Devotion and Poetry in Early Modern South Asia

Numbers 24 & 25 / 2012–2013

Journal of Indological Studies(New title for Studies in the History of Indian Thought)

Articles

Alexis SANDERSON, The Saiva Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Kei KATAOKA, Dharmottara’s Theory of Apoha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Hayato KONDO, Reinterpretation of Tradition and Transmission:Aptavacana in the Yuktidıpika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Naoko NISHIMURA, ulba- and jar´ayu-: Foetal appendage in the Veda . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Kiyokazu OKITA, Devotion and Poetry in Early Modern South Asia:A Gaud. ıya Vais.n. ava Interpretation of a Muktaka Verse Attributedto Sılabhat.t.arika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Somadeva VASUDEVA, The Unconscious Experiencer:Bhoktr. tva in the Pramatr. bheda of the Trika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Devotion and Poetry in Early Modern South Asia:A Gaud. ıya Vais.n. ava Interpretation of a Muktaka Verse

Attributed to Sılabhat.t.arika 1

Kiyokazu OKITA

Every summer, thousands of Kr.s.n. a bhaktas all over the world march on the street,pulling the cart with the image of Jagannatha. This grand festival called Rathayatraoriginates in the city of Purı, Orissa, where the festival is held annually to this day.While devotees commonly sing the final line of the Jagannathas. t.aka to call outfor the Lord’s mercy, Kr.s.n. a Caitanya (1486–1534), the inaugurator of Gaud. ıyaVais.n. avism, was singing a Muktaka verse attributed to a poetess Sılabhat.t.arika.The verse is well known since Mammat.a discusses it in his celebrated Kavyapra-kasa to demonstrate the significance of aesthetic taste (rasa) over ornamentation(alankara). According to the Caitanyacaritamr. ta (CaiCa) of Kr.s.n. adasa Kaviraja,upon hearing the Muktaka verse sung by Caitanya, Rupa Gosvamı, one of thefounding fathers of Gaud. ıya theology, composed a new verse. The CaiCa reportsthat when Caitanya read this verse composed by Rupa, he accepted Rupa as the fitcandidate for analyzing the most confidential rasa of Radha and Kr.s.n. a.

Why did Caitanya choose this particular Muktaka verse for the festival of char-iots, and how did Rupa understand it? This paper is an imaginative attempt toreconstruct Caitanya’s understanding of the verse. In this article, first I discuss themeanings of the Rathayatra festival in relation to the Bhagavata Puran. a (BhaPu)and to the verse composed by Rupa. Then I trace the importance of Sılabhat.t.arika’sverse in the Alankara tradition by examining Mammat.a’s Kavyaprakasa (11th cen-tury), and three works on the Kavyaprakasa, namely: Narahari Sarasvatıtırtha’sBalacittanuranjanı (13th century), Siddhicandra Gan. i’s Kavyaprakasakhan. d. ana(17th century), and Rajacud. aman. i Dıks.ita’s Kavyadarpan. a (17th century).

1. Caitanya, Rupa, and the Rathayatra Festival

The magnificent temple of Jagannatha, ‘the Lord of the universe’ is located at Puri,a city on the eastern coast of India, in the state of Orissa. Once a year, in the monthof As. ad. ha (June-July), Jagannatha makes his intriguing appearance in public, pro-viding the opportunity of his darsana to those who are otherwise ineligible. He isaccompanied by two more images, usually identified as Balarama and Subhadra,

1An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Association of theHistory of Indian Thought, Kyoto University (Dec 2011). I thank Prof. Diwakar Acharya (KyotoUniversity), Prof. Harunaga Isaacson (University of Hamburg), Prof. Somdev Vasudeva (KyotoUniversity), and Prof. Yuko Yokochi (Kyoto University) for their useful feedback. I would like alsoto acknowledge that a large part of the material in the second section is derived from Prof. Isaacson’sclass on Sanskrit Poetry offered at University of Hamburg, Winter Semester 2008-9.

188 Journal of Indological Studies, Nos. 24 & 25 (2012–2013)

the brother and the sister of Kr.s.n. a. Each of these three sacred images is put intoa huge wooden chariot (ratha) and pulled by thousands of pilgrims from the Purıtemple to the Gun. d. ica temple located a few kilometres away.

Reflecting the colourful religious history of Orissa,2 the identity of Jagannathais complex.3 The association of Jagannatha with Kr.s.n. a seems to be a rather latedevelopment. Sarala Dasa in the 15th century for example, tells us in his Oriyaversion of the Mahabharata that Jagannatha was carved out of a wooden log, whichwas originally the dead body of Kr.s.n. a that Arjuna failed to cremate (Misra 2007:142).4 It is possible that this identification of Jagannatha with Kr.s.n. a was popular-ized by Kr.s.n. a Caitanya, the charismatic inaugurator of Gaud. ıya Vais.n. avism. Forhim, Jagannatha was no one but Kr.s.n. a the cowherd boy (Gopala) in Vr.ndavana,decorated with a peacock feather, bending three parts of his body (tribhanga) andholding a flute.

Caitanya was born as Visvambhara Misra, a son of Jagannatha Misra in Nava-dvıpa, a town in West Bengal (Gaud. adesa) once famous as a seat of Navyanyayalearning.5 According to hagiographies, Caitanya grew up to be an excellent gram-marian (Vaiyakaran. a) but he was rather arrogant and proud of his talent. Af-ter meeting with a Vais.n. ava mendicant called Isvara Purı, however, the arrogantPan.d. ita went through a complete transformation. Soon he renounced his familylife and took sannyasa at the age of twenty-four. He left his hometown immedi-ately for a pilgrimage to South India. After his tour, the place he chose for the lifeof renunciation was Purı, the land of Jagannatha.

Returning from South India, Caitanya joined the Rathayatra festival for thefirst time in 1512 at the age of 26 (Mukherjee 1979: 48). As he saw Jagannathariding on the chariot pulled by his devotees, Caitanya sung and danced in the midstof the procession, being overwhelmed with joy. Since then, as he participated inthe festival every year, he sung the following Muktaka verse attributed to Sıla:

2Like any other part of the subcontinent, the religious history of Orissa is rich and complex.Up to the 1st century A.D. Jainism was most influential in the region. Buddhism gradually gainedits followers from the 1st century A.D. reaching the prominence from the 8th to the 10th century.Xuanzang who visited the region around 641 A.D., attests the prosperity of Buddhism there. TheSaiva tradition existed from the 4th to the 5th century, and became dominant in the 10th and the11th centuries. Various forms of goddess worship associated with the Sakta tradition were popularthroughout, becoming most influential from the 8th to the 11th centuries. The Vais.n. ava traditionreached Orissa rather late in the post Gupta period but became the most prominent tradition since the13th century. Although Buddhism declined after the 10th century and Saivism after the 12th century,these traditions never disappeared from the region (Stietencron 1978: 4-5).

3See Eschmann 1978, and Eschmann, Kulke, and Tripathi 1978.4Jagannatha Dasa, another Oriya Vais.n. ava in the 15th century, also shares a similar story in his

Darubrahmagıta ‘The Song of Wooden Brahman’ (Mukherjee 1981: 153-154).5Tradition says that Caitanya was a fellow student of Raghunatha Siroman. i (c. 1460-1540), a

well-known commentator on Gangesa’s Tattvacintaman. i. For a detailed discussion on the develop-ment of the Navadvıpa school of Navyanyaya and Raghunatha, see Ganeri 2011: 39-59.

Devotion and Poetry in Early Modern South Asia (Kiyokazu OKITA) 189

yah. kaumaraharah. sa eva hi varas ta eva caitraks. apaste conmılitamalatısurabhayah. praud. hah. kadambanilah. /sa caivasmi tathapi tatra suratavyaparalılavidhaurevarodhasi vetasıtarutale cetah. samutkan. t.hate //He who took [my] virginity, precisely that person indeed is [my] hus-band [lit. chosen one]. The nights of spring are exactly the same, andthose are [the same] thick breezes of the Kadamba tree fragrant withblossoming Jasmine. I too am exactly the same. Nonetheless, [my]mind yearns for that performance of the play which is lovemaking ac-tivity on the ground under the Vetası tree on the bank of the Reva river.

According to the CaiCa, no one understood why he was singing this particu-lar verse.6 Who was the husband in this context? Was Caitanya addressing Ja-gannatha? Who did Caitanya think was the speaker of the verse, and why washe identifying himself with a female character? Understanding the Puran. ic back-ground of the Rathayatra festival helps us answer some of these questions.

BhaPu 10.827 tells a story of Kr.s.n. a’s reunion with the Gopıs. Many yearsafter their departure from Vr.ndavana, Kr.s.n. a and Balarama in Dvaraka visitedKuruks.etra on the occasion of a solar eclipse.8 There they met friends and relatives.Among them were the residents of Vraja who were eager to see Kr.s.n. a.9 Kr.s.n. a andBalarama embraced and greeted their foster parents Nanda and Yasoda.10 Then,Kr.s.n. a approached the Gopıs in seclusion (vivikta upasangatah. ), and spoke to themprivately.11 Kr.s.n. a told the Gopıs that they should not blame him for separationsince it is the Lord who unites and disunites living entities.12 He also told themthat they should not lament out of separation since Kr.s.n. a is all-pervading and theliving entities are always in him.13 Then the chapter ends with the Gopıs’ prayer toKr.s.n. a:

6CaiCa Antya, 1.69. ‘During the kırtana Prabhu recited a common sloka. Why did he recite thissloka? That no one knows’ (trans. Dimock 1999: 785)

7According to the Puran. a, Kr.s.n. a grew up as a cowherd in Vr.ndavana under the care of Nandaand Yasoda. In Vr.ndavana, Kr.s.n. a hid his divine identity so that the residents of Vraja would simplytreat him as a cowherd boy. It is in this pastoral and intimate setting that the Puran. a describesKr.s.n. a’s famous Rasalıla pastime with the Gopıs (Rasapancadhyayı: BhaPu 10.29-33). When hegrew up, however, Kr.s.n. a left Vr.ndavana to defeat Kam. sa. Kr.s.n. a’s departure broke the hearts of allthe residents in Vraja, especially those of the Gopıs. Feeling abandoned, the Gopıs spent many yearsbeing scorched by the fire of separation from Kr.s.n. a.

8BhaPu 10.82.1-5.9anyam. s caivatmapaks. ıyan param. s ca sataso nr. pa /

nandadın suhr. do gopan gopıs cotkan. t.hitas ciram // BhaPu 10.82.14.10kr. s. n. aramau paris. vajya pitarav abhivadya ca /na kincanocatuh. premn. a sasrukan. t.hau kurudvaha // BhaPu 10.82.35.11bhagavam. s tas tathabhuta vivikta upasangatah. /aslis. yanamaya pr. s. t.va prahasann idam abravıt // BhaPu 10.82.41.12apy avadhyayathasman svid akr. tajnavisankaya /nunam. bhutani bhagavan yunakti viyunakti ca // BhaPu 10.82.43.13aham. hi sarvabhutanam adir anto ’ntaram. bahih. /bhautikanam. yatha kham. var bhur vayur jyotir anganah. // BhaPu 10.82.46.


And they spoke: ‘O lotus-naveled one! May your lotus feet alwaysbe manifest in our mind even though we are engaged in household ac-tivities, [the lotus feet] which the masters of Yoga with unfathomableknowledge meditate on in [their] hearts, [the lotus feet] which are thesupport for those who fallen into the well of Sam. sara to come out.’14

The Gopıs appear to have been pacified by Kr.s.n. a’s message, and the story in theBhaPu ends there. To be clear, BhaPu 10.82 discusses only Kr.s.n. a’s reunion withthe Gopıs in Kuruks.etra. If the Gopıs were satisfied with their reunion with Kr.s.n. ain Kuruks.etra, why did Caitanya recite Sıla’s verse, which seems to express longingrather than fulfilment?

This is where Rupa Gosvamı comes in.15 Prior to meeting with Caitanya, Rupaand his elder brother Sanatana served the Nawab Husain Shah, the Muslim ruler ofBengal at the time. After meeting with Caitanya in Ramakeli in 1514, however, thebrothers decided to leave their service to the Muslim ruler, and under Caitanya’sinstruction they moved to Vr.ndavana around 1516. Thereafter, when Caitanya re-turned to Purı, Rupa also visited there for a short period, leaving Vr.ndavana. WhileRupa was in Purı, he joined the Rathayatra festival. According to the CaiCa,16 afterlistening to Caitanya’s recitation of Sıla’s verse during the festival, Rupa composedthe following verse in the Sikharin. ı meter:

priyah. so ’yam. kr. s. n. ah. sahacari kuruks. etramilitastathaham. sa radha tad idam ubhayoh. sangamasukham /tathapy antah. khelanmadhuramuralıpancamajus. emano me kalindıpulinavipinaya spr. hayati // 17

O friend!18 That very person encountered in Kuruks.etra is [my] belovedKr.s.n. a. I am the same Radha and there is this happiness of encounter

evam. hy etani bhutani bhutes. v atmatmana tatah. /ubhayam. mayy atha pare pasyatabhatam aks. are // BhaPu 10.82.47.

Srıdhara in his commentary Bhavarthabodhinı on BhaPu 10.82.46 says that the Gopıs obtained Kr.s.n. asince he is all-pervading: ato vyapakam. mam. bhavatyah prapta eveti //

14ahus ca te nalinanabha padaravindam. yogesvarair hr. di vicintyam agadhabodhaih. /sam. sarakupapatitottaran. avalambam. geham. jus. am api manasy udiyat sada nah. // BhaPu 10.82.49.15For a detailed account of the lives of Rupa and Sanatana, see Delmonico 1993.16CaiCa, Antya, Ch1.17Why did Rupa compose this verse in the Sikharin. ı meter while Caitanya was reciting the verse

in the Sardulavikrıd. itam meter? Although there is no hard evidence, it seems reasonable to speculatethat Rupa’s selection of the particular meter was influenced by the Jagannathas. t.aka, the eight versescomposed in the Sikharin. ı meter, which are popularly sung during the Rathayatra festival.

kadacit kalindıtat.avipinasangıtataralomudabhırınarıvadanakamalasvadamadhupah. /ramasambhubrahmamarapatigan. esarcitapadojagannathasvamı nayanapathagamı bhavatu me //1//18This verse is also quoted in Rupa’s anthology called the Padyavalı, and introduced with a

statement ‘Now, Radha’s speech to [her] female friend on that very spot’ (atha tatraiva sakhım.prati radhavacanam / )(De 2002: 175). After the introductory statement, Rupa quotes the yah.kaumaraharah. verse. In the Padyavalı, this verse is not attributed to Sıla. Instead, Rupa says it is


for both of us. Even then, my mind longs for the grove on the bank ofthe Kalindı river, which is pleasing because of the sweet fifth note ofthe flute for the secret pastime.

In this verse, Rupa skilfully re-interprets Sıla’s verse in the context of BhaPu 10.82summarised earlier. The man who is the object of love is identified with Kr.s.n. a, andthe woman who speaks the verse is Radha. She is happy to be re-united but it isin Kuruks.etra, suggesting that Kr.s.n. a is in the mood of a king. Thus Radha yearnsto see Kr.s.n. a in the more intimate setting of Vr.ndavana, which is indicated by themention of the Kalindı river:19

Author kaumara-hara

sa sa asmi the manshe longsfor

Sıla lover husband womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

??

Rupa Kr.s.n. a inVr.ndavana

Kr.s.n. a inKuruks.etra

Radha inVr.ndavana

Radha inKuruks.etra

Kr.s.n. a inVr.ndavana

The reference to the sweet fifth note of Kr.s.n. a’s flute further highlights Radha’sdesire for a love sport with Kr.s.n. a. In Bharata’s Nat.yasastra (19.38-40), the sevenmusical notes Sa, Ri, Ga, Ma, Pa, Dha, Ni20 are recorded, and Bharata connectsthe eight types of Rasas with these notes. According to this scheme, the fifth notei.e. Pa (so) is associated with the amorous aesthetic sentiment (Sr. ngararasa).21

The reference to Kr.s.n. a’s flute also has a nostalgic tone since we are reminded thatin the beginning of the Rasapancadhyayı, it was Kr.s.n. a’s flute sound that invitedthe Gopıs to see Kr.s.n. a on the bank of Yamuna.

In the light of Rupa’s verse, the episode in BhaPu 10.82 is re-interpreted asfollows. Although the Gopıs were happy to see Kr.s.n. a in Kuruks.etra, he was nolonger the simple cowherd boy they once knew. Rather, now he was a king seatedon the royal palanquin, decorated with precious jewel ornaments and surrounded byhis retinues and gorgeous queens. As village girls the Gopıs felt awkward in frontof Kr.s.n. a’s regal appearance, and desired to see him again in the pastoral setting ofVr.ndavana. According to Rupa’s understanding, therefore, the Rathayatra festivalexpresses the Gopıs’ intense feeling of separation (viraha) from Kr.s.n. a.

anonymous (kasya cit). Then Rupa cites his composition, which starts with ‘priyah. so ’yam. ’. Afterthe citation, Rupa attributes the verse to himself (samahartuh. ’[This verse] belongs to the collector[i.e. Rupa]’ ) (De 2002: 175)

19This is a part of the Yamuna river.20These correspond to do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti.21I owe this reference to Prof. Guy Beck (Tulane University).


2. Sılabhat.t.arika and the Alankara Tradition

The story in BhaPu 10.82 and its interpretation according to Rupa’s verse shedsome light on why Caitanya was citing the verse during the Rathayatra festival.However, in order to fully appreciate the verse, we need to explore its significancein the Alankara tradition.

The yah. kaumaraharah. verse belongs to a genre of poem called Muktaka,which means a single verse, whose meaning is complete in itself. A numberof the Muktaka poems are attributed to women, and they often concentrate onSr. ngararasa – the amorous aesthetic sentiment. This particular Muktaka verseis attributed to a poetess Sılabhat.t.arika of whom we do not have much informa-tion.22 The Muktaka verse attributed to Sıla is famous since it is discussed as thevery first example of good poetry in Mammat.a’s celebrated Kavyaprakasa writtenin Kashmir in the eleventh century.

After stating the purpose (prayojana) and the cause (karan. a) of poetry, Mammat.adefines its nature (svarupa) in the fourth verse of the Kavyaprakasa:

That [i.e. Kavya] is word and meaning [combined], which are accom-panied by good qualities and without fault. In some cases, however,they [i.e. words and meanings] can be without ornamentation.23

Commenting on the term ‘In some cases (kvapi)’ in this definition, Mammat.a fur-ther says:

By the term ‘In some cases’, the author says that everywhere [wordand meaning are] with ornamentation but sometimes even devoid ofclear ornamentation, there is no loss in the state of being poetry [i.e. itis still poetry].24

Then Mammat.a cites the Muktaka verse as an example. After citing the verse,Mammat.a comments: ‘In this verse, there is in fact no clear ornamentation. To

22However, we do know that she was well-known in the Alankara tradition. For example in Bha-gadatta Jalhan. a’s Suktimuktavalı, a verse attributed to Rajasekhara describes her as follows:

sabdarthayoh. samo gumphah. pancalı rıtir ucyate /sılabhat.t.arikavaci ban. oktis. u ca sa yadi // Suktimuktavalı 4.91.The equally balanced composition of words and meanings is called the Pancalı style.If [we can say that we have Pancalı style], in the words of Sılabhat.t.arika or the state-ments of Ban. a.

The fact she is compared to Ban. a suggests her high reputation.23evam asya karan. am uktva svarupam aha: tad ados. au sabdarthau sagun. av analankr. tı punah.

kvapi / (Dvivedi 1989: 8)Cf: Raghuvam. sa 1.1.vagarthav iva sam. pr. ktau vagarthapratipattaye /jagatah. pitarau vande parvatıparamesvarau //24kvapıty anenaitad aha yat sarvatra salankarau kvacit tu sphut.alankaravirahe ’pi na

kavyatvahanih. / (Dvivedi 1989: 8)


explain, aesthetic sentiment is not ornament because of [its] predominance.’25 ForMammat.a, who belongs to the Dhvani school of the Alankara tradition, a poemcan be praiseworthy even without clear ornamentation if there is aesthetic senti-ment (rasa). In fact this poetry does not have any clear ornamentation – no pun-ning (sles. a), comparison (upama), or poetic fancy (utpreks. a). As for alliteration(anuprasa), Siddhicandra Gan. i (1588-1666 AD) in his Kavyaprakasakhan. d. ana de-nies its possibility.26 This emphasis on rasa is probably one of the main reasonswhy Caitanya recited the verse in the Rathayatra. For the Gaud. ıyas, cultivation ofrasa is the main gate for attaining Prema, the love of God.

Going back to the Muktaka verse, one feels some ambiguity about the situationdescribed. What is clear is that she yearns for the past affair she had and feelssomewhat dissatisfied at the present situation. Still, many questions arise: Is shebefore marriage having some doubts about her marriage? Or is she after marriageand does not feel the same passion for her husband as she used to? Is she happilymarried but feels bored with un-eventful everyday life and yearns for the excite-ment of a pre-marital affair? Or perhaps her marriage has become sour and shebitterly regrets her marriage?

We become even more perplexed as we find three Muktaka poem anthologiesnamely, Vidyakara’s Subhas. itaratnakos. a (the end of 11th century), Srıdharadasa’sSaduktikarn. amr. ta (1200 AD),27 and Bhagadatta Jalhan. a’s Suktimuktavalı (1258AD) classifying the verse under the category of asatı, which means ‘unfaithful

25atra hi sphut.o na kascid alankarah. / rasasya hi pradhanyan nalankarata / (Dvivedi 1989: 10)26yady api katipayaks. aran. am atra dvir avr. ttir astıty anuprasah. sambhavyate tathapi [. . .]

catus. pancadyavr. ttyabhavan natra sphut.anuprasasyeti gamyam / (Parikh 1953: 2-3)‘Even though one may imagine there is alliteration, since there is repetition twice of some aks. aras,nevertheless since there is no repetition four or five times or more [. . .], here there is no clear alliter-ation. We should understand in this way.’

27Subhas. itaratnakos. a 815:yah. kaumaraharah. sa eva ca varas tas candragarbha nisah.pronmılannavamalatısurabhayas te te ca vindhyanilah. /sa caivasmi tathapi dhairyasuratavyaparalılabhr. tam.kim. me rodhasi vetasıvanabhuvam. cetah. samutkan. t.hate //Saduktikarn. amr. ta:yah. kaumaraharah. sa eva ca varas tas candragarbha nisah.pronmılannavamalatısurabhayas te te ca vindhyanilah. /sa caivasmi tathapi cauryasuratavyaparalılabhr. tam.revarodhasi vetasıvanabhuvam. cetah. samutkan. t.hate //

Differences from the reading in the Kavyaprakasa are underlined. The reason for the changes fromcaitraks. apah. to candragarbha, and from kadambanila to vindhyanila might be due to the problemof contradiction in seasons (r. tubheda) — it is not possible to have Caitra (Spring) and Kadamba(Rainy season) together. Adopting the readings candragarbha and vindhyanila would solve this is-sue. The commentators on the Kavyaprakasa are aware of this issue. Narahari, for example, saysthat the Kadamba tree mentioned in the verse refers to dhulıkadamba, a special type of Kadambatree which blossoms in spring (vikasitamalatıpus. pasugandhayah. praud. hah. ratyuddhıpakah. / taeva dhulıkadambavayavah. / anyakadambanam. vasante ’sam. bhavat [. . .] (Mohan 1995: 73); kacinnayika revarodhasi kr. tasanketa parapurus. aratim. apahnuvana vayasyam. praty aha [. . .] (Rama andPat.hak 1976: 11)


woman’. Why is she unfaithful when she seems to be talking about the same man?Perhaps Narahari Sarasvatıtırtha’s Balacittanuranjanı (13th century) gives us a

clue. The work provides the following introduction to the verse: ‘Some lady whomade an appointment on the bank of the Reva river, concealing the affair she ishaving with another man, tells her associate . . .’28 According to this introduction,she secretly has an affair with another man after making an appointment on theriver bank. What is implied is that she takes a walk to the riverbank, under thepretext of remembering her earlier contact with the man with whom she is engagednow but actually she is having an affair with another man. In this interpretation,the verse is her excuse to go to the riverbank. Therefore, the verse, which does notseem at all to be about adultery on the surface, can be seen as a pretext for adultery.This line of interpretation helps us to understand why the verse has been put intothe category of asatı.

Author kaumara-hara

sa sa asmi the manshe longsfor

Sıla lover husband womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

??



Radha inVr.ndavana

Radha inKuruks.etra


Narahari lover husband womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

anotherman

Although this line of interpretation might sound far-fetched, Mammat.a’s commen-tary on the following verse in Maharas. t.rı makes us feel indeed such an interpreta-tion is plausible. The verse quoted in the Kavyaprakasa says:

Then, you did not move elsewhere [your] gaze placed on the surfaceof my cheek. Now I am the same, the cheeks are the same but yourgaze is not the same.29

This verse seems to describe a bitter sentiment of a lady whose lover lost interestin her. It does not appear to be about unfaithfulness at all. However, Mammat.a’scommentary suggests otherwise:

Here there is a suggestion that your gaze was completely differentwhile looking at my friend reflected on my cheek. But when she is

28kacin nayika revarodhasi kr. tasanketa parapurus. aratim. apahnuvana vayasyam. praty aha [. . .](Rama and Pat.hak 1976: 11)

29taıa maha gan. d. atthalan. imiam. dit.t.him. n. a n. esi an. n. atto /ehn. im. sa ccea aham. te kavola n. a sa dit.t.hı // (Karmarkar 1983: 75)


gone, [your gaze] is completely changed. Alas, you have a secret de-sire [for my girl friend]. This is suggested.30

Although the presence of another woman is not stated explicitly in the verse, it is‘suggested (vyajyate)’. When we take into account this idea of suggestion, it mightbecome plausible to see Sılabhat.t.arika’s verse under the category of asatı.

Nevertheless, there are also commentators who do not agree with such an in-terpretation. Siddhicandra Gan. i (17th century) mentioned above is an example. Inthe Kavyaprakasakhan. d. ana he writes:

Some people say that this sentence suggests a meeting with a loverthere [i.e. at the riverbank] as well. It is wrong because by the state-ment sa eva hi vara, there is negation of another man, and [it is wrongbecause] speaking of faults without any cause is not agreed by peoplewho believe in evidence. We however say that it is precisely specialbeauty that is the cause of longing.31

Siddhicandra rejects the involvement of another man. For him, the verse is not atall about unfaithfulness, primarily because of the phrase sa eva hi vara ‘That sameperson indeed is [my] husband’. Thus he says the cause of longing (utkan. t.ha) issimply the beauty of the present scenery (sobhavises. a).

Author (1)kaumara-hara

(2) sa (3) theman shelongs for

(4) sa (5) asmi

Sıla lover husband ?? womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage




Radha inVr.ndavana

Radha inKuruks.etra

Narahari lover husband anotherman

womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

Siddhi-candra

lover husband husbandbeforemarriage

womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

When we contrast Narahari’s and Siddhicandra’s interpretations with that ofRupa, we realize Rupa offers a new perspective on the verse. Rupa would agree

30atra matsakhım. kapole pratibimbitam. pasyatas te dr. s. t.ir anyaivabhut. calitayam. tu tasyamanyaiva jatety aho te pracchannakamukatvam iti vyajyate / (Karmarkar 1983: 76)

31anena vakyena tatropakantasamagamo ’pi dhvanyata iti kecit / tan na, ‘sa eva hi vara’ ityanena purus. antaranis. edhat, nis. karan. akados. odbhavanasya ca praman. ikanam asam. matatvat / vayam.tu sobhavises. a evotkan. t.hakaran. am iti brumah. / (Parikh 1953: 2-3)


with Siddhicandra that there is no third person involved. In the context of thePuran. a, Radha and Kr.s.n. a in Kuruks.etra are the same people as they were inVr.ndavana. However, the cause of her longing is not because of the special beautyof the present scenery. Rather, it is the gap between Kr.s.n. a now and Kr.s.n. a thenwhich causes her the pain of separation.

At the same time, Rupa’s interpretation would appear to agree with Narahari’sview, at least partially, that the female speaker of the verse is asatı, an unfaithfulwoman. However, unlike Narahari’s view, Radha in the context of the BhaPu isunfaithful not because she is interested in another man but because her relation toKr.s.n. a is always extra-marital. In Kuruks.etra, Kr.s.n. a is a king and he is married tothe queens in Dvaraka. In Vr.ndavana, Kr.s.n. a is never married to any of the Gopıs.32

Now I shall move on to the third commentary, the Kavyadarpan. a written byRajacud. aman. i Dıks.ita (17th century) (Subrahmanya 1910: vii). His commentaryis worth looking at since his rigorous analysis clarifies the subtleties involved inthe Muktaka verse. As in Mammat.a’s Kavyaprakasa, Rajacud. aman. i discusses theMuktaka verse in relation to the definition of poetry. First, Rajacud. aman. i provideshis definition of poetry: ‘Kavya indeed is word and meaning [combined], which areunblemished, accompanied by [good] qualities, and with ornamentation’.33 Then,after commenting on the Muktaka verse in detail, Rajacud. aman. i deals with a pos-sible objection against his definition. The imagined opponent says that no figureof speech can be found in the Muktaka verse.34 The opponent further adds that oneshould not suspect the existence of a figure of speech called rasavat, nor shouldone argue that this verse is outside the definition of poetry.35

Then Rajacud. aman. i presents his conclusive view (siddhanta), which arguesthat the Muktaka verse in fact possesses a figure of speech called vibhavana, thoughit is not obvious:

32Jıva Gosvamı however argues that the Gopıs were in fact married to Kr.s.n. a. For a discussion onthis topic, see Brzezinski 1997.

33kavyam. hy adus. t.au sagun. au sabdarthau sadalankr. tı // (Subrahmanya 1910: 10)34ity atra na kascid apy alam. karah. pratıyate / (Subrahmanya 1910: 15)35na catra rasavadalam. karah. sankanıyah. , yatra hi rasasya gun. ıbhavas tatraiva

rasavadalankarasya vaks. yaman. atvat; prakr. te cotkan. t.havyangyo vipralambhatmakah. sr. ngararasah.pradhanabhuta eveti na rasavadalam. karah. / tasman niralam. kare ’sminn avyaptih. / na cedamalaks. yam eveti vacyam, rasabhivyanjakavakyatvenasyapi laks. yatvavasyam. bhavat / (Subrahmanya1910: 15) ‘Nor should we doubt in this verse the figure of speech [called] ‘Possessing aestheticsentiment (rasavat)’. To explain, since the figure of speech [called] ‘Possessing aesthetic sentiment’will be spoken only in the case where aesthetic sentiment is secondary. Moreover, in the subject, theamorous aesthetic sentiment consisting of separation, that which is to be suggested by longing, is infact primary. Thus there is no figure of speech possessing aesthetic sentiment. Therefore, there isno pervasion [of your definition of poem] in this [poetry], which is without figure of speech. Norshould we say that this [verse] is not targeted [as a definition of poetry] since it is unavoidable todefine it [i.e. this verse] because [it is] a statement, which is the manifestor of aesthetic sentiment.’


Even if there is no obvious figure of speech in this verse, there in factexists [in this verse a figure of speech] that is not obvious (asphut.a).To explain, by pointing out an extremely handsome husband and soon, the negation of the cause of longing is implied. Nevertheless, byexplicitly illustrating longing, there indeed exists a figure of speech[called] vibhavana,36 which is the arising of the effect even withoutany cause.37

Vibhavana is a figure of speech where the effect arises even though there is nocause. A good example of this figure of speech is the description of rainy seasonfound in Bamaha’s Kavyalankara:

Peacocks are intoxicated without being drunk; the skies are confusedwithout being lovesick; a Nıpa tree is sweet-smelling without beinganointed; and water is foul without being decayed.38

In this example, the existence of cause is explicitly denied. Peacocks are not drunk(apıta), the skies are not lovesick (anutkan. t.hita) and so on. Nevertheless the effectssuch as being intoxicated (matta) and being confused (akula) arise.

Example No Cause EffectPeacocks Not drunk IntoxicatedSkies Not lovesick ConfusedNıpa tree Not anointed Sweet smellingWater Not decayed Foul

Rajacud. aman. i says that the Muktaka verse possesses the same type of figure ofspeech since the speaker of the verse expresses her longing even though there is noreason for it.

Like Siddhicandra, Rajacud. aman. i takes the view that the man she longs for andher husband are the same person. According to him, the phrase ‘He who took [my]virginity (yah. kaumaraharah. )’ in the verse suggests that her lover was extremelyhandsome:

‘He who took [my] virginity’, he took [my] virginity [that is,] he en-joyed after causing me to desire enjoyment, even though I was bashful

36‘A figure of speech in which effects are represented as taking place though their usual causes areabsent.’ (Apte) [karan. a]: no cause for longing (since the handsome man who was a boyfriend is nowher husband) → [karya]: longing arises.

37atisundaravaradipradarsanenotkan. t.hakaran. apratis. edo gamyate / tathapy utkan. t.hapratipada-nena karan. am. vinapi karyotpattirupo vibhavanalam. karo ’sty eva / (Subrahmanya 1910: 15)

38apıtamattah. sikhino diso ’nutkan. t.hitakulah. /nıpo ’viliptasurabhir abhras. t.akalus. am. jalam // Kavyalankara 2.78. (Sarma and Upadhyaya 1928:

16–17)


because of being inexperienced. By this, it is suggested (vyajyate) thatthe husband possesses unsurpassed beauty. ‘Precisely that person is[my] husband’.39

Rajacud. aman. i suggests that the husband in the verse must have been extremelyhandsome since he aroused her sexually even though she was not at all experiencedin lovemaking. Since she is married to that handsome husband, there should not beany reason for her to long for the pre-marital rendezvous with him.

Author (1)kaumara-hara

(2) sa (3) theman shelongs for

(4) sa (5) asmi

Sıla lover husband ?? womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage




Radha inVr.ndavana

Radha inKuruks.etra

Narahari lover husband anotherman

womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

Siddhi-candra

lover husband husbandbeforemarriage

womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

Rajacud. a-man. i

extremelyhandsomelover

extremelyhandsomehusband

handsomehusbandbeforemarriage

womanbeforemarriage

womanaftermarriage

Nevertheless, she yearns for a meeting with her husband before their marriage.Since there is an effect of longing where there is no cause, Rajacud. aman. i believesthat this verse contains vibhavanalankara.

Example No Cause EffectMarried woman Handsome hus-

bandLonging

If the existence of vibhavanalankara were explicit, however, Mammat.a could nothave cited the Muktaka verse as an example of a poem without any clear orna-mentation. Rajacud. aman. i therefore, argues that the Muktaka verse possesses the

39yah. kaumaraharah. kumarıbhavam. hr. tavan, mugdhataya lajjakulam api mam. sam. bhogecchamutpadyopabhuktavan iti yavat, tena varasya niratisayasaundaryavattvam. vyajyate, sa eva varah. /(Subrahmanya 1910: 14)


ornamentation, but not in an explicit manner. The reason why the existence ofvibhavanalankara is not obvious, according to Rajacud. aman. i, is because the nega-tion of the cause is not stated explicitly in the verse:

This [figure of speech called vibhavana] is not obvious since in thisverse, the negation of the cause for longing, [the cause for longing]which is the negation of the extremely handsome husband and so on, isnot propounded as the negation of negation of an extremely handsomehusband and so on.40

In this explanation, ‘the negation of negation of X (abhavabhavatva)’ can be rough-ly equated with ‘the positive existence of X’. Then, ‘the negation of negation of thehusband’ roughly means ‘the positive existence of the husband’. Since the negationof the cause for longing is not explained by the positive existence of the handsomehusband, the negation of the cause is not clear. Since the negation of the cause isnot explicitly stated, the figure of speech vibhavana is not obvious. As mentionedabove, Rajacud. aman. i says that the existence of the extremely handsome husbandis only suggested (vyajyate).

Example No Cause EffectMarried woman (Handsome husband)

Only suggestedLonging

When we apply Rajacud. aman. i’s analysis to Rupa’s verse, we gain further in-sights into Caitanya’s mind. According to Rupa, Radha meets Kr.s.n. a, her objectof love, in Kuruks.etra. Since there is a union (sambhoga), there should not be anycause for longing. This is explicitly stated by the term sangamasukham ‘happi-ness of encounter’. Nevertheless, Radha experiences the effect of her longing forKr.s.n. a in Vr.ndavana. Unlike Sıla’s verse, therefore, Rupa’s verse seems to containvibhavanalankara in an explicit manner. To put it in another way, Rupa’s versesuggests that it is precisely the happiness of reunion (sambhoga) with Kr.s.n. a inKuruks.etra that is the cause of the feeling of separation (vipralambha) from Kr.s.n. ain Vr.ndavana.41

3. Conclusion

Imagine you are looking down the beautiful blue city of Jodhpur from the hilltop ofthe illustrious Mehrangarh Fort. You enjoy the impressive view of the fort as well

40ayam. ca na sphut.ah. , yato ’trotkan. t.hakaran. asyatisundaravaradyabhavasyabhavo ’tisundar-avaradyabhavabhavatvena na pratipadyate / (Subrahmanya 1910: 15)

41In this regard, I cannot agree with Janaki’s analysis of Sıla’s verse when she says the aestheticsentiment expressed in the verse is sambhoga: ‘The rasa is definitely Sambhoga sr. ngara, whetherit be the union with full enjoyment or the earliest thrilling experience. The Alankarikas are wrongtherefore when they refer to the rasa as vipralambha or rasabhasa.’ (1989: 143, 1996: 86)


as the city, and the summer breeze feels comfortable. Everything seems perfect.You take out your water bottle to quench your thirst. Suddenly, you realize thereare only few drops left. You drink up the last few drops but instead of quenchingyour thirst, they seem to make you even thirstier because they remind you of thechilled water you drunk last night at the hotel.

In this paper, I have tried to imaginatively reconstruct Caitanya’s thought whenhe was citing Sıla’s verse during the Rathayatra festival five hundred years ago.The story in BhaPu 10.82 and the verse composed by Rupa gave us the narra-tive background of the festival. Then, contrasting this narrative with Mammat.a’sKavyaprakasa, and three works by Narahari, Siddhicandra, and Rajacud. aman. i,gave us some insights into how Caitanya might have understood Sıla’s verse.

Although we can never know to what extent Caitanya was familiar with theAlankara tradition, based on what we examined, the following understanding seemsplausible. In the context of the Rathayatra, Caitanya experienced happiness inseeing Jagannatha on the chariot because he saw Jagannatha as Kr.s.n. a. That Ja-gannatha, however, was dressed as a king and accompanied by his family memberssuch as Balarama and Subhadra. Therefore, despite the happiness of re-union, Cai-tanya in the mood of Radha experienced acute longing for a private meeting at thesolitary bank of Yamuna. For Caitanya, the sweetness of Jagannatha on the chariotparadoxically worked as a painful reminder of even greater sweetness he wouldhave with Kr.s.n. a in Vr.ndavana. This is just like a few drops of water would makeyou even thirstier. Perhaps it was this bitter sweetness captured in Sıla’s verse thatmade Caitanya recite the verse in the festival of Rathayatra.

AbbreviationsBhaPu — the Bhagavata Puran. a

CaiCa — the Caitanyacaritamr. ta

Primary SourcesDimock, Edward C. (1999). Caitanyacaritamr. ta of Kr. s. n. adasa Kaviraja: A

Translation and Commentary (Cambridge: Harvard University Press)

De, Sushil Kumar. (2002). The Padyavalı: An Anthology of Vaisnava Verses inSanskrit (Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot)

Dwivedi, R. G. ed. (1989). The Poetic Light: Kavyaprakasa of Mammat.a.Text with Translation and Sampradayaprakasinı of Srıvidyacakravartin. (Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass)

Karmarkar, Raghunath Damodar. (1983) Kavyaprakasa of Mammat.a : withthe Sanskrit commentary Balabodhinı by Vamanacharya Ramabhatta Jhalakikar.Eighth ed. (Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).

Mohan, Jyotsna ed. (1995). Kavyaprakasah. with sixteen commetaries, PrathamaKhan. d. a (New Delhi: Nag Publisher)


Parikh, Rasilakal Chotalal ed. (1953). Kavyaprakasha Khandana of Mahopa-dhyaya-Khushfaham Siddhichandra Gani (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan)

Rama, Goparaju and Jagannatha Pat.hak eds. (1976). Kavyaprakasa of AcharyaMammat.a with three commentaries: Balacittanuranjanı of Narahari Sarasvatıtırtha,Sarabodhinı of Srıvatsalanchana Bhat.t.acarya, Kavyaprakasadarpan. a of VisvanathaKaviraja. (Prayagah. : Ganganathajhakendrıyasam. skr.tavidyapıt.ham)

Sarma, Batuk Nath and Baladeva Upadhyaya ed. (1928). Kavyalankara ofBhamaha (Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office)

Subrahmanya, S. ed. (1910). Kavyadarpana by Rajachudamani Dikshita (Sri-rangam: Sri Vani Vilas Press)

Secondary SourcesBrzezinski, Jan K. (1997). ‘Does Kr.s.n. a Marry the Gopıs in the End? The

Svakıya-vada of Jıva Gosvamin’ in Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, Fall1997, pp. 49-110.

Delmonico, Neal (1993). ‘Rupa Gosvamin: His Life, Family, and Early VrajaCommentators’, in Journal of Vais. n. ava Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, Winter, pp. 133-157.

Eschmann, Annscharlott, Hermann Kulke, and Gaya Charan Tripathi ed. (1978).The Cult of Jagannath and the Regional Tradition of Orissa. (New Delhi: Manohar)

Eschmann, Annscharlott, Hermann Kulke, and Gaya Charan Tripathi (1978):‘The Formation of the Jagannatha Triad’ in CJRTO pp. 169-196.

Eschmann, Annscharlott (1978). ‘The Vais.n. ava Typology of Hinduization andthe Origin of Jagannatha’ in CJRTO pp. 99-117.

Ganeri, Jonardon (2011). The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophy in Early Mod-ern India 1450-1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

H. von Stietencron (1978). ‘The Advent of Vis.n. uism in Orrisa: An Outline ofits History according to Archaeological and Epigraphical Sources from the GuptaPeriod up to 1135 A.D.’ in CJRTO pp. 1-30.

Misra, Bijoy M. (2007). ‘Orissa: Shri Krishna Jagannatha: The Mushali-parvafrom Sarala’s Mahabharata’ in Edwin Bryant Ed. Krishna: A Sourcebook (Oxford:Oxford University Press), pp. 139-161.

Janaki, S. S. (1989). ‘Analysis of a Verse by Poetess Silabhattarika’, in H.V. Nagaraja Rao and M. Shivakumara Swamy eds. Studies in Alankara Sastra:Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah Commemoration Volume. (Mysore: Pratibha Samsat) pp.135–144.

— (1996). ‘A Critique on Sıla’s Verse’, in Journal of Oriental Research MadrasVol. LXIII (1992–93), The Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute Golden JubileePublication, pp. 76–86.

Mukherjee, Prabhat. (1979). History of the Chaitanya Faith in Orissa (NewDelhi: Manohar).

Documents

Devotion and Poetry in Early Modern South Asia