Introduction
Traditional
learning systems in India encompass a wide variety of disciplines that have
been passed down through many centuries. Among them, Sanskrit poetics is a
complex field of knowledge with a long history and hundreds of treatises (alaṅkāra-śāstra)
that elaborate on every possible aspect of poetic composition. Similar to the
various schools of philosophy and other areas, Sanskrit poetics also
accommodates several schools that follow the teachings of prominent scholars
and hold debates on the merits or demerits of the views propounded by different
schools. The works of such scholars became landmarks that not only influenced
subsequent generations but also pushed the standards of poetry higher and
higher. The word ‘alaṅkāra’ literally means “ornament,” which, in the
context of poetry, applies to both sounds and meanings, often referred to as
“figures of speech” in English. As poeticians lent more and more weight to the
aesthetic value attributed to such ornaments, the word ‘alaṅkāra’ came
to be used to designate the entire discipline of poetics itself.
Proficiency
in poetics became a desirable skill not only to those who exclusively wrote
poetry but also to authors in other genres. The Sanskrit word for a connoisseur
of poetics is ‘sahṛdaya,’ which, in a general way, means “learned” but
literally means “one who has a heart.” The idea is that an intellectual may be
conversant with dry topics such as logic, but if one lacks a soft heart, one
will not be able to relish poetry. On the other hand, if one has a soft heart
but lacks knowledge, he will not be able to comprehend the subtlety and
intricacies that permeate the words crafted by a highly skilled poet. Vaiṣṇava
scholars are remarkable for being adorned with these two qualities, and
therefore, from ancient times, they have been producing outstanding works not
only on philosophy and theology but also on poetry. More than that, they
adopted poetry as a means to convey their ideologies.
Pioneering the Kṛṣṇa-bhakti genre of Sanskrit poetry,
works such as Jayadeva Gosvāmī’s “Gīta-govinda” and Līlāśuka’s “Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta”
went down in history and set the stage for many a great poet in the later
centuries. These were indeed two of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s (1486-1534 CE)
favourite books. Many wannabe poets would approach Śrī Caitanya and request Him
to read their compositions, but many of them turned out to be substandard and
displeasing. His secretary, Svarūpa Dāmodara, therefore took charge of
thoroughly screening all submitted poems first. He once clarified the benchmark
in the following words:
vyākaraṇa
nāhi jāne, nā jāne alaṅkāra
nāṭakālaṅkāra-jñāna
nāhika yāhāra
kṛṣṇa-līlā
varṇite nā jāne sei chāra
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta,
Antya 5.104-5)
“Without
knowing grammar, without knowing poetics, and without knowing dramaturgy, one
is an inept who does not know how to describe Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes.”
It
was by fully imbibing the highest standards that two of Śrī Caitanya’s
followers became exalted poets and poeticians: Rūpa Gosvāmī and Kavi Karṇapūra,
who then gave rise to the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school of poetics, which is deeply
connected with its theological system. They were followed by other outstanding
poets such as Jīva Gosvāmī, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī, all
of whom left behind an extensive poetic legacy that consolidated the unique
identity of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava poetry.
As
literary criticism evolved, the focus of discussions gradually progressed from
the technical aspects of poetry, such as language and structure, to its
aesthetic value, and then to its power to evoke subtle emotions and impressions
in the readers’ minds. Thus, the theory of rasa gained momentum and
became a full-fledged area of study. The concept of rasa varies from
author to author, but it is generally defined as a poetic flavour, mood,
feeling, or emotion that transpires in a poetic composition and triggers the
same within the reader. Just as, when properly tuned, the sympathetic strings
of a sitar resonate when related notes are played on the main strings, rasa
resonates within the mind of a refined person upon listening to high poetry.
The number of rasas is disputed, but in deference to Bharata Muni,[1]
the author of the earliest treatise on Sanskrit dramaturgy (Nāṭya-śāstra), they
are primarily considered to be eight, to which later scholars added śānta-rasa
as the ninth. Thus, it is widely accepted that the steady emotions
(sthāyi-bhāva) of love (rati), mirth (hāsa), grief (śoka), anger (krodha),
determination (utsāha), fear (bhaya), aversion (jugupsā), surprise (vismaya),
and tranquillity (śama) respectively develop into the rasas of romantic
love (śṛṅgāra), humour (hāsya), sorrow/compassion (karuṇā), wrath (raudra),
heroism (vīra), terror (bhayānaka), disgust (bībhatsa), wonder (adbhuta), and
peacefulness (śānta). This is not a definitive list, and additional emotions
are qualified in different ways by different poeticians regarding the nature of
that which ensues from them. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa (9th c.), one of the
earliest commentators on Bharata’s work, defended the idea that rasas
are infinite. For Rūpa Gosvāmī, the feelings exchanged between friends
(sakhya), those of parents towards their children (vātsalya), and those of
servants towards the master (dāsya) also develop into individual rasas,
while others define these as bhāvas. Similarly, some authors hold the
view that certain emotions turn into uparasa (secondary rasa) or rasābhāsa
(semblance of rasa).
All in all, the aesthetic experience reached new
heights as the poets explored the unlimited realms of rasa. Contrary to
what it may appear to the uninitiated, the goal in this is far beyond mundane
entertainment. According to Viśvanātha Kavirāja (14th c.), upon
reaching its pinnacle, the aesthetic experience of rasa surpasses
worldliness:
sattvodrekād
akhaṇḍa-sva-prakāśānanda-cin-mayaḥ|
vedyāntara-sparśa-śūnyo
brahmāsvāda-sahodaraḥ||
lokottara-camatkāra-prāṇaḥ
kaiścit pramātṛbhiḥ|
svākāravad
abhinnatvenāyam āsvādyate rasaḥ||
(Sāhitya-darpaṇa,
3.2-3)
“Through
an expanded mind free from passion and ignorance, some experts relish rasa
as being non-different from themselves, just as their own bodies seem to be.
For them, rasa is complete, self-luminous, blissful, and full of
consciousness, resembling God-realisation. Its living force is supramundane
astonishment, and its relishment precludes the cognisance of any other object.”
Yet,
in the Prīti-sandarbha (110), Jīva Gosvāmī declares that the above
statement applies to mundane (laukika) poetry, while bhakti-rasa is
transcendental (alaukika) and brought about by viśuddha-sattva, pure
goodness untainted by the three modes of nature. Not only that: its relishment
also surpasses any other stage of spiritual realisation, such as experiencing
the bliss of the impersonal Brahman or liberation itself. This is upheld by
multiple verses from the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, such as ‘yā nirvṛtis
tanu-bhṛtām’ (4.9.10) and ‘nātyantikaṁ vigaṇayanty api te prasādam’ (3.15.48).
The reason for this is stated in the śruti:
eṣa
evānandayāti, raso vai saḥ
rasaṁ
hy evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati
(Taittirīya
Upaniṣad, 2.7)
“The
Supreme Lord is the one Who gives bliss. He is rasa personified. One who
has obtained this rasa becomes blissful.”
Lord
Kṛṣṇa is the source of all rasas and is Himself rasa. Moreover,
the astonishment (camatkāra) yielded by His form and pastimes is unparalleled:
yan
martya-līlaupayikaṁ sva-yoga-
māyā-balaṁ
darśayatā gṛhītam
vismāpanaṁ
svasya ca saubhagarddheḥ
paraṁ
padaṁ bhūṣaṇa-bhūṣaṇāṅgam
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,
3.2.12)
“Showing
the power of His internal potency, Lord Kṛṣṇa manifested a body suitable for
His pastimes in human form. That transcendental body, the ornament of its own
ornaments, the supreme abode personified beyond the greatest beauty, is
astonishing also to the Lord Himself.”
Therefore,
for Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, bhakti-rasa is both the means and the ultimate
goal, above which there is nothing else. Such bhakti-rasa is cultivated
both by composing devotional poetry and by reciting it, as endorsed by Viśvanātha
Cakravartī: atha varṇayet kīrtayet, sva-kavitayā kāvya-rūpatvena
nibadhnīteti vā,[2]
“One should also narrate (Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes). Or else, one should write
(about His pastimes) in the form of poetry according to one’s poetical skills.”
Kāvya-Kaustubha
Gauḍīya
Vaiṣṇava works on poetics are few, and this might be one of the factors that
led Vidyābhūṣaṇa to also contribute a couple of treatises in this field. One,
named Sāhitya-kaumudī, is in fact a commentary on the Kāvya-prakāśa’s
kārikās,[3]
which Vidyābhūṣaṇa attributes to Bharata Muni himself. The other is an
independent work named Kāvya-kaustubha, whose earliest known manuscript
is dated 1755 CE. Given the fact that the earliest documents that mention
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa pertain to the beginning of the 1740s, it is safe to
assume that he composed this treatise sometime between 1740 and 1755. It is not
yet clear which of these two texts was written first, as there is no direct
internal reference to one or the other, despite both sharing a fair number of
verbatim examples, paraphrased examples, and exact or similar sentences. Given
the substantial number of manuscript copies found in Rajasthan, the
Kāvya-kaustubha was presumably written during the author’s residence in
Jaipur. Although nothing is mentioned regarding the purpose of its composition,
in works such as Śabda-sudhā and Prameya-ratnāvalī we find the
assertion that they are meant for the benefit of students. It is quite
plausible that among various disciplines, Vidyābhūṣaṇa also taught poetics and
preferred to create his own didactic material. The Kāvya-kaustubha is
relatively shorter than some of the texts on poetics that were best known in
those days, and it comprises selected topics presented in a total of 298 kārikās
of diverse sizes, often accompanied by an explanation and one or more
verses given as examples. Its largest portion— nearly half of the text— deals
with 112 primary alaṅkāras of meaning and some of their varieties. A
distinctive characteristic here is that nearly all the examples have a Vaiṣṇava
motif, usually centred on Śrī Rādhā and Lord Kṛṣṇa. In a similar fashion to
Jīva Gosvāmī’s Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa or Rādhā-dāmodara Gosvāmī’s Chandaḥ-kaustubha,
the purpose is to motivate Vaiṣṇava students to learn a subject matter while
hearing Lord Kṛṣṇa’s names and pastimes.
This
treatise may thus be considered an introductory work that covers major topics
of Sanskrit poetics, with an emphasis on certain aspects that have special
relevance to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. For the most part, the author refrained from
debating the views of other scholars, as seen in other works of this genre.
While amply borrowing from multiple sources, Vidyābhūṣaṇa sometimes sides with
ancient scholars, and sometimes establishes his particular views. The following
are the major sources consulted by him:
Sāhitya-darpaṇa,
by Viśvanātha Kavirāja, is one of the most influential texts on poetics and has
multiple commentaries to its credit. Not only was its theoretical content
extensively borrowed but also many of its illustrative verses, which are
featured here either verbatim or in a paraphrased form.
Kāvya-prakāśa,
by Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa, is another classic that has remained popular over the
centuries and is one of the most commented texts in the field. Both its kārikās
and their explanations have been followed here on a variety of topics, and
occasionally, some of the examples given.
Alaṅkāra-kaustubha,
by Kavi Karṇapūra (16th c.), is the first comprehensive alaṅkāra-śāstra
by a Gauḍiya Vaiṣṇava. While covering a wide range of poetic theories, the
author provides a large number of verses that he composed as illustrations,
mostly featuring the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa and His companions in Vṛndāvana.[4]
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu,
by Rūpa Gosvāmī (16th c.), is a systematic exposition of the
intricacies of bhakti-rasa and is considered one of the most important
works among Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. It describes the various stages of bhakti
and defines primary rasas and secondary rasas as taking the form
of bhakti-rasa when related to Kṛṣṇa.
Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi,
also by Rūpa Gosvāmī, is another key work on bhakti-rasa, complementing
the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu with elaborate descriptions of the manifold
aspects of śṛṅgāra-rasa, such as the various kinds of heroes and
heroines, their companions, messengers, and so on.
Kuvalayānanda,
by Appayya Dīkṣita’s (16th c.), is a short treatise that deals
exclusively with ornaments of meaning. Primarily based on the fifth chapter of
Jayadeva’s Candrāloka, this work has one hundred alaṅkāras, including
some that have not been featured in ancient texts.[5]
These
are some of the source texts that have been clearly referred to by the author
while composing the Kāvya-kaustubha, but there are possibly many other
works he might have consulted. There are multiple books on comparative poetics
that can be easily referred to by those interested in finding out how Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s
views align with or diverge from those held by earlier poeticians. Apart from
the aforementioned texts, the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school also has a few more: Rūpa
Gosvāmī’s Nāṭaka-candrikā, albeit a treatise on dramaturgy, deals with
several topics that also pertain to poetics. Jīva Gosvāmī discussed bhakti-rasa
in the Bhakti-sandarbha and Prīti-sandarbha. The Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa,
by an anonymous author,[6]
replicates the Sāhitya-darpaṇa to a great extent while presenting an
overview of Sanskrit poetics. Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi-kiraṇa and Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu-bindu
are two short essays by Viśvanārtha Cakravartī (17th-18th
c.) on Rūpa Gosvāmī’s respective works. Both Jīva Gosvāmī and Cakravartī wrote
complete commentaries on the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi.
Although Vidyābhūṣaṇa may have had access to all these works, it should be
noted that the Kāvya-kaustubha deals primarily with what can be called
conventional poetics rather than pure Gauḍīya theory. For example, he presented
here a brief exposition of nine rasas as taught by Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa and
others, instead of the elaborate bhakti-rasa theory taught by Rūpa
Gosvāmī, which covers a total of twelve rasas. This may be seen as a
diplomatic approach to teaching traditional disciplines by complying with
mainstream standards. The same might be said regarding his teaching of Pāṇini’s
grammar instead of Jīva Gosvāmī’s.
Author
Known
as the Gauḍīya Vedānta Ācārya, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa was born either at the end
of the 17th century or at the beginning of the 18th
century in Odisha. At the end of the Śabda-sudhā, he identifies himself
as the son of Gaṅgādhara Māṇikya. Nothing definitive is known about his early
life before he accepted mantra-dīkṣā from Rādhā-Dāmodara Gosvāmī in
Puri. At the end of the Siddhānta-ratnam, Vidyābhūṣaṇa states that his
mind was fixed on the philosophy of Madhvācārya, and he acknowledges Pītāmbara
Dāsa as his vidyā-guru, from whom he learned several scriptures. It is
not clear whether Vidyābhūṣaṇa ever had any formal connection with the Mādhvas
and in which capacity. Although well-known as a celibate renunciant, he is not
known to have ever used a sannyāsī title or to have ever been referred
to by any such title. He played a major role in the religious and philosophical
debates that took place in the court of King Sawai Jai Singh II (1699-1743 AD)
in Jaipur and was commissioned by him to write at least two works— a Vedānta
commentary named Brahma-sūtra-kārikā-bhāṣya, and a text on comparative
philosophy named Tattva-dīpikā. Vidyābhūṣaṇa was a polymath and became
one of the most prolific Gauḍīya authors, having written at least two dozen
texts, some of which appear to be lost. A document[7]
dated the fourteenth day of the Bhadra month of Saṁvat 1850 (nineteenth of
September, 1793 AD) describes his ceremony of condolence presided by King
Pratap Singh (ruled 1778-1803 AD).
Although
most of his works are on philosophy and theology, Vidyābhūṣaṇa also composed
texts on several other disciplines. On prosody, he commented on Rādhā-Dāmodara
Gosvāmī’s Chandaḥ-kaustubha. On Sanskrit grammar, his Laghu-siddhānta-kaustubha,
Pada-kaustubha, and Śabda-sudhā are still available as
unpublished manuscripts, while the texts named Vyākaraṇa-kaumudī and Bṛhat-siddhānta-kaustubha
seem to be lost. On dramaturgy, he allegedly wrote a commentary on Rūpa
Gosvāmī’s Nāṭaka-candrikā, which has not yet been located. On poetics,
he composed the Kāvya-kaustubha, Sāhitya-kaumudī,[8]
and allegedly, a commentary on Jayadeva’s Candrāloka, which appears to
be lost.
Gloss
The
Sanskrit gloss on the Kāvya-kaustubha is being published for the first
time in this edition and is based on the text found in three manuscript copies,
labelled below as ‘ga’, ‘gha,’ and ‘ṅa.’ There are no clear indications as to
when it was composed or by whom, but it may belong either to the end of the 18th
century or the beginning of the 19th century, if not earlier.
Several other manuscript copies dated the later 18th century or
early 19th century contain verbatim excerpts from the same gloss,
but it is difficult to say which version came first. Given its relative
accuracy, manuscript ‘ga’ seems to be the original one out of these three
copies. However, it was not the work of a single hand, and occasionally there
are two different meanings for a single word in different places on the page.
Most of the gloss was written in small characters along the four borders of each
page, which proved troublesome to decode where the edges of the paper were
damaged. In addition to that, the gloss was often written in even smaller
characters on top of the relevant words within the text. Some manuscript copies
have a random gloss on a few words, and this mostly differs in each copy. From
time to time, the given word meanings were incorrect. Only a selection of that
secondary gloss was included here. The primary gloss is of a substantial length
and consists mostly of synonyms, with some occasional definitions,
illustrations, and dictionary meanings. While helpful to Sanskrit readers, I
doubt it would serve any purpose to English readers, and hence no translation
has been provided here.
[1] Bharata Muni’s date is very controversial,
and opinions vary from 500 BCE to 500 CE. The kārikās of the Kāvya-prakāśa
and its vṛtti (explanation) are both often credited to Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa
(11th c.), but not unanimously.
[2] Sārārtha-darśinī on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
(10.33.39).
[3] Kārikā is a verse that sets a rule
or definition.
[4] The commentary of Kṛṣṇadeva Sārvabhauma
was instrumental in grasping the meaning of some of the verses quoted here. It
is appropriate to mention that Viśvanātha Cakravartī did not write any
commentary on the Alaṅkāra-kaustubha. The one that has repeatedly been
published under his name was in fact written by Sārvabhauma, as confirmed by
multiple manuscripts whose colophon reads “cakravarti-viśvanātha-śiṣya-mukhyaḥ
satāṁ varaḥ, sārvabhaumaḥ samākhyātaḥ ṭīppanī tena nirmitā,” such as
Sarasvati Bhavan (Varanasi) 41060, Vrindavan Research Institute 5349, and Dhaka
University 2363, 2394, and 3471. The idea that Cakravartī is the author was
propagated by the first publisher, Rāma Nārāyaṇa Vidyāratna, and I suspect the
verse he provided at the end of his edition is a forgery. Later publishers
either consulted incomplete manuscripts without a colophon or simply took his
word on the matter.
[5] It is worth mentioning that Haridāsa’s
claim that the Kāvya-kaustubha includes some “new” figures of speech
such as viṣādana can only be accurate in the sense that they were not
dealt with in the Sāhitya-darpaṇa and other ancient treatises, for they are
in fact featured in the Kuvalayānanda.
[6] Haridāsa Dāsa published this text based on
a single manuscript copy and credited its authorship to Jīva Gosvāmī, although
he did not explain why. The said copy is dated Śāka 1618 (1696 CE) and says
nothing about its author. No second manuscript copy has ever been located. On
the one hand, Jīva Gosvāmī openly signed his works, and on the other, he also
arranged for each of them to be copied in sufficient numbers and distributed
far and wide.
[7] Document #117, bundle 34, Toji Dastu
Kaumvar, Rajasthan State Archives.
[8] A commentary on it, named Kṛṣṇānandinī,
has often been attributed to Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Although the identity of the actual
author is yet to be confirmed, it is evident from the very text that this is
not an auto-commentary.
