4. Kumārasambhava in Kuntaka’s treatment

As the name ndicates Kumārasambhava discusses about the story of the birth of kumāra, the son of Lord Śiva and Pārvatī. The penance of Pārvatī in Kumārasambhava is a message to the mankind. Because Pārvatī is unable to attain the mind of lord Śiva though she is blessed with wealth, power, prestige, extreme beauty etc. At last she attains lord Śiva only through her great penance. This reveals the triviality of more pleasure and the hardship and purity of asceticism. The works of Kālidāsa is not only a mere entertaining one but also have numerous moral messages to the mankind.

It is notable that Kuntaka selects twenty verses from Kumārasambhava for explaining his contextual figurativeness, tender style and various figures of speeches. Moreover Kuntaka criticize Kālidāsa by pointing out the improper word showered by Cupid towards Indra. Kuntaka’s observation of Kumārasambhava is also praiseworthy. Kuntaka’s assessment of Kumārasambhava is discussed below in detail.

1. Contextual Figurativeness

The proper and gradual development of the story of Kumārasambhava is selected as an example of one of the varieties of contextual figurativeness by Kuntaka.

He defines one of the varieties of contextual figurativeness as:-

“The art of the dramatic plot should be pleasing by the construction of delightful ‘junctures’ (sandhis); each part should be organically related to each other, the succeeding one following the preceding one. It should not be vitiated by any excessive craze for observing rules even when they are inopportune. Only in such cases, the episode will reveal a unique charm of originality.”^[1]

The first canto describes the childhood, budding youth of Pārvatī and also her worshipful homage to Śiva by command of her father. In the second canto the gods approaches Brahman for a solution to kill the demon Tārakāsura. Brahman says to them that the son of Śiva can only kill that demon. The proper mate of Śiva is Pārvatī, so the solution for this problem is the marriage of Śiva and Pārvatī. The third canto describes the burning of Cupid and fourth the lamentation of Ratī. The great penance of Pārvatī after wounded by the rejection of Śiva and the experiment and conversation of disguised Śiva are the subject matter discussed in the fifth canto. Then in the sixth canto by the request of Pārvatī, Śiva deputes the seven sages to ask Pārvatī from her father Himālaya. The marriage of Śiva with Pārvatī is depicted in the seventh canto. Thus gradual progress of the themes and junctures make it an apt example for this particular variety of Kuntaka’s contextual figurativeness. Through this variety, Kuntaka brilliantly assess the overall charm of the text.

2. Lexical figurativeness

Kuntaka cites two verses from Kumārasmbhava as an example of the figurativeness related to concealment (samvṛtivakratā), one of the varieties of lexical figurativeness (padapūrvārdhavakratā). In this figurativeness sometimes the matter conceals through pronouns. Sometimes the poet feel that the beauty of something may lost due to their direct explanation and conceals it brilliantly for creating extreme charm.

For instance:-

darpaṇe ca paribhogadarśinī pṛṣṭhaṭaḥ praṇayino niṣeduṣaḥ/
vīkṣya bimbamanubimbamātmanaḥ kāni kāni na cakāra lajjayā//^[2]

“And while observing in a mirror (the marks of) enjoyment when she saw immediately behind her own reflection that of her lover seated at the back,-what was it that she did not do in shame.”^[3]

Here instead of saying what she had done in shame, the poet just brilliantly said what she did not do with shame. Undoubtedly this method is really beautiful in expressing certain things where words are not enough to tell something. Only a brilliant poet can handle it properly. Such concealment of words creates unexplainable charm to this verse otherwise it will never be as much attractive as this. In figurativeness related to concealment sometime poet conceals something naturally or deliberately thinking that it is highly improper to say something directly.

For instance:-

nivāryatāmāli kimapyam vaṭuḥ punarvivakṣuḥ sphuritottarādharaḥ/
na kevalam yo mahato’ pabhāṣate śṛṇoti tasmādapi yaḥ sa pāpabhāk//^[4]

“O friend, stop this boy who seems desirous of saying something, as his upper lip is quivering. Not only he who talks ill of the mighty, but also he who listens to him, is a sinner.”^[5]

These are the words of Pārvatī towards her companion. Here Śiva, disguised as an ascetic showers harsh words about lord Śiva for testing Pārvatī. Getting irritated by his speech Pārvatī order her friend to stop him. Humiliation of the lord of this universe is considered as a great sin. So the poet conceals it through such intelligent words of Pārvatī. Thus the both verses taken for explaining the figurativeness related to concealment from this mahākāvya is noteworthy. There are numerous such verses in the works of great poets. This is one of the beautiful techniques used by great poets to bring forth charm of a verse in its maximum level. Kuntaka’s incoration of such beautiful concept like figurativeness related to concealment in his varieties of figurativeness and his hunt for apt instances for it is marvelous.

3. Kuntaka’s Criticism of Kumārasambhava

Kuntaka criticizes Kālidāsa by taking two verses from Raghuvaṃśa and one from Kumārasambhava.

Here Kuntaka points out the impropriety of Kālidāsa through this verse.

kāmekapatnīm vratadukhaśīlām lolam manaścārutayā praviṣṭām/
nitambinīmicchasi muktalajjām kaṇṭhe svayaṃgrāhaniṣaktabāhum//^[6]

“What lady (having full buttocks), austerely stickinh to (or, paining you by her keeping) the vow of chastity, who has made a niche in your unsteady (lustful) mind by her beauty, do you wish to twine her arms round your neck, of her own accord, abandoning all (sense of) shame?”^[7]

These are the words of Cupid towards Indra. There is a story that once Indra was fascinated by the charm of Ahalyā and he approached her disguising as her husband. Cupid said the above verse by keeping this incident in his mind. According to Kuntaka it is improper to humiliate lord of heaven in such a manner. There may have numerous improper situations in the works of minor poets. But it is very rare in the works of master poets like Kālidāsa. A person with sharp acumen can only find it out from the great poets. The disgrace from Cupid towards Indra in a council of Indra is really improper because Indra is the lord of heaven. The impropriety brought forth by Kuntaka is really remarkable.

4. Kuntaka’s praiseworthy observations on

Kumārasambhava

One of the commendable observations of Kuntaka on a single verse of Kumārasambhava is given below. Kuntaka says that both śabda and artha can make poetry.

According to him, śabda means the most suitable word which alone can convey the exact intented meaning of a poet though there may be numerous substitute words for it.

dvayam gatam samprati śocanīyatām samāgamaprātthanayā kapālinaḥ/
kalā ca sā kāntimatī kalāvatastvamasya lokasya ca netrakaumudī//^[8]

“By their earnest (desire) for union with Śiva, two things have now become objects of commiseration: that bright digit of the moon, and thyself who art the moonlight of the eyes of this world.”^[9]

These are the words of disguised Śiva to Pārvatī for testing the intensity of her love towards him. Here it is notable that for denoting Śiva, Kālidāsa uses the word Kapālinaḥ. Though there are numerous words to denote Śiva like Hara, Pinākinaḥ and so on. Pinākinaḥ means of the one who holds bow called Pināka. This is a casual word for denoting Śiva and is not creating any appeal to the readers. For irritating Pārvatī the utmost disgustful word for denoting Śiva is pertinent. The word Kapālinaḥ, means of the one who has human skull (as the begging vessel), which only can create extreme revulsion towards Śiva. Kālidāsa’s such praiseworthy use of synonym is pointed out and appreciated by Kuntaka. Moreover here ‘dvayam gatam samprati śocanīyatām’ also offer appeal to the readers. This means that before, only the moon is longing for the union of Śiva but now Pārvatī is also wishing the same. The word prārtthana is also significant. Because if the union between Śiva and Pārvatī is accidental it is acceptable but her obsession for the union is ridiculous. The matup pratyayas like kalāvat and kāntimat create unexplainable beauty. The words like ‘you’ and the ‘digit’ is also beautiful because they denote the beauty competition between them. The each words of this verse are ear nectar to the hearers. Any other synonyms of these words never can create as charm as these words. Thus Kuntaka’s selection of this verse to point out the speciality of ‘śabda’ is significant. Such minute but noteworthy observations of Kuntaka makes him unique one in Sanskrit literary history.

5. Tender style

Kuntaka cites three verses from Kumārasambhava as an example of tender (sukumāra) style. Among them two beautiful instances are discussed here.

One of the definitions of tender style and the instance given for it is as follows:-

amlānapratibhodbhinnanavaśabdārthabandhuraḥ/
ayatnavihitasvalpamanohārivibhūṣaṇaḥ//^[10]

“That charming style where fresh words and meanings both blossom forth by virtue of poet’s undimmed imagination, where ornaments are few and yet lovely as they come in without effort.”^[11]

bālenduvakrāṇyavikāsabhāvād babhuḥ palāśānyatilohitāni/
sadyo vasantena samāgatānām nakhakṣatānīva vanasthalīnām//^[12]

“The palāśa buds, extremely red and curved like the young moon, not being blossomed, soon shone like red marks of nails on (the persons of) the forest-sites united with the vernal season (their lover).”^[13]

Here the poet compares the spring with a man and woodland with a maiden. Kuntaka selects this as an example of tender style because the words like bālenduvakrāṇi, atilohitāni, sadyo vasantena samāgatānām are used only for the description of nature but they combine smoothly with the figure of speech nakhakṣatānīva. Here the poetic excellence purely reflectsthe words of the poet. They are not deliberately incorporated but feel as if the sprouts of a plant and should delight the readers. The normal arrangement of sound, sense and the absence of complex figure of speech make it an apt example for tender style. Kuntaka cites yet another verse as an instance of perspicuity of tender style.

The definition given for it and the example are respectively given below.

akleśavyañjitākūtam jhagityarthasamarppaṇam/
rasavakroktiviṣayam yatprasādaḥ sa kathyate//^[14]

“The excellence called ‘perspicuity’ is that which brings out the poet’s intent without any effort on the reader’s part, which conveys the meaning in an instant as it were, and which is concerned with sentiments and artful speech.”^[15]

himavyapāyādviśadādharāṇāmāpāṇḍurībhūtamukhacchavīnām/
svedodgamaḥ kimpuruṣāṅganānām cakre padam patraviśeṣakeṣu//^[16]

“Perspiration made its appearance on the ornamental paintings (on the persons) of the Kinnara ladies, the complexion of whose faces was slightly yellow and whose lips looked bright (not being smeared with wax), owing to the passing away of the wintry season.”^[17]

The easy accessibility of the meaning of this verse and the uncompounded words etc. make this verse a perfect example for perspicuity of tender style. Thus Kuntaka cites few beautiful verses as instances of tender style from both Raghuvaṃśa and Kumārasmbhava. Kuntaka’s such apt citations also help to prove Kālidāsa as a poet of tender style.

6. Rejection of svabhāvokti

Some ancient rhetoricians accepted svabhāvokti as a figure of speech. According to them natural traits of a thing is adorned and beauty added to it is adornment. Kuntaka did not accept svabhāvokti as adornment. Then he says as an answer to those whom accepts svabhāvokti as an adornment that writing poetry is not a job of wasting time. It should always delight the connoisseur. He also opines that the description of a subject should have its own peculiarities. Otherwise the addition of any figure of speech to it will feel as if the painting on an improper canvas. Kuntaka says at the time of describing the natural charm of an object that it should better to avoid the figure of speeches. He says so because improper addition of figures of speech will definitely spoil the actual beauty of an object. So the adorned object can be compared with a beautiful damsel. A damsel never wears excessive ornaments at the time of taking bath, leading ascetic life during the separation from her husband and also at the end of the amorous sports. In these situations natural beauty of the damsel is attractive.

Likewise at the time of describing natural traits of things, there is no need of deliberate incorporation of figure of speeches.

For instance:-

tām prāṅmukhīm tatra niveśya tanvīm kṣaṇam vyalambanta puro niṣaṇṇāḥ/
bhūtārthaśobhāhriyamāṇanetrāḥ prasādhane sannihite’ pi nāryaḥ//^[18]

“Having seated that girl of a slender frame upon it, so that she faced the east, the ladies sitting before her, having their eyes attracted by real (i.e unartificial) beauty, delayed for some time, though the articles of decoration were at hand.”^[19]

This verse is in the seventh canto of Kumārasambhava while the companions of the goddess Pārvatī adorning her for her marriage. Through this verse Kālidāsa would like to bring forth the natural beauty of goddesses Pārvatī. So he here fancies that may the adornments will diminish the beauty of Pārvatī. Kuntaka wants to prove that svabhāvokti can not be an adornment by indicating the insignificance of figure of speech while describing the natural traits of things. Kuntaka’s boldness in objecting the early rhetoricians’ view without following them blindly is also a reason for the uniqueness of Kuntaka in the realm of Sanskrit literature.

It is notable that Kuntaka does not cite instances from Kumārasambhava for explaining his figurativeness like phonetic, grammatical and compositional. But it is admirable that Kuntaka unraveled the overall beauty of this mahākāvya through his contextual figurativeness, sentential fgurativeness etc. So absence of the compositional figurativeness never lessens the charm of this mahākāvya. Kuntaka also cites few other verses from Kālidāsa to reject some figures of speech like preyas, parivṛtti, vibhāvanā. As in the case of Raghuvaṃśa here also Kuntaka cites lot of verses for explaining tender style and some figure of speeches. Kuntaka’s bold attempt of criticism and his plausible changes in certain words are some notable things in Kumārasambhava. Moreover the instances taken for explaining figurativeness related to concealment, one of the varieties of lexical figurativeness is really noteworthy. Kuntaka also cites excellent instances from the dramas of Kālidāsa like Abhijñānaśākuntala and Vikramorvaśīya. They are being discussed below.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

ibid,p.566.

[2]:

ibid,p.100.

[3]:

M.R. Kale, The Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa, p.215.

[4]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.101.

[5]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.197.

[6]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.72.

[7]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.178.

[8]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.27.

[9]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.195.

[10]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.43.

[11]:

ibid,p.329.

[12]:

ibid,p.45.

[13]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.180.

[14]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.48.

[15]:

ibid,p.334.

[16]:

ibid,p.49.

[17]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.181.

[18]:

K. Krishnamoorthy,op.cit,p.126.

[19]:

M.R. Kale,op.cit,p.206.