Bhaṭṭanāyaka had stood against the theory of \*svagata rasa\*. But others continued to argue in favour of the other side of the \*rasa\* theory. They were standing on the solid ground which Bharata Muni himself had prepared. Defining \*nāṭya\* (theatre), Vidyānātha in his \*Pratāparudrīya\* says: ### [c10.s6.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.21) \*Rasa\* in fact resides in the hero (or the character). But because of the delineation by a skilled actor, or by the hearing of a poem like that, the connoisseurs also experience it by perception, then Rasa can be held as \*paragata\* (belonging to the connoisseur) and a cause of extreme delight. ### [c10.s6.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s6.22) It was Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha in seventeenth century who raised vital issues and introduced some very refreshing ideas in the discourse of \*rasa\* aesthetics. He not only gave a genuine Vedāntic interpretation to Abhinavagupta’s Śaivite moorings, he even rejected the whole framework of absolutist aesthetics, to suggest two alternate new theories on \*rasa\* experience as a deliberately created and maintained illusion. He also added a fifth category in the four types of Vīra Rasa. \*Dānavīra\*, \*dayāvīra\*, \*dharmavīra\* and \*yuddhavīra\* — these are the four types of Vīra Rasa. Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha said that there is a fifth type of Vīra Rasa, i.e. \*pāṇḍityavīra\*. It would find an expression in intellectual debates and intense philosophical discussions pursued with an involvement and commitment. This is in fact recasting the whole framework of \*vāda\* in an aesthetic framework. ### Debates on the Theory of Alaṁkāra ### [c10.s7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7.1) The idea of \*alaṁkāra\* as extraordinary nature of art comes from the hymns of \*Ṛgveda\*. The \*ācāryas\* have termed it as \*alambhāva\* or \*alaṁkārabhāva\*. Abhinavagupta says: ### [c10.s7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7.2) Remaining in the state of extraordinariness is \*alambhāva\* or \*alaṁkārabhāva\* (\*lokottīrṇena rūpeṇa āvasthānam ityayameva asau alaṁkārabhāvaḥ\*).²⁵ ### [c10.s7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7.3) Daṇḍin (around sixth century CE) and Vāmana (eighth century CE) accepted this broad view of \*alaṁkāra\* and included \*rasa\* as a part of \*alaṁkāra\*. What is \*kāvya\*? \*Kāvya\* created through \*ukti\* (verbal expression) but then this \*ukti\* is not an ordinary expression, it is \*uktiviśeṣa\* (an extraordinary expression). Therefore poetry is defined as \*iṣṭārtha-vyavacchinnāpadāvalī\* (a series of words qualified by meanings which are imbued with charm). ### [c10.s7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7.4) The poetic expression therefore has extraordinary quality which can be termed as \*alaṁkāra\* in a wider sense of the term. This extraordinariness in the poetic expression comes from (i) visualizing things in their real nature, (ii) describing them through extraordinary words and meanings, and (iii) expressing the emotions. Adjusting the concepts of Daṇḍin in a broad framework, Bhoja therefore defined three kinds of \*ukti\* (verbal expression) in poetry— \*svabhāvokti\*, \*vakrokti\* and \*rasokti\*. \*Rasa\* also forms a part of this broad framework of the extraordinary nature of poetry, i.e. \*alaṁkāra\*. ### [c10.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s7.5) The theory of \*alaṁkāra\* presented a holistic purview of the aesthetic structures in literature. It posited a challenge before the Dhvanivādins who used the process of \*vyañjnā\* to develop an idealist and subjective view. There have been fierce debates between these that have continued till recent times. Modern theorists in Sanskrit rhetorics treat \*alaṁkāra\* as the quintessence in literature. The very prefix \*alam\* in the term \*alaṁkāra\* gives its ultimate nature indicating it as the \*summum bonum\* in art. \*Alaṁkāra\* is treated as a vital and dynamic concept encompassing the process of creativity which runs on the four levels — \*bhūṣaṇa\* (decoration or embellishment), \*vāraṇa\* (negation or elimination), \*paryāpti\* (sufficiency) and \*śakti\* (capability). These levels of creativity are correlated to the surface structure, deep structure and deeper structure in an art form. The attainment of \*pūrṇatā\* (completeness) through this process is \*alaṁkāra\*. In this completeness, each and every category in an art piece would compete with the other ones in an ascending order for creating excellence, encompassing the \*lokas\* or the three levels of human existence, i.e. \*ādhibhautika\* (empirical), \*ādhidaivika\* (psychic) and \*ādhyātmika\* (spiritual). These three levels of human existence can be further correlated with the three paths in human life — \*karma\* (action), \*bhakti\* (devotion) and \*jñāna\* (knowledge); and their applications in literature envisage interrelationships with three functions of the word (\*abhidhā\*, \*lakṣaṇā\* and \*vyañjanā\*). \*Alaṁkāras\* like \*bhāvika\* and \*udātta\* are embedded in the whole structure of a literary piece and involve a complete discourse of forms like drama or novel also.²⁶ ### Naṭāṅkuśa: A Vāda with the Cākyārs ### [c10.s8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8.1) The theatre practices of the \*cākyārs\* (actors of the Sanskrit theatre — \*kūṭiyāṭṭam\*) are severely criticized in the fifteenth century ᴄᴇ by the anonymous author of \*Naṭāṅkuśa\* from Kerala. The author of \*Naṭāṅkuśa\* is a puritan and applies his vast Śāstric knowledge for the condemnation of the liberties and improvisational techniques of the \*cākyārs\* on the Kerala theatre. He stands for a faithful presentation of the play of an author according to the regulations of \*Nāṭyaśāstra\*. Presenting a critique of the performance of some of the great classical plays like \*Āścaryacūḍāmaṇi\* of Śaktibhadra and \*Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa\* of Bhāsa by the \*cākyārs\*, he makes a scene by scene threadbare analysis of the transgressions and violation of the norms done by the performers. His criticism involves moral issues and the question of freedom of the performer. The following practices of the \*cākyārs\* are specially rejected by him: ### [c10.s8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8.2) 1. Deliberate introduction of regional language (Malayalam) in addition to the dialogues in Sanskrit and Prākṛt, 2. interpretative method of performance — piecing out each and every word by the \*cākyār\* and enacting it, instead of cumulative and integrated performance, 3. the interference of \*vidūṣaka\*, his unnecessary presence on the stage continuously for hours and several days, 4. addition of dances, 5. one actor performing many roles in violation to the intention of the dramatist, 6. social criticism by the \*cākyārs\* — humiliation of the brahmaṇas, and 7. reconstruction of the play by the way of creating a sub text. ### [c10.s8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8.3) \*Naṭāṅkuśa\* is perhaps the most colossal exercise of generating \*vāda\* on an actual theatre practice — and that too of a very powerful theatre form — \*kūṭiyāṭṭam\* of the \*cākyārs\* of Kerala. No doubt the author is a great scholar, he cites \*Nāṭyaśāstra\* and several other texts very much authentically. The whole text is a single-handed attack; but the \*pūrva-pakṣa\* — the prima-facie view as the \*cākyār\* might have put up in his defence is also taken up extensively and then refuted point by point. ### [c10.s8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8.4) \*Naṭāṅkuśa\* is one of the most damaging, satirical and provoking texts in debate. It is a deconstruction of a very developed theatre form through a kind of bombardment of Śāstric knowledge as well as narrow ethical considerations of purity. The author is aware of the popularity of \*kūṭiyāṭṭam\* theatre and also of the fact that his efforts to convince the actors are going to be wasted. He says: ### [c10.s8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s8.5) The discussions of this type with the \*śailūṣas\* (the degraded performers) will not yield any result. They just keep the words and meaning in their own hands (to use them in whatever way they like).²⁷ ### Vādas in Kāvya Literature ### [c10.s9.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s9.1) \*Vāda\* manifests in some of the hymns of \*Ṛgveda\*. The hymns related to dialogues of Purūravas and Urvaśī, Agastya and Lopāmudrā as well as Yama and Yamī are particularly characterized as debate on a particular issue. ### [c10.s9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s9.2) \*Vāda\* traditions were captured through fascinating imageries, tales and episodes in the whole literary tradition of India. Besides the description of debates that actually occurred, the two great epics — \*Rāmāyaṇa\* and \*Mahābhārata\* — incorporate a number of debates and dialogues within the main theme of their story involving perennial questions on social, political, moral or ethical issues (see Chap. 2). ### Kālidāsa’s Kāvyas as Debates ### [c10.s10.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.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 ### Bhavabhūti's Plays as Vāda Texts ### [c10.s11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.1) Bhavabhūti was born in a very orthodox family of traditional brāhmaṇas. He was also deeply steeped in Śāstric learning. He is rightly described as a \*padavākya-pramāṇajña\* (adept in Vyākaraṇa, Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā) in all the three prologues of his plays. One of the theories about Bhavabhūti that he is identical with the famous Mīmāṁsaka Umveka is yet to be testified or refuted. But then there has been a debate on the question whether a great philosopher like Bhavabhūti loses his \*āptatva\* (reliability) just because he has indulged in writing some piece of romantic dramas! Citsukha in his \*Tattvapradīpa\* holds both Bhavabhūti the poet and Umveka the Mīmāṁsaka as one and the same person and discusses the authenticity of his dramatic writings. He is of the view that Bhavabhūti is an \*āpta\* (authority) in philosophy; he does not become \*anāpta\* (non-authority) by having composed a few dramatic pieces (\*nahi purā āpta eva san nāṭaka-nāṭikādiviracanamātreṇa anāpto bhavati bhavabhūtiḥ\*).²⁹ ### [c10.s11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.2) Born at Padmapura in Vidarbha, Bhavabhūti migrated to the north and reached Padmāvatī (most probably modern Pavāyā near Gwalior district. in Madhya Pradesh) where his plays were performed during the \*yātrā\* of Kālapriyanātha. ### [c10.s11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.3) There are debates on burning or crucial issues or philosophical dialogues in all the three plays of Bhavabhūti, viz. \*Mahāvīracaritam\*, \*Mālatīmādhavam\* and \*Uttararāmacaritam\*. ### [c10.s11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.4) Bhavabhūti had very good relations with the repertoire which presented his plays on stage. And yet in his second play, i.e. the \*Mālatīmādhavam\*, Bhavabhūti expresses his anguish for being disregarded. G.K. Bhat opines that the reason for this so-called disregard lies in Bhavabhūti's neglect of his family traditions, and his indulgence in theatre. This does not sufficiently explain the outburst by Bhavabhūti. It is true that in the tradition of highly orthodox and scholarly family to which Bhavabhūti belonged, writing of poetry or play was supposed to be an inferior task of derogatory nature. However, Bhavabhūti would not expect appreciation from his family members whom he has left to seek his career as a dramatist. It is clear that he is unhappy because his first play \*Mahāvīracaritam\* has not been properly received. Bhavabhūti has recast the whole story of \*Rāmāyaṇa\* offering new interpretations to many of its characters and episodes. This redesigning of the whole story must have been somewhat startling for his audience. This in itself cannot become a reason for the disregard of which Bhavabhūti is talking in his verse — ye \*nāma kecidiḥ naḥ\*, etc. It is Bhavabhūti's portrayal of the character of Paraśurāma that must have caused a furor amongst a section of the society, to the extent that there was a movement to seize the copies of the text of \*Mahāvīracaritam\* and destroy them by putting them into fire.³⁰ ### [c10.s11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.5) In \*Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa\* Paraśurāma is a dreadful figure, viewed with awe and terror. He unleashed violence and created havoc by repeated massacres of kṣatriyas. But his sacrileges as well as barbarous killings of human beings including women and children have nowhere been decried. It is Bhavabhūti who questions these acts of Paraśurāma. Unlike their counterparts in \*Rāmāyaṇa\*, Daśaratha, Janaka and Śatānanda in his play are not at all terrified by the onslaught of Paraśurāma; they challenge him and go to the extent of vehemently condemning his murderous acts. The prolonged debate between Paraśurāma and these persons, which covers two acts in \*Mahāvīracaritam\* of Bhavabhūti raises questions on the former’s conduct. ### [c10.s11.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.6) The section of society that upheld Parśurāma as one of the incarnations of Viṣṇu, obviously could not tolerate this contempt of Paraśurāma. These votaries of Paraśurāma might have led a tirade against Bhavabhūti, thus causing him the anguish. ### [c10.s11.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.7) \*Mālatīmādhavam\*, a \*prakaraṇa\* (social drama) by Bhavabhūti is a text challenging the narrow moral and ethical norms. Mālatī, a young girl of tender age, dares to marry her lover without the permission of her parents, and quite significantly, she is guided and helped by Kāmandakī, a Buddhist nun in this venture. Bhavabhūti questions male chauvinism and the debate on harsh treatment to ladies by men is raised in the play by its female characters. ### [c10.s11.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.8) His \*Uttararāmacaritam\* presents one of the most sensitive and pathetic debates on Sītā’s banishment by Rāma. The \*pūrva-pakṣa\* is formed by the contention that Sītā’s modesty is under question, and Rāma should set an example by banishing her; that Rāma should forsake Sītā for duty of \*lokārādhana\*. In a state of introspection Rāma himself says: ### [c10.s11.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.9) Appeasement of the people is the holy duty for the good (kings) by whatsoever means possible. That indeed was fulfilled by my father by abandoning me and his life.³¹ ### [c10.s11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.10) The other view is presented by Vāsantī, Janaka, Kausalyā, Anasūyā, Vasiṣṭha, Vālmīki and several others of high rank. Vāsantī was a common friend of Rāma and Sītā during the days of their sojourn in the forest. Having exiled Sītā, Rāma meets her again after more than twelve years. Extremely shaken at the news of her friend’s predicament, Vāsantī asks Rāma: ### [c10.s11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.11) \*You are my life, you are my second heart,\* \*You are moon-light to my eyes and nectar to my limbs\* \*Having pleased her the simple-hearted one\* \*With such and other hundreds of pleasing words\* \*Then to her . . . O peace! What to say after that!\*³² ### [c10.s11.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.12) When Rāma says that he had to do it as the people were intolerant, she again retorts: ### [c10.s11.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.13) \*O you hard-hearted one! It was your fame that was dear to you\* \*I say, what more terrible infamy can there be than this?\* \*What happened to the fawn-eyed one in the forest?\* \*O lord! What do you think about that?\*³³ ### [c10.s11.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s11.14) Janaka, Kausalyā and Arundhati express their deep anguish and extol Sītā's piety in highest terms.³⁴ Finally Gaṅgā and Pṛthivī (Goddess Earth) appear in the play within the play and ask Sītā not to look down upon herself; it is because of her contact that their own holiness is enhanced (\*āvayor api yatsaṅgāt pavitratvaṃ prakṛṣyate\* — VII.8). ### Bṛhattrayī: As a Vāda Discourse ### [c10.s12.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s12.1) The three \*mahākāvyas\* of Bhāravi (around sixth century CE), Māgha (eighth century CE) and Śrīharṣa (twelfth century) are known as the Great Trinity (\*Bṛhattrayī\*) of Sanskrit epics. All the three are construed in inherent debate. \*Vāda\* is interwoven in their texture both at the surface structures and deep structures. ### [c10.s12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10.s12.2) \*Kirātārjunīyam\* by Bhāravi begins with heated discussions between Draupadī, Bhīma, Yudhiṣṭhira and Vyāsa. After hearing how Duryodhana is prospering, Draupadī is in a furious mood and she vehemently criticizes Yudhiṣṭhira's passive nature. A man void of the spirit of retribution does not earn the respect of his friends nor the fear from his foes” (\*amarṣaśūnyena janasya jantunā na jātahardena na vidviṣādaraḥ\* — \*Kirātārjunīyam\* I.33), this is the view presented by her. The discussion turns on the issue of polity as Bhīma supports her. “Valour does not abide with despondency” (\*nivasanti parākramāśraya na viṣādena samaṁ samṛddhayaḥ\* — ibid. II.19), says Bhīma. He calls for self-respect and glory and to maintain the spirit of valience. The passionate utterance of Draupadī and Bhīma urging upon Yudhiṣṭhira to have his revenge and to immediately speed up an attack on Duryodhana form the \*pūrva-pakṣa\*. With all his wisdom and acquisition of polity, Yudhiṣṭhira gives a subdued and dispassionate reply to them. He patiently argues for circumspection (\*vimṛśyakāritā\*) and avoiding precipitation (\*sahasā vidadhīta na kriyāṁ\*, etc. — II.30). His views are substantiated by Vyāsa who joins them subsequently. The \*siddhānta-pakṣa\* is completed with Vyāsa's message. Āgama like a lamp shows the way (II.30) because when the mind follows the path the noble have trodden (\*spṛhaṇīhaguṇair mahātmabhiś carite varmani yacchatāṁ manaḥ\*) the prosperities come to men in flocks. _First 94 of 219 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10)_ ## Linked texts (42) - [Kirātārjunīya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.bharata.kiratarjuniya.2.19) — Bhāravi, Sanskrit - [Nāṭyaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.natya.natyasastra.28.22) — Bharata, Sanskrit - [Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.silpa.samaranganasutradhara) — Bhoja, Sanskrit - [Nyāyamañjarī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.nyaya.nyayamanjari) — Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (alaṅkāra)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.sahitya.sarasvatikanthabharana) — Bhoja, Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.subhasita.subhasita.kosa.subhasitaratnakosa) — Vidyākara, Sanskrit - [Naiṣadhīyacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.bharata.naisadhiyacarita) — Śrīharṣa, Sanskrit - [Pratāparudrīya (Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.yasobhusana.prataparudriya) — Vidyānātha, Sanskrit - [Saundarananda](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.aitihasika.saundarananda) — Aśvaghoṣa, Sanskrit - [Kāvyaprakāśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.sahitya.kavyaprakasa) — Mammaṭa & Alaṭa, Sanskrit - [Śiśupālavadha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.krsna.sisupalavadha) — Māgha, Sanskrit - [Mudrārākṣasa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.rajacarita.mudraraksasa) — Viśākhadatta, Sanskrit - [Veṇīsaṃhāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bharata.venisamhara) — Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa, Sanskrit - [Kumārasaṃbhava](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.saiva.kumarasambhava) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Rasamañjarī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.med.rasa.cikitsa.rasamanjari) — Śālinātha, Sanskrit - [Dhvanyāloka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.dhvani.dhvanyaloka) — Ānandavardhana, Sanskrit - [Kāvyamīmāṃsā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.alamkara.kavisiksa.kavyamimamsa) — Rājaśekhara, Sanskrit - [Nyāyasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.nyaya.nyayasutra) — Akṣapāda Gautama, Sanskrit - [Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.upa.vaisnava.visnudharmottara) — Sanskrit - [Mālavikāgnimitra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.udayana.malavikagnimitra) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Daśarūpaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.natya.dasarupaka) — Dhanañjaya (Daśarūpaka), Sanskrit - [Ūrubhaṅga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.urubhanga) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.pratijnayaugandharayana) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Sankara](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.seasia.nusantara.sankara) — Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Pañcatantra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.short_stories.pancatantra) — Viṣṇuśarman, Sanskrit - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Śiva](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.stotra.siva) — Sanskrit - [Kāmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.kama.vatsyayana) — Vātsyāyana Mallanāga, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg) — Sanskrit - [Anuyoga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.anuyoga) - [Sāṃkhyakārikā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.samkhya.samkhyakarika) — Īśvarakṛṣṇa, Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Tattvapradīpa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.tantra.sadhana.tattvapradipa) — Sanskrit - [Viśvaguṇādarśacampū](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.campu.sthala.visvagunadarsa) — Veṅkaṭādhvarin 1630, Sanskrit - [Mālatīmādhava](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.prakarana.malatimadhava) — Bhavabhūti, Sanskrit - [Āgamaḍambara](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.agamadambara) — Jayanta Bhaṭṭa - [Prabodhacandrodaya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.allegorical.prabodhacandrodaya) — Kṛṣṇamiśra, Sanskrit - [Uttararāmacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.rama.uttararamacarita) — Bhavabhūti, Sanskrit - [Āścaryacūḍāmaṇi](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.rama.ascaryacudamani) — Śaktibhadra, Sanskrit - [Ubhayābhisārikā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.caturbhani.ubhayabhisarika) — Vararuci, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.science.tripathi-2021.c10) · Pramāṇa