A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech 0198827105, 9780198827108

Citation preview

Title Pages

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

Title Pages Rembert Lutjeharms

(p.i) Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs (p.ii) Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs (p.iii) A Vaiṣṇava Poet in Early Modern Bengal (p.iv) Copyright Page Editorial Committee G. D. FLOOD  M. N. A. BOCKMUEHL M. J. EDWARDS  P. S. FIDDES S. R. I. FOOT  D. N. J. MACCULLOCH H. NAJMAN  G. WARD Qur’an of the Oppressed Liberation Theology and Gender Justice in Islam Shadaab Rahemtulla (2017) Ezra and the Second Wilderness Philip Y. Yoo (2017) Maternal Grief in the Hebrew Bible Ekaterina E. Kozlova (2017) Page 1 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Title Pages The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers The Will and Original Sin between Origen and Augustine Isabella Image (2017) Deuteronomy 28 and the Aramaic Curse Tradition Laura Quick (2017) Sartre on Sin Between Being and Nothingness Kate Kirkpatrick (2017) Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages Christian Hofreiter (2018) An Avant‐garde Theological Generation The Nouvelle Théologie and the French Crisis of Modernity Jon Kirwan (2018) Jansenism and England Moral Rigorism across the Confessions Thomas Palmer (2018) A Redactional Study of the Book of Isaiah 13–23 Jongkyung Lee (2018)

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, Page 2 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Title Pages and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Rembert Lutjeharms 2018 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2017963847 ISBN 978–0–19–882710–8 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Access brought to you by:

Page 3 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Dedication

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

(p.v) Dedication Rembert Lutjeharms

To the elders of both my families (p.vi)

Access brought to you by:

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Acknowledgements

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

(p.vii) Acknowledgements Rembert Lutjeharms

‘Every undertaking is enveloped by flaws, as fire by smoke’ (Gītā 18.48). This book would contain far more flaws were it not for the patient kindness, generous support, and great insight I have gratefully received from countless persons in the fifteen years it took to research and write it. In particular, I wish to thank Dr Sanjukta Gupta-Gombrich, who guided me through the early stages of my research on Kavikarṇapūra, and Dr James Benson, Dr David Smith, Prof. Gavin Flood, the late Prof. Joseph O’Connell, Prof. Dermot Killingley, and Prof. John Stratton Hawley who all read through various drafts of this book and, each in their own way, cleared a lot of smoke. Dr James Benson, Prof. Ashok Aklujkar, and especially the late Prof. M. Narasimhachary offered help with Sanskrit passages I found particularly difficult. I also wish to thank Prof. Tony K. Stewart and Ācārya Shrivatsa Goswami for their help in understanding the complex early history of the Caitanya tradition and for their encouragement. I am grateful to the editors and the production team at Oxford University Press, who patiently and expertly guided me through the many final stages of publication. More than anyone else, Shaunaka Rishi Das made all this possible, repeatedly, and created at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies an unparalleled community of scholars without whom this book would never have begun. Of those scholars, I wish to particularly thank my friends Hrvoje Cargonja, Anuradha Dooney, Jonathan Edelmann, Jessica Frazier, Ravi Gupta, Kiyokazu Okita, Kenneth Valpey, and Lucian Wong, and, further afield, Rupa Sanatana Dasa, whose conversations helped shape this book in more ways than they know. The elders of the Lutjeharms family—particularly my mother Beatrixe Bogaerts, my father Henk Lutjeharms, and my aunt Prof. dr. Madeline Lutjeharms—and those of my spiritual family—particularly Śrīla Jayadvaita Swami and Śrīla Kadamba Kanana

Page 1 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Acknowledgements Swami—have provided constant support and encouragement, and it is to them that this book is dedicated. Oxford Akṣaya Tṛtīyā 2018 (p.viii)

Access brought to you by:

Page 2 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

Introduction Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords This chapter introduces the main themes of the book—Kavikarṇapūra, theology, Sanskrit poetry, and Sanskrit poetics—and provides an overview of each chapter. It briefly highlights the importance of the practice of poetry for the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition, places Kavikarṇapūra in the (political) history of sixteenth‐ century Bengal and Orissa as well as sketches his place in the early developments of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition (a topic more fully explored in Chapter 1). The chapter also reflects more generally on the nature of both his poetry and poetics, and highlights the way Kavikarṇapūra has so far been studied in modern scholarship. Keywords:   Kavikarṇapūra, Caitanya Vaiṣṇava, poetry, poetics, history of Bengal, history of Orissa

‘Please listen to this wonderful play!’ Bhagavānācārya urged his friend Svarūpa Dāmodara, one of the closest companions of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, the celebrated sixteenth century Vaiṣṇava religious leader whom his followers revere as God. The devotees of Caitanya, who had gathered in Purī to be with the master after he renounced the world and moved to that holy place, had already listened to this dramatic retelling of Caitanya’s life and were delighted, considering this play to be one of the very best they had heard. But before anything could reach the ears of Caitanya, it had to be sanctioned by Svarūpa Dāmodara, who would screen each literary work to make sure it was properly composed, had the right mood, and did not contain any theological errors. Bhagavānācārya therefore requested Svarūpa Dāmodara to hear the play that an acquaintance of his from

Page 1 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction Bengal had written, so that he could decide whether it was fit to be presented to Caitanya. Svarūpa Dāmodara was sceptical. Bhagavānācārya, a respected teacher of Logic (Nyāya) from Bengal who had permanently settled in Purī to be close to Caitanya,1 was a noble Vaiṣṇava, but had the literary finesse of a cowherd (gopa).2 Svarūpa Dāmodara’s main worry was not poetic taste, however, but theological accuracy. Caitanya’s acts are difficult to understand, Svarūpa Dāmodara explained, and only one wholly devoted to Caitanya can properly praise him in poetry. A work that errs theologically cannot lead to rasa, the audience’s total absorption in the devotional emotions of the poem, but only to a semblance of that (rasābhāsa). ‘To listen to something that contradicts established doctrine (siddhānta),’ he said to Bhagavānācārya, ‘gives no joy.’ But Bhagavānācārya insisted, day after day, begging him to give the play a chance. At last Svarūpa Dāmodara gave in to his friend’s requests, and together they attended a recitation of the play by the author, a Bengali (p.2) brāhmaṇa.3 After hearing only the opening verse and the author’s explanation of it, Svarūpa Dāmodara’s fears were confirmed. The author was entirely ignorant about the subtleties of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology, and Svarūpa Dāmodara angrily rebuked him, giving him a primer into Caitanya theology. Enlightened by Svarūpa Dāmodara, all the Vaiṣṇavas present—who had loved the play as much as Bhagavānācārya had—now saw the poet’s errors. The brāhmaṇa was deeply ashamed, feeling ‘like a heron among swans’ and dared not read further. This story, told in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja,4 tells us a few things. First of all, that one should not be quick to trust the judgements of a logician—not on literary matters, nor on subtle issues of devotional theology. Secondly, that theology is crucial to devotional poetry for Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas; a poor grasp of theology can ruin what would otherwise seem like a good poem. And thirdly, that from very early on Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas wrote classical Sanskrit poetry (kāvya)—adhering to the strict rules of literary embellishment, rasa, prosody, and plot development known from Sanskrit court poetry—in praise of Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya. Later on in the story, the work of the Bengali dramatist is salvaged. Seeing his sorrow, Svarūpa Dāmodara took pity, and reassured the poet that the problem was not with the play itself, just with the author’s understanding. He may have been theologically uninformed, but Sarasvatī, the goddess of speech, praised Caitanya through him. The author was thus blessed with Caitanya’s audience, but the rest is lost in history. Neither the brāhmaṇa’s name, nor his play—a ten act drama (nāṭaka)—survived. We do not know how many Sanskrit poems, plays, songs, and single verses were composed during Caitanya’s stay in Purī, but judging from this story, the Bengali brāhmaṇa’s play was certainly not the first the Vaiṣṇavas of Purī had heard. It seems many of Caitanya’s followers read their poetry to each other, and hoped Page 2 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction that they might have the opportunity one day, after it received Svarūpa Dāmodara’s blessings, to recite their poem to Caitanya himself. Most of these poems, like their authors, are now unknown to us. But whatever (p.3) happened to these poets, their works, and their literary ambitions, we still have more than eighty other literary works written by Caitanya’s immediate disciples. What survived are several dramas: the Jagannātha-vallabha of Rāmānanda Rāya (a saṅgīta-nāṭaka), the Caitanya-candrodaya of Kavikarṇapūra (a nāṭaka), the Vidagdha-mādhava and Lalita-mādhava of Rūpa Gosvāmī (both nāṭakas), and his short Dāna-keli-kaumudī (a bhaṇikā); three lengthy campūs: the Muktā-caritra of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī’s Gopāla-campū in two parts (pūrva and uttara), and Kavikarṇapūra’s Ānanda-vṛndāvana; several anthologies or collections of shorter poems: the Stavāvalī of Raghunāthadāsa (a collection of twenty-nine shorter works), Rūpa’s Stava-mālā (containing over forty shorter poems), his Padyāvalī, an anthology of Vaiṣṇava verses, and Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī’s Caitanya-candrāmṛta and Vṛndāvana-mahimāmṛta; two messenger poems (dūta-kāvyas): Rūpa’s Haṃsa-dūta and Uddhava-sandeśa; two poems on Kṛṣṇa’s daily activities: the lengthy Govinda-līlāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, and Kavikarṇapūra’s shorter and delicate Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī; as well as other poems of various genres: the Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya of Kavikarṇapūra, Sanātana Gosvāmī’s Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta and Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava, the Saṅkalpakalpa-druma and Mādhava-mahotsava of Jīva, the Saṅgīta-mādhava and Rādhārasa-sudhā-nidhi5 of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, and Raghunāthadāsa’s Dāna-kelicintāmaṇi. The composition of poetry in praise of Kṛṣṇa is in itself not usual. The devotees of Caitanya were not the first to do this. Hearing about Kṛṣṇa’s divine play (līlā) and praising Kṛṣṇa are among the most important practices of devotion taught in texts like the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which by Caitanya’s time had become the most influential devotional text in the east of the Indian subcontinent. To employ classical Sanskrit court poetry to praise Kṛṣṇa was not a difficult choice, particularly since the Kṛṣṇa story—with its emphasis on his amorous exploits with the gopīs of Vṛndāvana—fit very easily in the secular tradition of amorous poetry of the courts. The courtly poetry was the culture’s highest form of literary expression, worthy of the highest deity, Kṛṣṇa. Vaiṣṇavas had been composing Sanskrit and Prakrit poetry in praise of Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu for some centuries in the south of the subcontinent,6 but the blurring of the courtly and the devotional truly flourishes in Bengal and Orissa in the centuries prior to Caitanya. Jayadeva, a poet at the court of Lakṣmaṇa Sena (twelfth century) in Bengal, composed the pioneering Gīta-govinda, a ‘dramatic lyrical poem’7 in praise of Kṛṣṇa, which became a catalyst for the surge of Kṛṣṇa devotion in Bengal and beyond, and the model for countless other devotional works in the centuries to follow. Already by the (p.4) late thirteenth century, during the rule of Narasiṃha Deva II (1278–1307),8 Jayadeva’s poem had become an integral part of the ritual culture of the grand Jagannātha temple in Page 3 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction Purī, Orissa, where it was sung daily to Jagannātha (‘Lord of the universe’), who was identified with Kṛṣṇa. Thus tied to the centre of Oriya devotional culture, the Gīta-govinda inspired a host of works in praise of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, the most prominent of which is perhaps the Abhinava-gīta-govinda, the ‘New Gītagovinda’, a work written at the court of Gajapati Puruṣottama Deva (1466– 1497).9 His son, Gajapati Pratāparudra Deva (1497–1540), continued the legacy of his father, and was the patron of several Vaiṣṇava poets. Two among these are particularly important. First there is Jīvadevācārya, known as Kaviḍiṇḍima, ‘the poets’ ḍiṇḍima drum’,10 who started his illustrious career at the court of Puruṣottama, but wrote his first major work, the Bhakti-bhāgavata (a mahākāvya retelling the Bhāgavata’s tenth book), in 1510, during the reign of Pratāparudra, to whom he was not just court poet but also spiritual preceptor. He composed two plays, the Bhakti-vaibhava (a devotional allegorical play in ten acts), and the Utsāhavatī-rūpaka (a one-act retelling of an episode of the Mahābhārata), which were both performed at the Jagannātha temple.11 The second prominent poet at the court was Rāmānanda Rāya Paṭṭanāyaka, who was the governor of Rājamahendrī in the southern part of the kingdom during Pratāparudra’s reign and who would become one of Caitanya’s closest companions. Before they met, Rāmānanda was already an accomplished Vaiṣṇava poet, and had composed the Jagannātha-vallabha, a play in the style of the Gīta-govinda that he dedicated to the king.12 When Caitanya settled in Purī in the early sixteenth century, there was thus already a vibrant devotional literary culture at the Jagannātha temple, where Caitanya worshipped, and it is perhaps not surprising that many of Caitanya’s disciples who were also Sanskrit poets lived in Purī at some point in their lives,13 and that the lively literary culture at Pratāparudra’s court was reflected (p.5) in the circle of Caitanya’s disciples. The hagiographies of Caitanya tell us that the disciples of Caitanya would gather regularly to discuss poetry—both their own and that of older poets. Caitanya himself loved Jayadeva’s work, and had it often recited to him by Svarūpa Dāmodara.14 He guided some of his disciples in writing poetry,15 and encouraged them to discuss their work among themselves.16 The interest in the Sanskrit poetry of the court—besides the vernacular poetry of the people17—among the devotees of Caitanya is thus nothing new, nor all that surprising. What is remarkable about the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava interest in poetry, however, is the importance the practice of poetry gains in the traditions’ theology and the importance of theology for their practice of poetry, as Svarūpa Dāmodara’s comments to the Bengali brāhmaṇa already indicated. Caitanya’s disciples frequently employ concepts from poetics in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theological treatises, and poetry is profusely cited in those works alongside sacred texts to establish theological truths.18 Moreover, they write elaborate, and distinctly theological, commentaries not just on foundational sacred texts

Page 4 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction like the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, but also on compositions of previous poets, including Jayadeva’s Gīta-govinda.19 Given the undeniable importance of poetry to the Caitanya tradition, it is surprising how little attention the literary works of these Vaiṣṇavas have attracted in the contemporary academic world.20 Though the Caitanya tradition is today perhaps the best studied tradition of Kṛṣṇa devotion, modern scholarship has focused either on the hagiographies of Caitanya (p.6) (often as primary sources on the historical Caitanya) or on the theological works produced in Vṛndāvana, while there are precious few studies of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Sanskrit poetry.21 This book is but a small attempt to fill this big lacuna, by examining the works of but one of these early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava poets, Kavikarṇapūra.

Kavikarṇapūra Kavikarṇapūra (‘he who adorns the poets’ ears’)—the honorific title by which Paramānandadāsa Sena is known in the Caitanya tradition—was the son of Śivānanda Sena, a prominent disciple of Caitanya. He was born about a decade before Caitanya’s passing in 1533, and met Caitanya several times in Purī, as we will see in Chapter 1. This was a very tumultuous period. Kavikarṇapūra grew up in the final decades of the peaceful and prosperous Shāh Sultanate, but by the 1570s, when he composed some of his major works, Bengal had been in political chaos for decades. The Shāh Sultanate was overthrown in 1537, when Sher Khān Sur, the Afghan ruler of Bihar, invaded Bengal. Around that time the Mughal army, under the command of Humāyūn, also began marching east from Delhi, and this led to a protracted conflict between the Mughals and the Afghans that would only be concluded in the early seventeenth century. Parts of Bengal were conquered by the Mughals, only to be reconquered by the Afghans shortly thereafter. In 1574 Akbar, Humāyūn’s son and successor, conquered the Afghani capital at Tanda, in the northern part of Bengal. Richard Eaton argues that it is then that ‘the Mughal era in Bengal can be said to have begun’,22 although the political turmoil continued until the early seventeenth century, as local rulers throughout Bengal—both Hindu and Muslim—continued to oppose Mughal rule with varying degrees of success. Only in 1610, during the reign of Jahāngīr, Akbar’s son, did the political situation stabilize and was Bengal unambiguously Mughal.23 The political situation in Orissa was equally tumultuous during Kavikarṇapūra’s lifetime. Gajapati Pratāparudra, who ruled during Caitanya’s lifetime, passed away in 1540—just two years before Kavikarṇapūra completed the Caitanyacaritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya—and after his death his Sūryavaṃśī dynasty quickly faded. Mukundadeva, a former commander in the king’s army, assumed the throne in 1557, and provided some short-lived stability. He allied with Akbar, (p. 7) but was at war with the Afghans in Bengal, who invaded Orissa in 1568 and sacked the Jagannātha temple in Purī, which had for centuries been the pride Page 5 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction and symbol of Oriyan rulers. When Mukundadeva died, the Afghans came to rule the rest of Orissa as well, until the Mughal annexation of Orissa in 1592. During those twenty-four years of Afghan rule, ‘the temple of Jagannātha was empty’.24 There is not even a hint to this political turmoil in Kavikarṇapūra’s writings, and it is difficult to determine to what extent the chaos would have affected him personally. What is rather certain, however, is that these extensive political conflicts would have significantly hindered traffic between Bengal and Orissa, and between Bengal and Vṛndāvana, further west in the Ganges plains, where a prominent group of Caitanya’s disciples with similar poetic interests and talents —Vaiṣṇavas like Rūpa, Jīva, Raghunāthadāsa, and Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī— lived and wrote.25 We will see the significance of this in Chapter 1. We find no reference to these political events in Kavikarṇapūra’s works, because when Kavikarṇapūra writes about Bengal and Orissa, it is the Bengal and Orissa of Caitanya’s time, when there was relative peace. He writes with devotional motivations, to praise Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya, but in the Caitanya-candrodaya (in 1572), his most important account of Caitanya’s life, he does not just recall a lost time, but also a temple culture that was lost at that time, and does so with obvious—though never explicit—longing for a reinstatement of the worship of Jagannātha in the Purī temple, which figures very prominently in the play.

Poetry Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas revere Kavikarṇapūra as one of their best poets, blessed with his extraordinary poetic talent by Caitanya himself. His literary career spanned at least forty years, and he wrote several influential poetic works on the life of both Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa, the most important of which are the Caitanyacandrodaya and the Ānanda-vṛndāvana respectively. Kavikarṇapūra is a versatile poet: he wrote both metrical and prose poetry, both drama and narrative verse, both short lyric and book-length meditations on Kṛṣṇa’s play, mostly in Sanskrit, but also in Prakrit.26 Kavikarṇapūra wrote (p.8) in a variety of genres, and hence in different styles: the prose of his drama is noticeably different from the prose of his campū; the verse of his great narrative poem (mahā-kāvya) is distinct from the rhyming verse of the Kṛṣṇāhnikakaumudī, which is meant for meditational practice. Yet what shines through in all his works is his exceptional command of the Sanskrit language and his exceptional ear for the sound of poetic language. Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry— particularly his mature work—constantly alliterates, resonates, and rhymes, and often has a distinct musical quality to it.27 Although, as we shall see in Chapter 4, Kavikarṇapūra advocates a ‘marvellousness of sound and sense’ (śabdārthavaicitrya), and achieves that in his own poetry, he gives particular prominence to sound. As he writes in the introduction to the Ānanda-vṛndāvana: The words of true poets delight, even without Page 6 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction deeply understanding what they might mean. Without bathing in them, by sight alone, sanctified rivers purify the mind.28

Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry has always been popular in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava circles— as the considerable number of manuscripts of his works alone indicates—and Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas throughout the centuries have praised his poetic genius, as we will see in Chapter 1. But Kavikarṇapūra did not write popular poetry. His command of the Sanskrit language and the considerable learning he exhibits in his works, are meant for an audience that shares his erudition. Kavikarṇapūra’s verse can be most elegant and deceptively simple, but his poetry—particularly the prose of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana—sometimes raises important questions about poetic language: how far can one go with phonetic play? He does not shy from using rare words, and in determining word boundaries the reader of his prose is often deceived by what appears at first to be the natural cadence of his sentences. This does not lead to a stilted, awkward style, as one might suspect, because the musical quality of Kavikarṇapūra’s language generally carries such passages, but it does mean the meaning is not always grasped at the first reading. He writes poetry that challenges and (p.9) puzzles, that requires to be reread. In its most difficult passages, the sound of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry first guides one through the poem, but then forces one to return to the start and walk through the passage once more, but more slowly, now noticing the details of its sense—and, depending on one’s proficiency in Sanskrit, perhaps also struggling with its syntax and grammar—before taking the journey yet again, in wonder now experiencing the perfect fusion of sound and sense—that ‘marvellousness’ of which Kavikarṇapūra speaks. If this makes Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry difficult, it is not something he minds. As he writes in the Ānanda-vṛndāvana: ‘As long as they do not cease to be demanding, demanding things do delight.’29 Although Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas throughout the centuries have loved his poetry, he has not been so favourably received in modern times. Sushil Kumar De, the grandfather of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava studies in English and a prominent scholar of Sanskrit literature more broadly, perhaps exemplifies this view best. De, who was not noticeably fond of most Sanskrit poetry of this period, had a particular dislike of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry. In his seminal work on the Caitanya tradition, Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, he writes: Kavikarṇapūra possess a considerable vacabulary [sic] of fine words; he is a clever artisan in the employment of conventional imageries, expressions, ideas, and conceits; he is a talented master of verbal and metrical contrivance; but in verse after verse his constant straining after purely rhetorical effect gives us a prodigality of literary ingenuity instead of a profusion of poetic beauty.30 Page 7 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction Kavikarṇapūra’s magnum opus, the Ānanda-vṛndāvana, he calls ‘a triumph of poetic artifices, but not a poetic creation’,31 and he criticizes its use of volleys of pun, simile, antithesis, alliteration and other verbal tricks, with interminable heaping of phrases, epithets and conceits in enormously long sentences,—all of which the extraordinary resources of Sanskrit permit, but which in their phantasmagoric far-fetchedness go to the verge of ludicrous fancy and involve unusual torturing of the language….All this is rhetorical cunning, but not poetic brilliance; like the conjurer’s trick, it is astonishing but puerile. A verbal edifice of magnificence is conscientiously and laboriously built up but scholarly ingenuity masquerades in it under the name of polished poetry and reduces it to magnificence of futility.32 (p.10) Needless to say, my own judgement differs. Having repeatedly read Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry for well over a decade—particularly that ‘verbal edifice of magnificence’—I am more inclined to side with Viśvanātha Cakravartī, who marvels at his poetry’s ‘captivating perfume of wonder’.33 Matters of taste aside, S. K. De’s critical judgement of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry almost entirely ignores what Kavikarṇapūra actually intends to accomplish. When he calls Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry a ‘brilliant, but hardly illuminating, elaboration of rhetorical magnificence’,34 he fails to see beyond the figures of speech Kavikarṇapūra uses—which is what De understands by ‘rhetoric’35—but does not even attempt to consider to what effect he uses them. Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘volleys of pun, simile, antithesis, [and] alliteration’ are indeed not mere ‘verbal tricks’, as De sees them, but are meant to evoke—both by their sound and by their sense—certain concepts and emotions. As C. S. Lewis said of John Milton’s verse, ‘if Heaven and Earth are ransacked for simile and allusion, this is not done for display, but in order to guide our imaginations with unobtrusive pressure into the channels where the poet wishes them to flow’.36 The ‘scholarly ingenuity’ of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry which De disdains does not ‘masquerade under the name of polished poetry’, but the poetry expresses itself through such learning. When, particularly for phonetic reasons, Kavikarṇapūra’s prefers a passage to be difficult—as when he favours a rare word over a common one— this is not mere pedantry, nor is this just a ‘verbal trick’. Such choices have significance, either in terms of sound, or sense, or mood, or theology. (S. K. De’s criticism of Kavikarṇapūra’s style—and perhaps my defence of it—will make more sense when we turn to the Ānanda-vṛndāvana later in this book. The impatient reader who desires a taste of this style already now, can quickly turn to the end of Chapter 2 or the beginning of Chapter 6 where two long and representative prose passages of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana are cited.) In this book, we will examine in detail only the poetry of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana. This is Kavikarṇapūra’s most difficult poem, and the most misunderstood. His Page 8 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction other works are not as ornamented and perhaps not as demanding, but they do share something of the style of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana, if only in small doses. In the campū, Kavikarṇapūra’s does not temper his taste for phonetic ornamentation and literary paradox; his distinct style is here most developed and articulate. The brief study of the style of this work presented here would, I hope, thus illuminate that of his other works as well. The other aspect of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana we examine here is almost entirely ignored by critics like S. K. De. The Ānanda-vṛndāvana, like so much of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava poetry, is a retelling of the Bhāgavata’s account (p.11) of Kṛṣṇa’s life, and its narrative is thus well known to its intended audience. This is not a defect, however. In the Sanskrit world, the subject of a poem is not expected to be novel, and this is even less so in a devotional context, since praising Kṛṣṇa is an important devotional act, and so devotees naturally tell and retell tales about Kṛṣṇa. What interests us here, however, is how Kavikarṇapūra retells the Bhāgavata narrative and why he does so. He develops the Bhāgavata narrative— like he develops the narrative of Caitanya told in his devotional community—and does so not only to articulate specific emotions (rasa) but also to convey particular theological ideas about God, devotion, and the community of devotees.

Poetics What makes Kavikarṇapūra particularly unique in the poetic tradition of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism, is that he is not just an accomplished and respected poet, but also the author of the most elaborate, if not also the most influential, work on literary theory, the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha. Although there are good reasons to be cautious of relying too strongly on Sanskrit criticism for the analysis of Sanskrit poetry, as David Smith has pointed out37 (and as we will see in Chapters 4 and 6), I argue that we need to read Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry in the light of his poetics, and vice versa. Unlike some other works on poetics, the Alaṃkārakaustubha is not polemical—Kavikarṇapūra rarely refutes differing views—and is written to teach the aspiring Vaiṣṇava poet how to write and read good poetry.38 Although he did not write the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha with the express purpose of illustrating his own poetic style, the work does obviously shed light on what he considered he was doing when writing his own poetry. The Alaṃkāra-kaustubha comes in a long history of literary criticism. Unlike other schools of Sanskrit thought, Sanskrit poetics (alaṃkāra-śāstra) was never founded on a single text, and ‘its focus is constantly changed over time, partly in response to new literary practices but more often as a consequence of radically new (and self-consciously new) conceptual breakthroughs’.39 The earliest poeticians—Daṇḍī, Bhāmaha, Rudraṭa—focused on figuration in poetry and the classification of figures of speech, but with Ā (p.12) nandavardhana’s new idea of the suggestion of rasa (rasa-dhvani) in the ninth century, criticism shifts to a poetics of suggestion, and the critical tools of older authors are reinterpreted in the light of this new theory, as we will see in Chapter 4. The Kāvya-prakāśa of Page 9 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction Mammaṭa systematized this new poetics, covering all its aspects—from the semantic capacities of words to the notion of rasa—and the work quickly became a classic throughout the subcontinent. There are numerous commentaries on the Kāvya-prakāśa—vastly more than on any other critical treatise—and the text’s influence on the discipline has been immensely profound. The Kāvya-prakāśa was well known in Bengal in the sixteenth century. It was a popular handbook of poetics,40 and it is not unlikely that Kavikarṇapūra himself was trained in poetics with this work. As we will see, Kavikarṇapūra shows a deep familiarity with the text: the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha’s ‘subject-matter follows the Kāvya-prakāśa in treatment’,41 as S. K. De notes, and when not quoting this text, he often paraphrases it. Kavikarṇapūra is also significantly influenced by the Sāhitya-darpaṇa of Viśvanātha Kavirāja. This text, which also ‘draws very considerably’ from Mammaṭa’s work,42 is lesser known than the Kāvya-prakāśa, but was very popular in the author’s homeland of Orissa. This work is cited regularly by Caitanya Vaiṣṇava authors,43 and Kavikarṇapūra’s analysis of the constituents of rasa is modelled on Viśvanātha’s. The Alaṃkāra-kaustubha has sometimes been dismissed as just a derivative work, with no notable originality,44 but as we will see in this book, this does not do justice to the subtle complexity of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics. Kavikarṇapūra lived in the sixteenth century, close to Navadvīpa, one of the main intellectual centres of his day, and is thus situated at the very beginning of the early modern period in Sanskrit intellectual history. This period, studied extensively in the last two decades, ‘witnessed a flowering of intellectual life characterized by, among other features, an increase in the production of texts across disciplines, the rise of a new (or newly reinvigorated) interdisciplinarity, and the introduction of important new discursive practices and conceptual (p.13) categories’.45 In the field of Sanskrit poetics, this was marked by a reappraisal of the earliest authors on poetics (like Daṇḍī), whose ideas were refined and strengthened, often using concepts of later authors (like Mammaṭa) who had dismissed these older ideas of poetry in favour of Ānandavardhana’s poetics of suggestion.46 In this period the writings of these earliest authors ‘are collectively transformed into something approximating the foundational text the system never possessed and elevated above criticism.47 In the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra does not attempt to redefine poetics in such consistently and self-consciously innovative ways as do the most famous early modern critics, authors like Appayya Dīkṣita and Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha. Yet Kavikarṇapūra’s originality foreshadows the changes that lie ahead. Although he is much more grounded in later authors like Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha, whom other early modern authors are often eager to reject, his entire poetics shows a marked interest in those earlier authors. Both in his general poetics and in his understanding of rasa in particular, Kavikarṇapūra tries to reintroduce some of the concepts of the earlier critics into the poetics of Page 10 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction Mammaṭa. Unlike other pre-modern poets Kavikarṇapūra never attempts to step over Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha, but adapts their theory to suit his likings and needs. In a way, if Kavikarṇapūra would have a single canonical text for poetics ‘elevated above criticism’ this would be the Kāvya-prakāśa.48 As we will see, he cites the text in a few important places in the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha not just to grant authority to, but also to validate his own new ideas.49 One of the difficulties in determining the originality of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha is precisely this dependence on the Kāvya-prakāśa. When Kavikarṇapūra breaks with the Kāvya-prakāśa, he often tries to do so within Mammaṭa’s framework (as he does very clearly, for example, when he tries to establish devotion as a rasa). Although the ideas he sets forth are at odds with those of Mammaṭa, Kavikarṇapūra’s reasoning is fully grounded in his. Thus, a superficial reading of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha may give the impression that Kavikarṇapūra is merely rehashing the same old issues, and only the attentive and patient reader will realize how original some of his ideas are. (p.14) Very few scholars of Sanskrit criticism have given the Alaṃkārakaustubha much attention,50 with one important exception: Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya edited the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha with a commentary and his own notes,51 and in his many articles on Sanskrit poetics, he often refers to Kavikarṇapūra and offers very insightful comments on his ideas.52 In my own reading of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha I am deeply indebted to his scholarship, and his copious (Sanskrit) notes on the text have helped me greatly.

Theology Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry as well as his poetics have to be seen in the context of his theology. Kavikarṇapūra composes literary works that aim to praise God, and are therefore an expression of his theological views, and in several cases he departs from Mammaṭa’s criticism not just by a difference in aesthetic, but also by a profound difference in theology. As we will see in Chapter 1, the theological foundation for Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism was primarily developed not in Orissa or Bengal—which, as the regions where Caitanya lived, are the homeland of the tradition—but in Mathurā or Vṛndāvana, the place where Kṛṣṇa is said to have spent his youth. Several of Caitanya’s most intellectually gifted disciples settled in Vṛndāvana, where they wrote and systematized his theology of devotion to Kṛṣṇa. The intellectual culture that developed in Vṛndāvana was truly unique. The temples they established—some of which received patronage from no less than the Mughal court53—became, in a sense, spiritual ‘courts’, presided over by the image of Kṛṣṇa that they housed. They developed a rich Sanskritic culture that rivalled, and often imitated, the culture of secular courts, but that was fully centred on Kṛṣṇa, Vṛndāvana’s divine lord. It is the works that were produced here—not (p.15) just the poetry that we mentioned earlier, but also voluminous works on theology and ritual Page 11 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction practice—that would form the foundation for all later Caitanya Vaiṣṇava thought.54 In Bengal, however, the emphasis was on vernacular literature. Prior to Caitanya, there had been a vibrant culture of vernacular poetry in praise of Kṛṣṇa,55 and the Bengali devotees of Caitanya built on this tradition. They produced a vast library of poetry, which equalled that of the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas. They wrote several long hagiographical works on Caitanya, countless Brajabuli songs in praise of both Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya, and retold the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in Bengali verse.56 Although Sanskrit was the main literary language in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava communities of Vṛndāvana, the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas also produced vernacular songs and hagiographical works—indeed, the most influential Bengali work of the tradition, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s Caitanyacaritāmṛta, was composed there. Similarly, although the Bengali Vaiṣṇavas composed primarily literary works in the vernacular, several Bengali authors wrote in Sanskrit and also wrote theology. The most prominent of those to do so is Kavikarṇapūra. Of all the Bengali Vaiṣṇavas, Kavikarṇapūra is by far the most prolific, and yet his works have so far received but little academic attention. As Jan Brzezinski writes: Kavikarṇapūra is unfortunately one of the major Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava authors left whose works have not yet been critically edited or subjected to scholarly analysis. A more complete examination of all his work is necessary. It is hoped that this will be done in order to establish as clearly as possible who he was and what his importance was to the sampradāya, both as a historian and theologian.57 Most scholars who have studied the Caitanya tradition have either focused on the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas—particularly Rūpa and Jīva—and then mostly on their theological works,58 or on the figure of Caitanya himself, through a study of his hagiographies. In the context of the latter, Kavikarṇapūra has been studied, as he wrote three works on Caitanya,59 but, with some important (p.16) exceptions,60 these have mostly been studied as (semi-)historical documents that tell us more about the ‘historical’ Caitanya than about Kavikarṇapūra. The theology of the sixteenth-century Bengali Vaiṣṇavas has not been studied extensively (particularly not beyond the figure of Caitanya), despite its importance to our understanding of the early intellectual development of the tradition. The most important works of the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas did not reach Bengal until the end of the sixteenth century, for reasons we will explore in Chapter 1, and these early Bengali views thus represent a theological tradition that is independent from that which was developing in Vṛndāvana at the same time. Although the theologies developed in both locations have mostly identical Page 12 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction concerns and articulate their views in strikingly similar ways, there are nevertheless some important differences. The Vṛndāvana theology is much more systematic and comprehensive than anything articulated in Bengal, and thereby comes to shape Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology from the seventeenth century onwards, and some of the alternative, unique takes on Caitanya Vaiṣṇava ideas articulated in Bengal are not further developed thereafter. Kavikarṇapūra is particularly important in this regard, not just because he was a prolific—and Sanskrit—author from Bengal, but also because in his works we clearly see the development of this independent Bengali tradition. Kavikarṇapūra builds on the teachings of his guru, Śrīnātha Paṇḍita, and thus shows the beginning of a distinct theological lineage within Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Influenced by Svarūpa Dāmodara and Advaitācārya, a very senior companion of Caitanya in Bengal, Śrīnātha wrote a commentary on the Bhāgavata in which he expounds his theology in a markedly different way from that of Vṛndāvana, which his student Kavikarṇapūra builds on in his own works. As we will see, the extent to which Kavikarṇapūra’s ideas are original is sometimes only grasped when seen in the light of his guru’s teachings, and so in order to understand Kavikarṇapūra’s theology, we also need to study Śrīnātha’s. This book, then, is an attempt to understand the practice of poetry in the early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community, through a examination of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry in the light of his own poetics and his own theology. I argue that Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry is the expression of his distinct theology, derived from Ś (p.17) rīnātha, and study how it is used to convey theological ideas, particularly through poetic language and figuration, and through narrative and the suggestion of rasa. This book, while not coming close to fulfilling the needs identified by Brzezinski, is an attempt to study Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry by reading it through his own ideas, both theological and literary critical, which I hope sheds some light not just on the practice of poetry in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition and pre-modern South Asia more broadly, but also on the intellectual heritage of those early Bengali Vaiṣṇavas.

Outline of Chapters Chapter 1 gives an overview of Kavikarṇapūra’s life and his works, and places both in the context of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. Very little is known about Kavikarṇapūra’s life. He has little to say about himself in his works, and since he was still a child when Caitanya passed away, the hagiographies of Caitanya have little to say about him either. Nevertheless, beginning with his contemporary Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas have recorded stories about Kavikarṇapūra, particularly regarding his encounters with Caitanya. I look here at these images of Kavikarṇapūra as well as at the reception of his works to gain an understanding of his position in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. My primary aim in this chapter is not to recover a ‘historical’ Kavikarṇapūra, but to examine the way the tradition (variously) viewed Kavikarṇapūra, his works, and his Page 13 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction position in the Vaiṣṇava community of his time.61 I also examine here Kavikarṇapūra’s views of his contemporary Vaiṣṇava communities (particularly the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas), to understand how he saw himself in this tradition. Chapter 2 gives an outline of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology, and demonstrates how he derives much of his thought from Śrīnātha. This chapter is structured around an important section of the Caitanya-candrodaya, in which Kavikarṇapūra presents his theology through the character of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya—a historical figure; he was one of the leading scholars at Pratāparudra’s court and is said to have been a disciple of Caitanya. I give particular importance to Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of God (as both Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya), and to his theology of devotion, in which we have to place his practice of poetry. One of the key concepts in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology of devotion is rasa, a concept that is derived from dramaturgy and poetics. Chapter 3 explores Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of rasa. The concept of rasa is first (p.18) articulated by Bharata in the Nāṭya-śāstra, the oldest and most influential treatise on dramaturgy, but his ideas have been variously interpreted and applied by later authors. The earliest authors on rasa considered it to be the heightened form of the main emotion of the characters of the literary work, whereas from the tenth century onwards the rasa theory is used to explain the audience’s response to a literary work. As this chapter demonstrates, Kavikarṇapūra draws on both of these concepts of rasa, and formulates a rasa theory that is both a reinterpretation of the earlier authors (particularly Bhoja) through the ideas of the later authors (particularly Viśvanātha Kavirāja) as well as an attempt to allow both views of rasa to function independently of each other, in the same poetics. This chapter also traces the origins of Kavikarṇapūra’s views on devotional rasa (bhakti-rasa), through the works of Vopadeva, Hemādri, and his own guru Śrīnātha, and, finally, explores the way his theology influenced his views on rasa. In Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, rasa is seen as the ‘soul’ of poetry. Chapter 4 attempts to understand how the language of poetry can embody this soul. I start with Kavikarṇapūra’s eclectic philosophy of language, and then examine his poetics proper, as presented in the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha: his views on suggestion (dhvani), literary excellences (guṇa), figures of speech (alaṃkāra), style (rīti), and literary defects (doṣa). I compare and contrast Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of these with those of earlier authors, and demonstrate that Kavikarṇapūra particularly draws on Vāmana, a ninth- century theorist, and gives prominence to the excellences and style—the core ideas of Vāmana’s poetics—to formulate a poetics that prizes phonetic ornamentation. Having studied Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics in great detail in Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5 briefly studies Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of poetry in the Alaṃkārakaustubha. Kavikarṇapūra offers two definitions of poetry, and refutes the Page 14 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction definitions of Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, and Vāmana, and in so doing rethinks not just the nature of language itself, but also places the poet-cum-critic at the heart of his poetics. Having examined in depth Kavikarṇapūra’s theology and poetics, we turn to the Ānanda-vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra’s longest and most sophisticated poem in praise of Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana, in the final two chapters. Each chapter studies but a small section of this voluminous work—a single sentence in Chapter 6, a single chapter in Chapter 7—but by examining such brief passages in depth in the light of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics and theology, it is hoped the reader will get a good sense of the complexity of his poetic and narrative style, and be encouraged to explore more of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry than could be contained in these numbered pages. Chapter 6 examines the style of Kavikarṇapūra’s prose. I revisit Kavikarṇapūra’s eclectic philosophy of language (discussed in Chapter 4) and draw out its theological implications, which, I argue, are essential to grasp the suggested sense of (p.19) Kavikarṇapūra’s fusion of figures of speech that mark the prose of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana. This chapter offers a close reading of the opening sentence of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana, and explores how Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘splendour of speech’ (vāg-vibhūti)—as he calls his own style62—conveys not just theological ideas, but is also meant to affect the reader and contribute to the realization of rasa. The development of rasa in the Ānanda-vṛndāvana is the topic of the final chapter, Chapter 7. As this chapter demonstrates, Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘narratology’ is based not on action, but on the emotional being of the protagonist. I therefore articulate here Kavikarṇapūra’s argument that Kṛṣṇa is the chief protagonists, and look at his defence of Kṛṣṇa’s extra-marital relations with the gopīs. This then prepares us to look at one narrative section of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling of Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance from the gopīs just prior to their celebrated circular (rāsa) dance. The focus of this chapter is the development of rasa, and particularly the rasa of Love (prema-rasa), a concept that is central and unique to the theology of Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha. Notes:

(1) See CCU p. 106/305. (2) Indeed, Kṛṣṇadāsa claims he is a ‘descent of a cowherd’ (gopa avatāra, CC 3.2.85) of the divine Vṛndāvana. (3) Caitanya’s principal disciples composed several dramas, but there is (to my knowledge) no record of these plays ever being performed in their lifetime. Rather, as references such as these suggest, it seems these plays were mostly publicly read rather than enacted on stage. See also CC 3.5.91, 93, 96, 98, 100, 107, etc.; and CC 3.1.110ff. The Caitanya-candrodaya, Kavikarṇapūra’s own play, Page 15 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction seems to have been written to be read rather than performed: not only are some of the stage directions unusually long, but they are at times very ornamented too; notice, for example, the phonetic play in the following passage: Śacī: (sacamatkāra-vismayaṃ svānandāveśa-peśalam adbhuta-nayaṃ tanayaṃ vilokya jāta-tad-anukampā kampāyamāna-śarīrā vāg-devatāvatāra-pratibhā pratibhāsamāneva kiñcid apāṭhīt)…(CCU p. 14/39). It is for this reason that I have generally not made a distinction between drama—literature that is to be seen (dṛśya)—and poetry—literature that is meant to be heard (śravya). Unless otherwise indicated, I use the term ‘poetry’ to refer to both forms of literature. (4) CC 3.5.91–158. (5) The ascription of this work to Prabodhānanda has been contested, though Brzezinski (1992a) has argued convincingly for Prabodhānanda’s authorship. (6) See, for example, Hopkins (2002). (7) Miller (1977, p. 9). (8) There is a long Oriya tradition that argues Jayadeva was from Orissa, and composed the Gīta-govinda in praise of Jagannātha. According to this view, Jayadeva not only composed the work in the Jagannātha temple, but also recited it there, and the poem became an official part of the temple’s liturgy during the poet’s lifetime, during the reign of Rājarājadeva II (1170–1190). For more on this, see Mahapatra (1976) and the long introduction to Bhagaban Panda’s edition of the Gīta-govinda (esp. pp. 36–40). (9) The poem is generally ascribed to the king himself, but is by his court poet Divākara Miśra (see the introduction of Panda’s edition of the text). (10) As he states in both the Bhakti-vaibhava (1.20) and the Utsāhavatī-rūpaka (p. 40), the title was bestowed upon him by Pratāparudra himself. Jīvadeva also wrote a shorter work, the Bhakti-vaijayanti-stotra, a poem of 116 verses in praise of Kṛṣṇa. (11) See Bhakti-vaibhava pp. 4–5 and Utsāhavatī-rūpaka p. 2. (12) See Jagannātha-vallabha 1.4, 10–17, 22, 28, 37; 2.20, 24, 35, 46; 3.3, 8, 15, 34; 4.2, 15, 25, 37, 51; 5.3, 24, 35, 61. (13) Raghunāthadāsa lived for a considerable time in Purī with Caitanya, and Rūpa worked on his two most important poetic works, the Vidagdha-mādhava and Lalita-mādhava, while residing in Purī (see CC 3.1.123–126). Sanātana lived for a year with Caitanya in Purī, and though his main works were likely completed while he lived in Vṛndāvana, Purī clearly left a deep impression on him (see Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.1.159–219, 2.5.209–212, 2.5.235–241 and Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava 398–402, 421). It is not unlikely that Sanātana began working on Page 16 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction these works in Purī, although he indicates in both of them that they were written while living in Vraja: see his commentary on Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 1.1.5 and Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava 418. Although there is no mention of this in the hagiographical literature, Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī seems to have resided in Purī as well for some time (see Caitanya-candrāmṛta 83), and his Saṅgīta-mādhava fits neatly in the Oriya tradition of Gīta-govinda imitations. Kavikarṇapūra probably did not live in Purī, but visited regularly, as we will see in Chapter 1, and he clearly sees himself as continuing the literary culture of Pratāparudra’s court (see CCU pp. 1–2/1–4). (14) CC 1.13.42, 2.10.115, 3.15.27, 3.17.6, 3.20.67–68. (15) CC 3.1.124–126. (16) CC 3.1.110ff. (17) The two—vernacular and court—are of course not oppositional, for, as Sheldon Pollock (2006, pp. 283ff) has demonstrated, ‘vernacularization’ was an important trend in courts across the subcontinent in this period. However, the distinction does apply in this context, as the Gajapati court was particularly Sanskritic. (18) This is especially the case in Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi. See De (1961, pp. 202, 221) for a list of literary works quoted in these two books. (19) Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, and Caitanyadāsa, who was a priest in Rūpa’s Govindadeva temple, wrote commentaries on Bilvamaṅgala’s Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta. Caitanyadāsa also wrote a commentary on Jayadeva’s Gīta-govinda. (20) For a useful overview of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava studies, see Wong (2015). (21) S. K. De gives a brief overview of their poetry in his book on Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism (see ch. 7, ‘The Literary Works’ in De, 1961). Donna Wulff (1984) provides a good study of Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Vidagdha-mādhava, and Jan Brzezinski has done outstanding work on the poetry of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Gopāla-campū (see Brzezinski, 1990b; Brzezinski, 1996). More recently, David Buchta (2014) has written an insightful study of Rūpa’s Stava-mālā. (22) Eaton (1993, p. 142). (23) See Eaton (1993, pp. 137–50). (24) Mohapatra (1982, p. 104).

Page 17 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction (25) Kavikarṇapūra mentions that the conflict between Ḥusain Shāh and Pratāparudra made travel from Bengal to Orissa difficult; see CCU p. 65/186. (26) As is customary in Sanskrit drama, the Caitanya-candrodaya contains many Prakrit passages, but Kavikarṇapūra also wrote many Prakrit verses for the Alaṃkara-kaustubha, and even the Ānanda-vṛndāvana contains Prakrit passages (e.g., AVC 21.30–31). (27) Indeed, in the verses of the Ānanda-vṛndāvana Kavikarṇapūra sometimes records the music of various drums: See, for example, AVC 20.24: thaiyā tatha tatha thaiyā, tatha tatha thaiyā tathatti tatha thaiyā / thaiyā tatha tatha thaiyā, thaga thaga thaga tattitha digaṇathaiḥ; and AVC 9.39: drāṃ drāṃ drāṃ dṛmi dṛmi thoṅga thoṅga thoṅg ity uttāla-praṣrmara-tāla-pāṭha-gatyā / vinyasyann adayamudāra-pāda-padmaṃ, babhrāje phaṇi-phaṇa-raṅga-bhaṅga-raṅgī. See also AVC 9.30 & 20.33, 36, 46, 51, etc. (28) Arthādi-paryākalanaṃ vināpi prahlādayante sukaver vacāṃsi / vināvagāhād api dṛṣṭi-mātrān manaḥ punanty eva hi puṇya-nadyaḥ (AVC 1.11). (29) Rasayati hi padārtho durlabhas tāvad eva / vyabhicarati tadīyaṃ durlabhatvaṃ na yāvat (AVC 11.86). Although the verse comments on Rādhā’s reluctance to give in to Kṛṣṇa’s advances, it is difficult not to see a literary reference here too, as padārtha literally means ‘meaning of a word’ (from which is derived the more generic meaning of ‘thing’), and rasa (alluded to in the verb rasayati) is a key concept in poetics. (30) De (1961, pp. 602–3). (31) De (1961, p. 628). (32) De (1961, p. 626). For his only slightly milder critique of the delicate Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī, see De (1961, pp. 599–603). (33) Camatkāra-rūpa-manohara-gandhaḥ (Commentary on AVC 1.6). (34) De (1961, pp. 627–8). (35) See Gerow (1971, pp. 13–16). (36) Lewis (1942, p. 43). (37) See Smith (1985, pp. 33–54). (38) That he has a Vaiṣṇava audience in mind is clear throughout the work. Not only are all illustrative verses about Kṛṣṇa, but he also barely discusses nondevotional themes in his theory. The analysis of the excitants (vibhāva), for

Page 18 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction example, in ch. 5 of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha only deals with Kṛṣṇa, Vṛndāvana, and the gopīs. (39) Pollock (2002, p. 433). (40) See CC 3.13.92 and 3.13.111. Delmonico (1990, pp. 255–60) argues that the Kāvya-prakāśa was virtually unknown in Bengal during this time (and specifically to the Gosvāmīs), but I am not convinced by his argument. As he mentions (pp. 256–7), Jīva Gosvāmī had two copies of the work in his library, at least one of which he most likely inherited from his uncles. Jīva also cites the Kāvya-prakāśa occasionally, as in Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.51.53 where he cites KP 10.153. (41) De (1976, vol. I, p. 255). (42) De (1976, vol. I, p. 212). (43) See, for example, Jīva’s Prīti-sandarbha 110, Rūpa’s Nāṭaka-candrikā 2, CC 3.1.186. (44) Girija (1991, pp. 10, 167), De (1976, vol. I, p. 255). See also R. S. Nagar’s introduction (pp. 14–15) to his reprint of Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya’s edition of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha. (45) Pollock (2002, p. 431). (46) Bronner (2002, pp. 456–7). (47) Pollock (2002, p. 434). (48) That Kavikarṇapūra expects a thorough familiarity with the Kāvya-prakāśa is clear throughout the work. As we will see, he quotes passages from the work regularly, often without offering any explanation. (49) This respect for the Kāvya-prakāśa becomes even more prominent in the writings of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, the other important Caitanya Vaiṣṇava poetician, whose Sāhitya-kaumudī is really a commentary on the kārikās of the Kāvya-prakāśa. In the writings of Jīva Gosvāmī, Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya-darpaṇa plays a similar role to the Kāvya-prakāśa in Kavikarṇapūra’s work: see for example how Jīva builds his argument for devotional rasa on the authority of Viśvanātha in Prītisandarbha 110. (50) In his History of Sanskrit Poetics S. K. De briefly outlines the contents of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha and comments ‘It is thus a more comprehensive work than Rūpa Gosvāmin’s [either the Nāṭaka-candrikā or, more likely, the Ujjvalanīlamaṇi, both of which are discussed prior] and the Vaiṣṇavite proclivities are not so prominent; but most of the illustrative verses are in praise of Kṛṣṇa and Page 19 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction the subject-matter follows the Kāvya-prakāśa in treatment’ (De, 1976, vol. I, p. 255). A. Girija’s (1991) study of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha is brief and ignores much of the text’s complexity. Ramaranjan Mukherji (1966) gives a brief but good overview of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, limiting his study mainly to chapters 1 and 5 of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha. Raghu Nath Sharma (1996) briefly discusses the text, but reads a lot into the text that is not there. Sheldon Pollock (2016) translated sections from the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha and highlighted the significance of some of its ideas, and V. Raghavan also occasionally comments on some of Kavikarṇapūra’s original thoughts, generally related to rasa: see Raghavan (1975, pp. 146, 206, 210–12); Raghavan (1963, pp. 416–17). (51) The first volume was published by the Varendra Research Society in 1926, and completed in 1934 by Bhattacharyya under under great personal difficulties. (52) See Bhattacharyya (1964). (53) See Mukherji and Habib (1987 & 1989–1990). (54) For a comprehensive overview of the works of the principal Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, see De (1961, pp. 111–541). (55) See Sen (1963), vol. 1, ch. 10–12. For Bhāgavata adaptations, see Zbavitel (1976, pp. 148–55). (56) The most comprehensive studies of the hagiographical works are by Majumdar (1959) and Stewart (2010). For a useful overview, see De (1961, pp. 34–66), and Dimock and Stewart (1999, pp. 82–99). For the vernacular songs, see Sen (1935). (57) Brzezinski (1990a, p. 489). (58) See particularly Kapoor (1976), Haberman (1988, 2003), Delmonico (1990, 1998), Case (1996), Gupta (2007), Frazier (2009), and the works of Jan Brzezinski. (59) See De (1961), Stewart (1985, 1994), Kennedy (1993), Dimock and Stewart (1999), Bainarjī (2000), and all the works of Gerald Carney listed in the bibliography. (60) Tony K. Stewart, in both his 1985 doctoral dissertation and his recent The Final Word (2010), is one of the few scholars who has looked at the ‘biographical images of Caitanya’ in these works and their role in community formation, thereby moving away from the historical perspective that has generally been the approach of earlier (mostly Bengali) scholars. For Kavikarṇapūra in particular, both Siprā Bainarjī (2000) and Gerald Carney have attempted to understand the way he saw Caitanya in his hagiographical works, rather than to determine the historical accuracy of Kavikarṇapūra’s accounts. Ira Haldar’s recent study Page 20 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Introduction (Haldar 2016) offers a detailed study of the literary aspects of Kavikarṇapūra’s two hagiographies; unfortunately, it came too late to my attention to incorporated into this book. (61) For more about (the limits of) the historicity of such texts, see both Dimock (1976) and O’Connell (1993a). (62) AVC 22.52.

Access brought to you by:

Page 21 of 21

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On Kavikarṇapūra Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords Chapter 1 gives an overview of Kavikarṇapūra’s life and his works, and places both in the context of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. Very little is known about Kavikarṇapūra’s life. He says little about himself in his works, nor do the hagiographies of Caitanya, as he was a child when Caitanya passed away. Nevertheless, beginning with his contemporary Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas have recorded stories about Kavikarṇapūra, especially his encounters with Caitanya. This chapter considers these images of Kavikarṇapūra as well as the reception of his works to gain an understanding of his position in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. This chapter does not aim to recover a ‘historical’ Kavikarṇapūra, but to examine the way the tradition viewed Kavikarṇapūra, his works, and his position in the Vaiṣṇava community of his time. The chapter also examines Kavikarṇapūra’s views of his contemporary Vaiṣṇava communities, to understand how he saw himself in this tradition. Keywords:   Kavikarṇapūra, Caitanya, hagiography, Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, reception history

When Viśvambhara, a young but accomplished scholar from the town of Navadvīpa in Bengal, had returned from his pilgrimage to Gayā, his students noticed he was no longer the same. Instead of teaching them grammar, he only discussed Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs, losing himself in the divine forest of Vṛndāvana as he talked. He had travelled to Gayā to make a ritual offering to his ancestors and his recently deceased father. On that journey he had met Īśvara Purī, an ascetic born in Kumārahaṭṭa, a town about forty miles south of Navadvīpa, and now a disciple of Mādhavendra Purī, an ascetic renowned for his deep devotion for Kṛṣṇa. Initiated by Īśvara Purī, Viśvambhara experienced overwhelming Page 1 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra emotions whenever he worshipped Kṛṣṇa, and when he had returned to Navadvīpa became ever more enraptured in that ecstatic devotion. His promising academic career quickly faded away, and he now spent ever more time with local Vaiṣṇavas, led by the brāhmaṇa Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, in whose house they gathered to discuss Kṛṣṇa’s play, sing his praises, and dance to the chanting of his names. They were quickly joined by two other disciples of Mādhavendra Purī: Advaitācārya, an older brāhmaṇa teacher from the nearby town Śāntipura, and Nityānanda, an enigmatic ascetic who had been wandering through Bengal and moved to Navadvīpa when he heard the news of Viśvambhara’s devotional awakening. In the privacy of Śrīvāsa’s house, Viśvambhara became rapt in devotion, and soon revealed to his intimate friends his divine nature, the hagiographies tell us, manifesting before them some of Kṛṣṇa’s many forms. That circle of Vaiṣṇavas quickly recognized Viśvambhara as a divine descent (avatāra) of God, who had appeared as his own devotee to experience the ecstasy of devotion to himself, and thereby grant it to the world. Soon, however, Viśvambhara decided to renounce the world. Leaving his widowed mother Śacīdevī and young wife Viṣṇupriyā in the care of his new devotees, he approached the ascetic Keśava Bhāratī, who initiated the twenty‐ four year old Viśvambhara into the life of a renouncer (sannyāsī) and named him Kṛṣṇa Caitanya (‘Consciousness of Kṛṣṇa’). Although he intended to travel to Vṛndāvana, the place of Kṛṣṇa’s youth, and spend the rest of his life there, his mother pleaded with him to stay nearby, so that she still might (p.21) hear some news of her son, now that his vows of renunciation prohibited him from visiting her. Caitanya therefore travelled to Purī, home of the famous Jagannātha temple, in the kingdom of Gajapati Pratāparudra. Interrupted by a two‐year journey to the principal sacred sites of South India, a pilgrimage to Vṛndāvana, and a few short visits to Bengal, Caitanya spent the rest of his life in Purī, worshipping Jagannātha and discussing Kṛṣṇa’s youthful play in the company of some close friends, both ascetics and householders.

Early Development of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism Although Caitanya started his movement in Bengal, his Bengali followers were very early on deprived of his leadership. The Bengali devotees travelled to Purī every year, to attend with Caitanya the annual cart procession (ratha‐yātrā) during which the Jagannātha image was taken on huge carts through the town. The Bengalis often stayed in Orissa for the duration of the rainy season to be close to their master, but the organization and leadership of the movement in Bengal was no longer in his hands. Bereft of Caitanya’s ecstatic example, the devotees centred themselves around several of his most charismatic followers. These Vaiṣṇavas never replaced Caitanya, but led and expanded his movement in

Page 2 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra his absence, shaping it locally according to their own devotional mood and understanding. Of these leaders, the two most prominent were Advaita and Nityānanda. Both were close companions of Caitanya and were specifically appointed by him to guide and sustain the movement in Bengal, but embodied very different moods. Advaita was considerably older than Caitanya and had a reverential devotion for him. He had settled in the town of Śāntipura, where he lived with his wives and taught theology to a growing group of disciples. Nityānanda, on the other hand, who was somewhat older than Caitanya, was a very charismatic but impulsive ascetic who had discarded common social norms and whose behaviour often shocked the more orthodox devotees.1 He was an avadhūta ascetic—one who had ‘shaken off’ all social norms—and had a fraternal friendship with Caitanya. He became the leader of a large group of Vaiṣṇavas who very effectively popularized the devotionalism of Caitanya, and often exhibited a boisterous, fraternal devotion to Kṛṣṇa. At an advanced age, Nityānanda gave up his ascetic life, married and settled in the village Khaḍadaha, from where he exerted his influence on the surrounding villages, such as Kumārahaṭṭa, Pāṇihāṭi, and Naihāṭī, which all became important centres of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism.2 (p.22) A third important centre for the movement in Bengal was located in Śrīkhaṇḍa, a town north‐west of Navadvīpa. Led by Narahari Sarakāra, a close companion of Caitanya who knew him from those early days in Navadvīpa, the community of Śrīkhaṇḍa saw Caitanya as non‐different from Kṛṣṇa, and worshipped him with songs steeped in an amorous love resembling that of the gopīs of Vṛndāvana. They paid special attention to Caitanya’s intimate friendship with Gadādhara Paṇḍita, a prominent devotee of his in Purī who was widely considered to be a descent (avatāra) of Rādhā, Kṛṣṇa’s eternal consort. Although honoured by the majority of hagiographers, some authors had no affinity with Narahari’s amorous devotion to Caitanya. Vṛndāvanadāsa, a disciple of Nityānanda and the author of the Caitanya‐bhāgavata, one of the most popular hagiographies of Caitanya, condemned such amorous worship of Caitanya.3 After his renunciation, Caitanya had desired to travel to Vṛndāvana and spend the rest of his life in Kṛṣṇa’s land. Although persuaded to remain in eastern India, Vṛndāvana remained important to him, and he sent several of his disciples westwards to settle in that holy place. The most prominent of these were Rūpa and Sanātana.4 Prior to their meeting with Caitanya, these two brothers occupied high posts at the Muslim court of Ḥusain Shāh, and, impressed by their erudition, devotion and humility, Caitanya is said to have ordered them to reside in Vṛndāvana and make the place an important religious and intellectual centre. Murāri Gupta, the earliest hagiographer of Caitanya, claims Caitanya instructed Sanātana as follows:

Page 3 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra You should go to Vṛndāvana. You should study the scriptures on devotion, reveal the lost sacred places and establish their greatness. In this way bhakti will be very firmly established.5 Taking these instructions to heart, the two brothers resigned their governmental posts and lived as mendicants in Vraja. Over the years, Rūpa and Sanātana attracted a number of renounced and renowned Vaiṣṇavas, turning the holy place into a thriving centre of intellectual activity. The most prominent of these were five younger followers of Caitanya: Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, a South Indian brāhmaṇa from Śrīraṅgam whom Caitanya met on his travels; Raghunāthadāsa, who left Purī after the death of Caitanya and his teacher Svarūpa Dāmodara; Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, a brāhmaṇa from Vārāṇasī whom Caitanya ordered to live in Vṛndāvana under the care of Rūpa and Sanātana; (p.23) Jīva, the nephew of Rūpa and Sanātana; and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, a disciple of Nityānanda. These devotees are popularly known as the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana.6 By the end of the sixteenth century, a few decades after the death of Rūpa and Sanātana, a large community, consisting of both renouncers and householders, had emerged in Vṛndāvana, and soon established the holy place as a leading centre of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. They had established prominent temples and had attracted patronage from the highest ranks at the Mughal court.7 But more important is their enormous literary contribution. Rūpa, Sanātana, Jīva, Raghunāthadāsa, Kṛṣṇadāsa, and Gopāla Bhaṭṭa wrote together more than forty‐five works, including Sanskrit poetry and drama, works on ritualism, a Sanskrit grammar, hagiographical works on Caitanya, commentaries on some of the school’s essential texts, and voluminous treatises on Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology. Aside from Purī, where Caitanya spent most of his life, there is one other important centre of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism which is often overlooked, perhaps primarily because, unlike the other centres, it did not establish a lasting legacy in the form of distinct spiritual lineages. That centre is Kumārahaṭṭa or Kāñcarāpāḍā, a town south of Śāntipura.8 It quickly became an important centre of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism during Caitanya’s lifetime, and it is one of the very few places in Bengal Caitanya visited after he settled in Purī.9 Shortly after Caitanya became an ascetic, Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, in whose house Caitanya and his companions had gathered to sing Kṛṣṇa’s names, left Navadvīpa and settled in Kumārahaṭṭa, the birth place of Caitanya’s guru, Īśvara Purī. As already mentioned, Nityānanda lived nearby, and one of his prominent devotees, Vṛndāvanadāsa, a nephew of Śrīvāsa and the author of the Caitanya‐bhāgavata was born and raised in Kumārahaṭṭa. After the death of her husband Anupama and the renunciation of her brothers‐in‐law Rūpa and Sanātana, Jīva’s mother moved back to Kumārahaṭṭa, which was once their ancestral home, from Gauḍa, the seat of the Muslim government, and it is there that she raised Jīva, who would grow up to become one of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs. Kumārahaṭṭa attracted several other notable Vaiṣṇavas, most importantly (p.24) Jagadānanda Paṇḍita, one of Caitanya’s most intimate companions in Purī who Page 4 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra worshipped him with an amorous devotion, like the devotees of Śrīkhaṇḍa.10 Unlike the other communities, the community of Kumārahaṭṭa was thus not dominated by a single individual and a single devotional mood. Rather, it became a confluence of the other devotional communities, who all contributed to the unique cosmopolitan character of Kumārahaṭṭa.

Śivānanda Sena Among the most prominent devotees of Kumārahaṭṭa were Śivānanda Sena and his son Kavikarṇapūra. Śivānanda was an immensely wealthy vaidya of Kumārahaṭṭa, and must have been a powerful influence in the town. He joined Caitanya’s movement only after Caitanya had renounced the world, and travelled to Purī to meet him for the first time.11 While Śivānanda is hardly mentioned in the earlier hagiographies of Caitanya, which emphasize Caitanya’s life in Bengal,12 in the later hagiographies, Śivānanda is depicted as one of Caitanya’s most devoted followers. Although he may have joined Caitanya’s followers relatively late, they say, Śivānanda soon became a very prominent devotee, and used his wealth to support all of Caitanya’s followers. As requested by Caitanya, he organized the annual pilgrimage of the Bengali devotees to Purī, protecting the pilgrims and providing for all of them during the journey, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja repeatedly states:13 (p.25) Śivānanda Sena made arrangements for the road tolls, and taking care of everyone, he transported them in peace and happiness. He made all arrangements for everyone, and found them places to stay, for Śivānanda knew well the roads to Orissa.…Śivānanda made arrangements for them all; as steward of the pilgrims, he cared for them, and arranged places for them all to stay. He provided food for them all and in every way cared for them, and in greatest joy they went to have darśana of Prabhu [Caitanya].14 Śivānanda Sena is said to have provided for all the devotees from Bengal, including Narahari and the devotees from Śrīkhaṇḍa,15 as well as Advaitācārya16 and Nityānanda and their disciples. The hagiographies always depicted him as a selfless servant of the Vaiṣṇavas. Kavikarṇapūra states he cared for all devotees, ‘down to the outcastes’,17 often at the cost of his own comfort. The Caitanya‐ caritāmṛta narrates how Śivānanda was once held up by negotiating with the toll collectors and thus failed to immediately provide Nityānanda with appropriate accommodation. Nityānanda grew impatient, cursed Śivānanda’s family, and when Śivānanda tried to appease him, Nityānanda kicked him, Kṛṣṇadāsa writes, to the humble Śivānanda’s great joy, as the touch of a saint’s feet are considered greatly meritorious.18 A famous story tells how Śivānanda Sena cared even for a dog that travelled with them. He paid extra money to a boatman to take the dog

Page 5 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra across the river, and refused to eat when the dog ran away because the devotees forgot to feed it.19 In the later years of Caitanya’s stay in Purī, Śivānanda is said to have played an important role for Raghunāthadāsa, one of the future Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, acting as mediator between him and his family. Raghunāthadāsa was the son of an extremely wealthy tax collector of Saptagrāma, an important international trade port. Raghunāthadāsa ran away from home as a young man to be with Caitanya in Purī, renouncing both his wife and the family’s fortune. Caitanya appointed him as the servant of Svarūpa Dāmodara, his closest confidant, and Raghunāthadāsa thus quickly became part of Caitanya’s (p.26) inner circle. His family repeatedly approached Śivānanda Sena, asking him to convey messages to Raghunāthadāsa in a vain attempt to win their son back.20 Śivānanda Sena thus became a respected and trusted follower of Caitanya, and the hagiographies of Kavikarṇapūra and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja portray him as a follower with deep faith and devotion. Kṛṣṇadāsa calls him a ‘very intimate (antaraṅga) servant of the Lord’,21 who controlled Caitanya by his deep love,22 and who formed an important branch of the ‘tree of devotion’.23 At their first meeting, Caitanya is said to have acknowledged Śivānanda’s deep devotion,24 and he is the only devotee who is said to have been blessed to witness Caitanya’s three different manifestations: his visible form (sākṣāt), his possession of a devotee (āveśa), and his appearance in the mind of his devotees (āvirbhāva).25 There are several vernacular songs ascribed to Śivānanda. It is often difficult to ascertain which are actually his,26 but the following verse is clearly by his hand, and movingly illustrates his devotion to Caitanya: The compassionate Gaurahari [Caitanya] has ended his play in Nadiyā [Navadvīpa]. Alas! Alas! What misfortune! The Lord went to Nīlācala [Purī], abandoning this servant. I am still bound to this world. (p.27) I must do what he has ordered, but how will I stay alone? My sons, my family—all will seem like poison. How will I live each day without you? You told me to come with the Bengali pilgrims to Nīlācala next year. But how will I endure, and pass another year? A single moment seems like a hundred ages. O master, be compassionate! Let me see your feet, every single day. If you do not let me, Viśvambhara, my Lord, Śivānanda will kill himself.27 Caitanya’s affection for Śivānanda was extended to his family, and on a short trip to Bengal in his later years, Caitanya stayed at Śivānanda’s house.28 On several occasions, Śivānanda’s wife would accompany him to Purī.29 As a woman she never had the opportunity to interact closely with Caitanya, who upheld the Page 6 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra strict conduct of a celibate ascetic, but one year Caitanya blessed her by ordering that all the remnants of his food should be given to her and her family for the remainder of their stay in Purī.30 So dear was Śivānanda to Caitanya, Kṛṣṇadāsa tells us, that the master considered his entire family to be his own.31 Śivānanda had three sons: Caitanyadāsa, Rāmadāsa, and Paramānandadāsa, who all travelled with their father to Purī to meet Caitanya.32 Caitanyadāsa, the eldest son, already accompanied his father and mother on the first annual pilgrimage, in 1512,33 and years later, while still a child (bālaka), served Caitanya a simple meal, to the master’s great satisfaction.34 Nothing is (p.28) known about Rāmadāsa. Paramānandadāsa is more popularly known as Kavikarṇapūra. As sons of Śivānanda Sena, the three brothers naturally earned respect from the Vaiṣṇava community. Kṛṣṇadāsa calls them all heroic leaders among Caitanya’s devotees (bhakta‐śūra).35

Kavikarṇapūra Kavikarṇapūra was born probably about a decade before Caitanya’s passing in 1533,36 as Paramānandadāsa, the third and youngest son of Śivānanda. Kavikarṇapūra lived between two defining moments of the Caitanya tradition: the life of Caitanya, who passed away in 1533, and the attempts to consolidate the tradition towards the end of the sixteenth century by Śrīnivāsa, Narottamadāsa, and Śyāmānanda. Both of these periods are covered extensively in the hagiographical literature of the tradition, but as Kavikarṇapūra was still a child when Caitanya passed away and did not play a prominent role in the events organized by Śrīnivāsa’s generation, he hardly makes an appearance in these texts, and thus very little of his life was narrated. The only early hagiographer who does tell us about Kavikarṇapūra is Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, who relates in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta a few incidents from Caitanya’s last years in which the young Kavikarṇapūra was involved. Where Kṛṣṇadāsa got these stories from is unsure, but it is quite possible he heard them from Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī. Raghunāthadāsa, who was an important source for the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta, lived in Purī during Caitanya’s last years and, as we have seen, knew Śivānanda Sena well. It is, however, also possible that Kṛṣṇadāsa knew Kavikarṇapūra personally. The two were contemporaries, and before he moved to Vṛndāvana, where he composed (p.29) the Caitanya‐ caritāmṛta, Kṛṣṇadāsa lived in Bengal, in a village called Jhāmaṭapura, situated near Naihāṭī.37 Since Naihāṭī borders Kumārahaṭṭa, the home town of Kavikarṇapūra,38 it is very likely that the two met and quite possible that Kṛṣṇadāsa’s high regard for Kavikarṇapūra and his father are based on some personal relationship.39 One year, Kṛṣṇadāsa writes, Śivānanda Sena introduced his sons to Caitanya,

Page 7 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra and because of their familial relationship with Śivānanda, he showed them kindness. Seeing the youngest son, the Lord asked his name, and Sena informed him that he was called Paramānandadāsa. Once before, when Śivānanda had visited the Lord, Mahāprabhu told him: ‘This time you will have a son, whom you should name Purīdāsa [in honour of Paramānanda Purī, a close associate of Caitanya].’40 At that time the son was in the womb of his mother and when Śivānanda returned home, he was born. By the order of the Lord, the child was named Paramānandadāsa, and the Lord smilingly called him Purīdāsa. When Śivānanda introduced the child, Mahāprabhu put his toe in the child’s mouth.41 Kavikarṇapūra also recounts his first meeting with Caitanya very briefly in the Caitanya‐candrodaya. As Śrīkānta, Śivānanda’s nephew, pointed out to Caitanya who all the Vaiṣṇavas were that had just arrived in Purī, he introduced Śivānanda’s three sons. ‘I have met two of them before,’ Caitanya remarked. Śrīkānta added: ‘The youngest, though, has not yet seen your blessed feet.’ Caitanya, turning to Paramānanda Purī, exclaimed: ‘Svāmī, he is your servant!’42 A few years later, Śivānanda again brought his son Paramānandadāsa before Caitanya, who requested the child to chant the name of Kṛṣṇa. But little Paramānandadāsa remained silent, however hard his embarrassed father (p.30) tried to induce him to utter Kṛṣṇa’s name. ‘I have made the whole world, including plants, chant Kṛṣṇa’s name,’ Caitanya said amused, ‘but I have not been able to make this child recite the name!’ Svarūpa Dāmodara, who was present and had observed the boy, addressed Caitanya and explained: ‘You have given this child the name of Kṛṣṇa as a mantra [given by the guru to the disciple], and he therefore does not utter the name in front of everyone. He recites the mantra within his mind, but does not utter it with his mouth.’43 A few days later Caitanya asked the boy to speak, upon which Paramānandadāsa composed extempore a Sanskrit verse in the āryā metre: śravasoḥ kuvalayam akṣnor añjanam uraso mahendra‐maṇi‐dāma vṛndāvana‐ramaṇīnāṃ maṇḍanam akhilaṃ harir jayati The blue lotus on their ears, the kohl on their eyes, the sapphire necklace on their chest— all glories to Hari, the entire ornament of the women of Vṛndāvana.44

Everyone present was astonished to see a young boy, merely seven years old, compose such a verse, without any education, and considered the boy’s poetic genius a proof of the greatness of Caitanya’s grace.45 Kavikarṇapūra himself does not mention the incident, but he does claim to be blessed by Caitanya and that Caitanya’s compassion was the source of ‘the splendour of [his] speech’.46 Page 8 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra According to Viśvanātha Cakravartī it was at this time that Caitanya himself bestowed upon the young boy the title Kavikarṇapūra, ‘he who adorns the poets’ ears’, after the first line of this verse.47 This is, however, doubtful. It is mentioned neither by Kavikarṇapūra nor by Kṛṣṇadāsa. Moreover, Kavikarṇapūra generally signs his works with the name Paramānandadāsa,48 and uses the title ‘Kavikarṇapūra’ only in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana‐campū and the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī.49 Since the campū is probably one of Kavikarṇapūra’s last works, he might only have received the title towards the end of his life in recognition of his poetic talents and in memory of the verse he composed as a child. These few anecdotes, small as they are, are the most substantial narratives involving Kavikarṇapūra, and, as we will see below, next to nothing is told of his youth or even his adulthood. Later authors repeatedly retell these stories to explain Kavikarṇapūra’s unique position. (p.31) Most attention is given to what happened when Kavikarṇapūra and Caitanya first met. As we have seen, Kṛṣṇadāsa states, almost in passing, that when Śivānanda presents his youngest son to Caitanya, he ‘put his toe in the child’s mouth’. Later authors see this incident not just as an unusual event, but a highly significant one. Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa, who translated Kavikarṇapūra’s drama into Bengali verse in the eighteenth century, elaborates as follows on Caitanya’s first encounter with the future Kavikarṇapūra: The great poet Karṇapūra is a sun [dispelling] the darkness of ignorance. When he was a mere baby, he sat on the lap of his father, in Nīlācala, where the Lord lived, and looked at Caitanya, his eyes fully taking him in. On hands and knees he crawled to the Lord’s lotus feet, and joyfully bowed down. Seeing him, the Lord was satisfied, and placed the big toe of his left foot into his mouth. [Kavikarṇapūra’s] hand held the blessed foot as he sucked hard on the toe. The Lord’s companions laughed, and when he saw [Caitanya’s] compassion for his son, Śivānanda became happy, raised his arms, and joyfully danced. After he tasted the nectar of his feet, which Śrī Caitanya rarely chooses to gives to anyone, [Caitanya] anointed him with all potency (śakti). He ordered for his food remnants to be brought, which he personally gave to Karṇapūra. He anointed him with the nectar of his grace, and, without having studied, [Kavikarṇapūra] became a scholar, knowledgeable in the conduct of all scriptures. When he was seven, he composed a poem entitled Caitanya‐caritāmṛta.50

Page 9 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra At the end of this passage, Premadāsa, in his astonishment at Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talent, conflates two literary events: the single āryā verse Kavikarṇapūra composed when he was about seven years old, and the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐ mahā‐kāvya, a long poem of twenty chapters he composed when he was a young adult. But the confusion is somewhat understandable, because it was widely believed that Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talents were awakened when he sucked Caitanya’s toe. Viśvanātha Cakravartī, the most influential theologian in the Caitanya tradition after the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, loved Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry and also attaches great importance to these stories. He starts his commentary on Kavikarṇapūra’s Ānanda‐vṛndāvana with the following verse: He placed the nectar of his own toe in Śrī Karṇapūra’s mouth and (p.32) commanded: ‘child, you have obtained a true poem’s essence (sat‐kāvyatā) and have tasted it with your tongue. Give this—rarely obtained even by the gods— to future devotees.’ May that Caitanyacandra be our destination.51

When Caitanya placed his toe in the mouth of Kavikarṇapūra, he invested the boy with poetic powers, by giving him the essence of true poetry—devotional rasa. Yet, Viśvanātha writes, although ‘the skill of a divine poet’ was manifested in the child from the moment he sucked the toe, it was not revealed until he was asked by Caitanya to ‘say something’ several years later, and the boy composed extemporaneously the couplet in praise of Kṛṣṇa.52 That Kavikarṇapūra is no ordinary devotee, is also proved by the other incident in Kavikarṇapūra’s childhood, Viśvanātha argues. Although, as we will see, Kavikarṇapūra honours Śrīnātha Cakravartī as his preceptor, according to Viśvanātha, Caitanya is his real guru. When he asked the boy to chant Kṛṣṇa’s name, Paramānandadāsa accepted the name as a mantra, given by the guru at the time of initiation. Thus, he argues, Caitanya, God himself, was his true initiating guru (dīkṣā‐guru), and Kavikarṇapūra only accepted Śrīnātha as his guru on Caitanya’s order, to follow popular custom.53 In one of his short poems of praise (stava), Viśvanātha again writes about Kavikarṇapūra, and in a single verse brings these various stories of his childhood wonderfully together. The Svarūpa‐caritāmṛta is a remarkable eight verse poem (aṣṭaka) in which he reflects on the relationship between Caitanya, to whom the text is addressed, and Svarūpa Dāmodara, whom Caitanya addresses in each verse. Svarūpa Dāmodara was Caitanya’s closest companion and was one of the very few who is said to have understood the master’s deepest Page 10 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra desires. The first four verses of the poem describe the way four of Caitanya’s most influential devotees were awarded their special position in the presence of Svarūpa Dāmodara. The first three are the three Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana that spent considerable time with Caitanya: Raghunāthadāsa, Rūpa, and Sanātana. The fourth is Kavikarṇapūra: (p.33) ‘Svarūpa, the entire world I made resound with Hari’s name—so what? Now I am unable to induce Śivānanda’s son to chant!’ He who made this child a poet by letting him lick his own feet, may that golden moon, my master, long reign in my heart.54

Uddhavadāsa, an eighteenth‐century Bengali poet, similarly recounts all these incidents when praising Kavikarṇapūra. This song below is particularly significant, because Uddhavadāsa praises not just Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talent (as the others do), but also his theological insights. Glory to Sena Paramānanda Karṇapūra, moon among poets, whom the Lord called Purīdāsa. He is Śivānanda’s son, born in Kāñcanāpāḍā, and at the age of seven blossomed as a poet. Mahāprabhu bestowed his compassion [on him]. He placed his toe in his mouth, and thus invested him with his potency (śakti). When he was seven, the child at once became an extraordinary poet by the power of [Caitanya’s] potency. Kavikarṇapūra composed many works, like the Caitanya‐candrodaya and Stavāvalī. When one listens to these, devotion awakens, heresies are destroyed, and all non‐ Vaiṣṇava sentiments are driven away. How can I recount the many virtues of Karṇapūra with just one mouth? He is the best son of Caitanya. Showing compassion to Uddhava[dāsa], granting him eyes of knowledge, knowing [him], he makes him a poet.55 These narratives mostly illustrate how other Vaiṣṇavas viewed Kavikarṇapūra’s relationship with Caitanya and his position in Caitanya’s tradition, but what do we know about Kavikarṇapūra’s own (adult) life? He was likely married, but we know nothing about his family.56 Some scholars have suggested that Kavikarṇapūra lived in Purī.57 In the introduction to the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Kavikarṇapūra mentions that he wrote the drama at the request of Gajapati (p. 34) Pratāparudra, to soothe the pain of the king’s separation from Caitanya. This has puzzled some scholars, as the king died around 1540,58 more than three decades before the drama was completed.59 If Kavikarṇapūra’s comment implies that Pratāparudra became Kavikarṇapūra’s patron, it is possible he spent some Page 11 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra time in Purī before the king’s death, although royal patronage did not always necessitate a residence at the court. This patronage seems unlikely, though, as one would expect the young poet to mention such a great honour in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya, which he completed just a few years after the king’s death. It seems more likely that the reference to the king—aside from being a convenient dramatic entry into the subject of his play—needs to be seen in the light of Orissa’s political turmoil in the 1570s, when, as we have seen in the introduction, the Afghans had invaded Orissa and stopped the worship in the Jagannātha temple of Purī (which had long been the most potent symbol of Oriyan rule). The little we can glean of Kavikarṇapūra’s adulthood suggests that he continued to live in Bengal at least until the late 1570s, probably in or near his birth place Kumārahaṭṭa. In most of Kavikarṇapūra’s later works he brings homage to Śrīnātha, who was a resident of Kumārahaṭṭa, and whom Kavikarṇapūra addresses as his guru.60 We do not know when their relationship began— Kavikarṇapūra makes no reference to Śrīnātha in his earliest work—but, as we will see throughout this book, Śrīnātha’s influence on Kavikarṇapūra is profound, which suggests that Kavikarṇapūra must have lived a considerable time with him in or near Kumārahaṭṭa. Moreover, the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, which was completed in 1576, also suggests that he was still residing there when the work was composed: Kavikarṇapūra writes that he ‘saw’ or ‘studied’ the writings of the devotees of Mathurā and Orissa, but that he ‘heard from the mouth of the Bengalis’, suggesting that he indeed lived among them.61 This view is also found in some later hagiographical works. The hagiographies of Śrīnivāsa and Narottamadāsa, two disciples of Jīva who had been entrusted to propagate the teachings of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs in Bengal, (p.35) also place Kavikarṇapūra in Bengal towards the end of the century. Śrīnivāsa and Narottama organized several devotional gatherings in Bengal, to which Caitanya Vaiṣṇava leaders (mahānta) from across Bengal were invited. Kavikarṇapūra, ‘who is full of love’ (prema‐maya, BR 9.396), is listed as one of the honoured guests, as is his elder brother Caitanyadāsa.62 Other late authors, however, argue that Kavikarṇapūra lived, at some point, in Vṛndāvana. Viśvanātha Cakravartī argues that Kavikarṇapūra lived in Vṛndāvana towards the end of his life, while he composed the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. In the introduction to the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra praises his teacher Śrīnātha: ‘A person who obtained the sweet taste of the flawless tales of Vṛndāvana’s secrets pouring from his mouth delights nowhere else in this world.’63 Viśvanātha comments on this: ‘What is implied is that he quickly went to Vṛndāvana. Thus he shows the reason why he resides in Vṛndāvana.’64

Page 12 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Two other late authors also place Kavikarṇapūra in Vṛndāvana, interacting with the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs. The first of these is Priyādāsa, an early eighteenth century Caitanya Vaiṣṇava from Vṛndāvana who wrote the Bhakti‐rasa‐bodhinī, an influential commentary on Nābhādāsa’s Bhakta‐māla, an important collection of hagiographies.65 Nābhādāsa does not include Kavikarṇapūra in his collection of saints, nor does Priyādāsa. But when the latter comments on Nābhādāsa’s account of Rūpa’s life, he adds several episodes, and in one of these Kavikarṇapūra makes an appearance: When they heard the song about his [Kṛṣṇa’s] beauty and virtues, the entire assembly became restless, and nearly fainted. But he [Rūpa] remained standing firmly, unaware of his own body. That is what he did. When Śrī Karṇapūra Gosvāmī approached him from behind, he saw that he was fine. But when he came near and checked his breathing, it was as if a flame of fire touched him and marked his body. Who is able to sing about such ways of love?66 (p.36) The second account is told in Akiñcanadāsa’s Vivarta‐vilāsa, an important Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā text from the eighteenth century that seeks to align Tantric Sahajiyā practices and doctrines with orthodox Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism.67 In Chapter 2 of the Vivarta‐vilāsa, he retells the story of the initial reception of Kṛṣṇadāsa’s Caitanya‐caritāmṛta. When Kṛṣṇadāsa had completed his hagiography of Caitanya, Akiñcanadāsa tells us, he presented it to Jīva, hoping he would write a commentary (ṭīkā) on the text. Jīva read through the work, was ‘shocked’ (stambhita) by what he saw, and angrily rebuked Kṛṣṇadāsa (‘externally he was angry’, Akiñcanadāsa quickly adds, but ‘internally joyful’). Jīva was displeased that Kṛṣṇadāsa had openly and unambiguously discussed the extramarital nature (parakīyā) of the gopīs’ love for Kṛṣṇa. ‘In our books,’ Jīva explained, ‘we have revealed dharma, [but] have kept this [extramarital love] hidden. Unless one is very learned, one will not be able to understand this.’68 Despite Kṛṣṇadāsa’s pleas, Jīva did not change his mind, and in anger and disappointment threw the manuscript of Kṛṣṇadāsa’s masterpiece into the Yamunā. To everyone’s surprise, the manuscript remained afloat for three days, until Jīva, now fully convinced of the text’s worth, asked for it to be rescued from the river, and praised the book in the presence of the Vaiṣṇavas.69 This is not the end of Akiñcanadāsa’s dramatic account, and most of the events that follow do not bear on our immediate concerns here. However, shortly after these events ‘the son of Śivānanda’ met Kṛṣṇadāsa’s disciple Mukunda en route from Mathurā to Vṛndāvana, and heard from him the entire Caitanya‐caritāmṛta. Kavikarṇapūra, who had come from ‘Gaura’s land’, was overjoyed hearing the text, and quickly travelled on to Mathurā to visit Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. When the two great hagiographers of Caitanya met, Akiñcanadāsa describes, their devotional emotions knew no bounds. ‘Both were overcome with separation from Gaurāṅga [Caitanya]. They were stunned, their hair bristled, they trembled, and Page 13 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra were drenched by their tears.’ Together they travelled to Vṛndāvana, where they visited the main temples. Kavikarṇapūra met Jīva there, and talked to him in private. Kavikarṇapūra profusely praised Kṛṣṇadāsa and his composition, and then instructed Jīva to write the commentary on the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta Kṛṣṇadāsa had asked him to write. As a result of Kavikarṇapūra’s mediation, ‘as long as Śrī Jīva Gosāī held a pen in his hand he joyfully wrote the commentary’.70 The historical reliability of these two stories is, at best, suspect: Priyādāsa writes more than 150 years after the events would have taken place and his (p.37) account is not corroborated by any other source, while Akiñcanadāsa’s writes, as Tony K. Stewart puts it, a ‘self‐consciously revisionist history’ of the Caitanya tradition.71 Both stories, however, do indicate the way Kavikarṇapūra was seen by these later authors and their audience. Both authors are eager to connect Kavikarṇapūra in some way to the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, and in both narratives, Kavikarṇapūra acts as a judge. In Priyādāsa’s brief account Kavikarṇapūra validated Rūpa Gosvāmī’s remarkable devotional absorption, as the mark burned into his body by the heat of Rūpa’s devotion bore witness. In the Vivarta‐vilāsa, Kavikarṇapūra is depicted as the great colleague of Kṛṣṇadāsa, who was able to judge the merit of Kṛṣṇadāsa’s hagiography, and thereby certify its teachings. Akiñcanadāsa’s story suggests that he believed Kavikarṇapūra merely visited Vraja, or had just recently arrived. Akiñcanadāsa clearly states that Kavikarṇapūra had not been a resident of Vraja, but had just arrived in Mathurā ‘from the land of Gaura’.72 If we were to take Priyādāsa’s brief account of Kavikarṇapūra’s meeting with Rūpa as historical fact, this would suggest the same: the event he describes would have had to have taken place before the 1560s, when Rūpa likely passed away,73 but, as we have seen before, there is stronger evidence that places Kavikarṇapūra in Bengal after this date. The idea that Kavikarṇapūra spent his last days in Vṛndāvana is still prevalent among some Vaiṣṇavas in Vraja. It is not unthinkable that this did indeed happen, given that several Bengali Vaiṣṇavas of his time are said to have done this, but I was not able to find any further evidence to support this claim.74 In a sense, though, what happened to Kavikarṇapūra in his adulthood seems largely irrelevant to the tradition. Rather, it is the stories of his childhood encounters with Caitanya that matter to later generations, as they are seen to convey the most significant aspect of his life: he was an exceptional devotee, blessed by Caitanya in an extraordinary way, which his voluminous poetry, written decades after those events, only reinforced. It is these stories—the infant sucking Caitanya’s toe, the boy being initiated by the Lord himself, and the uneducated child composing complex poetry—that later authors in the tradition repeatedly chose to retell. And, as subsequent generations of (p.38) Caitanya

Page 14 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Vaiṣṇavas learned of Kavikarṇapūra primarily through these stories, they shaped and reinforced the unique place he came to occupy in the tradition.75

Kavikarṇapūra’s Works Among the followers of Caitanya in Bengal, Kavikarṇapūra is the most prolific author and among the most popular. He composed four major poetic works on Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa, as well as a comprehensive work on poetics, and a very influential theological treatise on the growing Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community. He is the only author of this period to write two lengthy hagiographical works on Caitanya, and, apart from Murāri Gupta, the only other to do so in Sanskrit. Over the centuries, a variety of works have been ascribed to Kavikarṇapūra,76 but there are six works that can confidently be considered his: (p.39) the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya, the Caitanya‐candrodaya, the Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī, and the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. The oldest list of Kavikarṇapūra’s works, which includes most of these, is found in Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī’s Sādhana‐dīpikā, written in the first half of the seventeenth century.77 Another list is given a century later, at the end of Premadāsa’s Bengali rendition of Kavikarṇapūra’s Caitanya‐candrodaya. The list is nearly identical to Rādhākṛṣṇa’s, except that he adds the Āryā‐śataka, a shorter poem whose ascription to Kavikarṇapūra is not beyond question.78 There are also some isolated verses cited in other Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts that have been ascribed to Kavikarṇapūra, but that are not from any of his known works. The earliest of these is found in Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Padyāvalī, an anthology of devotional Sanskrit verses, which contains a verse (305) ascribed to ‘Karṇapūra’.79 There are also several verses in praise of prominent Vaiṣṇavas found in later works, whose authenticity is hard to determine.80 (p.40) Several scholars have argued that the vernacular songs in praise of Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa signed with the name ‘Paramānanda’ that are found in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava anthologies are by the son of Śivānanda Sena, who himself, as we have seen, composed some songs.81 These verses are, however, quite likely by another Vaiṣṇava with that name, as Sukumar Sen and Biman Bihari Majumdar have argued.82 Wherever one starts reading Kavikarṇapūra’s works, one is at once struck by his immense command of the Sanskrit language and how at ease he is with the poetic conventions of classical Sanskrit poetry. From the graceful verses of the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī, or the ingenuity of the dramatic action in the Caitanya‐ candrodaya, to the ornate prose passages of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra always shines through as a literary virtuoso. He may have composed his first verse as an uneducated child, but the works he composed as an adult betray a thorough training in classical Sanskrit poetry, poetics,

Page 15 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra grammar, logic, and Vaiṣṇava theology, which the wealthy environment in which he grew up certainly made possible. Several of Kavikarṇapūra’s works are not dated, but his literary career spans several decades: his first hagiography of Caitanya was completed when he was still a teenager, but all his other dated works were composed three decades later, when he must have been middle aged. Of the six works, three are devoted to Caitanya and his devotees; the remaining three describe the play (līlā) of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana. (p.41) Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā‐kāvya

Kavikarṇapūra’s literary carrier started with the [Kṛṣṇa‐]Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐ mahā‐kāvya (‘The great poem about the nectar of [Kṛṣṇa] Caitanya’s life’), a Sanskrit hagiography of Caitanya.83 The work was completed in the summer of 1542 (śaka 1464), less than a decade after the passing of Caitanya, when the author was still a teenager.84 The first part of the poem is largely based on Murāri Gupta’s Kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐caritāmṛta, the oldest, and at the time the only other hagiography of Caitanya. Kavikarṇapūra expresses his indebtedness to Murāri at the end of the work.85 He follows the narrative of his hagiography very closely, often merely adding more detail and occasionally other episodes, but also inserts two chapter‐length descriptions of Kṛṣṇa’s play into Murāri’s narrative structure.86 The final nine chapters, describing Caitanya’s life in Puri, draw less extensively on Murāri, and are, presumably, significantly informed by his father (and perhaps others in Kumārahaṭṭa who travelled regularly to Purī in those years). In contrast to the simple style of Murāri’s verses, the language of Kavikarṇapūra’s mahā‐kāvya is, true to its genre, highly embellished, and the verses of its twenty chapters demonstrate the considerable skill of the young poet. He takes great pleasure in playing with Sanskrit literary conventions and figures of speech—including a very clever use of ‘picture poems’ (citra‐kāvya) in chapter 19—and though the poem is clearly an early composition, it does already show the development of the distinct poetic voice he exhibits in his later works. Although the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya was very enthusiastically received, as we will see below, and established Kavikarṇapūra as one of the leading poets of his generation, the work has nevertheless not gained the same popularity as his later works, nor was it as widely read as the Bengali hagiographies, the first of which—Vṛndāvanadāsa’s Caitanya‐bhāgavata—was completed only a few years after Kavikarṇapūra’s literary début.87 (p.42) Caitanya‐candrodaya‐nāṭaka

The Caitanya‐candrodaya (‘The rise of the Caitanya moon’) is a drama (nāṭaka) of ten acts describing the life of Caitanya. Whereas the mahā‐kāvya described at length the early life of Caitanya, the Caitanya‐candrodaya skips most of this to Page 16 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra devote more attention to Caitanya’s years in Purī. The work was completed in 1572 (śaka 1494),88 when Kavikarṇapūra was probably in his fifties, and is a more mature work than the mahā‐kāvya, not just poetically, but also theologically. Whereas Kavikarṇapūra claims that the events in the mahā‐kāvya are based on ‘what I have seen, and also what I have heard’,89 in the drama he describes Caitanya’s life ‘as I have understood it, as I have seen it, as I have heard it’.90 Kavikarṇapūra contextualizes Caitanya’s life theologically through the use of allegorical characters (such as Goddess Devotion, Dispassion, Vice, and Friendship) who comment on the drama’s action in the first three acts, and he also inserts a number of theological discussions on devotion and the nature of God. While Kavikarṇapūra describes Caitanya’s acts at great length in the mahā‐ kāvya, in the Caitanya‐candrodaya the action is considerably condensed. Particularly in the later acts, much of it happens off stage and is reported by a third party, thereby giving the reader some brief snapshots of the most significant events in the life of Caitanya. The drama is clearly influenced by Kṛṣṇamiśra’s Prabodha‐candrodaya (eleventh century), an Advaita Vedāntic allegorical play with very strong Vaiṣṇava leanings which ‘is generally credited with having given birth to a distinctive genre of Sanskrit drama, that of the allegorical play’.91 The more immediate influence, however, is undoubtedly Jīvadeva’s Bhakti‐vaibhava, a ten‐act Vaiṣṇava allegorical play composed at the court of Pratāparudra that Kavikarṇapūra must have been familiar with.92 Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā

The Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (‘A lamp elucidating the companions of Caitanya’), written in 1576 (śaka 1498),93 is a short and simple work of little (p.43) more than 200 verses on Caitanya and his principal devotees. The bulk of the work is essentially a list of the associates of Caitanya, and provides their identity in Kṛṣṇa’s eternal play in the transcendent Vṛndāvana. Kavikarṇapūra states that he based the work on the testimonies of devotees from Bengal, Orissa and Mathurā,94 and it thus equally indicates how Kavikarṇapūra’s contemporaries saw Caitanya’s companions, as it represents Kavikarṇapūra’s personal views. The work often reflects a variety of (conflicting) views, which are presented alongside each other, generally without any attempt to reconcile them.95 Svarūpa Dāmodara’s lost work is quoted and referred to a few times,96 and the opinion of Śivānanda Sena, Kavikarṇapūra’s father, is mentioned twice.97 Murāri Gupta’s hagiography is referred to once,98 and Kavikarṇapūra’s own drama, Caitanya‐candrodaya, which he completed only a few years earlier, is quoted five times.99 The Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā is perhaps Kavikarṇapūra’s most famous work, and has received a lot of scholarly attention, as it is one of the earliest works that links the Caitanya tradition with that of Madhva. The available editions of the text give a lineage of teachers (guru‐paramparā) in the beginning of the work Page 17 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (GGD 22), starting with Viṣṇu himself and going through Madhva to Mādhavendra Purī, who is compared to a wish fulfilling tree (kalpa‐vṛkṣa) that yields the fruits of affectionate (prīti), fraternal (preyas), parental (vatsalatā), and amorous devotion (ujjvala).100 Advaitācārya received the fruits of affectionate and fraternal devotion, Raṅga Purī was given the fruit of parental affection, whereas Īśvara Purī obtained the fruit of amorous devotion, which he passed on to his own disciple, Caitanya.101 Because of this affiliation with the Mādhva lineage the text has long been seen as suspect. Nineteenth‐century Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas debated its validity, and some argued it was not Kavikarṇapūra’s text, but Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana’s,102 a prominent eighteenth‐century Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theologian who himself was a Mādhva before his conversion to the Caitanya tradition and who gives a lineage of teachers in his own works that Sushil Kumar De argues is ‘suspiciously (p. 44) similar’ to that of the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā.103 Some scholars have followed this line of reasoning and ascribed the text to Baladeva.104 De doubts the authenticity of the list, as Kavikarṇapūra does not mention Caitanya’s Mādhva heritage in any of his other works,105 but admits it cannot be considered Baladeva’s either, as the section is cited in works prior to him.106 More recently, John Stratton Hawley has also argued that the list is an interpolation, on text‐ critical grounds.107 I will address the issue of the lineage’s authenticity elsewhere,108 but have little doubt that the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā—with or without the lineage of teachers—is indeed Kavikarṇapūra’s own text, as it is already cited and identified as his work in Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī’s early seventeenth‐century Sādhana‐dīpikā,109 and as it contains some ideas characteristic of Kavikarṇapūra not found in texts of other early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava teachers.110 Ānanda‐vṛndāvana‐campū

The Ānanda‐vṛndāvana (‘The Vṛndāvana of bliss’) is Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic masterpiece. This lengthy campū poem, written in both prose and verse, consists of twenty‐two chapters (each called a stabaka, ‘flower cluster’), and retells the stories of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’s tenth book. It narrates Kṛṣṇa’s childhood and youth in Vraja, starting with Kṛṣṇa’s advent and ending shortly after a long description of the circular (rāsa) dance. Kavikarṇapūra gives special attention to Kṛṣṇa’s amorous affairs with the gopīs, but describes in great detail Kṛṣṇa’s other relationships as well. In general, the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana follows the Bhāgavata narrative, but adds various sub‐plots. In the opening verses Kavikarṇapūra pays homage to Śrīnātha, praising his (p.45) uncommon skill in narrating Vṛndāvana’s secret tales,111 and his teacher’s influence is noticeable throughout the campū, as Kavikarṇapūra follows Śrīnātha’s interpretation of the Bhāgavata narrative closely.

Page 18 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra The campū is undated, but is most likely one of Kavikarṇapūra’s latest works. In the introductory verses, he laments that Caitanya’s followers have already passed away,112 as he does in the conclusion to the Caitanya‐candrodaya. The sophisticated style of the work also suggests a more mature author. Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī

The Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī (‘Moonlight on the daily play of Kṛṣṇa’) is a shorter work written in very elegant rhymed verses, and composed in a variety of metres. In six chapters (each called a prakāśa, ‘splendour’) Kavikarṇapūra describes the daily activities of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana, from the time of his awakening to the nightly sports with his beloved Rādhā. The poem has been popular as a tool for meditation on Kṛṣṇa’s play (līlā‐smaraṇa), wherein the practitioner contemplates what Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā do throughout the day.113 The work is undated, but since it is signed with the name ‘Kavikarṇapūra’, it could be a later work. Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha

Apart from poetry, Kavikarṇapūra also wrote a manual on poetics, the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha (‘The kaustubha gem of literary ornaments’). In ten chapters (each called a kiraṇa, ‘ray’), Kavikarṇapūra discusses all aspects of classical Sanskrit poetics, and although the work closely follows Mammaṭa’s Kāvya‐prakāśa, and (to a lesser extent) Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya‐darpaṇa, it is nevertheless a distinctly Vaiṣṇava work. All of the illustrative verses are about Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs, and most are composed by him specifically to illustrate the theory he discusses. In regards to rasa and some aspects of poetic language Kavikarṇapūra deviates substantially from these authors, in conformity with his theological views and poetic taste, as we will see later. This work is undated, but several illustrative verses are quoted from his other works, either verbatim or in a slightly modified form, which suggests (p.46) the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha was probably also a later work, written either after his other works, or while he was working on the Caitanya‐candrodaya and Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana.114 Āryā‐śataka

The Āryā‐śataka (‘A century of āryā verses’) is, as the title suggests, a collection of (a little over) a hundred verses composed in the āryā metre. Premadāsa identifies it as a work of Kavikarṇapūra, but the text was long considered lost. In 1946 Haridāsa Dāsa published an edition of it, based on a single incomplete manuscript he had found. Each verse of the Āryā‐śataka is a simple offering of praise to Kṛṣṇa, in the style of the āryā verse Kavikarṇapūra composed as a child, but together these form a narrative. The extant text opens with a general praise of Kṛṣṇa and his relationship with the gopīs (11–17), followed by a lengthy description of the beauty of Kṛṣṇa’s body, from the crown of his head to his feet (verses 18–33). Page 19 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra The rest of the poem describes Kṛṣṇa’s daily activities: how he awakes after a night of passion and begins his day (34–58), how he plays with the gopīs in the Yamunā around midday (59–80) and then rests with them (81–93), what he does in the afternoon and early evening (94–108), and, finally, how he goes to bed in the evening and continues his love play (109–113). The final verses (114–119) describe the beauty of Vṛndāvana in the six seasons. Both the first and last folios of the manuscript Haridāsa Dāsa relied on for his edition of the text were missing, which means the text begins and ends abruptly. Although his manuscript lacked the first folio (containing the first ten verses), Haridāsa Dāsa opens the text with the āryā poem of Kavikarṇapūra’s childhood, which S. K. De had already suggested ‘may have formed its opening Namaskriyā’.115 It is, however, difficult to evaluate the ascription of this work to Kavikarṇapūra. The poem is not without literary merits, but the verses’ simple syntax at times makes the poem feel repetitive, and, as Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya has remarked, there are also considerable metrical lapses.116 Kavikarṇapūra has described Kṛṣṇa’s daily activities in great detail in the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī, and the narrative of the Āryā‐śataka differs sometimes substantially from it.117 None of (p.47) these considerations conclusively settle the question of Kavikarṇapūra’s authorship, but they do cast significant doubt on the ascription of the text (as Haridāsa Dāsa published it) to the skilled poet we encounter in the above mentioned works.

Śrīnātha Paṇḍita Crucial to an understanding of Kavikarṇapūra’s thought are the teachings of his own guru, Śrīnātha Paṇḍita or Śrīnātha Cakravartī. Kavikarṇapūra deeply imbibed his teacher’s mood, and many of Kavikarṇapūra’s key theological ideas can be traced to Śrīnātha’s work. As with his student, however, very little is known about Śrīnātha, and the earliest references to him are found in Kavikarṇapūra’s own works. Nearly every work of Kavikarṇapūra’s contain verses praising his teacher. Most of these verses are eulogies and expressions of humility, and therefore not of great historical importance, but from one verse of the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā we learn that he was a resident of Kumārahaṭṭa, where he erected a temple and established an image of Kṛṣṇa, called Kṛṣṇadeva.118 The image is still worshipped there, although the current brick structure dates from the late eighteenth century, when the temple was rebuilt. The pedestal (padmāsana) on which the image of Kṛṣṇadeva stands still contains an inscription stating: ‘Glory to Śrī Kṛṣṇadeva Rāya, who personally appeared in the Kali age out of compassion for a blessed brāhmaṇa named Śrīnātha.’119 Little is know about Śrīnātha, although he must have been prominent in the region of Kumārahaṭṭa. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja who, as we have seen, was from the area, declares that ‘Śrīnātha Paṇḍita was a recipient of the Lord’s grace; seeing his worship of Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa‐sevā), the three worlds were enthralled.’120 In the final act of the Caitanya‐candrodaya Kavikarṇapūra describes that one year, a Page 20 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra month before the annual pilgrimage to Purī, a young brāhmaṇa visits (p.48) Advaita’s home. He is ‘singular, immensely pleasant, like an elixir for the world’s eyes, youthful, handsome, charming both internally and externally by his naturally arising rasa of Love (prema) for Śrī Kṛṣṇa, a moon in the brāhmaṇa community, called Śrīnātha’.121 Advaita is immediately attracted by the great character of the young man and asks him to travel with him to Purī, where he will arrange a private meeting with Caitanya. When the devotees arrive in Purī, Śrīkānta, Śivānanda’s nephew, reports the arrival to Caitanya, and the following dialogue takes place:122 Mahāprabhu: Śrīkānta, what then? Whom of them have I never seen before? Śrīkānta: Lord, Advaitācārya’s sons, beginning with Viṣṇudāsa and Gopāladāsa. And someone else from Advaita’s group, called Śrīnātha, who is loved by all. Mahāprabhu: Why did he leave Śivānanda’s company and join him [i.e. Advaita]? Śrīkānta: He [Advaita] consoled [Śrīnātha] and said: ‘I will bring you secretly to Mahāprabhu, and will make you accept his special grace.’ Mahāprabhu: (laughing, to Svarūpa [Dāmodara]) Listen, Let’s make Advaita’s plan particularly wonderful! Svarūpa, show him some affection and become his friend, And you, Śaṅkara,123 be very kind towards him. The company of equals is certainly sweet for all involved.

Both [Svarūpa and Śaṅkara]: As the Lord commands. Svarūpa Dāmodara, one of the most intimate companions of Caitanya, is said to have authored a work on Caitanya, called the Kaḍacā (‘Notebook’), which has not survived (and might have been nothing more than some unstructured notes). Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, who received the work from Raghunāthadāsa (Svarūpa’s disciple), relied on it for his theological interpretation of Caitanya’s life in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta, and Kavikarṇapūra used the work in a similar way in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā. If Śrīnātha and Svarūpa Dāmodara were indeed friends, as is suggested in the above passage, it would make sense that Śrīnātha would have passed Svarūpa’s views of Caitanya on to his disciple. Though Śrīnātha himself makes no mention of Advaita, and though Kṛṣṇadāsa lists him among Caitanya’s disciples, rather than among Advaita’s,124 some later (p.49) authors claim he was Advaita’s disciple, as perhaps this passage from the Caitanya‐candrodaya suggests. Thus, according to Nityānandadāsa’s Prema‐ Page 21 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra vilāsa, Śrīnātha, a ‘leading scholar’ (paṇḍita pradhāna), studied the Bhāgavata with Advaita and received initiation (dīkṣā) from him.125 However, Nityānandadāsa adds, Kṛṣṇadāsa describes him in the Caitanya‐caritamṛta as the forty‐ninth branch of the ‘Caitanya tree’, independent from Advaita’s branch,126 because he received Caitanya’s grace.127 In the Advaita‐maṅgala, a seventeenth‐century hagiography of Advaita, Haricaraṇadāsa also mentions Śrīnāthācārya as ‘my lord’s [Advaita’s] best disciple’,128 who ‘headed one of the large branches of my lord’s followers’,129 and was an important source for his book.130 However, Haricaraṇadāsa’s account of Śrīnatha conflicts with what we know about him from his disciple, Kavikarṇapūra. He describes Śrīnātha as a Southern brāhmaṇa, whom Advaita met on his travels. Śrīnātha later becomes the family priest of Sanātana Gosvāmī’s father, Haricaraṇadāsa claims, and saw the brothers Sanātana, Rūpa, and Vallabha grow up.131 Kavikarṇapūra, however, writes that his guru was a young man (navīna‐vayas)132 when he first met Advaita, shortly before the annual pilgrimage to Purī, decades after Sanātana and his brothers were born. Haricaraṇadāsa introduces in the Advaita‐maṅgala many characters from Advaita’s early life not known from other texts, and, given the great discrepancies with Kavikarṇapūra’s account, it is difficult to determine whether he did indeed have Kavikarṇapūra’s guru in mind. Nevertheless, this Śrīnātha has often been identified as Kavikarṇapūra’s teacher,133 which thus reinforces the popular idea that Śrīnātha was indeed a disciple of Advaita. As we will see, Kavikarṇapūra praises Advaita profusely in his works, and in the introduction to the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, immediately before offering his respects to Śrīnātha, acknowledges his guru’s teachers: he brings homage to Caitanya’s dear companions, ‘headed by Advaita, who are affectionate at heart and destroy the sins of the world’ as well as ‘those headed by Svarūpa, who are sweet with rasa, and have the same love, all the same virtues, and the same compassion’.134 (p.50) Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā

Śrīnātha is best known as the author of the Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā (‘The treasure chest containing the ideas of Caitanya’), a commentary on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The work never achieved the same popularity as the Bhāgavata commentaries of Sanātana and Jīva,135 and today his commentary is quite unknown both among scholars and practitioners. It has been published only twice (the most recent edition was published in the 1950s), both times in Bengali script, and very few manuscripts of the text survive. The text is nevertheless of great historical importance: the commentary is undated, but could be the earliest commentary on the Bhāgavata from the Caitanya tradition. More importantly, it is one of the few comprehensive theological texts of the early movement to have emerged from Bengal, far from the intellectual centre in

Page 22 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Vraja, and as such reflects the early intellectual developments of the Caitanya movement in Bengal. The somewhat unusual title of the commentary becomes clearer from the famous opening verse of the work:136 The son of Vraja’s king [Kṛṣṇa] is the Lord who should be worshipped. His abode is Vṛndāvana. The lovely method of worship performed by the gopīs [is the highest]. The scripture Bhāgavata is the spotless means of knowledge (pramāṇa), and Love (prema) is the greatest goal of human life. This is Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s thought, and for us there is nothing other than this.137 This verse establishes Śrīnātha’s hermeneutical strategy: his entire commentary is meant to show that the Bhāgavata, from its first verse to the very end, teaches these teachings of Caitanya. To achieve this, Śrīnātha admits he often offers novel interpretations and sometimes goes against widely established readings of the text, but justifies these by referring to other passages of the Bhāgavata, other texts like the Bhagavad‐gītā, specific authoritative grammatical rules, or a different breaking of the sandhi.138 Śrīnātha shows a very thorough knowledge of the Bhāgavata, and a deep insight into its theological structure and textual coherence. Apart from an abundance of intra‐textual references, Śrīnātha quotes a wide variety of sources: some Vaiṣṇava Upaniṣads, the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavad‐gītā, some (p.51) Purāṇas, and several texts on poetics.139 No Nyāya, Vedānta, or Mīmāṃsā text is quoted, although at several places Śrīnātha shows his familiarity with the ideas of these schools.

Kavikarṇapūra and the Vaiṣṇava Communities Kavikarṇapūra’s vision, like that of many Vaiṣṇavas of his time, is focused on the near past. The dominant event in Kavikarṇapūra’s world, and the most important worth narrating, is the advent of the Lord as Caitanya in Navadvīpa. His two hagiographical works both express the profound grief of the author in the absence of his divine master. The mahā‐kāvya, written only a few years after the passing of Caitanya, opens with a moving description of the Vaiṣṇavas’ mourning, and a lament of the author’s misfortune. The earth, which once was ‘inordinately abundant with the rasa of his blessed feet, his name, and the great glory of his many virtues’ now ‘is parched, cracking by the fire of his absence’.140 The Vaiṣṇavas, disinterested in anything worldly and pained by their scorching separation from Caitanya, now ‘live through spontaneous song (kīrtana) and wild dancing’.141 In his drama, Kavikarṇapūra similarly laments the fate of Caitanya’s devotees in his absence, finding solace only in hearing about Caitanya’s life: ‘We have no means to endure this pain of not seeing our loved one in person, except for the words of friends or a performance of his excellences.’142 Kavikarṇapūra sees his own poems on Caitanya as a humble and Page 23 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra imperfect attempt to provide that relief. When he completed the Caitanya‐ candrodaya, at a time when many of those who were so fortunate to have met Caitanya had passed away, he also looked to the future, uncertain of the reception of his drama: ‘Alas, now that the circle of his [Caitanya’s] loved ones only remain as memories, who will understand? Who will listen?’143 His own works on Caitanya—and the Caitanya‐candrodaya in particular—were thus also an attempt to preserve the memories of Caitanya and his devotees for future generations and, by the rich theological contextualization of his life, help them understand their significance. (p.52) Because his attention is focused on the generation that preceded him, we find very little information about Kavikarṇapūra’s own contemporaries in his works. He does seem to have imbibed the humble and respectful attitude of his father, who, as we have seen, is said to have served every devotee of Caitanya, and to have brought the geographically dispersed communities together to travel to Purī where together they could worship Caitanya. Kavikarṇapūra speaks very highly of Śivānanda: his father is ‘an embodiment of the most merciful Gauracandra’s rasa of love’,144 whose ‘only wealth of life is [Caitanya]’;145 indeed, he ‘is made of the compassion Śrī Gaurāṅga’.146 Kavikarṇapūra bows down to him, ‘the foremost companion of Mahāprabhu’, ‘with the highest devotion’,147 and mentions him a few times as his source of knowledge on Caitanya and his followers.148 As we have seen earlier, Kavikarṇapūra’s birthplace was an important Vaiṣṇava centre, and as the son of Śivānanda Sena, he grew up in the centre of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community. Through his father he would have had significant contact with the various Vaiṣṇava communities of Bengal, and most likely knew personally most of their leaders. His frequent travels to Purī with his father, and the respect the family received among Caitanya’s devotees there, would also have given Kavikarṇapūra access to the Vaiṣṇavas leaders in Orissa. The Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā perhaps best reflects the ‘œcumenical’ spirit Kavikarṇapūra imbibed from his father. As we have seen, the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community was divided not just geographically, but also devotionally, as each group had a distinct devotional character in relation to Caitanya. The theology Kavikarṇapūra articulates in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā reflects the distinctness of each community (and indeed each member). The unique devotion of Advaita, Nityānanda, Narahari, and the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, for example, are each a reflection of the different kinds of devotion found in the divine Vṛndāvana, and the communities that develop around these individuals in Kavikarṇapūra’s time similarly reflect the different groups that surround Kṛṣṇa. Those differences exist among Caitanya’s followers, he argues, precisely because they exist among Kṛṣṇa’s devotees, like his parents, friends (gopas), and

Page 24 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra lovers (gopīs). In other words, Kavikarṇapūra’s theology not just allows for, but indeed requires these different moods and groups. It is therefore perhaps no surprise that Kavikarṇapūra is also the first author to fully articulate the doctrine of the ‘five principles’ (pañca‐tattva), the fivefold manifestation Kṛṣṇa assumes to teach the world devotion. These five are Caitanya himself, who appears in the ‘form of the devotee’ (bhakta‐rūpa), (p.53) Nityānanda, who is the ‘true form of the devotee’ (bhakta‐svarūpa), Advaita, who is the ‘descent who is the devotee’ (bhaktāvatāra), Gadādhara, who is the ‘potency who is the devotee’ (bhakta‐śakti), and the Vaiṣṇavas headed by Śrīvāsa, who ‘are called “devotee” (bhaktākhya).149 Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa himself, who has now assumed the role of his own devotee; Nityānanda is his brother Balarāma or Sankarṣaṇa, Kṛṣṇa’s first manifestation as the servant God who facilitates devotion;150 Advaita is Sadāśiva, the avatāra of Kṛṣṇa, at once both identical and different from Kṛṣṇa;151 Gadādhara is the embodiment of Kṛṣṇa’s potency, Rādhā, ‘the queen of Vṛndāvana and the embodiment of Love (prema)’;152 while Śrīvāsa is Nārada, ‘the highest of the Lord’s great devotees’.153 These five, Kavikarṇapūra stresses, appear as distinct persons, but should be considered one and indivisible, as Kṛṣṇa manifests himself as these five ‘by his own will and potency’.154 This notion of the ‘five principles’, which he claims originates with Svarūpa Dāmodara, is the crystallization of earlier ideas found in the various hagiographies, and allows Kavikarṇapūra to embrace the very distinct communities of Caitanya’s devotees—the communities led by Advaita and Nityānanda, that of Caitanya’s oldest companions of Navadvīpa, and the community of Śrīkhaṇḍa with their emphasis on Gadādhara’s role—in a single theological concept. Of these five, Kavikarṇapūra writes most often of Advaita and Nityānanda. He grew up and probably lived in an area of Bengal where Nityānanda’s influence was marked, and through his guru Śrīnātha he was linked with Advaita’s lineage. Although Advaita figures more prominently in Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographical works, he highly honours them both as divine manifestations and very intimate companions of Caitanya. Advaita is the first sprout of the ‘Caitanya tree’,155 whose fervent, compassionate prayers called Caitanya to earth,156 and by whose grace devotees attain ‘love for (p.54) Gaurāṅga’s feet’.157 Nityānanda is the trunk of that same tree and is ‘celebrated throughout the three worlds’.158 ‘Among the Vaiṣṇavas he shone with the splendour of a thousand suns’, Kavikarṇapūra writes; ‘my father said so, and then danced’.159 In the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā Kavikarṇapūra lists his parents in between the two leaders of Śrīkhaṇḍa, Narahari Sarkāra and his brother Mukundadāsa (the father of Raghunandana), which suggests he considered them to belong to their circle.160 Kavikarṇapūra devotes a considerable amount of verses in his mahā‐ kāvya to the love of Caitanya and Gadādhara, whom he identifies as Rādhā,161 which shows he was sympathetic to Narahari’s views early in his life. However, Page 25 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra he does not refer often to Narahari and the Śrīkhaṇḍa group,162 and his drama does not contain any descriptions of Gadādhara and Caitanya’s love nor any passages in which he depicts Caitanya as the object of amorous love.163 (p.55) Advaita and Nityānanda both passed away before the peak of Kavikarṇapūra’s literary career and were succeeded by relatives: Advaita by his son Acyutānanda, and Nityānanda by his wife Jāhnavādevī and son Vīrabhadra. Neither are mentioned in Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographies,164 but he praises both in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā: Advaita’s son is ‘beloved of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya’ and a ‘dear disciple of [Gadādhara] Paṇḍita Gosvāmī’.165 Jāhnavādevī ‘has the sun’s splendour’,166 and the body of Vīrabhadra, ‘a manifestation of Saṅkarṣaṇa’, is ‘nondifferent from Caitanya’.167 That last expression recurs a few times in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā in reference to prominent leaders and is significant as it shows that as Caitanya himself is no longer present Kavikarṇapūra looks for his presence in prominent members of the Vaiṣṇava communities, who through their devotion for Caitanya, as it were, embody him. Raghunandana, a leader from Śrīkhaṇḍa, has a ‘body that is identical to Śrī Caitanya’,168 and Sanātana Gosvāmī, the leader of the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas, is similarly described as having ‘a body that is nondifferent from Gaura’.169 Kavikarṇapūra is the first hagiographer of Caitanya to give more attention to Caitanya’s interactions with Rūpa, Sanātana, and Raghunāthadāsa. Although in the Caitanya‐candrodaya he describes their encounters only briefly—like most of the action that does not take place in Purī—in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐ kāvya he describes at greater length how Sanātana, Rūpa, and their brother Anupama meet Caitanya in Purī.170 Whenever (p.56) he mentions them Kavikarṇapūra speaks very highly of all three Gosvāmīs.171 Sanātana, ‘who is to be worshipped by all’,172 is ‘the jewel that adorned the court of the king of Bengal, who rejected vast wealth to embrace the youthful goddess of renunciation. His heart is filled with the deep rasa of devotion, while externally he resembles a vagabond, like a great lake concealed by duck weed. He shows affection to those who know him.’173 In the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Śivānanda similarly praises ‘the exceptional’ Raghunāthadāsa, ‘whose only wealth is his renunciation’, who ‘by Śrī Caitanya’s abundant grace is always gentle’, and who is ‘dearer than life to those like me’.174 ‘Because he delights the minds of every single person, he is an uncultivated field of good fortune, in which the tree of Caitanya’s love, from the very moment it was planted, bears incomparable fruits.’175 Jīva Gosvāmī never met Caitanya, and therefore does not figure at all in Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographies. There is little doubt that Kavikarṇapūra knew him personally, however, as they were about the same age, and grew up in the same community. The only place where he does mention Jīva is in the Gaura‐

Page 26 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, where he does not just give his identity in Kṛṣṇa’s divine play, but also describes him as ‘an amiable scholar’.176 However, none of these Gosvāmīs does he praise as highly as he does Rūpa. Like his two brothers, Sanātana and Anupama, Rūpa is ‘an ocean of rasa of devotion to his [Caitanya’s] lotus feet’.177 When Rūpa and Anupama met Caitanya in Prayāga, Kavikarṇapūra writes, Caitanya singled them out and, having embraced them firmly, discussed Love (prema) with them178—a concept that is highly significant in Kavikarṇapūra’s theology, as we will see in Chapters 3 and 7. Then, ‘to the dear friend of Svarūpa [Dāmodara], his [Caitanya’s] most beloved, the naturally handsome true form of Love (prema) like unto his own—to that unique Rūpa the Lord revealed his own (p.57) play and form’.179 Kavikarṇapūra does not elaborate on this, but it seems that he considers Rūpa to have received some special insight into Caitanya’s identity and mission, as Kṛṣṇadāsa later also claims in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta.180 Like Murāri Gupta, Kavikarṇapūra understood that Caitanya entrusted Rūpa and Sanātana with a special mission. In the Caitanya‐candrodaya he writes: With the passage of time, knowledge of Vṛndāvana’s play was lost, and to make it widely known [again], the Lord anointed Rūpa and Sanātana with the nectar of his grace.181

Rūpa, Sanātana and Raghunāthadāsa, who all resided in Purī at some time, were not the only devotees in Vraja that Kavikarṇapūra knew and respected. Kavikarṇapūra claims to have consulted some Vaiṣṇavas of Mathurā before compiling the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, and, as the text shows, he knew the Vaiṣṇava community of Vraja rather well.182 This suggests there was significant traffic between Vṛndāvana and Bengal, and it is not unlikely that Kavikarṇapūra himself visited the region, as we have seen later sources claim—whatever the veracity of their specific assertions. Although Kavikarṇapūra speaks so highly of the Gosvāmīs, and Rūpa in particular, he does not refer to their works in his writings, nor does he seem to be influenced by their teachings. This silence about their works should not be taken as a rejection of their ideas, however. Some scholars have portrayed Kavikarṇapūra as one who competed with the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs and whose teachings were fundamentally at odds with those of the Vaiṣṇava theologians of Vraja.183 Kavikarṇapūra advances the ideas of his guru Śrīnātha (p.58) and articulated his theology independent of the innovations initiated by the Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas, but his views are not as diametrically opposed to theirs as is sometimes suggested. As we will see, although Śrīnātha’s and

Page 27 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Kavikarṇapūra’s analysis and approach is often distinct and novel, their theological concerns are often remarkably similar to those of the Gosvāmīs.184 Nevertheless, when Kavikarṇapūra is composing the Caitanya‐candrodaya, quite a few of the Gosvāmīs’ works have been completed several decades earlier.185 Why, then, does Kavikarṇapūra not cite—or even mention—their works? From the lack of references in the writings of any Vaiṣṇava in Bengal at that time, it seems that no one in eastern India was familiar with the writings of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, although Rūpa and Sanātana in particular were widely honoured.186 Although there was considerable traffic between Bengal and Vraja, the works of the Gosvāmīs were not brought to Bengal until the second half of the sixteenth century, when three students of Jīva Gosvāmī were entrusted with that important task. Śrīnivāsa and Narottama, who were both born in Western Bengal, and Śyāmānanda, who was born in Orissa, had travelled to Vraja as young men,187 where they lived under the care of Jīva (p.59) Gosvāmī, who educated them in the teachings of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs. After their training, Jīva sent them with manuscripts of several of the Gosvāmīs’ works back to Bengal, where Śrīnivāsa would organize their copying and dissemination. Exactly when they travelled back east with those manuscripts is unclear, and is one of the thorniest issues in the early history of the tradition. Many of the accounts of these events are written a century after the facts, and the historical reliability of even the earlier sources is rather uncertain.188 Although the journey to Bengal is sometimes dated around 1575,189 it seems much more likely that Jīva’s three disciples only left Vṛndāvana at least a decade later, and perhaps as late as the late 1590s. According to the hagiographers, when Śrīnivāsa, Narottama, and Śyāmānanda arrived in western Bengal with the manuscripts, the books were stolen by the minions of Vīra Hāṃvīra, the ruler of Viṣṇupura. Śrīnivāsa pleaded with the king, and converted him. He initiated him, as well as Vyāsa Śarmā, his leading court scholar, who both became very instrumental in the copying and dissemination of the Vṛndāvana manuscripts.190 Vīra Hāṃvīra, who witnessed the Mughal annexation of Bengal and opposed Jahāngīr’s attempt to consolidate the Mughal control of western Bengal, ascended the throne in the last decade of the sixteenth century and ruled for about thirty years.191 The hagiographies’ description of the theft and (p.60) recovery of the manuscripts has undoubtedly been dramatized. The earliest account of Śrīnivāsa’s life makes no mention of it at all,192 and as we will see the Gosvāmīs’ works were only gradually brought to Bengal, not all at once. There is little doubt about the influential role Vīra Hāṃvīra played in Śrīnivāsa’s mission, however. This does not help us to determine exactly when Jīva sent them to Bengal, but it does indicate that it cannot have been too long before Vīra Hāṃvīra ascended the throne.

Page 28 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra It is also not clear what works were brought to Bengal during that pivotal journey,193 but from letters Jīva sent to Śrīnivāsa in the following years we do know what texts were not included, and why it took so long for these works to reach Bengal.194 Although the letters are undated, it is clear that they were written sometime around the turn of the century. In some letters written to Śrīnivāsa in the years after he settled back in Bengal,195 Jīva tells him that, although he has completed certain works, he has held them back to check and correct the manuscripts before having them brought to Bengal to be copied. What is particularly striking about this is that they indicate not just that Jīva edited and revised his own works, sometimes decades after they were completed, but also that he continued the editing of Rūpa’s works—a task entrusted to Jīva by Rūpa during his lifetime—long after Rūpa had passed away. Thus in the first letter, Jīva informs Śrīnivāsa that he has not sent Rūpa’s Bhakti‐ rasāmṛta‐sindhu yet, as he is still correcting it,196 and from other letters we learn that he may have acted similarly with some of Sanātana’s works.197 Jīva also continued to edit several of his major works long after they were completed: he mentions he is still editing his poetic magnum opus, the (p.61) Gopāla‐ campū, his commentary on Rūpa’s Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu, the Mādhava‐ mahotsava, and the Hari‐nāmāmṛta‐vyākaraṇa.198 Apart from these reasons, the delay in the dissemination of the Gosvāmīs’ works seems to have been caused also by a lack of (Bengali) copyists in Vraja, and the resulting fear that the few handwritten copies of these works that did exist would be damaged, or even lost, during the long and hazardous journey east.199 That Śrīnivāsa was chosen to bring the books to Bengal was probably not only based on his impressive devotional character, but also on his already known expertise ‘in producing high‐quality copies of religious texts—whether from personal connection or direct involvement is not clear’ as Tony Stewart explains.200 What all this implies, therefore, is that the works of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs did not reach Bengal until the end of the sixteenth century, and even then some of their most influential works were only sent gradually, over a period of several years. It seems thus rather unlikely that Kavikarṇapūra knew the writings of the Gosvāmīs when he completed his major works in the 1570s.201 His theological views thus represent a tradition that developed independently from the ideas that were articulated in Vṛndāvana, before those teachings were taught in Bengal by Jīva’s students.

The Reception of Kavikarṇapūra’s Works Although his works have been somewhat overshadowed by those of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, Kavikarṇapūra profoundly helped shape Caitanya Vaiṣṇava literature, and his works are not infrequently cited authoritatively by later authors. I will here highlight the way his works were received by some of his

Page 29 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra contemporaries, and his position within the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition as a hagiographer of Caitanya, a theologian, a poet, and a poetician. (p.62) Three of Kavikarṇapūra’s works—the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya, the Caitanya‐candrodaya‐nāṭaka, and the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā—deal directly with Caitanya and the movement he led. Academic studies on Kavikarṇapūra deal primarily with these works, and in the Vaiṣṇava community too, they have enjoyed perhaps a greater popularity than Kavikarṇapūra’s other compositions. Judging from the scarcity of surviving manuscripts, the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐ mahā‐kāvya never achieved the popularity of Kavikarṇapūra’s more mature drama. The work must nevertheless have had a powerful impact on the Vaiṣṇava community shortly after its completion. Kavikarṇapūra, who was a mere teenager when he wrote the mahā‐kāvya, astonished the followers of Caitanya, and if the stories of Caitanya’s blessings on the younger son of Śivānanda were already widely known, the work was undoubtedly seen as an indication of the greatness of Caitanya’s grace. The mahā‐kāvya was indeed favourably received during Kavikarṇapūra’s own lifetime. Shortly after its completion, a copy of the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐ kāvya reached Vṛndāvana and Rūpa Gosvāmī started copying the work himself.202 The work was later also copied by Viṣṇudāsa Gosvāmī, a disciple of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. He ends with the following statement: Śrīla Rūpa, his elder brother [Sanātana], and others who are extremely compassionate to the living beings of this world, my grand‐guru Śrīla Kāśīśvara, and also Paramānanda Bhaṭṭācārya listened again and again with great joy here in Vraja to this Caitanyacandra‐caritāmṛta, which they constantly relished to their heart’s delight. The amazingly gifted Kavikarṇapūra composed this text when he was sixteen years old. My great master, Rūpa, copied it in the year 1545 (śaka 1467) with his own lotus hand. Aware of that, a certain Viṣṇudāsa, who is evil‐minded, who has no love for Caitanya even in his dreams, who seems lifeless, and whose thoughts are greedy, now has collected it as the potent medicine that will heal his life.203 The Caitanya‐candrodaya gained significantly more popularity, and is undoubtedly one of Kavikarṇapūra’s most famous works. In the beginning of the eighteenth century the Caitanya‐candrodaya was translated into Bengali verses by Premadāsa, a follower of Nityānanda’s wife Jāhnavādevī, who is (p.63) better known as the author of the Vaṃśī‐śikṣā.204 He relinquished the dramatic form, and wrote in Bengali metres. The work follows Kavikarṇapūra’s original very closely and copies most of the Sanskrit verses of the original.

Page 30 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra The Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya and the Caitanya‐candrodaya also deeply influenced Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, who, as we have seen earlier, held Kavikarṇapūra in high esteem.205 He considers Kavikarṇapūra an important source and authority on the life of Caitanya, and the only hagiography he quotes in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta is the Caitanya‐candrodaya. The influence of Kavikarṇapūra on Kṛṣṇadāsa goes, however, beyond these dozen quotes.206 As Tony Stewart and Jan Brzezinski have pointed out,207 much of the second (madhya‐līlā) and third part (antya‐līlā) of the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta can be traced back to the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya and even more so, the Caitanya‐ candrodaya. Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographies provide Kṛṣṇadāsa’s narrative framework, which he then fills in with the theological ideas of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs and information obtained from other (textual and oral) sources. Most of the verses Kṛṣṇadāsa quotes from the Caitanya‐candrodaya are in praise of Rūpa, Sanātana, and Raghunāthadāsa, which thereby gained a greater popularity,208 and make their way also into later hagiographies of the Gosvāmīs, such as the Bhakti‐ratnākara of Narahari Cakravartī (eighteenth century).209 The absence of any reference to the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā by Kṛṣṇadāsa and the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, has led some scholars to believe that the work was disliked by them.210 Kṛṣṇadāsa does not quote the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā in his hagiography, which, given the similar theological interest, is (p.64) perhaps remarkable, although Kṛṣṇadāsa does not dwell much on the divine identities of most of Caitanya’s disciple.211 However, the text is already profusely cited in the first half of the seventeenth century, in Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī’s Sādhana‐dīpikā, which demonstrates that the work was popular in the Govindadeva temple community with which Kṛṣṇadāsa had a close affinity.212 The Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐ dīpikā is frequently cited in later hagiographical works, like the Bhakti‐ ratnākara,213 and has been so often imitated, translated, and adapted by later authors that one could argue it lead to a distinct genre of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava literature.214 On theological grounds too Kavikarṇapūra’s authority is also not infrequently invoked by later authors. Earlier we saw how Akiñcanadāsa invoked Kavikarṇapūra to defend Kṛṣṇadāsa’s Caitanya‐caritāmṛta when Jīva had castigated both the work and its author for openly proclaiming the doctrine of parakīyā. Although that doctrine gained a special significance for Sahajiyā Vaiṣṇava authors such as Akiñcanadāsa,215 it originated in orthodox Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism and by the first half of the seventeenth century had already become the focus of a debate that would last for several centuries: was Kṛṣṇa married to the gopīs of Vṛndāvana or not? The controversy was stirred up by the works of Jīva which, unlike those of his uncles, seem to advocate a marital relationship (svakīyā). When Jīva’s works, and his voluminous Gopāla‐campū in particular, began to be read in Vraja and Bengal, they seem to have created considerable confusion and controversy.216 Already in Śrīnivāsa’s time this led to an emphatic reassertion of the extra‐marital position, which remained the (p.65) dominant Page 31 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra orthodox view among Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas for the centuries to come. In the first half of the seventeenth century Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī wrote in defence of Kṛṣṇa’s extra‐marital affairs, and seems to have been the first author to invoke Kavikarṇapūra’s authority on this matter. Rādhākṛṣṇa is very familiar with Kavikarṇapūra’s works, and in the Sādhana‐dīpikā he frequently cites the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, the Caitanya‐candrodaya, the mahā‐kāvya, the Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, and the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī.217 As a successor of Rūpa and as a disciple in Gadādhara Paṇḍita’s lineage, it is no surprise that many of the verses Rādhākṛṣṇa cites are in praise of these two companions of Caitanya, but he also cites Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry to illustrate Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana and lists Kavikarṇapūra’s works alongside the works of Rāmānanda Rāya, Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunāthadāsa, and a host of other authors with a great authority in the tradition, who, he claims, all established the extra‐marital nature of Kṛṣṇa’s relationship with the gopīs.218 That Rādhākṛṣṇa cites the works of Kavikarṇapūra so generously is significant, as it shows that his works were circulated among the Vaiṣṇavas of Vṛndāvana in the first half of the seventeenth century and that Kavikarṇapūra’s views held considerable weight. Rūpa Kavirāja, a controversial teacher of the mid‐seventeenth century, similarly cites Kavikarṇapūra’s Ānanda‐vṛndāvana and Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī in support of this view and its implications in the Sāra‐saṅgraha, in which he refutes the marital doctrine at great length.219 Towards the end of the seventeenth century, Viśvanātha Cakravartī too upholds the parakīyā position, and in his two essays on the topic—Svakīyātva‐nirāśā‐ vicāra and Parakīyātva‐nirūpaṇa—he cites a wide range of authors in support of his thesis, including Kavikarṇapūra.220 Early in his literary career, Viśvanātha wrote a substantial commentary (titled Subodhinī) on the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, in which he reads Kavikarṇapūra’s thought through those of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, and later he also wrote a commentary (titled Sukha‐varttanī) on the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana.221 It is not unlikely that Viśvanātha preferred Kavikarṇapūra’s campū over Jīva Gosvāmī’s (p.66) Gopāla‐campū, and declares it be entirely in accordance with the teachings of Rūpa Gosvāmī222 because it celebrates Kṛṣṇa’s extra‐marital relations with the gopīs, as we will see in Chapter 7. However, theological preferences were not the main reason Viśvanātha liked Kavikarṇapūra. As his eulogistic verses cited above indicate, Viśvanātha clearly admired Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talent. He calls him twice ‘the crown jewel of poets’ (kavi‐mukuṭa‐maṇi),223 and he humbly pays homage to him in the Vraja‐ rīti‐cintāmaṇi, where he attempts to emulate the punning style so characteristic of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana.224 Indeed, the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, although a very difficult text, gained considerable popularity, and several sections of it have been circulated independently.225 The campū is still used by performers of the

Page 32 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Bhāgavata in Vraja today,226 and has long also been used in Maṇipurī rāsa performances.227 Lastly, Kavikarṇapūra’s position as poetician is unrivalled in the Caitanya tradition. The Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha is the most prominent of all Caitanya Vaiṣṇava treatises on poetics. It has several lengthy commentaries, including one by Viśvanātha Cakravartī, as we have seen,228 and has been used extensively by later authors on poetics in the tradition. The earliest example of this is the (Bhakti‐)Rasāmṛta‐śeṣa, a work rather doubtfully attributed to Jīva, meant to supplement to Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu.229 The work borrows heavily from the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, although it is not as innovative, and generally follows Viśvanātha Kavirāja’s Sāhitya‐darpaṇa, often verbatim. (p.67) Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, a disciple of Viśvanātha primarily known for his Vedāntic contribution to Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism, also authored two works on literary criticism: the Kāvya‐kaustubha and the Sāhitya‐kaumudī. Like the Rasāmṛta‐śeṣa, the Sāhitya‐kaumudī incorporates many of Kavikarṇapūra’s verses,230 but the Sāhitya‐kaumudī generally does not follow Kavikarṇapūra’s theoretical innovations, as the work is a commentary on the kārikās of the Kāvya‐ prakāśa.231 Baladeva gives himself more scope for originality and innovation in his own commentary on the Sāhitya‐kaumudī, however, where he refers occasionally to the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha.232 The Kāvya‐kaustubha, Baladeva’s other work on poetics, offers a succinct and lucid overview of Sanskrit poetics. Kavikarṇapūra’s influence is noticeable, although the Kāvya‐kaustubha was intended as a short introduction to Sanskrit poetics, and is hence necessarily brief.233

Conclusion In the Introduction, I highlighted the importance of Kavikarṇapūra for our understanding of the early history of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Kavikarṇapūra furthers the teachings of his guru Śrīnātha, whose thought seems to have developed independently of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, and, in some sense, that tradition ends with Kavikarṇapūra, whose ideas have been overshadowed by the works of the Gosvāmīs which arrived shortly after he completed his main works. Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha taught a theology that is distinctly Caitanya Vaiṣṇava and not, fundamentally, at odds with those ideas taught by their contemporaries (including the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana), yet there are some ideas unique to them, or uniquely articulated by them—as we will see in subsequent chapters—which no later author further developed, as Rūpa’s and Jīva’s magisterially systematic exposition of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology became the foundation for all later theological thought in the tradition. (p.68) Nevertheless, as we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra’s works have always been regarded with great respect by Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas, and his ideas have helped shape the tradition. What has probably impacted the entire tradition Page 33 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra most profoundly and pervasively is Kavikarṇapūra’s œcumenical vision of Caitanya’s communities presented in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā—the work by which he is perhaps most popularly known in contemporary Caitanya Vaiṣṇava circles—which reflects not just the ‘cosmopolitan’ character of Kumārahaṭṭa, where Vaiṣṇavas of all different moods lived alongside each other, but also the devotional mood of his father Śivānanda, who each year united all Caitanya’s followers and humbly served each personally, despite his prominent social standing. Few texts have shaped the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition’s self‐ understanding so markedly. There is a danger in emphasizing Kavikarṇapūra’s unique and perhaps neglected theological ideas, not just because this may obfuscate the many aspects of his thought he shares with other Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas, but also because in doing so we may miss what drew and continues to draw so many Vaiṣṇavas to Kavikarṇapūra’s works. Readers of very different theological persuasions—one just has to think of Rūpa Kavirāja and Viśvanātha Cakravartī!—relished and indeed found themselves in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry. Kavikarṇapūra was primarily a poet, not a theologian, and has always been highly respected as one. The wonder Premadāsa, Viṣṇudāsa, and Viśvanātha express in regards to Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talents, the profuse citations of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha in later Caitanya Vaiṣṇava works on literary theory, and his title of ‘Kavikarṇapūra’ all attest this. Still, nowhere is Kavikarṇapūra’s status as a poet as strongly established and praised as in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta, where three little anecdotes created the image all future Vaiṣṇavas had of him. They depict Kavikarṇapūra as an extraordinary devotee, who as a mere boy attained the grace of God and shared this divine gift with others through his poetry. Notes:

(1) See CB 3.6.7–125; CC 1.5.173. (2) Chakravarti (1985, pp. 150–1); Chatterjee (n.d., pp. 50–1). (3) Narahari’s teachings, known as gaura‐nāgara‐vāda (‘the view in which Caitanya (Gaura) is seen as a lover (nāgara)’) are refuted in CB 1.15.28–31. For more on Narahari, see Lutjeharms (2017). (4) CC 1.10.85–86; 2.19.123–132; 3.13.120. (5) Vṛndāvanāya gantavyaṃ bhakti‐śāstra‐nirūpaṇam / lupta‐tīrtha‐prakāśaṃ ca tan‐māhātmyam api sphuṭam / kartavyaṃ bhavatā yena bhaktir eva sthirā bhavet (KCC 4.13.15–16). Similar instructions can be found in KCC 3.18.5–11 and KCC 4.13.7–10. (6) As S. K. De (1961, p. 110) notes, ‘the origin of the term “Gosvāmin” is obscure and uncertain. It is employed in Middle Bengali…in the general sense of

Page 34 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra “lord” or “master”, as well as in the sense of “religious mendicant or teacher.” Literally, it means “lord of cows”’. (7) See Case (1996), Mukherji and Habib (1987 and 1989–1990). (8) Kavikarṇapūra (and Śivānanda Sena and Śrīnātha) lived in Kāñcarāpāḍā (or Kāñcanapallī, or Kāñcanapāḍā) which, technically, refers only to a small neighbouring settlement of Kumārahaṭṭa, but the names are often used interchangeably in this period, as Satīścandra De (1933, p. 30) notes in his history of Kāñcarāpāḍā. I use the Sanskrit name Kumārahaṭṭa, as this is the one that Kavikarṇapūra uses, and as it denotes the broader community to which he belonged. (9) See CC 2.41ff. The other places in Bengal he visited (like Rāmakeli, where Rūpa and Sanātana lived) he passed through en route to Vṛndāvana or on the way back to Purī. Kumārahaṭṭa is the only place for which he specifically travelled to Bengal. (10) See CC 2.41ff, CCU pp. 106–7/308. Another important devotee of Caitanya to move there is Vāsudeva Datta. Vāsudeva, a gifted singer, was the elder brother of Mukunda, a childhood friend of Caitanya, but in adulthood was more intimate with Caitanya than his younger brother was (see CC 2.11.137–138, and CB 3.5.26–30). He was an immensely respected Vaiṣṇava, known for his desire to take on the sins of the entire world (see CC 2.15.160–163). He was close to Yadunandanācārya, Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī’s guru (see CCU pp. 120/345–6 & CC 3.6.161), and a friend of Śivānanda Sena, who managed his affairs on Caitanya’s order (CC 2.15.93–96). See also De (1933, pp. 7ff). (11) See CCU pp. 98/283–4, where Gopīnāthācārya lists the devotees that he has not met before, including Śivānanda. He stresses that they all travelled to Purī to see Caitanya, not as pilgrims to the Jagannātha temple: sarve evāmī śrī‐caitanya‐ pārṣadāḥ, naiko’py atra tairthikaḥ. Śivānanda’s first encounter with Caitanya is briefly described a little later (CCU pp. 100/289, 101/291). See also CC 2.11.87. (12) Śivānanda is mentioned once in the hagiography of Murāri Gupta (4.17.6). In Vṛndāvanadāsa’s Caitanya‐bhāgavata he is mentioned thrice in the antya‐ khaṇḍa: he is mentioned during Caitanya’s visit to Śrīvāsa’s house in Kumārahaṭṭa (3.5.18), he is listed among the devotees that travelled to Purī for the annual ratha‐yātrā (3.8.15), and later in the same chapter in a list of prominent companions of Caitanya (3.8.59). (13) See CC 1.10.54–55, 2.16–19–27, 3.1.16, 3.12.15–31. See also CC 3.10.12. Caitanya’s request is recorded in CC 2.15.97. (14) CC 2.16.19–20, 26–27 (CC 2.16.18–19, 25–26 in Dimock and Stewart’s edition), translation by Dimock and Stewart (1999). Page 35 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (15) See CC 2.1.132, 3.1.15, 3.10.12. (16) In beginning of Act 10 of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Advaita awaits directions from Śivānanda as to when to leave for Purī. See also CC 2.16.21, 3.1.15. (17) Śivānanda‐nāma kaścit…ācaṇḍālam api pratipālya nayati (CCU p. 117/338). (18) CC 3.12.15–31. Interestingly, this incident is left out of the Caitanya‐ candrodaya, though Kavikarṇapūra does mention the aftermath. Śrīkānta, Śivānanda’s nephew, left the group of pilgrims and travelled alone on to Purī, arriving there before everyone else. In Kavikarṇapūra’s version, Śrīkānta asks for and receives Śivānanda’s permission to travel ahead (Śrīkāntaḥ (śivānandaṃ prati): Bho mātula‐māhāśaya, aham agre yāmi yadi vo’numatir bhavati. Śivānandaḥ: Yathā sukhaṃ sādhaya, CCU p. 121/349). In Kṛṣṇadāsa’s version (CC 3.12.34–40), Śrīkānta leaves the group because he was offended by Nityānanda’s behaviour towards his exalted uncle, and arrives in Purī in anguish (mano‐duḥkha). (19) See CCU pp. 117–18/339–40 and CC 3.1.17–33. (20) One incident is briefly mentioned in the Caitanya‐candrodaya (pp. 119– 20/345–6), which is given in more detail by Kṛṣṇadāsa (CC 3.6.248–270). Earlier contact between Śivānanda, Raghunāthadāsa and his family is recorded at CC 3.6.176–183 and 3.6.245–47. (21) Śivānanda sena prabhura bhṛtya antaraṅga (CC 1.10.54). (22) Śivānandera prema‐sīmā ke kahite pāre / yāṅra preme vaśa prabhu āise bāre bāre (CC 3.2.82). (23) CC 1.10.54–63. The smaller branches of Śivānanda’s branch comprise his sons, family, and servants, including his nephews Vallabha Sena and Śrīkānta Sena. (24) Kavikarṇapūra has him say: Śivānanda, tvam atīva mayy anurakto’sīti jānāmi (CCU p. 101/291). Cf. CC 2.11.149. (25) These three incidents are first mentioned by Kavikarṇapūra at the beginning of Act 9 of the Caitanya‐candrodaya (pp. 105–8/303–13). Kṛṣṇadāsa mentions it at the beginning of his work (CC 1.10.56–60), and describes the two latter manifestations (āveśa and āvirbhāva) more elaborately in CC 3.2. (26) There are three padas that have the signature ‘Śivānanda’ in the Pada‐kalpa‐ taru (1851, 2127, 2355), six in the Gaura‐pada‐taraṅginī (1.2.39, 1.3.25, 4.3.14, 5.1.61, 5.3.52, and 6.3.3); among these there are nine unique songs (PKT 2355 = GPT 6.3.3; PKT 2127 = GPT 4.3.14). Harekṛṣṇa Mukhopādhyāya ascribes eight songs to Śivānanda Sena in his Vaiṣṇava Padāvalī (pp. 232–3), of which only Page 36 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra padas 1 and 7 are not found in the other collections. The editors of all three collections ascribe these songs to Śivānanda Sena, but some of them (like PKT 2355 = GPT 6.3.3) are actually by Śivānanda Cakravartī, a disciple of Gadādhara, as Sukumar Sen (1935, pp. 49–50) has indicated. Sen argues that the songs that praise Gadādhara (PKT 2355, GPT 5.1.61 & 6.3.3) are probably also by this second Śivānanda, which seems likely, although, as we will see, Śivānanda Sena might have had an affinity with the Śrīkhaṇḍa Vaiṣṇavas, who praised Gadādhara in their poems. It is very difficult to determine, however, which Śivānanda authored the remaining songs. Śivānanda Cakravartī is probably also the author of the six songs signed with the name (Dāsa) Śivāi (PKT 1132, 1133, 1135, 1178, 1231, 2354), which all praise Kṛṣṇa, except one song (2354) which praises Gadādhara and Caitanya in a manner similar to the above mentioned Śivānanda songs. (27) Gelā nātha nīlācale, e dāsere eka phele, nā ghucila mora bhava‐bandha / ādeśa karilā yāhā, niścaya pāliba tāhā, kintu ekā ki‐rūpe rahiba / putra parivāra yata, lāgibe viṣera mata, tomā vinā ki mate goṅāba / gauḍīya yātrika sane, vatsarānte daraśane, kahilā yāite nīlācale / kirūpe sahiyā raba, saṃvatsara kāṭāiba, yuga‐śata jñāna kari tile / hao prabhu kṛpāvān, kara anumati dāna, niti niti heri pada‐dvandva / yadi nā ādeśa kara, ohe prabhu viśvambhara, atma‐ghātī habe śivānanda (Gaura‐pada‐taraṅginī 5.3.52). (28) CCU p. 112/323–24, CCMK 20.17–18. (29) CC 2.16.22, 3.12.12ff, 3.16.65. Kṛṣṇadāsa never mentions her name. Satīścandra De (1933, p. 14) claims her name was Mālatī. (30) CC 3.12.53. As Stewart notes, ‘The leftover food (avaśeṣapātra) of Caitanya is of course itself prasāda [grace] and consequently a highly desired privilege. When Kṛṣṇadāsa records this specific distribution of Caitanya’s leftovers to a woman and her child, he singles out the individuals as being especially blessed.’ (Dimock and Stewart, 1999, p. 912). The Bengali devotees would often stay for the duration of the rainy season, approximately four months (see CC 2.16.47). (31) Śivānandera bhāgya‐sindhu ke pāibe pāra / yāṅra saba goṣṭhīke prabhu kahe āpanāra (CC 3.12.51). (32) CC 3.12.44. (33) CC 2.16.23. The text tells us this was during Caitanya’s third year away from Bengal (the first two years he spent travelling in South India). Caitanya took sannyāsa in January 1510 (the month of Māgha in śaka 1431) and moved to Purī almost immediately after that (De, 1961, p. 82). Since the child was named after Caitanya’s sannyāsa name, he can only have been a few years old at the time.

Page 37 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (34) The story is told in CC 3.10.142–151. This Caitanyadāsa is sometimes said to be the author of a commentary on the Kṛṣṇa‐karṇāmṛta of Bilvamaṅgala (see Kedarnath Dutt Bhaktivinoda’s introduction to his edition, p. 11). However, that commentary is most likely the work of another Caitanyadāsa, who was a disciple of Bhūgarbha Gosvāmī and a priest at Rūpa’s Govindadeva temple in Vṛndāvana (CC 1.9.69). The author mentions in the concluding verse of the commentary that he worships Govinda, and a nearly identical verse is found in Caitanyadāsa’s Bāla‐bodhinī commentary on the Gīta‐govinda of Jayadeva, which also brings homage to Rūpa Gosvāmī’s lineage (śrīmad‐rūpa‐gaṇān vande…). See Mitra (1871, vol. I, pp. 168–9), and S. K. De’s introduction to his critical edition of the Kṛṣṇa‐karṇāmṛta (pp. li–lv). The Bengali text Caitanya‐kārikā is ascribed to Śivānanda’s son Caitanyadāsa (śivānanda sena putra śrī‐caitanyadāsa / śrī‐ caitanya‐kārikā‐grantha karilā prakāśa, p. 33, 40, 65, 71 & 82), but this is rather implausible, as the text is a dialogue between Mathurādāsa and his guru Mukundadāsa, who was a disciple of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja and lived in the first half of the seventeenth century. (35) CC 1.10.62. (36) Sukumar Sen (1963, vol. 1, p. 321) argues he must have been born between 1516 and 1520. Given that his eldest brother must have been born around 1510– 11, as we have seen above, and he is Śivānanda’s third son, this is not implausible, although most scholars give a later date of birth for Kavikarṇapūra, generally 1524; see De (1961, p. 43). As we will see, Viṣṇudāsa Gosvāmī, a disciple of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja who copied the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya claims Kavikarṇapūra wrote that work—dated 1542—when he was sixteen, which would mean he was born in 1526. Sen himself had earlier suggested 1527 (Sen, 1935, p. 61). (37) Naihāṭī‐nikaṭe jhāmaṭapura nāme grāma (CC 1.5.181). (38) As Jan Brzezinski writes, Kumārahaṭṭa ‘neighbours Naihāṭī on the river Hooghly and can be considered the same town’ (Brzezinski, 1990b, p. 51). (39) Kavikarṇapūra does not mention Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja in the Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā. Kṛṣṇadāsa, who never met Caitanya or Nityānanda in person, was probably not a prominent figure when the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā was written, especially since he had not written the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta yet. There is a verse attributed to Kavikarṇapūra in praise of Kṛṣṇadāsa: see fn. 80. (40) Paramānanda Purī was a disciple of Mādhavendra Purī, and a close associate of Caitanya in Purī. In the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta 1.9.13 he is compared to one of the nine roots of the tree of devotion (bhakti‐kalpa‐taru).

Page 38 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (41) CC 3.12.44–49 (translation by Dimock and Stewart). Kavikarṇapūra himself never uses the name Purīdāsa. Viśvanātha writes that the name Purīdāsa is also a reference to Purī, ‘because he was born in Puruṣottama‐kṣetra [Purī]’ (śrīmat‐ paramānanda‐purī‐pāda‐prasādāt puruṣottama‐kṣetra‐jātatvāt purīdāsa‐ nāmānam etam, Viśvanātha on AVC 1.5), which clearly contradicts Kṛṣṇadāsa’s account. (42) Śrīkāntaḥ: Vāsudevāpatyaṃ mātulasya putrau. Mahāprabhuḥ: Tau dṛṣṭa‐ pūrvau. Śrīkāntaḥ: Kanīyāṃs turyaḥ so’dṛṣṭa‐śrī-caraṇaḥ. Mahāprabhuḥ (purīśvaraṃ prati): Svāmin, tava dāsaḥ. Śrīkāntaḥ : Prabho, evam eva (CCU p. 122/352). (43) CC 3.16.65–73. (44) This verse is found in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha p. 93/294. (45) CC 3.16.73–76. (46) Caitanya‐kṛṣṇa‐karuṇodita‐vāg‐vibhūtiḥ (AVC 22.52). See also CCU pp. 2/3– 4. (47) Viśvanātha Cakravartī’s commentary on AVC 1.5. Many scholars have accepted this too; see also Carney (1979, p. 222); Bainarjī (2000, p. 34); De (1934b, p. 188). (48) See CCU pp. 2/3–4, GGD 5, KAK 6.72. (49) AVC 1.15, 22.52 & KAK 6.74. (50) Ajñāna timira sūra, mahā-kavi karṇapūra, ati śiśu yakhana āchilā / prabhu‐ sthāne nīlācale, gelā cāpi pitṛ‐kole, netra‐bhari caitanye dekhilā / gati hasta jānu yuge, prabhu‐pāda‐padma āge, ānande karila paraṇāma / dekhi prabhu hailā tuṣṭa, dakṣiṇa caraṇāṅguṣṭha, tāra mukhe dilā bhagavān / haste dhari śrī‐ caraṇa, aṅguli coṣena ghana, prabhura pārṣada‐gaṇa hāse / nija-putre kṛpā dekhi, śivānanda haiyā sukhī, urddha‐bāhu nācena hariṣe / ucchiṣṭa caraṇāmṛta, śrī‐caitanya kadācita, nijecchāya nā dena kāhāre / sarva‐śakti sañcāriyā, nijocchiṣṭa ānāiyā, āpane dilena karṇapūre / kṛpāmṛta-sikta kailā, nā paḍi paṇḍita hailā, jānila sakala-śāstra-nīta (Caitanya‐candrodaya‐kaumudī p. 486). (51) Vatsāsvādya muhuḥ svayā rasanayā prāpayya satkāvyatāṃ, deyaṃ bhakta‐ janeṣu bhāviṣu surair duṣprāpyam etat tvayā / ity ājñāpayat eva yena nidadhe śrī‐karṇapūrānane, bālye svāṅghri‐dalāmṛtaṃ gatir asau caitanya‐candro’stu naḥ. (52) Cf. divya‐kāvya‐kartṛtva‐śaktim apy alakṣitam sañcārayām āsa (Viśvanātha on AVC 1.5).

Page 39 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (53) Kiṃ vā, vastuto dīkṣā‐gurur apy asya śrī‐bhagavān eva śrī‐caitanyaḥ, tad‐ ājñā‐pāravaśyenaiva gurv‐antarāśrayaṇam; and later: tataḥ santuṣṭena bhagavatā kavikarṇapūra iti nāma tad‐dinam ārabhya kṛtavatā tad‐abhīṣṭa‐ mantra‐rājam api hṛdaiva svayam upadiśyāpi loka‐rīti‐khyāpanāya samaye śrīnātha‐paṇḍita‐dvārāpi punar asāv upadidiśa iti. (Viśvanātha on AVC 1.5). (54) Svarūpa hari‐nāma yat jagad aghoṣayaṃ tena kiṃ, na vācayitum apy athāśakam imaṃ śivānanda‐jam / iti sva‐pada‐lehanaiḥ śiśum acīkarat yaḥ kaviṃ, virājatu cirāya me hṛdi sa gaura‐candraḥ prabhuḥ (Svarūpa‐caritāmṛta 4). (55) Jaya sena paramānanda, karṇapūra kavi‐candra, prabhu yāre kahe purīdāsa / śivānanda‐aurasete, janmilā kā[ñ]cnāpāḍāte, sapta‐varṣe kavitva vikāśa / mahāprabhu dayā kailā, pādāṅguṣṭha mukhe dilā, sei yoge śakti sañcārilā / sāta vatsarera śiśu, āścarya kavitva āśu, sei śakti‐prabhāve labhilā / śrī‐caitanya‐ candrodaya, stavāvalī grantha‐caya, racilena kavikarṇapūra / yā śuni bhakti udaya, nāstikatā naṣṭa haya, avaiṣṇava‐bhāva haya dūra / karṇapūra‐guṇa yata, eka mukhe kaba kata, caitanyera vara‐putra yeṅha / uddhavera dayā kari, jñāna‐ cakṣu dāna kari, kavitva laoyāya jāni teṅha (GPT 6.3.47). (56) D. C. Sen (1917, p. 74) mentions descendants of Kavikarṇapūra. See also CCMK 1.21–22. (57) See Mahapatra (1960, p. cxix); Dimock and Stewart (1999, p. 91). Stewart connects Kavikarṇapūra with Purī in his doctoral dissertation, because the deity Jagannātha figures so prominently in Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographies (Tony K. Stewart, personal communication, 2009). (58) Majumdar (1990, p. 370). (59) Debnarayan Acharyya (1984, pp. 169–70), however, takes this statement quite literally, and therefore claims the work must have been written before the king’s death, i.e. even before Kavikarṇapūra wrote the mahā‐kāvya. Ignoring the date of composition mentioned in the Caitanya‐candrodaya itself, he suggests the work was written between 1535 and 1536, when Kavikarṇapūra was only twelve years old! The view originates with Majumdar (1936), although he later retracted it (see Majumdar, 1959, pp. 101–2). (60) AVC 1.5 & 22.52, GGD 3 & 210–11. Three illustrative verses from the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha are composed in his honour (AK pp. 84–5/273–5), and he is quoted in AK pp. 19/78–80 & 127–8/371. He is mentioned in the opening scene of the Caitanya‐candrodaya (p. 2/3), and in the tenth act Kavikarṇapūra takes the opportunity to praise his guru (p. 119/344). The Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī and the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya are the only works that do not contain any reference to Śrīnātha.

Page 40 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (61) Vilokyānyāni sādhūnāṃ mathurauḍra‐nivāsinām / gauḍīyānām api mukhān niśamya sva‐manīṣayā (GGD 5). (62) See PV p. 173 and BR 9.396 where Kavikarṇapūra and Caitanyadāsa are listed among the leaders who attended a gathering in Katwa in honour of the deceased Gadādharadāsa. Narahari writes that after the festival, the mahāntas went to Śrīkhaṇḍa and Yājigrāma, where they also attended gatherings. Later in the Prema‐vilāsa (p. 179), Kavikarṇapūra is also listed as one of the mahāntas Narottama invited to an important gathering in Khetarī. According to the Advaita‐prakāśa Kavikarṇapūra was also present at the deathbed of Advaita, in Śāntipura (see Manring, 2011, p. 260); for more on the complex history of this text, see Manring and Stewart (1996–97). (63) Yad‐āsyād unmīlan‐niravakara‐vṛndāvana‐rahaḥ‐kathāsvādaṃ labdhvā jagati na janaḥ kvāpi ramate (AVC 1.5). (64) Vṛndāvana eva śīghram āgacchatīti bhāvaḥ / iti svasya vṛndāvana‐vāse hetur api darśitaḥ (Viśvanātha on AVC 1.5). (65) For more on Priyādāsa and his commentary, see Hare (2011, pp. 86–103). (66) Rūpa guṇa gāna hota kāna suni sabhā saba ati akulāna prāna mūrachā sī āī hai / baḍe āpa dhīra rahe ṭhāḍhe na śarīra sudhi budhi maiṃ na āvai aisī bāta lai dikhāī hai / śrī gusāī karṇapūra pāche āye dekhe āche neku ṭhiga bhaye svāsa lagyau taba pāī hai / mānau āgi āṃci lāgī aiso tana cihna bhayau nayau yaha prema‐rīti kāpai jāta gāī hai (Bhakta‐māla, p. 502). I am indebted to Imre Bangha for help with the translation of this passage. (67) The Vivarta‐vilāsa itself claims to be from the middle of the seventeenth century, but is most likely only written in the eighteenth century, as Sukumar Sen (1963, vol. 2, p. 381) argues. For more on the Vivarta‐vilāsa, see Goswami (2008, pp. 506–18). (68) Vivarta‐vilāsa pp. 22–3. (69) Vivarta‐vilāsa pp. 23–5. (70) Vivarta‐vilāsa pp. 31–3. (71) Stewart (2010, p. 361). Akiñcanadāsa’s account is clearly fabricated, as Jīva died in 1608 and the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta was not written until after 1610. (72) Mathurā āila teṅha gaura-deśa haite (Vivarta‐vilāsa p. 31). (73) See Habib (1996, pp. 144, 156).

Page 41 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (74) If he had indeed moved to Vṛndāvana, it is rather unlikely he would have played a prominent managerial role in any of the temples, which means he would not appear in any of the legal documents pertaining to the main temples in the area (as indeed he does not). There is no tomb (samādhi) of him anywhere in the Vraja region, which would also not be surprising, as he was a householder. There is a memorial samādhi for him and his brothers in Vṛndāvana, in the ‘Seat of the 64 Leaders’ (Causaṭha Mahānta Samādhi Pīṭha), an area not too far from the Govindadeva temple developed in the mid‐nineteenth century (see Swami, 1993, p. 23). (75) Those stories are also told by other authors. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, for example, comments in the Sāhitya‐kaumudī on Kavikarṇapūra’s śravaso kuvalayam verse as follows: pāyita‐svāṅghri‐dalāmṛtena śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐ bhagavatā bhaṇety uktaḥ pañca‐hāyano karṇapūra kavir idam padyam uccārayām āsa (SK p. 141). In the Vaiṣṇavācāra‐darpaṇa, Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvācaspati similarly writes: bhṛṅga‐padāṅguṣṭha prabhu yāra mukhe dila / purīdāsa nāma bali śakti sañcārila (p. 62). See also Prabhupāda (1996, vol. 9, p. 451). (76) Uddhavadāsa claims Kavikarṇapūra wrote a Stavāvalī, as we have seen, but I have not been able to locate any copies of this text, and no other pre‐modern author refers to a work of Kavikarṇapūra by this title. It could refer to the Caitanya‐sahasra‐nāma‐stotra, a poem of praise which has been attributed to Kavikarṇapūra. This stotra seems more likely to have been written by a later author, however, possibly in a Vṛndāvana lineage, considering the prominence given to the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs (verses 35–37) and the mention of rāgānugā and rāgātmikā bhakti (verse 35), concepts found in Rūpa’s Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐ sindhu (1.2.270ff) but nowhere in Kavikarṇapūra’s works. Satīścandra Rāya (PKT, vol. 5, p. 146) also mentions a Caitanya‐śataka, but I have not seen any copies of this text; did he perhaps have this sahasra‐nāma‐stotra in mind? According to Gurupāda Hāladāra (1944, p. 459), Kavikarṇapūra also wrote a Sanskrit grammar with the title Caitanyāmṛta‐vyākaraṇa, which ‘was not a popular work’ and, he comments, has long not been taught or studied. Alhough the work is mentioned by several other scholars, I have not been able to find any proof of its existence in citations in other early works, nor do I know of any manuscripts of the text. Haridāsa Dāsa (1969, pariśiṣṭa p. 1) mentions a commentary on the Bhāgavata’s tenth book (daśama‐ṭīkā) by Kavikarṇapūra. The title is given in a list of ‘unpublished’ Caitanya Vaiṣṇava works, but it is unclear whether he knew of existing manuscripts of the text, as he later did publish several other works from that list. I have not been able to locate any manuscripts. Satīścandra De (1933, p. 7) also mentions a Keśavāṣṭaka Kavikarṇapūra is said to have composed,

Page 42 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra although this is perhaps just a wrong ascription of Rūpa’s Keśavāṣṭaka (included in his Stava‐mālā). The Camatkāra‐candrikā, a work by Viśvanātha Cakravartī, has been wrongly attributed to Kavikarṇapūra (see De, 1961, p. 603, and Kawthekar, 2004). In several manuscript catalogues the titles of Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Rādhā‐kṛṣṇa‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā and Kavikarṇapūra’s Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (or variants thereof) are also confused with each other. There are also several other authors with the title Kavikarṇapūra whose works have sometimes been mistakenly considered to be by Śivānanda Sena’s son. A Kavikarṇapūra from Kāmarūpa (Assam), whose patron was the late sixteenth‐ century king Malladeva, wrote the Vṛtti‐mālā, a short work on prosody, as well as two works on the Persian language: the Bhāṣā‐sāra‐saṃgraha, and the Pārasī‐ pada‐prakāśa, which was requested by the emperor Jahāngīr (see Chakravarti, 1946, p. 180). This might be the same Kavikarṇapūra who wrote the Pārijāta‐ haraṇa, a mahā‐kāvya on Kṛṣṇa’s theft of the parijāta flower from Indra’s gardens, in which the author gives prominence to Kāmarūpa and its surrounding region (see 17.54ff). There is also a Kavikarṇapūra from Tripura, who wrote the Varṇa‐prakāśa, a work on phonetics. See Shāstrī (1931, pp. clii–cliii) and Sastri (1900–1907, vol. 1, p. 333–4). Finally, there is also another Karṇapūra in the Caitanya tradition: a disciple of Śrīnivāsa was named Karṇapūra Kavirāja. He is the author of the Guṇa‐leśa‐ sūcaka, a long poem in praise of his guru Śrīnivāsa. (77) Śrī‐karṇapūra‐gosvāmi‐pādānāṃ śrī‐ānanda‐vṛndāvana‐campū‐śrī‐ kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī‐śrī‐gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐śrī‐caitanya‐candrodaya‐nāṭakādi (Sādhana‐dīpikā ch. 9, p. 56). He also ascribes the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐ kāvya to Kavikarṇapūra, and cites it several times earlier in the work, but he does not cite or mention the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. He also ascribes several verses to Kavikarṇapūra not found in any of his works. For more on those, see fn. 80. (78) Caitanya‐candrodaya‐kaumudī p. 486. He also omits the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐ kaumudī. (79) Śyāmo’yaṃ divasaḥ payoda‐paṭalaiḥ sāyaṃ tathāpy utsukā, puṣpārthaṃ sakhi yāsi yāmuna‐taṭaṃ yāhi vyathā kā mama / kintv ekaṃ khara‐kaṇṭaka‐ kakṣatam urasy ālokya sadyo’nyathā, śaṅkāṃ yat kuṭilaḥ kariṣyati jano jātāsmi tenākulā (Padyāvalī 305). (80) Rādhākṛṣṇa cites the following verse in praise of Narahari, which he ascribes to ‘Karṇapūra’ (śrī‐karṇapūra‐kṛta‐padyam, Sādhana‐dīpikā p. 155); the verse is also cited in BR 2.223: śrī‐caitanya‐mahāprabhor atikṛpā‐mādhvīka‐sad‐ bhājanaṃ, sāndra‐prema‐paramparā‐kavalitaṃ vācā praphullaṃ mudā / Page 43 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra śrīkhaṇḍe racita‐sthitiṃ niravadhi śrīkhaṇḍa‐carcārcitaṃ, vande śrī‐madhumaty‐ upādhi‐valitaṃ kañcin mahā‐premajam. In the Sādhana‐dīpikā (p. 165) he also cites the following verse in praise of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja: iha viharati rādhā‐ kṛṣṇa‐kuñjādhikārī, tad‐ubhaya‐rasa‐rīteḥ śuddha‐siddhānta‐dhārī / sakala‐ sujana‐geyaḥ kṛṣṇa‐dāsābhidheyaḥ, padam akhila‐guṇānāṃ ko’pi rājā kavīnām. This verse is quoted in the Vivarta‐vilāsa (p. 32), although the editor mangled the verse considerably, mistaking it for a Bengali verse. B. B. Majumdar (1959, p. 166) cites a verse in praise of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa ‘composed by Kavikarṇapūra Kavirāja’ found in a single manuscript: jita‐vara‐ gati‐bhaṅgir nāṭya‐saṅgīta‐raṅgī, tanu‐bhṛta‐janu‐cittānanda‐vardhi‐sudhīśaḥ / carita‐sukha‐vilāsaś citra‐cāturya‐bhāṣaḥ, parama‐patitam īśaḥ pātu gopāla‐ bhaṭṭaḥ. Majumdar’s ascription suggests these verses could actually be by Karṇapūra Kavirāja, an accomplished Sanskrit poet and disciple of Śrīnivāsa. The sentiments expressed in this verse are indeed appropriate for a grand‐ disciple of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa. I suspect that Rādhākṛṣṇa’s verses are also his, even if Akiñcanadāsa clearly considers the second verse to be Kavikarṇapūra’s. (81) See Jagadbandhu Bhadra’s introduction to the Gaura‐pada‐taraṅginī (pp. 195–200), Satīścandra Rāya’s supplement to the Pada‐kalpa‐taru (pp. 145–8), and Jha (1977, pp. 64–5). Sukumar Sen (1935) first argues for Kavikarṇapūra’s authorship (pp. 61–3), but later in the same work retracts that (pp. 376–7, 466). Majumdar (1959, pp. 46–8) argued against Kavikarṇapūra’s authorship of these verses. (82) There are twelve songs signed with the name Paramānanda in the Pada‐ kalpa‐taru (183, 572, 1585, 1693, 2119, 2120, 2202, 2528, 2858, 2871, 2906, and 2974), and ten in the Gaura‐pada‐taraṅginī (1.2.6, 1.2.40, 1.3.26, 3.1.78, 4.3.6, 4.4.4, 5.4.7, 5.5.5, 6.4.24, and pariśiṣṭa 1.14); in total there are fifteen unique songs (PKT 1693 = GPT 5.4.7; PKT 2119 = GPT 1.3.26 & 4.3.6; PKT 2202 = GPT 1.2.40; PKT 672 = GPT 3.1.78; PKT 2528 = GPT 4.4.4; PKT 2974 = GPT pariśiṣṭa 1.14). Several of these verses praise Sanātana and Rūpa (the latter both as Gosvāmī and as Rūpa Mañjarī), and list the six Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs (see GPT 6.4.24 & 1.2.6 and PKT 2906). It is, therefore, quite plausible, as Sukumar Sen (1935, pp. 376–7 & 466) suggests, that they are by Paramānanda Bhaṭṭācārya, a disciple of Rūpa and Sanātana who lived in Vraja. B. B. Majumdar (1959, p. 47) suggests that they are by Paramānanda Gupta, a disciple of Nityānanda who is praised in several other texts as a composer of songs in praise of Caitanya. The authorship of the remaining twelve songs is more difficult to ascertain, but it does not seem unreasonable to assume they are by the same Paramānanda. Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya (1956, p. 13), who accepts these songs as Kavikarṇapūra’s, points out that there are some parallels between some of these songs (GPT 1.3.26 & 5.4.7) and passages in the Caitanya‐

Page 44 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra candrodaya (pp. 50–1/142–5), but the sentiments expressed in these passages are hardly unique to Kavikarṇapūra. (83) The scarcity of manuscripts of the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya has made some scholars believe that the text was a forgery, written in the seventeenth century, but there is enough evidence to prove otherwise. See Bhattacharyya (1956) and Brzezinski (1990a). Some modern Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas have argued that this text is not the work of Kavikarṇapūra, but of his older brother Caitanyadāsa (see the Anubhāṣya on CC 1.10.62 and Prabhupāda, 1996, vol. 2, p. 154). However, the poem itself contradicts this claim: the author clearly identifies himself as the younger son (kanīyas) of Śivānanda Sena (CCMK 20.46; Kavikarṇapūra uses the same expression to refer to himself in CCU p. 122/352). As we will see below, there is also enough early evidence which corroborates that Kavikarṇapūra is indeed the author of this text. (84) CCMK 22.49. (85) CCMK 20.42–43. (86) Chapter 9 and 10, describing the love of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs, have no counterpart in Murāri’s hagiography. For a list of correlating verses from Murāri’s and Kavikarṇapūra’s hagiographies, see Majumdar (1959, pp. 86–94) and Stewart (1985, pp. 478–80). (87) The Caitanya‐bhāgavata was likely completed in 1548; see Majumdar (1959, p. 195). (88) CCU p. 137/395. (89) Yad yad dṛṣṭaṃ śrutam api ca yat… (CCMK 1.10). (90) Yathā‐mati yathā‐dṛṣṭaṃ yathākarṇitaṃ (CCU p. 137/395). (91) Kapstein (2009, p. xcvii). (92) Aside from some superficial—but striking—parallels between the structure of the Caitanya‐candrodaya and that of the Bhakti‐vaibhava (e.g. act 1 in both dramas contains a description of Kali and his allies; act 2 begins with a dismissal of various theological schools), both dramas are remarkable in their use of historical characters alongside allegorical ones. The allegory of Jīvadeva’s drama is richer than the Caitanya‐candrodaya’s and sustained throughout the work (whereas Kavikarṇapūra drops it after act 3), and historical characters (like the king and his entourage) play a subordinate role.

Page 45 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (93) Śāke vasu‐graha‐mite manunaiva yukte / grantho’yam āvirabhavat katamasya ghasrāt (GGD 215). See also De (1961, pp. 45–6). (94) Vilokyānyāni sādhūnāṃ mathurauḍra‐nivāsinām; gauḍiyānām api mukhān niṣamya sva‐manīṣayā (GGD 5). (95) For Rāmānanda Rāya, for example, four different identities are given: Lalitā, the Pāṇḍava Arjuna, a gopa (priya‐narma‐sakhā) called Arjuna, and a gopī called Arjunīyā (GGD 120–4). (96) GGD 5, 9–10, 13, 17, 148. (97) GGD 63 & 172. (98) GGD 94. (99) GGD 34 is quoted from CCU 10.73; GGD 48 (on Viṣṇupriyā) from CCU 1.29; GGD 60 (on Viśvarūpa) from CCU 1.30; GGD 61 (on Nityānanda) from CCU 1.23; GGD 151 (on Gadādhara) from CCU 3.42; GGD 34 from CCU 10.73. (100) The list is as follows: Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Nārada, Vyāsa, Madhva, Padmanābha, Narahari, Mādhava, Akṣobhya, Jayatīrtha, Jñānasindhu, Mahānidhi, Vidyānidhi, Rājendra, Jayadharma, Viṣṇu Purī and Puruṣottama, Vyāsatīrtha, Lakṣmīpati, Mādhavendra. (101) GGD 23–25. (102) See Bhaktivinoda (1892–93). (103) De (1961, p. 14). Baladeva’s list appears in Prameya‐ratnāvalī 1.4. For more on the controversy, see Okita (2014, particularly pp. 41–61). (104) See Elkman (1986, p. 33). (105) S. K. De (1961, p. 14) sees the affiliation with the Mādhva school in Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā as problematic, because in the Caitanya‐candrodaya Caitanya himself admits not being very impressed with the Mādhvas in South India: kiyanta eva vaiṣṇavā dṛṣṭās te’pi nārāyaṇopāsakā eva. Apare tattva‐vādinas te tathāvidhā eva. Niravadyaṃ na bhavati teṣāṃ matam (CCU p. 89/254). Furthermore, De argues, after his sannyāsa initation, Caitanya too is recognized as an Advaitin (see CCU p. 61/173). (106) See BR 5.2149–2162. S. K. De (1961, p. 14) acknowledges that the list given in the Bhakti‐ratnākara, where we also find a similar list attributed to Gopāla Guru, cannot have been copied from Baladeva, ‘but was probably derived from a common source’. (107) See Hawley (2013). Page 46 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (108) I am currently preparing a critical edition of the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā based on the available manuscripts of the text. (109) See Sādhana‐dīpikā pp. 127, 166, and 56–57 of ch. 9. (110) Most notably, Kavikarṇapūra’s complex views on Gadādhara, which are presented at length in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (147–155) as well as in the Caitanya‐candrodaya (p. 37/104), but which have been ignored by later authors. (111) Yad‐āsyād unmīlan‐niravakara‐vṛndāvana‐rahaḥ‐kathāsvādaṃ labdhvā jagati na janaḥ kvāpi ramate (AVC 1.5). (112) AVC 1.6. (113) For more on this practice of aṣṭa‐kāliya‐līlā‐smaraṇa (‘meditation on the play during the eight watches [of the day]’), see Haberman (1988, pp. 126–31). Siddha Kṛṣṇadāsa used the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī extensively in his Bhāvanā‐sāra‐ saṃgraha, probably the most popular manual for such practice. (114) AK 4.10 (*CCMK 10.75), AK 5.23 (AVC 14.98), AK 5.25 (*CCU 3.7), AK 5.36 (AVC 15.249), AK 5.56 (AVC 14.79), AK 5.57 (*AVC 14.78), AK 5.59 (*AVC 20.107), AK 5.60 (*AVC 20.126), AK 5.61 (*KAK 6.62 & AVC 20.123), AK 8.236 (CCU 7.10), AK 8.237 (CCU 7.8), AK 8.72 (CCU 3.31). Verses marked with an asterisk are slightly modified in the AK. (115) De (1942, p. 32). (116) Bhattacharyya (1956, p. 10). (117) For example, in the Śataka Kṛṣṇa rests after playing with the gopīs in the Yamunā. In the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī, however, Kavikarṇapūra writes about a picnic they have in the woods, followed by a game of dice, which he describes at length (KAK 4.213–298). Though Kavikarṇapūra is most fond of the amorous Kṛṣṇa, he also extensively explores in his other works the non‐amorous relationships Kṛṣṇa has. If it is indeed Kavikarṇapūra’s work, the Śataka would be his only work that is exclusively devoted to Kṛṣṇa’s love play. (118) Kumāra‐haṭṭe yat‐kīrtiḥ kṛṣṇa‐devo virājate (GGD 211). (119) Svasti śrī‐kṛṣṇadeva‐rāya [yaḥ] prādurāsīt svayam kalau / anugrahāya dvijaṃ kiṃcit śrīlaṃ śrīnātha‐saṃjñakam. The inscription is cited (and somewhat emended) in De (1933, p. 29). I follow De’s interpretation. For the history of the temple, see De (1933, pp. 28–31). Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvacaspati states in the Vaiṣṇavācāra‐darpaṇa that Śrīnātha entrusted the worship of Kṛṣṇadeva Rāya to Śivānanda Sena (kṛṣṇa‐rāya śrī‐vigraha pratiṣṭhā karilā / sevā kari sena śivānande samarpila, p. 65; see also p. 61, describing Śivānanda: gaurāṅgere

Page 47 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra priya‐śākhā kāñcaḍapāḍāya vāsa / kṛṣṇa‐rāya śrī‐vigraha yāhāra prakāśa / śrīnāthera pratiṣṭhita jānibe pramāṇe / padmāsane lejhā āche saba vivaraṇe). (120) Śrīnātha paṇḍita prabhura kṛpāra bhājana / yāṅra kṛṣṇa‐sevā dekhi vaśa tri‐ bhuvana (CC 1.10.107). (121) Ekaḥ parama‐madhuro loka‐locana‐rasāyanam iva navīna‐vayā ramaṇīya‐ rūpaḥ sahajāvatīrṇa‐śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐prema‐rasa‐bāhyāntara‐sarasaḥ śrīnātha‐nāmā dvija‐kula‐candraḥ (CCU p. 119/344). In the introduction to the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra also calls him avani‐devānvaya‐vidhu (AVC 1.5). (122) CCU pp. 121–2/351–2. The person introduced to Caitanya immediately after Śrīnātha is his disciple Kavikarṇapūra, who is still a small child, as we have seen above. (123) Śaṅkara Paṇḍita, the younger brother of Dāmodara Paṇḍita, was a close friend of Caitanya in Purī. He is known as ‘the cushion of the Lord’s feet’ (prabhu‐pādopadhāna), because Caitanya used his body to rest his feet on (see CC 1.10.33 & 3.19.68–69, GGD 157). (124) CC 1.10.107. (125) Śrīnātha cakravartī paṇḍita pradhāna, śrīnātha ācārya bali kahe tāṅre kana / śrī advaita prabhu sthāne bhāgavata paḍilā, śrī advaita prabhu tāṅre dīkṣā mantra dilā (PV ch. 24, p. 233). (126) CC 1.10.107. (127) Śrī caitanya śākhā ihoṅ tāṅra kṛpā‐pātra (PV p. 233). (128) Śrīnātha ācārya prabhura śiṣya ye pradhāna (AM p. 97, translation by Manring, 2011, p. 84). (129) Śrīnātha ācārya prabhura hae baḍa śākhā (AM p. 144, translation by Manring, 2011, p. 99). (130) AM pp. 96–7, 111; Manring (2011, pp. 84, 89). (131) AM pp. 144–8; Manring, (2011, pp. 99–100). (132) CCU p. 119/344. (133) Manring (2005, p. 260, fn. 39); Sen (1963, vol. 1, p. 380). (134) Namasyāmo’syaiva priya‐parijanān vatsala-hradaḥ, prabhor advaitādīn api jagad‐aghaugha‐kṣaya‐kṛtaḥ / samāna‐premāṇaḥ sama‐guṇa‐gaṇās tulya‐ karuṇāḥ, svarūpādyā ye’mī sarasa‐madhurās tān api numaḥ (AVC 1.4).

Page 48 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (135) The Bṛhat‐krama‐sandarbha attributed to Jīva is clearly influenced by Śrīnātha’s commentary. (136) Though Śrīnātha and his commentary are largely forgotten, this verse is very popular among contemporary Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas, although it is often erroneously attributed to Viśvanātha Cakravartī. (137) Ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa‐tanayas tad‐dhāma vṛndāvanaṃ, ramyā kācid upāsanā vraja‐vabhū‐vargeṇa yā kalpitā / śāstraṃ bhāgavataṃ pramāṇam amalaṃ premā pum‐artho mahān, itthaṃ gaura‐mahāprabhor matam atas tatrādaro naḥ paraḥ (CMM 0.1). (138) CMM 0.12–13. (139) For an (incomplete) list of citations in the Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā, see Lutjeharms (2009, pp. 278–81). (140) Aho dhanyaiveyaṃ kṣitir atitarāṃ śrī‐caraṇayo, rasaiḥ pūrṇā nāmnā guṇa‐ gaṇa‐mahimnā ca mahatā / tad etad‐vicchedānala‐vidaliteyaṃ dalati no (CCMK 1.28). (141) Adyāpy etac‐caraṇa‐kamala‐dvandva‐gandhena sarve, tyaktāsaṅgā niravadhi‐galat‐sarva‐bandhāḥ samantāt / svairaṃ svairaṃ naṭana‐rabhasaiḥ kīrtanaiḥ sañcaranto, vartante tad‐viraha‐dahanaṃ kaḥ sahetāsya tasya (CCMK 1.24). (142) Priyasya sākṣād aviloka‐janyāṃ, bādhāṃ viṣoḍhuṃ nahi ko’py upāyaḥ / suhṛdbhir uktād athavābhinītād, ṛte tadīyād guṇa‐samprayogāt (CCU p. 2/3). (143) Etāṃ tat‐priya‐maṇḍale śiva śiva smṛty‐eka‐śeṣaṃ gate ko jānātu śṛṇotu kas (CCU p. 137/395). (144) Iha parama‐kṛpālor gauracandrasya ko’pi praṇaya‐rasa‐śarīraḥ śrī‐ śivānanda‐senaḥ (CCMK 20.46). (145) Tan‐mātra‐jīvana‐dhanasya‐janasya putraḥ (AVC 22.52). (146) Śrī‐gaurāṅga‐kṛpā‐mayo’vanitale śrīmac‐chivānandakaḥ (KAK 6.74). (147) Vande’haṃ parayā bhaktyā pārṣadāgryaṃ mahāprabhoḥ (GGD 4). (148) See GGD 63, 172. See also CCU p. 123/356. (149) See GGD 9–11. (150) GGD 11, 59–64, CCU p. 6/13. Kavikarṇapūra states twice that Baladeva manifests everything needed to serve Kṛṣṇa. See CCU p. 37/105, where he cites Yāmuna’s Stotra‐ratna (34): ‘House, bed, seat, sandals, cloth, pillow, umbrella Page 49 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra and parasol, and more—dividing his body he completes you; people rightfully proclaim him “Śeṣa” (“remainder”)’ (nivāsa‐śayyāsana‐pādukāṃśuko‐padhāna‐ varṣātapa‐vāriṇādibhiḥ / śarīra‐bhedais tava śeṣatāṃ gatair yathocitaṃ śeṣa itīryate janaiḥ). See also GGD 64. (151) GGD 11, 76–80, CCU p. 6/13 & 35/95. (152) GGD 147–149, CCMK 11.24. (153) CCU p. 33/92 & 6/13, GGD 11 & 90. According to Kavikarṇapūra, Śrīvāsa’s divine identity is different from the other four members, although, as he seems to have attained that identity. In Act 1 of the Caitanya‐candrodaya he recounts how Śrīvāsa died, but was brought back to life by Caitanya, who comments that, at that moment, his body changed ‘because Nārada’s potency entered him’; see CCU p. 12–13/33–4. See also CCU p. 33/92 where Kavikarṇapūra writes that Śrīvāsa is ‘naturally possessed by Nārada’ (sahaja‐nāradāveśatva). (154) Tad‐bhinnaṃ yat tad evātra tad abhinnaṃ vibhāvyatām / yataḥ svayecchayā śaktyā kṛṣṇas tādṛśatāṃ gataḥ (GGD 8). (155) CCU p. 3/5. (156) CCU p. 11/30. (157) Advaitāya namas te’stu maheśāya mahātmane yat‐prasādena gaurāṅga‐ caraṇe jāyate ratiḥ (CCMK 14.45). (158) Tribhuvana‐viditaḥ skandha evāvadhūtaḥ (CCU p. 3/5). (159) Tato’vadhūto bhagavān balātmā, bhavān sadā vaiṣṇava‐varga‐madhye / jajvāla tigmāṃśu‐sahasra‐tejā, iti bruvan me janako nanarta (GGD 63). (160) GGD 175–177. Śivānanda is identified as Vīrā, a gopī who acts as a messenger for Kṛṣṇa; Kavikarṇapūra identifies his mother as Bindumatī, a gopī who arranges for Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa to meet (see Rūpa’s Rādhā‐kṛṣṇa‐gaṇoddeśa‐ dīpikā 2.93–96 & 2.191). Mukundadāsa is identified as Vṛndādevī, who presides over Vṛndāvana, and is, according to Rūpa, another messenger of Kṛṣṇa (Rādhā‐ kṛṣṇa‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā 2.88 & 97–99). Narahari was the gopī Madhumatī, one of the closest companions of Rādhā (Rādhā‐kṛṣṇa‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā 2.182). (161) For Caitanya and Gadādhara see, for example, CCMK 5.55–129 & 6.12–14 (the second passage is based on Murāri’s Kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐caritāmṛta 2.3.11–15, but the lengthy description of the fifth chapter is Kavikarṇapūra’s own addition). See also CCMK 3.75–82 (not based on Murāri), where he describes the love of Viśvambhara and his first wife Lakṣmīpriya. For Gadādhara’s identity see GGD 147–149, CCMK 11.22–27. As Tony Stewart (2010, pp. 235–9) notes, Gadādhara’s divine identity is contested. For Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja he is not Rādhā Page 50 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (as Caitanya is both Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa), but Lakṣmī. Although Kavikarṇapūra identifies Gadādhara as Rādhā in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (147), he also records another view that Gadādhara is Lalitā, Rādhā’s close friend (GGD 150– 51 and CCU p. 37/104). (162) Kavikarṇapūra lists the Śrīkhaṇḍa Vaiṣṇavas towards the end of the Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (GGD 175–177 and 207), and singles out Cirañjīva Sena and Sulocana Sena, two disciples of Narahari, as particularly prominent (GGD 209). Narahari, Mukundadāsa, and his son Raghunandana are mentioned in CCMK 13.148, as well as in CCU p. 105/305. See also CCMK 11.76 and CCU p. 119/344. Significantly, none of them are mentioned in Kavikarṇapūra’s image of the ‘Caitanya tree’ given in the first act of the drama (CCU p. 3/5), nor in the list of prominent devotees given a little later (CCU p. 6/13). Kavikarṇapūra mentions Madhumatī, Narahari’s identity in Kṛṣṇa’s play, in the Kṛṣṇāhnika‐kaumudī (4.203). (163) This is particularly striking in CCU pp. 22–3/61–2, which very elaborately describes Caitanya’s beauty as he walked through the streets of Navadvīpa after bathing in the Ganges—a scene commonly used in gaura‐nāgara songs—and although he describes the effect of this vision on the town’s citizens, none of them are female or harbour any amorous feeling for him. A scene involving women bathing Caitanya is described in act one, but Kavikarṇapūra explicitly states that this involved no amorous feelings (see pp. 9/23–4). Given his inclusion of such passages in the mahā‐kāvya it is not unlikely that Kavikarṇapūra changed his mind on this later in his life. (164) Acyutānanda is mentioned indirectly, through his mother Sītā, who is referred to as ‘Acyutānanda’s mother’ (accudāṇanda‐jaṇaṇī) in one passage of the Caitanya‐candrodaya (p. 65/184). (165) Tasya putro’cyutānandaḥ kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐vallabhaḥ śrīmat‐paṇḍita‐gosvāmi‐ śiṣyaḥ priya iti śrutam (GGD 87). (166) GGD 65. (167) Saṅkarṣaṇasya yo vyūhaḥ payobdhi‐śāyi‐nāmakaḥ sa eva vīracandro’bhūc caitanyābhinnavigrahaḥ (GGD 67). (168) Śrī‐caitanyādvaita‐tanuḥ sa eva raghunandanaḥ (GGD 70). (169) Gaurābhinna‐tanuḥ sarvārādhyaḥ sanātanaḥ (GGD 182). Advaita is also said to be caitanyābhinna‐vigrahaḥ (GGD 76, see also CCU p. 61/173). That Sanātana Gosvāmī is described as such is significant, as all the other Vaiṣṇava leaders who receive this appellation are said to be divine: Advaita is identified as Sadāśiva, Vīrabhadra as Saṅkarṣaṇa, while Raghunandana as Pradyumna (although also as an intimate friend of Kṛṣṇa in Vraja). Sanātana, however, is a gopī. As his Page 51 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra inclusion shows, their identity with Caitanya does not therefore just point to their divine nature, but to the way they resembled Caitanya through their devotion. Other Vaiṣṇavas are similarly seen as representing Caitanya: Bhagavānācārya is said to be ‘a portion of Gaura’ (ācāryo bhagavān khañjaḥ kalā gaurasya kathyate, GGD 74). Kavikarṇapūra also discusses other forms in which Caitanya manifests in his devotees in act nine of the Caitanya‐candrodaya (p. 105ff/304ff). (170) CCMK 17.9ff. This event is not told by other hagiographers, although elements of it recur in other accounts of Caitanya’s meeting with these brothers: see CCU pp. 115–16/334–35, CC 2.19.45ff. (171) Most of the Caitanya‐candrodaya verses describing Sanātana, Rūpa, and Raghunāthadāsa are quoted often in later works of the tradition. See, for example, CC 2.24.348–50, BR 1.658–60 (Sanātana), CC 2.19.120–21, Sādhana‐ dīpikā pp. 160–1 (Rūpa), CC 3.6.263–64, BR 3.212 (Raghunāthadāsa). (172) Gaurābhinna‐tanuḥ sarvārādhyaḥ sanātanaḥ (GGD 182). (173) Gauḍendrasya sabhā‐vibhūṣaṇa‐maṇis tyaktvā ya ṛddhāṃ śriyaṃ, rūpasyāgraja eṣa eva taruṇīṃ vairāgya‐lakṣmīṃ dadhe / antar‐bhakti‐rasena pūrṇa‐hṛdayo bāhye ‘vadhūtākṛtiḥ, śaivālaiḥ pihitaṃ mahā‐sara iva prīti‐pradas tad‐vidām (CCU p. 115/333). (174) Ācāryo yadunandanaḥ sumadhuraḥ śrī‐vāsudeva‐priyas, tac‐chiṣyo raghunātha ity adhiguṇaḥ prāṇādhiko mādṛśām / śrī‐caitanya‐kṛpātireka‐satata‐ snigdhaḥ svarūpānugo, vairāgyaika‐nidhir na kasya vidito nīlācale tiṣṭhatām (CCU pp. 120/345–6). (175) Yaḥ sarva‐lokaika‐manobhirucyā saubhāgya‐bhūḥ kācid akṛṣṭa‐pacyā / yatrāyam āropaṇa‐tulya‐kālaṃ tat‐prema‐śākhī phalavān atulyaḥ (CCU p. 120/346). (176) Suśīlaḥ paṇḍitaḥ śrīmān jīvaḥ śrī‐vallabhātmajaḥ (GGD 204). According to Kavikarṇapūra, Jīva is Vilāsa‐mañjarī. (177) Sa‐sanātanānupama‐rūpa‐rūpiṇaḥ sva‐padābja‐bhakti‐rasa‐sāgara‐trayān (CCMK 17.9). (178) Premālāpair dṛḍhatara‐pariṣvaṅga‐raṅgaiḥ prayāge, taṃ śrī‐rūpaṃ samam anupamenānujagrāha devaḥ (CCU p. 115/332). (179) Priya‐svarūpe dayita‐svarūpe, prema‐svarūpe sahajābhirūpe / nijānurūpe prabhur eka‐rūpe, tatāna rūpe sva‐vilāsa‐rūpe (CCU p. 115/332).

Page 52 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (180) See particularly CC 3.1.72ff. Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī reads this verse of Kavikarṇapūra as a description of Caitanya’s ‘transmission of potency’ (śakti‐ sañcāraḥ) in his Sādhana‐dīpikā (p. 161), as does Rājavallabha in his Muralī‐ vilāsa (ei aṣṭa‐rūpa śakti kailā sañcāraṇa / ihāra pramāṇa karṇapūrera vacana, p. 286). (181) Kālena vṛndāvana‐keli‐vārttā lupteti tāṃ khyāpayitum viśiṣya / kṛpāmṛtenābhiṣiṣeca devas tatraiva rūpaṃ ca sanātanaṃ ca (CCU p. 116/335). This verse is quoted twice in the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta (CC 2.19.119 and CC 2.24.350) and once in the Bhakti‐ratnākara (1.660). (182) For example, Kavikarṇapūra knew that Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī resided near Rādhā‐kuṇḍa (GGD 185), and that Rāghava Gosvāmī had written the Bhakti‐ratna‐prakāśa and lived at Govardhana (GGD 162). Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, originally from Vārāṇasī, stayed some time in Purī with Caitanya, and it is possible that Kavikarṇapūra heard about him from his father (CC 3.13.89ff). Rāghava, who was an intimate friend of Raghunāthadāsa at Govardhana, was of South Indian descent, and it is unclear whether he ever stayed in Purī or Bengal (See BR 5.21–28). (183) See, particularly, Chakravarti (1985, pp. 203–6). Such arguments generally centre around the claim that Kavikarṇapūra (and the other Bengali Vaiṣṇavas) viewed Caitanya quite differently from the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, who (in this view) were devotees of Kṛṣṇa rather than of Caitanya, whereas the Vaiṣṇavas of Bengal worshipped Caitanya ‘as an end in itself’ (p. 204). He suggests that Kavikarṇapūra’s interest in Kṛṣṇa is more literary than religious, as is shown by his Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, a work on literary theory where every verse is about Kṛṣṇa (pp. 203–4); that the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana cannot be taken as an indication that Kavikarṇapūra had a deep devotion to Kṛṣṇa, as it was merely ‘an alternative to Jīva Gosvāmin’s Gopālacampū’ (p. 205); and that Kavikarṇapūra expressed the concept of Caitanya’s dual identity as Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa in the Caitanya‐candrodaya not because he believed it himself, but because the view was now so popular that it ‘could no longer be ignored or challenged by a Mahānta like Karṇapūra’ (p. 205)! As we will see in Chapter 2, Kavikarṇapūra does not argue that the worship of Caitanya is ‘an end in itself’ as Chakravarti understands this, nor is Kṛṣṇa peripheral to his theology. In this section of his book, Chakravarti primarily refutes Rādhāgovinda Nātha (see Nātha, 2003, pp. 363–7) who claims that the differences between Kavikarṇapūra’s theology and that of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja are not as great as is often assumed—a thesis which I support. (184) I will not offer here a comparison of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology with that of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs (which, it should be stressed, is also not entirely

Page 53 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra uniform), although the reader familiar with the Gosvāmīs’ theology will notice in the following chapters the striking parallels in Kavikarṇapūra’s thought. (185) Rūpa completed the Vidagdha‐mādhava in 1533, the Lalita‐mādhava in 1537, the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu in 1541, the Dāna‐keli‐kaumudī in 1549, and the Rādhā‐kṛṣṇa‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā in 1550. Sanātana’s Vaiṣṇava‐toṣaṇī is dated 1554. The Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu makes references to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa’s Hari‐ bhakti‐vilāsa (BRAS 1.2.72), and Sanātana’s Bṛhad‐bhāgavatāmṛta (BRAS 1.4.20), which must either have been completed before 1541, or have been in progress at that time. Rūpa possibly passed away not before 1568, Sanātana in 1558, and Raghunāthadāsa in 1584 (see Habib, 1996). Before 1576, the date of the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, Jīva had already written the Mādhava‐mahotsava (1555). (186) See Murāri’s Caitanya‐caritāmṛta 4.13.6–17, 4.17.20–21, 4.18.14; Vṛndāvanadāsa’s Caitanya‐bhāgavata 1.1.171–172, 2.6.5, 2.11.3, 3.9.238–274; Locanadāsa’s Caitanya‐maṅgala 1.1.30, 1.2.628. (187) When these three were born is unclear. Several sources argue they were born in the beginning of the sixteenth century, but those early dates are quite problematic. For example, according to Haridāsa Dāsa (1987, p. 1392) Śrīnivāsa was born in 1519 (śaka 1441), but that would make him 70 to 80 years old when he initiates Vīra Hāṃvīra, who only came to power in the 1590s. Rādhāmādhava Tarkatīrtha (1954, pp. 194–8) casts significant doubts on such early dates for Śrīnivāsa’s birth, and proposes 1585 as the birth year, which is undoubtedly too late. The Prema‐vilāsa (p. 212) claims that Śrīnivāsa, Narottama and Śyāmananda were born after Caitanya, Nityānanda, and Advaita passed away. All the hagiographical accounts agree that Śrīnivāsa and Narottama reached Vṛndāvana as young men, after Rūpa and Sanātana had passed away. Rūpa seems to have been still alive in the 1560s (see Habib, 1996, p. 156). If the hagiographical accounts can be trusted on this point, this would suggest that Śrīnivāsa was probably born sometime after 1550. (188) There are several hagiographies of Śrīnivāsa, Narottama, and Śyāmananda: Karṇapūra Kavirāja’s Guṇa‐leśa‐sūcaka (early seventeenth century), Nityānandadāsa’s Prema‐vilāsa, Yadunandanadāsa’s Karṇānanda (both claiming to be composed in the early seventeenth century), Manoharadāsa’s Anurāga‐vallī (late seventeenth century), Kṛṣṇacaraṇadāsa’s Śyāmānanda‐prakāśa and Śyāmānanda‐rasārṇava, and Narahari Cakravartī’s Bhakti‐ratnākara and Narottama‐vilāsa (all eighteenth century). The dating of some of these earlier texts is questionable, as is the historical reliability of their narratives. The Karṇānanda, for example, claims to have been completed in śaka 1529 or 1607 AD (p. 119), but refers to Kṛṣṇadāsa’s Caitanya‐caritāmṛta (pp. 98, 101, 127), which was only written after 1610 (see Nātha, 2003, pp. 7ff, Dimock and Stewart, 1999, pp. 29–30). The Prema‐vilāsa claims that Kṛṣṇadāsa’s Page 54 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra hagiography of Caitanya was one of the texts that was sent with Śrīnivāsa to Bengal. When Kṛṣṇadāsa heard that the manuscripts were stolen by Vīra Hāṃvīra’s men, he quickly died of grief, in the presence of Raghunāthadāsa (p. 94). Kṛṣṇadāsa, however, survived Raghunāthadāsa and was still alive in 1608 when Jīva passed away (see Mukherjee and Wright, 1979, pp. 303–4). (189) See, for example, Chakravarti (1985, pp. 209–10). (190) See Stewart (2010, pp. 275–6). (191) The military campaign to conquer Bengal began in 1594, during the reign of Akbar, and was continued during Jahāngīr’s reign (1605–1627). For Vīra Hāṃvīra’s opposition to Jahāngīr’s men, see Sensarma (1977, pp. 114–19, 124). Inscriptions on the temples he built around Viṣṇupura also clearly indicate that Vīra Hāṃvīra ruled in the beginning of the seventeenth century. See Bhattacharyya (1982, pp. 60, 63, 66, 68 & 192). For more on the dating of Vīra Hāṃvīra’s reign, see Nātha (2003, pp. 23–4). (192) In the Guṇa‐leśa‐sūcaka, Karṇapūra Kavirāja merely tells how Śrīnivāsa brought the texts to Yājigrāma in Bengal and taught them to the Vaiṣṇavas there; see verses 64–66. He does list Vīra Hāṃvīra as a prominent disciple of Śrīnivāsa (verse 89). (193) The Prema‐vilāsa merely states that Jīva sent with them both his own works and those of Rūpa (śrī‐rūpera grantha yata nija grantha āra, p. 90). (194) The letters, written in Sanskrit, are found in several of the hagiographies: see Karṇānanda chapter 5 (pp. 95–7), Prema‐vilāsa (pp. 302–8), and Bhakti‐ ratnākara chapter 14 (pp. 632–3). (195) Jīva mentions Vīra Hāṃvīra and his court paṇḍita Vyāsa Śarmā (both disciples of Śrīnivāsa), and inquires in the first letter after Śrīnivāsa’s first‐born son. As Śrīnivāsa married his two wives shortly after returning to Bengal (see PV pp. 137–8), that letter must have been written only a few years after leaving Vṛndāvana. Moreover, as several of the works mentioned in these letters were not completed before the 1590s, they too suggest a later date for the journey. (196) Śrī‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu‐śrī‐mādhava‐mahotsavottara‐campū‐harināmāmṛtānāṃ śodhanāni kiṃcid avaśiṣṭāni vartanta iti varṣāś ceti samprati na prasthāvanāni, paścāt tu daivānukūlyena prasthāpyāni (Letter 1, BR p. 632; Karṇānanda p. 96, PV p. 303). The Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu was completed in 1541. According to the Bhakti‐ratnākara (5.1626–1665, particularly 1659–1660), Jīva assisted Rūpa with the editing of this text before it was completed. (197) In letter 4 of the Bhakti‐ratnākara (p. 633; PV, p. 308) Jīva mentions he has just sent a copy of Sanātana’s Bṛhad‐bhāgavatāmṛta for Śrīnivāsa, although it is unclear whether he had been editing the work (pūrvaṃ śyāmadāsa‐mārdaṅgika‐ Page 55 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra hastena śrī‐śrīnivāsācārya‐gosvāmi‐kṛte bṛhad‐bhāgavatāmṛtaṃ prasthāpitam āsīt). In letter 2 of the Bhakti‐ratnākara (p. 632) Jīva writes he is still editing the Vaiṣṇava‐toṣanī, which could refer to Sanātana’s commentary on the Bhāgavata’s tenth book, but is more likely Jīva’s own Laghu‐vaiṣṇava‐toṣaṇī. (198) Samprati śodhayitvā vicārya ca vaiṣṇava‐toṣaṇī‐durgama‐saṅgamanī‐śrī‐ gopāla‐campū‐pustakāni. Tatrāmībhir nīyamānāni santi (letter 2, BR p. 632, PV p. 304). See also the quote from the first letter of the Bhakti‐ratnākara above. The Mādhava‐mahotsava is dated 1555. The second part of the Gopāla‐campū was completed in 1592. The grammar is undated, but was written before the first part of the Gopāla‐campū, which draws on it and was completed in 1588. The Durgama‐saṅgamanī, Jīva’s commentary on the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu, is undated. For more on Jīva’s revisions of his own works, see Brzezinski (2007, pp. 62–3). (199) In the above cited first letter (BR p. 632), Jīva also indicates a concern that the manuscripts would be damaged during the monsoon rains. (200) Stewart (2010, p. 276). (201) Kavikarṇapūra did know one work produced in Vraja: in the Gaura‐ gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (162) he refers to Rāghava Paṇḍita’s Bhakti‐ratna‐prakāśa, although it is unclear whether he was personally familiar with the text or had merely heard of it. (202) Vrindavan Research Institute manuscript no. 7686. That manuscript is, however, written in more than one hand. Rūpa, who had just finished the Bhakti‐ rasāmṛta‐sindhu and had started with the Ujjvala‐nīlamaṇi—two of his most important theological writings—might have been too busy with these other projects to complete the copying of the mahā‐kāvya. See Brzezinski (1990a). (203) Arvāg‐jīve pracura‐karuṇaiḥ śrīla‐rūpāgrajādyaiḥ, sammodān mat‐parama‐ gurubhiḥ śrīla‐kāśīśvarākyaiḥ / bhaṭṭācāryair api ca paramānanda‐saṃjñair vraje’smin, śrutvā śrutvāmudita‐hṛdayaiḥ śaśvad āsvāditaṃ yat / caitanyacandra‐ caritāmṛtam adbhutābhair, dvy‐aṣṭābdikair viracitaṃ kavikarṇapūraiḥ / rūpākhya‐mat‐prabhu‐varaiḥ sva‐karāmbujena, śāke haya‐rtu‐bhuvane likhitaṃ purā yat / ālokya sāmpratam anena kumedhasāpi, svapne’pi tad‐ratim ṛte mṛtaka‐prabheṇa / kenāpi lubdha‐manasā bata viṣṇudāsa‐, nāmnā sva‐jīvana‐ mahauṣadham ācitaṃ tat (cited in Brzezinski 1990a, p. 475). (204) Although originally from Bengal, Premadāsa later travelled to Vṛndāvana, where he became a priest at the Govindadeva temple (Caitanya‐candrodaya‐ kaumudī pp. 488–9). The Vaṃśī‐śikṣā was written in 1716, and contains the teachings of Vaṃśīvadana, a close associate of Caitanya who was considered to

Page 56 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra be the incarnation of Kṛṣṇa’s flute (GGD 179). For more on the Caitanya‐ candrodaya‐kaumudī, see Ācārya (2003) and Goswami (2008, pp. 468–77). (205) Stewart (2010, pp. 251–3) argues that Kṛṣṇadāsa’s use of Kavikarṇapūra’s works ‘effectively silenced’ him, which was necessary because Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘influence, if allowed to grow unchecked could have gently undermined the ascendency of the Gosvāmī perspective’ (p. 253). It seems odd, though, that the only early author who tells us anything of Kavikarṇapūra’s life would perceive him as a threat that had to be silenced. (206) See CC 2.3.28 (citing CCU 5.10), CC 2.6.142 (CCU 6.37), CC 2.6.254 (CCU 6.44), CC 2.6.255 (CCU 6.45), CC 2.10.119 (CCU 8.10), CC 2.11.8 (CCU 8.23), CC 2.11.11 (CCU 8.24), CC 2.11.47 (CCU 8.28), CC 2.19.119 (CCU 9.38), CC 2.19.120 (CCU 9.29), CC 2.19.121 (CCU 9.30), CC 2.24.348 (CCU 9.34), CC 2.24.349 (CCU 9.35), CC 2.24.350 (CCU 9.38), CC 3.6.263 (CCU 10.3), CC 3.6.264 (CCU 10.4). (207) Stewart (1985, pp. 442–6, 1994, pp. 241–4, 2010, pp. 248–54), Brzezinski (1990a, pp. 482–9). (208) Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, for example, who is clearly familiar with Caitanya‐ candrodaya, nevertheless cites Kavikarṇapūra’s three verses in praise of Rūpa from the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta, rather than from the drama directly. See Sādhana‐ dīpikā pp. 160–1. (209) See BR 1.658–1659 (citing CCU 9.34–35), 1.660 (CCU 9.38), 2.212 (CCU 10.3), 8.150 (CCU 2.12). Narahari also cites from Kavikarṇapūra’s mahā‐kāvya: see BR 12.879 (CCMK 2.24), 12.2043–44 (CCMK 5.128–29). (210) Chakravarti (1985, p. 203), Elkman (1986, p. 37). (211) For example, Kṛṣṇadāsa never mentions Rūpa Gosvāmī’s divine identity (Rūpa Mañjarī, GGD 180), although his close friend Raghunāthadāsa does so frequently in several of his shorter poems collected in the Stavāvalī (see, for instance, Vilāpa‐kusumāñjali 1, 14, 55, 60, 72 and Vraja‐vilāsa‐stava 38, 106). (212) See CC 1.8.54ff. (213) See BR 2.221 (GGD 177), 4.340 (GGD 184), 5.24 (GGD 162), 5.2149–2162 (GGD 21–25), 7.328 (GGD 128), 9.471–478 (GGD 147–155), 12.38 (GGD 18), 12.480 (GGD 204), 12.1755 (GGD 81), 12.1786 (GGD 86), 12.3992–3993 (GGD 65–66). (214) Imitations of the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā are far too numerous to list here. Some of these later works give divine identities for Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha. The Gaura‐gaṇa‐svarūpa‐tattva‐candrikā (127) attributed to Viśvanātha Cakravartī identifies Kavikarṇapūra as Madhurekṣaṇā Mañjarī, an assistant of Page 57 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra Tuṅgavidyā, one of the eight principal gopīs (see also verse 171). In the Vaiṣṇavācāra‐darpaṇa, however, Kavikarṇapūra is identified as Guṇacūḍā Sakhī (p. 62), and Śrīnātha as Citrāṅgī Sakhī (p. 65). (215) Sahajiyā authors use the term frequently to refer to their sexual sādhana. See Bose (1930, pp. 19–97). (216) See, for example, Karṇānanda pp. 92–3. Many authors stressed, however, that Jīva only apparently advanced the svakīyā doctrine. Some (like Akiñcanadāsa) argued that a careful reading of Jīva’s works would reveal that he really taught parakīyā, but that he did not state this openly because too many readers would misunderstand the doctrine. Others, like Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, argued that Jīva wrote about svakīyā merely to please one of his disciples (see Sādhana‐dīpikā chapter 9, p. 62). For an overview of Rūpa, Jīva and Kṛṣṇadāsa’s views, see Dimock (1966, pp. 200–15). For a lengthy exposition on Jīva’s position, see Brzezinski (1997). For information on the svakīyā‐parakīyā controversy during Viśvanātha’s times, see Burton (2000, pp. 111–15). (217) See Sādhana‐dīpikā p. 20 (KAK 2.49, 52), p. 24 (KAK 3.18), p. 27 (KAK 3.9– 10), p. 29 (AVC 13.74), p. 38 (AVC 2.6), p. 127 (GGD 147 & 152–53, CCU 3.44), p. 130 (CCMK 6.12–14, 5.55, 5.128–29), p. 160–1 (CCU 9.37, 9.28, 9.29), p. 165 (Kavikarṇapūra’s āryā verse), p. 166 (GGD 180–87). (218) Sādhanā‐dīpikā p. 50 & 55–7 (ch. 9). (219) See Sāra‐saṅgraha p. 83 (citing AVC 19.37–38) and 100 (KAK 3.73). For more on Rūpa Kavirāja’s tumultuous religious career see Delmonico (1999); for more on the Sāra‐saṅgraha see Keller (1988). (220) Parakīyātva‐nirūpaṇam p. 3. (221) The Subodhinī commentary was an early work of Viśvanātha. The commentary is not dated, but the author describes himself in the final verse as a Viśvanātha Śarmā Cakravartī, a resident of Saidābād, where he lived before he moved to Vṛndāvana. (saidābāda‐nivāsi‐śrī‐viśvanātha‐śarmaṇā / cakravartīti nāmneyam kṛtā ṭīkā subodhinī) All the other works of Viśvanātha are (as far as we can tell) written in Vṛndāvana and Rādhā‐kuṇḍa, which means the Subodhinī might be the only work he wrote before becoming the influential leader he was in Vraja (Cf. Burton, 2000, pp. 9–29). The Sukha‐varttanī commentary was written while Viśvanātha lived in Rādhā‐kuṇḍa (rādhā‐saras‐tīra‐kuṭīra‐vartinaḥ, final verse). (222) Śrī‐rūpa‐sammaty‐anukūlam eva (Sukha‐varttanī 0.2). (223) Commentaries on AK 1.1 and AVC 1.1. (224) See Vraja‐rīti‐cintāmaṇi 1.32. He refers to the campū again in 2.72. Page 58 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Kavikarṇapūra (225) For example, the panegyric poem (viruda) included in chapter 15 of the Ānanda‐vṛndavana (15.153–190) has been circulated separately (see Shāstrī, 1934, pp. 589–90). Some sections of the campū have also been printed separately; see the bibliography for details. (226) Shrivatsa Goswami, personal communication, July 2012; Pundrik Goswami, personal communication, July 2009. (227) See Singh (1982–1990, vol. 2, pp. 5–6, 11–12). (228) There is also commentary by Vṛndāvanacandra Tarkālaṃkāra Cakravartī, son of Rādhācaraṇa Kavīndra Cakravartī (India Office Library MS no. 1195), and a commentary by Kṛṣṇamohana Gosvāmī (Vrindavan Research Institute MS no. 3125/1493). The ‘old commentary’ which accompanies Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya, and which is identified in R.S. Nagar’s edition of Bhattacharyya’s text as a commentary of Lokanātha Cakravartī (see also De, 1976, vol. I, p. 257), is identical to Viśvanātha’s in the earlier chapters, and an abbreviation of Viśvanātha’s commentary in later chapters. The abbreviation is not the editor’s, however; there are manuscripts with the (unattributed) commentary that correspond to Bhattacharya’s text (e.g. Bodleian Library MSS Wilson 61 and Wilson 411). (229) The work does not appear to have been too popular, as only one manuscript survived, which is dated 1696. The manuscript belonged to the Rādhā Dāmodara library, and was used by Haridāsa Dāsa for his text edition. Regarding the text’s authorship, see Brzezinski (2007, p. 69). (230) Baladeva acknowledges this in the beginning of the Kṛṣṇānandinī, his own commentary on the text: atratyāni padyāni śrī‐śukasya śrī‐rūpa‐karṇapūra‐kṛṣṇa‐ kavi‐prabhṛteś ca vacāṃsi prāyaḥ saṃgṛhītāni. (231) Baladeva believes these to be written not by Mammaṭa (who is generally credited as its author), but by Bharata, the author of the Nāṭya‐śāstra: Sūtrāṇāṃ bharata‐munīśa‐varṇitānāṃ (SK p. 2). Baladeva is not the only author to make this claim: see De (1976, vol. 1, pp. 152–4 and 1981, pp. 131–8). (232) See, for example, SK p. 4. (233) The Kāvya‐kaustubha’s definition of poetry (kavinā nirmitaṃ vākyaṃ kāvyam, p. 2) is nearly identical to that of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha (kavi‐vāṅ‐ nirmitiḥ kāvyam, AK 1.6). Compare also, for example, the analysis of style (rīti) in the two works (Kāvya‐kaustubha chapter 5; Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha 9). For more on the Kāvya‐kaustubha’s sources, see Bhattacharyya (1950).

Access brought to you by: Page 59 of 59

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On Doctrine and Devotion Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0003

Abstract and Keywords Chapter 2 gives an outline of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology, and demonstrates how he derives much of his thought from Śrīnātha. This chapter is structured around an important section of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, in which Kavikarṇapūra presents his theology through the character of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya—a historical figure; he was one of the leading scholars at Pratāparudra’s court and is said to have been a disciple of Caitanya. The chapter gives particular importance to Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of God (as both Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya), and to his theology of devotion, in which his practice of poetry should be placed. Keywords:   Vaiṣṇava theology, Caitanya‐candrodaya, paradox, devotion, bhakti, grace, community

When Caitanya arrived in Purī after renouncing the world, his arrival was welcomed by Gopīnāthācārya, an influential Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇa who hailed from Bengal, but had settled in Purī. He had heard of Caitanya’s devotional awakening in Navadvīpa, and had a firm faith in Caitanya’s divinity. Gopīnātha’s brother‐in‐law Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma, however, did not share his faith, to the great anguish of the Vaiṣṇavas. Vāsudeva—who in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts is nearly always called only by his title, Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya—was one of the leading intellectuals of his day. He was born in Bengal, as the son of Narahari or Maheśvara Viśārada, a very established scholar of grammar and ritualism. In his youth he studied in Mithilā, the homeland of the New Logic (Navya Nyāya), and upon his return to Bengal he was, according to tradition,1 one of the first to plant the new ideas of that school into the scholarly soil of Navadvīpa, where his student Raghunātha Śiromaṇi, the leading logician of his day, would bring it to Page 1 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion bloom. Shortly before Caitanya was born, Sārvabhauma had left Navadvīpa again, and moved to Purī. Eventually the king Pratāparudra would become his patron, and he became a prominent scholar at the royal court, where he continued to teach Nyāya as well as Advaita Vedānta.2 When the newly initiated ascetic Caitanya reached Purī with his devotees, Kavikarṇapūra tells us in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, they were anxious that, as foreigners, it would be difficult to gain access to the Jagannātha temple. However, if they could gain the friendship of someone at the court that person could allow them to visit the temple whenever they wanted, and Sārvabhauma, they hoped, was their man. He was one of the most influential scholars at the court, a fellow Bengali, and his brother‐in‐law Gopīnātha was already devoted to Caitanya.3 (p.70) They met Sārvabhauma shortly after their arrival. Although initially startled by the Vaiṣṇava leanings of this young ascetic, the scholar grew immediately fond of Caitanya, and regarded him with both respect and affection, as Caitanya’s grandfather had been Sārvabhauma’s classmate. To the great satisfaction of all Caitanya’s devotees, Sārvabhauma unhesitatingly granted them unrestricted access to the temple of Jagannātha, but to their dismay, he did not consider Caitanya to be special. Instead he voiced his disapproval of his sannyāsa lineage, which he considered inferior, and was worried that Caitanya, who was only twenty‐four, would not be able to uphold his strict ascetic vows.4 In his first hagiography of Caitanya, Kavikarṇapūra follows Murāri (and the other hagiographers) in describing Sārvabhauma’s change of heart. The scholar grew increasingly fond of the young ascetic. As the life of an ascetic, already difficult in this age of Kali, must be particularly hard for someone so young, he decided to teach him Vedānta ‘incessantly’, to make him, ‘by the taste of renunciation and by concentrating on luminous knowledge, a traveller to liberation’.5 Respectfully but amusedly, Caitanya listened to Sārvabhauma’s discourses for several days, until, one morning, he arrived at Sārvabhauma’s house with several of his disciples. He asked Sārvabhauma to instruct them as well. Sārvabhauma, ‘a true Bṛhaspati on earth’,6 began to teach them, his ‘speech full of arrogance’, until, at last, Caitanya replied: ‘What are you saying? What is your argument? And what ultimate conclusion do you establish? This is not the meaning of the Vedānta texts! Please listen to our explanation.’7 Caitanya then exposited, refuting Sārvabhauma’s non‐dualistic teachings and establishing devotion, demonstrating his views through all means of knowledge (pramāṇa), through the [various] semantic powers of words—purport, metonymy, the literal sense, and metonymy in which the primary meaning is rejected or only partly rejected. Cavil, deceit and defeat ruined Sārvabhauma’s thoughts. The scholar would present an objection, but the Lord quickly refuted that with the conclusion (siddhānta) Page 2 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion he himself had established. The first argued for non‐dualism, and the Lord, a singular stream of brilliance (pratibhā), argued for [Kṛṣṇa’s] lotus feet. Both honoured by their devotees, they continued vigorously debating for a very long time. Then, that best of brāhmaṇas became astonished and spoke, perplexed but glad: ‘Who is this, who has descended here to frustrate my own brilliance? Could this be Bṛhaspati?’8 (p.71) When Sārvabhauma was at last defeated, he realized his young opponent was no ordinary mortal, and he came to accept his divinity. ‘This is indeed none other than Kṛṣṇa;’ he thought, ‘his acts indicate it.’9 Immediately he bowed to Caitanya, as devotional emotions overwhelmed him, and Caitanya revealed to him a splendid four‐armed form, thereby confirming his divinity.10 Although the various hagiographers disagree on the details, that Sārvabhauma’s sudden recognition of Caitanya’s divinity arose as he conversed with Caitanya is agreed upon by most.11 In the Caitanya‐candrodaya, however, Kavikarṇapūra provides a very different narrative. Sārvabhauma expressed his desire to instruct Caitanya in Vedānta, to the great distress of Gopīnāthācārya, and invited Caitanya to his home for that purpose.12 But when Caitanya arrived early one morning, after an exuberant celebration at the Jagannātha temple, the events proceeded very differently from the way Kavikarṇapūra told them in his earlier hagiography. In the Caitanya‐candrodaya, two of Sārvabhauma’s servants described what happened: The first servant: That sannyāsī knows some enchantment spells! Because of him Bhaṭṭācārya seems to be possessed by a ghost! The other: What happened? The first: Well, I don’t know! When Bhaṭṭācārya had not yet gotten up, he suddenly burst into the bedroom. A young brāhmaṇa then said ‘Bhaṭṭācārya! Bhaṭṭācārya! Get up! Get up! That sannyāsī is here!’ Bhaṭṭācārya gasped, got up, and fell at his feet. He [Caitanya] then placed some food offered to Jagannātha in his hand and said: ‘Eat.’ Then, our master, seemingly drunk, without giving it any thought, gulped down that food in a few seconds, before he had even bathed, before he had even washed his mouth! When he had gulped it down, the hair on his entire body bristled, his clothes were soaked with tears, he gurgled as if he had a fit of epilepsy and rolled on the ground.13 (p.72) It was thus, Kavikarṇapūra continues, that Caitanya ‘caught a mad wild elephant without a rope, and without water extinguished, as it were, the fire that burned the heart of his devotees.’ The heart of that ‘leader of scholars’ which was ‘hard as diamond’ had now become, by Caitanya’s grace, ‘liquid like nectar’.14

Page 3 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion The differences between the two accounts are very significant. In the Caitanya‐ caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya Sārvabhauma’s conversion is the result of a long and fierce intellectual debate. He realized Caitanya was no ordinary mortal when his own considerable intellectual prowess was exhausted and he knew Caitanya could not be defeated. In Kavikarṇapūra’s drama Caitanya brought the wild devotional ecstasy he and his followers experienced that morning during the first service at the Jagannātha temple (which Kavikarṇapūra elaborately describes) to Sārvabhauma and immediately carried him into that realm of emotion. Emotion and grace, not intellectual argument, led to his devotional awakening. The dramatic account in the Caitanya‐candrodaya reflects the attitudes towards theological debate and Vedānta that Kavikarṇapūra exhibits in his later works, which betray a strong influence of Śrīnātha (who is not mentioned in the mahā‐kāvya), as we will see below.

Knowledge and Grace Although some have questioned the extent of Sārvabhauma’s sudden devotional zeal,15 his devotional awakening figures prominently in the imagination of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas,16 as it does in the Caitanya‐candrodaya. Kavikarṇapūra devotes the entire sixth act to it, and in the remainder of the drama (particularly in the following three acts), Sārvabhauma remains one of the main interlocutors. In the drama, Kavikarṇapūra uses the elderly scholar Sārvabhauma several times to infuse the drama with some theological discussions, and he is therefore a good character to study to learn more of (p.73) Kavikarṇapūra’s theological views, which in turn will help in understanding his poetry and poetics. Towards the end of act six, shortly after Sārvabhauma’s extraordinary transformation, Caitanya desires to test his new devotee’s faith and asks Sārvabhauma, ‘Tell me, great one, what is the meaning of scripture (śāstra)?’ The elderly scholar launches into a lengthy monologue that takes up most of the remainder of the act, and beautifully summarizes Kavikarṇapūra’s principal theological ideas and attitudes. He starts as follows: Scripture contains a range of ideas which their authors make up as they please. If this were not the case, why then [do they show] their erudition by refuting each other? What is sometimes indicated in these as supreme is that discipline of desireless devotion for Murāri, but that is obtained only by the grace of the Lord.

Moreover, The Vedas, the Purāṇas, and the Mahābhārata, the Tantras, as well as the mantras—truly all of it establishes only brahman as the real substance, but truly everyone is confused about this truth.17

Page 4 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Although the term śāstra is often used in Vaiṣṇava literature to refer to scriptural texts like the śruti and smṛti canons, Kavikarṇapūra’s and Śrīnātha’s use of it is often ambiguous; sometimes it clearly refers to these texts, as in the second verse, but often it includes any theological or philosophical treatise, as perhaps indicated in the first verse.18 In whatever way we understand the term here, these two verses with which Sārvabhauma starts his discourse very succinctly encapsulate Kavikarṇapūra’s attitudes towards theological inquiry. Suspicion of intellectual endeavours and mere textual study and a disinterest in academic debate are found throughout his later works and the thought of Śrīnātha, his teacher. This is not a complete rejection of intellectual pursuits, however, and certainly not of sacred texts, as the remainder of these two verses emphasizes. Scripture teaches us about single‐minded devotion to God and about God himself—even if, in some texts, only ‘sometimes’ or ‘somewhat’ (kim api). Yet this is rarely understood, as it can only be grasped by divine grace. (p.74) The importance of grace underlies Kavikarṇapūra’s entire theology. There can be no knowledge of God nor any devotion to him if God himself does not first let himself be known or loved. Without the grace of God, Kavikarṇapūra explains, there can be neither discernment (viveka) nor devotion (bhakti), as both arise from it.19 The primacy of grace in knowing God is discussed earlier in the same act of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, when the yet unconverted Sārvabhauma and his students meet his brother‐in‐law Gopīnātha. When Gopīnāthācārya states that Caitanya is divine, Sārvabhauma’s disciples ask him on what grounds he accepts this: Students: By what means of knowledge (pramāṇa) do you know that he is God? Gopīnāthācārya: By the non‐worldly (alaukika) means of knowledge that is a special type of knowledge born from the Lord’s grace. Mundane (laukika) means of knowledge cannot measure the truth of the Lord, because he is non‐worldly (alaukika). Students: This is not the meaning of scripture. Why can logic not prove God? Gopīnāthācārya: Sure, it can prove God. But it cannot lead to his true nature (tattva). That can only be proven by the knowledge that is born from his grace, because that causes true knowledge (pramā). Students: Where is it seen that this causes true knowledge? Gopīnāthācārya: In the words of the Purāṇas. Students: Please cite it.

Page 5 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Gopīnāthācārya: For example (BP 10.14.29): ‘Thus, my Lord, only one favoured by a sliver of grace of your lotus feet knows the true nature of God’s majesty, not anyone else, even one who studies long.’

Students: So his grace is not obtained from [the study of] scripture? Gopīnāthācārya: Indeed. Why else is it said “even one who studies”? Students (laughing): Why then have you studied in vain for so many days? Gopīnāthācārya: That is just my job. Finally, Sārvabhauma joins the discussion again: Sārvabhauma (laughing): His grace has manifested in you, and you know his true nature. Tell us something of it. Gopīnāthācārya: It does not fall within the range of speech. It can only be known by experience (anubhava). If he bestows his grace upon you you will experience it.20 Earlier in the Caitanya‐candrodaya Kavikarṇapūra states the same more emphatically: (p.75) He cannot be known by the multitude of means of knowledge, such as sense perception, inference, analogy, testimony, presumption, and tradition, without the special knowledge that is born only from his grace.21 Although scripture ‘establishes only brahman as the real substance’, as Sārvabhauma claims, even scriptural testimony—which most Vedānta theologians proclaim to be the only source of reliable knowledge of God22—is in Kavikarṇapūra’s view insufficient. Only divine grace—which, he clarifies, does not even arise from the careful study of scripture as some Vedāntists claim23—is able to grant knowledge of God, because it is a special means of knowledge (pramāṇa) that transcends all the common ways by which we arrive at knowledge. God is beyond the grasp of our senses and thoughts, and thus any common, worldly (laukika) means of knowledge will always be insufficient. As Śrīnātha puts it: How can one know the truth of you, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who are established before all else, since truly everything is more recent? Thus, only you know your truth (tattva).…You are the cause of all causes, the Lord of all lords, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Thus even scripture does not know you, because it did not exist Page 6 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion before [this world]. The nature of that which existed before is not known by those that came into being after it.24 This is not an argument against the validity of scriptural revelation. That Kavikarṇapūra cites a scriptural passage in support of his argument for the necessity of grace is not as ironic as it may seem. Rather, there is an acknowledgement that, although scriptural revelation itself may be able to lead to reliable and certain knowledge of God, as traditional Vedānta argues— particularly the Bhāgavata, which Śrīnātha boldly declares to be ‘the spotless means of knowledge (pramāṇa)’25—we nevertheless read and interpret that revelation with our own limited minds and intellects, which are further clouded by lifetimes of material thoughts. Śrīnātha cites the Bhāgavata (11.14.3–11), which describes how God awards the Veda, which reveals God’s nature, at the beginning of creation to Brahmā. Brahmā then taught it to his sons, who taught (p.76) it to the gods, men, and various celestial beings, who all have different natures and arise out of the different qualities or modes (guṇa) of matter. It is from this plurality of natures, the Bhāgavata argues, that the various theologies and philosophical conceptions arise. Śrīnātha comments as follows: Only Brahmā knows the meaning of the Veda out of his own accord, because he is a disciple of the Lord. But, as [this knowledge] descends, the others determined the meaning of the Veda according to their own proclivities (vāsanā), and then passed the Veda on [to their students] in accordance with those proclivities. Thus they do not pass on what is conducive for the worship of the form of the Lord. Only Brahmā knows that in truth.26 Because Brahmā was taught directly by God and saw him in a divine vision, his understanding of the Vedic revelation is unproblematic. But others, who have no direct experience of God, may not see what the Veda truly establishes, namely that God is a person. Śrīnātha here refers to the notion of proclivities (vāsanā), which are the residue of past actions that remain dormant in our minds and create specific dispositions for future actions. It is these proclivities that make us miss the truth, and lead to the infinitely varied spectrum of philosophies that exists in the world. ‘Why does everyone not love these lofty thoughts?’ Kavikarṇapūra asks, and reiterates Śrīnātha’s point: ‘People are enslaved by various proclivities. How then can they all proceed on the transcendental path? Their faith (śraddhā) is bound to their proclivities and therefore tends towards a plurality of philosophies.’27 Even if we try to submit to the guidance of scripture, our own proclivities propel us to different views, because we make sense of another’s words through what we have experienced in the past, and hence those experiences determine how we interpret any new information we acquire.

Page 7 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion This is particularly important for the Vedic revelation, Śrīnātha continues, because the Veda is, in the words of the Bhāgavata (11.21.36), ‘very difficult to understand’ as it is ‘boundless, deep, and unfathomable like the ocean’. ‘What does it enjoin?’ Kṛṣṇa asks. ‘What does it declare? What does it state and then call into question? In this world, none but me know its secret. It enjoins me. It declares me, and I am called into question and refuted.’ (BP 11.21.42–43) Śrīnātha concludes: ‘having described that the Vedic revelation (śabda‐brahma) is difficult to fathom, he explains that the Veda is only understood by him [Kṛṣṇa], not by others. But then he says that by his grace a person (p.77) knows it personally.’28 Scriptural revelation is therefore not invalid—rather the contrary29—but it is insufficient on its own, without the grace of God. Kavikarṇapūra states the same in the second passage from the Caitanya‐ candrodaya cited above. He argues that without God’s grace scriptural testimony is useless in obtaining knowledge of God, as are all the other means of knowledge. Once our misconceptions and debilitating desires are removed through the experience of grace, however, all means of knowledge can lead to reliable knowledge of God. Śrīnātha therefore argues that ‘the wise’ can perceive the presence of God even through sense perception (pratyakṣa) and inference (anumāna), the latter being either ‘dependent on perception’ or ‘dependent on (scriptural) testimony’.30 As the profusion of erroneous philosophical ideas shows, these means—including scriptural testimony—are in themselves not sufficient to lead to detailed knowledge of God. Sārvabhauma therefore states that although scripture teaches devotion and brahman, it is only known by divine grace.

The Paradox of God’s Attributes After this brief introduction, Sārvabhauma, an accomplished Vedāntist before he met Caitanya, follows with a short overview of a Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. All these scriptures establish brahman as the only real substance (vastu), he stated, but what type of a thing is brahman? As the etymology of the word demonstrates, it is that which is great (bṛhat‐tattva) and that which increases (bṛṃhaṇatva), and since these two etymologies of the word brahman point to specific characteristics of brahman, it is not without attributes (nirviśeṣa), even if that is the impression the Vedic texts sometimes give.31 To illustrate this, Sārvabhauma comments on several Upaniṣadic passages famous in Vedāntic discourse, arguing that they all ascribe some characteristic to God: he is the source of all beings, their support and their end (Taittirīya 3.1 and 3.6), he is aware (p.78) (Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka 1.2.5), and he posses volition or intention (Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka 1.2.6). He cites the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra to support this claim: Whatever Vedic text talks of [brahman being] attributeless (nirviśeṣa), that very same text only establishes [brahman as being] with attributes

Page 8 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (saviśeṣa). When you study these texts closely, generally the [teachings that brahman is] with attributes is more convincing.32 The Upaniṣadic passages Kavikarṇapūra here quotes easily lend support to the view that brahman has attributes, but the Pāñcarātra passage he cites goes one step further. How are we to understand all those Upaniṣadic passages that describe brahman in negative terms and seem to deny that brahman has attributes—such as the Śvetāśvatara’s claim that God ‘moves swiftly, but has no feet; he grasps, but has no hands’ or the Muṇḍaka’s description of brahman as ‘without colour, without sight or hearing, without hands or feet’?33 Even those, Sārvabhauma here argues, are actually positive statements. They do not deny that brahman has attributes, but rather that brahman does not posses material attributes. As Rāmānuja expresses it: ‘passages declaring [brahman to be] without attributes (nirguṇa) are to be understood to deny that he has base material attributes’.34 For centuries this has been the hermeneutical strategy adopted by Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists to harmonize such conflicting statements of the Upaniṣads. Dissatisfied with the Advaitins’ approach of propounding two forms of brahman—the real, attributeless brahman and a lower brahman, manifest in creation, that possesses attributes—they argued that the Upaniṣads teach only a single entity, which is described in both the positive and negative statements. That entity has to possess attributes because it is contradictory that something can exist and have no attributes: the notion that brahman truly has no attributes cannot be true, Madhva argues, because ‘attributelessness’ (nirviśeṣatva) itself is an attribute.35 Indeed, Sārvabhauma continues, to argue that brahman is entirely devoid of attributes leads to a Buddhist‐like philosophy of emptiness (śūnya‐vāda).36 Sārvabhauma therefore concludes that God has attributes, ‘and when it follows [that brahman has] attributes (viśeṣa), it follows from [the fact that he possesses] attributes, that [he also possesses] form (rūpa)’.37 But, just as brahman’s (p.79) attributes are not material, so brahman’s form is not material. To corroborate this, Sārvabhauma cites Brahma‐sūtra 1.1.24: ‘light [is brahman] because of the mention of motion (caraṇa)’.38 Kavikarṇapūra seems to follow Madhva’s (unusual) reading of this passage, for whom the sūtra refers to a verse from the Ṛg Veda (6.9.6): ‘My ears dash away, as do my eyes, from that light harboured in my heart. My mind moves away, its thoughts far off. What shall I say? What shall I think?’ That light in the heart, Madhva argues, is brahman, who is identified as Viṣṇu, ‘because it mentions the faculties like the ears moving away (vicaraṇa) from it. The ears and so on remain distant, as it is said (Ṛg Veda 7.99.1): “they do not reach your greatness, [o Viṣṇu] who grows beyond the sensory faculties with your body.”’39 That light that cannot be approached by our faculties of perception is therefore immaterial. As we will see below, both Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha consider this light to be the effulgence of God’s form.

Page 9 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Sārvabhauma comments: ‘Just as it is established that the light [mentioned in this passage] is non‐material (aprākṛta), so too is its form.’40 Therefore, the word brahman really refers, in its primary sense, to the Lord (bhagavān), as the Bhāgavata (1.2.11) confirms,41 but ‘those who obstinately accept and defend [the views of] their own party and teach a state that is attributeless, which they are also unable to define through metonymy—despite the fact that the primary meaning does exist—are just madly stubborn’.42 (p.80) So far, Kavikarṇapūra reiterates largely the ideas of earlier Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists from Southern India, like Rāmānuja and Madhva. They use similar arguments to demonstrate that God possesses attributes that are divine and not material, and they oppose in a similar way Śaṅkara’s attributeless brahman, which they too think resembles the Buddhist notion of emptiness (śūnyatā) a bit too closely. But in the remainder of Sārvabhauma’s theological soliloquy, Kavikarṇapūra treads newer ground, and it is in this final section that we find the core of his theology. After arguing that brahman is a personal deity rather than an attributeless principle, Sārvabhauma cites three other verses from the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra: But actually, ‘Bliss is said to be of two types: embodied (mūrta) and unembodied (amūrta). The embodied is the foundation of the unembodied. Embodied bliss is considered to be Acyuta [Kṛṣṇa]. The saints consider the unembodied the supreme self (paramātmā), whose nature is awareness (jñāna) and who has no attributes (nirguṇa), whose own nature is unchangeable, and who is brahman. By examining its nature, [one can conclude that] there is no distinction between the unembodied and the embodied, but the Vedas imagine the distinction to be like that of a jewel and its splendour.’43 He then cites the Kapila Pañcarātra: You should understand two brahmans: the embodied as well as the unembodied. Meditate on this omnipresent Nārāyaṇa, whose own nature is both embodied and unembodied.44 (p.81) ‘Those who teach an absolutely attributeless brahman and describe only the unembodied bliss as brahman,’ he continues, only demonstrate the coarseness of their own proclivities (vāsanā), but they are not able to establish [brahman’s] attributelessness. However, when we accept the teachings of the Pāñcarātrikas, then [such statements] as ‘The form of brahman is bliss’ and ‘brahman is one, without a second’ (Chāndogya 6.2.1) are explained. He is embodied by having a form; Page 10 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion and he is without a second, because it was said [that these two aspects are] ‘like a jewel and its splendour’. Therefore the opinion of all scriptures is that the Lord (bhagavān) alone is called brahman. Because of the particular nature of their proclivities (vāsanā) some call only the unembodied bliss brahman, considering the embodied bliss that is the Lord to be a form assumed for play (līlā‐vigraha). The Pāñcarātrikas, however, are learned and consistent, because they worship the Lord. Therefore, one should infer the meaning of the Veda only from their conduct. There are thousand branches of the Veda tree. Its entirety cannot be perceived, [but] its parts should be inferred from the statements of the Purāṇas and the conduct of those who are consistent and wise.

Regarding that, we have Purāṇic passages like the following: ‘whose friend is the supreme bliss, the complete (pūrṇa) brahman, the eternal’ (BP 10.14.32). He is complete by having a form (rūpa). Attributeless brahman, however, is incomplete—that is, it is formless.45 As is now clear, Kavikarṇapūra objects to those who argue that brahman possesses no attributes not because they are wrong, as earlier Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists argued, but rather because they argue brahman is only that or ultimately that. Kavikarṇapūra’s position may seem only the reversal of the classical Advaita position—like Śaṅkara he argues there is both a brahman with attributes and one without, but he considers the former superior to the latter— as well as a radical departure from earlier Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists in accepting that brahman can be without attributes. But Kavikarṇapūra insists neither is the case: as he emphasizes in the final passage, ‘the Lord (bhagavān) (p.82) alone is called brahman’ and so there is in his mind no essential disagreement with earlier Vaiṣṇava Vedāntists. God, however, does manifest also as the brahman that the Advaitins teach. These two aspects—the personal and the impersonal— are non‐different, however, although scripture sometimes ‘imagines’ (kalpita) them to be distinct, like a jewel and its splendour are inseparable and non‐ different and yet can be described as being distinct, as an object with its attribute. Brahman thus always has attributes, although he also appears to have none. This is essential, for in Kavikarṇapūra’s theology God’s attributes and his form are not accessory, something he may assume for play (līlā). As Sārvabhauma argued earlier, because God is non‐material the attributes he possesses, like his form, must be also non‐material. To understand this more fully, we need to turn to Kavikarṇapūra’s teacher. To those who argue that God’s form is illusory, consisting of matter or māyā, Śrīnātha replies: ‘It is not! Oh, how confused you are! Oh, how confused you are! What does it mean to “consist of māyā”? If you argue it is created by māyā, whose māyā is it?’46 Citing a series of verses from the Bhāgavata and the Page 11 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Bhagavad‐gītā—and commenting that the same is established in ‘a hundred places’—Śrīnātha continues to argue that māyā belongs to God and is subordinate to him, because it is his potency: ‘māyā belongs only to the Lord, and she is subordinate to him…. A subordinate cannot effect change in the master, and therefore it is not at all possible that [God’s] form is made of māyā.’47 Furthermore, he continues, God’s form is not something that he acquires or is caused by something, because it is innate to himself. God does not manifest his form to provide an object of meditation out of affection for his devotees, because how can an attributeless, changeless being that is free from all sentiments show affection to his devotees? And if one were to answer that it is ineffable (anirvacanīya), and that anything is possible for something that possesses unlimited potencies, Śrīnātha asks ‘why do you make it so convoluted? A simpler position is better—namely that [God’s] form is either ineffable, endowed with unlimited potencies, or uncreated.’48 One could not argue that God’s form is not eternal because it is a form, Śrīnātha argues,49 reasoning that whatever is a form is not eternal, like any old form. In such an argument, Śrīnātha writes, one conflates the middle term with the minor term. This is like arguing that ‘there is fire on the mountain, because it is a mountain. (p.83) Wherever there is a mountain there is fire, just as with any old mountain.’50 Rather, ‘God’s form is eternal’, he writes, ‘because it possesses eternal properties (dharma). What is not like that is not eternal, like the body of the living being (jīva).’ His hypothetical opponent, however, argues that this argument can be reversed: ‘God’s form is not eternal, because it is devoid of eternal characteristics. Wherever there is the absence of eternal characteristics there is no eternity, as in the body of a living being.’ This counter argument, Śrīnātha argues, does not apply here, because the subject or minor term (pakṣa) of the argument—what needs to be proven to be eternal—is not merely the form of God, but rather his nature of being ‘qualified’ (viśiṣṭa) by a form. Whether God possesses attributes, or is qualified (viśiṣṭa or saviśeṣa), is the real issue here. The argument, he continues, is thus not about whether the form of something that is without attributes (nirviśeṣa) is ‘devoid of eternal characteristics’, but about whether he is eternally qualified or not.51 In other words, for Śrīnātha, God’s form is not something extrinsic to his essence, something that can be taken away from him, as it would be in Śaṅkara’s thought, but rather an integral part of his being. It is in the light of these arguments that we must understand Kavikarṇapūra’s insistence that although God is never without attributes (nirviśeṣa) even though he is, simultaneously and fully, also attributeless and unembodied. This is, of course, paradoxical—how can one indivisible being simultaneously be both? But paradox is central to Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of God. In the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha, when describing Kṛṣṇa as the leading character of a poem (nāyaka),

Page 12 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion he explains that he is ‘adorned with extraordinarily transcendental qualities’ which he then glosses: He possesses qualities that cause wonder (camatkāra) and are contradictory and not contradictory (viruddhāviruddha). That which appears to be contradictory, but is not contradictory, is contradictory and not contradictory. ‘He is one and he is not one; he is limited, and he pervades [all]’—one should understand that even the worldly (laukika) qualities exist in him that has such unworldly (alaukika) qualities.52 (p.84) This idea originates with Śrīnātha, who stresses the same in the Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā: Although he has a form he is the supreme brahman; although he is the supreme brahman, he has a form. Though present everywhere, he is limited, and though he is limited, he is everywhere. Although he has no faculties, he possesses faculties, and though endowed with faculties, he has no faculties. Although he is one, he is manifold, and though he is many, he is certainly singular. Although devoid of attributes (guṇa), he possesses attributes, and though he possesses attributes, he is devoid of attributes. Contradiction that resides in the form of the Lord does not contradict this supreme ornamentation of his transcendent nature by these conflicting [yet] consistent eternal characteristics.53 To support this, Śrīnātha then cites the Bhāgavata (6.9.36): All contradictions can be reconciled in the Lord, who is the sole master (īśvara) and possesses boundless attributes, whose greatness is unfathomable, who is not reached by the quarrels between the recent philosophers whose obstinacy resides in their minds that are filled with scriptures full of doubt, conjecture, reflection, shadowy means of knowledge, and ill logic, who has pacified all māyā, and who is absolute; being hidden in his own māyā, what, then, becomes, as it were, difficult, because his true nature is free from duality?54 Kavikarṇapūra’s comment that these contraditions are ‘contradictory and not contradictory’ or only apparently contradictory does not imply that the contradiction is resolved, as the examples of Kṛṣṇa’s contradictory qualities illustrate. Kṛṣṇa possesses opposite qualities and this is resolved only because, somehow, they can exist along side each other in him. As Śrīnātha’s use of the Bhāgavata verse states, it exceeds the range of common reason. We are here in the realm of paradox. And because we are dealing here with paradox, we need divine grace. Those obstinate ‘recent’ (arvacīna) thinkers who do not rely on grace, quarrel with each other, not realizing that God can, somehow, be both without attributes and endowed with attributes, be both omnipresent and limited to the form of a cowherd boy. As Gopīnāthācārya said to Sārvabhauma’s Page 13 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion students, logic may be able to prove that God exists, but it cannot tell us what he is, because mundane logic does not apply to transcendence.

(p.85) God’s Bliss The Pāñcarātra passages Sārvabhauma cited described the twofold brahman as bliss (ānanda). This is a defining characteristics of God in Kavikarṇapūra’s theology. ‘How do you know Caitanya is God?’ asks Vice (Adharma) in the first act of the Caitanya‐candrodaya. Kali replies: ‘The unique characteristic of the Lord is that he attracts the minds of all, because he is full of bliss. He is full of bliss and can make the living beings blissful, like a man who has an abundance of wealth makes another wealthy.’55 More importantly, the notion of bliss is intrinsic to Kavikarṇapūra’s argument for the primacy and superiority of the personal aspect (bhagavān) to the impersonal (brahman). This is brought out particularly clearly in act eight of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, in a discussion between Sārvabhauma and Brahmānanda Bhāratī, an ascetic associate of Caitanya who, like Sārvabhauma, was once an Advaitin. Brahmānanda:…This is amazing! Oh, look! That form of solid consciousness and bliss is the sole means to experience bliss, and dispels the functions of one’s faculties and the passions that inundate the mind. Those who reject this, and contemplate the formless within their hearts, hoping for happiness, I think, are bewildered about the Lord. O how foul are such proclivities (vāsanā)!

Moreover, If the Lord’s true nature were unembodied, ah, how would the mad or envious then not be considered divine? He is not bound to being embodied or being unembodied. Yet I am certain of this: bliss he gives, and bliss he is. He is the Lord. That is my opinion.

Sārvabhauma: That is exactly right, Svāmī! And this is explained by the phrase ‘[the self] full of bliss (ānanda‐maya) [is brahman], because it is repeated’ (Brahma‐sūtra 1.1.12). He is himself bliss, and he also causes the bliss of others, just as someone who has an abundance of wealth gives wealth to others too—the suffix -maya is here used in the sense of abundance. But if one receives his grace, then even those who contemplate the formless share once again in the sweetness of his blessed form. As a learned poet said:

Page 14 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (p.86) Though honoured by those that walk the way of monism, and ordained on the lion throne of our own bliss, we have been made a maidservant, forced by a cheat, who sports with the cowherds’ wives.56

This spirited conversation between Brahmānanda Bhāratī and Sārvabhauma has an added persuasive power in the drama, as both are said to have been staunch non‐dualists, who have now experienced the greater bliss that is found in the embodied brahman, whose form is solid bliss. The theology they teach is thus grounded in their own experience, as indeed it should be, because God’s true nature is found in the experience of bliss (ānanda). As Sārvabhauma’s use of the Brahma‐sūtra passage indicates, bliss is the criteria by which we can judge which of the two aspects of God is primary. God is bliss, and that bliss is only truly experienced in his personal, embodied form. ‘The Lord’s form is only bliss,’ Kavikarṇapūra writes, ‘and by that form his bliss becomes truly great.’57 Through grace he shares his own nature as bliss with others. God’s bliss thus pulls others into it, and the devotee and God become one in their experience of that bliss, although the bliss of the living being is limited compared to that of God, whose bliss, like his knowledge, is only dependent on himself and thus knows no bounds.58 As Kavikarṇapūra writes in the Caitanya‐candrodaya: Those satisfied in the self attempt to almost silence their senses, but those satisfied in Love want to fully immerse themselves only in the form of the Lord. If they become situated in their own bliss how are they then different from God? Ah, I see! The Lord’s bliss is dependent, the living being is dependent on bliss.59

(p.87) Here too Kavikarṇapūra continues to draw on his teacher. While commenting on Bhāgavata 10.14.32, Śrīnātha explains that the personal, embodied divinity is the ‘complete brahman’ (pūrṇaṃ brahma) ‘because he is the abode of the highest Love’ and is the ‘supreme brahman’ (paraṃ brahma) ‘because his bliss is superior even to brahman’s bliss’.60 Indeed, Śrīnātha argues, the very word ‘form’ (vapu) implies the notion of bliss, for it is ‘that which produces (vapati) bliss’!61 The greatness of this form, Kavikarṇapūra explains, which does not possess material attributes (nirguṇa) but is an exceptional reserve of pure attributes, cannot be easily perceived, but can be realized only by uninterrupted experience (anubhava).62 It cannot be perceived directly (sākṣād aparokṣaḥ), Śrīnātha explains, but is manifested by mere experience to devotees who experience this Page 15 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion bliss, since it is beyond the reach of logic.63 It cannot be seen by ‘eyes of flesh’, but ‘it is visible to those who have the sight of supreme bliss’.64 The theology that Kavikarṇapūra here teaches through the character of Sārvabhauma is particularly remarkable, because it is neither the theology of classical Advaita Vedānta teachers, nor that of Vaiṣṇava Vedānta authors like Rāmānuja or Madhva. Like the Vaiṣṇavas before him he insists that brahman possess attributes, but he does not dismiss the Advaitin’s notion of an attributeless brahman. Rather, he incorporates that into his theology, arguing that God is somehow both: characterized by myriad divine attributes and yet also entirely devoid of attributes. Although Kavikarṇapūra clearly favours the ‘embodied bliss’ and repeatedly derides those who think that God is devoid of attributes, it is worth stressing that he equally insists that both aspects are inseparable. Śrīnātha is even more emphatic about this. Why, his hypothetical opponent asks, does he differentiate Śrī Kṛṣṇa from brahman, and even from God’s immanent aspect as the supreme Self (paramātmā)? ‘Who is differentiating here?’ Śrīnātha answers, and refers to Bhāgavata 1.2.11,65 a verse which Sārvabhauma also cited to establish that brahman is none other than the Lord (bhagavān). Brahman, he argues, is nothing but the splendour or greatness of the Lord, and it operates only within the Lord, who is its foundation. Thus, he continues, ‘we stated that he is nondifferent with both of these, not (p.88) that he is distinct’.66 And yet, he quickly adds, ‘Uddhava [in BP 11.6.47–48] does differentiate’ between brahman and the Lord, because the Lord is superior. It is this paradox that lies at the heart of their theology, which is distinctly Vaiṣṇava in its uncompromising theism, while yet also much more accommodating to Advaita Vedānta than the southern Vaiṣṇava Vedānta schools ever were.

Pāñcarātra, Purāṇas, and Vedānta Sārvabhauma ends his theological exposition with a very brief, and rather rushed, account of the Pāñcarātra theology of the divine emanations (vyūha), which the ‘educated’ (śiṣṭa) Sātvatas teach:67 Kṛṣṇa or Vāsudeva is supreme, and from him comes Saṅkarṣaṇa, who is called the living being (jīva). This does not, however, mean that, Pāñcarātra teaches that the living being has an origin, contrary to what we know from the Upaniṣads, and that these texts are therefore anti‐Vedic, as Śaṅkara claims.68 Rather, Saṅkarṣaṇa is one of God’s divine forms, not an ordinary living being (as Bhāgavata 6.16.51 corroborates), but is sometimes referred to as a ‘living being’, because he gives life to the living beings, is their inner self (ātmā), and manifests the eternal living beings.69 Sārvabhauma’s summary of Pāñcarātra doctrine may appear strange—why does he dwell on Saṅkarṣaṇa?—but its significance becomes apparent when read in the light of Brahma‐sūtras 2.2.42–5, a passage that, according to Śaṅkara, rejects Pāñcarātra texts because they contradict the teachings of the Upaniṣads, but that according to some Vaiṣṇavas precisely defends the doctrines of the Page 16 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Pāñcarātra, which corroborate Vedic teaching when they are properly interpreted.70 His summary of Pāñcarātra is thus really an allusion to (p.89) the contested place of Pāñcarātra in Vedānta and a defence of the validity of Pāñcarātra doctrine. The authority of the Pāñcarātra has been a very contentious issue. Adherents of Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya, and Advaita Vedānta schools all reject Pāñcarātra texts as anti‐Vedic, on both ritual and doctrinal grounds. The first to defended their authority is Yāmuna (tenth-eleventh century), the teacher of Rāmānuja’s teacher. In the Āgama‐prāmāṇya (‘The Authority of the Āgamas’) he launches a long and sophisticated defence of the Pāñcarātra texts, painstakingly refuting the views of their critics. He argues that the Pāñcarātra does not contradict, but rather complements, the Vedic texts, and can lead to certain knowledge, like the Vedas and the Upaniṣads, because they are ‘taught by the omniscient and satisfied supreme person’ and who is described in the Upaniṣads as ‘the compassionate lord of the world’—in other words, they come from a trustworthy source.71 To end with a reference to this debate on the place of Pāñcarātra, of all topics, may seem like an odd choice, and this final part of Sārvabhauma’s soliloquy is indeed confusing if we think of his exposition purely in Vedāntic terms. Kavikarṇapūra starts Sārvabhauma’s monologue with Vedānta: he cites several important passages from the Upaniṣads as well as the Brahma‐sūtras, and his reading of these texts is in line with earlier Vaiṣṇava Vedānta. However, this is merely the introduction, as we have seen, and the key texts for his theology are not the Upaniṣads, but Pāñcarātra texts, which he clearly values higher for understanding the nature of God. Only if we accept the teachings of those who follow the Pāñcarātra as well as the Purāṇas will we understand how other texts, like the Upaniṣads, have to be read. Unlike other scriptures, these texts do not lead to useless debates between determined philosophers, according to Kavikarṇapūra, because they are above such matters. Indeed, immediately after citing the Hayaśīrṣa and Kapila Pañcarātra he states: ‘this is the unbiased opinion of the Pāñcarātrikas’!72 Śrīnātha too singles out these texts, and claims they are more reliable because, as the Bhāgavata claims, ‘the Lord himself, in the form of Nārada, created the Sātvata texts [Pāñcarātra].’73 ‘This [Pāñcarātra] is truly good for the people. This is truly beneficial,’ he continues, commenting on a passage from the Nārāyaṇīya (p.90) section of the Mahābhārata. ‘Why? This is brahman, this is truly the Vedic revelation (brahma‐śabda), and hence is unparalleled.’74 Pāñcarātra, in other words, is not merely equal to the Upaniṣads and the Vedic revelation, but can be said to be even superior, a view that has some resonances in Yāmuna’s thought. Although Yāmuna wants to establish Pāñcarātra as being on an equal footing with the Vedic revelation, and particularly with the Upaniṣads, he does also hint that the Pāñcarātra texts are, in a sense, more important. Indeed, he argues, seeing that his devotees were unable to preserve Page 17 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion and propagate the numerous and difficult Vedic texts, out of compassion God summarized them as the Pāñcarātra, so that they could assimilate and instruct its teachings more quickly and easily.75 Pāñcarātra texts claim that sages like Śāṇḍilya studied Pāñcarātra because they failed to find value in the four Vedas, not because Pāñcarātra claims that there is none to be found in these texts (as Śaṅkara claims they do), but precisely because it is rather difficult to find it in the Vedas, Yāmuna suggests, although it is definitely there.76 Sārvabhauma therefore concludes by establishing the validity of the Pāñcarātras, which previous Vaiṣṇavas have defended in their Vedāntic debates, in order to point to the real, and most reliable source of doctrine. We see a similar shift, away from the Vedic revelation (śruti), in Kavikarṇapūra’s views of the Purāṇas, the other textual corpus he highlights in Sārvabhauma’s speech. Traditionally considered as ‘tradition’ or ‘memory’ (smṛti), texts like the Purāṇas were subordinated to the Vedic revelation in Mīmāṃsā. Unlike the Vedic revelation, which has no author and therefore derives its authority only from itself (svataḥ‐prāmāṇya), these texts are authored, and hence their authority is not self‐evident. Just as memorized knowledge is only authoritative when the source of that memory is truthful, so are the smṛti texts only authoritative when they are derived from the Vedic revelation, although the Vedic source of these texts may not always be known.77 Jaimini therefore argues in the Mīmāṃsā‐ sūtras that though dharma arises from Vedic texts (śabda‐mūla), it does not follow that one should therefore disregard non‐Vedic texts (aśabda). Rather, he continues, ‘because the agent is the same, inference could be a means of knowledge. When there is conflict, it [the smṛti] should be disregarded; if there isn’t, there is inference.’78 Sheldon Pollock comments that ‘inference’ here denotes ‘not only the logical (p.91) operation of inference itself, but also the Vedic text that is thereby inferred’.79 He explains: ‘Insofar as the same people who perform the acts of dharma required by the Veda also perform acts of dharma “not based on sacred word” [aśabda], we must assume that the authority for these other actions is conferred, not by directly perceptible Vedic texts, but by texts inferentially proven to exist.’80 In other words, the smṛti texts—in early Mīmāṃsā primarily ancillary ritual texts, but later including the Purāṇas81—are considered authoritative insofar as they teach what the Vedas (śruti) teach; if they teach something that is not found in Vedic texts, but that does not contradict the Vedic texts, these texts would be based on a Vedic recension that is no longer extant. The argument rests largely on the reliability of the ‘agents’ (kartṛ) mentioned in this passage who perform both Vedic actions and non‐Vedic actions, as Kumārila highlights in his commentary on this section. Because sages like Manu who perform or prescribe non‐Vedic actions are not mistaken nor trying to delude people, we must infer that they are teaching something once taught by Vedic texts that are now lost to us.82

Page 18 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Kavikarṇapūra alludes to these arguments towards the end of Sārvabhauma’s exposition: the tree of the Veda is so vast that we cannot see all its many branches, except through the Purāṇas, which, as memory (smṛti) of the Vedas, grant us access to the entire Veda, including the parts we can no longer perceive. It is therefore to these texts, as well as ‘the conduct of those who are consistent and wise’, that we should turn. The persons referred to here, however, are not sages learned in the Veda, but rather the Pāñcarātrikas, who are ‘consistent’ (avigīta) because they can make sense of the apparent contradictions of scripture: ‘therefore, one should infer the meaning of the Veda only from their conduct,’ Sārvabhauma argued. Kavikarṇapūra thus aligns the Purāṇas not just with the Veda, but with Pāñcarātra as well. These two are therefore complementary. One could argue that Kavikarṇapūra’s praise of the Purāṇas and Pāñcarātra is not a denouncement of other texts, like Vedānta (as Yāmuna is quick to stress in his own defence),83 and Sārvabhauma’s monologue alone supports that. But when we look closer at Kavikarṇapura’s engagement with Vedānta in general, and take into account Śrīnātha’s views on the matter, a somewhat different picture emerges. It is remarkable that Kavikarṇapūra does not engage much with the Upaniṣads or with Vedānta in general, although he is familiar with both.84 When he cites the (p.92) principal Upaniṣads or the Brahma‐sūtras in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, he always does so through the character of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, who was a Vedāntist before he met Caitanya. Kavikarṇapūra sometimes downplays the importance of Vedānta, as when he praises Svarūpa Dāmodara for refusing to teach Vedānta, even though his own (Advaitin) guru requested him to do so.85 This disinterest in Vedānta and preference for Pāñcarātra is something Kavikarṇapūra clearly imbibed from his teacher, who never cites any of the principal Upaniṣads nor the Brahma‐sūtras.86 Whereas Jīva Gosvāmī argues that the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the foundational text for the entire Caitanya tradition, is a Vedāntic text,87 Śrīnātha considers it a Sātvata or Pāñcarātra text.88 Indeed, Śrīnātha does not think highly of Vedānta. Commenting on Bhāgavata 6.16.33, which states that Citraketu concentrated on God as Saṅkarṣaṇa, ‘whose form is [established by] the Sātvata texts’ (sātvata‐śāstra‐vigraham), Śrīnātha asks, ‘since there are [other] texts like Vedānta, why does it say that only the Sātvata texts establishes the form [of God]?’ He answers: ‘[Texts] like Vedānta contradict each other, because their respective authors disagree with one another. Because they are solely dedicated to logic, which favours contradiction, they are devoted solely to their own teachings, and [thus] they have no inclination to establish [God’s] form.’89 Śrīnātha then cites from the Bhāgavata’s sixth book: (p.93)

Page 19 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion I bow down to that unlimited Lord whose potencies (śakti) are the ground for the agreement and disagreement of teachers who expound their [ideas], and constantly make them forgetful of the self (ātmā).90 ‘The teachers [mentioned in this verse],’ he comments, are those who write treatises (śāstra), and who are expert at disagreeing with other teachers. Thus the potency of God is sometimes the cause of agreement and sometimes of disagreement. This potency of the Lord takes on the form of knowledge (vidyā) and ignorance (avidyā). [These potencies] are not just the ground of their agreement and disagreement, but also cause such authors to be constantly bewildered about the self, and therefore, because they are bewildered, and because they are favourably disposed towards their own treatises, [such persons] are averse to establishing the form of God. This is also stated by the Lord in the eleventh book (BP 11.22.5): ‘thus my unfathomable potencies are the cause of their disagreement’.91 This Bhāgavata verse (6.4.13) is clearly important for both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra. (In the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Gopīnāthācārya cites this verse, upon which Sārvabhauma laughs and says: ‘We know! You are a Vaiṣṇava.’)92 The idea that other scholars (and their works) are vainly refuting each other’s views was already hinted at in the very beginning of Sārvabhauma’s monologue, and is a recurring criticism in the writings of both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra. In act two of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Kavikarṇapūra paints a vivid picture of the intellectual climate of his time, as he sees it. Dispassion (Virāga) travels throughout South Asia, hoping to find refuge somewhere, but wherever he goes he only sees hypocrisy, delusion, and pride encroaching. Dispassion then dismisses the adherents of the theological schools prominent in Kavikarṇapūra’s time. First he meets logicians: From the moment they are born they hear a constant string of words like qualifier universal inference inherence, and they shun any opportunity to talk about the Lord. The most learned in something are those who are most skilled in making those things up. (p.94) For them, the only scriptures are their own fabrications, oh, those logicians!93

Next are adherents of Advaita Vedānta, ‘who adhere to the doctrine of māyā’ (māyā‐vādī): ‘Pure being is devoid of attributes, free from the limiting adjuncts of matter, unchanging, inactive—I am that brahman.’ With these words—oh God! oh God!— Page 20 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion you all grow hostile to the form of the Lord. Ah, you deny the Lord’s limitless attributes, like his inconceivable potencies (śakti), which the Vedas celebrate, and now renounce love. Well, homage to you!94

Dispassion then meets men ‘learned in the thought of Kapila, Kaṇāda, Patañjali, Jaimini’, but ‘all these [thinkers] dispute with each other, and none of them knows the truth of the Lord!’95 Moreover, Śrīnātha stresses that such debaters are not just bewildered when they disagree with each other, as the above cited Bhāgavata verse states, but also when they agree with each other: ‘When they disagree they are thoroughly bewildered; are they then not bewildered when they agree? This should not be said. When they agree on ideas that are contrary to the established doctrine of devotion (bhakti‐siddhānta), they are also thoroughly bewildered.’96 In other words, although their aversion to Vedānta as the dominant discourse for Vaiṣṇava theology is somewhat unusual,97 Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra do not merely rejected Vedānta, but most theological schools and their culture of vigorous, but vain, debates. All these theologians are too self‐absorbed,98 and their devotion to their own theological discourse only makes (p.95) them more ignorant of God’s true nature. They both present the adherents of Pāñcarātra to be above such squabbling, because they worship the Lord in whom all contradictions are reconciled,99 and because they realize that no one can speak with absolute certainty and unanimity about the world of matter, since that is governed by God’s deluding potency (māyā).100

God’s Non‐Worldly worldly play: Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya Although the embodied and unembodied brahman are one, the embodied is superior to the unembodied, because it is primary and leads to greater bliss. Therefore, Sārvabhauma concludes, at last directly addressing Caitanya’s question, ‘the meaning of scripture is that Kṛṣṇa is the embodied bliss’.101 Following the Bhāgavata, both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra affirm that this embodied brahman is Kṛṣṇa, the charming flute‐playing cowherd of Vṛndāvana, not Nārāyaṇa, the majestic four‐armed form who presides in Vaikuṇṭha. Although earlier Vaiṣṇava traditions often consider Kṛṣṇa but a divine descent (avatāra) of Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu, Kavikarṇapūra argues that this two‐armed, human form of Kṛṣṇa is the natural (svābhāvika) and original form of God, which is revealed to us through such descents. As Caitanya explains in the Caitanya‐ candrodaya: The Lord has four arms when he so desires, but he has only two arms naturally. Thus it is said: ‘the supreme brahman has a human form’, ‘the hidden supreme brahman has the characteristics of a human’ (BP 7.10.48 Page 21 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion & 7.15.75), ‘the supreme self has a human form’ (BP 9.23.20).102 These [establish that the Lord has] a human form with only two arms.103 (p.96) Kṛṣṇa may seem just like one of God’s many divine descents, who plays in this world like a mortal man, but he is in fact the supreme Godhead. As the Bhāgavata (1.3.28) declares, Nārāyaṇa, as well as all the other forms of the embodied brahman, are merely parts (amśa) or portions (kalā) of the Lord, but ‘Kṛṣṇa is the Lord himself’.104 When Kṛṣṇa descends in this world, he loses nothing of his potency. Although appearing in the world of matter, and playing like a common human being, he remains untouched by it, as he is its master. ‘When uncommon (alaukika) objects become common (laukika) their uncommon nature is thereby not destroyed’; Kavikarṇapūra writes in the Caitanya‐ candrodaya. ‘When a touchstone is strung on a thread with other jewels [its power] is not detracted.’105 Later in the drama, when Caitanya and his associates stage a short play about Kṛṣṇa, Haridāsa, in the role of the play’s director, introduces the drama, informing the audience that the divine sage Nārada himself requested the performance. But his assistant (played by Mukunda) is confused: Assistant: Sir, why would the younger brother of Sanaka and Sanandana, born from the self‐born lord’s own self, who is self‐satisfied, who has become brahman and who has become auspicious and joyful by his constant experience of brahman’s bliss—why would he long for Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s worldly play, and make you this request? Director: That is a secret. As the Bhāgavata (1.7.10) states: The self‐satisfied sages, even those free from faults, devote themselves unconditionally to the wide‐striding Viṣṇu. Such are the characteristics of Hari.

Assistant: Of course they devote themselves to God…but why do they become attached to worldly deeds? Director: Don’t say that. In this world this worldly play of Hari is non‐worldly. It becomes an elixir. Sweetest are the stories of the Lord who descends to play, but talk of the world’s creation is hoary and dull.

(p.97)

Page 22 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion That is why it is said ‘he engages in such play; anyone who hears this becomes devoted to him’ (BP 10.33.36)—which includes even common men! But more to the point, Śrī Nārada is fond of the pastimes of Śrī Vṛndāvana, and even though he is a sage, he thinks very highly of Śrī Gopāla. Therefore this is appropriate.106 God’s earthly play (līlā) is therefore not just equal to his other divine acts, but rather more charming. His ‘worldly (laukika) conduct creates more wonder than his non‐worldly (alaukika),’ Kavikarṇapūra writes. Even though those divine deeds occur in this world, ‘they enchant the people of this world, which is one reason why they are non‐worldly’.107 We should value such worldly play above all else, he explains, for ‘only when it flows from Śiva’s head to the centre of the earth does the Ganges spread its joy’.108 Kavikarṇapūra particularly singles out Kṛṣṇa’s play as a small child, which he only manifests in this world. In the divine realm he is an eternal youth,109 but when he appears on earth he also reveals his childhood play,110 to show his parents’ extraordinary affection for him, and ‘by all his non‐worldly (alaukika) states of being he himself becomes worldly (laukika) in this world. In the divine realm (aloka) too he can play with all the cows, cowherds and cowherd girls,’ Kavikarṇapūra continues, ‘but his childhood play and his play of destroying demons can only shine in this world.’111 His worldly play, although ever non‐worldly, has therefore a charm that is not found even in the divine realm. When Kṛṣṇa descends, he does so for three reasons, Kavikarṇapūra explains in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana: To direct those satisfied in the self to the discipline of devotion, with his charming acts, to delight his own devotees, with the rasa‐rich performance of his various plays, to remove the earth’s oppressive burden caused by the demon armies, the embodied bliss appeared in the home of Vraja’s king, like a newborn.112

(p.98) The last reason listed here for Kṛṣṇa’s descent is the most commonly accepted one. The Bhāgavata (10.1.17–26) narrates how, at the end of the Dvāpara age, Earth, tormented by the wicked conduct of demonic kings sought his help in reinstating dharmic rule, and in the Bhagavad‐gītā (4.78) Kṛṣṇa too states that he descends ‘whenever dharma decreases and adharma prospers’, to ‘protect the saints, destroy the wicked, and establish dharma’. Kavikarṇapūra, however, writes very little about this. As Śrīnātha teaches, this is but the pretext on which he descends. ‘Truly, the seed of his descent is [the desire] to perform various acts with his non‐worldly, wondrous form, which makes the world auspicious’.113 He descends to ‘moisten the hearts of the sages which had withered due to lack of rasa’, Kavikarṇapūra writes, because Kṛṣṇa’s play in Page 23 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Gokula, Mathurā, and Dvārakā causes greater wonder (camatkāra) than the bliss of brahman and makes every other pursuit seem pointless.114 Thus, by manifesting his wondrous form and play in this world, he directs those that only meditate on brahman to the beauty of devotion. He ‘makes them averse to the bliss of gnosis (jñāna) to introduce them to the bliss of worship’.115 Those who are already devoted to him Kṛṣṇa also favours with his play, and he descends to draw them even closer to him. Thus Kuntī states in the Bhāgavata (1.8.35) that though many speculate about the reason for the Lord’s descent, she is of the opinion that Kṛṣṇa’s worldly play is enacted because it is ‘worthy of being heard and remembered by those tormented in this world by ignorance, desire, and action’.116 To elaborate on this, Śrīnātha cites Bhāgavata 9.24.61, a verse of particular importance to him and Kavikarṇapūra: ‘To favour his devotees who will be born in the age of Kali, he unfolds his most propitious fame, which banishes suffering, grief, and darkness.’117 Kṛṣṇa thus does not just favour the devotees with whom he appears in this world, but performs his divinely human acts in this world also out of compassion for his devotees that will be born in the Kali age, the least meritorious of times, in which no one worships Kṛṣṇa, according to the Bhāgavata (p.99) (12.3.43), because everyone’s ‘thoughts are confused by heresies’. By revealing his enchanting play just prior to the advent of this wicked age—which commences when he ends this divine performance118—Kṛṣṇa gives his devotees the opportunity to bear its trials and sufferings by the singing of his fame.119 Śrīnātha comments on this Bhāgavata verse that these devotees of the Kali age are ‘the companions (pārṣada) of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya’.120 This is not just an attempt to praise his own religious community. Rather, integral to Śrīnātha’s and Kavikarṇapūra’s theology of Kṛṣṇa is the theology of Caitanya that they both develop. Kṛṣṇa’s descent points to Caitanya’s, and Caitanya’s to Kṛṣṇa’s. Caitanya establishes Kṛṣṇa as the supreme divinity and makes Kṛṣṇa accessible to the world because he is Kṛṣṇa. Thus Kavikarṇapūra argues that Caitanya appeared in this world precisely to affirm the theology we have just outlined—Kṛṣṇa is the supreme brahman, possessing a divine form and divine attributes, and can only be approached through devotion; and the highest human pursuit is not absorption in an attributeless brahman but Love (prema). As we have seen in the previous chapter, Śrīnātha argues at the very beginning of his commentary that Caitanya’s principal teachings revolve around this, and Kavikarṇapūra asserts this as well. ‘What is the purpose of this descent (avatāra) which people find so difficult to understand?’ he asks in the opening scene of his drama. Listen, sir: the Lord, whose form is consciousness (caitanya), appeared in the form of Caitanya to reveal the truth that brahman has attributes and is the all‐auspicious Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa whose form is solid being, consciousness Page 24 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion and bliss, and whose play is everlasting; that its complete worship, celebrated by sages like Sanandana, is the perfect human pursuit (puruṣārtha); and that the means to attain that—the treasure of the various disciplines of devotion, primarily the chanting of the name—which is confidentially proclaimed to be the highest here and there in the sacred texts, but which the learned do not note, as they are caught by the crocodile of their own obstinate opinions and, when defeated, think that all scriptures primarily proclaim the highest human pursuit to be the dissolution of the mind in the supreme attributeless, limitless brahman, which is attained only through the treasure of monistic meditation.121 (p.100) Caitanya, who ‘lays to rest the disagreements of scripture’,122 accomplished this theological mission not by the writing of theological treatises, as one might expect. Kavikarṇapūra immediately stresses that the Lord, who in the past composed the Veda, is also the inner controller (antaryāmī) and thus guides people to these truths from within. Unlike ‘external instructions’ such guidance ‘is not limited by either place or time’,123 and is thus still available even as Kavikarṇapūra writes his drama, decades after the passing of Caitanya. Indeed, as we have seen with Sārvabhauma’s conversion, Kavikarṇapūra argues in his later works that the recognition of Kṛṣṇa’s true divinity and the awakening of devotion is not intellectual, but experiential. It is a change that happens within a heart touched by grace. Thus Kavikarṇapūra tells of a drunken Muslim tailor who wandered into the courtyard of Śrīvāsa’s house, and there sat down in a corner. Thoroughly intoxicated, he tried sewing some cloth, when he suddenly looked up, and saw Caitanya. His eyes widened and he shouted ‘O! O! I have seen! I have seen something!’ His hair bristling and tears streaming down his cheeks, he jumped up, raised his arms, and began to dance. The Muslim then renounced his wicked ways, donned the cloth of an avadhūta and spent the remainder of his days singing and dancing in praise of Kṛṣṇa, even when he was persecuted by other Muslims for his apostasy. When asked, he would proclaim ‘Viśvambhara alone is God. There is no other!’124

Page 25 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Such transformation resulting from a direct epiphany of Caitanya’s divinity were rare, however. Kavikarṇapūra explains that, though Caitanya is indeed God, he would rarely reveal his divinity, but instead act as his own devotee, thereby teaching the world the way of devotion but also, through his own devotional experience, affecting that world and bringing others into that passionate devotion.125 Kavikarṇapūra teaches that Caitanya is none other than Kṛṣṇa as his devotee (bhakta‐rūpa).126 He is the ‘devotee descent’ (bhaktāvatāra),127 and, (p.101) as he puts it once, is ‘possessed by a devotee’ (bhaktāveśa).128 He is Kṛṣṇa who is overpowered by the intense devotion of his most beloved, the cowherd maidens (gopī) of Vṛndāvana, who abandoned everything to be with him: Long ago, in the beautiful land of Vṛndāvana, a dark splendour, solid existence, awareness and bliss, danced with them who were golden in body and splendour. Did his limbs become golden from their long and tight embrace? Glorious is he, who appeared in Navadvīpa!129

Among the gopīs, Rādhā is chief,130 and her love for Kṛṣṇa is strongest,131 as we will see at greater length in Chapter 7. She is Kṛṣṇa’s own ‘blissful potency’ (ānandinī śakti),132 and is but another form of himself.133 When Kṛṣṇa appears as Caitanya, hiding his divinity under his identity as his own devotee, it is thus particularly Rādhā’s love that he reveals. He ‘wishes to see the passion of Vṛndāvana’s queen’,134 Kavikarṇapūra explains, and ‘through spontaneous play revealed…the irreproachable wisdom of the great emotions of the cowherd maiden’s crown jewel’.135 Kavikarṇapūra brings out this dual identity of Caitanya as both Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa subtly but clearly in act three of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, in which Caitanya and his associates stage a short drama about Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s play. Caitanya himself plays Rādhā, Advaita plays Kṛṣṇa, Śrīvāsa plays Nārada, Gadādhara plays Lalitā, Rādhā’s close friend, and Nityānanda plays Yogamāyā, who makes all the necessary arrangements for Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s play (and is indeed credited as the author of the play). As the play progresses, Devotion‐with‐Love (Premabhakti) and Friendship (Maitrī), the two allegorical characters that witness the play, are struck by the vividness with which the actors portray their characters. They conclude that this is no acting at all, but that the characters themselves have appeared! Thus Śrīvāsa, who is ‘naturally possessed by Nārada’, does not merely play Nārada, but manifests Nārada’s form.136 Yogamāyā, ‘who organizes the meeting of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’, has ‘assumed the form of Nityānanda’, who as Balarāma manifests everything needed for Kṛṣṇa’s play.137 Advaita, though as Śiva only a part (aṃśa) of (p.102) Kṛṣṇa, miraculously, by superimposition (āropa) becomes Kṛṣṇa himself,138 because Caitanya himself manifests that form, while simultaneously playing the role of Rādhā. But, Kavikarṇapūra explains, ‘by his own potency and for his own play Page 26 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Hari is not broken like a pea split in half. He himself, as it were, became both male and female, because the form of both parts is alike.’139 Lalitā, played by Gadādhara, is also manifested by Caitanya, who ‘by his own power, with Rādhikā, and her friend, became threefold’.140 Devotion‐with‐Love and Friendship—and the audience of Kavikarṇapūra’s drama with them—thus come to realize that Caitanya is not just Kṛṣṇa but embodies Rādhā and the gopīs too. The unique character of Caitanya is such that when he acts as his own devotee, his divinity is most vividly revealed. As king Pratāparudra exclaims in the Caitanya‐candrodaya when Caitanya and his companions sang a vernacular song in praise of Kṛṣṇa’s flute: Golden, he is now reflected as dark in the minds of pure souls, and dances here in Nīlādri [Purī], revealing the rasa of Vṛndāvana. That indescribable primeval person tastes the pain of the pining young wives’ passion for Kṛṣṇa. Wondrous, oh so very wondrous is the play of Caitanya!141

Caitanya does not accomplish all this alone, however. Kṛṣṇa descended to this world with his eternal companions and indeed his divine abode, and he acts likewise when he descends as Caitanya. ‘He is not alone,’ Kali laments in act one of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, ‘since right before his own descent his many dear companions (priya‐pārṣada) appeared on earth.’142 As we have seen in the previous chapter, Kavikarṇapūra articulates this in the notion of the ‘five principles’ (pañca‐tattva): when Kṛṣṇa appears, he does so with his many divine powers and forms, as well as his devotees. Kavikarṇapūra develops this (p.103) idea in the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā, in which he attempts to identify all of Caitanya’s principal companions as one of Kṛṣṇa’s eternal companions. These companions are inseparable from the Lord himself, who is lacking without them: ‘Though the Lord is complete (pūrṇa) by himself, he is completed by his companions. Even when full, the moon is wanting without the stars.’143 Śrīnātha’s comment, therefore, that ‘the devotees that will be born in the Kali age’ mentioned in Bhāgavata 9.24.61 are the companions of Caitanya implies all this. Kṛṣṇa appeared at the end of the Dvāpara age to favour these devotees who would accompany himself, when he appeared in the age of Kali as his own devotee, joining them in praising the play of Kṛṣṇa—or rather, allowing them to praise Kṛṣṇa. The age of Kali is said to be an age of total irreligion, but when Kṛṣṇa reappears as Caitanya he ‘unfolds his fame’ again, and thereby makes it possible for his devotees to sing Kṛṣṇa’s fame. In the opening of the Caitanya‐ candrodaya Kavikarṇapūra therefore cites this very Bhāgavata verse (9.24.61) as proof for Caitanya’s descent in the Kali age, because the appearance of Kṛṣṇa, Page 27 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion the Lord himself, necessitates the appearance of Caitanya. As Śrīnātha explains, all this implies that there is ‘a concealed descent of the Lord’s compassion’144 because the people of the Kali age are so affected by the deficiencies of this age that they would be otherwise unable to celebrate Kṛṣṇa. All the denouncements of the age of Kali found in the Purāṇas, Kavikarṇapūra explains, therefore refer to ages of Kali before Kṛṣṇa descended.145 Several scholars have argued that in the sixteenth‐century Caitanya Vaiṣṇava community there was a clear division between those who were devoted to Caitanya and those who were devoted to Kṛṣṇa. The latter, identified as the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs, worshipped Caitanya as a ‘means to an end’, namely the worship of Kṛṣṇa, whereas the former are said to be the devotees of Bengal, including Kavikarṇapūra, who worshipped Caitanya as the supreme manifestation of divinity and therefore an ‘end in itself’.146 As the above discussion suggests, it is not easy to construe Kavikarṇapūra’s theology in this way. Caitanya is indeed Kṛṣṇa, and Kavikarṇapūra claims that Caitanya is both his personal deity (iṣṭa‐devatā) and his family deity (kula‐ devatā).147 He presents his father as a staunch devotee of Caitanya, who, even (p.104) in the face of danger, proclaimed his exclusive devotion to Caitanya.148 But, unlike his father, Kavikarṇapūra’s devotion was not exclusively focused on Caitanya, as his own works amply demonstrate. For him Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa and thus to be worshipped, but devotion to Caitanya leads to devotion to Kṛṣṇa, because that is what Caitanya teaches, as we have just seen. Kavikarṇapūra states this in the very beginning of his drama. ‘Who is this Caitanya Gosvāmī?’ asks the assistant to the play’s director in the opening scene. The director replies: You must still be hiding in the womb of your mother if you have not heard the name of this great master! Listen, It is extraordinary! His root is the crown jewel of ascetics, the leader of sages they call Mādhava [i.e. Mādhavendra Purī]; Śrīla Advaita is his first sprout; his very trunk is the avadhūta [Nityānanda], celebrated throughout the three worlds; his principal branches are those whose body consists of rasa, like the illustrious Vakreśvara; his blooming blossoms are the disciplines of devotion; his fruit honest Love (prema);

And, piercing brahman’s bliss, his crown shines forth, as two playful birds—Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa— non‐different from each other, nest there; Page 28 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion his shade lessens the weariness from the road of life; Caitanya, that unique tree of plenty which fulfils his devotees’ desires, has appeared here on earth.149

The image of this ‘Caitanya tree’ is striking. First of all, Kavikarṇapūra clearly considers Caitanya’s principal companions to be integral parts of Caitanya (p. 105) himself—the root, trunk, branches of him who is the tree. The tree flowers into devotion, which matures into Love (prema), which attracts the two birds, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, to nest on its branches. It is that divine couple that enjoys Caitanya’s gifts, and it is to them that Caitanya thus carries his devotees, Kavikarṇapūra implies—while also suggesting that the one person Caitanya is really none other than both Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā, who are non‐different from each other. That Caitanya leads his devotees to Kṛṣṇa Kavikarṇapūra also declares unambiguously in the final scene of the Caitanya‐candrodaya. Addressing his devotee Advaita, Caitanya declares: Residing in Vṛndā’s woods in perpetual joy, I will personally make your mind inescapably caught in the current of bliss with thoughts that gleam with rasa. You all who are intent only on Vṛndā’s woods I will grant bodies appropriate to your desire. That is the great task that still awaits me. That is what I will accomplish.150

Moreover, Some are in servitude, some dear ones are in friendship, those devoted to Rādhā and Mādhava are in both, a few in friendship and so on with the king of Śrī Dvārakā. some [have devotion] for both [the king of Dvārakā and Rādhā‐ Mādhava] while others have [that] for other descents. Let me make all whose hearts are fixed on me cling to Vṛndāvana.151

This passage, the conclusion to Kavikarṇapūra’s drama, leaves little doubt as to how he saw the relationship between Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa. Caitanya leads his own devotees to the divine Vṛndāvana where they continue to worship him as Kṛṣṇa. Seen in this light, a text like the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā does not merely interpret the past and present—who were all these contemporary companions of Caitanya in the divine Vṛndāvana?—but also to the future—how will they continue to serve Kṛṣṇa Caitanya when they have departed from (p.106) this world?—as indeed Kavikarṇapūra explicitly states in the text.152 Therefore, if Page 29 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion one would have to consider Kavikarṇapūra’s devotion to Caitanya as either ‘a means to an end’ or ‘an end in itself’, the former seems a much better fit. Yet this very question is one that Kavikarṇapūra would undoubtedly have found puzzling, if not inappropriate. Even if we ignore his firm views on the nature of devotion not as a means to something else, but as an end in itself, it is obvious he would have difficulty with this dichotomy, because in his mind Caitanya and Kṛṣṇa are non‐different, and to have devotion to one is to have devotion to the other. He expresses this aptly in act two of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, through the character of Advaita who is similarly puzzled: whom should he choose—Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya? This is the scene: Caitanya is manifesting various divine forms, and when he manifests a form which he declares to be his true form (svarūpa) ‘which is the object of Advaita’s love’, Advaita, who is hoping to have a vision of Kṛṣṇa, is torn: ‘What do we say now? If, ignoring my great desire, I say “this truly is your true form”, then my desire to see the form of Śyāmasundara, which is worthy to be seen, is unfulfilled. And if I say “that is your true form”, then I kill my love for this one.’153 Later in the act, Advaita is blessed with a vision of Kṛṣṇa, whom he sees emerging out of Caitanya’s body and disappearing back into him, leading the devotees present to the conclusion that Kṛṣṇa and Caitanya are indeed non‐different.154 In other words, why would you have to choose between one or the other, if you already have both?

The Discipline of Devotion When, at the end of act six of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Sārvabhauma ends his long exposition on theology, Caitanya applauds him and suggests he visit the temple of Jagannātha. When the scholar has left his brother‐in‐law Gopīnāthācārya turned to Caitanya in amazement: ‘My Lord, was that our Bhaṭṭācārya?’ ‘The company of a great devotee like yourself truly changed (p. 107) him!’ Caitanya replies.155 As soon as he has left, Sārvabhauma writes two verses in praise of Caitanya, which he sends to him with some offered food (prasāda) from the Jagannātha temple. They read: To teach renunciation, wisdom, and his own discipline of devotion that unique primeval person bears the body of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. I seek refuge in that ocean of compassion. To reveal his own discipline of devotion which got lost in the course of time he appeared as Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. May the bee of my mind disappear deeply into his lotus‐feet.156 Renunciation

Caitanya most articulately teaches renunciation by renouncing the world and becoming an ascetic (sannyāsī). ‘He will marry his beloved wife, the unparalleled Page 30 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Viṣṇupriyā, a portion of [the goddess] Bhū,’ Kali predicts in act one of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, ‘and to reveal the teachings of renunciation he will abandon her, while he is still very young’.157 Caitanya’s initiation as an ascetic is the central event of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, and, though foretold in scripture,158 also one of Caitanya’s most puzzling choices for his companions— isn’t this what the Advaitins normally do? Caitanya explains, however, that ‘without renouncing everything there is no worship of the Lord of life’.159 Only this is true asceticism, whereby not just the external world is renounced but also the inner world of desires. And so Dispassion (Virāga), who had been relentlessly persecuted ever since the Kali age began and was searching for shelter among the various philosophers and ascetics in act two of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, only finds refuge in Caitanya, and only there is (p.108) properly protected.160 Acts of asceticism should therefore be pursued for the sake of devotion, but Kavikarṇapūra also teaches that these are most easily accomplished by devotion itself. As Rāmānanda Rāya states in act seven: If the mind remains unconquered, what is the point of austerity? How is that mind conquered if it does not contemplate Mādhava? Oh, what is that contemplation, if it does not melt the mind? And oh how will that happen if proclivities are not washed away?161

Perfect renunciation can therefore only be achieved through devotion, through contemplating God, by which all the proclivities for anything other than devotion are removed and one’s thoughts, so used to ponder petty things, can dissolve into the beauty of Kṛṣṇa. Gnosis and Liberation

Gnosis or the pursuit of knowledge (jñāna or vidyā) is similarly subordinated to devotion. True knowledge is devotion, and devotion leads to true knowledge. Since God is a person in Kavikarṇapūra’s theology, knowledge of brahman alone is not enough—it needs to develop into a relationship, into love. As noted, both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra argue that Kṛṣṇa, the ‘embodied bliss’, defies the cognitive powers of the rational mind, and can therefore only be truly known through the experience of that bliss, which is achieved only by devotion. As Śrīnātha explains, the Lord’s form is ‘inconceivable, because it is sovereign over all, and by being beyond the range of logic and the like it produces non‐worldly (alaukika) wonder (camatkāra). It can only be known by devotion—as his blessed mouth said “by devotion one knows me…” (Gītā 18.55)’.162 Kavikarṇapūra cites the Bhāgavata: ‘The Lord, the cowherd’s son, is not as easily attained by those who pursue knowledge (jñāna) and by those who identify with the self—what to speak of those who are embodied—as by those here who have devotion.’163 ‘Knowledge that arises from devotion is indeed knowledge’; Śrīnātha explains, Page 31 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion but (p.109) emphasizes that this is not the knowledge of nondualists: ‘it appears as knowledge of the worshipper and the object of worship’.164 Instead of trying to know God through gnosis (jñāna), by meditating on the truths taught in the Upaniṣads or other sacred texts, one should therefore pursue only devotion as that will lead to knowledge of God. Or as Kavikarṇapūra puts it: ‘What is knowledge?’ ‘Devotion to Hari alone—not being well versed in the Vedas, and so on.’165 Liberation, the goal generally associated with the discipline of gnosis, is also more easily attained by devotion to the embodied brahman than by a monistic meditation on brahman as the self. Those who only know the self (ātmā) but not God and want to attain liberation, Śrīnātha explains, will attain ‘only hardship’ and even though they may seem to transcend this world, they do not do so. And those who consider ‘the visible form of the beautiful son of Nanda, the abode of the highest Love (prema), only as the self (ātmā) seem to cross the ocean of existence, but do not do so easily. Only those who see him as their most beloved cross over [this world]’.166 Our state of bondage is caused by ignorance—by mistaking the bodies we bear to be our self—but our salvation is more easily obtained by devotion than by gnosis, Śrīnātha explains, because our ignorance is caused by God’s potency (māyā), and can thus only be undone by his grace.167 Not that liberation is the goal, though. Śrīnātha dismisses liberation, using an Advaita argument against itself: ‘[They say that] for the self, the manifest world [arises] by ignorance, and by knowledge it is destroyed. What is the point of all this? What does it matter if a world which is false (mithyā) is created or destroyed? Just as in regards to a rope both the existence and non‐existence of a snake are false (mṛṣā).’168 Both liberation and bondage are seen to be false when one realizes the reality of God, ‘just as day and night [do not exist] for the sun’ (BP 10.14.26). This, however, is not attainable by our own efforts, but only through divine grace, as Gopīnāthācārya too declared in his (p.110) debate with Sārvabhauma’s students.169 Rather than worry about ignorance and knowledge, we should instead turn to God in devotion, ‘the highest aim of life’ (parama‐puruṣārtha).170 Only the practice of devotion can draw us out of the dreamlike state of bondage, he argues, because it ‘overpowers one’s consciousness’, unlike ‘gnosis, and so on’.171 Kavikarṇapūra too is quick to dismiss the value of liberation. Although he acknowledges that gnosis may lead to liberation, he denies that devotion and gnosis are equal: ‘The discipline of devotion, which is beyond the purview of the authors of treatises (śāstra), produces wondrous knowledge, and the powerful result of that is oneness with brahman (brahma‐kaivalya). So what is the difference?’172 Kavikarṇapūra explains that the result of the discipline of devotion is not just knowledge, but more specifically love (rati), and by that one becomes a companion (pārṣada) of God. This is the type of liberation that devotion leads to, ‘not oneness’. This devotional liberation is superior to that Page 32 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion perfection obtained by gnosis, as the Bhāgavata (3.25.32) states: ‘devotion is superior to perfection (siddhi)’.173 It is superior, Śrīnātha explains, because liberation ‘merely destroys the two bodies [the physical and subtle mental bodies]. But, after these two bodies, devotion creates for those who pursue it a pure, divine body. That is why devotion is superior. The body of the devotee is different from the subtle body; it is of the nature of the Lord’s desire and is suitable for the Lord’s play.’174 This body is never influenced by the deluding power of matter, nor subject to death, because Kṛṣṇa himself safeguards these divine bodies.175 They obtain this type of liberation, Śrīnātha argues, because they do not desire a nondual liberation, since that is devoid of devotion.176 Indeed, as the above cited Bhāgavata passage states, they attain this state ‘unintentionally’ or ‘without desire’ (anicchataḥ). Śrīnātha comments: ‘Devotion is the agent that (p.111) leads, unintentionally, those devotees to that subtle destination called liberation. This means that desirelessness leads to this subtle destination. Otherwise it would harm itself, and self‐harm is not something one strives for.’177 In other words, because the highest devotion leaves no room for desire for anything other than devotion to Kṛṣṇa, this type of liberation is attained automatically, as a side‐effect, as it were. Devotion, he explains elsewhere, ‘is a cow of plenty. It fulfils every desire for anything, and thus it is said (BP 2.3.10): “the wise person who does not desire, who desires everything, or who desires liberation [should worship the supreme person by the strict discipline of devotion].”178 If you desire everything, Śrīnātha explains, you will attain everything you desire by devotion, if you desire liberation you will only attain liberation. But if you perform devotion without the desires for anything, you will attain Love (prema).179 Thus, ‘one who does not desire obtains, by the mental state (vṛtti) that takes the form of Love, only a pure body of a companion of the Lord’.180 Although liberation is easily obtained, this Love is very rarely achieved.181 Devotion

Thus, Caitanya does indeed teach renunciation (vairāgya) and knowledge (vidyā or jñāna)—the main concerns on the Advaitin’s path—but these are taught to support the ‘discipline of devotion’ (bhakti‐yoga),182 which is what Caitanya primarily came to teach. What does Kavikarṇapūra understand by devotion? Fundamentally it is ‘love for a deity, and so on’,183 or, as Śrīnātha defines it, ‘a changing mode of the mind [that arises] when there is the cognition that someone is worshipable’.184 In the beginning of act three of the Caitanya‐ candrodaya, Devotion‐with‐Love (Premabhakti) recounts the genealogy of devotion to Friendship (Maitrī): God’s Grace was the father, and Attachment‐to‐God’s‐people the mother. In good time, they begot many children. And so, they had one son, Discernment, but many (p.112) daughters, all named Devotion. Discernment and his wife had a daughter, Non‐Envy. And so, Non‐Envy Page 33 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion married Equanimity, who is naturally pure, and gave birth to a daughter— you, Friendship, who gave me joy. And those daughters, they first formed two groups: those that had rasa and those that did not. Those without rasa were numerous, based on their bonds with the modes of matter (guṇa). Those with rasa divided into ten. The luminous, the wondrous, peace and mirth, affection and parental affection—these six rasas here are best. Seeking shelter in them, these six Devotions are most proper.185 The notion of ‘devotion with rasa’ is Śrīnātha’s. He states that when devotion is ‘connected with another state of mind [such as] a stable emotion like love, it is then called devotion with rasa (rasa‐bhakti)’.186 These stable emotions (sthāyi‐ bhāva) are principal emotions discussed in works on dramaturgy and literary theory. Their number varies from author to author, but generally include amorous love (‘the luminous’ in the above passage from the Caitanya‐ candrodaya), sorrow, fear, mirth, wonder, courage, disgust, anger, and peace. We will explore Kavikarṇapura’s and Śrīnātha’s views on rasa, as well as their concept of Love (prema), in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 7, but suffice it to emphasize here the importance of the distinction they make between devotion with rasa and devotion without rasa. Devotion with rasa is not a reverential love for a supreme deity, but a devotion that is imbued with the intimacy and intensity of these ten emotions. It is this type of ‘emotional devotion’ that Mādhavendra Purī heralded and that Caitanya taught, which differs from the ‘intellectual’ forms of devotion that were generally taught before, to use Friedhelm Hardy’s typology.187 Caitanya still teaches the nine principal practices of devotion as taught in the Bhāgavata (7.5.23)—hearing about Kṛṣṇa, praising him, remembering him, attending his feet, worshipping his image, offering respects to him, being his servant, being his friend, and self‐surrender—but these practices now become, by his touch, enriched with these emotions, as Kavikarṇapūra beautifully states in the benedictory verse of his drama: Kubera’s treasures, like the lily, lotus and conch, he renders dull with the nine moonstones of devotion; may that golden moon, which becomes the sting of the Kali sheldrake’s sorrow, drive away the darkness of the world.188

Just as the mythical moonstones become moist when touched by the moon’s rays, so do these nine practices of devotion become infused with the emotional (p.113) intensity of rasa when touched by Caitanya, the golden moon (gaura‐ candra). He thereby takes away the attraction for the wealth of this world, represented by the nine mythical treasures of Kubera, the treasurer of the gods, which now seem lacklustre,189 because devotion dominates everything and dulls one’s interest in anything else, thereby naturally leading to renunciation: ‘One Page 34 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion who has devotion to the Lord, Hari, the ruler of the highest [liberation], sports in an ocean of nectar. What, then, is ditch water to him?’190 Kavikarṇapūra describes Goddess Devotion (Bhaktidevī), one of the drama’s allegorical characters thus: ‘she gladdens the heart, cleanses the sensory faculties, and dwarfs liberation—what to speak of wealth (artha) and pleasure (kāma)! When attained she immediately satisfies the living beings, drowning them in the depths of the ocean of bliss.’191 That this rare gift is bestowed in the age of Kali—the most unfortunate of the four ages in the cosmic cycle—is not strange, because by Caitanya’s mere presence, Kali is powerless, as he is separated from his henchmen—like lust, anger, and greed—just as the sheldrake is said to be separated from its mate as long as the moon illumines the night.192 Caitanya releases his devotees from the ‘six enemies’: lust, anger, greed, illusion, madness, and envy. In the Caitanya‐ candrodaya he movingly implores Jagannātha and Mādhava (Jagāi and Mādhāi in Bengali sources), two brāhmaṇa brothers who often figure in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts as exemplars of the most wicked men: ‘You are greedy for the poison of vice. Whatever sins you have performed give them all carefully to me.’193 ‘With a mere glance,’ Kavikarṇapūra comments, Caitanya ‘makes all sins insignificant, and annihilates the troops of the six enemies like lust from the heart of others.’194 He accomplishes this, Kavikarṇapūra explains later in the drama, because he appears ‘disguised as a devotee’ and is therefore accompanied by Goddess Devotion. He thus sets his devotees free ‘by the pure discipline of devotion, which removes all sins, fades the flaws of Kali, and eradicates the persistent smell of fiercely vile proclivities, including those of outcastes’.195 (Although he appears as a devotee, Caitanya can do all this, Kavikarṇapūra (p. 114) suggests in this verse, only because he is Kṛṣṇa himself, the complete manifestation of divinity, just as only the full moon can dispel the darkness of night.) Although it arises in the mind and is practised as a discipline (yoga), Kavikarṇapūra stresses that devotion cannot be attained by human effort, but only by grace. This is emphasized in Devotion‐with‐Love’s genealogy, cited above. The parents of the different Devotions are God’s Grace and Attachment‐ to‐God’s‐people, without whom Devotion can thus not exist. In the beginning of act two of the Caitanya‐candrodaya the allegorical characters Dispassion (Virāga) and Goddess Devotion (Bhaktidevī) emphasize this: Goddess Devotion:… We clean even the outcastes, indeed we remove every impurity. We destroy even the most obstinate proclivities (saṃskāra) in their heart. If the goddess of his grace here casts her glance, we grant their hearts the state of rasa. Page 35 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Dispassion: You do not have the power to do so independently, without the goddess of his grace? Goddess Devotion: Apart from the continuous grace of him or his people, we do not exist, what to speak of act in this way.196 The rest of the genealogy of Devotion that Kavikarṇapūra gives is also significant. Kavikarṇapūra includes Friendship—the daughter of Non‐Envy and Equanimity—in this genealogy, to underscore the importance of this emotion in the discipline of devotion. Śrīnātha also stresses the importance of these qualities. He writes that equanimity, ‘being equal to all living beings’, is one of the chief practices of devotion and means that one should ‘honour them with gifts and respect, according to one’s capacity’.197 He emphasizes that unless one honours others, considering the form of God one worships to be present in them, one will harbour enmity and envy, and when one is envious one’s worship of God will not be ‘pleasant’.198 Those that are devoted to God in particular should be honoured, because they are inseparable from himself, as we have seen, and are indeed Kṛṣṇa’s own self.199 The highest devotees control (p.115) him, because ‘his lotus feet are tied with the rope of their love’,200 and an offence to a devotee thus ‘blocks the many rays of light [of the Lord’s grace]’.201 Both Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha therefore stress that devotion is not a solitary pursuit, but something that arises and develops in a community of devotees. ‘The company of the saints is devotion to the Lord’, Kavikarṇapūra writes, because the former is the cause of the latter.202 ‘The discipline of devotion is obtained through the company of the saints,’ Śrīnātha explains,203 for devotion does not arise by pursuing the good or by desiring liberation, ‘but by attending the saints and by the grace of the Lord, [and then only] for some.’204 Therefore Kavikarṇapūra makes precisely Friendship, rather than any other allegorical character, follow Devotion‐with‐Love to witness the extraordinary play which Caitanya and his followers stage in act three of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, for it is these two together that lead to the play of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa that Caitanya and his companions have brought to earth. The vertical relationship between the devotee and God is therefore one that can only exist when there are equally strong horizontal relationships with other members of the devotional community. Only when these two are nurtured can we witness Kṛṣṇa’s divine play and realize how the other members of the community participate in it. Therefore, as Kavikarṇapūra puts it: ‘what is the good?’ ‘The company of the saints.’ And, ‘what is suffering?’ ‘Separation from those dear to the Lord, not the pain from heart wounds and the like.’205 However, devotion does not only arise in the company of devotees, but is also practised there, and the devotional practices that Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes are all communal. Of all the devotional practices, Caitanya emphasized the recitation of Kṛṣṇa’s name, and particularly the communal singing of his name (nāma‐saṅkīrtana). It is to institute this practice, Kavikarṇapūra writes, that he Page 36 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion descended.206 Indeed, the Bhāgavata and other Purāṇas (p.116) proclaim that in the irreligious age of Kali, Kṛṣṇa’s name is the only path to salvation: ‘The name of Hari, the name of Hari, only the name of Hari—in the Kali age there is not, there is not, there is not any other way besides this.’207 Kavikarṇapūra teaches that Kṛṣṇa appears in the age of Kali as Kṛṣṇa’s name.208 That holy name has thus the power to ‘destroy all sin’,209 and to quickly grant the highest form of liberation, becoming a companion (pārṣada) of God, as the narrative of Ajāmila in the Bhāgavata (6.13) demonstrates.210 The Bhāgavata proclaims that the wise will worship Kṛṣṇa’s descent in the Kali age ‘with communal singing (saṅkīrtana) and sacrifices (yajña)’—the latter being ‘festivals of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’ (śrī‐ kṛṣṇotsava), according to Śrīnātha211—and Caitanya is thus inseparably linked to the practice. His advent coincided with a lunar eclipse, when the disembodied head of the demon Rāhu is said to briefly swallow the moon in the hope of attaining the nectar of immortality (amṛta)—a highly auspicious time in Hindu lore, during which one should bathe in a river, recite mantras, give gifts, and perform other religious acts.212 Caitanya appeared as Rāhu gulped down the moon—the demon thought ‘What do we need you for? Another moon has now risen on earth!’213—while the people of Navadvīpa urged each other to recite Kṛṣṇa’s names. Caitanya, ‘longing for the incessant play of his love, chose to appear while his name was chanted’,214 Kavikarṇapūra writes, and thus, merely by appearing at that time, instigated ‘the communal singing of his own name’.215 Later in life, after he met Īśvara Purī in Gayā, Caitanya, ‘the golden moon risen from the ocean of the singing of his names’,216 ‘daily’ blessed the world with revelations of his divinity through ‘his own rasas of singing’.217 But Kavikarṇapūra’s praise of singing or praising (kīrtana) involves more than Kṛṣṇa’s name. As we have seen earlier, Kṛṣṇa descended just prior to the Kali age to allow his future devotees to praise his play, and Kavikarṇapūra (p.117) describes how Caitanya and his companions would do just that. Together they staged dramas about the play of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, as we have seen above, and Caitanya would often sing songs or listen to recited poems in praise of Kṛṣṇa (both in the vernacular and in Sanskrit),218 sometimes repeating a single verse for hours on end, because when ‘his mind becomes absorbed in a particular play (līlā), it does not return from there’.219 It is precisely this ability to absorb the mind that makes the practice of singing in praise of Kṛṣṇa (kīrtana) and listening (śravaṇa) to such songs so important. Śrīnātha explains that before one can worship God, the mind needs to be controlled, and that can be done by listening to narrations about him. ‘But how can one listen when there is no one who speaks?’ he asks. ‘In that case, one should sing oneself.’ Thus either by listening to the songs of others in praise of Kṛṣṇa’s ‘birth, actions, and attributes’ or, if one is alone, by singing oneself ‘without embarrassment’, the roving mind can be curbed and be made ‘liquid’, and become attached to Kṛṣṇa.220 According to Vedānta the mind’s power is eroded (laya) by listening (śravaṇa), thinking (manana), and meditating Page 37 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (nididhyāsana) on God, but Kṛṣṇa is ‘the all‐attractive one’221 and therefore merely listening to descriptions of him is sufficient: ‘Śrī Kṛṣṇa himself forcefully attracts’ the minds of those who hear about him.222 There is thus nothing better than ‘praising Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s advent and his auspicious acts’, for to obtain that is to obtain everything humans pursue in this world. ‘Praising alone is the highest gain,’ Śrīnātha concludes.223 Kavikarṇapūra, in a passage already cited, similarly states that praising or listening to Kṛṣṇa’s play, which causes greater wonder than even the bliss of brahman, makes all other human pursuits seem puerile.224 Wise persons abort the attempt to know God, Kavikarṇapūra writes in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, since God’s nature is unknowable, and instead direct (p. 118) their passionate love to him by ‘listening to, singing, and meditating on the nectar of his acts’.225 As Śrīnātha comments, knowing that God is unknowable, they offer homage to the narrations of the Lord, as heard from the saints or from texts like the Bhāgavata, with their body, by bowing to them and worshipping them, with their speech, by singing them loudly, and with their mind, by meditating on them. Thus the unconquerable Lord becomes conquered.226 This is obviously paradoxical—knowing that our words cannot contain the ineffable Lord we are urged to describe him in song—but that paradox is crucial to Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, as we will see in Chapter 6.

Conclusion The practice of poetry—both its creation and its reception—has to be understood in this theological context. Composing poems in praise of Kṛṣṇa or Caitanya is for Kavikarṇapūra the expression and culmination of a well‐developed theology, and he expected his poetry to be received and recited by practitioners who shared these theological views. As we will see in the following chapters, the theology we have merely outlined here shaped key aspects of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, and in order to appreciate what Kavikarṇapūra is attempting in his poetry we therefore need to read his works in the light of this theology. Now, as a way of summarizing this chapter in the spirit of Kavikarṇapūra’s exhortation to narrate the charming acts of Kṛṣṇa, we close with a passage from chapter 16 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, in which all the elements of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology we have so far discussed are brought succinctly together. Like most of the campū this prose passage is a retelling of the Bhāgavata’s narrative as read by Śrīnātha. The Bhāgavata (10.28) tells how, one day, Nanda was kidnapped by the servants of the god Varuṇa for transgressing dharma. Kṛṣṇa travelled to the abode of Varuṇa, guardian of dharma, to rescue his father. Upon seeing Kṛṣṇa, Varuṇa immediately released Nanda and offered humble prayers to Kṛṣṇa. When they arrived back home, Nanda described to his community what had happened. They all concluded that, since Varuṇa had shown such profound reverence to Nanda’s son, Kṛṣṇa must be God himself. Page 38 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion They wondered whether Kṛṣṇa would show them ‘his subtle abode’, which he then continued to do. Śrīnātha’s comments on these few verses are brief, and Kavikarṇapūra integrates them into his retelling, but (p.119) he also adds something important to the story: Kṛṣṇa not only shows his abode, Vaikuṇṭha, but, more importantly, his unembodied aspect of brahman. As we will see all the elements of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology are highlighted here. He does not shy away from mocking the hard‐headed logicians and other intellectuals whose attempts to know God without relying on his grace are ever in vain. He states that God has both an embodied and an unembodied aspect, and that the former is primary because it awards greater bliss. Kṛṣṇa is that embodied bliss, and Kavikarṇapūra praises the ‘charm of his non‐worldly worldly play’ (tad‐alaukika‐laukika‐līlā‐lāvaṇya). He teaches that we can understand God only through devotion (bhakti), not through gnosis (jñāna), and that ‘dedication to the beauty of his non‐worldly worldly play is more charming’ than liberation, however it is conceived, and is therefore the most important human pursuit. This is how Kavikarṇapūra recounts the aftermath of Nanda’s rescue: [24] Then, the king of Vraja, awed and startled, witnessed the flawless fortunes of Varuṇa’s fortress, the prostrations to [his son who was] garlanded with [mere] forest flowers, and the beauty of [the god’s] prayers of praise. Having heard everything from Nanda, the cowherds, giddy with joy, were certain, beyond a doubt, that he [i.e. Kṛṣṇa]—the embodiment, as it were, of the Veda’s teachings—was the custodian of the entire cosmos. They all desired this: ‘This is the unfathomable Lord himself. Will he reveal his tremendous splendour called brahman?’ Knowing their desire, the very compassionate [Kṛṣṇa], wanting to teach the people of Vraja through deprivation that brahman in human form is a source of bliss desirable even over [the unembodied] brahman, and wanting to gulp down the doubts of those who make fallacious arguments, whose intellects are clouded by dense delusion’s darkness, then moulded their intellect—[used to] superior pleasures—to the form of brahman. [25] Thereafter, when he generated for them the unchanging direct manifestation (sākṣāt‐kāra) of brahman, [a state] without distinctions, which blocked the experience of being aware of either bliss or nonbliss and seemed like suffering, compassion arose in him, and he withdrew it from the mould of that form [in their intellects], as it were ‘dis‐illusioning’ those who had been stuck in the pot‐belly of the fiend Liberation, as if he were establishing that he never makes one of his own, whose love grows large, accept that monster Liberation, [even when it is] bestowed. Then, more vividly, he showed again his supreme abode, Vaikuṇṭha—never in any way tired—which is the joy of bliss and whose merits are apparent. Page 39 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion [26] As if awakening from trance after seeing that [realm]—most worthy of being seen, like the embodiment of brahman’s bliss, and above darkness— they then obtained the greatest joy. The town’s Mīmāṃsakas [however] could perceive nothing of this. (p.120) [27] For a mere moment they experienced the potent isolation (kaivalya) of brahman and the joy of Vaikuṇṭha, but they considered it to be like a thousand ages and became somewhat despondent by not seeing the face of the Lord, who possesses all auspiciousness.227 To increase their bliss and decrease their suffering the Lord, the embodiment of the causal essence, then made Vaikuṇṭha again disappear with another glance. [28] Thereafter, with surging radiance, unsatisfied in that great bliss, they kept looking at Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This [demonstrates that] dedication to the beauty of his non‐worldly worldly play is more charming even than the state of being in union (sāyujya) with either brahman or his own abode [Vaikuṇṭha], which is brahman’s nature (svarūpa). That is the established conclusion (siddhānta). [29] Thus is his mighty majesty, that it is not easily known—even by respectable people—through minds sullied and calloused by repeated conjectures and ill logic, and difficult to explore by those who are ill tempered. Indeed merely with a gently glimmering wave of glances playfully cast he showed the extraordinary nature of union (sāyujya) and then withdrew it by doing what is most difficult to do. What is impossible for the potency of his play?228 Notes:

(1) Bhattacharyya (1940, pp. 64–5), however, shows that it is highly unlikely that Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma was the first teacher of Navya Nyāya in Bengal. (2) Sārvabhauma wrote a commentary on Gaṅgeśa’s Tattva‐cintāmaṇi and, while residing in Orissa, a commentary on the Advaita‐makaranda, Lakṣmīdhara’s profoundly non‐dualist treatise. For more on Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma, see Bhattacharyya (1940), and Kaviraj (1961), pp. 51–5. For more on his Nyāya views, see Bhattacharya (1976). (3) See CCU p. 68/194. (4) CCU pp. 70–2/199–205. (5) Tad etam atyanta‐suśānta‐cittaṃ saṃśrāvya vedāntam ajasram eva / karomi vairāgya‐rasena bhāsvaj‐jñānaikatānena ca mokṣa‐pāntham (CCMK 12.16). (6) Sākṣān mahī‐gīṣ‐patir eṣa (CCMK 12.22). See also GGD 119: bhaṭṭācāryaḥ sārvabhaumaḥ purāsīd gīṣ‐patir divi. Page 40 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (7) CCMK 12.22–23. (8) CCMK 12.25–28. (9) Tad eṣa kṛṣṇaḥ khalu nānyathaiva caritram etad gamakaṃ hi tatra (CCMK 12.31). (10) CCMK 12.32–33. (11) According to Murāri Gupta, Sārvabhauma wanted to teach Caitanya, but when Caitanya approached him he did not dare to do so. Later that day, it was Caitanya then who taught Sārvabhauma and the gathered brāhmaṇas about Vedānta. Sārvabhauma’s earlier inklings of his divinity were then confirmed (Kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐caritāmṛta 3.11.4–12 & 3.12.5–19). In the Caitanya‐bhāgavata, Vṛndāvanadāsa writes that Sārvabhauma did not debate with Caitanya, but taught him about the proper conduct of a sannyāsī and, briefly, about devotion. Caitanya was pleased by this, and in return revealed his six‐armed form (CB 3.3.9–153). Locanadāsa combines these accounts: Sārvabhauma first taught him about sannyāsa conduct, but was then taught Vedānta by Caitanya, who then revealed his six‐armed form (CM 3.16.215–247). Kṛṣṇadāsa combines both of Kavikarṇapūra’s accounts (see CC 2.6). (12) See CCU p. 71/201. When Gopīnātha later mentions this to Caitanya, he humbly accepts it: Gopīnāthācāryaḥ: Sāmpradāyika‐sannyāsinaḥ sakāśād yoga‐ paṭṭaṃ grāhayitvā vedāntaṃ śrāvayiṣyati. Bhagavān: Anugṛhīto’smi tena. Bhavatu. Evaṃ kariṣyāmi. (CCU p. 73/209). (13) CCU pp. 75–6/216–17. (14) Vinā vārīṃ baddho vana‐mada‐karīndro bhagavatā, vinā sekaṃ sveṣāṃ śamita iva hṛt‐tāpa‐dahanaḥ / yadṛcchā‐yogena vyaraci yad idaṃ paṇḍita‐pateḥ, kaṭhoraṃ vajrād apy amṛtam iva ceto’sya sarasam (CCU pp. 76/217–18). (15) See Bhattacharyya (1940), p. 69. (16) See, for example, Narahari Sarakāra’s Kṛṣṇa‐bhajanāmṛta 9–12. Several works in praise of Caitanya have also been attributed to Sārvabhauma. According to Jayānanda, Sārvabhauma (whom he considers to be Vyāsa; see JCM 1.1.63) composed eight verses (aṣṭaka) in praise of Caitanya, as well as a poem of a hundred verses and a Caitanya‐sahasra‐nāma (See JCM 1.1.64 and 6.610– 16). Vṛndāvanadāsa too mention a Sārvabhauma‐śataka in praise of Caitanya (CB 3.3.146–147), as does Kṛṣṇadāsa (CC 2.6.206). Rūpa Gosvāmī also includes several verses in praise of Kṛṣṇa by Sārvabhauma in his Padyāvalī (verses 72, 73, 90, 91, 99, 100, 133). For more verses attributed to Sārvabhauma, see De (1934a).

Page 41 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (17) Śāstraṃ nānā‐matam api tathā kalpitaṃ sva‐sva‐rucyā, no cet teṣāṃ katham iva mithaḥ khaṇḍane paṇḍitatvam / tatroddeśyaṃ kim api paramaṃ bhakti‐yogo murārer, niṣkāmo yaḥ sa hi bhagavato’nugraheṇaiva labhyaḥ. Api ca—vedāḥ purāṇāni ca bhārataṃ ca, tantrāṇi mantrā api sarva eva / brahmaiva vastu pratipādayanti, tattve’sya vibhrāmyati sarva eva (CCU pp. 77/221–2). The idea of the second verse is also expressed by Madhva; see Madhva’s Brahma‐sūtra‐ bhāṣya 1.1.1 (p. 7). (18) Śrīnātha uses the term śāstra to refer to works on Vedānta, Mīmāṃsa, Vaiśeṣika, and so on. See, for example, CMM 10.87.24–25 and below. (19) See CCU p. 28/38. (20) CCU pp. 71/202–3. See also CMM 2.9.31. (21) Yat khalu pratyakṣānumānopamāna‐śabdārthāpatty-aitihyādi‐pramāṇa‐ nivahair api na pramātuṃ śakyate, vinā tasyaivānugraha‐janya‐jñāna‐viśeṣam (CCU p. 46/129). (22) See, for example, Rāmānuja’s and Śaṅkara’s commentary on Brahma‐sūtra 1.1.3. (23) Madhva, for example, argues that the grace of God arises from knowledge, which only arises after one is inquisitive (which leads to a study of scripture). See Madhva’s Anuvyākhyāna 1.1.12: jijñāsottha‐jñānajāt tat‐prasādād eva mucyate; and Madhva’s Brahma‐sūtra‐bhāṣya 1.1.1: yato nārāyaṇa‐prasādam ṛte na mokṣaḥ, na ca jñānaṃ vinātyartha‐prasādaḥ, ato brahma‐jijñāsā kartavyā. (24) Sarvasyaivārvācīnatvāt pūrva‐siddhasya tava śrī‐kṛṣṇasya tattva‐jñānaṃ kathaṃ bhavatu? Atas tava tattvaṃ tvam eva jānāsi.…Atas tvaṃ hi sarva‐kāraṇa‐ kāraṇaṃ sarveśvareśvaraḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇaḥ. Ataḥ śāstram api tvāṃ na vettīti bhāvaḥ, prāg‐siddhatvāt. Na hy arvācīnāḥ prācīna‐vṛttiṃ jānanti (CMM 10.87.24). (25) Śrīmād‐bhāgavataṃ pramāṇam amalam (CMM 0.1). (26) Brahmaiva vedārthaṃ svarūpato jānāti, bhagavac‐chiṣyatvāt, anye tu avaroha‐krameṇa sva‐sva‐vāsanānurūpaṃ tasmin vedārthaṃ prakalpya sva‐sva‐ vāsanānukūlam eva vedaṃ pracāritavantaḥ. Ato bhagavad‐vigraha‐tad‐ upāsanānukūlaṃ tu na pracāritavantaḥ. Kevalaṃ brahmaiva yathārthaṃ jānāti (CMM 6.16.33). (27) Pāripārśvikaḥ: Bhāva, tarhi kathaṃ tatraivodāra‐mate ramate na sarvaḥ? Sūtradhāraḥ: Māriṣa, vividha‐vāsanā sanātho hi loko lokottare vartmani kathaṃ sarva eva pravartatām? Vāsanā‐baddha śraddhā śrayati hi bhedakatāṃ mater iti (CCU pp. 3/6–7). (28) CMM 6.16.33. Page 42 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (29) See CMM 2.2.8: prādeśa‐mātraṃ prakṛṣṭa ādeśa ājñā prādeśo vedaḥ, sa eva mātrā pramāṇaṃ yasya. (30) Anumānaṃ hi dvi‐vidhaṃ bhavati, pratyakṣopajīvi śabdopajīvi ca (CMM 11.7.23). For sense perception, see CMM 11.7.21, for inference see CMM 11.7.23 and below. (31) Yasmin bṛhat‐tattvād atha bṛṃhaṇatvān, mukhyārthavattve saviśeṣatāyām / ye nirviśeṣatvam udīrayanti, te naiva tat sādhayituṃ samarthāḥ (CCU p. 78/222). Śaṅkara derives the word brahman from the verbal root bṛṃh (‘to grow, increase’): brahma‐śabdasya hi vyutpādyamānasya nitya‐śuddhatvādayo’rthāḥ pratīyante, bṛṃhater dhātor arthānugamāt (Brahma‐sūtra‐bhāṣya 1.1.1). Rāmānuja argues that the word implies greatness (bṛhatva): sarvatra bṛhattva‐ guṇa‐yogena hi brahma‐śabda (Śrī‐bhāṣya 1.1.1). See also Śrī‐bhāṣya 1.1.2: upalakṣyaṃ hi anavadhikātiśaya‐bṛhat, bṛṃhaṇaṃ ca, bṛhater dhātoḥ tad‐ arthatvāt. See also Jīva’s Bhagavat‐sandarbha 6 (citing Atharva‐śiras Upaniṣad 53). (32) Yā yā śrutir jalpati nirviśeṣaṃ sā sābhidhatte sa‐viśeṣam eva / vicāra‐yoge sati hantu tāsāṃ prāyo balīyaḥ sa‐viśeṣam eva (CCU p. 78/222). (33) Apāṇi‐pādo javano gṛhītā (Śvetāśvatara 3.19); avarṇam acakṣuḥ‐śrotraṃ tad apāṇi‐pādaṃ (Muṇḍaka 1.1.6, both translations by Patrick Olivelle). Śrīnātha cites this Śvetāśvatara passage in CMM 11.7.23. (34) Nirguṇa‐vādāś ca prākṛta‐heya‐guṇa‐niṣedha‐paratayā vyavasthitāḥ (Vedārtha‐saṃgraha 84). For the same idea, see CMM 2.5.18, 3.9.39, 3.26.3, 10.14.6. (35) See Madhva’s Karma‐nirṇaya (p. 86): na ca nirviśeṣaṃ nāma kiñcid asti. Nirviśeṣatvokter eva vyāhatatvāt. Nirviśeṣatvena viśiṣṭaṃ tan na vety ukte, yady aviśiṣṭaṃ tarhi na viśeṣa‐nirākaraṇam. Viśeṣavattvam eva bhavati. Yadi tena viśiṣṭaṃ sa eva viśeṣa iti vyāhatiḥ. (36) Kevala‐nirviśeṣatve śūnya‐vādāvasaraḥ prasajyeta (CCU p. 78/223). (37) Āyāte ca viśeṣe rūpasyāpi viśeṣād āyātatvam (CCU p. 78/223). (38) Jyotiś caraṇābhidhānāt (Brahma‐sūtra 1.1.24). (39) ‘Vi me karṇā patayato vi cakṣur vīdaṃ jyotir hṛdaya ahitaṃ yat vi me manaś carati dūra ādhīḥ kiṃ svid vakṣyāmi kim u nū maniṣye’ [Ṛg Veda 6.9.6] iti jyotir uktam. Tac ca jyotir agni‐sūktatvāt prasiddheś cāgnir eveti prāptam. Ata āha ‘jyotiś caraṇābhidhānāt’. Viṣṇur jyotiḥ. Karṇādīnāṃ vicaraṇābhidhānāt. Sa hi ‘paro mātrayā tanvā vṛdhāna’ [Ṛg Veda 7.99.1] ity ādinā karṇādi‐vidūraḥ. (Brahma‐sūtra‐bhāṣya 1.1.24). See also Jayatīrtha’s commentary on this passage. Both Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja read the sūtra as a reference to the light in Page 43 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion Chāndogya 3.13.7, which is brahman, because earlier (Chāndogya 3.12.6) it is mentioned that the created world with all its beings comprise only three ‘feet’ (caraṇa) of the ‘four footed’ brahman. (40) Jyotiṣo’prākṛtatvaṃ yathā sādhyate, tathā tasya rūpasyāpīti (CCU p. 78/223). (41) This verse, so central to the theology of Jīva Gosvāmī, does not figure prominently in the writings of either Kavikarṇapūra (who only cites it here) or Śrīnātha (who comments on the verse, but reads it entirely differently; see appendix 1). Kavikarṇapūra also uses it here in a very different sense than Jīva normally does: the verse proves for Kavikarṇapūra that brahman is a person (bhagavān), whereas Jīva uses it to argue that the three words mentioned here— brahman, paramātmā, and bhagavān—refer to three distinct ways in which God can be perceived (see, for example, Bhagavat‐sandarbha 1–2; See also Gupta, 2007, pp. 32–62). To the best of my knowledge, none of the other Bengali Caitanya Vaiṣṇava authors prior to Jīva attach great importance to the verse. It is hardly cited, and Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya does not even paraphrase the verse in the Kṛṣṇa‐prema‐taraṅginī, his Bengali rendering of the Bhāgavata. Rūpa Gosvāmī uses the verse in a similar sense as Kavikarṇapūra does in Laghu‐ bhāgavatāmṛta 1.5.197. The ubiquity the verse gains in later Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology is clearly due to Jīva’s brilliant use of it in the Sandarbhas, as only he seems to have singled it out as central to an understanding of God’s nature. As we will see below, however, although he interprets this verse differently, Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of the nature of God is not substantially different from Jīva’s. (42) Sva‐pakṣa‐rakṣaṇa‐graha‐grahilās tu mukhyārthābhāvābhāve’pi lakṣaṇayā nirūpayitum aśakyam api nirviśeṣatvaṃ ye pratipādayanti, teṣāṃ durāgraha‐ mātram (CCU p. 78/223). (43) Vastutas tu—ānando dvividhaḥ proktā, mūrtāmūrta‐prabhedataḥ / amūrtasyāśrayo mūrto, mūrtānando’cyuto mataḥ / amūrtaḥ paramātmā ca, jñāna‐rūpaś ca nirguṇaḥ / sva‐svarūpaś ca kūṭastho, brahma ceti satāṃ matam / amūrta‐mūrtayor bhedo, nāsti tattva‐vicārataḥ / bhedas tu kalpito vedair, maṇi‐ tat‐tejasor iva (CCU p. 78/223). See also AVC 6.19: Tvam asi mūrtāmūrtānandatvena vyaktāvyaktākāratayā. (44) Dve brahmaṇī tu vijñeye, mūrtaṃ cāmūrtam eva ca / mūrtāmūrta‐ svarūpo’yaṃ, dhyeyo nārāyaṇo vibhuḥ (CCU p. 78/224). I have not been able to locate the source of the verses Kavikarṇapūra here cites. The Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra was probably composed around 800 AD in eastern India. The text was popular in Kavikarṇapūra’s time, and is cited extensively in Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī’s Hari‐bhakti‐vilāsa and Raghunandana’s Maṭha‐pratiṣṭhā‐tattva (see Raddock, 2011, pp. 75, 80–1, 127–9). However, none of the verses Kavikarṇapūra attributes to the text are found in the sections of this work that have been Page 44 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion published, which are entirely about temple construction and image worship. There are a few other, unpublished, texts with the same title (see Smith, 1975, pp. 549, 552), which are perhaps the source of Kavikarṇapūra’s citations. The Kapila or Kāpila Pañcarātra is included in some lists of Pāñcarātra texts, but is no longer extant; see Schrader (1973, pp. 6–7). It is not implausible that Kavikarṇapūra may not have known the text, though, but knew this passage from a citation in another source. Śrīnātha mentions that many Pāñcarātra texts have been lost. Based on a section of the Nārāyaṇīya, he argues at great length that the Pāñcarātra texts are not recent, but were first revealed to the Seven Sages, who elaborated on them. For as long as the legendary king Vasu reigned, these texts remained current, but when he passed on, these texts were lost. ‘Because recent scholars do not know [all] the Sātvata texts—they arose but are now hidden—they do not know the limits of this corpus.’ (Sātvata‐ śāstrasyotpattir antardhānaṃ cedānīm iti arvācīnaiḥ paṇḍitair adṛṣṭatvāt, tasya maryādā tair na jñāyate, CMM 6.16.33). (45) Kevalaṃ nirviśeṣa‐brahmavādinas tu amūrtānandam eva brahmeti nirūpayantaḥ sva‐vāsanā‐pāruṣyam eva prakaṭayanti, na tu te niviśeṣatvaṃ sthāpayituṃ śaknuvanti. Pāñcarātrika‐mata‐svīkāre tu ‘ānandaṃ brahmaṇo rūpaṃ’, ‘ekam evādvitīyaṃ brahma’ ity ādi ca sidhyati rūpavattvena mūrtatvam, ‘maṇi‐tat‐tejasāv iva’ ity uktenādvitīyatvam. Tena bhagavān eva brahmeti sarva‐ śāstra‐matam. Vāsanā‐vaiśiṣṭyād eva mūrtānande bhagavati līlā‐vigraham iti manvānā amūrtānandam eva brahmeti kecid āhuḥ. Pāñcarātrikās tv avigīta‐ śiṣṭāḥ, bhagavad‐upāsakatvāt. Tena tad‐ācaritenaiva vedārthā anumīyante. Tathā ca— śākhāḥ sahasra‐nigama‐drumasya pratyakṣa‐siddho na samagra eṣaḥ purāṇa‐vākyair avigīta‐śiṣṭācāraiś ca tasyāvayavo’numeyaḥ. Tatra purāṇa‐vacanāni, yathā ‘yan‐mitraṃ paramānandaṃ pūrṇaṃ brahma sanātanam’ [BP 10.14.31] ity ādi. Pūrṇaṃ rūpatvena, nirviśeṣaṃ tu brahma apūrṇam. Nīrūpam ity arthaḥ. (CCU pp. 78–9/224–5). (46) Kintv asya [=vigrahasya] māyikatvam. Maivam, aho bhrānto’si, bho bhrānto’si. Māyikatvaṃ kiṃ nāma? Māyā‐kṛtatvam iti cet, kasya māyā? (CMM 6.16.33). (47) …ity ādi śataśa sthala eva sva‐svāmi‐bhāva‐sambandhatvena śrūyate, kathaṃ svātantryam asyāḥ? Ato bhagavata eva māyā, sā tu tasyaivādhīnā.…. Na hy adhīnā svāmino vikṛtiṃ kartuṃ śakyate, tena māyā‐kṛtatvaṃ vigrahasya nopapannam eva (CMM 6.16.33). In support of this argument he cites BP 5.14.1, 11.22.4, 11.14.9, 11.11.3, 3.7.9, 2.5.13 and Gītā 7.14.

Page 45 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (48) Tasyānirvacanīyatvād uru‐śakti‐mattvena ca sarvam eva sambhāvyata iti cet kim etāvatā gauraveṇa? Anirvacanīyo voru‐śaktimān vigraha eva vānādir iti lāghava‐pakṣe eva śreyān (CMM 6.16.33). (49) See CMM 11.7.23. (50) Tarhi bhagavad‐ākāro ’nityaḥ, ākāratvāt, yo ya ākāraḥ so ’nityaḥ yathānyākāraḥ. Na hi pakṣasya pakṣatvaṃ hetuḥ yathā parvato vahnimān parvatatvāt, yatra yatra parvatatvaṃ tatra tatra vahnimattvaṃ yathāmuka‐ parvataḥ (CCM 11.7.23). The classical illustration of inference in Nyāya is that there must be fire on the mountain because there is smoke, as whenever there is smoke there is fire, like in the kitchen. (51) Bhagavad‐ākaro nityaḥ, nitya‐dharmavattvāt; yad evaṃ na bhavati, tan nityaṃ na bhavati yathā jīva‐dehaḥ, tathā cāyaṃ tasmāt tathā. Nanv ayaṃ prakaraṇa‐samatvena sat‐pratipakṣaḥ, tathāpi bhagavad‐ākāro ’nityaḥ nitya‐ dharma‐rahitatvāt, yatra yatra nitya‐dharma‐rahitatvaṃ tatra tatrānityatvaṃ yathā jīvākāraḥ. Naivaṃ bhagavad‐ākāraḥ iti viśiṣṭa eva pakṣaḥ na tāvad ākāra‐ mātraṃ, tena saviśeṣa‐pakṣasya sādhye nityatve nirviśeṣa‐pakṣasyākāra‐ mātrasya nitya‐dharma‐rahitatva‐hetor viśeṣeṇa siddhatayā viruddhām anumitiṃ janayati (CMM 11.7.23). See also a little later: naivaṃ pūrvavat saviśeṣasya pakṣī‐kṛtatvāt. (52) Aty‐alaukika‐guṇair alaṃkṛto gokulendra‐tanayaḥ…. Aty‐alaukika‐guṇair iti viruddhāviruddha‐camatkāri‐guṇavān. Viruddhavad bhāsate, na tu viruddhaḥ, so viruddhāviruddhaḥ. Eko’nekaḥ parichinno vyāpīty ādi‐vad‐alaukika‐guṇavati laukika‐guṇā api jñeyāḥ (AK p. 43/169). (53) Vigraho’pi paraṃ brahma, paraṃ brahmāpi vigrahaḥ / sarvato’pi paricchinno, ’paricchinno’pi sarvataḥ / anindriyo’pīndriyavān, indriyāḍhyo’py anindriyaḥ / eko’py aneka evāyam, aneko’py eka eva saḥ / nirguṇo’pi guṇāvāso, guṇāvāso’pi nirguṇaḥ / aviruddhair viruddhaiś ca, dharmair ebhiḥ sanātanaiḥ / alaukikasya bhāvasya, vibhūṣaṇam idaṃ param / virodho na virudhyeta, bhagavad‐vigrahāśrayaḥ (CMM 6.16.33). See also CMM 10.3.24. (54) Na hi virodha ubhayaṃ bhagavaty aparimita‐guṇa‐gaṇa īśvare ’navagāhya‐ māhātmye ’rvācīna‐vikalpa‐vitarka‐vicāra‐pramāṇābhāsa‐kutarka‐śāstra‐ kalilāntaḥ-karaṇāśraya‐duravagraha‐vādināṃ vivādānavasara uparata‐samasta‐ māyāmaye kevala evātma‐māyām antardhāya ko nv artho durghaṭa iva bhavati svarūpa‐dvayābhāvāt (BP 6.9.36). (55) Adharmaḥ: Yugarāja, kathaya katham ayam īśvara iti niraṇāyi. Kaliḥ: Sakala‐ janāntaḥ‐karaṇākarṣitvaṃ hi bhagavato’sādhāraṇaṃ liṅgam ānandamayatvāt. Ānanda‐mayo hi jīvān ānadayitum arhati, yathā pracura‐dhanaḥ param api dhaninaṃ karoti (CCU p. 6/14).

Page 46 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (56) CCU pp. 94/271–2. The Brahma‐sūtra passage Sārvabhauma cites is a references to Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2. His interpretation of the sūtra is based on Brahma‐sūtra 1.1.13. The verse he cites has been ascribed to Bilvamaṅgala (see BRS 3.1.44), but it is not found in the Kṛṣṇa‐karṇāmṛta; see pp. xvi−xvii of S. K. De’s introduction to his critical edition of the text. (57) Āṇando jjeva bhaavado rūam, jeṇa rūeṇa mahaṃ jjeva āṇando hoi (CCU p. 20/56). (58) See CCU pp. 25/68–9: kiṃ ca jīvas tu vastutaḥ kṣudrānandenāpi vilupta‐dhīr adhīra eva bhavati. Īśvarasya tv ānanda‐svarūpatvāj jñāna‐svarūpatvāc ca kiṃ kenāpi bādhyatām. Tena svādhīnānandaḥ svādhīna‐jñānaś cāyam. (59) Ātmārāmāḥ kim api dadhate vṛtti‐hīnendriyatvaṃ premārāmā api bhagavato rūpamātraika‐magnāḥ svānandastho bhavati yadi ced īśaro’pi kva bhedaḥ āṃ jñātam— nighānando bhavati bhagavān jīva ānanda‐nighnaḥ (CCU pp. 56/157–8). (60) Parama‐premāspada‐rūpatvād vā pūrṇatvaṃ paramaḥ brahmānandād api parasya ānando yasmāt tathā tat (CMM 10.14.32). (61) Vapur iti vapati paramānandam (CMM 10.14.1). (62) Tad api ca nirguṇasya tava puṇya‐guṇaika‐nidher, na hi mahimāmalātmabhir avaitum aho suśakaḥ / anubhava‐mātrataḥ param ananya‐vibodhatayāpy, avikṛtito bhaved yadi bhavaty api netarathā (AVC 7.115). See also CMM 10.14.6. (63) Kevalenānubhavena sphūrtyā tarkādy‐agocaratayā ānando yeṣāṃ teṣu bhakteṣu svaṃ rūpaṃ prākaṭyaṃ yasya, sākṣād aparokṣaḥ (CMM 10.3.13). (64) Māṃsa‐dṛśāṃ pratyakṣaṃ mā kṛṣīṣṭhā, paramānanda‐cakṣuṣāṃ eva pratyakṣam idam (CMM 10.3.28). (65) Nanu brahma‐paramātmābhyāṃ saha śrī‐kṛṣṇasya pṛthaktvaṃ kim iti kriyate? Kaḥ pārthakyaṃ karoti? Tathā hi—‘vadanti tat tattva‐vidas tattvam’ ity‐ ādi‐prathamokteḥ. (CMM 6.16.33) For the full argument, see appendix 1. (66) Brahmeti, brahmaṇo’pi itir gatir yatra paramātmaṇo’pi itir gatir yatreti tābhyāṃ saha tasyābheda evāsmābhir ucyate, na tu pārthakyam (CMM 6.16.33). (67) According to Pāñcarātra theology, there are four emanations (vyūha) of God: Vāsudeva, who is the original deity, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. Each of these emanations is fully divine, but each has a specific function in the Page 47 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion evolution of the cosmos. Vāsudeva is the supreme self (paramātmā), Saṅkarṣaṇa governs the living being (jīva), Pradyumna governs the mind, and Aniruddha the ego (ahaṃkāra). The Bhāgavata too refers to these four emanations frequently. Śrīnātha stresses that these four forms are non‐different (CMM 1.5.38, 10.40.21), countering Śaṅkara’s objection in Brahma‐sūtras 2.2.44. (68) See Śaṅkara’s commentary on Brahma‐sūtras 2.2.42–45. (69) CCU p. 79/225: Śiṣṭās tu sāttvatāḥ. Teṣāṃ matam vāsudeva‐parā devatā vāsudeva‐parāt paramātmanaḥ saṅkarṣaṇo jīvaḥ ity ādi. Jīvayati jīvaṃ karotīti jīvaḥ, na tu svayaṃ jīvaḥ. Sa cātmā—‘śabda‐brahma para‐brahma mamobhe śāśvatī tanū’ [BP 6.16.51] iti tad‐ukteḥ. Tasmād eva jīva‐sṛṣṭir ity arthaḥ. See CMM 6.16.51, 10.1.2. (70) Yāmuna was the first to argue this; see Āgama‐prāmāṇya pp. 109–26. See also Rāmānuja’s Śrī‐bhāṣya 2.2.39–42. (71) See Āgama‐prāmāṇya pp. 65–6: tad ihāpi sarvajñāvāpta‐kāma‐parama‐ puruṣa‐praṇītatayety avagamya śāmyatu bhavān.…Vadanti khalu vedāntāḥ sarvajñaṃ jagataḥ patim / mahā‐kāruṇikaṃ tasmin vipralambhādayaḥ katham. See also p. 126. Vedānta Deśika similarly argues that the Pāñcarātra is authoritative because it is spoken by the Lord (bhagavan‐mukhodgata, Pāñcarātra‐rakṣā p. 2). (72) Iti pāñcarātrika‐matam eva nirmatsaram (CCU p. 78/224). (73) Svayaṃ bhagavān nārada‐rūpeṇa sātvata‐śāstram akarot (CMM 6.16.33). To support this, Śrīnātha then cites BP 1.3.8. (74) Idam eva śreyaḥ, idam eva hitam. Kutaḥ? Idaṃ brahma idam eva śabda‐ brahma, yato’nuttamam (CMM 6.16.33, commenting on Mahābhārata 12.322.29). (75) See Āgama‐prāmāṇya p. 102. Yāmuna specifies that he summarized particularly the Upaniṣads (vedānteṣu yathā‐sāraṃ saṃgrhya bhagavān hariḥ). See also Rāmānuja’s Śrī‐bhāṣya 2.2.42. (76) Āgama‐prāmāṇya pp. 102–5, 91. For Śaṅkara’s critique, see his Brahma‐ sūtra‐bhāṣya 2.2.45. (77) See Tantra‐vārtika p. 69. (78) Dharmasya śabda‐mūlatvād aśabdam anapekṣaṃ syāt. Api vā, kartṛ‐ sāmānyāt pramāṇam anumānaṃ syāt. Virodhe tv anapekṣyaṃ syād asati hy anumānam. (Mīmāṃsā‐sūtras 1.3.1–3). (79) Pollock (2005, pp. 48–9). Page 48 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (80) Pollock (2005, p. 48). (81) See Venkatkrishnan (2015, pp. 76ff). (82) See Tantra‐vārtika pp. 74–5. (83) Āgama‐prāmāṇya pp. 103–5. (84) Kavikarṇapūra, for example, mocks the centuries old debate about the interpretation of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad’s chief statement (mahā‐vākya) tat tvam asi (‘you are that [self of the world]’). The meaning of these three words have been fiercely debated, primarily between the Advaitins and the Mādhvas: how do we read this phrase? What of this do we read literally, where do we apply metonymy? What type of metonymy should we apply? (See Gerow, 1987) When Caitanya is initiated into this mahā‐vākya by his sannyāsa‐guru Keśava Bhāratī, Kavikarṇapūra states that the statement finally makes sense and Caitanya thus does away with the centuries long debate: ‘the mahā‐vākya became meaningful only for that Lord [Caitanya]; because he was its primary meaning, there was no loss of the literal sense through a secondary sense’. (asminn eva hi bhagavati yathārtham abhavan mahā‐vākyam / mukhyārthatayā hi tayā jahat‐svārtha‐ lakṣaṇā nātra, CCU p. 54/152). (85) Yaḥ khalu guruṇā bahutaram abhyarthito’pi vedāntam adhītyādhyāpayeti, na ca tac ca kṛtavān (CCU p. 92/264). (86) Śrīnātha does cite the Śvetāśvatara in one place, as well as some minor Upaniṣads, like the Nārāyaṇa (CMM 11.7.23), and the Mahā‐nārāyaṇa (CMM 6.16.33, CMM 10.3.20). The Bhagavad‐gītā, the third foundational text for classical Vedānta, however, is particularly important to Śrīnātha. He cites the text frequently, and refers to that ‘Song [sung by the Lord’s] blessed lotus mouth’ (śrī‐mukhāmbhoja‐gītā) in the introduction to his commentary (CMM 0.13). In CMM 11.7.23 he argues that the Vedic texts (śruti) are authoritative because they are the ‘word of God’ (īśvara‐vākya), and therefore any other text that is spoken by God—like the Bhagavad‐gītā—is equally authoritative: tathā hi śrutiḥ pramāṇatvena vyavaharaṇīyā, īśvara‐vākyatvāt, yatra yatreśvara‐ vākyatvaṃ tatra tatra pramāṇatvena vyavaharaṇīyatvaṃ yathā bhagavad‐gītādi. Tathā cāyaṃ tasmāt yathā. Yad īśvara‐vākyaṃ na bhavati, tat pramāṇatvena vyavaharaṇīyaṃ na bhavati, yathāsmad‐ādi‐vākyam iti śrutir īśvara‐vākyatvaṃ anvaya‐vyatireka‐siddham. (87) See Tattva‐sandarbha 19. (88) Instances can be found throughout his commentary, but see particularly the end of CMM 6.16.33, where he announces to give an overview of ‘Sātvata theology (siddhānta)’. What follows is a lengthy exposition of the Bhāgavata’s theology. Śrīnātha’s claim is not so unusual, since the Bhāgavata itself claims to Page 49 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion be a ‘Sātvata compendium’ (sātvata‐saṃhitā, BP 1.7.6), and the terms Bhāgavata was long used as synonymous with Sātvata and Pāñcarātrika: see, for example, Āgama‐prāmāṇya pp. 147–50. (89) Nanu satsu vedāntādiṣu kathaṃ sātvata‐śāstra eva vigraha‐pratipādanaṃ? Satyaṃ, kartṝṇāṃ vedāntādīni paraspara‐virodhīni, tat‐tat‐ parasparaṃ vivadamānatvāt, kevalaṃ vivādānukūla‐tarka‐paratayā svasyoddeśya‐mātra‐ paratvaṃ, vigraha‐nirūpaṇe na te sādarāḥ (CMM 6.16.33). (90) Yac‐chaktayo vadatāṃ vādināṃ vai vivāda‐saṃvāda‐bhuvo bhavanti / kurvanti caiṣāṃ muhur ātma‐mohaṃ tasmai namo’ nanta‐guṇāya bhūmne (BP 6.4.31). (91) Vadatāṃ śāstra‐kṛtāṃ vādinām anyonyaṃ vivāda‐śīlānāṃ kvacit vivādasya kvacit saṃvādasya bhuvo janma‐sthalāni yac‐chaktayo bhavanti, yasya bhagavataḥ śaktayaḥ vidyā‐rūpā avidyā‐rūpāś ca. Na kevalaṃ vivāda‐saṃvāda‐ bhuvo bhavanti, api tu eṣāṃ śāstra‐kṛtāṃ muhur ātma‐mohaṃ ca kurvanti, tena te mugdhatvāt nija‐nija‐śāstrānukūlatvāt bhagavad‐vigraha‐pratipādana‐ vimukhāḥ. Uktaṃ caitad bhagavatāpi [BP 11.22.5]: ‘evaṃ vivadatāṃ hetuṃ śaktayo me duratyayā’ ity ekādaśe (CMM 6.16.33). (92) Sārvabhaumaḥ (vihasya): Jñātam, vaiṣṇavo’si (CCU p. 72/204). (93) Abhyāsādya upādhi‐jāty‐anumiti‐vyāptyādi‐śabdāvaler, janmārabhya sudūra‐ dūra‐bhagavad‐vārtā‐prasaṅgā amī / ye yatrādhika‐kalpanākuśalinas te tatra vidvattamāḥ, svīyaṃ kalpanam eva śāstram iti ye jānanty aho tārkikāḥ (CCU p. 16/44). See also AVC 1.30 (describing Vṛndāvana’s monsoon season): nyāya‐ grantha iva sadātyūha‐kolāhalaḥ… (94) San‐mātrā nirviśeṣācid‐upadhi‐rahitā nirvikalpā nirīhā, brahmaivāsmīti vācā śiva śiva bhagavad‐vigrahe labdha‐vairāḥ / ye’mī śrauta‐prasiddhān ahaha bhagavato’cintya‐śakty‐ādy‐aśeṣān, pratyākhyānto viśeṣān iha jahati ratiṃ hanta tebhyo namo vaḥ (CCU p. 16/45). (95) Aho kapila‐kaṇāda‐pātañjala‐jaimini‐mata‐kovidāḥ, ete anyonyaṃ vivadante, bhagavat‐tattvaṃ na ke’pi jānanti (CCU p. 16/45). See also CCU p. 86/246: Mallabhaṭṭaḥ: Yathottaram eva dakṣiṇasyāṃ diśi kiyantaḥ karma‐niṣṭhāḥ katicid eva jñāna‐niṣṭhāḥ, vikalā eva sātvatāḥ, pracuratarāḥ pāśupatāḥ pracuratamāḥ pāṣaṇḍinaḥ. Tena teṣām anyonya‐vāda‐visaṃṣṭhulānām uccāvaca‐nirvacana‐ cāturya‐dhūryāṇāṃ prasaṅgena prāyaśaḥ bahulodvega eva no mahīpālaḥ. (96) Vivāde sammoho yujyata eva, saṃvāde kathaṃ moha iti na vaktavyam, saṃvāde bhakti‐siddhānta‐viruddhatāyāṃ sammohaṃ janayantīti bhāvaḥ (CMM 6.4.31).

Page 50 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (97) See Lutjeharms (2018). A similar impatience with Vedānta can be seen in Rāghava Paṇḍita’s Kṛṣṇa‐bhakti‐ratna‐prakāśa, a work that Kavikarṇapūra was aware of (GGD 162). See particularly Kṛṣṇa‐bhakti‐ratna‐prakāśa 2.2–6. (98) In act one of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Kali directs his henchmen to occupy strategic positions. Arrogance (Dambha), the son of Vice (Adharma) and Falsity (Mṛṣā), is assigned to ‘those who are devoted to totally dry work’, an expression Kavikarṇapūra uses to refer to ‘dry’ philosophers (āstāṃ tanujaś ca te dambhaḥ kevala‐śuṣka‐karma‐nirateṣu, CCU p. 11/29). (99) See BP 6.9.36 and CMM 6.16.33. (100) See BP 11.22.1–25 and CMM 11.22.4. Śrīnātha refers to this Bhāgavata passage in CMM 1.3.3 and 6.16.33, where he argues that no matter how you analyse the constituents of this world, God will still be beyond them all. (101) Ato mūrtānanda eva kṛṣṇa iti śāstrārthaḥ (CCU p. 79/225). (102) That God has a human form is not anthropomorphism, Śrīnātha argues on the basis of Bhāgavata 1.3.3 (yasyāvayava‐saṃsthānaiḥ kalpito loka‐vistaraḥ): ‘by his limbs, like his hands and feet, which are solid bliss and awareness, the multitude of humans are fashioned, otherwise one would suspect that humans would have a different arrangement of limbs’ (yasyāvayavāni sāndrānanda‐cid‐ rūpāṇi kara‐caraṇādīni taiḥ kalpito lokasya manuja‐lokasya vistaraḥ, anyathā manujānām avayava‐saṃsthāne vaiparītya‐śaṅko’pi syāt, CMM 1.3.3). See also CMM 2.5.35, 7.10.48. (103) Aicchikaṃ hi bhagavataś caturbhujatvam, svābhāvikaṃ hi dvibhujatvam eva. Tathā hi— ‘narākṛti paraṃ brahma’, ‘gūḍhaṃ paraṃ brahma manuṣya‐ liṅgam’ [BP 7.10.48 & BP 7.15.75], ‘paramātmā narākṛtiḥ’ [BP 9.23.20] iti narākṛtitvaṃ dvibhujatvam eva (CCU pp. 13/35–6). The passage is based on Śrīnātha; see CMM 1.3.3, 7.10.48, 9.23.19, and 10.14.20. See also AVC 11.14, CCU p. 15/41, CCMK 6.37–38, and CMM 6.8.20, 10.3.37–38, 10.3.46. Later in the Caitanya‐candrodaya (pp. 66/187–8), Kavikarṇapūra also counters the idea that the worship of God’s two‐armed form is a recent development. (104) See also CMM 1.3.2 and AVC 5.35. (105) Alaukike vastuni laukikatvaṃ nālaukikatvasya virodha‐hetuḥ / maṇy‐ antarāṇāṃ guṇa‐sanniveśaś cintāmaṇer na hy apakarṣa‐kārī (CCU pp. 15/41–2). See also CCU p. 93/268: alaukikānām api laukikatvam alaukikatva‐prathanāya nūnam / bhuvaḥ prayāṇaṃ kila viṣṇupadyā divaṃ nayaty eva śarīra‐bhājaḥ. (106) CCU pp. 31–2/87–9. (107) Alaukikāl laukikam eva śaurer vṛttaṃ camatkāri tad eva līlā / ākarṣakatvaṃ hi jagaj‐janānām alaukikatvasya sa ko’pi hetuḥ (CCU pp. 43/119). Page 51 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (108) Alaukikīto’pi ca laukikīyaṃ līlā hareḥ kācana lobhanīyā / maheśa‐śīrṣād api bhūmi‐madhyaṃ gateva gaṅgā mudam ātanoti (CCU p. 20/54). (109) BP 3.28.17, cited in CMM 10.3.46. (110) AVC 7.30. Śrīnātha argues that though Kṛṣṇa seems to age, he does remain changeless: see CMM 10.3.46. (111) Vātsalyam āmodayituṃ tayos tat, śiśur bhavan pālana‐lālanābhyām / alaukikair eva samasta‐bhāvaiḥ, sa laukikatvaṃ svayam eti loke / go‐gopa‐gopī‐ nikarair vilāso,’loke’pi tasmin bhavituṃ kṣameta / bālyādi‐līlāsura‐nāśa‐līle, lokaṃ vinā nārhata eva śobhām (AVC 1.117–18). (112) Ātmārāmān madhura‐caritair bhakti‐yoge vidhāsyan / nānā‐līlā‐rasa‐ racanayānandayiṣyan sva‐bhaktān / daityānīkair bhuvam atitarāṃ vīta‐bhārāṃ kariṣyan / mūrtānando vraja‐pati‐gṛhe jātavat prādur āsīt (AVC 2.9). (113) Bhū‐bhāra‐haraṇaṃ tu vyāja eva. Vastutas tu tat‐tad‐alaukikādbhuta‐jagan‐ maṅgala‐rūpa‐karmācaraṇam evāvatāra‐bījam (CMM 2.7.26). (114) See CCU p. 11/30:…nīrasatayā śuṣka‐hṛdayāṇāṃ munīnāṃ hṛdaya‐ sarasīkaraṇāya…svayaṃ‐bhagavatā vraja‐rāja‐kumāreṇa viracitāsu puruṣārtha‐ sārthāpārthīkaraṇa‐samartha‐śravaṇa‐kīrtanādiṣu brahmānandād api camatkāra‐ kāriṇīṣu gokula‐mathurā‐dvārāvatī‐līlāsu. See CMM 1.8.20. (115) Jñānānandād vimukhī‐kṛtya bhajanānande sthāpayitum iti bhāvaḥ (CMM 1.8.20). (116) Bhave’smin kliśyamānānām avidyā‐kāma‐karmabhiḥ / śravaṇa‐ smaraṇārhāṇi kariṣyann iti kecana (BP 1.8.35). Śrīnātha considers this to be Kuntī’s own view: para‐matānuvādānantaraṃ sva‐mataṃ darśayati—bhave’sminn ity‐ādi (CMM 1.8.35). See also CMM 2.7.26, 10.1.1, 10.33.36. (117) Kalau janiṣyamāṇānāṃ duḥkha‐śoka‐tamo‐nudam / anugrahāya bhaktānāṃ supuṇyaṃ vyatanod yaśaḥ (BP 9.24.61). See, for example, CMM 9.24.61, 10.1.1, 11.5.32, 11.5.38–40. (118) See BP 1.15.36, 1.18.6, 11.7.4, 12.2.29–30, 12.2.33. (119) See CMM 11.5.32. (120) Kalau janiṣyamānānāṃ śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐pārṣadānām (CMM 9.24.61). See also CMM 11.5.38–40. (121) Pāripārśvikaḥ: bhāva, kiṃ prayojano janoha‐dūro’yam avatāraḥ? Sūtradhāraḥ: Māriṣa, avadhehi vadhe hi manaso nirviśeṣe’śeṣe pare brahmaṇi laya eva paraḥ puruṣārthas tat‐sādhanaṃ dhanaṃ hi kevalam advaita‐bhāvaneti sarva‐śāstra‐pratipādyatvenādyatvenāpi manvānānāṃ viduṣāṃ sva‐matāgraha‐ Page 52 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion graha‐gṛhītānām anākalitaṃ tatra tatraiva śāstreṣu gūḍhatayoḍhatayottamatvena sthitam api saccidānanda‐ghana‐vigraho nitya‐līlo ’khila‐saubhagavān bhagavān śrī‐kṛṣṇa eva sa‐viśeṣaṃ brahmeti tattvaṃ tasyopāsanaṃ sanandanādy‐upagītam avigītam avikalaḥ puruṣārthas tasya sādhanaṃ dhanaṃ nāma nāma‐saṅkīrtana‐pradhānaṃ vividha‐bhakti‐bhakti‐ yogam āvirbhāvayituṃ bhagavāṃś caitanya‐rūpī caitanya‐rūpī bhavann āvirāsīt (CCU p. 3/6). (122) Śāmyac‐chāstra‐vivādayā (CCU p. 92/264). (123) Pāripārśvikaḥ: Bhāva, kiṃ teneha tene hariṇā svābhimata‐mata‐vyāñjako granthaḥ? Sūtradhāraḥ: Yady api ko na veda veda‐kartṛtvaṃ bhagavatas, tathāpi khalv antaryāmī yām īhate preraṇām, na khalu sā bāhyopadeśato deśato vā kālataś ca paricchinnā bhavitum arhati (CCU p. 3/6). (124) Viśvambhara is Caitanya, but also a common name for God used in Bengali Sufi traditions, Tony Stewart pointed out to me (personal communication, March 2015). CCU pp. 20/54–6. For a similar passage, see also CCU p. 110/319. The passage is remarkable, as it is one of the very few passages in Kavikarṇapūra’s works to mention Muslims (other hagiographies of Caitanya mention Muslims more often: see O’Connell 1983). Kavikarṇapūra does not identify this Muslim tailor, although in the Caitanya‐bhāgavata and the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta part of this story—the resulting punishment by the Muslim scholars (jabaṇācāria) for the tailor’s apostasy—is said to describe the life of Haridāsa (see CB 1.16.96ff and CC 1.10.45). Kavikarṇapūra does write about Haridāsa in both the mahā‐ kāvya and the drama, and speaks very highly of him, but he very rarely refers to his Muslim heritage (see CCMK 7.48ff, 11.13ff, 14.22ff, 15.106, CCU pp. 6/13, 7/18, 29ff/81ff, 51/144. In CCMK 14.48 and CCU p. 129/349 Kavikarṇapūra hints at Haridāsa’s Muslim background, but only in GGD 93–95 does he make it explicit). (125) See CCU p. 7/18. (126) GGD 10–11. (127) See CCU p. 15/41 & 105/303. In the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā (10–11), however, Kavikarṇapūra uses this term only to refer to Advaita. (128) CCU p. 15/42. (129) Śrī‐vṛndāvana‐bhuvi purā saccidānanda‐sāndro, gaurāṅgībhiḥ sadṛśa‐ rucibhiḥ śyāma‐dhāmā nanarta / tāsāṃ śaśvad‐dṛḍhatara‐parīrambha‐ sambhedataḥ kiṃ, gaurāṅgaḥ san jayati sa navadvīpam ālambhamānaḥ (CCMK 1.1, GGD 1). (130) See AVC 1.97 & 18.97. Page 53 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (131) See CMM 10.30.28. (132) Ānandinī‐śaktir iti kecid āmananti (AVC 1.99). (133) See AVC 15.120: Sā rādhikāpi kāpi mama mūrtis tathātvenāmībhir na jñāyate. (134) …viśvambhara‐devasya…vṛndāvaneśvarī‐bhāvam anucikīrṣoḥ…(CCU p. 29/79). (135) CCU 10.70. See also Carney (1996), Stewart (2010, pp. 169–74). Cf. GGD 55. (136) Asya sahaja‐nāradāveśatvān nārada‐rūpatā vyaktaiva (CCU p. 33/92). (137) Śrī‐rādhā‐kṛṣṇa‐saṃyoga‐kāriṇī jaratīva sā / yogamāyā bhagavatī nityānanda‐tanūṃ śritā (CCU p. 29/81). Kavikarṇapūra later writes that Nityānanda himself manifested Yogamāyā (unlike Advaita’s role of Kṛṣṇa and Gadādhara’s Lalitā, which were both manifested by Caitanya through them), but also that Yogamāyā took possession of him; see CCU p. 37/105. (138) See CCU p. 33/92: Advaitādes tu tat‐tad‐āropaḥ; and CCU p. 35/98. (139) Harir ayam atha līlayā sva‐śaktyā, vidala‐yugātma‐kalāyavan na bhinnaḥ / abhavad iva pṛthak pumān vadhūś ca, svayam ubhayāṃśa‐samāna‐rūpa‐yogāt (CCU p. 37/104). (140) Harir ayam athavā svayaiva śaktyā, tritayam abhūt sa sakhī ca rādhikā ca (CCU p. 37/104). See also GGD 150–151. (141) Gauraḥ kṛṣṇa iti svayaṃ pratiphalan puṇyātmanāṃ mānase, nīlādrau naṭatīha samprathayate vṛndāvanīyaṃ rasam / ādyaḥ ko’pi pumān navotsuka‐ vadhū‐kṛṣṇānurāga‐vyathā‐, svādī citram aho vicitram ahaho caitanya‐līlāyitam (CCU p. 127/367). (142) Nāpy ayam asahāyaḥ, yataḥ khalu svāvatārāt pūrvam evāyam avani‐tale priya‐pārṣada‐nivāhān āvirbhāvayām āsa (CCU p. 6/13). (143) Īśaraḥ svena pūrṇo’pi pārṣadair eva pūryate / pūrṇo’pi rajanī‐nātho rikta evoḍubhir vinā (CCU p. 102/294). (144) Evaṃ ced bhagavata eva kṛpāvatāro gūḍhaḥ kaścid atra boddhavyaḥ (CMM 12.3.45–52). (145) See CCU pp. 4/8–9.

Page 54 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (146) The expression is used by both Biman Bihari Majumdar (see Majumdar, 1959, p. 111–13) and Ramakanta Chakravarti (see Chakravarti, 1985, p. 203–6). The same view is expressed by Hitesranjan Sanyal (n.d., pp. 18–19). (147) Devo naḥ kula‐daivatam vijayatāṃ caitanya‐kṛṣṇo hariḥ (AVC 1.3). See also the opening of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha: granthārambhe svābhīṣṭa‐devatānām guṇa‐kīrtanātmakam maṅgalam aṅgīkurvan….The maṅgala verse, following the prose passage, is in praise of Caitanya. (148) See CCU pp. 118–19/341–3. (149) Pāripārśvikaḥ: Bhāva, ko’sau caitanya‐gosvāmī? Sūtradhāraḥ: Māriṣa, adyāpi jananī‐jaṭhara‐piṭhara‐pihita evāsi, yad idaṃ śrī‐ mahāprabhos tasya nāma nāma ca na śrutam? Śrūyatām— āścaryaṃ yasya kando yati‐mukuṭa‐maṇir mādhavākhyo munīndraṃ śrīlādvaita‐prarohas tribhuvana‐viditaḥ skandha evāvadhūtaḥ śrīmad‐vakreśvarādyā rasa‐maya‐vapuṣaḥ skandha‐śākhā‐svarūpā vistāro bhakti‐yogaḥ kusumam atha phalaṃ prema niṣkaitavaṃ yat api ca— brahmānandaṃ ca bhittvā vilasati śikharaṃ yasya yatrātta‐nīḍaṃ rādhā‐kṛṣṇākhya‐līlā‐maya‐khaga‐mithunaṃ bhinna‐bhāvena hīnam yasya cchāyā bhavādhva‐śrama‐śamana‐kārī bhakta‐saṅkalpa‐siddher hetuś caitanya‐kalpa‐druma iha bhuvane kaścana prādurāsīt (CCU pp. 2–3/5). (150) Vṛndāraṇyāntarasthaḥ sarasa‐vilasitenātmanātmanam uccair, ānanda‐ syanda‐bandīkṛta‐manasam urīkṛtya nitya‐pramodaḥ / vṛndāraṇyaika‐niṣṭhān svaruci‐sama‐tanūn kārayiṣyāmi yuṣmān, ity evāste’vaśiṣṭaṃ kim api mama mahat karma tac cātaniṣye (CCU p. 136/393). (151) Api ca—dāsye kecana kecana praṇayinaḥ sakhye ta evobhaye, rādhā‐ mādhava‐naiṣṭhikāḥ katipaye śrī‐dvārakādhīśituḥ / sakhyādāv ubhayatra kecana pare ye vāvatārāntare, mayy ābaddha‐hṛdo ’khilān vitanavai vṛndāvanāsaṅginaḥ (CCU p. 136/393). (152) See GGD 33: kintu yad yad bhakta‐gaṇā yad‐yad‐bhāva‐vilāsinaḥ / tat‐tad‐ bhāvānusāreṇa vraje teṣām abhūd gatiḥ. The last CCU verse cited above is quoted immediately afterwards.

Page 55 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (153) Bhagavān (sāvahittham): Mama svarūpam idam eva, yad idam advaita‐ prema‐pātram. Advaitaḥ (sva‐gatam): Kim atra brūmahe? Mahecchaṃ prati yadi tavaitad eva svarūpaṃ tadā darśanīya‐śyāmasundara‐vigrahābhilāṣo viśrāntaḥ. Yadi sa eva svarūpam ity ucyate tadāsmin prema‐hāniḥ (CCU p. 25/68). (154) See CCU pp. 26ff/73ff. Kavikarṇapūra affirms this too in the second half of the drama, when he repeatedly identifies Caitanya with Jagannātha, the image of Kṛṣṇa worshipped in Purī. See, for example, CCU pp. 72/206, 103/297, 90/259, 94/270–1. See also CCU p. 107/310, where Caitanya is identified with Jagannātha, but said to be different from the avatāra Nṛsiṃha. (155) Gopīnāthācāryaḥ: Kintu deva, sa evāyaṃ bhaṭṭācāryaḥ? Bhagavān: Mahābhāgavatasya bhavataḥ saṅgād anyathaiva jātaḥ (CCU p. 79/226). (156) Vairāgya‐vidyā‐nija‐bhakti‐yoga‐śikṣārtham ekaḥ puruṣaḥ purāṇaḥ / śrī‐ kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐śarīra‐dhārī kṛpāmbudhir yas tam ahaṃ prapadye / kālān naṣṭaṃ bhakti‐yogaṃ nijaṃ yaḥ prāduṣkartuṃ kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐nāmā / āvirbhūtas tasya padāravinde gāḍhaṃ gāḍhaṃ līyate citta‐bhṛṅgaḥ (CCU p. 79/226). The verses are not Kavikarṇapūra’s composition, but most likely Sārvabhauma’s own. They are already cited in Murāri’s Kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐caritāmṛta (3.12.17–18) and Vṛndāvanadāsa’s Caitanya‐bhāgavata (3.3123, 126). See also CCMK 12.86–87. (157) Bhuvo’ṃśa‐rūpām aparāṃ ca viṣṇu‐priyeti vittāṃ pariṇīya kāntām / vairāgya‐śikṣāṃ prakaṭīkariṣyan hāsyaty athaināṃ sa navāṃ navīnaḥ (CCU p. 6/16). (158) Kavikarṇapūra refers to the Viṣṇu‐sahasra‐nāma (sannyāsa‐kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā‐śānti‐parāyaṇaḥ, cited in CCU p. 54/182). Śrīnātha considers BP 11.5.34 (tyaktvā su‐dustyaja‐surepsita‐rājya‐lakṣmīm) a reference to Caitanya’s renunciation; see CMM 11.5.38–40. (159) Vinā sarva‐tyāgam bhavati bhajanaṃ na hy asu‐pateḥ (CCU p. 61/174). (160) CCU p. 24/65. (161) Mano yadi na nirjitaṃ kim amunā tapasyādinā, kathaṃ sa manaso jayo yadi na cintyate mādhavaḥ / kim asya ca vicintanaṃ yadi na hanta ceto‐dravaḥ, sa vā katham aho bhaved yadi na vāsanā‐kṣālanam (CCU pp. 83/236–7). (162) Acintya sarvaiśvaryatvāt tarkādy‐agocaratayālaukika‐camatkāra‐ kārakatvaṃ tad bhaktyaika‐gamyam ‘bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān’ [Gītā 18.55] ity ādi‐śrī‐mukhokteḥ (CMM 1.3.3). (163) BP 10.9.21, cited in CCU pp. 13/36–7. I follow Śrīnātha’s reading here; see CMM 10.9.21.

Page 56 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (164) Bhakti‐janitaṃ jñānaṃ hi jñānam, tasyopāsyopāsakatva‐jñāna‐rūpam (CMM 10.14.5). (165) Kā vidyā? Hari‐bhaktir eva, na punar vedādi‐niṣṇātatā (CCU p. 83/237; cited in AK p. 107/329). (166) See Śrīnātha’s various readings of Bhāgavata 10.14.24’s expression tarantīva (‘they seem to cross’): ye tu evaṃ‐vidhaṃ tvām avijñāya kevalenaivātma‐jñānena bhavāmbudhiṃ titīrṣanti, teṣāṃ kevalaṃ kṛcchram evety āha—evaṃ‐vidhaṃ tvām. Tarantīva na tu taranti. Yadvā, evaṃ‐vidhaṃ dṛśyamāna‐śrī‐nanda‐kiśora‐vigrahaṃ parama‐premāspadaṃ tvāṃ ye hi ātmatayaiva vicakṣate, te bhavāmbudhiṃ tarantīva, na tu sukhena taranti. Ye tu parama‐priyatvena vicakṣate, te taranty eveti bhāvaḥ (CMM 10.14.24). See also CMM 10.14.25–29: tathāpi evaṃ‐vidhaṃ tvām evaṃ‐vidhaṃ dṛśyamānaṃ sukha‐ dhyeyaṃ sukhopāsyaṃ parama‐premāspadaṃ sarvendriya‐rasāyanaṃ ye ātmatayaiva vicakṣate, te bhavāmbudhiṃ tarantīva, na tu samyak taranti. (167) See CMM 11.2.37. (168) Ātmatayā ajñānena prapañcaḥ, jñānena tan‐nāśaḥ, etāvatā kiṃ mithyā‐ bhūtasya prapañcasya sthityā vā nāśena vā kim arthaḥ, yathā rajjvāṃ sarpa‐ bhāvābhāvau dvāv eva mṛṣā (CMM 10.14.25–29). See also CMM 11.11.1: yāvan māyā tāvad eva bandho mokṣaś ca, na tu pāramārthikāv etau. (169) BP 10.14.28 states that the saints (santaḥ) search for God within themselves. Śrīnātha comments: ‘they search, but they do not obtain. Who then obtains [him]? This is expressed in Bhāgavata 10.14.29’—which, as we have seen in Gopīnātha’s debate with Sārvabhauma’s students, declares that one can only know God through grace. (Mṛgayanti, na tu labhante. Tarhi ke labhante ity āha— athāpīty ādi, CMM 10.14.25–29). See also CMM 3.7.12. (170) See CMM 10.14.25–29: Etena jñāna‐mārgam anūdya bhaktir eva parama‐ puruṣārtha iti siddhāntitam. (171) CMM 3.27.4–5: bhakti‐yogo hi citta‐vaśī‐kāra‐hetuḥ, na tu jñānādi. (172) Bhakti‐yogo yo’gocaraḥ śāstra‐kṛtām, sa ca sa‐camatkāraṃ jñānam eva janayati, tasya brahma‐kaivalyaṃ balyaṃ phalam iti ko bhedaḥ? (CCU p. 3/7). (173) Tad‐rūpataiva teṣāṃ mokṣo, na tu kaivalyam ata ta evam ūcire kapilādāḥ [BP 3.25.32] ‘bhaktir siddher garīyasī’ iti. (CCU pp. 3/7–8). See also CMM 3.25.32–33: sā bhaktiḥ siddheḥ kaivalyād api garīyasī. (174) Api ca siddhir mokṣaḥ, sā tu deha‐dvaya‐dhaṃsa‐mātraṃ karoti, bhaktis tu deha‐dvayāntaraṃ śuddhaṃ bhāgavatīm tanuṃ bhajatāṃ kārayatīti tato’pi garīyastvaṃ bhakteḥ. Bhakta‐vigrahas tu liṅga‐śarīrātirikto bhagavad‐

Page 57 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion icchātmako bhagaval‐līlānukūla ity arthaḥ (CMM 3.25.34). See also CMM 4.22.26 and 4.22.39. (175) See CMM 10.87.38. (176) See CMM 10.14.4. (177) Tatra kiṃ bhavad‐icchā prayojakā, athavā saiva bhaktir ity āha tair ity ādi. Bhaktiḥ kartrī tān bhaktān aṇvīṃ mokṣākhyāṃ gatim anicchataḥ prayuṅkte. Anvyā gater anicchāyāḥ prayojikā bhavatīty arthaḥ. Anyathā sva‐hāniḥ syāt, sva‐ hānir apuruṣārthaḥ (CMM 3.25.36). (178) Bhaktir hi kāma‐dhenuḥ, sarvasya sarvam abhilāṣaṃ prasūte, tathā coktaṃ ‘akāmaḥ sarva‐kāmo vā mokṣa‐kāma udāra‐dhīḥ’ [BP 2.3.10] ity ādi (CMM 3.25.20). (179) Akāma‐bhajane premaiva phalam, sarva‐kāmatve sarva eva kāmāḥ, mokṣa‐ kāmatve mokṣa eva (CMM 2.3.10). (180) Akāmasya tu premākārayā vṛttyā viśuddha‐bhagavat‐pārṣada‐tanu‐lābha eva (CMM 3.25.20). See also CMM 3.29.13–14, 10.14.4. (181) See Śrīnātha’s comments on sudurārādhyam at CMM 10.88.11. (182) When referring to the practice of devotion, Kavikarṇapūra generally uses the term bhakti‐yoga, rarely just bhakti, in contrast with Rūpa Gosvāmī, who does not use the former once in the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu (where it does occur, however, in verses Rūpa cites). (183) See AK p. 36/147. (184) Bhaktir hi upāsyatva jñāne sati vikriyamāṇā mano‐vṛttiḥ (CMM 11.12.8). (185) CCU p. 28/78. (186) Sā yadi raty‐ādibhiḥ sthāyi‐bhāvair manaso vṛtty‐antaraiḥ saṃyuktā bhavati, tadā rasa‐bhaktir iti vyapadiśyate (CMM 11.12.8). (187) See Hardy (1983, pp. 36ff). (188) Nidhiṣu kumuda‐padma‐śaṅkha‐mukhyeṣv, arucikaro nava‐bhakti‐candra‐ kāntaiḥ / viracita‐kali‐koka‐śoka‐śaṅkur, viṣaya‐tamāṃsi hinastu gauracandraḥ (CCU p. 1/1). (189) These nine treasures are personified in Kubera’s nine attendants: Padma, Mahāpadma, Śaṅkha, Makara, Kacchapa, Mukunda, Nanda, Nīla, and Kharva. (190) Yasya bhaktir bhagavati harau niḥśreyaseśvare / vikrīḍato’ mṛtāmbhodhau kiṃ kṣudraiḥ khātakodakaiḥ (BP 6.12.22, cited in CCU p. 13/35). Page 58 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (191) Antaḥ prasādayati śodhayatīndriyāṇi, mokṣaṃ ca tucchayati kiṃ punar artha‐kāmau / sadyaḥ kṛtārthayati sannihitaiva jīvān, ānanda‐sindhu‐vivareṣu nimajjayantī (CCU p. 18/50). (192) Kavikarṇapūra elaborates on this very theme in the entire introductory scene (viṣkambhaka) of this first act of the Caitanya‐candrodaya. (193) Kilbiṣa‐viṣa‐lobhavadbhyāṃ bhavadbhyāṃ yad yadeno vyaraci, tad akhilam eva me’vadhāna‐pūrvakaṃ dadatam (CCU pp. 8/19–20). (194) Tasya khalu sakalāgha‐lāghava‐kāriṇaḥ kaṭākṣa‐pāta‐mātreṇaiva para‐ hṛdayād api kāmādi‐ṣaḍ‐vipakṣa‐pakṣa‐cchido bhagavataḥ… (CCU p. 8/20). (195) Suddha‐bhakti‐joeṇa sāmabāharaeṇa kalimala‐malaṇa‐āriṇā ā‐cāṇḍālaṃ caṇḍāla‐ghaṇijja‐dubbāsaṇābāsanā seṇa saṅgopāṅgāo mādisīo bhakti‐deīo saṅge kadua bhaavadā aadāro kido bhattaviseṇa (CCU p. 18/51). (196) Bhakti‐devī:…punīmaś caṇḍālam api khalu dhunīmo’khila‐malaṃ, lunīmaḥ saṃskārān api hṛdi tadīyān atidṛḍhān / kṛpā‐devī tasya prakaṭayati dṛk‐pātam iha cet, tadā teṣām antaḥ kam api rasa‐bhāvaṃ ca tanumaḥ. Virāgaḥ: Tasya kṛpā‐devīṃ vinā svātantryeṇa bhavatīnaṃ tathā‐sāmarthyaṃ na vidyate? Bhakti‐ devī: Assa bā tajjaṇāṇāṃ vā ṇabāṇuggahamantareṇa amhe ṇa homma kiṃ uṇa adhā kuṇamha (CCU p. 19/52). (197) Sarva‐bhūteṣu arcā‐buddhiḥ kartavyā. Teṣv aṅgeṣu sarva‐bhūta‐samatvaṃ mukhyam, vastutas tu sarva‐bhūteṣu yathā‐śakti dāna‐mānābhyām ādāraḥ kartavyaḥ (CMM 3.29.16–20). (198) See CMM 3.29.22–34: Arcāyām evārcanaṃ kartavyaṃ, sarva‐bhūteṣu arcā‐ buddhiḥ kartavyā. Tad‐akaraṇe hiṃserṣyādibhir antaḥ‐karaṇāśuddhiḥ syāt. Antaḥ‐karaṇe mātsaryādi‐sattāyām arcārcanaṃ surasaṃ na bhavati. (199) See CMM 4.22.21. (200) Praṇaya‐rasanayā dhṛtāṅghri‐padmaḥ (BP 11.2.55, cited in CCU p. 108/314). See also CCU p. 52/148 and CMM 11.2.55. (201) Bhā‐vīci‐nikara‐paripanthī hi bhāgavatāparādhaḥ (CCU p. 14/40). (202) Yathā ‘bhagavad‐bhaktir mahat‐saṅgaḥ’, ‘bhagavad‐bhaktir evāyam’, atra kārya‐kāraṇa‐bhāva‐sambandhaḥ (AK p. 11/45). (203) Sa ca bhakti‐rūpaḥ panthāḥ sat‐saṅga‐labhyo bhavati (CMM 3.25.20). See also CMM 2.8.1: ārādhyaḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇa eva, sa ca parasmād api paraḥ, bhaktir eva puruṣārthaḥ, tatra prathamaṃ bhagavan‐nāma‐saṅkīrtanaṃ, tato dhyānam, etāni mahat‐saṅga‐sādhyāni, mahāntaś ca ekānta‐bhaktā ity etāny eva bhāgavata‐śāstrārthaḥ; and CMM 3.7.12 where he glosses bhagavad‐bhakti‐ Page 59 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion yogena as parama‐bhāgavata‐saṅgena: bhagavati bhakti‐yogo yeṣāṃ te bhagavad‐bhaktāḥ parama‐bhāgavatās teṣāṃ yogena saṅgena. (204) Api tu ukta‐prakārāṇāṃ śreyaḥ‐sādhanena mumukṣayā ca bhaktir na bhavati, kintu mahat‐sevayā bhagavat‐kṛpayā ca teṣāṃ keṣāṃcid api bhaktir bhavati (CMM 6.14.2–5). See also CMM 10.88.9: Anugṛhyate ity anugraho bhaktaḥ, mad‐anugrahaṃ mad‐bhaktaṃ kariṣye. (205) Kiṃ duḥkham? Bhagavat‐priyasya viraho no hṛd‐vraṇādi‐vyathā.…Kim iha śreyaḥ? Satāṃ saṅgatiḥ (CCU p. 83/237; cited in AK p. 107/329). (206) …nāma‐saṅkīrtana‐pradhānaṃ vividha‐bhakti‐bhakti‐yogam āvirbhāvayituṃ bhagavān śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐caitanya‐rūpī bhavann āvirāsīt (CCU p. 3/6). (207) Harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam / kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā (CCMK 6.3, CCU p. 12/32). Kavikarṇapūra ascribes the verse to the Nārada Purāṇa. See also CMM 2.8.1: bhaktir eva puruṣārthaḥ, tatra prathamaṃ bhagavan‐nāma‐saṅkīrtanaṃ. (208) See CCMK 6.4. (209) Yan nāmāpy akhilāghanāśi (CCU p. 43/120). (210) See CCU p. 4/8, where he cites BP 6.3.24 and 6.2.43. Śrīnātha’s comments on the Ajāmila narrative (BP 6.2–3) are brief, but he introduces this section with the following comment: ‘Everything in chapters 2 and 3—the narrative of Ajāmila —exactly expresses my own thoughts.’ (dvitīye tṛtīye ca adhyāye sva‐matam eva sarvam ajāmilopākhyāne, CMM 6.2). (211) BP 11.5.32. See CMM 11.5.38–40. (212) See Kane (1974, vol. 5.1, pp. 242ff). (213) Alaṃ tvayā samprati śīta‐dīdhitiḥ samudgato’nyo’sti bhuvīti bhāvayan (CCMK 2.40). (214) Prabhur bubhūṣur nija‐nāma‐kīrtane nirantara‐prema‐vilāsa‐lālasaḥ (CCMK 2.41). (215) See CCMK 2.39: sva‐nāma‐saṅkīrtanam anyathā na hi prakāśa‐mātreṇa bhavet prakāśitam. See also CCMK 2.62. For an analysis of the different narratives of Caitanya’s advent—though not including those of Kavikarṇapūra— see Stewart (1997). (216) Śrī‐gauracandra udito nija‐kīrtanābdhau (CCMK 6.15).

Page 60 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (217) Tato māghasyādau niravadhi nijaiḥ kīrtana‐rasaiḥ prakāśaṃ cāveśaṃ bhuvi vikirati smānudivasam (CCMK 4.76). Prakāśa (‘revelation’) and āveśa (‘possession’) are the two means by which Caitanya reveals his divine identity later in the poem; see CCMK 5 & 8. (218) See CCU p. 127/367 and CCMK 13.45ff. Śrīnātha too mentions the importance of vernacular songs in CMM 11.2.39: loke gitānīti. Loka iti laukika‐ bhāṣayā gītāni. (219) Prathamato yasyāṃ līlāyāṃ manaḥ praviveśa, na tataḥ punar āvartate (CCU p. 127/367). See also CCMK 13.45ff. (220) CMM 11.2.39–40. (221) The embodied brahman is called Kṛṣṇa, Kavikarṇapūra explains, because ‘he draws out (karṣati) the sins of his devotees, and he draws the minds of those that love him to himself. Kṛṣi means “being”, ṇa means “bliss”, and thus, because he is both being and bliss, his primary name is “Kṛṣṇa”.’ (Karṣati bhajatām aghaṃ karṣaty anuraktānāṃ manāṃsīti ca kṛṣṇa, kṛṣiḥ sattārthaḥ, ṇa ānandārthaḥ, tena ca sattānanda‐rūpatayā ca kṛṣṇa iti mukhyaṃ nāma, AVC 5.35). See also CMM 10.90.48: śrī‐kṛṣṇo nāma padārthaḥ sarvotkṛṣṭa eva. (222) CMM 10.90.26. For śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana, see Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5 and 4.5.6. (223) Śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐kṛta‐janma‐maṅgala‐carita‐kīrtanenaiva yatra sarvaḥ svārtho’bhilabhyate sarva‐puruṣārthān prāpnotīti kīrtanam eva paramo lābhaḥ (CMM 11.5.36–37). (224) See CCU p. 11/30:…svayaṃ‐bhagavatā vraja‐rāja‐kumāreṇa viracitāsu puruṣārtha‐sārthāpārthīkaraṇa‐samartha‐śravaṇa‐kīrtanādiṣu brahmānandād api camatkāra‐kāriṇīṣu gokula‐mathurā‐dvārāvatī‐līlāsu. (225) Vijahati ye prayāsam avabodha‐vidhau sudhiyo, dadhati tavāṅghri‐paṅka‐ ruha‐bhāvam atīvadṛḍham…tava pada‐paṅkaje sad‐anurāga‐vilāsa‐bhṛtaḥ, tava caritāmṛta‐śravaṇa‐kīrtana‐cintanataḥ (AVC 7.113–114, paraphrasing BP 10.14.3,5). (226) CMM 10.14.3. (227) Śrīnātha, commenting on the Bhāgavata narrative, states that the cowherds did not attain supreme bliss when they beheld Vaikuṇṭha, but only when they saw Kṛṣṇa: Lokaṃ vaikuṇṭhaṃ brahma‐bhūtaṃ lokaṃ dadṛśur eva, na tu paramānandam avāpuḥ. Punaḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇam evāvalokya paramānandam avāpuḥ (CMM 10.28.17).

Page 61 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Doctrine and Devotion (228) AVC 16.24–29: [24] Atha vraja-pura-purandareṇādareṇādareṇātivismayataḥ pāśa-bhṛtaḥ puraḥ śrīr aśrīyamāṇa-mālinyā vana-mālinyāvanantyaṃ ca lālityaṃ ca stutīnāṃ yad avalokayām āse, tadānanato na na toṣa-taralās tad-akhilam āśrutya śruty-artham iva mūrtimantam imaṃ tam ime gopā gopāyitāram akhilajagato gatohaṃ manyamānā ‘mānātīto’yam īśvaraḥ svayam ātmano brahmākhyaṃ paramaho mahodāraṃ kim aho darśayiṣyati’ iti sarve yadi saṅkalpa-kalpakā babhūvaḥ; tadā tad-ājñāya teṣāṃ manoratha-gatam atha mahākāruṇiko narākāra-vapur brahma brahmato’py ānanda-kanda-kamanīyam iti vyatirekeṇa bodhayiṣyan dhayiṣyann atimohatamohatadhiyāṃ kutarka-kṛtāṃ sandehaṃ vraja-bhuvām amīṣāṃ brahmākārām adhikārāma-dhiṣaṇāyā vṛttiṃ kārayām āsa. [25] Tataś ca brahma-sākṣāt-kāre’vikāre’viśeṣatas tadānandānānandānākalanānubhava-bādhe bādheva teṣāṃ yady ajani, janitakaruṇas tadā tad-ākāra-vṛttito mukti-yātudhānī-jaṭhara-piṭharapinaddhānamūnamūḍayann iva nivahī-bhūta-praṇayān ātmajanān na kadāpi dāpita-mukti-graha-grahaṇān karotīti siddhāntayann iva niṣkramayya bhūyo bhūyo’pihita-hitam ānanda-nandakaṃ kuto’pi kadāpi na vai kuṇṭhaṃ vaikuṇṭhaṃ nāma paramaṃ svalokaṃ darśayām āsa. [26] Tataś ca samādhitaḥ samutthitā iva tam atha mūrtaṃ brahmānandam iva samālokyatamam ālokya tamasaḥ paraṃ parama-pramodam āpur, amī pura-mīmāṃsakāḥ santaḥ kim api viṣayī-kartuṃ na śaknuvanti sma. [27] Kṣaṇa-mātra eva brahma-kaivalyaṃ balyaṃ ca vaikuṇṭhasukham anubhavanto bhavanto yuga-sahasram iva manyamānā nyamānā iva babhūvur nikhila-saubhagavato bhagavato mukhānavalokena, nava-lokena punas tena teṣām ānandaṃ vardhayituṃ vardhayituṃ ca paritāpaṃ punas tad api vaikuṇṭhaṃ kuṇṭhaṃ cakāra kāraṇa-rasa-vigraho bhagavān. [28] Tad-anantaraṃ taraṅgitamahā mahānanda-nirvṛtāḥ śrī-kṛṣṇaṃ vilokayanto babhūvur ete. Etena brahma-brahma-svarūpa-svaloka-sāyujya-yujyamānatābhyām api tad-alaukikalaukika-līlā-lāvaṇyādika-pariśīlanam eva parama-ramaṇīyam iti siddhāntaḥ. [29] Sa evaṃ hi baṃhiṣṭha-mahimā na hi mānavadbhir api vitarka-kutarka-kulakarkaśa-kaśmala-matibhir vedituṃ suśako duḥśako duḥśīlair anusandhātum api, yaḥ khalu līlāriṅgad-apāṅga-taraṅga-taralima-mātreṇaiva prayujya sāyujyasādhīyastvam atha tato ’tidurghaṭa-ghaṭana-vighaṭaṇa-vidhinā niṣkāsayām āsa kim aśakyaṃ tasya līlā-śakter iti.

Access brought to you by:

Page 62 of 62

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On Rasa Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords A key concept in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology of devotion is rasa. Chapter 3 explores Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of rasa. The concept is first articulated by Bharata in the Nāṭya‐śāstra, the most influential treatise on dramaturgy. The earliest authors on rasa saw it as a heightened form of the main emotion of a literary work’s characters, but from the tenth century it is also used to explain the audience’s response to a work. Kavikarṇapūra draws on these concepts of rasa, and formulates a rasa theory that reinterprets the earlier authors (particularly Bhoja) through the ideas of the later authors (particularly Viśvanātha Kavirāja) and attempts to allow both views of rasa to function independently of each other, in the same poetics. This chapter also traces the origins of Kavikarṇapūra’s views on devotional rasa (bhakti‐rasa), through the works of Vopadeva, Hemādri, and his own guru Śrīnātha, and explores the way his theology influenced his views on rasa. Keywords:   Rasa, dramaturgy, poetics, bhakti‐rasa, Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Vopadeva, Hemādri, Śrīnātha, Bhoja

In act three of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, Devotion‐with‐Love tells Friendship that Caitanya will perform a play with his companions. Caitanya himself will play Rādhā, and the play will be staged in Ācāryaratna’s courtyard, ‘where he will play her role, and will endear the entire world by becoming fair with the felicity of her passion’.1 Friendship, however, is confused: ‘why would he, being the Lord, take on the role of a woman?’ Devotion‐with‐Love replies:

Page 1 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Little girl, you do not understand. The Lord who has all rasas performs his wondrous play to fulfil the wishes of every devotee. Each devotee joins him, conforming to their particular proclivities. Thus, to impress her passion on the minds of some of his faithful devotees, he will perform the most excellent play of playing her. There is nothing more relishable than this.2 Caitanya himself will take on Rādhā’s role, she explains a little later, because it would be both impossible for any other person to do, and because, even if possible, it would be inappropriate, as she is ‘supremely secret’.3 Therefore, Devotion‐with‐Love continues, Caitanya has asked Śrīvāsa to ensure that only the right persons—those that have the eligibility (adhikārī)—attend this performance, because ‘through rasa, Śrī Rādhā herself will very soon appear before our eyes, here, in the courtyard of Ācāryaratna’s home’.4 As we have seen in the previous chapter, Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha extol the praise of Kṛṣṇa’s divine acts, because such poetic performances absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa and lead to a greater wonder (camatkāra) even than that found in brahman’s bliss. Kṛṣṇa descended on the eve of the age of Kali to reveal his (p. 122) non‐worldly worldly play so that those born in these unfortunate times could, led by Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, celebrate that play in poetry and banish the evils of the age. As Devotion‐with‐Love’s comments in the Caitanya‐candrodaya indicate, the concept of rasa is key in understanding this: it is rasa by which the audience of Caitanya’s performance can absorb themselves in the divine play and come to understand Rādhā’s pure love, as Rādhā herself will appear in the improvised theatre of Ācāryaratna’s courtyard through rasa. It is therefore to the concept of rasa that we now turn.

The Concept of Rasa before Kavikarṇapūra Bharata’s Concept of Rasa

The literary concept of rasa (literally ‘taste’ or ‘sap’) originates in dramaturgy, and is first articulated by Bharata in the Nāṭya‐śāstra (fourth century?),5 the oldest and most influential Sanskrit treatise on all aspects of the dramatic arts. Although Bharata studies at length the figures of speech (alaṃkāra), literary qualities (guṇa), and defects (doṣa) of a drama’s text, his primary concern is the non‐verbal: the enactment of the narrative by the actors (abhinaya) and, particularly, the way emotions can be staged, developed, and conveyed by a dramatic performance. Emotions are thus central to drama for Bharata. A play should be structured around a single emotion of the characters, like love, anger, fear, or wonder, and every tool available to the dramatist should be employed to properly depict and develop that emotion. This emotion Bharata calls the ‘enduring’ or ‘stable emotion’ (sthāyi‐bhāva), as it is the emotion that will permeate the entire play even when nurtured by seemingly conflicting emotions. There are eight such Page 2 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa emotions, according to Bharata: amorous love, mirth, sorrow, anger, courage, fear, disgust, and wonder.6 These stable emotions can only be suitably developed and made known to the audience when the appropriate causes, effects, and supportive emotions are depicted in the play. The causes Bharata calls ‘excitants’ (vibhāva).7 They are the objects of the emotion, without which the emotion cannot arise—the beloved for love, the enemy for anger, the monster for fear, etc. Later authors distinguish between two types of excitants. The primary cause of the emotion, like the beloved for love, (p.123) is the ‘foundational excitant’ (ālambana‐vibhāva). The secondary causes are things that support the emotion, but are not its direct cause, such as the setting appropriate to the stable emotion—like a solitary place on a moonlit night for lovers, or a battlefield for rival warriors. These secondary causes are the ‘stimulating excitants’ (uddīpana‐vibhāva). The effects or ‘ensuants’ (anubhāva), then, are the characters’ voluntary physical responses to the stable emotion, or the actions through which the emotions are expressed and thus indicated, like laughing, glancing, frowning, etc. Some responses—crying, trembling, perspiring, paralysis, fainting, and so on—are involuntary, and these are classified separately, as psychophysical responses (sāttvika‐bhāva),8 but are often seen as a special type of ensuant. Finally, the stable emotions do not exist ‘purely’, but are constantly nuanced and accompanied by other emotional states: lovers do not just love, but are joyful, or anxious, or jealous, or angry, or disappointed. These accompanying emotions, which not only arise out of the stable emotion but also help to develop it, Bharata identifies as the transient emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāva or sañcari‐bhāva). When these elements are brought together in a play, Bharata writes, rasa is produced.9 He compares the above mentioned components to different spices and condiments that create the particular flavour or taste (rasa) of a dish. Rasa exist in the dramatic performance itself, as the flavour of food is present in that food. But that flavour is also tasted by the person who eats it; and therefore ‘the alert mentally taste the stable emotions that are combined with the enacted emotions. That is why these are known as the dramatic rasas.’10 Corresponding to the eight stable emotions, there are thus eight rasas: the stable emotion love (rati) evokes the amorous (śṛṅgāra) rasa, anger (krodha) evokes the furious (raudra), courage (utsāha) the heroic (vīra), disgust (jugupsā) the horrific (bībhatsa), humour (hāsa) the comic (hāsya), sorrow (śoka) the compassionate (karuṇa), wonder (vismaya) the marvellous (adbhuta), and fear (bhaya) the fearful (bhayānaka) rasa.11 The development of these rasas, through the enactment of the stable emotion’s causes, effects, and transient emotions is the purpose of drama, Bharata argues: ‘without rasa, no significance arises’.12 Bharata thus develops rasa as the key concept in dramaturgy, and although early authors on poetics give but a subordinate role to rasa, later poeticians also use it as the overarching critical concept for non‐dramatic literature, the difference Page 3 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa being only one of modes of presentation: poetry relies only on the verbal and needs to be heard or read (śravya), whereas drama is largely non‐ (p.124) verbal or visual and needs to be seen (prekṣya or dṛśya). In a dramatic performance, the actors can communicate the emotions of the play to the audience by enacting the causes and responses to those emotions, but in poetry they need to be described. Bharata’s rasa theory forms the basis for all later rasa theories, but the way his ideas were used, and indeed the purpose for which they were used, varies considerably. There are two main applications of Bharata’s ideas: some critics focus on the literary work itself and use the concept of rasa to analyse the narrative itself, as the culmination of the literary characters’ experience. Others, however, direct their attention to the audience and the way they respond to the literary work. For them rasa is not internal to the text, but an experience of the audience excited by the text. Or, to use Bharata’s analogy: the flavour of food can be said to inhere in the food, as well as to be experienced by the person who eats the food.13 Sheldon Pollock succinctly summarizes these two approaches: [A]s an affective phenomenon the text can be analyzed from the inside— how are the various components organized that are necessary to provide a rich representation of human emotions?—or from the outside—how is it that readers do in fact respond to such representations? And depending on the analytical stance taken, our understanding of how this phenomenon is actually operationalized by the text will differ.14 As we will see, this difference in approach affects two related issues: the relationship between the stable emotion and rasa—is the latter merely a heightened form of the former, or are they distinct, though obviously related?— and the locus of the stable emotion—does it belong to the characters or the audience? Bhoja and the Rasa of the Literary Characters

The earliest known critics, after Bharata, all see rasa as internal to the text: rasa is primarily the experience of the literary characters. When the proper conditions are present, the stable emotion of the leading characters is heightened, and that heightened emotional state is rasa. Thus, for Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa (ninth century), one of the earliest known commentators on the Nāṭya‐śāstra, ‘rasa is simply the stable emotion heightened by the excitants, ensuants, and so on. The stable emotion is not heightened.’15 This view of the fundamental identity between (p.125) both is also reflected in the earlier writers on poetics, for whom rasa occupied only a subordinate role. While discussing the figure ‘possessing rasa’ (rasavat), Daṇḍī (seventh century) explains that anger (krodha) at its ultimate peak becomes the furious (raudra) rasa, just as love (rati) is elevated to the amorous (śṛṅgāra).16 As rasa is nothing more than an intensified stable emotion, it follows naturally that the person that has the stable emotion Page 4 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa has (potentially) also rasa. This is clear from Daṇḍī’s examples, where it is Bhīma’s anger that transforms into Bhīma’s furious rasa.17 This use of Bharata’s rasa theory is most fully developed by Bhoja (eleventh century), a prolific author and a monumental literary theorist. In his two works on poetics, the Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa and the voluminous Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa, Bhoja uses the ideas of earlier authors—Daṇḍī is particularly important18—as a foundation on which he builds his highly complex poetics, of which rasa is merely a small, albeit very important, aspect. Bhoja, like Daṇḍī and Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, uses the concept of rasa to refer to a characteristic that is internal to a literary text. Rasa, for him, is an experience of the characters,19 and a text can be said to have rasa (rasavat) precisely because it contains either an expression or a description of a character who has rasa: ‘The speech of [the characters] like Rāma, who has rasa, [also] has rasa, because its root is his own rasa. And by a complete identification, even the representation of he who is represented by the poet [i.e. the character] has rasa.’20 Those that experience rasa, then, are the characters of the poem, but not even all of them. ‘Do these [stable emotions], such as love, which arise by their respective foundational excitants (ālambana‐vibhāva), arise for all, or only for some?’ Bhoja asks. ‘If [it arises] for everyone, then the entire world would have rasa. And that is not the case, since it is seen that some have rasa, but some are devoid of rasa.…So [the stable emotions] like love do not arise for everyone, but [only] for some. We need to identify its cause.’21 This cause which enables only some to experience rasa, he writes later, is ‘a particular quality of the ego (ahaṃkāra)’,22 ‘the sense of self (abhimāna) that causes the experience of being conscious of pleasure and the like to be agreeable to the mind’.23 This quality he (p.126) also calls passion (śṛṅgāra) or Love (prema),24 because all rasas are merely aspects of this: ‘the fullest development of all the [stable] emotions like love (rati) amount to nothing but this—one is said to be “fond of love”, “fond of fighting”, “fond of anger”, “fond of joking”, and so on.’25 It arises only in some characters, because it is ‘a transformation consisting of pride that awakens in the heart of those characterised by the mode of goodness (sattva), which is born from a special spotless quality (dharma), and which arises from the proclivities (vāsanās) formed by experiences in previous lives.’26 According to Bhoja this is the first stage of rasa, as it is the foundation from which rasa will arise. This particular sense of self or passion, he explains, ‘alone causes the appearance and development of all the states of the self’,27 and only when a person possesses this can all the emotions Bharata speaks of become manifest. This stage can be called rasa, Bhoja argues, ‘because it is the potential of tasting’.28

Page 5 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa When that passion is then affected by the primary cause of a particular stable emotion, it will then assume the form of that stable emotion. Bhoja writes: Just as by the proximity of the moon a moon‐stone becomes wet, just as by the proximity of the sun the sun‐crystal burns, just as by the proximity of camphor a crystal dissolves, in the same way all the emotions, like love, anger and grief, arise from the mind which has this sense of self (abhimāna), limited by the perception and senses whose form has changed by the proper foundational excitants (ālambana‐vibhāva) into that [primary object of his emotion].29 Once a stable emotion has become manifest, excited by one of the excitants, the ensuants (anubhāvas) and transient emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāvas) emerge from it. ‘From each limitating adjunct (upādhi) of the single [stable emotion], like love, anger and grief, all ensuants and transient emotions…overflow’,30 like trunks, branches, twigs, flowers, and fruits arise from various attributes of (p. 127) trees, or like currents, whirlpools, waves, salt, and pearls arise from those of the ocean. For example, a character sees his beloved (the primary excitant or ālambana‐ vibhāva) or something that reminds him of his beloved (a secondary excitant or uddīpana‐vibhāva), which turns his passion, that specific sense of self (abhimāna), into love (rati, one of Bharata’s stable emotions), and will lead him to act in a way proper to the occasion (the ensuants or anubhāvas). The emotion thus awakened is then mixed with and nourished by transient emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāva) appropriate to the particular context, such as joy or recollection. The emotion is thereby intensified and raised to the state of rasa.31 Just as from the combination of the proper tools, heat and friction sugar juice (rasa) arises from sugar cane, oil from mustard seeds, gold from ore, iron from rocks, butter from milk, fire from sticks, so from the combination of their respective excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions do the respective rasas arise from [stable emotions] like love, anger and grief.32 Although this resembles to a large extent Bharata’s understanding of the dynamics of rasa, this is not the end of the rasa cycle according to Bhoja, because the multiple rasas that manifest are called such only in a secondary sense.33 Such an emotion, even in its most fully developed form, ‘is experienced in the mind through contemplation (bhāvanā)’, but ‘that which transcends the plane of contemplation and, transformed, is fully relished in the heart that is endowed with ego, is rasa’.34 At this stage, all the emotional components that helped to heighten the stable emotion, are absorbed in the rasa of Love (prema) and enhance it with their unique flavour.35 Therefore Bhoja argues that ‘there are not many rasas; rasa is only singular, which is passion (śṛṅgāra)’.36 The eight rasas that Bharata describes are merely heightened forms of emotion (bhāva) Page 6 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa that have not yet transcended thought; Bhoja only calls them rasas to conform to popular convention.37 Thus the whole rasa experience comprises three stages. In the first stage rasa exists only in its potential. It is singular and a particular aspect of consciousness that manifests as ego (ahaṃkāra), passion (śṛṅgāra), and a (p.128) specific self‐understanding (abhimāna). From this mental state, triggered by the presence of their proper excitants, the stable emotions arise and reach their climax in their corresponding rasa experience. This is the second stage. Finally, the diversity of the various emotions that arose in the second stage coalesce into a homogeneous, single rasa experience. Although the heightened emotions that develop in the second stage are sometimes called rasas, only this final stage, in which rasa is single, is really rasa for Bhoja, ‘because that is what is [actually] tasted’.38 It is important to keep in mind that Bhoja’s analysis of rasa is not just a theory of emotions, but a theory of how poets develop and depict the emotions of the characters in literary works. Bhoja frames this analysis of rasa in a discussion on ‘expressions of rasa’ (rasokti), in which the characters of the literary work express their own emotions.39 He writes that the poet should develop the emotions of the poem or play’s protagonists in such a way that they reach the level of rasa, whereas the feelings of the supporting characters should remain in the form of an emotion (bhāva).40 In other words, Bhoja’s interest is in the literary work itself and he uses the theory of rasa to explain how a literary work can represent the fullness of human emotions.41 Bhoja’s rasa is thus a rasa of the literary character. He has little to say about the audience’s response to a literary work. However, some theorists who hold similar views extended this notion of rasa to the audience. While defending Bhoja’s views from possible critics, Bhaṭṭa Narasiṃha, a commentator on the Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa, thus writes: ‘Although rasa exists in the character, a poet can communicate rasa to the minds of the audience, with words that are suitable for that [rasa], as if [they experience it] directly.…The very purpose of poetry is to obtain that.’42 Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa even allows the actor to experience the emotions of the characters, and states that this state is present both in the literary character and the actor, in the former in the primary sense, and in the latter by his visualization of the characters.43 Similarly, Vidyānātha (thirteenth-fourteenth century), the author of the Pratāparudra‐yaśo‐bhūṣaṇa (hereafter Pratāparudrīya), who was significantly influenced by Bhoja, writes that though rasa resides in the main character of the literary work, the audience and even the actor can share this experience. (p.129)

Page 7 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa If by the acting of a skilled actor or by the force of listening to poetry of a similar nature, it becomes directly perceivable for the audience, then, by complete absorption in [the emotions of] another person, nothing impedes the production of uninterrupted bliss, even though the rasa belongs to another….Because the actor is solely engaged in imitating [the literary characters], rasa cannot reside in him. Even if one admits that he is emotionally involved, he is so only as a member of the audience. His showing of the ensuants (anubhāva), etc. [then] occurs only by his training, practice, and skill.44 Thus rasa is not beyond the experience of the audience or even the actor, though it is clear that for such thinkers their experience is only secondary, and derived from the experience of the literary characters, of which they become very vividly aware by the skill of the poet or actor. Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya, and the Rasa of the Reader

Around the time that Bhoja was writing his works on literary criticism, there occurred an important shift in the interpretation of Bharata’s rasa theory. The attention shifted from the literary work and the question how it could embody emotion, to the audience and the question how they could be affected by the literary work. Three authors are particularly important for our discussion: Abhinavagupta from Kashmir, and Dhanañjaya, and his commentator Dhanika, from Rajasthan. Abhinavagupta (tenth-eleventh century) is best known as one of the principal teachers of Kashmir Śaivism, but also wrote two important commentaries on works of literary theory: the Locana on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvany‐āloka, and the Abhinava‐bhāratī on Bharata’s Nāṭya‐śāstra.45 How does the audience become emotionally involved with the characters of that literary work? That is Abhinavagupta’s central concern in his rasa theory. For him rasa is the joyful experience of a sensitive person (sahṛdaya), characterized by a deep astonishment (camatkāra), which Abhinavagupta describes as ‘an uninterrupted absorption in enjoyment (bhoga)’ that leads (p.130) to a deep sense of satiation.46 This state ‘arises in a sensitive person through his empathy upon apprehending the excitants and ensuants; an empathy made possible by his heart’s being in tune with [the poetic message]’.47 This ‘communion of the heart’ (hṛdaya‐saṃvāda) is established when ‘through a succession of memory‐ elements [the stable emotion] adds together a thought‐trend [citta‐vṛtti] which one has already experienced in one’s own life to one which one infers in another’s life’.48 Thus by the continual suggestion of a stable emotion in the literary work, the emotional experience of the characters resonates with the audience’s experience, which linger in their mind as proclivities (vāsanās and saṃskāras). From this the audience then moves to empathy or an identification

Page 8 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (tanmayī‐bhāva) with the characters, their emotional experience and their world, which will then enable them to taste rasa.49 Listening to a poem or watching a drama enables the audience to relax their personal identity and withdraw from their everyday world and its emotions. The literary characters are strangers to them (and perhaps even fictional) and would ordinarily not affect the audience in any dramatic way, but during the performance the limitations of the audience’s own personality, time, and place disappear, and, no longer bound by them, they are able to empathize with the literary characters. This identification of the audience with the characters is not complete, however, and some distance is necessary for the awakening of rasa, thus distinguishing this experience from the ordinary experience of the stable emotions. If this were not the case, the audience of Kālidāsa’s Abhijñāna‐ śakuntalā would, like Duṣyanta, fall in love with Śakuntalā, rather than experience the amorous rasa. This process of generalization (sādhāraṇī‐bhāva)— a notion Abhinavagupta adapts from another commentator on the Nāṭya‐śāstra, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka (tenth century)50—is central in Abhinavagupta’s thought, and turns rasa into a depersonalized emotive experience. The emotions become detached from any particular or individual (be it from the literary world of the poem or the everyday reality of the audience) and lead to a non‐dual emotive state in which subject and object are no longer distinguishable. By the power of the literary work, consciousness is able to transcend all limitations so that it can experience itself. This experience is, as the earlier authors also stressed, a joyful one, irrespective of whether the stable emotion is (p.131) pleasant or unpleasant, because ‘consciousness (saṃvedana) itself, which is full of bliss, is tasted’.51 Thus for Abhinavagupta, the stable emotion never literally becomes rasa, but it is one’s own state of mind (citta‐vṛtti) which is relished as such. The stable emotion and rasa are therefore very different; the latter is not merely a heightened, relishable form of the former, but is rather a generalized, depersonalized emotive response to it. It is an emotive state that is based on the stable emotion but requires a distance between the person who experiences it and the emotion that it responds to. Therefore, to speak of the literary character experiencing rasa is absurd in Abhinavagupta’s view, for the characters experience the specificity of the stable emotion and cannot distance themselves from it. The actor too is unable to share this experience, as his ability to act requires not the relinquishing of any awareness of time, place, and personality but rather the opposite. Rasa is in other words only an experience of the audience of the literary work. This notion that rasa is an experience that is exclusive to the audience is more emphatically stated in the Daśa‐rūpaka of Dhanañjaya (tenth century), an important work on dramaturgy which ‘seems to have superseded not only all

Page 9 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa other treatises on the subject but also the basic work of Bharata himself’,52 and in its commentary, Avaloka, by Dhanañjaya’s contemporary Dhanika. Although the ideas of both these authors differ in many respects from those of Abhinavagupta, with him they stress the impossibility of a rasa of the characters. For Dhanika, a literary work is said to have rasa not because it contains the expressions or descriptions of a character that experiences rasa, as Bhoja argues, but rather because ‘it causes an awareness of bliss to appear’ in the audience. It is they who thus are the tasters of rasa (rasika).53 The idea that rasa belongs to the character is absurd for Dhanañjaya and Dhanika: rasa ‘belongs to the rasika [i.e. the audience] because he is alive‐and‐present, not to the character, since he is dead‐and‐gone’.54 Poets, Dhanika writes, do not compose poetry so that the characters of their poems can experience rasa, but so that their readers can. This experience is impossible for the characters since it is not an ordinary, worldly emotional state. The idea, as Vidyānātha expressed, that the audience does experience rasa, but that that rasa is primarily of the characters, is equally absurd for these authors, as it would be utterly inappropriate for a mortal person reading the Rāmāyaṇa to fall in love with the goddess Sītā, as Rāma does. Rather than experiencing rasa, (p.132) ‘a good person would feel shame, others would feel envy, passion, the desire to seize [Sītā for themselves], and so on’.55 Dhanañjaya and Dhanika’s differences with Bhoja are not merely in regards to rasa, but also with regards to the other elements of the rasa theory. When Dhanañjaya writes that rasa is merely a transformation of the stable emotion, which can be called rasa because it is tasted, he may seem to agree with Bhoja, but, as Dhanika clarifies, for him the stable emotion is not an emotion of the characters or one contained in the literary work, but an emotion of the audience, which, by hearing or watching the literary work, is transformed into rasa. The causes of the stable emotions (vibhāvas) are therefore only causes for the audience, not for the characters as Bhoja understands it.56 This audience‐centred understanding of rasa, as articulated by Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya, and Dhanika not only reoriented Sanskrit poetics for centuries to come, but has long also been accepted in contemporary scholarship as the rasa theory par excellence. Abhinavagupta in particular has often been seen not only as the most insightful of all Sanskrit theorists, but also as the most influential. Thus Masson and Patwardhan write that ‘for later writers there is no more important name than Abhinava.…The famous Saṅketa commentary of Māṇikyacandra on the Kāvyaprakāśa speaks of Abhinava as the guru par excellence, and one would be hard put to find a later writer who did not agree.’57

Page 10 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa As we will see shortly in our discussion of Kavikarṇapūra’s rasa theory, such statements are not only exaggerated, but also distorting. The impact Abhinavagupta had, however, is undeniable, though mostly indirectly, through the writings of some of his followers. The most influential of these is undoubtedly his fellow Kashmiri Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa (eleventh–twelfth century), the author of the Kāvya‐prakāśa. This work promulgated throughout the Indian subcontinent the ideas of the Kashmir school, particularly Ānandavardhana’s theory of suggestion, which we will explore in Chapter 4, as well as Abhinavagupta’s views on rasa. The success of the Kāvya‐prakāśa ‘was so complete,’ S. K. De writes, that even other schools of poetics ‘which emerged after Mammaṭa could no longer be strictly regarded as entirely independent systems’.58 One of the authors influenced by Mammaṭa that is particularly important to understand Kavikarṇapūra’s ideas is Viśvanātha Kavirāja, a fourteenth‐century Oriyan and author of the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa.59 Viśvanātha’s views on rasa are mostly in line with those of Mammaṭa and Abhinavagupta, although he is also influenced by Dhanañjaya. Regarding the relationship between rasa (p.133) and the stable emotion, for example, Viśvanātha is much closer to Dhanañjaya than Abhinavagupta. He writes that the stable emotion becomes rasa through the excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions, and that rasa is nothing but a transformation of the stable emotion. The manifestation of rasa is thus ‘the transformation into another form, like [milk into] yoghurt’.60 Rasa arises from a mind characterized by the mode of goodness (sattva), untouched by passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas). It consists of uninterrupted and self‐luminous awareness and bliss, is ‘devoid of the touch of any other object of knowledge’, and ‘is animated by otherworldly wonder (camatkāra)’.61 However, rasa is for Viśvanātha an experience of the audience, not of the characters of the literary work. He argues: The [emotions] such as love which the characters experience do not become rasa, because they are limited, common (laukika), and separated by time [from the experience of rasa during the performance of the play].… How then can it obtain the form of rasa, since rasa’s nature is different from these three characteristics [i.e. it is not limited, not common (alaukika), and not influenced by time].62 Similar to Abhinavagupta and Mammaṭa, he thus limits rasa to the audience, who through the process of generalization (sādharaṇya) see themselves as non‐ different from the character, and through this total identification—no longer thinking ‘this belongs to another, this does not belong to another’ and ‘this is mine, and this is not mine’—tastes rasa.63 The actor can normally not share in this experience, but, Viśvanātha argues along Vidyānātha’s lines, if he

Page 11 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa contemplates the meaning of the literary work he becomes effectively a member of the audience, and thus shares their experience of rasa.64 To summarize, there are two main interpretations of Bharata’s rasa theory. The first, and older, of these sees rasa as an experience of the characters and therefore as an element of the literary text itself. Rasa is the heightened state of a stable emotion, that is manifested when that emotion is stimulated by its proper causes, followed by its proper effects and accompanied by supporting transitory emotional states. Although the experience of rasa is that of the character, several theorists who follow this interpretation also claim the reader (p.134) and the actor can taste the same heightened emotional state of the literary characters. This is the view of authors like Bhoja. According to the other interpretation, rasa is not an experience of the characters, but of the audience of a literary work. This interpretation arose later and is supported by Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, Mammaṭa, and Viśvanātha. Although all these authors differ on some (not non‐essential) points, all agree that the audience is able to experience rasa, which is not present in the literary work, but suggested or evoked by it. When the audience perceives the causes and effects, as well as transitory emotional states, rasa is awakened in their mind. This emotional state is different from the emotional state the literary characters would experience—if indeed it makes sense to talk of them experiencing something—as it is removed from the character’s specificities and is always a blissful experience.

Kavikarṇapūra’s Concept of Rasa In which of these two groups should we place Kavikarṇapūra? Often, he has been seen as following Abhinavagupta. Thus, Masson and Patwardhan write that ‘it seems to us that the whole of the Bengal Vaiṣṇava school of poetics (and not only poetics, but philosophy as well) was heavily influenced by the teachings of Abhinavagupta and the tradition he follows, though nobody writing on the Bengal school has noticed this fact or tried to follow its lead.’ Although Abhinavagupta’s works are not cited by Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas, they argue ‘his influence is quite clear. The Alaṅkārakaustubha of Kavikarṇapūra which is the primary source for the Bengal school of poetics, is much indebted to Ānanda and Abhinava.’65 Ānandavardhana’s influence on Kavikarṇapūra—both direct and through Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha—is indisputable, as we will see in Chapter 4. Abhinavagupta’s, however, is doubtful.66 The Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha is indeed immensely influenced by Mammaṭa’s Kāvya‐prakāśa, but Kavikarṇapūra is profoundly eclectic when it comes to his views on rasa. Although, as we will see, he sometimes closely follows Mammaṭa’s argumentation, he does so to (p.135) arrive at conclusions that run contrary to Mammaṭa’s understanding. Kavikarṇapūra generally follows Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya‐darpaṇa in chapter 5 of Page 12 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha (dealing with rasa), particularly in his analysis of the excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions. But, of all the authors discussed, Bhoja’s influence is perhaps most marked, although Kavikarṇapūra departs from him even as he follows him. It is hard to situate Kavikarṇapūra squarely in either rasa tradition. He often blends ideas of literary theorists with very different interests to develop his own rasa theory, and his presentation, therefore, at times raises more questions than it answers, as he sometimes seems to take back with one hand what he offered with the other just a paragraph earlier. This confusion arises precisely when we try to fit Kavikarṇapūra’s rasa theory into either of the two groups we discussed earlier. Kavikarṇapūra’s emphasis is indeed on the audience’s experience of rasa, but it is for him not absurd to talk of the characters’ rasa. Central to Kavikarṇapūra’s rasa theory is the stable emotion. Whereas most authors pass over this quite quickly to move on to discuss rasa, Kavikarṇapūra attaches a lot of importance to it. ‘What emotion is stable?’ he asks, and replies: There is a particular property (dharma) of consciousness, free from the modes of passion (rajas) and ignorance (tamas), which exists by the nature of pure goodness (śuddha‐sattva), and which is the bulb from which relish (āsvāda) sprouts. This the wise call the stable emotion. It becomes manifold by the varieties of excitants (vibhāvas) for those who are the audience.67 Although, like Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, Kavikarṇapūra understands the stable emotion to belong to the audience, rather than to the characters of the literary work, and although he borrows a key phrase in this definition—‘the bulb from which the relish [of rasa] sprouts’ (āsvādāṅkura‐kandaḥ)—from Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya‐darpaṇa,68 it is very difficult not to notice Bhoja’s influence in this definition. Like Bhoja’s first stage of rasa, Kavikarṇapūra’s stable emotion is a particular property of the mind that is not just the foundation for the experience of rasa, but also that experience in its potential. It is a bulb in which the flower of the experience of rasa lays dormant, ready to sprout when the right circumstances arise. The first event that occurs in this sprouting of rasa is that this special ‘property of consciousness’ becomes coloured or particularized by the excitants as depicted in a literary work. Thus, the hero of an epic poem would turn this general receptive mental state into courage (utsaha), whereas the lovers in (p. 136) an amorous play would awaken the stable emotion love (rati). Kavikarṇapūra explains how the other constituents of rasa fit into this scheme: These [the excitants (vibhāva) and the ensuants (anubhāva)] are not the causes and effects of rasa. Rather, the excitant is the cause of the effect that is the ensuant. The transient emotion, is the accompanying [cause] of Page 13 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa the ensuant. These three together turn the stable emotion into rasa. The material cause (samavāyi‐kāraṇa) is the stable emotion; the efficient causes (nimitta‐kāraṇa) are the foundational (ālambana‐) and stimulating excitants (uddīpana‐vibhāva); the particular transformation (vikāra) of the stable emotion is the non‐inherent cause (asamavāyi‐karaṇa)—[all three] only of the manifestation of rasa, though not of rasa.69 The excitant (vibhāva) in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics is not quite the cause of the stable emotion, as it is for other theorists, because the latter exists in the audience, not the world of the literary characters. It is, however, the cause of a transformation of that singular stable emotion into the multitude of stable emotions known from other literary theorists. From this perspective, the excitants, such as the play or poem’s protagonists and the description or enactment of the causes that are conducive to the development of their emotions, cause a physical response in the characters, which are the ensuants (anubhāva)—‘that which afterwards (anu‐) comes into being (bhāva)’70—as well as various transient emotional states (vyabhicāri) that are depicted in the literary work, which ‘act (car) in a specific (vi‐), desirable way (abhi‐)’.71 When the audience becomes aware of all these elements and their ‘particularized’ stable emotion is thereby nourished, the sprout of rasa begins to bloom. The excitants are thus the efficient causes of rasa, which is a transformation or development of the stable emotion, which is thus its material cause. The classical stable emotions like love, anger, or fear—which in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics are transformations (vikāra) of the singular stable emotion—are the non‐ inherent or accidental causes of rasa, that colour its experience, like the colour of the threads that constitute a cloth which determines the colour of that cloth. The differentiation between the singular stable emotion and its diversification into the plural, classical stable emotions is very important to Kavikarṇapūra, and he returns to it later in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, clarifying his views and highlighting some of its implications: (p.137) But it is not that in a single mind of these all the stable emotions, such as love, are present, because these mutually dissimilar [emotions] cannot be present simultaneously in one place. Nor is love stable in the mind of ascetics and the like, and tranquil [sages] have no [emotions] like fear and sorrow. However, [we have described the stable emotion] as a singular quality of consciousness, which is the bulb of tasting and which perceives the wonder (camatkāra) in all rasas. Therefore, for the fearful, the horrific,

Page 14 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa and so on, the state of rasa exists only in poetry and drama, not in the world.72 In order to experience rasa, the audience needs to possess the stable emotion, but that does not mean all the emotions that are declared stable by older theorists need to be present simultaneously in the minds of members of the audience. In fact, those stable emotions are not really so stable (sthāyī), since ascetics and sages do not posses them. It is unclear, though, whether Kavikarṇapūra intends to argue that even ascetics, who do not experience love, fear, or grief, can nevertheless experience the rasas that correspond to these when reading a poem or watching a drama, because their rasa is not the transformation of the traditional stable emotions (which they do not possess), but of this specific quality of consciousness that is able to perceive or grasp (grāhaka) the wonder of any rasa. Redefining the stable emotion in this way also allows Kavikarṇapūra to explain why we can experience rasas based on such unpleasant emotions as sorrow or disgust. If rasa is the heightened state of the traditional stable emotions we would not enjoy tragedies or horror stories, but rather be overwhelmed by a strong unpleasant experience of sorrow or dread. But since the stable emotion is different from these emotions, and is only later diversified by the objects of the emotion depicted by the poet, we can experience even these unpleasant emotions as rasa while reading a poem, even though we would not be able to do so in our everyday life. Exactly how rasa arises Kavikarṇapūra describes in the following passage of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha: For it is like this: A singular bliss arises in their minds, which are very clear insofar as they are cleansed of passion and ignorance by their internal proclivities (vāsanā) for rasa, which perceive as real the objects of emotions (vibhāvas), though they are unreal, as if they were beautiful images engraved in a picture, and so on, thinking ‘These are Rāma and Sītā’, ‘This is Rāma, filled with the grief for Sītā’, ‘These are Rāma and Rāvaṇa’, ‘This is a tiger, the attacker of men’, ‘This is the cremation ground, which is crowded with the dancing of ogres, and so on, (p.138) maddened and drunk from eating the intestines and flesh of heaps of corpses’, with a special understanding that is different from the understanding that is similar to the doubt whether something is real or false, when there is the strong manifestation (sphūrti) of the state of the marvellous (adbhutatva), preceded by wonder (camatkāra), in every rasa— as indicated by [the following verse (SD 3.3):]73 ‘In regards to rasa wonder (camatkāra) is the essence, without which rasa is not rasa. Therefore, because its essence is wonder, the marvellous rasa is everywhere [i.e. in all rasas].’—with such thoughts as ‘Wonderful is this excellence in the art of Page 15 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa love of Rāma and Sītā’, ‘Wonderful is this fight between Rāma and Rāvaṇa’, ‘Wonderful is this behaviour of hungry ghosts, etc.’ endowed with a single manifestation (sphūrti) of that where all other objects of knowledge are washed away, which is characterised by excessive wonder (camatkāra) that arises from the seeing and hearing of the activities of the characters that are enacted by the actors.74 Let us unpack this long and complex sentence. In order for rasa, that single blissful experience, to arise, the artificial literary world has to be experienced as real. The literary characters, whether they are described in a poem or enacted by actors on stage, come to life and are not experienced as roles played by actors or as words on a page, but as real personalities, present before the reader or spectator like a painting. Thus the reader or spectator no longer sees the excitants (vibhāvas), the roles the characters play in the literary work, but the characters themselves: ‘These are Rāma and Sītā’, ‘This is Rāma, filled with the grief for Sītā’. This special awareness is very different from our ordinary cognitive processes, where we consider something to be either false or true. A member of the audience is very well aware that the world he is immersing himself into is false. There is no tiger in the room, nor are there ogres drunk on corpses dancing before him. Yet, by the power of the literary work and, more importantly, by the purity of mind the reader has attained through the repeated reading of poetry or watching dramatic performances and subsequently relishing rasa, this false world is experienced as real. Only when the reader attains this special awareness or conviction (pratyaya‐viśeṣa) can he experience rasa. (p.139) This ‘singular bliss’ that is rasa which the audience thus experiences overpowers every other cognitive process. Kavikarṇapūra describes it as ‘a joy that causes wonder and embraces its own causes, and so on. It blocks all other functions of both the external and internal faculties.’75 Rasa ‘embraces its own causes, and so on’ because all the constituents that lead to this state, such as the characters of the literary work, their world, their actions and emotions—in other words, the various types of excitants (vibhāva), the ensuants (anubhāva), and the transient emotions (vyabhicārī)—are all experienced, but not individually. Commenting on this section of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Viśvanātha Cakravartī explains this with Bharata’s analogy: when yoghurt is mixed with sugar, pepper, and camphor we have a single beverage called rasāla, which when drunk produces a wonderful, unified taste.76 When experiencing rasa the reader becomes, in other words, unaware that he is engaging with a literary work. He experiences the literary work through rasa, but if he perceives the literary world and characters as such, that is, as an excitant (vibhāva), no rasa can be awakened. Rather, if the realization of rasa is successful, the literary characters are no longer literary for the audience, but appear as real people. Similarly, the audience would not be aware that they are experiencing rasa, but would merely experience it, as the former would introduce an awareness that is different from Page 16 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa the experience itself (‘I am now aware that I experience rasa’), whereas rasa inhibits every other cognition. This bliss that arises is also singular in a second sense. Although literary theorists often speak of a variety of rasas, Kavikarṇapūra, echoing Bhoja, argues that rasa is really singular: ‘Because rasa has the characteristic of bliss it is single; only [its] manifestation (bhāva), by the differences in limiting adjuncts (upādhi), is diversified. The limiting adjuncts are [the stable emotions] such as love.’77 Rasa itself can only be single, precisely because it is bliss, and bliss is by nature indivisible. The experience of the audience appears to be coloured by the emotions of the characters, but that is only apparent. This too is why Kavikarṇapūra earlier stated that the traditional stable emotions are the accidental causes not of rasa, but only of ‘the manifestation of rasa’.78 Although Kavikarṇapūra discusses rasa in relation to the audience, elements of Bhoja’s three‐staged rasa are thus clearly visible in Kavikarṇapūra’s theory: in the beginning there is the stable emotion, which is really the potential (p.140) of rasa. This singular property of consciousness, ‘which is capable of manifesting all rasas’,79 becomes diversified by the excitants, and thus all the other elements of the classical rasa theory emerge. Finally, when the stable emotion becomes properly intensified, rasa arises, which ultimately too is singular, and only appears to be diverse. But, contrary to Bhoja, Kavikarṇapūra claims that rasa belongs to the audience. ‘In the case of drama,’ he writes, ‘the excitants (vibhāva), and so on, are perceived through language (śabda) and depend upon the actors and the characters; in the case of poetry [they are] only perceived through language. How, then, can rasa be situated in the character?’80 Viśvanātha, who seems not particularly fond of this idea, elaborates on this question in his commentary on this passage, echoing the Daśa‐rūpaka:81 if rasa is an experience of the character, who is there to experience it? The characters of the literary work are not ‘real’—they are fictious or, if historical, long since gone. How then, as Dhanañjaya and Dhanika argue, can one say rasa belongs to the character?82 Kavikarṇapūra also excludes the actor of a dramatic work by default, but grants that if he can become absorbed in the drama he stages, he too becomes a member of the audience and can therefore relish rasa: ‘his acting happens [then] merely by the strength of his proclivities (saṃskāra) [obtained through his training as an actor], just like the eating and recreation, etc. of liberated persons (jīvan‐mukta).’ Rasa, Kavikarṇapūra concludes, is therefore an experience exclusive to the audience.83 However, Kavikarṇapūra does not fully reject the earlier character‐centred rasa theory. Scattered throughout this chapter of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha are references to stable emotions (sthāyi‐bhāva) and rasas that belong to the world Page 17 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa of the literary work and are experienced by the characters. These stable emotions of the character are quite different from the audience’s singular stable emotion. Whereas the audience members have a specific ‘property of consciousness’ that is diversified into the classical stable emotions during the performance of a literary work and then raised to rasa, the stable emotion of (p. 141) the characters, Kavikarṇapūra writes, is naturally diverse.84 They do not possess that quality that can grasp the wonder in all rasas, but the standard stable emotions, such as love, anger, grief, disgust, and mirth. Moreover, the emotions of the audience are essentially aesthetic and are non‐reciprocal— although a member of the audience may experience the amorous themes of the poem in his mind, he himself does not awaken any affection in either the literary characters, the actor, or the poet. The stable emotions of the characters, on the other hand, at times has to generate a response in order to exist: thus amorous love needs to reside both in the lover and the beloved, disgust is not shared, and anger can either be mutual or not. ‘This is the case only for the characters’; Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes, ‘since it has already been declared that for the audience [the stable emotion] is only singular’.85 This stable emotion of the characters too can be heightened to rasa, when nourished by the excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions.86 Kavikarṇapūra makes this explicit in his discussion of each individual rasa. After analysing the heroic rasa, the very first rasa he discusses, and illustrating it with a verse depicts Kṛṣṇa’s heroic fight with the wicked king Jarāsandha, he writes ‘this [rasa] is imperceptible (parokṣa) in the real character of the Lord; [however] by listening to poetry it is visible (pratyakṣa) in the audience. This should be inferred in all [rasas].’87 Viśvanātha elaborates on it as follows: ‘Real’, that is, not artificial like an actor. In the Lord who is thus [real] that rasa is now imperceptible because all his play (līlā) and those involved in his play are unmanifest. However, such is the inconceivable power of the stable emotion which is the root of the sprout of relish that it reveals to the audience his sport (līlā) which is the subject of a poem or a play, even though it is unmanifest, because it is [now] made visible [through the performance of the literary work]. Hence for them that rasa has a visible nature.88 Kavikarṇapūra repeats such comments for most of the rasas. That ‘imperceptible’ (parokṣa) does not mean ‘absent’ or ‘non‐existent’ for him is clear from some of these later remarks. Thus, while discussing the compassionate (p.142) (karuṇa) rasa he writes: ‘this is only present in the audience, not in the characters, even imperceptibly’.89 As this comment indicates, this rasa of the characters is different from that of the audience. For the characters unpleasant emotions like grief (śoka), the stable emotion of the compassionate rasa, can never be raised to rasa, since the rasa of the characters is merely an intensified emotion, as authors like Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa argue. Since Page 18 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa unpleasant emotions do not become enjoyable when intensified—rather the contrary—the characters cannot experience the rasas that are based on them. Thus, the scene in Bhavabhūti’s Mālatī‐mādhava in which the tiger terrifies all is devoid of bliss for the characters, because it is based on fear. However, Kavikarṇapūra continues, Makaranda, who attacks and kills the tiger, is in a different situation: ‘when valour is shown, courage (utsāha) becomes the stable emotion. Thus, sometimes [in such situations] bliss arises, but not from fear.’90 Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of the character’s rasa is thus quite different from Bhoja’s, for whom the negative emotions too can be relished by the protagonist whose particular sense of self can make all emotions agreeable to his mind.91 It is this aspect of the character’s rasa more than anything else that demonstrates its profound differences with the audience’s rasa. The audience can experience a fearful or horrific rasa, precisely because the experience of fear or disgust is not theirs, but that of the original characters. The audience’s experience does not emerge from a stable emotion of fear or disgust, but from the general quality of his consciousness that enables him to taste rasa and see even in the depictions of such disagreeable emotions the wonder (camatkāra) that is the essence of rasa. ‘Consequently,’ Kavikarṇapūra concludes, ‘the state of rasa of the fearful, horrific, and other [such rasas based on unpleasant emotions] exists only in poetry and drama, not in the world. Therefore it is said: “in drama eight rasas are taught.” (KP 4.6) In drama there are eight, but in the world only a few, like the amorous, and so on, because they adhere to the above mentioned definition [of rasa].’92 Thus, for Kavikarṇapūra, there are two parallel but different experiences (p.143) of rasa: one belonging to the performance of poetry and drama, and one belonging to the world. The former is experienced by the audience and is therefore ‘visible’ (pratyakṣa) to them, but the latter belongs to the characters, and thus is imperceptible (aparokṣa) to the audience. Why then does Kavikarṇapūra state so emphatically that the characters do not experience rasa, as we saw earlier? It should be clear now that the above cited passage cannot be interpreted along the lines of Dhanañjaya and Dhanika, as Viśvanātha did. Rather, as indicated by the context of the passage, Kavikarṇapūra talks there not of rasa in general, but of a specific type of rasa. He explains that his primary focus in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha is poetry,93 and hence the discussion in chapter 5 on rasa is specifically about poetic and dramatic rasa. Kavikarṇapūra’s rhetorical question—‘how, then, can rasa be situated in the character?’—can therefore perhaps be rephrased as ‘since the rasa I have been discussing is awakened either by reading a poem or watching a dramatic performance, how can one say the characters of a literary work experience this type of rasa?’

Page 19 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa To summarize: Kavikarṇapūra’s entire rasa theory centres around the stable emotion, which is the material cause of rasa’s manifestation, and is ‘the bulb from which the relish [of rasa] sprouts’. Because rasa is a heightened emotional state, it is relatively easy for Kavikarṇapūra to integrate both rasa views (the audience’s and the character’s) into each other. Just as the reader relishes his own emotional states, aroused and diversified as rasa by the narrative elements of the literary work, so can the literary work itself depict the emotional intensity of the characters, whose stable emotions can in the appropriate circumstances also climax in rasa, provided the particular stable emotion is enjoyable. As is now obvious, it is hard to place Kavikarṇapūra in either of the two groups of rasa theorists we examined earlier. His analysis of the stable emotion resembles ideas of Bhoja, but also of Viśvanātha and Dhanañjaya. When he writes that rasa is a transformation of the stable emotion, he shows similarities with Vidyānātha and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka; but unlike them, Kavikarṇapūra does not teach that the audience experiences the rasa of the characters. When he stresses that the audience alone can experience rasa, he borrows from Dhanañjaya, Viśvanātha, and Mammaṭa; yet his claims that the original characters also experience some rasas is not unlike the ideas of Daṇḍī or Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa. In his description of the unity of the rasa experience, we hear echoes of Bhoja’s (p. 144) voice, and when he denies the possibility of experiencing unpleasant emotions as rasa in real life, he follows Viśvanātha and Abhinavagupta’s reasoning. As we will see later, Kavikarṇapūra’s double rasa theory is particularly important in a devotional context. Earlier we saw that Bhoja argues that a literary work is said to contain rasa because it contains descriptions and expressions of characters that experience rasa, whereas Dhanika argues that it is because the text can generate rasa in the audience. With his parallel rasa theories Kavikarṇapūra can argue both, and thereby recognize sacred and devotional texts as the record of devotional experiences, but also as the source of new devotional experiences. The devotional poem, in other words, both has and produces rasa. Dhanañjaya’s and Dhanika’s insistence of the impossibility for the characters to experience rasa because they are not real or no longer present does not fit into the devotional world view of Kavikarṇapūra. For him the characters of his poems—God and his devotees—are eternal. As he states at the end of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana: ‘the daily secret play of him who is an ocean of charm is eternal and was revealed as both visible (prakaṭa) and invisible (aprakaṭa).’94 The visible play Kṛṣṇa revealed when he descended to earth, and his invisible play continues to this day in Vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra writes.95 But both are eternal, and, as Devotion‐with‐Love’s comments in the Caitanya‐ candrodaya cited at the beginning of this chapter indicate, they become fully present in the poetic performance of their play.

Rasa and Devotion Page 20 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa As we have seen in Chapter 2, Kavikarṇapūra argues that rasa characterizes the unique, emotional devotion that Caitanya taught, and even his critical use of the concept of rasa is devotionally motivated. Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry praises Kṛṣṇa’s play, and the literary theory of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha explains such poetry. The stable emotion in his work is thus devotion (bhakti), love for God. But devotion is neither a stable emotion nor a rasa in the Nāṭya‐śāstra. How, then, do these two—the devotional and the literary—relate? What is the place of devotion in Sanskrit literary theory? As noted, Bharata lists but eight stable emotions. He discusses other emotions, but these are transient emotions: weariness, eagerness, anxiety, indignation, joy, remembrance, etc. There are thirty‐three of them, and they cannot exist on their own but need the support of a stable emotion. As Bharata explains, just as some people are kings or leaders and others are their subordinates, in (p.145) the same way some emotions are stable, whereas others are transient and subordinate to them.96 Although a person may have many attendants and followers, that alone does not make him equal to a king. ‘Similarly,’ Bharata writes, ‘[only] the stable emotion surrounded by the excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions is called rasa’.97 Many critics—particularly dramaturgists98—do not want to add to Bharata’s list of stable emotions, and make but few modifications to Bharata’s transient emotions.99 Only these eight emotions can be properly staged, and these eight are sufficient to account for the variety of emotions we find in literature. A very few critics, on the other hand, are reluctant to catalogue the stable emotions, because in their view any emotion can be raised to rasa.100 But most take a position somewhere in between: they hold on to Bharata’s interest in enumeration, but also accept a few additional emotions—but which emotions should be added is a more contested issue. These new stable emotions, and their corresponding rasas, are sometimes introduced merely to complete the critics’ own theories, but also in response to the changing literary world. With the increasing popularity of Buddhist and Jain poetry, and the growing acceptance of the Mahābhārata as literature,101 critics had to account for works that deal with the characters’ search for liberation (mokṣa) from this transient world. Thus, the peaceful (śānta) rasa, the rasa of tranquillity, was the first widely accepted ‘new’ rasa. Although there is a strong agreement among literary theorists that this is indeed a valid rasa, identifying its stable emotion proved rather problematic, for what emotion lies at the basis of liberation, wherein all emotions cease? As Edwin Gerow notes, ‘[t]o assert it as a rasa involves an aesthetic paradox, for while the eight rasas are clearly understood as modifications of the basic emotional constituents [bhāva] of our mundane personality, the new rasa implies rather a suppression of those very constituents: it is a state untroubled by emotion of any sort.’102 Some authors suggest tranquillity (śama) as its stable emotion, and this view was later interpolated Page 21 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa into some recensions of Bharata’s own text. Bhoja suggests contentment (dhṛti) in one place,103 while Ānandavardhana considers it to be ‘happiness that arises from the cessation of all desires’ (tṛṣṇākṣaya‐sukha).104 (p.146) Abhinavagupta argues it must be knowledge of the truth (tattva‐jñāna) or knowledge of the self (ātma‐jñāna), since that is what leads to liberation.105 Some authors look for support of this ninth rasa within Bharata’s own Nāṭya‐ śāstra. Bharata, they argue, does accept the peaceful rasa, but only discusses it indirectly. Indifference (nirveda), the first in Bharata’s list of transient emotions, is its proper stable emotion. Mammaṭa, who holds this view, explains the reasoning behind this reading: The mentioning of indifference, which is generally inauspicious, [as the] first [of the transient emotions], even though it is generally not acceptable [to mention anything inauspicious at the beginning of a list], means that, though it is a transient emotion, [its initial position in the list] indicates its nature of stable emotion. Therefore, the ninth rasa is the peaceful, with indifference said to be the stable emotion.106 The sage Bharata would not start a list with a negative emotion like indifference, since that would be inauspicious. But since he did, this must point to a hidden intent. Indifference, although one of the transient emotions, can also be a stable emotion, and when properly developed lead to the peaceful rasa, the ninth rasa. But why would Bharata hide this ninth rasa in the list of transient emotions? Mammaṭa argues that there are only eight rasas that are taught to be dramatic rasas (nāṭya‐rasa), because, as Vidyācakravartī elaborates in his commentary on the Kāvya‐prakāśa, ‘it is not accepted that the peaceful rasa can be suggested through acting’.107 The peaceful rasa is indeed the ninth rasa, he continues, but occurs exclusively in poetry.108 The peaceful rasa is not the only one that is added to Bharata’s list. Bharata’s theory makes no room for any love but amorous love, and several critics therefore introduce additional stable emotions and rasas that address this lack. Viśvanātha accepts a rasa of parental love (vatsala), with parental affection (vatsalatā) as stable emotion.109 Rudraṭa (ninth century) introduces friendship by including the rasa of affection (preyas), with fondness (sneha) as its stable emotion.110 Bhoja too has such an affectionate (preyas) rasa which (p.147) has the same stable emotion as Rudraṭa’s rasa, but he understands this to be the rasa of an amorous protagonist, since this emotion is for him the root of amorous love.111 Aside from the peaceful and affectionate rasas, Bhoja adds two more to the list: the magnanimous (udātta) rasa, based on resolve (mati), and the haughty (uddhata) rasa, with pride (garva) as its stable emotion.112

Page 22 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa With the rise of Sanskrit devotional poetry in the second millennium, literary critics naturally begin to discuss devotion’s place in this rasa scheme. Is devotion a new stable emotion or rasa? Dhanañjaya, who holds strictly to Bharata’s eight rasas, sees no need to accept devotion as a separate stable emotion. ‘Since emotions like affection (prīti) and devotion (bhakti), and rasas like hunting and gambling can clearly be included in [other emotion] like [the transient emotion] joy (harṣa) and [the stable emotion] courage (utsāha) they are not mentioned [here].’113 Thus in dramaturgy, devotion can be reduced to its dominant characteristic, namely joy, which Dhanañjaya describes as ‘a brightness [arising] from joyous occasions [which leads to] tears, perspiration and stammering’.114 Devotion, as a particular form of joy, is thus a transient emotion. Abhinavagupta similarly includes devotion in one of the existing emotions. Devotion and faith (śraddhā) in regard to meditation on God, he argues in the Abhinava‐bhāratī, are both conducive to attaining liberation if they are strengthened by indifference, reflection, and steadfastness. Neither of these should therefore be considered as separate from the peaceful rasa.115 In the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa, Viśvanātha similarly argues that if devoid of ego (ahaṃkāra), love for a god, that is, devotion, can be subsumed under the peaceful rasa.116 For Abhinavagupta, and (conditionally) for Viśvanātha, devotion can, in other words, become a rasa, but this rasa is that of tranquillity. (p.148) Mammaṭa, on the other hand, argues differently: ‘Love for a god, etc., as well as a transient emotion that is suggested, is said to be “emotion” (bhāva).’117 He clarifies that this includes love for sages, elders or teachers, and sons; only if the object of love is a lover, does love become elevated to the amorous rasa.118 Viśvanātha agrees, but limits the objects of this love to superiors, and further states that a stable emotion that is merely awakened and not developed enough to reach rasa‐hood also belongs to this category.119 Their depiction in literature is highly appropriate, for as Viśvanātha explains, ‘there is no rasa without emotion, and no emotion deprived of rasa. The perfection of both rasas and emotional states is achieved by each other’.120 Although they thus complement rasa, emotions like devotion never become rasa.121 Viśvanātha and Mammaṭa make room for devotion, but do not consider it adequate to become the stable emotion of a poem or play.122 S. K. De argues that the question whether devotion can become a rasa is ‘more or less academic’.123 A Vaiṣṇava author like Kavikarṇapūra would certainly object to this, since all of the above‐mentioned attempts to make room for devotion in a rasa criticism are theologically problematic. To consider devotion an aspect of the peaceful rasa might be appropriate for an intellectual devotion, but does not work for emotional devotionalism that spread in Northern India from the twelfth century onwards. As Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha remarks in his Page 23 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Rasa‐gaṅgādhara: since such devotion is based on strong attachment (anurāga), it cannot be subsumed under tranquillity, which is based on the opposite, viz. the complete absence of attachment and passion.124 (p.149) Moreover, equating devotion with liberation is, as we have seen in Chapter 2, highly objectionable for Kavikarṇapūra. The latter state, bitter like a nimba fruit, is only acceptable for those ignorant of rasa and those who fail to taste the sweetness of Kṛṣṇa.125 According to Śrīnātha the knowledge of rasa drives the desire for liberation far away.126 Nor is devotion inferior to liberation. As we have seen, devotion may grant a devotee liberation, but it surpasses it, and continues even after liberation has been attained. On the other hand, to delegate devotion to the level of emotion (bhāva) and declaring it incapable of becoming a rasa, is to make it, at least in the world of literature, inferior to other emotions like love, anger, or disgust. Dhanañjaya’s reduction of devotion to joy (harṣa) would be equally problematic, for it equates the joy of devotion with worldly joys, like that of ‘the return of a beloved’ or ‘the birth of a son’.127 While Kavikarṇapūra does indeed agree that devotion consists of joy, according to him the joy found in devotion to God surpasses all else. Devotion imbued with rasa makes all that is beautiful in this world appear dull.128 However, De’s judgement is not unreasonable. As we will see, neither Kavikarṇapūra nor the Vaiṣṇava authors he draws on are that interested in Mammaṭa’s or Viśvanātha’s notion of devotion. Whereas earlier authors might have considered a poem about Kṛṣṇa’s amorous play with the gopīs to fall under the amorous (śṛṅgāra) rasa, Vaiṣṇava authors will argue that its rasa is a type of devotional rasa, since it is a form of love for a deity. The discussion about devotion’s status as rasa—particularly in the writings of Kavikarṇapūra—is thus more prompted by the different ontological nature of the excitant (i.e. God), than by the different nature and dynamics of the emotion itself. In other words, whereas Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha are concerned whether reverence for God is an emotion that can be developed throughout an entire literary work and be raised to the state of rasa, similar to the way amorous love or fear or anger can, this is but of little interest to the Vaiṣṇava authors we will discuss here, because they use the concept of devotional rasa not to analyse a single emotional state (i.e. reverential love), but rather as an umbrella term to cover the rasas of a variety of emotions experienced in relation to God (i.e. Bharata’s stable emotions).129 Indeed, several of the Vaiṣṇava authors (p.150) who talk of devotional rasa, like Śrīnātha, do so not out of an interest in literature, but rather because the notion of rasa which they borrow from literary theorists provides a useful tool to analyse devotional religious experiences.

Page 24 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Although several authors have written about devotional rasa before Kavikarṇapūra, we will here examine only the three that have influenced him directly: Vopadeva, Hemādri, and Śrīnātha.130 Vopadeva and Hemādri

The first systematic presentation of devotional rasa is found in the works of Vopadeva (thirteenth century), a celebrated grammarian and commentator on the Bhāgavata, and his patron Hemādri, the author of the voluminous Caturvarga‐cintāmaṇi and a minister at the court of the Yādava kings at Devagiri, Maharashtra. In the [Bhāgavata‐]Muktā‐phala, a work consisting mainly of passages from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa topically arranged, Vopadeva uses the nine rasas—Bharata’s eight with the peaceful rasa—to differentiate various types of devotees and to analyse some narrative passages of the Bhāgavata. In chapter 11 of the Muktā‐ phala, entitled ‘a description of Viṣṇu’s devotees’, Vopadeva lists nine types of devotees, classified according to ‘the experience of devotional rasa in the form of the comic, amorous, compassionate, furious, fearful, horrific, peaceful, marvellous, and heroic [rasa]’. This devotional rasa, he continues, is ‘a wonder (camatkāra) arising from listening and so to the acts of Viṣṇu or Viṣṇu’s devotees, consisting of the nine rasas, as described by Vyāsa and others’.131 It arises from contemplation on God, when the mind is fully absorbed in him.132 After these brief comments, Vopadeva devotes the (p.151) remainder of the Muktā‐phala—chapters 11 to 19—to demonstrating each of these nine types of devotional rasa with carefully chosen verses from the Bhāgavata. Hemādri expands on these brief thoughts in the Kaivalya‐dīpikā, his commentary on the Muktā‐phala, and continually brings Vopadeva’s ideas into dialogue with the views of literary theorists. Hemādri is familiar with the Nāṭya‐śāstra and Abhinavagupta’s commentary thereon, Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṃkāra, Mammaṭa’s Kāvya‐prakāśa, Hemacandra’s Kāvyānuśāsana, as well as Bhoja’s works, but is especially influenced by Dhanañjaya, whom he quotes regularly. On Vopadeva’s initial discussion of rasa Hemādri comments as follows: When [devotion] reaches its highest intensity it is rasa. As they say, ‘emotions (bhāva) themselves, becoming highly relishable, turn into rasa.’ Because one experiences devotional rasa [one is called] a devotee, just as one is called satisfied because one has experienced satisfaction. This experience is of nine kinds, divided according to the differences of the comic rasa and so on. Because those very rasas like the comic when used in relation to the Lord overlap with the defining characteristic of devotion —‘Therefore, by any means the mind should be immersed in Kṛṣṇa’ (BP 7.1.31)—they attain the position of devotional rasa.133

Page 25 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Bharata’s stable emotions together with tranquillity, the stable emotion of the peaceful rasa,134 are means to absorb the mind in Kṛṣṇa and thereby become not merely the standard rasas, such as the comic or the amorous, but types of devotional rasa, since they thus correspond to Vopadeva’s notion of devotion, which he defined earlier with this Bhāgavata verse.135 Hemādri clarifies this a little later. The stable emotion of devotional rasa, he writes ‘is absorption of the mind by any means’,136 and those means (upāya) are the stable emotions as depicted by poets. Devotional rasa is for Hemādri thus not a distinct emotive experience—as Mammaṭa, for example, sees it—but rather an experience of the classical rasas in relation to Viṣṇu. There is not one emotion that leads to devotional rasa, but there are nine. The ‘ninefoldness’ of this rasa arises ‘from the distinctions of the nine rasas such as the comic, because of the distinction of nine limiting adjuncts (upādhi)’.137 These nine emotions become devotional when they lead to a total immersion in God, because they (p.152) then fulfil the defining characteristic of devotion, and are therefore merely different manifestations of the singular devotional rasa. Essentially, devotional rasa thus seems to be not that different from the classical rasas, but Hemādri nevertheless insist that it should not be subsumed under any other rasa, because it has unique characteristics that distinguish it from all other emotions and rasas. ‘Its stimulating excitants (uddīpana‐vibhāva) are acts like hearing about the acts [of Viṣṇu and his devotees], and its foundational excitants (ālambana) are the devotees of Viṣṇu;138 its ensuants (anubhāva) are the properly described [responses of the devotees] like being stunned; and its transient emotions are resolve, and so on.’139 If one rejects devotional rasa, like Abhinavagupta and Hemacandra do, even though it has these distinct characteristics, one does so merely because one has no taste for that rasa. This, however, is not a reason to reject a rasa; if it were, Hemādri argues, all emotions would have to be considered unfit to become rasa. Ascetics who are completely free from all sensual desire do not experience the amorous rasa, nor do those who are attached to sense enjoyment experience the rasa of tranquillity. Indeed, old Mīmāṃsakas and Vedic scholars do not experience any rasa at all, he writes, even if they attend the performance of a play. Every rasa can therefore only manifest itself in the persons who are attuned to it and therefore this argument cannot be used to dismiss devotion’s place among the rasas.140 At the same time, however, Hemādri is cautious of declaring this devotional rasa to be a new rasa. Vopadeva’s rasa theory, he explains, is not incongruous with the rasa theories of Bharata and Dhanañjaya, unlike Bhoja’s, which includes the affectionate, magnanimous, and haughty rasas which are not found in Bharata’s dramaturgy.141 Devotional rasa is not so much a new or additional rasa as it is a category of rasas. This is already evident from the different constituents of rasa Hemādri gives: the excitants, ensuants, and transient emotions, as well as its stable emotions he offers are rather generic, and are essentially those that are appropriate to one of the standard rasas, as Hemādri reiterates when he Page 26 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa analyses each of the nine rasas in his commentary on the following chapters of the Muktā‐phala. (p.153) Hemādri consciously does not disclose all the details of his rasa theory, ‘out of fear that the book will become too long’,142 but he relies extensively on Dhanañjaya’s Daśa‐rūpaka. Since Vopadeva states that devotional rasa arises from listening to descriptions of the acts of Viṣṇu and his devotees, it should come as no surprise that Hemādri too, like Dhanañjaya, focusses on the audience rather than the literary characters. As he explains, in the characters, like Jānakī and Rāmabhadra, are only [the stable emotions] like love, but not the state of rasa, because its form is otherworldly wonder (lokottara‐camatkāra). Even though there is sometimes [rasa] in the amorous and the like, by the wonders (camatkāra) [that this emotion produces], still [the term rasa] is not used there, because of the experiences caused by the fearful, and so on.143 Since fear or disgust, when intensified, do not lead to an experience of ‘otherworldly wonder’, we cannot call the culmination of any of the characters’ emotional experiences rasa. Therefore rasa can only be experienced by the audience of a literary performance, who are removed from the actual emotion itself. In one place, though, Hemādri seems to suggest that devotional rasa can be experienced in a non‐literary context. Commenting on Vopadeva’s statement that rasa is experienced by ‘listening and so on’ he explains that this includes ‘seeing, praising, recollecting, and acting’.144 Given his insistence that characters cannot experience rasa, he presumably interprets ‘praising’ (kīrtana) and ‘recollecting’ (smaraṇa)—which are, with listening (śravaṇa), the three main devotional practices taught in the Muktā‐phala145—here in a literary sense. ‘Praising’ would thus refer to poet or the reciter of poetry describing the acts of Viṣṇu’s devotees, and he who ‘recollects’ reflects on what he has read or heard.146 If the fearful and horrific rasa cannot lead to a wondrous experience for the characters, one may wonder how those emotions would please the devotional audience of a text like the Bhāgavata. Are the characters’ negative emotions for Viṣṇu pleasurable for a devotee? Earlier in the Muktā‐phala, Vopadeva differentiated two types of devotion: that which is prescribed (vihitā) and that (p.154) which is not prescribed (avihitā). The former, which has many sub‐ varieties, consists of the devotional practices delineated in sacred texts, whereas the latter does not. Devotion that is not prescribed is of four types: devotion born from desire (kāma), devotion born from enmity (dveṣa), devotion born from fear (bhaya), and devotion born from affection (sneha).147 Vopadeva derives these four types of ‘unprescribed’ devotion from a Bhāgavata passage: ‘Their minds absorbed in God with such devotion [that is not prescribed] through desire, through enmity, through fear, through affection, many have given up sin Page 27 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa and have attained his state. Your majesty, the gopīs [attained this] by sexual desire, Kaṃsa by fear, kings like Caidya [Śiśupāla] by enmity, the Vṛṣṇis by kinship, you [the Pāṇḍavas] by affection, and we [Nārada] by [prescribed] devotion.’148 Thus according to Vopadeva Kaṃsa is indeed to be considered a devotee, since his every thought was absorbed in Kṛṣṇa through fear, and therefore Hemādri calls him the principal ‘fearful devotee’ (bhīru‐bhakta).149 Descriptions of Kaṃsa’s fear of Kṛṣṇa can therefore lead to the wonder (camatkāra) of rasa, because it concerns one of Viṣṇu’s devotees. Vopadeva and Hemādri treat the other negative emotion, disgust (jugupsā) and the corresponding horrific (bībhatsa) rasa, differently. Although Hemādri writes in one place of ‘devotional rasa in the form of the horrific [rasa]’,150 all Vopadeva’s examples illustrate that the object of disgust is not Viṣṇu, but rather the world whose transience seems horrific to the devotee who is aware of God’s enduring reality. As Hemādri explains, its stimulating excitant (uddīpana‐ vibhāva) can be the ‘defects of the body’ or agents of decay, such as insects and worms. Such emotions can be considered an aspect of devotional rasa, he argues, ‘because [the devotee’s] thoughts, endowed with disgust, are directed to the Lord’.151 Vopadeva and Hemādri’s analysis is important for more than just their attempt to address the question of whether devotion can be considered a rasa or not. They are the first to offer a sustained analysis of the Bhāgavata’s narrative passages through rasa, and it is remarkable how Vopadeva’s analysis of the different types of devotees in chapter 11 of the Muktā‐phala is entirely (p.155) centred around literary performance. According to the definition offered in this chapter, a devotee is one who listens to poetry, watches and acts in plays, composes or recites poetry, and remembers the narrations about Viṣṇu and his devotees. Śrīnātha

Vopadeva and Hemādri consider the nine rasas of literary theory to become devotional rasa when they occur in the descriptions of Viṣṇu and his devotees. But as we have seen when discussing their concept of the horrific rasa, this sometimes results in a combination of emotional states: a feeling of disgust for the decaying world and one’s mortal body, and devotional sentiments for Viṣṇu. It is this idea of a dual emotion that Śrīnātha picks up, and develops into his notion of ‘devotion with rasa’ (sarasā bhakti or rasa‐bhakti). Śrīnātha’s ideas on rasa are scattered throughout the Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā, but are most comprehensively expressed in his comments on a verse of the eleventh book (BP 11.12.8).152 Śrīnātha is well‐read in Sanskrit poetics, and refers to Vopadeva’s Muktā‐phala, Bhoja’s Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa, and Ānandavardhana’s Dhvany‐āloka, but rarely uses rasa as a concept for literary criticism. Unlike Hemādri and Vopadeva, Śrīnātha is purely interested in Page 28 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa devotional rasa as a spiritual experience brought about by one’s worship of Kṛṣṇa, and does not have much to say about the audience of a literary work. The application of Śrīnātha’s ideas to literary works is Kavikarṇapūra’s concern, as we will see in the next section. Śrīnātha divides devotion into two types: devotion that is devoid of rasa, and devotion with rasa (sarasā bhakti or rasa‐bhakti). The former manifests in various forms, based on the modes of nature (guṇa) it mixes with. Devotion with rasa, however, is unique, and is only fully exemplified in relation to Kṛṣṇa. It is the combination of two mental states, as Śrīnātha explains: Devotion is the mental state developed when there is the awareness of something worshipable (upāsyatva‐jñāna). If this is connected with another state of mind [such as] a stable emotions like love, it is then called devotion with rasa (rasa‐bhakti). One should not doubt this, considering that since two mental states are not attained simultaneously, they must occur in succession. One should see both in devotion with rasa: the aspects of devotion in its nature as such devotion and the constituents of rasa in its nature as rasa. In devotion devoid of rasa, however, only the aspects of devotion are found.153 (p.156) Devotion with rasa (rasa‐bhakti) is therefore a blend of two states of mind: a worshipful attitude and an emotional involvement. He allows for devotion to occur without rasa, but that this emotional devotional state is superior to the variety without rasa, and indeed the true form of devotion is clear from other passages in Śrīnātha’s work.154 Like Hemādri and Vopadeva, Śrīnātha argues also that devotion with rasa comes in many flavours. Devotion with rasa (sarasā bhakti) is of eleven types: [the first] eight are those beginning with the amorous [as listed in the Nāṭya‐śāstra]; the ninth is the peaceful; the tenth is Love (prema). Bhojadeva declares that the eleventh is [the rasa] of parental affection, but in reality that is included in Love.155 Therefore the eleventh is known as adoration (bhāva). As it is said: ‘It is declared that “adoration is love for a god, and so on”. If fully nourished by extraordinary excitants and so on, adoration too attains the state of rasa. [Thus,] that adoration is considered a rasa.’ Devotion accompanied by these rasas is called devotion with rasa. The ancients considered that [all] the rasas, beginning with the amorous, are one, though they are distinct by such [expressions] as glancing at each other.156 As we have seen, Mammaṭa called devotion an ‘emotional state’ (bhāva) and thus excluded it from the rasas. The word bhāva is often used in devotional works as synonymous with, or at least semantically related to, devotion,157 which is why I have translated it in this context as ‘adoration’ rather than as (p. Page 29 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa 157) the more general ‘emotion’. This devotional reading of Mammaṭa’s view is ingenious, and allows Śrīnātha to turn the argument around: calling devotion bhāva does not dismiss devotion as an emotion unfit to be experienced as rasa, as is traditionally argued, but rather establishes it as a separate emotion, which when properly nourished can also attain the status of rasa. It is unclear what role this rasa of devotion, the eleventh rasa that can be combined with devotion, plays in Śrīnātha’s theory, as he generally ignores it (and thus only considers ten rasas), as we will see below. The idea is very important for Kavikarṇapūra, however, who builds his theory of devotional rasa on it. Like Kavikarṇapūra, Śrīnātha too considers the rasa experience to be essentially singular. It is only analysed as consisting of different types due to the differences in physical responses (anubhāva), like mutual glances, which are an expression of amorous love. Based on the ten main rasas—excluding the devotional rasa—Śrīnātha lists ten ‘worshippers with rasa’ (rasopāsaka), each of which has both the reverential awareness, and the constituents of rasa: for Kubjā, the courtesan of Mathurā, devotion is flavoured with the amorous rasa, for the earth with the compassionate; Arjuna is in fear, Nārada’s devotion has a comic touch, while the Kaurava women worship in wonder; Bhīṣma’s devotion blends with heroism, the lord of the demons [Prahlāda] with the horrific rasa; Bhṛgu, the best of the sages, worships with anger, Piṅgalā with tranquillity, and the cowherd girls with Love.158 This analysis differs from that offered by Vopadeva,159 and Śrīnātha therefore stresses that both components—rasa and devotion—need to be present for it to be devotion with rasa, and writes: Objection: In works like the Muktā-phala Vopadeva and others explain all these devotees with rasa very differently: people like Kaṃsa are in fear and people like Hiraṇyakaśipu are in anger. What unprecedented path of yours is this where you ignore these and [instead] mention Pārtha (Arjuna)? It is true. If they were devotees and had devotion as defined above, then they would be devotees with rasa; but since they do not have devotion they are certainly not devotees. However, they achieved perfection because their [emotions] like fear (p.158) caused [Kṛṣṇa] to be vividly and continuously manifested [to them]. [The Bhāgavata (7.1.31)] states: ‘Kaṃsa through fear, Caidya [Śiśupāla] through enmity and others [have attained his abode].’ Thus they attained perfection only by the vivid manifestation [of Kṛṣṇa caused] by their pure fear, not by devotion.160 Śrīnātha excludes here Hiranyakaśipu, Kaṃsa, and Śiśupāla—all discussed by Vopadeva in the Muktā‐phala161—because they have no devotion, and can therefore not experience devotion with rasa. Śrīnātha’s disagreement with Page 30 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Vopadeva and Hemādri on this issue reflects once more his different starting point: since he explores the devotion with rasa of the characters, Kaṃsa’s and Śiśupāla’s emotions are not considered, because they are devoid of any reverential attitude. Contrary to Vopadeva and Hemādri, Śrīnātha therefore does not consider them devotees, and does not argue that the descriptions of their acts leads to an experience of devotional rasa. Earlier in the Caitanya‐mata‐ mañjuṣā Śrīnātha even remarks that persons devoid of devotion who fear God experience the horrific rasa, not the fearful as would be expected, since their fear is rooted in disgust.162 It is for this reason that he gives Arjuna, who experienced fear upon seeing Kṛṣṇa’s cosmic form, as an example of devotion with the fearful rasa. This view has of course some important implications, which Śrīnātha addresses next: Objection: In regards to devotion with the fearful [rasa], the permanent nature (sthāyitva) of the stable emotion, such as fear, does not occur in the mentioned examples of Pārtha, etc. Only that which remains even in the absence of the excitants is truly the stable emotion. Fear arose only when Pārtha saw [Kṛṣṇa’s] horrific form, but it was not there before. It is not like this, since disgust (jugupsā) is transient. Certainly no one’s mind remains perpetually disgusted, but is so only at the time of seeing the [appropriate] excitants. How, then, does it have a permanent nature? Therefore, the stable emotion is a particular state of mind that is associated with the realisation of the nature of rasa and is distinct from the excitants and so on. That a person like Pārtha is a devotee with [a rasa] like the fearful is caused by time; it is not natural (svābhāvika). Rather, friendship (sakhya) is natural [for Arjuna]. And thus it is said: ‘Devotion does not have a single rasa, nor does a devotee have one [type of] (p.159) devotion. Whatever his disposition [in a particular situation], that [rasa] is declared as taught by tradition.’163 Śrīnātha here adds an additional rasa to his theory: a rasa of friendship (sakhya), which is the natural (svābhāvika) rasa of Arjuna. Elsewhere he does likewise: commenting on the nine practices of devotion, he again brings in the concept of rasa: ‘Or else, the characteristics of it [i.e. devotion] are the nine rasas—the nine rasas [here], excepting the horrific and furious…and including Love and parental affection. It is to be understood that these nine rasas are of devotion too.’164 Here Śrīnātha adds parental affection (vātsalya) to the list, although he argues elsewhere, as we have seen, that it can be included in Love. It is unclear whether friendship would be included in these nine rasas at the expense of the fearful rasa, on the basis that the former is included in the Bhāgavata verse Śrīnātha comments upon.165

Page 31 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Śrīnātha differentiates in the above quoted passage between a rasa that arises from specific excitants (vibhāva) and is only experienced at particular times (the fearful rasa), and a natural rasa, which indicates the more stable relationship the devotee has with Kṛṣṇa (the rasa of friendship). The former comes and goes, but the latter is continually present—a concept that resembles Rūpa Gosvāmī’s notion of primary and secondary rasas, discussed in the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu (2.5.38–40). It should be clear now that if we were to apply Śrīnātha’s ideas to literature, it would be the devotee characters that experience rasa: Kubjā, Arjuna, Nārada, and so on, are all characters in the Bhāgavata narrative. The text is a record of their devotional experiences, and the rasa Śrīnātha discusses is their rasa. (p.160) The reader, however, can share in this experience, as is clear from Śrīnātha’s comments on the third verse of the Bhāgavata: ‘O competent men, expert in imagination (bhāvanā). O knowers of rasa (rasika), you who are firm in the rasa of Love! Drink this Bhāgavata rasa—the rasa of the gopīs.’166 Śrīnātha does not develop this further, but the passage resembles the ideas of Vidyānātha and Bhaṭṭa Narasiṃha. Echoing their arguments, Śrīnātha here states that the reader who himself experiences the rasa of Love tastes, by his expertise and vivid imagination, the same rasa as the original characters. Among Śrīnātha’s eleven rasas two seem amorous in nature: the standard amorous (śṛṅgāra) rasa, experienced by Kubjā, and the rasa of Love (prema), experienced by the gopīs of Vṛndāvana. Commenting on a description of the cowherd girls’ emotions in the tenth book, Śrīnātha writes: This is the tenth rasa, known as Love (prema), and its stable emotion is possessiveness (mamakāra), Śrī Kṛṣṇa is its object (ālambana), its stimulants are their playing, etc. Its ensuants (anubhāva) are glancing at each other, [and] embarrassment, [as indicated by] the word ‘embarrassed’ [in the verse he comments upon], is its transient emotion. Fully nourished by these, the stable emotion possessiveness (mamakāra) becomes rasa; this is the rasa called Love. Hence for these young girls there is only the rasa called Love, not the amorous (śṛṅgāra). But the statement ‘the gopīs by sexual desire (kāma)’ (BP 7.1.31), that is about someone else; only the statement ‘through pure emotion (bhāva)’ (BP 11.12.8) is about the young girls.167 Bhāgavata 7.1.31, as we have seen, states that through fear, enmity and desire, various persons have attained Kṛṣṇa’s state, ‘having given up its sin’ (tad‐aghaṃ hitvā). Śrīnātha comments that the sin here refers to the sin caused by these emotions themselves, but adds:

Page 32 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa however, there is no fault whatsoever caused by sexual desire for Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The logic in this is as follows: desire does not arise without love. Now, if love—[which Bhoja defines as] ‘the experience of joy in things agreeable to the mind’ (SKA 5.138)—is the experience of joy in Śrī Kṛṣṇa, by being agreeable to the mind, desire denotes esteem for the object… There is a lacuna in the manuscripts here. The text continues: (p.161) Longing is desire, since the Lord says that ‘the saintly person who continuously desires me gives up all other [desires] in his heart’ (BP 1.6.22), and so on. May the wicked be satisfied! Even so, before it is vanishes, desire produces Love, just as the substance used to purify water consumes itself and then produces the sweet fragrance of water.168 Thus, although the young girls of Vraja may have sexual desires for Kṛṣṇa, and although desire is generally an obstacle on the path to liberation, there is no fault in these gopīs’ emotions—unlike those of Kaṃsa and Śiśupāla—because their desire is an expression of their amorous love for Kṛṣṇa and leads to Love. Moreover, Śrīnātha continues, the gopīs clearly ‘have no sexual desire for anyone else, because they do not seek refuge in anyone else’. Thus, ‘in truth, the gopīs do not have sexual desire for the Lord. People define sexual desire as a mere emotion of a woman for a man. But this here is not sexual desire,’ he concludes, as is indeed claimed in Bhāgavata 11.12.8, which states that the gopīs attained Kṛṣṇa ‘by absolutely pure emotion’.169 We will return to this argument for the gopīs’ special love in Chapter 7. This tenth rasa, however, is not just one rasa among many. It is the culmination of all other rasas. Śrīnātha writes: Partial (khaṇḍa) bliss enters naturally into complete (akhaṇḍa) bliss; thus all rasas are certainly contained in the rasa of Love. All emotions, and even all rasas emerge from and merge back into the dense bliss that is the rasa of Love, like waves in the ocean. This is only indicated here, and for fear of long‐windedness these [different rasas] are not illustrated [here]; [for more information] one should look in the Rasa‐bhakti‐candrikā.170 The authorship of the work Śrīnātha refers to, the Rasa‐bhakti‐candrikā, is unknown and the text is unfortunately lost.171 Judging from the title, the text (p. 162) shares not only Śrīnātha’s concept of the rasa of Love, but also his concept of devotion with rasa (rasa‐bhakti). Kavikarṇapūra

In the Caitanya‐candrodaya Kavikarṇapūra follows Śrīnātha’s concept of devotion with rasa. Devotion‐with‐Love (Premabhakti) there recounts her Page 33 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa genealogy and states that only when devotion rises above the influence of the modes (guṇa) of matter does it gain rasa, and then becomes tenfold, as we have seen in Chapter 2. Kavikarṇapūra there singles out six rasas as best—‘the luminous, the wondrous, peace and mirth, affection and parental affection’—and Love (prema) as the ultimate rasa,172 but it is rather unclear what the remaining ones are. The concept is clearly Śrīnātha’s, although the details notably differ. Kavikarṇapūra offers a different analysis in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. Initially, Kavikarṇapūra is entirely silent about devotion. Only after fourteen kārikā verses of chapter 5 does he directly address the validity of devotional rasa, long after he named the other rasas (in and immediately after the fourth kārikā). Thus, when first discussing the stable emotions and their rasas, he mentions only eleven rasas. He lists Bharata’s eight, and, citing the Kāvya‐prakāśa, adds the peaceful rasa with indifference (nirveda) as its stable emotion, commenting—quite against Mammaṭa’s own view, as we have seen earlier173—that the peaceful too is thus ‘a dramatic rasa’ (nāṭya‐rasa). To these nine rasas, Kavikarṇapūra adds two more: ‘Bhoja declares eleven rasas, with parental affection (vatsala) and Love (prema) [as additional rasas]. In the case of parental affection, possessiveness (mamakāra) is the stable emotion; in the case of Love it is melting of the heart (citta‐drava). Only these eleven are dear to the assembly of rasikas [when depicted] in drama, and poetry as well.’174 Bhoja does not discuss Love or parental affection as the tenth and eleventh rasa anywhere in the Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa or the Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa, nor does Bhoja advocate just eleven rasas anywhere in those works. This led V. Raghavan to write that ‘Kavikarṇapūra certainly refers here not to the Ś (p.163) ṛ. Pra. [Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa] but only to the S.K.Ā. [Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa]. But while stating Bhoja’s view of Rasa, the author seems to have written without seeing the S.K.Ā.’ Indeed, he concludes, ‘every bit of information given by Kavikarṇapūra as Bhoja’s view of Rasa is wide of the mark’.175 Kavikarṇapūra uses different terminology, but the concept of his rasa of Love is not so foreign to Bhoja as Raghavan suggests. Kavikarṇapūra’s stable emotion of Love (prema), ‘melting of the heart’ (citta‐drava) is identical to Bhoja’s notion of affection (sneha), which he defines as ‘a spontaneous and unceasing melting of the heart.’176 Bhoja names this emotion the stable emotion of his rasa of affection (preyas), and since he uses the terms preyas and prema sometimes interchangeably,177 it is not that difficult to see how Kavikarṇapūra arrived at his understanding. Moreover, the Samarāṅgaṇa‐sūtradhāra, a work on architecture attributed to Bhoja, does mention eleven rasas. Chapter 82 of the work, which deals with the rasas of paintings, mentions eleven rasas, one of which is Love (prema) and another possibly parental affection.178

Page 34 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Kavikarṇapūra’s list of rasas and stable emotions is not too different from that of Śrīnātha. As we have seen, Śrīnātha accepts the rasa of parental affection (in CMM 7.5.23–24), although he also reduces parental affection to an aspect of Love (in CMM 11.12.6). Śrīnātha’s stable emotion of the rasa of Love becomes the stable emotion for Kavikarṇapūra’s parental affection, and the stable emotion of Love is redefined by Kavikarṇapūra as ‘melting of the heart’. This may seem like a departure from Śrīnātha, but it is grounded in Śrīnātha’s own thought. He explains that ‘by the melting of the heart the mind (p.164) becomes liquid’ and then becomes deeply attached to Kṛṣṇa. ‘This is devotion characterised by Love’.179 Kavikarṇapūra does not mention devotion yet, in a very conscious attempt to articulate a theory of devotional rasa that furthers Mammaṭa’s and Viśvanātha’s ideas, rather than contradicts them. The first step towards this is taken immediately after the above quoted passage. Having listed these eleven stable emotions and their corresponding rasas, Kavikarṇapūra elaborates on the first of these, love (rati): Love is the mental state of fondness which makes one agreeable to the enjoyment of happiness. It gets the name affection (prīti), friendship (maitrī), kind‐heartedness (sauhārda) and adoration (bhāva). That fondness of the heart which is amorous in nature is called love (rati). Respectable people consider amorous the conduct between a man and a woman. That mental state of fondness which is not amorous is called affection (prīti), [as the love felt] for the wife of a friend or the friend of one’s husband, like [the love] of Draupadī and Kṛṣṇa. The mental state of fondness [felt] by both [sexes] for female friends or male friends is called friendship (maitrī).180 Affection and friendship that consists of a state of mind which is pleasurable by [actions] like touching [the shoulder, etc.],181 that is without change, and appears always the same is called kind‐heartedness (sauhārda).182 Finally we arrive at devotion: That love which is directed to a god, etc. is called adoration (bhāva). That is a mental state of fondness. The word ‘etc.’ indicates [other superior personalities] like one’s preceptor (guru).183 Kavikarṇapūra here combines ideas of Bhoja and Mammaṭa. In the Sarasvatī‐ kaṇṭhābharaṇa (5.138) Bhoja defines love (rati) and affection (prīti) in the exact same way as Kavikarṇapūra does here. Kavikarṇapūra then adds two more categories of love to this, and finally joins this with Mammaṭa’s understanding of devotion as a particular type of love. (Where all these varieties of love fit into the rasa framework is not clear. If they are aspects of amorous love, is their individual culmination an instance of the amorous rasa? Or are they rather more Page 35 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa like transient emotions that are incapable of turning into (p.165) rasa by themselves? The location of the passage—just after the enumeration of the stable emotions but long before each emotion, including love, is individually examined and transient emotions are discussed—suggests the former, although no corresponding rasas are mentioned.)184 Much later, having discussed the nature of rasa, Kavikarṇapūra returns to the question of devotional rasa. While illustrating the peaceful (śānta) rasa, he writes: Just as in the tranquil rasa indifference (nirveda) becomes a stable emotion (sthāyī), and attains the state of rasa, although it is [only] a transient emotion (vyabhicārī), in the same way love which is directed to a god, etc., though technically called adoration (bhāva), [becomes] devotional rasa when it comes together with the proper excitants (vibhāva), being an emotion that is stable (sthāyī). Thus there are twelve rasas.185 Kavikarṇapūra’s conservative innovation is remarkable. As we saw earlier, for Mammaṭa the initial position of indifference in Bharata’s list of transient emotions indicates the existence and validity of the tranquil rasa. Kavikarṇapūra builds on this: if the tranquil rasa is widely accepted, even though its stable emotion is really a transient emotion, why then can the same not happen with devotional rasa? Provided the proper stimulants and responses are there, what is there to prevent this variety of love (bhāva) to develop into a mature rasa? Kavikarṇapūra then takes the third, and final step in justifying devotional rasa. Mammaṭa understands devotion as a distinctly religious emotion, and Kavikarṇapūra does not dispute that: it is an emotion for a superior person—God or the guru—and gives rise to humility (dainya) and even self‐loathing (nirveda).186 This is not quite Kavikarṇapūra’s devotion, nor indeed that of the entire Caitanya Vaiṣṇava school. Kavikarṇapūra therefore has to take this a step further. He continues: (p.166) Moreover, that devotional rasa which has Śrī Kṛṣṇa as its object becomes ten‐fold by the stable emotions of love (rati) and so on. This is noted elsewhere.187 Kavikarṇapūra does not discuss Śrīnātha’s ‘devotion with rasa’ in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha, but this formulation of the ten types of devotional rasa is not all that different. It is a combination of a developed ‘love for a god’—corresponding to Śrīnātha’s ‘awareness of something worshipable’ (upāsyatva‐jñāna)—and the ten stable emotions, such as amorous love, wonder, or fear. This is also not substantially different from his views in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, which we discussed earlier, although, like Śrīnātha’s concept, this is an analysis of Page 36 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa devotion itself, not of literary rasa. If we were to relate the Caitanya‐candrodaya’s view to literature, it would correspond to the character’s rasa, as Kṛṣṇa’s devotees who experience this rasa become the subject of devotional poetry. The weight this passage carries in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics is much greater than its brevity suggests. According to Kavikarṇapūra, the nature of the object of the emotion (vibhāva) defines the nature of the rasa experience. Although he stresses that the experience of rasa itself is single in essence, as we have seen earlier, the nature of that experience can be classified in three types. He writes: This [rasa] is understood to be threefold, according to the division of material (prākṛta), non‐material (aprākṛta), and semblance (ābhāsa). This rasa is material or worldly (laukika) when it is grounded in [characters] like Mālatī and Mādhava, it is non‐material when it is grounded in [characters] like Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. It is a semblance when it is brought about by impropriety (anaucitya) and so on.188 The differences between those three types of rasa are significant, as his inclusion of the semblance of rasa (rasābhāsa) indicates. This type of rasa experience is one characterized by the absence of rasa: although it resembles rasa it really is not rasa. As Kavikarṇapūra’s examples later illustrate, it arises when the object of the emotion is somehow not proper for the emotion itself, as is the case with the unrequited love of Śiśupāla for Rukmiṇī, who loves Kṛṣṇa (in the Bhāgavata), or when Makaranda dresses up as Mālatī and feigns love for Nandana (in Bhavabhūti’s Mālatī‐mādhava).189 Now, just as this (p.167) semblance of rasa differs from the actual rasa, so does non‐material rasa differ from material rasa, which resemble each other and are awakened in similar ways, but are very different in nature. It is important to note that in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra uses the terms laukika (‘common’, ‘worldly’) and alaukika (‘uncommon’, ‘non‐worldly’) in a very different way from other theorists. In Sanskrit poetics, these terms are often used to differentiate between the ordinary or common emotions experienced in everyday life and represented by the characters in the literary work, and the heightened emotional state of rasa which is uncommon and not experienced in the ordinary world. Viśvanātha Kavirāja, for example, clearly states that the stable emotions are common (laukika), whereas rasa is an uncommon (alaukika) experience.190 Kavikarṇapūra uses these concepts in a very different sense, as the above cited passage shows. For him, these terms are synonymous with prākṛta (‘material’, ‘mundane’) and aprākṛta (‘non‐material’, ‘transcendental’). In Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, rasa in itself is not an alaukika experience. A rasa is only transcendental if its object is non‐material. Even the tranquil rasa, the most otherworldly of the traditional rasas, is material for Kavikarṇapūra. ‘By its superior wonder it is superior in bliss [to the other rasas].

Page 37 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa [However], only when connected with devotion to Śrī Kṛṣṇa is it non‐ material.’191 Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of devotional rasa is thus twofold: on the one hand there is the devotion one has for a superior, generally in a religious context, which is just one emotion among many that are suitable to become rasa. On the other hand, devotional rasa is also a category of rasa, which includes ten other emotional states. The former is distinguishable from all other rasas by its distinct emotive nature, the latter differ from all other rasas by their ontological nature. By using the term in both ways, Kavikarṇapūra harmonizes the various understandings of devotion and devotional rasa we have so far discussed: devotion as the twelfth rasa resembles the understanding of devotion Abhinavagupta, Mammaṭa, and Viśvanātha have, whereas the use of devotion as a collective term comes closer to the ideas of Vopadeva and Hemādri. As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra also includes Śrīnātha’s rasa of Love (prema). He explains it as follows: The higher explanation is that all rasas are contained within the rasa of Love (prema). Fearing that this book would become too long, only a glimpse is given here. According to some the rasa between Śrī Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa is certainly the amorous rasa—according to their opinion this illustration is not improper: the (p.168) whole (aṅgī) is the amorous rasa; the part (aṅga) is Love, and even the part is sometimes elevated. We, however, [argue that] Love is the whole and the amorous rasa is the part. That is the difference. And so, From the unbroken state of rasa all rasas and emotions emerge, and into Love they merge back, like waves in the ocean.192

Kavikarṇapūra discusses the same in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, where a slight variation of the same verse occurs,193 followed by this verse: All rasas are fragments of bliss, but Love is said to be bliss complete. In the complete, the properties of the fragments appear as if they were all distinct.194

The pure Love of the gopīs is thus the culmination of all other rasas. This rasa is unbroken or complete bliss (akhaṇḍānanda), whereas all other rasas are only partial or broken bliss (khaṇḍānanda). All the other rasas and emotions ‘appear as they were all distinct’, although they are but various forms of the complete bliss of Love. To return to Śrīnātha’s argument: even their sexual desire, although seemingly distinct as an emotion, is really a form of Love. The divine Page 38 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa couple, Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā—and by extension all the other gopīs of Vṛndāvana— thus embody the most complete and most perfect of all the rasas. Only Devotional Rasa?

Commenting on Kavikarṇapūra’s division of material and non‐material rasa, Viśvanātha boldly asserts: In relation to worldly [characters] there is no rasa. It is, however, to be understood that the threefold division mentioned [by Kavikarṇapūra] is [only] in accordance with the opinions of others. Those who think that there is rasa in material [characters] are definitely bewildered. There is no rasa here in very perishable mundane characters, who bear [bodies] that end in ashes, [and are (p.169) infested with] worms and faeces. Upon reflection, from the ugliness of the excitants (vibhāva) only disgust (vairasya) filled with horror—the opposite of rasa—arises. This means that [non‐material] rasa is described here. It should be noted that the author of this book too does not illustrate even a single verse on the topic of worldly [rasa], but rather that all verses illustrate only non‐material [rasa].195 According to Viśvanātha only devotional rasa can therefore be really called rasa; everything else leads not to a state of bliss, but of disgust. As throughout his commentary on chapter 5 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Viśvanātha here tries to integrate Kavikarṇapūra’s ideas with those of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs. The idea he expresses here is Jīva Gosvāmī’s. In the Prīti‐sandarbha, Jīva makes this claim, and concludes: ‘I cannot believe that rasa arises from worldly excitants and so on. And if rasa is generated, it will always be the horrific (bībhatsa).’196 As Viśvanātha correctly notes, Kavikarṇapūra does not illustrate material rasa anywhere in this chapter, and he ultimately admits that: ‘though we have divided rasa based on its material and non‐material nature, we will only illustrate the non‐material’.197 His definition of the stable emotion also shows this preference: pure existence (śuddha‐sattva) is a term that has very transcendental connotations in Vaiṣṇava thought, as it is the mode untouched by passion and ignorance that governs Kṛṣṇa’s transcendental realm and devotion itself.198 That Kavikarṇapūra returns regularly to the topic of material rasa indicates, however, that it was more real to him than Viśvanātha wants us to believe. Viśvanātha is, however, right in his observation that transcendental rasa holds a special position in Kavikarṇapūra’s thought. He argues that some rasas are only non‐material when it comes to the literary characters. Similar to his rejection of a rasa based on unpleasant emotions for the characters of the literary work, Kavikarṇapūra also claims some rasas do not have a material variety. Fear only becomes rasa—even for the characters—when Kṛṣṇa is its object; only then can it become a blissful experience. Although, like Śrīnātha, he gives Arjuna’s experience of beholding Kṛṣṇa’s cosmic form as an example of the fearful rasa, Page 39 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Kavikarṇapūra also includes Kaṃsa’s fear for Kṛṣṇa in this (p.170) category, because ‘by the connection with Kṛṣṇa who manifests himself (sphūrti) through that fear’ non‐material bliss arises. But this is not the case when the emotion is directed to a worldly object, like the tiger in Bhavabhūti’s Mālatī‐mādhava, as we have seen.199 Furthermore, arguing exactly the opposite of Jīva and Viśvanātha, Kavikarṇapūra states that disgust is ordinarily also not experienced as a material rasa, because it brings no bliss: ‘nourished by these [excitants and so on] disgust becomes merely disgust. Nevertheless, when [the devotee] remembers the Lord—thinking ‘this is the Lord’s creation’—there is bliss. In regards to the material, though, there is no bliss. However, by seeing the performance of the actor there is also rasa in this, [but] for the audience alone.’200 Kavikarṇapūra illustrates this with a verse about Kṛṣṇa’s encounter with the snake demon Agha: Inside the entrails of Agha he revives his friends who had lost their life by [the snake’s] fiery venom with a mere glance, tender with compassion. Though the snake’s intestines, veins, fat, blood, bone marrow, and saliva covered him, his lustre remained bright, as if untouched. May Hari be victorious!201

Kavikarṇapūra comments that ‘here, because the Lord is bliss, there is only bliss for those that partake of the play (līlā), even by seeing the entrails and so on’.202 Thus, this is a rasa when experienced in relation to Kṛṣṇa, but not in a mundane context. More important in the light of Viśvanātha’s claim are Kavikarṇapūṛa’s comments on wonder and the marvellous (adbhuta) rasa. Following the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa, Kavikarṇapūra considers this rasa to lie at the root of all other rasas, as we have briefly seen, because wonder is a characteristic shared by all rasas. Rasa is ‘a joy that causes wonder’ and the stable emotion is that (p.171) mental property that is able to grasp the wonder in all rasas. Therefore, as the verse he cites from the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa states, the marvellous rasa ‘is the essence, without which rasa is not rasa. Because its essence is wonder, the marvellous (adbhuta) rasa is present in all rasas.’203 We will return to the importance of wonder in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics in subsequent chapters, but given the importance he clearly attaches to the marvellous rasa, Kavikarṇapūra has remarkably little to say about it. When he finally analyses this variety of rasa, he merely writes ‘this is only non‐ material’.204 Although the implications of this brief statement could be used to corroborate Viśvanātha’s reading of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, one would have to

Page 40 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa ignore a lot of other, more elaborate, passages that clearly do not support such a interpretation of Kavikarṇapūra’s ideas.205 Taken all Kavikarṇapūra’s ideas on rasa into account, we can summarize his views in the Figure 3.1.206

(p.172) Conclusion In the concept of the rasa of Love (prema) that Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra articulate we can hear unmistakable echoes of Bhoja’s passion (śṛṅgāra), that special sense of self (abhimāna) that is rasa in potential, and which he indeed also calls Love (prema). It is for Kavikarṇapūra the most important of all the forms of devotional rasa,207 and, as we have seen briefly in preceding

Fig. 3.1. The types of Rasa according to Kavikarṇapūra

chapters and will see in greater detail in Chapter 7, it is a concept that he mentions frequently, which make his hesitancy to elaborate on this rasa in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha all the more frustrating.208 V. Raghavan argues that although Kavikarṇapūra misrepresents Bhoja’s views on rasa, as we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra ‘gives almost the same idea’ of Love as Bhoja does in the Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa,209 and Sheldon Pollock likewise argues that Kavikarṇapūra reduces all rasas to the rasa of Love.210 It is indeed tempting to read Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of Love in this way, as both the synthesis of all rasas and as the foundation of all rasa experiences. In this view, all rasas would thus share in some way the characteristics of the rasa of Love and that of its stable emotion, ‘melting of the heart’ (citta‐drava). However, it is not clear to me whether Kavikarṇapūra actually intended this concept to be interpreted in this way. As we have seen, both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra argue that this is the rasa of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, and Śrīnātha uses the concept to set their love apart from all other forms of love. Love can only occur, Kavikarṇapūra stresses in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, when all one’s proclivities (vāsanā), accumulated by lifetimes in this world, are washed away.211 Read in this way, Kavikarṇapūra’s description of Love as the great ocean from which all other rasas, like waves, emerge and into which they all merge back implies that in the love of the divine couple all rasas can be found, and that all those rasas nurture their love. Indeed, in their love all the other rasas appear to be distinct, though they all are but facets of the same emotion. Page 41 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (p.173) In other words, although all the rasas and all the emotions are present in Love, Love is not necessarily present in all the other rasas and emotions. Kavikarṇapūra does offer a ‘rasa synthesis’ in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, but of a different emotion: wonder (camatkāra), as exemplified in the marvellous (adbhuta) rasa, is what all rasas have in common, and the marvellous rasa can thus be said to be the one rasa to which all the others can be reduced. Nevertheless, even if Love is not the common property of all rasas, since it is for Kavikarṇapūra the ultimate rasa, an examination of the rasa of Love sheds light on Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of rasa generally. So it is with the reflections on this special rasa that we begin our general and final reflections of Kavikarṇapūra’s theory of rasa. To illustrate this rasa, Kavikarṇapūra gives us the following verse, spoken by Kṛṣṇa: We say ‘I am your lover, you my beloved’, ah, we prattle, ‘you are my life air, and I am yours’, ‘you are mine, may I be yours’—O Rādhā, all this is not right. To talk of ‘you’ and ‘I’ is in no way proper for us.212

In the Caitanya‐candrodaya, he gives another example of this Love, spoken by Rādhā: My friend, he is not my lover, I am not his lover. For us this distinction does not exist. Madana [the god of love] seems to have forcefully ground our minds [and mixed it] with the rasa of Love.213

In other words, this state of Love is one where no distinction can be made between the object and subject of the emotion. The emotional bond between the lovers is so strong that it leads to an identification of the two, and they can no longer be considered distinct. This resembles Viśvanātha’s description of the realization of rasa when the audience no longer thinks that ‘this belongs to (p. 174) another, this does not belong to another’ and ‘this is mine, and this is not mine’214 but it is quite a different concept.

Page 42 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa For Abhinavagupta, Dhanañjaya, and those influenced by him the experience of rasa necessarily involves a depersonalization of the characters, as we have seen. Although rasa is founded on the literary depiction of the characters, these characters are not the object of the experience. Upon reading a love poem, we do not fall in love with the characters, but rather experience a generalized emotive state of rasa. Dhanika therefore stresses that the characters loses their individuality, even if they are based on historical figures, and become generalized, impersonal characters. As Rudrabhaṭṭa (twelfth–thirteenth century), the author of the Rasa‐kalikā, puts it: ‘Words like “Mālatī” remind one only of a girl [and] words like “Rāvaṇa” only of an enemy. Therefore, [the concept of] a girl, etc. which the mind understands in a general way, becomes the foundation [of rasa] for the audience.’215 The particularity or individuality (viśeṣa) of the characters of a literary work is thus irrelevant, and that depersonalized character becomes the foundation for the rasa realization. If, these authors argue, we are not able to depersonalize the characters, no rasa will arise, because we remain in the particularity of the character’s emotional world, not in the single universal experience of rasa. Sanskrit poetry itself lends itself very easily to such a rasa theory. As Daniel Ingalls has noted, Sanskrit poetry is marked by a strong impersonality. Particularly in single verses (muktaka, subhāṣita), but also in longer poems and dramas, characters are often strongly identified with types or literary roles in the narrative. To the Sanskrit poet the advantage of abandoning personal idiosyncrasy and adventure was that the resultant character by being typical came closer to being universal. To write of one’s patron, say, as Rāmapāla who has ruled for a few years one of the many regions of India is to make him out a small thing, a human, no more than he might be without the aid of Sanskrit verse. So to select among his qualities and among the vicissitudes of his life as to suggest his identity with Karṇa or Arjuna or Rāma son of Daśaratha is to magnify him and give him permanence.216 Such interest in typology is also reflected in the works on literary theory, where various types of leading and supporting characters are minutely classified in the context of rasa as examples of the excitants (vibhāva). As we will see in (p.175) Chapter 7, Kavikarṇapūra does so too, although for him the only leading man (nāyaka), who stands at the centre of all these typologies, is Kṛṣṇa. Placing Kṛṣṇa at the centre of his poetics is not a superficial Vaiṣṇava veneer on the ‘classical’ Sanskrit criticism, but forms the very core of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics. The object of his poetry is not, in Ingalls’ words, ‘a small thing, a human’ who needs to be magnified through poetry. Kavikarṇapūra is not interested in describing a person stripped of his individuality, however universal he thus becomes, but desires to narrate the activities of Kṛṣṇa, the universal Lord of Page 43 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Vṛndāvana. That the hero of his poems is Kṛṣṇa, and not Devadatta, is crucial, and indeed affects his entire rasa theory. Kavikarṇapūra highlights this, as we have seen, when he distinguishes three types of rasa based on the difference in excitants (vibhāva). ‘Non‐material’ (aprākṛta) protagonists like Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā lead the reader to a very different rasa than do ‘material’ (prākṛta) ones, like Mālatī and Mādhava. Kavikarṇapūra never writes about the process of generalization (sādhāraṇī‐ bhāva), like Abhinavagupta or Mammaṭa do, or a notion of depersonalization as is found in Dhanañjaya and Dhanika’s works. Rather, as is clear from his description of the experience, rasa is a state of heightened awareness and wonder grounded in the awareness of the otherness and uniqueness of the literary characters: ‘Wonderful is this excellence in the art of love of Rāma and Sītā!’, the audience exclaims when experiencing rasa, ‘Wonderful is this fight between Rāma and Rāvaṇa!’, ‘Wonderful is this wild dance of hungry ghosts!’ The identification of Love, as illustrated above, is thus quite different from that of Viśvanātha, Abhinavagupta, or Dhanañjaya. Rādhā’s Love for Kṛṣṇa does not strip him of his unique characteristics (viśeṣa), as Rudrabhaṭṭa argues,217 but rather the contrary. This is not only true on the level of the characters, in relation to their rasa. It is equally true of the rasa of the audience. Although the rasa experience itself does overpower ‘all other functions of both the external and internal capacities’ and ‘embraces its own causes’, as we have seen, so that one is aware of nothing but rasa during the experience itself, that experience is nevertheless the result of the uniqueness of the excitants. As Devotion‐with‐ Love’s comments in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, with which we opened this chapter, make clear, Kavikarṇapūra sees the rasa experience of the audience in this light—‘Rādhā herself will appear through rasa’, which is why the audience to that play was limited to those that had the eligibility to witness her Love. It is for this reason too that he cannot deny the rasa experience of the characters, and integrates both rasa theories we have summarized at the beginning of this chapter. Kṛṣṇa and his devotees, whom Kavikarṇapūra describes in his poetic works, are eternal but unmanifest and appear through the rasa of the performance to the audience. (p.176) All this should, of course, come as no surprise, as it is the natural outcome of Kavikarṇapūra’s theology. The rasa of Love—the rasa of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa—is Kavikarṇapūra’s most devotional rasa, and he is most concerned with the ‘non‐material’ rasas of devotion, which are awakened in a devotee upon contemplating God’s nonworldly worldly play as described in a literary work. As such, his understanding of the workings of rasa is deeply influenced by his understanding of devotion, and indeed of Kṛṣṇa. As we have seen in Chapter 2, the bliss of devotion is fully experienced when the devotee, transcending liberation, becomes a companion (pārṣada) of Kṛṣṇa—or, in other words, becomes a character in the eternal play of Kṛṣṇa, like Rādhā and the gopīs. Until Page 44 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa that is achieved the devotees hear Kṛṣṇa’s wondrous acts, and thereby absorb their mind in thought of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, and, through rasa, ‘impress her passion on their minds’, as Devotion‐with‐Love states.218 Several rasa theorists have compared the experience of rasa to the experience of brahman: ‘This enjoyment is like the bliss that comes from realizing [one’s identity] with the highest brahman,’ Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka argues, ‘for it consists of repose in the bliss which is the true nature of one’s own self.’219 Kavikarṇapūra would qualify this, and then take this a step further. As we have seen in Chapter 2, he posits two aspects of bliss: an unembodied, unqualified, impersonal bliss and a bliss that is embodied is infinitely qualified, and is a person. If the topic of discussion here is the depersonalized—‘unembodied’—rasa of Dhanañjaya or Mammaṭa and the unembodied, attributeless, impersonal brahman, Kavikarṇapūra would reject the comparison. Those that talk of an unqualified brahman, he writes, and who claim brahman is unembodied bliss, only show the roughness of their own proclivities (vāsanā).220 Otherwise there is nothing objectionable in such a comparison. When one’s mind is cleansed of all proclivities by this proclivity gained by the rasa of Love, one can realize the joy of rasa, which is based on the uniqueness of the leading characters—a bliss that has form, as it were. In this case, the experience of devotional rasa is not just comparable to the experience of brahman, but it is the experience of that infinitely qualified, embodied brahman. Notes:

(1) Yatra khalu tad‐bhāva‐bhāvuka‐subhagambhāvukatayā sarva‐bhuvana‐ priyambhāvukasya tasya tan‐nṛtyānukaraṇaṃ bhaviṣyati (CCU p. 29/79). (2) Bāle, na jānāsi īśvaraḥ khalu sarva‐rasaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhaktānām āśayānurodhād vicitrām eva līlāṃ karoti. Sva‐sva‐vāsanānusāreṇa bhaktās tāṃ tām anukurvanti. Ataḥ keṣāñcin nibhṛtānāṃ bhāgavatānāṃ cetasi tad‐bhāvam evāśayituṃ sarvottamottamāṃ tad‐anukāra‐līlāṃ kariṣyati. Yataḥ param anyaṃ sarasaṃ nāsti (CCU p. 29/80). (3) Svasya ca śrī‐rādhā‐svarūpa‐grahaṇam anya‐janāśakyaṃ parama‐ rahasyatvenāyogyaṃ ca matvā (CCU pp. 29/80–1). (4) Śrī‐rādhātra svayam iyam aho nūnam ācāryaratna‐syāvāsasyāṅgana‐bhuvi rasād vyaktam āvirbhavitrī (CCU p. 29/82). (5) See De (1976), vol. I, pp. 28–31. (6) Ratir hāsaś ca śokaś ca krodhotsāhau bhayaṃ tathā / jugupsā vismayaś ceti sthāyi‐bhāvāḥ prakīrtitāḥ (NS 6.17). (7) In translating the technical terms vibhāva and anubhāva as ‘excitant’ and ‘ensuant’ I follow S. K. De. Page 45 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (8) NS pp. 374–5. (9) Vibhāvānubhāva‐vyabhicāri‐saṃyogād rasa‐niṣpattiḥ (NS 6.34). (10) Yathā bahu‐dravya‐yutair vyañjanair bahubhir yutam / āsvādayanti bhuñjānā bhaktaṃ bhakta‐vido janāḥ / bhāvābhinaya‐sambaddhān sthāyi‐bhāvāṃs tathā budhāḥ / āsvādayanti manasā tasmān nāṭya‐rasāḥ smṛtāḥ (NS 6.32–3). (11) NS 6.15. (12) Na hi rasād ṛte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate (NS 6.34). (13) Bharata’s own position is unclear. Although the Nāṭya‐śāstra famously ascribes the experience of rasa to the audience (NS 6.32), at times, he also implies that rasa belongs to the characters: yas tāvad ujjvala‐veṣaḥ saḥ śṛṅgāravān ity ucyate (NS 6.54). Cf. NS 6.51. (14) Pollock (1998, p. 121). (15) Tena sthāyy eva vibhāvānubhāvādibhir upacito rasaḥ. Sthāyī bhavaty anupacitaḥ. (AB p. 272). See also Abhinavagupta on DA 2.4. (16) Prāk prītir darśitā seyaṃ ratiḥ śṛṅgāratāṃ gatā (KAD 2.281); ity āruhya parāṃ koṭiṃ krodho raudrātmatāṃ gataḥ (KAD 2.283). (17) Ity āruhya parāṃ koṭiṃ krodho raudrātmatāṃ gataḥ bhīmasya paśyataḥ śatrum ity etad rasavad‐vacaḥ (KAD 2.283). (18) See Raghavan (1963), pp. 678–9, 408–9. (19) See Pollock (1998), pp. 127–9. (20) Rasavato rāmādeḥ yad vacanaṃ tad‐rasa‐mūlatvād rasavat. Abheda‐ samadhyāropāc ca kavinā anukriyamāṇasya tasya anukaraṇam api rasavat. (Raghavan, 1963, p. 433). (21) Kim ete ratyādayaḥ svebhyaḥ svebhyaḥ ālambanebhyaḥ sarvasyāpy utpadyante uta kasyacid eva? Yadi tāvat sarvasya, tadā sarvaṃ jagad rasikaṃ syāt. Na caitad asti, yataḥ kaścid rasikaḥ kaścit tu nīraso dṛśyate.…Ato na sarvasya ratyādayo jāyante atha kasyacit. Tatra nimittam abhidhānīyam. (SP p. 665). (22) SP 1.3. (23) Aprātikulikatayā manaso mudāder yaḥ saṃvido’nubhavahetur ihābhimānaḥ (SP 1.8). (24) See SKA 5.1, SP p. 662. Page 46 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (25) Rasaṃ tv iha premāṇam evāmananti, sarveṣām eva hi raty‐ādi‐prakarṣāṇāṃ rati‐priyo raṇa‐priyo’marṣa‐priyaḥ parihāsa‐priya iti premṇy eva paryavasānāt (SP p. 663). (26) Sattvātmanām amala‐dharma‐viśeṣa‐janmā, janmāntarānubhava‐nirmita‐ vāsanotthaḥ…jāgarti ko’pi hṛdi māna-mayo vikāraḥ (SP 1.4). (27) Sarvātma‐sampad‐udayātiśayaika‐hetuḥ (SP 1.4). (28) Tasyātma‐śakti‐rasanīyatayā rasatvam (SP 1.3). (29) Yathendu‐sannidher gaṇḍakaḥ syandate, yathārka‐sannidhes sūrya‐kānto jvalati, yathā karpūra‐sannidheḥ sphaṭiko vilīyate, tathā tebhyas tebhya ālambana‐vibhāvebhyas tad‐ākāra‐pariṇatendriya‐buddhy‐upādhi‐ yogino’bhimāni‐manasas te te rati‐krodha‐śokādayo bhāvāḥ samutpadyante (SP p. 687). As the following verses clarify, the three analogies given here correspond to the three stable emotions love (moonstone), anger (sun‐crystal), and grief (crystal). (30) Ekasyāpi rati‐krodha‐śokādayaḥ tebhyas tebhya upādhibhyaḥ te te anubhāvā vyabhicāriṇa…paplavante (SP p. 687). (31) SP p. 678. (32) Atha yathā īkṣubho rasaḥ, sarṣapebhyas tailaṃ, dhātubhyo hiraṇyam, aśmabhyo lohaṃ, dadhno nava-nītaṃ, kaṣṭato’gniḥ, tebhyas tebhyaḥ yantrāgni‐ manthana‐saṃyogebhyaḥ niṣpatanti, tathā svebhyaḥ svebhyaḥ vibhāvānubhāva‐ vyabhicāri‐saṃyogebhyaḥ rati‐krodha‐śokādibhyaḥ, te te rasāḥ niṣpadyante (SP p. 689). (33) Sa tu pāramparyeṇa sukha‐hetutvāt raty-ādi‐bhūmasūpacāreṇa vyavahriyate (SP p. 664). (34) Yo bhāvyate manasi bhāvanayā sa bhāvaḥ. Yo bhāvanā-patham atītya vivartamānaḥ, sāhaṃkṛtau hṛdi paraṃ svadate raso’sau (SP 1.10). (35) SP p. 690, SKA p. 613. (36) Na hi bahavo rasāḥ, api tu eka eva śṛṅgāro rasaḥ (SP p. 684). See also SP 1.6–12. (37) SP 1.7. (38) Āmnāsiṣur daśa rasān sudhiyo, vayaṃ tu śṛṅgāram eva rasanāt rasam āmanāmaḥ (SP p. 4). (39) See SKA 5.8, SP pp. 678ff and Pollock (1998, p. 169).

Page 47 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (40) SP p. 665. (41) Bhoja does not discuss the role of the poet in this at great length, but does write that the emotional content of the literary work is dependent on his own experience: ‘If the poet has passion (śṛṅgāra),’ he writes, ‘he will create a world of rasa in his poetry. If he does not have passion, everything will be devoid of rasa’ (SKA 5.3). (42) Rasasya pātra‐gatatve’pi kaviḥ tad‐ucitaiḥ śabdaiḥ sāmājika‐cetasi sākṣād iva rasaṃ samarpayati.…Tad‐upādana eva tātparyaṃ kāvyasyāpi. (Raghavan, 1963, p. 422). (43) See AB p. 272. (44) Atra raso nāyakāśraya eva. Yadi paraṃ nipuṇa‐naṭa‐ceṣṭayā tathāvidha‐ kāvya‐śravaṇa‐balena ca sāmājikaiḥ sākṣāt bhāvyate, tadā paragatasyāpi rasasya samyag‐bhāvanayā paratra niratiśayānanda‐jananam aviruddham.… Naṭasyānukaraṇa‐mātra‐paratayā naiva rasāśraya‐yogyatā. Tasya bhāvukatvābhyupagame’pi sāmājikatvaṃ eva. Anubhāvādīnāṃ prakāśanaṃ tu śikṣābhyāsa‐pāṭavenaiva ghaṭate (Pratāparudrīya pp. 190–1). (45) Delmonico (1990, pp. 67–100) points out that Abhinavagupta’s views on rasa evolved between the writing of the Locana and the Abhinava‐bhāratī. I have ignored this here, and treat Abhinava’s ideas as a unified view, for clarity’s and brevity’s sake. Abhinavagupta also wrote a commentary on the Kāvya‐kautuka of Bhaṭṭa Tauta, about whom very little is known, but who was quite likely one of his teachers. Both the work of Bhaṭṭa Tauta and Abhinavagupta’s commentary on it are lost. See De (1976, vol. I, pp. 110–11). (46) Tathā hi—sa cātṛpti‐vyatirekeṇāvicchinno bhogāveśa ity ucyate (AB p. 279). (47) Api tu sahṛdayasya hṛdaya‐saṃvāda‐balād vibhāvānubhāva‐pratītau tanmayī‐ bhavane…(Abhinavagupta on DA 1.4; translation after Ingalls et al., 1990). (48) Prāk‐svasaṃviditaṃ paratrānumittaṃ ca citta‐vṛtti‐jātaṃ saṃskāra‐krameṇa hṛdaya‐saṃvādam ādadhānaṃ carvaṇāyām upayujyate yataḥ. (Abhinavagupta on DA 1.5; translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (49) See Abhinavagupta on DA 1.4. (50) The works of Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka have not survived. We know him only from citations in the works of Abhinavagupta and others. (51) Asman‐mate saṃvedanam evānanda‐ghanam āsvādyate (AB p. 292). (52) De (1976, vol. I, pp. 122–3).

Page 48 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (53) Tena rasikāḥ sāmājikāḥ. Kāvyaṃ tu tathā‐vidhānanda‐saṃvid‐unmīlana‐hetu‐ bhāvena rasavat (Dhanika on DR 4.1). (54) Rasaḥ sa eva svādyatvād rasikasyaiva vartanāt / nānukāryasya vṛttatvāt kāvyasyātat‐paratvataḥ (DR 4.38, translation by Pollock, 1998, p. 135). (55) Sat‐puruṣāṇāṃ ca lajjetareṣāṃ tv asūyānurāgāpahārecchādayaḥ prasajyeran (Dhanika on DR 4.38–39). (56) Dhanika on DR 4.38–39. (57) Masson and Patwardhan (1970, pp. 3–4). See also Masson & Patwardhan (1969, p. vi). (58) De (1976, vol. I, p. 324). (59) De (1976, vol. I, pp. 215–16). (60) Vibhāvenānubhāvena vyaktaḥ sañcariṇā tathā / rasatām eti raty-ādiḥ sthāyī bhāvaḥ sacetasām.…Vyakto dadhyādi‐nyāyena rūpāntara‐prariṇato vyaktikṛta eva rasaḥ (SD 3.1). (61) SD 3.2–3. (62) Pārimityāl laukikatvāt sāntarāyatayā tathā / anukāryasya ratyāder udbodho na raso bhavet.…Tasmāt kathaṃ rasa‐rūpatām iyāt, rasasyaitad‐dharma‐tritaya‐ vilakṣaṇa‐dharmakatvāt (SD 3.19). (63) …parasya na parasyeti mameti na mameti ca tad‐[=rasa‐]āsvāde vibhāvādeḥ paricchedo na vidyate (SD 3.12 & 14). (64) Śikṣābhyāsādi‐mātreṇa rāghavādeḥ svarūpatām / darśayan nartako naiva rasasyāsvādako bhavet. Kiṃ ca—kāvyārtha‐bhāvenāyam api sabhya‐ padāspadam. Yadi punar naṭo’pi kāvyārtha‐bhāvanayā rāmādi‐svarūpatām ātmano darśayet, tadā so’pi sabhya‐madhya eva gaṇyate (SD 3.20–21). (65) Masson and Patwardhan (1970, vol. I, p. 4). (66) In a footnote, Masson and Patwardhan write: ‘[Abhinava’s influence] is clear throughout the work. Cf. the verse cited on p. 123 of the Vṛtti [in Bhattacharya’s edition]. This lovely idea surely goes back to Abhinava who remarks…on the value of vāsanāsaṃvāda in the theatre’ (Masson and Patwardhan, 1970, vol. II, 8). The verse they refer to (savāsanānāṃ sabhyānāṃ rasasyāsvādanaṃ bhavet / nirvāsanās tu raṅgāntaḥ‐kāṣṭha‐kuḍy‐aśma‐sannibhāḥ) actually does not occur in Kavikarṇapūra’s work, but in the Sanskrit commentary on the text by Sivaprasad Bhattacharya, who regularly compares Kavikarṇapūra’s views with those of

Page 49 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa other writers. The verse is originally from Dharmadatta and is quoted in SD 3.10. (67) Atha ko’sau bhāvaḥ sthāyī bhavatīti taṃ nirūpayati—āsvādāṅkura‐kando’sti dharmaḥ kaścana cetasaḥ / rajas‐tamobhyāṃ hīnasya śuddha‐sattvatayā sataḥ / sa sthāyī kathyate vijñāir vibhāvasya pṛthaktayā / pṛthag‐vidhatvaṃ yāty eṣa sāmājikatayā satām (AK pp. 30/121–2). (68) See SD 3.174: āsvādāṅkura‐kando’sau bhāvaḥ sthāyīti saṃmataḥ. (69) Etena rasasya kāraṇa‐kāryādīni naitāni, api tu anubhāvasya kāryasya kāraṇaṃ vibhāvaḥ; vyabhicārī yaḥ so’py anubhāvasya sahakārī; traya eva samuditāḥ santaḥ sthāyinaṃ rasī‐bhāvam āpādayanti. Sthāyī samavāyi‐kāraṇam, ālambanoddīpana‐vibhāvau nimitta‐kāraṇam, sthāyino vikāra‐viśeṣo’samavāyi‐ kāraṇaṃ rasābhivyakter eva, na tu rasasya (AK p. 30/121). (70) Anu paścād bhāvo bhavanaṃ yasya so’nubhāvaḥ kāryam (AK p. 30/118). (71) Viśeṣeṇābhimukhyena caritaṃ śīlaṃ yasyeti vyabhicārī sahakārī (AK p. 30/118). (72) Na tu teṣām ekasminn eva cetasi raty-ādayaḥ sarve sthāyi‐bhāvāḥ santi, teṣāṃ paraspara‐visadṛśānāṃ yugapad ekatra sthiter abhāvāt. Nāpi yaty-ādeś cetasi rateḥ sthāyitvaṃ, na ca śaminām teṣāṃ bhaya‐śokādi‐sattā—api tu sarva‐ rasa‐camatkāra‐grāhaka eka evāsvāda‐kandaḥ kaścana ceto‐dharma iti—ato bhayānaka‐bībhatsādeḥ kāvya‐nāṭyayor eva rasatā, na loke (AK pp. 33/137–8). (73) The version of the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa has a different first line, but expresses the same idea: Rase sāraś camatkāraḥ sarvatrāpy anubhūyate (SD 3.3). (74) Tathā hi naṭenānukriyamāṇānukārya‐carita‐darśana‐śravaṇa‐janita‐ camatkārātiśayena vigalita‐vedyāntaratayā tad‐eka‐sphūrti‐sanāthena ‘adbhutam idam rāma‐sītayo rati‐kalā‐kauśalam’, ‘adbhutam idam rāma‐rāvaṇayor yuddham’, ‘adbhutam idam preta‐raṅkādi‐viceṣṭitam’ ity ādinā sarveṣv eva raseṣu ‘rase sāraś camatkāro yaṃ vinā na raso rasaḥ, tac camatkāra‐sāratve sarvatraivādbhuto rasaḥ’ ity ādi‐diśā camatkāra‐pūrvakam adbhutatvātiśaya‐ sphūrtau saṃyaṅ‐mithyā‐saṃśaya‐sādṛśya‐pratyayātiriktena pratyaya‐viśeṣeṇa citrotkīrṇābhirūpa‐pratimādiṣv iva ‘ime rāma‐sīte’, ‘rāmo’yaṃ sītā‐śoka‐kīrṇaḥ’, ‘rāma‐rāvaṇāv etau’, ‘vyāghro’yaṃ janopaplāvakaḥ’, ‘śmaśānam idaṃ śava‐ samūhāntara‐māṃsādy‐āśana‐mattonmatta‐piśācādi‐nṛtya‐saṅkulam’ iti kṛtrimeṣv api teṣu vibhāvādiṣv akṛtrimavat pratīyamāneṣu svagata‐rasa‐vāsanā‐ dhauta‐rajas‐tamastayā svacchatareṣu teṣāṃ cetaḥsv eka evānando jāyate (AK pp. 32–3/137). (75) Bahir‐antaḥ‐karaṇayor vyāpārāntara‐rodhakam / svakāraṇādi‐saṃśleṣi camatkāri sukhaṃ rasaḥ (AK p. 31/129).

Page 50 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (76) Tathā ca vibhāvādi‐sahityaiva rasasya sākṣāt‐kāro jāyata ity arthaḥ. Yathaikam eva dadhi‐vastu sitā‐marici‐karpūrādi‐nānā‐vastu‐militaṃ sad‐ rasālākhyaṃ bhavati, tasyāsvādana‐kāle citra‐rasasya pratyakṣo bhavati, tathety arthaḥ (Viśvanātha, AK p. 32/129). Bharata uses a similar analogy at NS 6.32. (77) Rasasyānanda‐dharmatvād aikadhyaṃ bhāva eva hi / upādhibhedān nānātvaṃ raty-ādaya upādhayaḥ (AK p. 32/130). (78) See AK p. 30/121. (79) Sarva‐rasābhivyakti‐śālī eka eva pūrvoktaḥ kaścanāsvāda‐kandaś ceto dharma‐viśeṣaḥ sthāyī (AK p. 32/130). (80) Dṛśye śabdopāttā vibhāvādayo’bhināyakāśrayā abhineyāśrayāś ca, śravye kevalaṃ śabdopāttāḥ. Kuto’trānukārya‐gato rasaḥ? (AK p. 32/135). (81) Viśvanātha takes this to be the position of Kavikarṇapūra’s pūrva‐pakṣa: anukaryāṇāṃ bhaktānāṃ tadānīṃ tatrāvidyamānatvāt nāṭya‐darśanāt padya‐ śravaṇāc ca tadānīṃ kasya raso bhaviṣyatīti pūrva‐pakṣaḥ. This is quite doubtful, since Kavikarṇapūra does not refute the argument hereafter, but rather confirms this at the end of this paragraph when he writes tena sāmājikānām eva rasaḥ. Viśvanātha himself does not argue against this question either. (82) Cf. DR 4.38. (83) Yadi tu vigalita‐vedyāntaratvam anukartṝṇām api dṛśyate, tadā teṣām api sāmājikatvam eva. Anukaraṇaṃ tu saṃskāra‐vaśād eva, jīvan‐muktānām āhāra‐ vihārādivat. Tena sāmājikānām eva rasaḥ. (AK p. 32/136) Regarding the actor’s experience of rasa, see also CCU pp. 33ff/92ff. (84) Anukāryāṇāṃ tu svatantrā eva sthāyino nānā‐vidhāḥ (AK p. 30/122). (85) Ukta‐prakāreṣu sthāyiṣu kaścid ubhaya‐niṣṭhaḥ, kaścid eka‐niṣṭha ubhaya‐ niṣṭhaś ca. Tatra raty-ādir ubhaya‐niṣṭhaḥ, jugupsādir eka‐niṣṭhaḥ, krodādir eka‐ niṣṭho dvi‐niṣṭhaś ca—ity anukāryāṇām eva, sāmājikānām eka evety uktatvāt (AK p. 32/130). This analysis of rasa residing in particular individuals is applied to each rasa in AK p. 33ff/139ff. For a precedent of this, see NS 6.62. (86) Etaiḥ [=vibhāvānubhāva‐vyabhicāraiḥ] paripuṣṭaḥ sthāyī rasatāṃ prāptaḥ. (AK p. 33/140). See also Kavikarṇapūra’s discussion of the doṣa sandigdha or saṃśayita (AK p. 135/386), which is a doṣa because the rasa of the speaker is not known. (87) Sa [=rasa] cānukārye bhagavati prakṛte parokṣaḥ; kāvya‐śravaṇāt sāmājike pratyakṣa iti sarvatronneyam (AK p. 33/140).

Page 51 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (88) Prakṛte, na tu naṭavat kṛtrime. Evaṃ‐bhūte bhagavati sa rasa idānīm tat‐tal‐ līlānāṃ līlāśrayāṇāṃ ca sarveṣām aprākaṭyena parokṣaḥ; samājikānāṃ tu āsvādāṅkura‐mūla‐bhūtasya sthāyino’cintyā śaktir īdṛśī yāprakaṭām api tat‐līlāṃ kāvya‐nāṭaka‐gatāṃ sākṣāt-kāratvena prakāśayati. Atas teṣāṃ sa rasaḥ pratyakṣa‐rūpaḥ (Viśvanātha, AK pp. 33/140). (89) Ayaṃ tu sāmājika‐gata eva, nānukārya‐gataḥ parokṣe’pi (AK p. 34/141). (90) Na tu mālaty-ādau śārdūlādy‐ālambanena makarandasya bhayaṃ vinānandaḥ. Sati śaurye utsāha eva sthāyī bhavati. Tena kadācid ānando jayate, na bhayataḥ. Tena prākṛte na rasatā (AK p. 35/144). (91) SP 1.8. (92) Ato bhayānaka‐bībhatsādeḥ kāvya‐nāṭyayor eva rasatā, na loke. Ata evoktam ‘aṣṭau nāṭye rasāḥ smṛtāḥ’. Nāṭya evāṣṭau, loke tu śṛṅgārādīnāṃ kiyatām eva, pūrvokta‐lakṣaṇāśrayatvāt (AK pp. 33/138–9). As we will see later, Mammaṭa states there are eight ‘dramatic rasas’, because the peaceful rasa can only occur in poetry. It is clear that Kavikarṇapūra does not accept only eight dramatic rasas, despite what this passage might suggest. In the beginning of this chapter, he presents Mammaṭa’s view that there are only eight dramatic rasas, but he then includes śānta—ironically citing the Kāvya‐prakāśa to support this—and states ‘thus the peaceful too is a rasa in drama’ (śānto’pi nāṭye rasaḥ, AK p. 31/123). Kavikarṇapūra also includes the other rasas he accepts in this category, as is clear from his comment he makes before he elaborates on each of the twelve rasas: Atha nāṭya‐rasānāṃ bhedeṣu…(AK p. 33/139). Kavikarṇapūra thus does not attach a lot of importance to the number eight Mammaṭa gives here. What matters is that Mammaṭa qualified rasa with the word nāṭya, which Kavikarṇapūra juxtaposes not with kāvya, as Mammaṭa and his commentators do, but rather with loka (‘the world’), as this passage demonstrates. (93) Atra rasa‐granthe kāvyam adhikṛtyaiva vicāraḥ (AK p. 32/135). (94) Evam ahar‐ahar aho raho‐vilāsā vilāsāmbudhes tasya nitya‐bhūtāḥ prakaṭāprakaṭatayaiva samujjṛmbhante sma (AVC 22.48). (95) AVC 22.49. (96) NS 7.11. (97) Yathā narendro bahu‐jana‐parivāro’pi san sa eva nāma labhate, nānyaḥ sumahān api puruṣas, tathā vibhāvānubhāva‐vyabhicāri‐parivṛtaḥ sthāyī bhāvo rasa‐nāma labhate (NS 7.14). (98) E.g. Dhanañjaya’s Daśa‐rūpaka 4.35–36, Viśveśvara’s Camatkāra‐candrikā 5.5, Siṃhabhūpāla’s Rasārṇava‐sudhākara 2.161ff.

Page 52 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (99) See Raghavan (1975, pp. 188–92). (100) This is, to some extent, the position of Rudraṭa and Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa; see Raghavan (1975, pp. 126–30). (101) See DA 4.5ff. (102) Gerow (1994, p. 187). (103) SKA p. 514–15. In the Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa (SP p. 683), however, he suggests śama. (104) DA 3.26. (105) AB p. 336; see also Masson and Patwardhan (1969, pp. 120–33). (106) Nirvedasya amaṅgala‐prāyasya prathamam anupādeyatve’py upādānaṃ vyabhicāritve’pi sthāyitvābhidhānārtham. Tena nirveda‐sthāyi‐bhāvākhyaḥ śānto’pi navamo rasaḥ (KP 4.11). See also Raghavan (1975, 77–83). (107) Śāntasyābhinaya‐vyaṅgyatvānabhyupagamād aṣṭau nāṭya‐rasāḥ (Vidyācakravartī on KP 4.6). See also DR 4.35 and DR 4.45 with Dhanika’s commentary. (108) Itthaṃ sasthāyi‐vyabhicāri‐bhāvaṃ rasāṣṭakaṃ kāvya‐nāṭya‐sādhāraṇaṃ vicārya kāvyaika‐gocaraṃ śānta‐rasaṃ pratuṣṭūr āha (Vidyācakravartī on KP 4.12). (109) Atha munīndra‐sammato vatsalaḥ—Sphuṭaṃ camatkāritayā vatsalaṃ ca rasaṃ viduḥ; sthāyī vatsalatā snehaḥ putrādy‐ālambanaṃ matam (SD 3.279). Viśvanātha’s reference to Munīndra, which is generally understood to be Bharata, is somewhat odd, though, since Bharata does not accept this rasa. (110) Kāvyālaṃkāra 16.18. (111) Rati‐prītyor api cāyam eva mūla‐prakṛtir iṣyate (SKA p. 514). See also SP p. 683. (112) SKA p. 515 & SP p. 683. By adding these four new rasas, Bhoja has one rasa for each type of male protagonist: śānta for the dhīra‐praśānta, preyas for the dhīra‐lalita, udāta for the dhīrodātta, and uddhata for the dhīroddhata protagonist. See SKA pp. 514–15. For more on these four types of leading men, see Chapter 7. (113) Prīti‐bhakty‐ādayo bhāvā mṛgayākṣādayo rasāḥ / harṣotsāhādiṣu spaṣṭam antarbhāvān na kīrtitāḥ (DR 4.84). (114) Prasattir utsavādibhyo harṣo’śru‐sveda‐gadgadāḥ (DR 4.14). Page 53 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (115) Ata eva īśvara‐praṇidhāna‐viṣaye bhakti‐śraddhe smṛti‐mati‐dhṛty‐ utsāhānupraviṣṭe’nyathaivāṅgam iti na tayoḥ pṛthag‐rasatvena gaṇam (AB p. 340). See also AB pp. 341–2: Ārdratā‐sthāyikaḥ sneho rasa iti tv asat. Sneho hy abhiṣaṅgaḥ. Sa ca sarvo raty‐utsāhādāv eva paryavasyati. Tathā hi bālasya mātā‐ pitrādau snehaḥ bhaye viśrāntiḥ.…evaṃ bhaktāv api vācyam iti. (116) Sarvākāram ahaṃkāra‐rahitatvaṃ vrajanti cet; atrāntar‐bhāvam arhanti dayā‐vīrādayas tathā. Ādi‐śabdād dharma‐vīra‐devatā‐viṣayaka‐rati‐prabhṛtayaḥ (SD 3.278). (117) Ratir devādi‐viṣayā vyabhicārī tathāñcitaḥ bhāva proktaḥ (KP 4.35). Hemacandra, the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana, has a similar view: deva‐muni‐ guru‐nṛpa‐putrādi‐viṣayā tu bhāva eva na punā rasaḥ (Kāvyānuśāsana p. 107). (118) Ādi‐śabdān muni‐guru‐nṛpa‐putrādi‐viṣayā, kāntā‐viṣayā tu vyaktā śṛṅgāraḥ (KP 4.12). (119) Sañcāriṇaḥ pradhānāni devādi‐viṣayā ratiḥ; udbuddha‐mātraḥ sthāyī ca bhāva ity abhidhīyate. He explains in the vṛtti:…deva‐muni‐guru‐nṛpādi‐viṣayā ca ratir udbuddha‐mātrā vibhāvādibhir aparipuṣṭatayā rasa‐rūpatām anāpadyamānāś ca sthāyino bhāvā bhāva‐śabda‐vācyā (SD 3.260). As we have seen, Viśvanātha accepts unlike Mammaṭa a rasa of parental affection, and hence excludes love for sons from the list. (120) Na bhāva‐hīno’sti raso na bhāvo rasa‐varjitaḥ / paraspara‐kṛtā siddhir anayo rasa‐bhāvayoḥ (SD 3.260). See SD 1.3 (bhāva‐tad‐ābhāsādayo’pi gṛhyante) and the example of bhāva he gives (atra bhagavad‐viṣayā ratir bhāvaḥ). (121) See Vidyācakravartī’s comments on KP 4.12: nāyikā‐vyatirikte deva‐guru‐ nṛpa‐putrādau yā ratiḥ, sā vibhāvādibhir abhivyañjitā saty eko bhāvaḥ. (122) See Śrīdhara’s comments on KP 4.12: devādi‐viṣayatayā bhakti‐stuty‐ādi‐ rūpasya rati‐bhāvasya sthāyitvābhāvād viśeṣato vyabhicāritvam, ato vibhāvādibhir abhivyajyamānatve’pi na rasatvam. (123) De (1961, p. 168). (124) Na cāsau śānta‐rase’ntar‐bhāvam arhati. Anurāgasya vairāgya‐viruddhatvāt (Rasa‐gaṅgādhara p. 45). Jagannātha does not accept bhakti as a rasa, though; according to him it is the thirty‐fourth transient emotion: guru‐deva‐nṛpa‐ putrādi‐viṣayā ratiś ceti catuṃstriśat (Rasa‐gaṅgādhara p. 76). (125) Nirvāṇa‐nimba‐phalam eva rasānabhijñāś cuṣantu nāma rasa‐tattva‐vido vayaṃ tu / śyāmāmṛtaṃ madana‐manthara‐gopa‐rāmā‐netrāñjalī‐culukitāvasitaṃ pibāmaḥ (CCU p. 84/240). See also AK p. 141/397. (126) Rasa‐jñā iti rasa‐jñatvenaiva mokṣābhilāṣaṃ dūrī‐kurvanti (CMM 3.15.48). Page 54 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (127) See Dhanika’s commentary on DR 4.14: priyāgamana‐putra‐jananotsavādi‐ vibhāvaiś cetaḥ‐prasādaḥ harṣaḥ. (128) CCU p. 1/1. (129) Indeed very few authors arguing for a devotional rasa see it merely as a type of reverence to a deity. Śrīdhara Svāmī talks of a reverential but loving devotional rasa experienced by Kṛṣṇa’s kinsmen, the Vṛṣṇis, who saw him as their supreme deity (para‐devatā), and does not discuss the other stable emotions experienced by other devotees for Kṛṣṇa as a type of devotional rasa (see his commentary on BP 10.43.17). Vidyārāma, a seventeenth‐century Vaiṣṇava poetician, is one of the few authors I know who offers a more developed analysis of a reverential devotional rasa. In his Rasa‐dīrghikā (4.1–28) he talks of a devotional rasa that has bhāva—which he understands as a firm love (prema) that is free from sensual attachment—as its stable emotion, and which has nine varieties, in accordance with the Bhāgavata’s nine‐fold division of bhakti (śravaṇa, kīrtana, smaraṇa, pāda‐sevana, arcana, vandana, dāsya, sakhya, and ātma‐nivedana, BP 7.5.23), rather than the nine common stable emotions as Vopadeva and the others we discuss here. (130) There were also other authors who wrote on bhakti‐rasa before Kavikarṇapūra: Lakṣmīdhara, the author of the Bhagavān‐nāma‐kaumudī, Rūpa Gosvāmī in the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu and the Ujjvala‐nīlamaṇi, and an obscure author Sudeva, who wrote the Rasa‐vilāsa and is occasionally quoted by Rūpa and Jīva. Since these authors largely divorced rasa from its literary interpretation and did not directly influence Kavikarṇapūra, they are not discussed here. For a discussion of their ideas, see Delmonico (1990, pp. 176– 260). (131) Bhakti‐rasasyaiva hāsya‐śṛṅgāra‐karuṇa‐raudra‐bhayānaka‐bībhatsa‐ śāntādbhūta‐vīra‐rūpenānubhavāt.…Vyāsādibhir varṇitasya viṣṇor viṣṇu‐ bhaktānāṃ vā caritrasya nava‐rasātmakasya śravaṇādinā janitaś camatkāro bhakti‐rasaḥ (Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 183). (132) Muktā‐phala 11.1, citing BP 6.1.19. (133) Saiva [bhaktir eva] parāṃ prakarṣa‐rekhām āpannā rasaḥ. Yad āhuḥ—bhāvā evātisampannāḥ prayānti rasatām amīti. Bhakti‐rasānubhavāc ca bhaktaḥ, yathā tṛpty‐anubhavāt tṛpta ity ucyate. Sa cānubhavo navadhā, hāsyādi‐bhaṅgi‐ bhedena, hāsyādaya eva hi bhagavati prayujyamānā, ‘tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇa‐niveśayed’ iti bhakti‐lakṣaṇākrāntatvād bhakti‐rasa‐padavīm āsādhayantīti bhāvaḥ (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 183).

Page 55 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (134) Hemādri also argues, following Mammaṭa, that this is not one of the dramatic rasas (nāṭya‐rasa), and therefore not included in the Nāṭya‐śāstra. See Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 17.3. (135) Muktā‐phala 5.1. (136) Kenāpy upāyena mano‐niveśaḥ sthāyī (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 187). (137) Hāsyādi‐nava‐rasāvacchinnatvena navatvaṃ, navopādhy‐avacchinnatvāt (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 1.1). (138) Most of Vopadeva’s illustrative verses are about the acts of Viṣṇu’s devotees (in some of which Viṣṇu is directly involved), rather than of Viṣṇu himself, since it is the devotees who experience these nine emotions, of which Viṣṇu is the object. Hemādri too emphasizes narrations of the devotees’ acts over those of Viṣṇu. See his comments on Muktā‐phala 13.51 (p. 263): idaṃ hi bhagavato vākyaṃ tasya bhajanīyatvena bhaktatvābhāvāt. Bhakti‐rasānubhavād dhi bhaktāḥ, yathā gopy‐ādayaḥ. Bhakti‐rasaś ca viṣṇos tad‐bhaktānāṃ vā carita śravaṇādinā jātaś camatkāra iti prāg uktam. Na cātra bhagavān eva bhakti‐ rasasyānubhavitā tasmāc cintyaḥ pāṭhaḥ. (139) Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 187. (140) Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, pp. 187–8. Abhinavagupta uses the same argument for the existence of śānta‐rasa. See Masson and Patwardhan (1969, p. 101). (141) See Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, pp. 188–9. (142) See Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 186: Evaṃ vidha‐vibhāvādi‐saṃyogād raso niṣpadyate. Tasya ca mukhyayā vṛttyā rāmānukārye vṛttiḥ. Naṭa‐rūpa‐balād ity ekaḥ pakṣaḥ, anukartary eveti dvitīyaḥ, sāmājikeṣv iti tṛtīya, rasa‐saṃvida ubhayatodatta‐pādatvād anukartari sāmājikeṣu ceti caturthaḥ. Sa ca rasaḥ kārya iti kecit, jñāpya ity eke, bhogya ity anye vyaṅgya ity apare, sudhībhis tu tatraivānusandheyāḥ grantha‐gaurava‐bhayān neti pratanyate. (143) Evaṃ evaitad anukāryeṣu hi jānakī‐rāmabhadrādiṣu raty-ādi‐mātram na tu rasatvaṃ tasya lokottara‐camatkāra‐rūpatvāt. Camatkāraiś ca yady api śṛṅgārādau kvacid asti, tathāpi bhayānakādau anulambhān na tatra sa vyavahāraḥ. (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 187). (144) Śravaṇādinety ādi‐śabdād darśana‐kīrtana‐smaraṇābhinayāḥ (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, p. 187). (145) See Muktā‐phala 7.2 & 7.96–97 and chapters 8–10.

Page 56 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (146) See Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 10.14: manaso vṛttaya ity eva siddhe sati na iti punar vacanaṃ trivarga‐madhye’pi smaraṇasyāntaraṅgatāṃ vaktum etāny eva hi śāstreṣu śravaṇa‐manana‐nididhyāsana‐śabdair ucyante. (147) Avihitā caturdhā—kāmajā dveṣajā bhayajā snehajā ca (Muktā‐phala p. 102). (148) Kāmād dveṣād bhayāt snehād, yathā bhaktyeśvare manaḥ / āveśya tad‐ aghaṃ hitvā, bahavas tad‐gatiṃ gatāḥ / gopyaḥ kāmād bhayāt kaṃso, dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ / sambandhād vṛṣṇayaḥ snehād, yūyaṃ bhaktyā vayaṃ vibho (BP 7.1.30–31, cited in Muktā‐phala 5.14–15). Vopadeva and Hemādri consider kinship and affection in this second verse to be aspects of the same emotion. See Hemādri’s comments on Muktā‐phala 5.15. (149) Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 15.6. (150) Bībhatsa‐rūpeṇa bhakti‐rasam (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 16.20). (151) Tasyā [jugupsāyā] deha‐doṣā uddīpana‐vibhāvāḥ.…Jugupsā‐yuktasya cetaso bhagavad‐viṣayatvād bhakti‐rasatvam (Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 16.5). See also Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 16.1: atha hṛdya‐vraṇa‐pūti‐gandha‐kṛmi‐kīṭānāṃ darśana‐śravanādi‐vibhāvam…jugupsā sthāyi‐bhāvaṃ bibhatsam āha. When viewed in this way, this rasa comes to resemble the peaceful (śānta) rasa, but Hemādri argues that the two are nevertheless distinct, primarily because in the peaceful rasa the ego (ahaṃkāra) is absent (see his commentary on Muktā‐phala 17.3). (152) For a full translation of Śrīnātha’s comments on this verse, see Lutjeharms (2014, pp. 217–20). (153) Bhaktir hi upāsyatva‐jñāne sati vikriyamāṇā mano‐vṛttiḥ; sā yadi raty‐ ādibhiḥ sthāyi‐bhāvair manaso vṛtty‐antaraiḥ saṃyuktā bhavati, tadā rasa‐ bhaktir iti vyapadiśyate. Manaso vṛtti‐dvayasya yaugapadyam asādhyam iti paurvāparyam āśritya nāśaṅkanīyam. Tathā sati bhaktitve bhakty‐aṅgāni rasatve rasa‐sāmagrīti dvayaṃ rasa‐bhaktau draṣṭavyam. Nīrasāyāṃ tu kevalaṃ bhakty‐ aṅgāni (CMM 11.12.8). (154) See for example CMM 7.5.23–24: Bhaktis tu upāsyatvena cetasaḥ sānurāgā kācana vṛttiḥ, yasyāṃ satyāṃ śravaṇādīni surasāni bhavanti, etaiḥ sā sevyate ity arthaḥ. The central characteristic of devotion here is emotional (sānurāgā), which is accompanied by a reverential attitude (upāsyatvena); this mental state is what makes devotional practices, like hearing of Kṛṣṇa’s qualities, endowed with rasa. (155) This comment of Śrīnātha is quite peculiar, since his concept of prema, as we will see, is one of amorous love. In the Samarāṅgana‐sūtradhāra, Bhoja lists eleven rasas, one of which is prema, which he defines as follows: ‘The rasa which is born from the joy of seeing one’s beloved, from the birth of a son, or from Page 57 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa obtaining wealth and causes the hair to bristle is said to be Love (premā).’ (Artha‐lābha‐sutotpatti‐priya‐darśana‐harṣa‐jaḥ / saṃjāta‐ pulakodbhedo rasaḥ premā sa ucyate, 82.8). The inclusion of the joy arising from the birth of a son (sutotpatti) might provide the rationale for Śrīnātha’s inclusion of vatsala in prema. (156) Sarasās tu ekādaśa rasāḥ. Śṛṅgārādayo’ṣṭau, śānto navamaḥ, prema daśamaḥ. Vātsalyam ity ekādaśa‐rasaṃ bhojadevaḥ paṭhati, vastutas tu premṇo’vāntara evāsau. Ato bhāvākhya ekādaśaḥ. Tathā hi—‘Ratir devādi‐viṣayā bhāva ity abhidhīyate / bhāvo’pi paripuṣṭaś ced vibhāvādibhir utkaṭaiḥ / rasatām ety asau yas tu sa bhāvo rasa iṣyate’ ity abhiyuktāḥ. Etai rasair yutā bhaktiḥ sarasā bhaktir ucyate. (CMM 11.12.8). The source of the verses Śrīnātha quotes is unknown, but these and the unidentified verses he cites later could come from the Rasa‐bhakti‐candrikā. Vidyārāma cites the first line of this verse, without attribution, in the Rasa‐dīrghikā (4.3). Since his view of devotional rasa does not seem to be influenced by Śrīnātha, it is quite likely he cites it from the same unknown source that Śrīnātha draws from. (157) See, for example, Bhagavad‐gītā 10.8; BP 2.7.19, 3.5.19, 3.15.16, 3.24.45, 6.18.35, 9.4.32, 10.86.58; Mukunda‐mālā 4, etc. (158) Tathā hi—kubjādye [=śṛṅgāre] karuṇe dharā pratibhaye pārtho hase nāradaḥ / kauravyo sudṛśo’dbhute kuru‐patir vīre tu devavrataḥ / bībhatse’sura‐ rāṭ bhṛgur muni‐varo raudre rase piṅgalā / śānte premṇi kumārikā iti daśa jñeyā rasopāsakāḥ. Eṣāṃ upāsyatva‐jñānaṃ rasa‐parikarāś ceti tathātvam. (CMM 11.12.8). See also CMM 10.41.27 and 10.42.3. (159) Although Vopadeva and Hemādri also give Bhīṣma as an example of the heroic rasa (BP 1.9.30–31, Muktā‐phala 19.44–45), they disagree about most of the others. Vopadeva gives the passage about the Kaurava women (BP 1.10.21– 30, Muktā‐phala 11.7–16) as an example of the amorous rasa, includes Piṅgalā’s speech in the chapter on the horrific rasa (BP 11.8.31–33, Muktā‐phala 16.9–11), and considers the love of the gopīs to belong to the amorous rasa (see for example BP 10.29.31–41, Muktā‐phala 11.25–35). Vopadeva does not discuss Kubjā (BP 10.48.1–10), the earth goddess (BP 1.16.25–36), Bhṛgu (BP 10.89.1– 17), and does not mention Nārada in the chapter on the comic rasa or Arjuna in the chapter on the fearful rasa. (160) Nanu bhaye kaṃsādayo raudre hiraṇyakaśipu‐prabhṛtaya ity ādi tat‐tad‐ rasa‐bhaktāḥ, pṛthag eva muktā‐phalādaya vopadevādibhir nirupitāḥ, tān apahāya pārthādīn vadatas te ko’yam apūrvaḥ panthaḥ? Satyam, te hi ukta‐ lakṣaṇayā bhaktyā yadi bhaktā bhavanti, tadā rasa‐bhaktā bhavitum arhanti, atas te khalu na bhaktāḥ, kintu teṣāṃ kṛtārthatā bhayādi‐kṛta‐satata‐sphūrter eva mahimneti. Uktaṃ ca—‘bhayāt kaṃso dveṣāc caidyādayaḥ’ ity ādi [BP

Page 58 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa 7.1.30]. Tena teṣāṃ kevalair eva bhayādibhiḥ sphūrti‐vaśād eva kṛtārthatā, na tu bhaktyā (CMM 11.12.8). (161) See Muktā‐phala 14.1–25 for Hiraṇyakaśipu and the heroic rasa, Muktā‐ phala 15.1–6 for Kaṃsa and the fearful rasa, and Muktā‐phala 14.26–39 for Śiśupāla and the furious rasa. (162) Avidūṣāṃ tan‐mahimāvijñānāṃ virāṭ rājamānaṃ rāṭ diptiḥ vigatā rāṭ yasya sa tathā bhīta iti yāvat, anena bībhatsa‐rase bodhavyaḥ. Śrī‐kṛṣṇaṃ prati bhītatva‐jñānam eva jugupsā‐viṣayaḥ (CMM 10.43.17). (163) Nanu bhayānakādi‐bhaktau ukteṣu pārthādiṣu udāharaṇeṣu bhayādi‐ sthāyinaḥ sthāyitvaṃ nopapadyate, vibhāvādi‐virahe’pi yas tiṣṭhati, sa khalu sthāyī; pārthasya virūpa‐darśana eva bhayam utpannam, na tu prāg āsīt. Naivaṃ jugupsāyāṃ vyabhicārāt, na hi kasyāpi jugupsā manasi nirantraṃ tiṣṭhati, api tu vibhāvādi‐darśana‐kāla eva. Tasya kathaṃ sthāyitvam? Tena vibhāvādi‐vyatirikto rasatvāpatti‐yogena mano‐vṛtti‐viśeṣaḥ sthāyī, tena pārthādīnāṃ bhayānakādi‐bhaktatvaṃ kāla‐kṛtam, na svābhāvikaṃ; svābhāvikaṃ tu sakhyam. Tathā ca—‘bhaktir eka‐rasā nāsti na bhakto’py eka‐ bhaktimān / vidhānatvaṃ yadā yasya tathāmnātaṃ vinirdiśet’ (CMM 11.12.8; the source of the verse is again unknown). Cf. CMM 7.1.29–30, AK 5.24. For a similar discussion see SP 1.12. (164) Athavā nava rasā eva lakṣaṇāni yasyāḥ, bībhatsa‐raudra‐varjyāḥ *** prema‐ vātsalya‐yuktāś ceti nava rasāḥ. Te nava rasā bhakter api bodhavyāḥ (CMM 7.5.23–24). The three asterisks indicate a lacuna in the manuscripts. (165) The manuscripts both Purīdāsa and Haridāsa Dāsa used for their text editions contain a lacuna in this section. Sakhya is one of the nine types of devotion mentioned in this verse (BP 7.5.23). In his commentary on this section, Śrīnātha also refers to a famous verse (viṣṇoḥ saṃśravaṇe parīkṣid abhavat ity ādi, cited also in BRAS 1.2.265 and Padyāvalī 53) where the sakhya of the Bhāgavata verse is linked with Arjuna. (166) See CMM 1.1.3, which I have paraphrased above: He bhāvukā bhāvakā vā, he kuśalā he bhāvanā‐caturā vā; rasikāḥ prema‐rasa‐niṣṭhāḥ! Bhāgavataṃ rasaṃ pibata; bhagavatīnāṃ gopīnām ayaṃ bhāgavatas tam. (167) Ayaṃ hi premākhyo daśamo rasaḥ, tathā hi mamakāro’tra sthāyī bhāvaḥ, ālambanaṃ śrī‐kṛṣṇaḥ, uddīpanaṃ tat‐kṣvelitādi. Anubhāvaḥ—anyonyaṃ prekṣaṇādi, vyabhicārī vrīḍitā iti vrīḍā. Ebhiḥ paripuṣṭo mamakāraḥ sthāyī rasatām āpanna iti premākhyo rasaḥ. Ataḥ kumārīṇāṃ premākhya eva rasaḥ, na śṛṅgāraḥ. Yat tu ‘gopyaḥ kāmāt’ [BP 7.1.31] iti tad anya‐param; ‘kevalena hi bhāvena’ [BP 11.12.8] iti yat tad eva kumārikā‐paraṃ (CMM 10.22.12). Śrīnātha’s delineation of the components of rasa in this verse is quite similar to Page 59 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Hemādri’s, except that he sees this as an example of the comic rasa (see his commentary on Muktā‐phala 11.6). (168) Kāma‐kṛta‐doṣas tu śrī‐kṛṣṇe nāsty eva, tatreyaṃ yuktiḥ—kāmas tu ratiṃ vinā notpadyate, ratis tu ‘mano’nukūleṣv artheṣu sukha‐saṃvedanaṃ ratiḥ’ [SKA 5.138] iti śrī‐kṛṣṇe mano’nukūlatvena sukha‐samvedanaṃ cet vastu‐sambhāvanā kāmaḥ.…Kāmaḥ spṛhā tathā ca ‘mat‐kāmaḥ śanakaiḥ sādhuḥ sarvān muñcati hṛc‐chayān’ [BP 1.6.22] iti‐ādi bhagavatokteḥ. Tuṣyatu durjanaḥ, tathāpi kāmaḥ pūrvaṃ naśyann eva premāṇaṃ janayati, yathā pānīya‐saṃskārādi‐dravyaṃ svayaṃ dagdhaṃ sat pānīya‐saurabhyaṃ janayati (CMM 7.1.29–30). (169) Tathāpi anyasmin kāma eva nāsti gopy‐ādīnāṃ tad‐āśrayaṇābhāvāt.… Vastutas tu gopīnāṃ bhagavati kāma eva nāsau. Striyāḥ puruṣa‐viṣayakaṃ bhāva‐mātram eva kāmaḥ iti lokaḥ kathayati. Na tv asau kāmaḥ ‘kevalena hi bhāvena gopyo gāvo nagā mṛgā’ iti svayam eva vakṣyati (CMM 7.1.29–30). See also CMM 6.11.26. (170) Viśanty akhaṇḍānande khaṇḍānandāḥ svabhāvataḥ; tathā prema‐rase sarve rasā antarbhavanti hi. Unmajjanti nimajjanti sarve bhāvā rasā api, sāndrānande prema‐rase taraṅgā iva vāridhau. Iti diṅ‐mātram uddiṣṭam, vistara‐bhayān nodāhriyante, rasa‐bhakti‐candrikāyām ālokanīyam (CMM 11.12.8). For a similar image, see Dhanañjaya’s Daśa‐rūpaka 4.7: Viśeṣād abhimukhyena caranto vyabhicāriṇaḥ / sthāyiny unmagna‐nirmagnāḥ kallolā iva vāridhau. (171) This work is not to be confused with the Bengali Sahajiyā text by Caitanyadāsa of the same title (see Sen, 1914, pp. 1658–61). Delmonico (1990, p. 186) suggests that the work was perhaps Śrīnātha’s own. Śrīnātha never claims so, nor does Kavikarṇapūra, who only mentions his guru’s Bhāgavata commentary. Kavikarṇapūra never cites the work, but he reformulates its ideas. In his introduction to the Caitanya‐mata‐mañjuṣā (p. 10), Haridāsa Dāsa doubts that the Rasa‐bhakti‐candrikā is Śrīnātha’s own work, as do I. (172) CCU p. 28/78. (173) See fn. 92. (174) After listing the eight traditional rasas and their sthāyīs, Kavikarṇapūra writes: Ete’ṣṭau sthāyino’ṣṭāsu nāṭya‐raseṣv iti kecit. Kecit tu ‘nirveda sthāyi‐ bhāvo’sti śānto’pi navamo rasa’ [KP 4.9] iti śānto’pi nāṭya‐rasaḥ. Bhojas tu vatsala‐premābhyām ekādaśa rasān ācaṣṭe—vātsalye mamakāraḥ, premaṇi citta‐ dravaḥ sthāyī. Ekādaśaiva dṛśye śravye’pi ca rasika‐saṃsadaḥ preṣṭhaḥ (AK p. 31/123). In the Caitanya‐candrodaya (p. 28/78), when analysing the nature of devotion, Kavikarṇapūra includes one rasa he does not mention here: preyas, the rasa of affection, which corresponds to Śrīnātha’s rasa of friendship (sakhya). (175) Raghavan (1963, pp. 416–17). Page 60 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (176) Ahetur anivartī ca snehaś cittārdratā matā (SKA 5.151). (177) Bhoja uses the terms preyas and prema as synonyms in the Samarāṅgaṇa‐ sūtradhāra (see below), and offers the same verse to illustrate preyas in the Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa (p. 514) and the singular rasa of prema in the Śṛṅgāra‐ prakāśa (p. 663). See Bhattacharyya (1963, p. 109). (178) Śṛṅgāra‐hāsya‐karuṇā raudra‐preyo‐bhayānakāḥ / vīra(‐pratyayākṣau?) ca bībhatsaś cādbhutas tathā / śāntaś caikadaśety uktā rasāś citra‐viśāradaiḥ / nigadyate krameṇaiṣāṃ sarveṣām api lakṣaṇam. (Samarāṅgaṇa‐sūtradhāra 82.2– 3) The preyas in the verse is Kavikarṇapūra’s prema, as Bhoja later calls this rasa premā (82.8) instead of preyas: Artha‐lābha‐sutotpatti‐priya‐darśana‐harṣa‐ jaḥ / sañjāta‐pulakodbhedo rasaḥ premā sa ucyate. The entire text is quite badly preserved, and the emendation ‐pratyayākṣau of the editors is contested by both V. Raghavan (1963, pp. 415–16) and S. P. Bhattacharyya (1963, pp. 108–9). Raghavan suggests ahaṃ‐pratyayākhya as a better reading, as a reference to the singular rasa of the Śṛṅgāra‐prakāśa and Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa. Bhattacharyya suggests ‐vatsala‐prakhyau, which also seems to me to be a better reading, based on the inclusion of this rasa in the Sarasvatī‐kaṇṭhābharaṇa and works that cite or refer to Bhoja’s vatsala‐rasa. In the Samarāṅgaṇa‐sūtradhāra, Bhoja follows the above passage with a definition for each rasa (82.4–12), but leaves out bībhatsa and this eleventh, unknown, rasa, which indicates that two consecutive verses (following 82.10) are missing from the available editions. Whether the text is genuinely Bhoja’s is contested (see Otter, 2010, pp. 5–32 and Ansari, 2012, pp. 36–7), but that is somewhat irrelevant to us, because Kavikarṇapūra would have ascribed it to him, as has been traditionally done. (179) …citta‐draveṇa mano dravī‐kṛtaṃ, tatra jātānurāgaḥ manaḥ anurāga eva sthitaḥ.…Eṣā tu prema‐lakṣaṇā bhaktiḥ (CMM 11.2.40). (180) Kavikarṇapūra clarifies that the name friendship (only) applies for the love between female friends and the love between male friends: dvayoḥ strī‐ puruṣayoḥ—strīṇāṃ sakhīṣu, puruṣāṇāṃ sakhiṣu (AK p. 31/125). Viśvanātha elaborates: tathā strīṇām sakhīṣu paraspara‐sakhyaṃ maitry ucyate, evaṃ puruṣāṇāṃ sakhiṣu paraspara‐sakhyaṃ ca maitry ucyate. (181) Viśvanātha: Iyaṃ maitrī paraspara‐skandhādiṣu hastādi‐sparśa‐karmaṇy ucitā bhavati, strīṇāṃ paraspara‐yatheṣṭa‐sparśādi‐vyavahāre doṣo nāsti—evaṃ puruṣāṇām api iti jñeyam (AK pp. 31/125–6). (182) AK p. 31/125–6. (183) Saiva devādi‐viṣayā ratir bhāvaś ca kathyate. Saiva ceto‐rañjakatā—ādi‐ śabdād guru‐prabhṛtiś ca (AK p. 31/127).

Page 61 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (184) Preyo‐rasa and sakhya‐rasa, which could be the rasas of prīti and maitrī are accepted by some authors (see Raghavan (1975), Chapter 6), including Śrīnātha as we have seen earlier. Regarding this special meaning of the term bhāva, Kavikarṇapūra’s use of it can sometimes be rather confusing, as he uses the term in its religious or devotional sense to refer to the stable emotion of devotional rasa, as Śrīnātha does, but also in the literary sense, to refer to emotions that are not developed into rasas, as Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha do, and even to refer to a specific stage in the development of the stable emotion love. For this latter usage, see AK p. 31/128. See also Bhattacharyya’s comments on this passage: Kavikarṇapūra‐gosvāmi‐pādās tu kvacid ubhaya‐mata‐sāmañjasya‐ sādhanam icchāntaḥ svakīya‐mata‐jāle asamañjasyaṃ jaṭilatāṃ cānayanti. Yo bhāvotra rater bhedatvenoktaḥ sa paścād bhinnatvena gaṇyata iti nātisundaraṃ samādhānam. (185) Yathāyaṃ nirvedo vyabhicārī sann api śānta‐rase sthāyitāṃ prāpya rasatām āpnoti, tathā saiva devādi‐viṣayā ratir bhāva iti pāribhāṣiko’pi bhāvaḥ sthāyī san tat‐tad‐vibhāvādi‐sāmagrī‐samaveto bhūtvā bhakti‐rasa iti dvādaśa‐rasā bhavanti (AK p. 36/147). (186) Vyabhicārī nirveda‐dainyādiḥ (AK p. 37/150). For Kavikarṇapūra nirveda is not mere ‘indifference’, as we have seen the term used in the context of śānta‐ rasa; he defines it as sva‐jugupsā (AK p. 63/218). (187) Sa punar bhakti‐rasaḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇāśrayo bhavan raty-ādibhiḥ sthāyibhir daśa‐ vidho bhavati. Tad anyatrohyam (AK p. 36/147). The ten stable emotions mentioned here presumably exclude Love (prema). Exactly what ‘elsewhere’ (anyatra) in the last sentence refers to, is unclear. Although Rūpa Gosvāmī never talks about ten devotional rasas, Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya interprets this as a reference to the works of Rūpa Gosvāmī and others: anyatrohyam—śrī‐rūpa‐gosvāmi‐prabhṛtīnāṃ nibandheṣv iti śeṣaḥ. It could also be a reference to the Rasa‐bhakti‐candrikā, although Kavikarṇapūṛa never explicitly refers to the work. (188) Prākṛtāprākṛtābhāsa‐bhedād eṣa tridhā mataḥ. Eṣa rasaḥ prākṛto laukiko mālatī‐mādhavādi‐niṣṭhaḥ, aprākṛtaḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇādi‐niṣṭhaḥ. Ābhāsas tv anaucityādi‐pravartitaḥ (AK p. 32/131). (189) Semblance of rasa is not something the poet should avoid, though. Śiśupāla’s rivalry with Kṛṣṇa for Rukmiṇī’s love, for example, stimulates the main rasa. See AK p. 32/131: Sa ca rasābhāso bhavann api rasa‐poṣakaḥ. (190) See SD 3.6–7. (191) Camatkārātiśayenānandātiśayaḥ. Ayaṃ śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐bhakty‐upayukto yadi bhavati tadāprākṛta eva (AK p. 36/147). This is quite likely a direct response to

Page 62 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa Viśvanātha, who describes śānta as follows: śāntaḥ śama‐sthāyi‐bhāva uttama‐ prakṛtir mataḥ (SD 3.245). (192) Prema‐rase sarve rasā antarbhavantīty atra mahīyān eva prapañcaḥ. Grantha‐gaurava‐bhayād diṅ‐mātram uktam. Keṣāṃcin mate śrī‐rādhā‐kṛṣṇayoḥ śṛṅgāra eva rasaḥ—tan‐mate’pi udāharaṇaṃ nāsaṅgatam. Śṛṅgāro’ṅgī premāṅgam, aṅgasyāpi kvacid udriktatā. Vayam tu premāṅgī, śṛṅgāro’ṅgam iti viśeṣaḥ. Tathā ca—unmajjanti nimajjanti premny akhaṇḍa‐rasatvataḥ / sarve rasāś ca bhāvāś ca taraṅga iva vāridhau (AK pp. 36/148–9). (193) The Caitanya‐candrodaya version reads: Sarve rasāś ca bhāvāś ca taraṅga iva vāridhau / unmajjanti nimajjanti yatra sa prema‐saṃjñakaḥ (CCU p. 28/79). (194) Khaṇḍānandā rasāḥ sarve so’khaṇḍānanda ucyate / akhaṇḍe khaṇḍa‐ dharmā hi pṛthak pṛthag ivāsate (CCU p. 28/79). Cf. Bhavabhūti’s Uttara‐rāma‐ carita 3.47: eko rasaḥ karuṇa eva nimitta‐bhedād, bhinnaḥ pṛthak pṛthag ivāśrayate vivartān… (195) Prākṛte rasa eva nāsti, tad api yat traividyam uktaṃ tat para‐ matānusāreṇeti jñeyam. Prākṛte ye rasaṃ manyante te bhrāntā eva. Yato’tra kṛmi‐viṅ‐bhasmānta‐niṣṭheṣu prākṛta‐nāyakeṣv atinaśvareṣu raso na bhavati, vicārato vibhāva‐vairūpyāt tad‐viparītaṃ ghṛṇā‐mayaṃ vairasyam evotpadyate, tatraiva [aprākṛta‐]rasaṃ varṇayantīty arthaḥ. Ata eva grantha‐kāreṇāpi prākṛta‐ viṣaya ekam api padyaṃ nodāhṛtaṃ kintv aprākṛta eva sarvāṇi padyāny udāhṛtānīti jñeyam (Viśvanātha, AK p. 32/131). See also Bhattacharyya’s lengthy comments on this section. (196) Prīti‐sandarbha 110. For the entire argument, see Lutjeharms (2014, pp. 221–6). (197) Tatra ca prākṛtāprākṛtatvena jñāpite’pi bhede’prākṛtam evodahariṣyāmaḥ (AK p. 33/139). (198) CC 1.4.64–65, 1.5.43; BRAS 1.3.1. See Chari (1994, pp. 233–43). (199) Eṣa ca kṛṣṇālambanatvāt sāmagrī‐sāmnidhyenānukāre’pi rasatāṃ prāk prāpta eva. Bhaye’pi kṛṣṇa‐sphūrtes tat‐sambandhād ānanda evety aprākṛta eva. Na tu mālaty-ādau śārdulādy-ālambanena makarandasya bhayaṃ vinānandaḥ. Sati śaurye utsāha eva sthāyī bhavati. Tena kadācid ānando jāyate, na bhayataḥ. Tena prākṛte na rasatā (AK pp. 34–5/144). Kavikarṇapūra’s apparent disagreement with Śrīnātha clearly shows their different interests. Kavikarṇapūra would agree with Śrīnātha that Kaṃsa is not a devotee and can therefore not experience rasa‐bhakti, but he discusses here rasa itself, and its connection with Kṛṣṇa, not with devotion.

Page 63 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (200) Etaiḥ paripuṣṭā jugupsā jugupsaiva yady api, tathāpi bhagavataḥ kṛtir iyam iti bhagavat‐smaraṇād evānandaḥ. prākṛte na tv ānandaḥ, api tu naṭa‐vyāpāra‐ darśanāt sāmājikānām eva tatra rasaḥ (AK p. 35/145). (201) Dṛśaiva karuṇārdrayā sahacarān samujjīvayann, aghasya jaṭharaṃ gato garala‐jātavedo vyasūn / tad‐antra‐dhamanī‐vasā‐rudhira‐majja‐lālādibhiḥ, pluto’py anavaliptavac‐chuci‐ruciṃ sa jīyād dhariḥ (AK p. 35/145). (202) Atra bhagavata evānandatvāt tad‐antrādi‐darśanenāpy ānanda eva līlāvatām (AK p. 35/145). (203) Rase sāraś camatkāraḥ yaṃ vinā na raso rasaḥ / tac camatkāra‐sāratve sarvatrāpy adbhuto rasaḥ (AK p. 32/137). (204) Ayam aprākṛta eva (AK p. 34/141). (205) Viśvanātha himself does not comment on this brief passage, nor does he attach any special importance to the verse from the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa quoted by Kavikarṇapūra. (206) The rasas listed are derived from both the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha and the Caitanya‐candrodaya. I have used the expression nāṭya‐rasa (‘dramatic rasa’) to refer to the audience’s experience of rasa, because Kavikarṇapūra uses that term in that sense, as we have seen, even though this does include for him kāvya‐rasa (‘rasa of poetry’), quite unlike Mammaṭa’s use of the term. (207) Maitrī: Caramā hi pemma‐rasa‐bhatti? Prema‐bhakti: Atha kim (CCU p. 28/79). (208) This notion of prema‐rasa is unique to Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra, even in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition. Viśvanātha, who adheres to Rūpa’s rasa theory, does not mention Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of prema‐rasa in any of his other works. His commentary on this passage in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha is very brief, and functions mainly as a simple gloss, unlike his lengthier comments on many of the other passages that discuss devotional topics, where he elaborates on the root text and brings in the views of the Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs. He does not directly endorse this prema‐rasa, although he ends his comments on the aṅga/ aṅgī discussion approvingly: etad abhiprāyeṇa vayam api śṛṅgāro’ṅgam iti brūmaḥ. (209) Raghavan (1963, p. 417). See also Raghavan (1975, p. 202). (210) Pollock (2016, p. 291). (211) CCU 7.7.

Page 64 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Rasa (212) Preyāṃs te’ham tvam api ca mama preyasīti pravādas, tvaṃ me prāṇā aham api tavāsmīti hanta pralāpaḥ / tvaṃ me te syām aham iti ca yat tac ca no sādhu rādhe, vyāhāre nau na hi samucito yuṣmad‐asmat‐prayogaḥ (AK p. 36/148). (213) Sakhi na sa ramaṇo nāhaṃ ramaṇīti bhidāvayor āste / prema‐rasenobhaya‐ mana iva madano niṣpipeṣa balāt (CCU p. 84/241). (214) Parasya na parasyeti mameti na mameti ca tad‐[=rasa‐]āsvāde vibhāvādeḥ paricchedo na vidyate (SD 3.12 & 14). See also KP 4.5 for a similar description. (215) Atra kecit samādhānam āhuḥ mālaty-ādi‐śabdā yoṣin‐mātrodbodhakāḥ. Rāvaṇādi‐śabdāḥ śatru‐mātrasyeti. Tena sāmānyena smṛty‐āruḍho yoṣid‐ādiḥ sāmājikānām ālambanatvaṃ bhajate (Rasa‐kalikā p. 101). (216) Ingalls (1965, pp. 25–6). (217) See Rasa‐kalikā p. 101: na ca viśeṣāpratipatti‐doṣaḥ… (218) CCU p. 29/80. (219) …nija‐cit‐svabhāva‐nirvṛtti‐viśrānta‐lakṣaṇaḥ para‐brahmāsvāda‐savidhaḥ (Abhinavagupta on DA 2.4, translation after Ingalls et al., 1990). See also SD 3.2 and KP 4.5, and Masson and Patwardhan (1969 pp. 66–7). (220) Kevalaṃ nirviśeṣa‐brahmavādinas tu amūrtānandam eva brahmeti nirūpayantaḥ sva‐vāsanā‐pāruṣyam eva prakaṭayanti, na tu te nirviśeṣatvaṃ sthāpayituṃ śaknuvanti (CCU p. 78/224).

Access brought to you by:

Page 65 of 65

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On Poetic Language Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords In Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, rasa is seen as the ‘soul’ of poetry. Chapter 4 attempts to understand how the language of poetry can embody this soul. I start with Kavikarṇapūra’s eclectic philosophy of language, and then examine his poetics proper, as presented in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha: his views on suggestion (dhvani), literary excellences (guṇa), figures of speech (alaṃkāra), style (rīti), and literary defects (doṣa). I compare and contrast Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of these with those of earlier authors, and demonstrate that Kavikarṇapūra particularly draws on Vāmana, a ninth‐century theorist, and gives prominence to the excellences and style—the core ideas of Vāmana’s poetics—to formulate a poetics that prizes phonetic ornamentation. Keywords:   poetics, philosophy of language, style, figures of speech, suggestion, Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha

‘This union of sound and sense should be called poetry because its essence is rasa,’ Kavikarṇapūra writes in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, ‘and hence the sound and sense that are caused by its essence being rasa are what is understood by poetry’.1 In other words, because rasa is the very essence of poetry, it is the cause of the poem’s very sound and sense. Rasa is thus not ornamental to poetry, but that by which a poem is a poem. The sound and sense—the language—of which a poem is made are entirely dependent on it. They arise from it, they embody it, and they express it. Rasa as the essence, the ‘soul’ (ātmā), of poetry, is an image not infrequently found in Sanskrit criticism, and one that Kavikarṇapūra builds on at the

Page 1 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language beginning of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, where he personifies poetry as Poetry Man (kāvya‐puruṣa), whose ‘soul’ or ‘self’ is rasa and whose body is language: Sound and sense form his body; suggestion is his life air; rasa his soul. His virtues are sweetness, and so on; his ornaments are [the figures of speech], of which simile is the chief, and style is his well‐proportioned body. Poetry Man is truly best if in him [poetic defects] like harshness—and no other— are the only deformities.2 The image summarizes the entire Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha in a single verse.3 As we will see in this chapter, it does not merely describe poetry, but explains how all the elements of poetic language relate to each other. Using this verse as a guideline, we now explore Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of poetic language— Poetry’s body—as analysed in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, and examine its relationship with rasa, his soul.

(p.178) His Body: Sound and Sense Language forms Poetry’s body. Above all, a poem is a series of word forms (śabda) that convey a particular meaning (artha). By the time Kavikarṇapūra writes the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Indian philosophies of language have been articulated and refuted for over two millennia. The philosophers of Logic (Nyāya), from its first full articulation in the Nyāya‐sūtras of Gautama (third century BC?) to the rise of the ideas of the New Logic (Navya Nyāya) in early modern South Asia, were deeply concerned with epistemology and elaborately explored the way language can convey meaning. The Mīmāṃsā‐sūtras of Jaimini (fourth century BC?), the foundational text for the Mīmāṃsā schools, begins with a discussion of language and meaning, as the schools’ ritual theology is grounded in a sophisticated hermeneutics of Vedic ritual texts. A third important group for our concerns are grammarian philosophers like Bhartṛhari (fifth century), who not only established an alternative philosophy of language, but also argues that the world is grounded in language and that brahman, the ground of all being, is sound (śabda).4 Like other literary theorists, who, particularly from Ānandavardhana (ninth century) onwards, analyse at length the different semantic powers of words and (poetic) language in general, Kavikarṇapūra builds on these schools of thought in his discussion of language in Chapter 2 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. In that chapter, which analyses word forms and their semantic powers, he draws extensively but eclectically on these traditions, making it one of the most remarkable chapters of the entire work. Kavikarṇapūra uniquely brings together several divergent streams of thought: the theory of suggestion of the literary theorists, Mīmāṃsā views of the nature of sound and the denotative capacity of words, the conventionalism of the Nyāya school, the Bhartṛharian notion of sphoṭa, Tantric ideas concerning the origin and division of sound, and Bhāgavata theism. The length of his speculations on the nature and origin of sound are Page 2 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language unexpected for a poetician, and the sources he draws on are perhaps unusual for a Caitanya Vaiṣṇava, but, as we will see in Chapter 6, this eclecticism has profound theological significance. Kavikarṇapūra begins his analysis of language with a discussion of its origins, citing a passage almost identical to a passage from the Smārta‐Tantric digest Śāradā‐tilaka of Lakṣmaṇa Deśika, an eleventh‐century Śaiva author from Kashmir:5 (p.179) From the embodied supreme Lord, whose power is being, awareness, and bliss,6 arose his potency (śakti), from which arose nāda, from which arose bindu. He is thus understood to be threefold: nāda, bindu, and bīja.7 From the supreme bindu, which is being divided, comes sound (rava), which is of two kinds: non‐linguistic sound (dhvani), and linguistic sound (varṇa). This sound (rava) is audible and that is called śabda‐brahman. It is hard to find adequate English words for these subtle sonic stages, but what is meant is the following. In the beginning there is only God (parameśvara), the embodied brahman, and he manifests his potency (śakti). From this potency the evolution of sound commences. First nāda (‘a loud sound’) emerges. With nāda ‘the condensation of the primeval sound vibration begins; this condensation is indeed hardly perceptible,’ André Padoux comments, ‘for if nāda is a form of sound, it remains however imperceptible.’8 This subtle sonic stage underlies the entire cosmos; it is its foundation and ultimate rest. As Kavikarṇapūra explained in chapter 1 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, from this nāda‐brahma the universe is created, by it it is maintained, and in the end the world is again dissolved into it.9 Nāda then condenses into bindu (‘a drop’) which is explained as a concentration of God’s potency: ‘in the emanation, bindu is the concentrated energy prior to its creating of diversity through its own division’.10 The Bhāgavata states that this subtle sound was first manifested in the heart of Brahmā, the creator, and from it arose the sacred syllable oṃ.11 From that self‐manifesting sacred syllable Brahmā creates all phonemes, clearly distinguished by their difference in articulation.12 Thus all phonemes emerge from the syllable oṃ, (p.180) which is therefore also known as bīja (‘the seed’); from it all phonemes sprout.13 Thus we come to the final stage: rava (‘sound’). Sound at last enters the realm of ordinary aural perception, which is perceived as both linguistic (varṇa) and non‐ linguistic (dhvani) sound. Kavikarṇapūra cites these verses to explain how sound—including linguistic sound—is eternal. During this emanation of sound nothing new is created: each stage evolves out of the previous one, and has, therefore, essentially the same nature as the preceding one. Each stage unfolds what was but undifferentiated Page 3 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language in the preceding stage, and this sequence thus does not delineate a gradual creation of sound, but rather its emanation or condensation. Of course, we do not experience linguistic sound as eternal: it seems to arise when we make an utterance and ceases with the end of that utterance. This is the view of Nyāya thinkers, who argue that with every utterance sound is created and remains for as long as the utterance lasts. Word forms are momentary phenomena that are perpetually produced and destroyed, but we recognize them by the universal (jāti) which inheres in those word forms. This word form ‘cow’, when articulated, is not the same as this word form ‘cow’, because both cease to exist as soon as they are uttered, but because they share the same universal, they are recognized as the same word form. Although Kavikarṇapūra draws on Tantric texts like the Śāradā‐tilaka, his argument for the eternal nature of word forms is equally derived from Mīmāṃsā. Following the Mīmāṃsakas, he argues that sound is eternal, though the specific linguistic utterances are not. By the movements of breath in our body, sound is merely manifested and unmanifested, not created and terminated.14 Linguistic sound—the word forms (śabda) of language—are thus merely manifested by our faculty of speech, because sound, being a property of the eternal element ether, must also be eternal, as they are inseparable—the relationship between an object and its quality being one of concomitance.15 Kavikarṇapūra thus agrees with the Mīmāṃsakas on the eternal nature of sound, but then takes this a step further, drawing on the thought of Bhartṛhari, whose views were fiercely opposed by Mīmāṃsakas. Ultimately, Kavikarṇapūra writes, the phonemes are eternal because they are revealed and known within us. Within us exists the ‘internal sphoṭa’ (āntara‐sphoṭa), which is the substratum of all phonemes.16 This internal sphoṭa (literally, ‘bursting’) is our linguistic (p. 181) competence. Kavikarṇapūra cites the Bhāgavata to describe it: ‘The self, who knows even when the faculties are idle, hears this sphoṭa which manifests in the space of the heart when the faculty of hearing is inactive. By this sphoṭa speech is expressed.’17 Śrīdhara Svāmī explains this verse as follows: If one were to argue that only the living being (jīva) can hear this [sphoṭa], [the Bhāgavata] disagrees and specifies that [this internal sphoṭa manifests] when the faculty of hearing is inactive, that is, when the faculty of hearing is not functioning because it is idle. Now, because the living being (jīva) [acquires] knowledge from dependent senses he cannot hear at that time. The meaning [of this statement] is that he perceives through the medium of [God,] the supreme self (paramātmā).18 As this Bhāgavata verse states, speech originates from this internal sphoṭa, through the medium of God, who resides in the human heart as the supreme self. Our linguistic competence is, in other words, divinely bestowed. As Śrīdhara Page 4 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Svāmī elaborates, we do not have direct access to it, but we obtain it through the medium of God. This linguistic competence is inherent in every person and eternally present, even if a person is physically unable to articulate his thoughts through language. It is generally expressed or externalized by the faculty of speech, but it is not dependent on that faculty. Linguistic competence differs from linguistic performance: the former is expressed by the latter, but the former does not depend on the latter. Even a person who is born blind, mute, and deaf, when deliberating within himself, perceives the word forms and meaning of his own thoughts. Although he has no sensory experience of language at all, he still has linguistic competence. This, Kavikarṇapūra argues, is due to the internal sphoṭa.19 This linguistic competence, the internal sphoṭa, lies at the basis of all linguistic utterances. In this state, word form and sense are still undifferentiated. It is indivisible and sequenceless. It is cognitive in nature and thus epistemic (bodha‐ svabhāva)—it cannot be grasped by the senses, but is subjectively perceived.20 At the level of the internal sphoṭa one cannot distinguish between linguistic forms and meaning; it is only at a later stage that this (p.182) becomes possible. Language and thought are thus inseparably connected. As B. K. Matilal writes: Language is not the vehicle of meaning or the conveyor‐belt of thought. Thought anchors language and language anchors thought. Śabdanā, ‘languageing’, is thinking; and thought ‘vibrates’ through language. In this way of looking at things, there cannot be any essential difference between a linguistic unit and its meaning or the thought it conveys.21 This stage where one cannot distinguish between a word form and its meaning, where language exists as the indivisible internal sphoṭa, is the highest and primal stage of language. This is, essentially, a stage of potentiality: all linguistic forms are present in the person, but are not actualized. From here language goes through a succession of stages before it is finally audibly articulated by the speaker. The linguistic competence manifests in the body at the base of the spine (mūlādhāra‐cakra), where it lies dormant, as Kavikarṇapūra corroborates with a verse from the Bhāgavata.22 Once the speaker has made an intention to say something, this linguistic competence becomes, as it were, ‘activated’, and we arrive at the second stage, called paśyantī (‘the visionary’). At this stage, which occurs on the level of the heart or the mind,23 language and thought are still undifferentiated, but the speaker ‘sees’ what he wants to convey. Thus, this stage is often identified in grammatical literature with the notion of pratibhā (‘illumination’), a flash of ‘supersensuous and supra‐rational apperception’ that bursts forth in the mind.24 It then reaches the third or middle stage (madhyamā), whose locus within the body is the intelligence.25 Although language and Page 5 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language thought are still indistinguishable, the speaker perceives them as two separate elements. From there it moves to actualization through the speech organs,26 and thus reaches the fourth and last stage, technically called vaikharī. All phonemes and all linguistic forms are now distinguishable. This is the audible stage, where language is actualized and performed. These four stages correspond to the four stages in the evolution of sound described earlier. The primal stage of language (parā) corresponds, as we have already seen, to the internal sphoṭa, which is identical to nāda.27 The middle (p. 183) stage, when sound is just not yet differentiated, corresponds to bindu or oṃ, from which all phonemes will eventually emerge,28 and the final stage corresponds to rava: in this stage sound becomes audible and differentiated.29 Schematically, we can represent these ideas as shown in Figure 4.1. On both a macrocosmic and a microcosmic level, speech thus moves from a non‐dual state to a state of infinite plurality and differentiation. The internal sphoṭa—the idealized language or thought—is an indivisible, sequenceless unit. Its ‘actualized’ form, the audible utterance, on the other hand, clearly has parts that are uttered in sequence: it consists

Fig. 4.1. The evolution of sound

of individual words that are constituted of individual phonemes. For the hearer the process of linguistic emanation is thus reversed. In order to grasp the meaning of the sentence and not just hear a series of sounds, he has to move from the plurality of the sounds to the unity of the thought. What he perceives first is the sequence of phonemes, which are called dhvani in Bhartṛharian thought.30 These phonemes gradually reveal the meaning of the sentence: each successive phoneme (p.184) reduces the options and reveals more of the intended word. Once the entire word is heard, the final phoneme of the word, combined with the mental impressions (saṃskāras) of the preceding phonemes, reveal the meaning. When all the words of the sentence are thus grasped, the meaning of the sentence will be understood in the same manner.31 The meaning that is thus revealed is the sphoṭa: it ‘bursts forth’ (sphuṭati) once the entire sentence is uttered. This meaning is indivisible and sequenceless: the succession of phonemes only help to gradually reveal it, but do not belong to its essential nature.

Page 6 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Although, as we have seen, the meaning of a sentence is understood after grasping every word, one should not conclude that the words constitute the various parts of the sentence. In the sphoṭa view, the sentence is the primary unit of language. The sentence meaning is a whole or unit, that cannot be divided into smaller blocks of individual words. As we mentioned earlier, when the variegatedness of the phonemes and words are perceived, then the hearer reaches the indivisible and sequenceless nature of the sphoṭa. To illustrate, Kavikarṇapūra gives the following standard example: the word gauḥ (‘a cow’), consists of three phonemes—g, au, and the visarga (ḥ). Although each of these three phonemes helps to reveal the meaning of the word to the hearer, once the meaning of the word is understood, the recognition of these individual phonemes disappears, and only the indivisible meaning of the word remains—an animal that has a dewlap, and so on.32 The same applies at the sentence level. Once the sentence is grasped, the individual words lose their separate significance and only the sentence meaning as a sequenceless unit shines forth. In other words, words themselves do not carry a definite meaning. That meaning is only revealed by their presence in the sentence, that is, in relation to other words. This results in an ‘interanimation of words’,33 where each word loses its separate identity and signification and merges as it were into the harmoniously unified meaning of the sentence. Leaving the very theistic elements aside, the above cognitive‐linguistic explanation is borrowed from the Sanskrit grammarians who follow Bhartṛhari, and in the course of his exposition, Kavikarṇapūra quotes several passages from grammatical literature.34 The influence of the grammarians on (p.185) Sanskrit learning in general, and the poetic tradition in particular, is fairly extensive, and the poeticians often refer to the grammarians, especially when explaining their concept of suggestion (dhvani), which, as we will see shortly, is the meaning the words in the poem suggest, but do not directly express. For example, Ānandavardhana, who first articulated the notion of suggestion, writes the following in the first section of the Dhvany-āloka. The preeminent men of knowledge are the grammarians, for all sciences rest upon grammar; and they gave the name dhvani to the sounds of speech that are heard. In the same manner, other wise men, who knew the true essence of poetry, have followed the example of the grammarians by giving the title dhvani to that verbal entity which contains a mixture of denotative and denoted elements and which is designated as ‘a poem.’ They did so because of the similarity [to acoustical dhvani] in its being a manifestor [of suggested meanings just as the heard sounds manifest words].35 Although the dhvani of the grammarians and the dhvani of the poeticians are very different, they operate in a similar way: the audible (sound, or the expressed sense) reveals the hidden (the sphoṭa, or the suggested sense). Page 7 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Ānandavardhana thus calls a poem dhvani because it leads to a suggested meaning, just as in Bhatṛharian thought audible language leads to the meaning of a sentence. Theorists of suggestion therefore at times invoke the grammarians to lend their theory more authority, although most of them are influenced more by Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya philosophies of language. Kavikarṇapūra’s extensive treatment of the sphoṭa theory in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha may therefore seem unsurprising. However, he uses this in a very different way. First of all, he borrows not just from the Bhartṛharian grammarians, but also from Tantric sources, who hold the sphoṭa theory in high esteem. But more importantly, his motive in mentioning these views is very different. He does not look to the grammarians for support of his theory of suggestion, but ironically looks to the literary theorists for support of his treatment of the sphoṭa theory. Just before elaborating and defending the sphoṭa view, Kavikarṇapūra quotes a short phrase from the Kāvya‐prakāśa. He writes: ‘Hence it is said: “by the learned, i.e. by the grammarians.” Thus says the author of the Kāvya‐prakāśa.’36 The reference is to chapter 1 of Mammaṭa’s work where he writes that learned men call the suggested sense dhvani, and then, in the cited passage, identifies those men as the grammarians. Kavikarṇapūra thus seems to justify his exposition of sphoṭa by citing Mammaṭa. He does not link the dhvani concept of the literary theorists with that of the grammarians. He treats the sphoṭa theory not as an interesting, (p.186) and authority‐granting, view that parallels his own, but rather makes the theory his own. The implications of these views are significant and will concern us later. Though he stands alone as a (Caitanya) Vaiṣṇava proponent of sphoṭa,37 the theory is clearly important to him—and, in his mind, important for any devotional poet. He discusses these ideas in the very beginning of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha after he alludes to them in one of the opening verses. The verse, praising Kṛṣṇa’s flute playing, is a threefold paronomasia (śleṣa), hinging on the comparison with dhvani (dhvanir iva), either understood as suggestive poetry or as divine sound (nāda‐brahman): Glory to that flute song of Mura’s foe which surpasses Vaikuṇṭha’s divine realm and brahman’s bliss, and washes away the kohl of the gopīs’ eyes like suggestive verse which reaches beyond words and their meaning and makes the perceptive poets aware of its suggested sense. like divine sound in which word and meaning lie latent and which makes manifest Page 8 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language the material world to the wise.38

(p.187) These three layers of the verse are ‘proper for poetry’ Kavikarṇapūra argues,39 because the poet has to engage with all three levels: his poetry praises Kṛṣṇa’s play, using suggestive verses, creating with his speech an entirely new world. The macrocosmic dimension of speech as the catalyst of creation, and the microcosmic dimension as the layers of language thus both bear on the poet’s work. Kavikarṇapūra has so far analysed why we are able to make sense of language and are able to make language make sense. He then moves on to discuss the nature and characteristics of language. Language, he writes, can be either grammatically ‘correct’ (sādhu) or ‘incorrect’, and both types can lead to verbal cognition: for an educated person ungrammatical word forms can lead to verbal cognition by association with their corresponding correct forms, whereas an uneducated person might be able to derive meaning from them due to his repeated exposure to such ungrammatical expressions in his dealings with other uneducated persons.40 Each correct word form in a sentence is related to a particular meaning. In accordance with the poetic tradition, Kavikarṇapūra divides words in four different categories: words that refer to a class or universal (jāti), such as ‘cow’; words denoting an action (kriyā), such as ‘cooking’; words denoting a quality or attribute (guṇa), such as ‘white’; and, finally, words denoting an individual (dravya), such as the proper name ‘Ḍittha’. Kavikarṇapūra claims—more emphatically than many poeticians41—that although words can thus be classified according to their referent, every word denotes primarily a class or universal. Thus the noun ‘cooking’ does not just refer to a particular action, but to a universal, ‘cooking‐ness’ (pācakatva), inherent in the noun and action which makes it possible to recognize such diverse actions as preparing molasses or boiling rice as ‘cooking’. Words thus refer primarily to a general feature that is shared by all the particular objects that share the same class. This is true even of proper names, which refer to a particular individual: since a name can refer to a particular individual as a child, a youth or an elderly person, proper names too refer not merely to the individual, but to the enduring characteristics or the universal of that person.42 (p.188) Words have three semantic powers: they can be denotative (vācaka), metonymic (lākṣaṇika), or suggestive (vyañjaka). The denotative capacity of a word is primary (mukhya), as the denotative or primary meaning of a word (abhidhā) is the meaning which arises spontaneously in the mind as soon as the word is heard.43 According to the Mīmāṃsā school, the relationship between a word and its denotative meaning is natural or innate: the semantic power of a denotative word is inherent in that word, and is so eternally and inseparably, as language itself is eternal.44 The Naiyāyikas, however, claim that a word form Page 9 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language bears meaning not because the relation between a word form and its meaning is eternal or innate, but because it is established by divine convention.45 Convention is ‘the rule that restricts the [possible relationships] between the denotated meaning and the denotating word’ which determines that a specific word form refers to a specific meaning.46 Unless we have knowledge of these conventions, word forms do not convey meaning to us, but are mere sounds. Kavikarṇapūra follows the Nyāya view, and argues that the denotative capacity of words, through which words can refer to an object (tattva), is established by divine convention (saṅketa) or God’s will (īśecchā), but adds that proper names are established by human convention.47 We learn these conventional meanings in childhood, by interacting and communicating with adults who have already understood them. In some contexts, however, the primary or denotative meaning of a word does not arise, because it is incongruous. When this happens, we resort to a secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā). This new meaning replaces the primary meaning, which is deemed inappropriate for the context, but it is nevertheless related to it. There is a semantic shift from the denotative meaning to a related one. To illustrate this process of metonymy Kavikarṇapūra builds on a classical example: the sentence ‘the village is situated on the Ganges’ (gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ prativasati) cannot be taken literally, as villages are not situated on rivers. We can either shift the meaning of the first word (gaṅgāyām, ‘on the Ganges’) to a related meaning, or shift the meaning of the second word (ghoṣaḥ, ‘the village’). The sentence can thus mean either ‘the (p.189) village is situated on the bank of the Ganges’, in the first case, or ‘the reflection of the village is situated on the Ganges’, in the second.48 The secondary sense is determined by the context in which the phrase occurs, but has to be deduced from the denotative sense. If any word could, by the process of metonymy, give rise to any meaning, it would for all practical purposes be meaningless. In the above example, the semantic relation between the literal and secondary sense is one of proximity (in the first reading of the phrase) or one of dependence (in the second reading of the phrase), but it can be of many other kinds. It can be based on similarity (‘listening to the glorification of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s attributes is nectar’), or causal (‘the company of saints is devotion to the Lord’), or relational (as when Arjuna, Kṛṣṇa’s friend, is also called Kṛṣṇa), etc.49 Moreover, the primary meaning of a word can either be rejected—as in the above phrase about the village, where the primary meaning of either word is replaced by a different meaning—or kept, but modified—as in the phrase ‘the spears enter’ (kuntaḥ praviśanti), which refers to soldiers carrying spears who enter—or partly retained and partly rejected—as in the phrase ‘the cart goes’ (ratho gacchanti), where the meaning is partly retained, as the cart does

Page 10 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language indeed move, but partly rejected, as it only moves because it is pushed by the farmer.50 This analysis of the semantic powers of language is mostly based on ideas found in Mīmāṃsā reflections on ritual, Vedānta theological hermeneutics, and Nyāya views of verbal cognition, and is therefore not unique to poetics. But an analysis of poetry has to start here. Sound and sense form the basis, or, as Kavikarṇapūra puts it, the body, of any poetic composition. All other aspects of poetry—the figures of speech, the style and the excellences, the defects, and even rasa—are, as we shall see, in some way dependent on word forms and their meaning.

His Life Air: Suggestion So far Kavikarṇapūra has been describing language in general. But what makes the poet’s particular usage of language so ‘particular’. What distinguishes the language of poetry from other types of language? Ānandavardhana (ninth (p. 190) century), a very influential literary theorist from Kashmir, argues that poetry primarily makes use of a third semantic power, different from denotation and metonymy: suggestion (vyañjanā or dhvani). In the Dhvany‐āloka he patiently attempts to demonstrate that suggestion, which he claims is the very essence of poetry,51 is distinct from both denotation and metonymy. Ānandavardhana’s influence on later authors is enormous. While figuration, the primary concern of poeticians before Ānandavardhana, continues to be important for later authors, suggestion becomes the most important critical tool for most theorists, including Kavikarṇapūra, to explain not just poetic language itself, but also the figures of speech that poetry employs. But what exactly is suggestion? Kavikarṇapūra first explains it with the above mentioned phrase: ‘the village is situated on the Ganges’ (gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ). First, he writes, we understand the literal, denotative meaning of these words, as we would otherwise not see the incongruity of this phrase. We then take recourse to the secondary meaning, and interpret it either as ‘the village is situated on the bank of the Ganges’ or ‘the reflection of the village is situated on the Ganges’, shifting the primary meaning of one of the words. Then, if we assume that the person making this proclamation did not misspeak but used this particular expression intentionally, we reflect on the phrase and arrive at the suggested sense. In the first reading we understand that what is suggested is that the village has a cooling breeze, which is hinted at by stressing the proximity of the village to the river. The second reading, which implies that the village lies right on the edge of the water, suggests the same, but also suggests that the water of the river is clear so that it can bear the village’s reflection.52 Following Mammaṭa and Ānandavardhana, Kavikarṇapūra identifies various types of suggestion, based both on the nature of the suggested meaning and on the manner in which that meaning is suggested. Thus, sometimes the suggested goes against the literal meaning, but sometimes merely complements it.53 When Page 11 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language the literal sense is not intended, the suggested sense is based on metonymy, and Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes two further varieties, based on whether the primary (p.191) sense is either partially or entirely rejected. The former includes, for example, the use of ‘pregnant words’, as in the following verse: A mind of two that flows with Love (prema) as one is a mind. Affection that remains fresh, no matter what, is affection. Youth that is daily the place of Kṛṣṇa’s play, is youth. Life that knows no broken promises, is life.54

The repeated words in each verse line (mind, affection, youth, life) are here endowed with a suggested meaning and a whole spectrum of qualifying characteristics is invoked by these words, which go beyond the literal and metaphorical meaning of the words, but do not entirely replace it. In the second type of suggestive poetry where the primary meaning is not intended the literal meaning is entirely rejected. Good examples of this are instances of sarcasm, which Kavikarṇapūra illustrates with the following verse, spoken by a gopī whom Kṛṣṇa had neglected, in which what is suggested is the opposite of what is denotated: Kṛṣṇa, my lord, this is my good fortune! My life air prolonged my joy, my love for you my fame. I see you at last! Your compassion is great. You have not forgotten the way to my home!55

In the second type of suggestion, the suggested sense does not go against the denotated meaning, but rather complements it. The suggestion can be triggered by a specific word form, by the meaning that is conveyed, or by both. The following verse is an example of the first type: He appears briefly, but only in our hope. He befriends virtuous women, and is always satisfied. He constantly charms with friendship and joy. He keeps himself ever engaged (p.192) embracing Rādhā—and more. May red‐footed Kṛṣṇacandra with his flooding light take away the coldness of those that cling to him.56

Page 12 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language This verse contains a pun: Kṛṣṇacandra (‘the moon that is Kṛṣṇa’) can equally be translated as ‘the dark moon’. If read that way one is tempted to translate the verse as follows: He rises, appearing barely on the horizon, that friend of the lotuses, who is always full. Night finds no joy, nor affection in his ochre form. He keeps himself ever close to constellations like Rādhā. May the red‐rayed dark moon with his flooding light take away the chill of the people.

Except, of course, that most of these descriptions do not fit the moon: the moon does not take away the chill, but rather has cooling rays; the moon is not the friend of the lotuses, which bloom during the day; the moon is not always full; the moon does not have red rays; and so on. The pun, therefore, suggests the figure of speech distinction (vyatireka), a figure wherein the subject of comparison is shown to be different from the object of comparison.57 The suggested figure wonderfully adds to the mild accusatory tone of the first reading: Kṛṣṇa is preoccupied with other women of Vṛndāvana—Rādhā chiefly— who satisfy his every desire, and thus appears to the gopī who speaks the verse only ‘in our hope’. Yet though Kṛṣṇa should thus inspire only frosty indifference in those he neglects—like the cold‐rayed moon—with his charm he warms the heart of those that feel wronged by him. The complex pun, and the resulting suggestion, is difficult to retain in translation, as it is dependent on the specific words used, not on the meaning they convey. As is clear from these examples, suggestion relies heavily on poetic conventions. The reader is expected to be familiar with common narratives and tropes, and without such knowledge the suggested sense is unlikely to arise. But therein also lies its strength: it allows the poet to be extremely concise, and leave the main elements unexpressed. When sufficiently suggestive, the reader (p.193) will supply the rest. As Daniel Ingalls writes, ‘by a single brushstroke, a single word taken from one of these conventional portrayals or descriptions, the whole scene is evoked.’58 What can be suggested is of three types: facts (vastu), figures of speech (alaṃkāra), and an emotive meaning (rasa).59 The examples we have so far considered illustrate mainly the first of these, the suggestion of a fact or a narrative element (vastu‐dhvani), except for the final example, which suggests a figure of speech (alaṃkāra‐dhvani). The other two semantic powers of language, denotation and metonymy, are used for similar purposes, either to transmit Page 13 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language information of any kind, or to embellish ideas with figures of speech. Suggestion, on the other hand, is not limited to these two functions, but can also be used to convey emotions (rasa and bhāva). Although there are three types of suggestion —narrative, figurative, and emotive—it is especially the third—the emotive meaning or rasa—that is of central importance in poetry and poetics. Although it is similar in its realization to the suggestion of facts and figures, the suggestion of rasa is distinct. The other types of suggestion involve deliberation and arise only after the literal meaning is grasped, but the suggestion of the characters’ emotions happens simultaneously with the understanding of the verse. This is ‘suggestion whose progression is unnoticed’ (asaṃlakṣya‐krama‐vyaṅgya). Ānandavardhana compared the first type of suggestion to the reverberation of a bell, which is heard only after the bell is struck but keeps resounding.60 With the suggestion of rasa, however, the reader experiences the suggestion as the poem is read: if the poem is properly composed, the reader becomes so absorbed in its descriptions that he is not aware that the rasa is suggested; all he does is relish. Of the three types of suggestion, the suggestion of rasa is most important. As we will see shortly, Kavikarṇapūra accepts compositions devoid of suggestion (and hence rasa) as a form of poetry, but rasa is clearly central to his poetics. If suggestion is the animating life air of Poetry, the suggestion of rasa is its self or soul (ātmā).61 In the same way as other authors, Kavikarṇapūra analyses the types of suggestion further—for example, based on whether the entire composition, a sentence, a phrase, a word, or even a bound morpheme leads to the suggestion —amounting to a total of 10,455 varieties!62 We do not need to explore those here, but the overwhelming number of varieties does illustrate the importance of suggestion in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics. Suggestion invests the literary language (p.194) with a distinctly poetic meaning that cannot be stated directly, but only evoked by what is expressed.

Page 14 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Based on the degree and prominence of the suggested sense, Kavikarṇapūra classifies poetry hierarchically into four basic groups. Lowest stands poetry that lacks any suggested sense. Kavikarṇapūra calls this poetry ‘motionless’ (niṣpanda), because the life air of suggestion is not present in it.63 This can still be considered poetry, he argues, if its sound and sense are marvellous (śabdārtha‐vaicitrya).64 If a suggested sense is present, but is subordinated to other poetic elements, the poem is average. In this type of poetry, either the primary or secondary sense predominates, and the suggested sense is, more or less, ornamental. But if the suggested sense predominates, the poem is best. Above all these, however, Kavikarṇapūra places a fourth variety: a poem is topmost or ‘the best of the best’ (uttamottama) when the suggested sense in its turn suggests another meaning.65 He illustrates this last type with the following verse: You run off, on your own, to search for my jewelled necklace. At last! You’ve returned from the woods. Ah, because of me, your tender body is now bruised! You are out of breath. The necklace adorns your chest. Your face is pale. My friend, have you no shame? A secret journey so deep into the woods is unbecoming for such a beautiful girl!66

The multiple suggestions, Kavikarṇapūra explains, arise ‘from the specificity of the speaker, her nature, and the context’. All these rely on tropes common not just to poetry, but to the Vṛndāvana narrative too. The gopī who is addressed was sent into the forest on an errand by Rādhā,67 but when at last she returned it was obvious the bruises on her body were not caused by lashing branches and creepers, but were from a tryst with Kṛṣṇa, which, the context suggests, Rādhā herself had arranged. This is the first suggestion, (p.195) which then leads to the second suggestion: the suggested complex of emotions both gopīs feel—envy, jest, and pretence for Rādhā; shame, fear, and anger for her rebuked friend, as indicated by the second half of the verse. Thus the degree of suggestion determines a poem’s quality. But Kavikarṇapūra does not stop there. Rasa and suggestion are indeed the key terms in his poetics, but he gives equal attention to the way a poem brings sound and sense together. We have seen that he accepts poetry without suggestion if sound and sense are marvellously expressed. Similarly, if a poem has this ‘strikingness’ or ‘marvellousness’ (vaicitrya), it should be raised a step higher in the critics’ classification. Thus, when this excellence is present, an ‘average’ poem with a subordinated suggested sense should be considered best, and a poem rich in suggestion becomes an example of the very best type of poetry.68

Page 15 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language His Virtues: The Excellences The suggestive power of poetry is brought about by much more than just the contents of the poem. Every aspect of poetic language contributes to it: the phonetic and syntactic texture of the poem are as much involved as its ideas. These allow the suggestion of rasa to occur. The suggestion of rasa occurs unnoticed, as we have seen, and each element of the poem’s language therefore needs to support, augment, and indeed enable it. This is where the literary excellences (guṇa, literally ‘quality’) come in. The excellences (guṇa) are the qualities of poetic language. They constitute certain syntactic or phonetic structures common in poetic language. ‘The excellences,’ writes Vāmana (ninth century), the author of the Kāvyālaṃkāra‐ sūtra‐vṛtti, ‘are properties that cause beauty in a poem.’ They differ from the figures of speech, he explains, because unlike these figures the excellences can embellish a poem on their own.69 Absence of literary excellences does not necessarily imply that the poem is badly written, however. Their importance, as Gerow explains, ‘lies in their service as characteristics, as “plus‐features”, of poetry whose alternative is not necessarily non‐poetry. (p.196) In other words, the contrary of a guṇa may be and usually is another feature whose presence marks another kind of poetry (rather than non‐poetry).’70 Bharata and Daṇḍī distinguishes ten such excellences: cohesiveness (śleṣa), clarity (prasāda), homogeneity of style (samatā), sweetness (mādhurya), tenderness (sukumāratā), explicitness (artha‐vyakti), exaltedness (udāratva), energy (ojas), brilliance (kānti), and symmetry (samādhi).71 Although he understands several of these terms differently,72 Vāmana offers the same list, but divides each excellence further in a semantic (artha) and a phonetic (śabda) type, arriving thus at a total of twenty excellences.73 In the rasa‐centred criticism of Ānandavardhana and his followers, the literary excellences are reinterpreted. They are no longer just aspects of literary language, but qualities of rasa itself that are reflected in the language of poetry. Like all other elements in this new poetics, the excellences derive their identity from rasa, and are thus only important insofar as they assist in the realization of rasa. They are no longer ‘plus‐features’, but qualities necessary to evoke rasa. Thus sweetness (mādhurya), for example, is not ‘distinctness of words’ or ‘strikingness of expression’ (Vāmana’s versions of the excellence),74 but a quality of the sweet amorous rasa: ‘The rasa of love,’ Ānandavardhana writes, ‘is sweet in comparison with the other rasas, because it gives delight. The excellence (guṇa) known as sweetness is attributed to a poem if the poem consists of words and meanings which reveal this flavour.’75 Ānandavardhana thus reinterprets the concept of excellences, and reduces the ten excellences of Bharata and Daṇḍī to three: sweetness (mādhurya), energy (ojas), and clarity (prasāda).76

Page 16 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Kavikarṇapūra follows this tradition, and defines the literary excellences as follows: The literary excellences are a special characteristic that reinforces rasa. They are like heroism to the self, and are understood to be suggested by phonemes.77 The literary excellences (guṇas) form the link between the phonetic and syntactic elements of poetic language and rasa. Although suggested by phonemes, they are actually characteristics of rasa. To illustrate this, Kavikarṇapūra borrows the following analogy from Mammaṭa:78 Bravery and other virtues are not qualities of the body, but of the self. Only ignorant persons see virtues (p.197) as bodily characteristics and claim ‘This body is brave, because it is stout.’ But virtues like bravery do not inhere in stout bodies only: a lion, for example, possesses that quality but has a lean body, whereas the bravery of a big‐bodied elephant is far smaller than that of a lion, its natural enemy. ‘However,’ Kavikarṇapūra adds, ‘the bravery of the infant and teenage son of a warrior woman resides certainly in the body, but it is only caused by age. Therefore, because of the logical defect of having too general a middle term, virtues like bravery do not belong to the body, but the body suggests them.’79 The older son appears braver, but only because he is older. Although his more mature body suggests bravery, that bravery does not inhere in his body. The relation between the excellences and the language of poetry is similar. The excellences do not inhere in sound and sense—the body of poetry—but relate to poetry’s emotive content—its soul. Even though they sometimes may appear to be specific properties of language, just as the older child appears to be brave, they can only be considered literary excellences if they augment rasa, because that is their primary characteristic.80 Thus, following Ānandavardhana and Mammaṭa, Kavikarṇapūra lists three primary excellences: sweetness (mādhurya), energy (ojas), and clarity (prasāda).81 The ten excellences of Vāmana and Daṇḍī are not denied, but integrated into this threefold classification. Some of the remaining excellences can be included in one of the above three: thus explicitness (artha‐vyakti) is an aspect of clarity; brilliance (kānti) can be subsumed under sweetness;82 and exaltedness (udāratā), a quality which makes the words seem to dance,83 cohesiveness (śleṣa), which makes separate words appear like one,84 and symmetry of accentuated and unaccentuated phonemes (samādhi)85 can be included in energy. Homogeneity of style (samatā) sometimes hampers the realization of rasa, and need therefore not be considered a separate guṇa.86 Finally, maturity (prauḍhi), Kavikarṇapūra’s tenth excellence, causes strikingness (p.198) or marvellousness (vaicitrya), the excellence that improves even the best poetry, as we have seen.87

Page 17 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language The three excellences are thus more complex than they initially appear. Although they are properties of rasa, they are ‘suggested by phonemes’,88 and are thus achieved through syntactic, phonetic, and even semantic aspects of language. These reinterpreted excellences are essential to the poem: they form the bridge between its suggested emotive content and the phonetic and syntactic properties of its language. Underlying this idea is that specific characteristics of poetic language will affect the reader, and thus make him receptive to specific emotions. A poem that effectively suggests the amorous rasa will therefore have a phonetic and syntactic structure that is conducive to that rasa, but which differs from that of a poem that conveys a more vigorous rasa such as the heroic. In a poetics of rasa the literary excellences are thus not peripheral: without their presence there is no rasa. Or, more specifically, whenever specific rasas are suggested, specific excellence must be present, just as when fire is present its own attributes like heat and light, must be present as well. The three primary excellences—sweetness, energy, and clarity—are therefore related not just to rasa itself, but to specific types of rasa. Sweetness (mādhurya) occurs with the delicate amorous and compassionate rasas, and is said to ‘soften’ and ‘colour’ the mind. It is suggested by gentle consonants and consonant clusters, Kavikarṇapūra explains, like -r‐ and -ṇ‐ when followed by short vowels, and by the combination of all consonants—except the harsh‐ sounding palatals—with their corresponding nasal (e.g. -ṅk‐, -nd‐, -mb‐, etc.), but that only when alternated with similar consonant clusters of other phonetic groups (vargas).89 Energy (ojas), on the other hand, is connected with the heroic, the horrific, and the furious rasa. It is said to ‘excite’ the mind and ‘expand’ it. The excellence energy is characterized by the conjunction of non‐aspirated and aspirated phonetically equivalent consonants (e.g. -kkh‐, -jjha‐, -ṭṭha‐, etc.), the combination of -r‐ with another consonant (as in the Sanskrit words arkaḥ, śukraḥ, or durgrahaḥ, Kavikarṇapūra explains), the use of the palatal and cerebral sibilants (-ś‐ and -ṣ‐), as well as the use of long compounds.90 Clarity, on the other hand, is not a characteristic of some specific rasas, but of all poetry that communicates rasa. It it said to ‘pervade’ the mind, like the fragrance of camphor pervades the air,91 and enables one to grasp the meaning of the poem instantly upon reading it. Since it is present with all rasas— including those suggested by sweetness and energy—it is not suggested by any (p.199) particular phonemic combination, but only by the syntactic structures of poetic language.92 In addition to these three, Kavikarṇapūra introduces a fourth literary excellence. When palatals, the phoneme -r‐, and consonant clusters of non‐aspirated and their corresponding aspirated consonant (e.g. -kkh‐ and -ggh‐, etc.), as well as the aspirate do not figure prominently in a composition, but all the other Page 18 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language characteristics of energy (ojas) are present, that composition suggests medium energy (madhyaujas).93 If this excellence is combined with the phonemes that suggest sweetness (mādhurya), in order to enhance the amorous and (possibly)94 the compassionate rasas, the effect, Kavikarṇapūra writes, would be ‘extremely charming’. The composition that then arises is called ‘tightly bound’ (gāḍha‐bandha), and only reaches its full fruition when recited.95

His Ornaments: Figures of Speech Adorning Poetry’s body are the figures of speech. Since language consists of sound and sense, it can be embellished with two types of literary ornaments: semantic figures (arthālaṃkāra) and phonetic figures (śabdālaṃkāra). The semantic figures of speech deal with the two semantic powers, denotation and metonymy. Kavikarṇapūra analyses 62 main semantic figures in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. Although he does not attempt to derive a ‘system’ of figures of speech in which these figures can be grouped and analysed,96 he emphasizes that the simile (upamā) is the foundation for many other semantic figures. Many figures are indeed a variation on the simple simile, in which the subject is compared to a seemingly irrelevant object that shares with it some commonality, in order to highlight that which is shared (‘your face is like the moon’, to give a common example, which highlights the radiant beauty of the beloved’s face). These basic elements are varied in many figures of speech. I give here but a few examples. (p.200) Metaphorical identification (rūpaka) drops the comparative particle, making a more complete identification (‘your moon‐face’). Ascription (utprekṣā) takes this even further by asserting the subject of comparison to be its object (‘this is indeed the moon’), while denial (apahnuti) accomplishes the same by disputing the subject (‘this is not your face, but the moon!’). The figure reverse (pratīpa) turns the subject into the object of comparison to deprecate the latter (‘the moon is like your face’). By expressing an inability to distinguish between the two things (‘Is this your face? Or is it the moon?’) the figure doubt (sandeha) emphasizes the commonality, as does confused (bhrāntimat) by describing how the similarity between both confuses others (‘considering it the moon, the cakora flies towards your face’). Although many of the figures involve comparison—either to highlight the similar or the dissimilar properties of the two objects compared—not all figures do. Some are primarily syntactical, like the figure zeugma (dīpaka). Others deal with causality,97 and some, like the figure ‘contradiction’ (virodha) aim to highlight the uniqueness of an object by describing its attributes which seem contradictory. We do not need to discuss here all the figures Kavikarṇapūra lists. In his analysis of the semantic figures Kavikarṇapūra wholly follows Mammaṭa, and the reader interested in the variety of these figures is fortunate to have several excellent studies of them.98

Page 19 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language The phonetic figures of speech work not with the meaning of words, but with word forms and phonemes. These are either repeated or patterned. Alliteration (anuprāsa), for example, involves the repetition of a single phoneme. This can occur either once, as in the figure chekānuprāsa (e.g. dhāma śyāmalam idam śrīdam jagato viratodayam, where ma, dam, and to are all repeated once),99 or repeatedly, as in the figure vṛtty‐anuprāsa (e.g. dhāma śyāmalam uddāma kāma‐ koṭi‐manoharam).100 In the figure resonance (yamaka) several consecutive phonemes that form a word or even a phrase are repeated without that word or phrase being repeated, as in the following verse where the words samasta and namāmi me seem to be repeated: samasta‐kalyāṇa‐guṇaika‐vāridhe, samas tavāste katamas trilokyām namāmi me mādhava samprasīda, na mām ime dyantu duranta‐tāpāḥ O singular ocean in whom all fair qualities are found, who in the three worlds equals you? I bow to you, Mādhava. Be gracious unto me. May this ceaseless suffering torment me no longer.101

(p.201) Those phonetic figures of speech that involve patterning rather than repetition are often called ‘picture poetry’ (citra‐kāvya). These are verses in which the phonemes of the verse can be patterned to form particular images, like flowers, a bow, or a wheel. Critics often disparage such poetry as too contrived and hence devoid of rasa.102 ‘They say that picture poetry is devoid of rasa,’ Kavikarṇapūra comments, ‘but if such poems are about the Lord they do have some rasa—it is like chewing on a piece of sugar cane.’103 A piece of sugar cane seems dry, but when chewed produces sweet sugar cane juice; so it is with devotional picture poems, Kavikarṇapūra claims. Even though some effort is required from the reader, they too can suggest rasa. One important figure, paronomasia (śleṣa), in which one expression ‘embraces’ multiple meanings, can be either a semantic or a phonetic figure of speech. The difference between these two types is that the semantic variety does not depend on the exact words that are used; they can easily be replaced by synonyms or the verse can be rephrased, as long as the same meaning is maintained. With the phonetic variety—which is equivalent to the English pun, but generally used with much greater elegance in Sanskrit—synonymic structures cannot replace the original, as the double meaning depends on the exact word forms used. An example of this can be found in the remark made by Candrāvalī, Rādhā’s rival in love, about Kṛṣṇa: ‘My saturated [yellow] heart has been fully aroused [made deeply red] by Kṛṣṇa [dark dye]’.104

Page 20 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Literary theorists generally argue that the phonetic figures are inferior to the semantic figures, as Marie‐Claude Porcher explains, because they are only concerned with word forms, not with their (more important) meaning: ‘Ce sont pur jeux verbaux, prouesses de langage dont on peut seulement analyser les méchanismes, décrire et classer les diverses modalités, simples ou complexes: c’est toujours de la forme, non du sense qu’il est question.’105 Kavikarṇapūra too subordinates the phonetic figures to the semantic, for the same reasons,106 but as we will see in Chapter 6, this division between semantic and phonetic figures is, in practice, often not that clear‐cut. As Porcher argues, such phonetic figures of speech are often more than just verbal tricks. They are rarely purely phonetic: ‘en poésie, il n’est pas de modification du signifiant qui n’entraîne aussi une modification du signifié.’107 A skilled poet uses such figures not just for their sonorous beauty, but also to complement the poem’s content, to suggest unexpressed ideas, or even to help suggest the poem’s emotive meaning, rasa. (p.202) This semantic dimension of phonetic figures of speech is particularly exemplified in instances where semantic and phonetic figures of speech are creatively combined. Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes two ways in which figures can be joined. The first is by combination (saṃsṛṣṭi), in which two or more figures (phonetic and/or semantic) occur together, but do not affect each other. The second is by blending (saṅkara), which can occur in three distinct ways: one figure dominates the others; or, when a verse seems to have the characteristics of several figures, it is uncertain which figure was intended; or all figures complement each other because they concern the same idea.108 It is particularly this latter type of combination that a poet like Kavikarṇapūra strives to achieve, as we will see in greater detail in Chapter 6. Figures of speech are the jewellery of Poetry, and as such adorn his body. In the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Kavikarṇapūra raises the following objection: ‘Now, if a literary excellence is that which augments, then the figures of speech too are excellences, since they too augment [the beauty of a poem].’ ‘This is true,’ he responds. ‘But just as ornaments like necklaces only adorn parts of the body, like the neck, and not the self, so do the literary ornaments, like alliteration (anuprāsa) and natural description (svabhāvokti), ornament only the sound and sense, not rasa.’109 As we will see in the remainder of this chapter, how Kavikarṇapūra understands the relationship between rasa and figures of speech, particularly the phonetic types, is much more complex than this passage suggests. They may be compared to the jewellery that adorns the body (language) of Poetry, and not his soul (rasa), but Kavikarṇapūra does indicate that these bodily ornaments can help to accentuate the virtues of that soul. First of all, there are some figures of speech that do contribute directly to rasa. At the end of chapter 8 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, after having defined and illustrated all the figures of speech, as well as their possible combinations, Kavikarṇapūra adds the following: ‘There are also others—figures of rasa—called Page 21 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language “possessing rasa” (rasavat), “more pleasing” (preyas), “powerful” (ūrjasvī), and “composed” (samāhita). These four nourish rasa.’110 What are these figures of rasa (rasālaṃkāra)? He explains them as follows: ‘when there is rasa, and one cannot determine either a phonetic figure or a semantic figure clearly present, but only the components of rasa are revealed, it should be understood that [the passage contains] only figures of rasa. These originate in the proper way: preyas in the case of the amorous rasa; ūrjasvī in the case of the heroic, the fearful, and the furious rasas; and the other two [rasavat and samāhita] in the case of the (p. 203) other rasas. When these [figures of rasa] arise and combine with phonetic and semantic figures, there are many varieties. This too should be understood.’111 It is a puzzling passage. The figures Kavikarṇapūra lists here—and particularly the first three—have a long history in Sanskrit literary theory. Bhāmaha and Daṇḍī, the earliest authors on poetics, did not use rasa as an independent concept of criticism, but rather thought of it in terms of figures of speech. They grouped rasavat, preyas, and ūrjasvī together, and saw them as figures involving different emotions—one of the eight rasas, affection, and arrogance respectively.112 Later, Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha used these three figures together with samāhita (the figure that Daṇḍī discusses immediately after these three),113 as examples of instances where emotion only plays a subordinate role. Mammaṭa writes: ‘where rasa, [emotion (bhāva)], and so on are dominant they are what is embellished [by the figures of speech].…However, elsewhere, when the meaning of the passage predominates and rasa, and so on, are subordinated, when suggestion is made secondary, they are the figures rasavat, preyas, ūrjasvī, samāhita, etc.’114 Although Kavikarṇapūra’s explanation of these figures does not suggest that rasa is in any way subordinate here, it is tempting to read Kavikarṇapūra’s comments in this light (as Sivaprasada Bhattacharyya insists we must).115 In any case, these figures are figures of rasa, not of sound or sense, and therefore stimulate rasa. This is not the only way in which Kavikarṇapūra links the figures of speech with rasa. Indeed, as we will see now, Kavikarṇapūra links the phonetic figures— which adorn the body of Poetry—very strongly to the excellences—which are properties of his soul—through the notion of literary styles.

His Symmetry: Style Early in the history of Sanskrit poetics critics differentiated distinct regional preferences in poetry. The poets of eastern India, for example, were fond of long compounds and alliteration, whereas poets from the south composed (p.204) lighter verse. This observation led to the notion of regional ‘ways’ (mārga, in Daṇḍī’s terminology, rīti in Vāmana’s) or regional styles. Daṇḍī states that there are many such styles and that the difference between them is ‘subtle’, but he analyses only two styles, which occupy opposite ends of the spectrum: vaidarbhī, the style of Vidarbha (southern Maharashtra), and gaudī, the style of Gauḍa Page 22 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (western Bengal).116 In addition to these two styles, Vāmana also discusses pāñcālī, the style of Pañcāla (Uttarkhand and western Uttar Pradesh). Rudraṭa (ninth century) distinguishes a fourth style for the west: lāṭīyā, the style of Lāṭa (southern Gujarat).117 Although these styles are said to originate in the regions they are named after, they quickly became ‘universally available in the Sanskrit cultural order as potential modes of writing’118 that could be adopted in any region. They were thus no longer descriptive labels for regional styles, but examples of poetic styles any poet or critic could employ. Both Vāmana and Daṇḍī link these regional styles with the literary excellences (guṇa). Thus, for Vāmana vaidarbhī (his favoured style)119 is characterized by the presence of all excellences, gauḍī is characterized by energy (ojas) and brilliance (kānti), and pāñcālī by sweetness (mādhurya) and tenderness (sukumāratā). Daṇḍī agrees with Vāmana on the vaidarbhī, but writes that in the style gauḍī ‘generally the opposite of these [excellence] is found’.120 Rudraṭa considers the four styles he accepts—vaidarbhī, pāñcālī, lāṭīyā, gauḍī—to be marked by an increasing degree of compounding,121 but also links them for the first time with rasa: vaidarbhī and pāñcālī are suitable for the compassionate (karuṇa), fearful (bhayānaka), marvellous (adbhuta), and the affectionate (preyas) rasa, while lāṭīyā and gauḍī are to be used for the furious (raudra) rasa.122 Ānandavardhana, however, considers the concept of style no longer useful in his poetics of suggestion. He argues that these three styles ‘were set up by persons unable to give a clear idea of the true nature of poetry’. Those theorists ‘did have some slight, but unclear, notion’ of suggestion, which they tried to explain as the notion of style, but for those who do understand the nature of suggestion ‘any other explanation, as by means of the styles, becomes worthless’.123 Mammaṭa also writes the styles out of his poetics. Corresponding to his three excellences he distinguishes three types of repeated alliteration (p.205) (vṛtty‐ anuprāsa) used ‘with regards to rasa’:124 the alliteration of phonemes that suggest sweetness, the alliteration of phonemes that suggest energy, and the alliteration of the other phonemes.125 He calls these three types of alliteration ‘cultured’ (upanāgarikā),126 ‘rugged’ (paruṣā), and ‘soft’ (komalā), or ‘rustic’ (grāmyā)127—terms that are borrowed from Udbhaṭa (ninth century), the author of the Kāvyālaṃkāra‐sāra‐saṃgraha.128 Having described these three types of alliteration, Mammaṭa states that ‘it is the opinion of some that these [three types of alliteration] are the styles, beginning with vaidarbhī’.129 In other words, he reduces Vāmana’s tree styles—vaidarbhī, gauḍī, and pāñcālī—to Udbhaṭa’s three types of alliteration—upanāgarikā, paruṣā, and komalā—and thus he does not consider the styles an important critical concept.

Page 23 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Kavikarṇapūra, on the other hand, does give importance to the concept of style. Other than clarity, which is present in all poetic structures, the literary excellences are brought about by specific linguistic structures, he argues.130 These structures are called style (rīti), and are ‘particular arrangements of phonemes that cause the excellences [to be perceived]’.131 ‘Style is a specific linguistic structure,’ Kavikarṇapūra further explains, ‘that aims to bring forth excellences that are congenial for the poem’s rasa.’132 According to the excellences they suggest and the rasa they support, Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes four styles: vaidarbhī, pāñcālī, gauḍī, and lāṭī. Each style is defined by specific syntactical structures: thus only short compounds, or even no compounds at all, are allowed in the vaidarbhī style, but long compounds (p.206) are a necessity in the grandiose gauḍī style; poetry written in the pāñcālī style is neither loose nor dense, but the lāṭī style is characterized by a looseness of composition.133 How do the excellences and style relate? Just as individual phonemes have an affective power, so do larger linguistic structures. Gauḍī, for example, by its compact and dense structure, its profuse use of alliteration and harsher phonemes, stirs up the mind and therefore generally suggests energy (ojas).134 A balanced structure, on the other hand, that does not become too dense nor too loose, is conducive to a ‘softer’ excellence like sweetness (mādhurya), and hence that excellence predominates in most poetry written in the pāñcālī style.135 (Kavikarṇapūra specifies no excellences for lāṭī.) Vaidarbhī, on the other hand, harmonizes all excellences—either only the three primary, Kavikarṇapūra specifies, or all ten. Sweetness and energy, with all their subsidiary excellences, exist side by side, and complement each other. But of all the excellences, exaltedness (udāratā) of meaning is particularly important.136 It is the sine qua non of vaidarbhī.137 The exalted elegance of this style is thus not purely phonetic and syntactic, but also conceptual.138 If such vaidarbhī poetry is expertly composed, Kavikarṇapūra writes, it reaches poetic ripeness (pāka), a concept borrowed from Vāmana, who explains that such poetic ripeness occurs when every single word in the poem is so aptly chosen that it could not be replaced by any other word— (p.207) even a synonym.139 Each quarter of such verse, writes Kavikarṇapūra, improves on the previous, gradually building up to culminate at the verse’s conclusion. Such poetic ripeness is compared to the ripeness of a mango. This is what the poet should strive to attain, rather than let his poem ‘ripen’ like an eggplant, which loses its flavour as it matures.140 This perfection or ripeness of the vaidarbhī style is, according to Kavikarṇapūra, however, only attained with particular metres. Elegant and graceful metres, like vasanta‐tilakā and upendra‐vajrā,141 are especially suited for this; they support and enhance the other characteristics of the style and thus help to awaken wonder (camatkāra) in the reader’s heart.

Page 24 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language More sturdy and energetic metres fail to accomplish this, as they clash with the general nature of the vaidarbhī style, and are better employed in gauḍī verse.142 Thus the diction and style need to support and enhance the emotions the poet wishes to convey. For amorous poetry soft‐sounding words and a simple and easy style are required, but heroic or ghastly scenes require long compounds and words containing harsher phonemes, to convey the vigour of the action and to inspire those in the reader. As we have seen earlier, Mammaṭa reinterpreted Vāmana’s three styles as Udbhaṭa’s three types of alliteration, and Kavikarṇapūra further modifies this to suit his poetics. First of all, upanāgarikā, the type of alliteration that according to Mammaṭa suggests sweetness, is for Kavikarṇapūra not a form of repeated alliteration (vṛtty‐anuprāsa), but of single alliteration (chekānuprāsa): the alliteration of phonemes that suggest sweetness is therefore only called upanāgarikā if they are repeated only once. The repeated alliteration of phonemes (vṛtty‐anuprāsa) is still of two kinds, based on whether it is favourable to sweetness or energy, similar to Mammaṭa’s upanāgarikā and paruṣā, although Kavikarṇapūra does not give them technical terms. The third type of alliteration —komalā or grāmyā—undergoes a deeper transformation. It is not the alliteration of the remaining phonemes, that is, those that suggest (p.208) clarity, as Mammaṭa’s commentators argue, but rather the alliteration of soft (komala) phonemes, particularly -la‐ as is clear from his examples. This type of alliteration, Kavikarṇapūra writes, is called lāṭa (the alliteration of the region Lāṭa).143 To make matters more confusing, Udbhaṭa, Mammaṭa, and Viśvanātha also talk of a type of alliteration called lāṭa, which is ‘the repetition within the same verse of a word or words having the same meaning but, through the context, different in acceptation’.144 Kavikarṇapūra too accepts this type of alliteration with the same name, and thus has two very different types of alliteration sharing the same name!145 Unlike Mammaṭa, Kavikarṇapūra accepts the styles as tools for criticism. He does not attempt to reduce them to these three types of alliteration. But his renaming and redefining of these types of alliteration are largely influenced by his views on the styles. The most obvious connections of these is between the alliteration lāṭa and the style lāṭī, which is defined, among other things, by a ‘an abundance of the alliteration loved by the people of Lāṭa’.146 The ambiguity of the lāṭa alliteration here is intentional: from the description of the style it is clear that Kavikarṇapūra has his own version in mind: it is characterized by looseness, and by an abundance of soft phonemes like -la‐.147 Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of the style and the phonetic figure of speech nearly overlap, and can hardly be seen separately from each other, since all the characteristics of the former are those of the latter. But Kavikarṇapūra also thinks of the other, traditional, figure

Page 25 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language with that name, as is clear from one of the examples of the style lāṭī he gives in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha.148 Lāṭī thus embraces both types of alliteration. (p.209) But what about Kavikarṇapūra’s upanāgarikā alliteration? Why can this type of alliteration repeat phonemes that suggest sweetness only once and not more? Kavikarṇapūra links repeated alliteration with gauḍī. Alliteration is an essential quality of the gauḍī style, and Kavikarṇapūra goes so far as to say that, though alliteration can be a quality of both sweetness and energy, when identical phonemes suggesting sweetness are repeatedly repeated the poem has to be considered gauḍī, even though energy, and not sweetness, is the defining excellence of this style.149 In this case, alliteration weighs heavier than excellences in the determination of style. For Kavikarṇapūra, literary styles (rīti) are not some additional literary ornamentation, but are an aggregate of several other literary elements— primarily excellences and phonetic figures of speech—from which they derive their particularity. Unlike the other concepts we have so far discussed, style cannot be analysed in isolation from those other concepts, but is defined by them. In other words, alliteration leads to a particular style, which itself suggests a particular excellence, which then helps to bring out a particular rasa. Kavikarṇapūra’s notion of the literary style thus forms the bridge between the body of Poetry and its ornaments, and his soul and its excellences.

His Deformities: Literary Defects Thus far, we have only discussed the positive characteristics of poetic language: figures of speech, suggested content, rasa, literary excellences, and style. All critics agree, however, that these elements are only valued if the poem contains no literary defects (doṣas). Even if a poem is properly ornamented with figures of speech and it contains literary excellence, if its verses are marred by defects, the poem is ruined. ‘However small it may be,’ writes Daṇḍī, ‘no defect should be pardoned in poetry. Even a beautiful body may become ugly by a single spot of leprosy.’150 Critics disagree about the relationship between excellences and defects. Bharata, for example, regards the defects as positive entities, while the excellences are nothing but the absence of these defects.151 For Vāmana the defects are the opposite of the excellences and are known only by implication from these.152 (p.210) However, in the poetics of Ānandavardhana the literary defects are differently viewed. Since rasa is the true essence of poetry, only that which hinders the realization of rasa is to be considered a defect. Any grammatically incorrect forms or unappealing phonetic textures are tolerated, as long as they do not hamper rasa. What earlier authors considered literary defects, such as ‘indelicacy of sound’ are ‘to be avoided only in the soul of suggestion, when love is suggested as the primary element [of the poem].’153 As the gentle sentiment Page 26 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language of love needs a gentle language to be conveyed, the use of harsh sounding language is a defect for amorous poetry, although not necessarily for other poems. Since Kavikarṇapūra follows Ānandavardhana’s views on the suggestion of rasa, he also accepts his understanding of literary defects. Thus in his personified poetry only qualities ‘like harsh to hear, are faults, and not others’. He elaborates: ‘If there are defects [in poetry], then only those well‐known defects which are distinct, such as being unpleasant to hear, are defects, and not the other. These [other defects] are quite insignificant, because they do not diminish rasa.’154 Defects are therefore defined as ‘those [qualities] that diminish rasa’.155 Kavikarṇapūra stresses that the word rasa here does not refer to rasas like the amorous or heroic. Because rasa is the soul of poetry, there is no possibility of diminishing or concealing it—it either is there or it is not. The use of the word rasa here refers therefore to ‘that which is relished’, and not to the different types of rasa which are the self of Poetry.156 He gives the following analogy: the causes of deformity, like being blind in one eye or limping, do not affect the soul, because they are qualities of the body.157 They are, in other words, not the opposite of the excellences (guṇas), as Vāmana claims, because they are properties of poetic language, not of rasa. Bechan Jha explains the relationship between the defects and rasa as follows: Just as logical fallacies prevent the emergence of inferential judgement, so also poetic defects tend to frustrate the conditions for the realisation of Rasa‐experience. It is not a fact that fallacies are known after inference has taken place. The Rasa‐doṣas are defects of this kind which prevent the possibility of Rasa‐experience. It is not meant that they detract from the Rasa‐experience after it has emerged.…The presence of defects is proof of the absence of the necessary condition for the (p.211) realisation of aesthetic experience. This experience either takes place or not. It is not possible that the experience is made qualitatively or quantitatively deficient.158 The defects are thus, in Edwin Gerow’s words, ‘debilitating detractions’.159 But what are they, specifically? Some of the defects are purely phonetic:160 words or phrases that sound unpleasant should generally be strictly avoided,161 as are phonetic clusters that are counterproductive for the rasa to be conveyed. The monotonous repetition of a euphonic rule (sandhi) creates an unpleasant sound effect and is therefore a defect.162 Furthermore, when writing verse, the poet has to carefully guard against metrical lapses, which would break the rhythm of the chosen metre.163

Page 27 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language As the excellence clarity is an essential characteristic of poetry and therefore present in all poetic structures, anything that hinders the clear apprehension of the poem’s meaning is a defect. Indeed, many of the defects listed in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha impede clarity: eleven out of sixteen defects of words, for example, are counterproductive to clarity,164 as are about half of the defects unique to sentences.165 Thus, the poet should not obscure meanings,166 use obscure words,167 or rely on jargon.168 Ungrammatical forms are not tolerated,169 and even the use of grammatically correct but unconventional forms should be minimized.170 Syntactically, the poem should be as clear and (p. 212) unambiguous as possible,171 and all elements (both linguistic and contextual) that are needed for a full comprehension and appreciation of the poem have to be present.172 Misplaced words or compounds create confusion and should therefore be prevented.173 Redundant words should not be used,174 nor should the poet repeat himself, either by reusing words,175 or by re‐ describing something that had already been concluded.176 Apart from these linguistic deficiencies, some of the literary defects listed in works on Sanskrit poetics deal not with phonetic or syntactic aspects of literary language, but rather with decorum. The depiction, and indeed even the suggestion, of vulgar and crude ideas are frowned upon. Except in the speech of low‐class persons or jesters,177 vulgar words have no place in poetry,178 and even the accidental suggestion of unrefined ideas, words, or phrases defile a poem.179 Finally, some defects relate directly to rasa. As rasa is the harmonizing factor, all elements that conflict with the dominant rasa are unwelcome. Hence, no discordant cause (vibhāva), effect (anubhāva), or accompanying emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāva) has to depicted, or the rasa will not be suggested,180 and neither the rasa, the accompanying emotions, nor the stable emotion (sthāyi‐ bhāva) are to be directly named.181 The emotions have to be properly developed: they have to be timely introduced,182 not overshadowed by the description of something irrelevant,183 not prematurely interrupted,184 yet also not endlessly prolonged,185 or repeatedly brought to a climax.186 (p.213) Because the poem’s rasa determines what is a defect and what is not, not all these defects are absolute. For example, omitting words that are normally necessary for the full comprehension of the verse is permitted, perhaps even desired, if the speaker is thrilled with joy, grieving, or intoxicated.187 Similarly, the use of unconventional grammatical forms is not a defect in the figure of speech paranomasia (śleṣa).188 Some defects can thus turn into excellences (guṇas).189 How then can we differentiate between an excellence and a defect? Or, when is a defect really a defect? The determining factor here is impropriety (anaucitya). Anything that detracts from the purpose of realizing rasa is improper and hence a defect. Kavikarṇapūra quotes Ānandavardhana’s famous dictum: ‘For the spoiling of rasa there is no cause other than impropriety. On the Page 28 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language other hand, composing a work within recognised proprieties is the very Upaniṣad [i.e. the true means of attaining the goal] of rasa.’190 Propriety (aucitya) does not merely determine whether a defect is truly a defect, but governs all aspects of poetry. The excellences too have to be employed with ‘recognised proprieties’;191 if they clash with the rasa of the poem, they are not properties of rasa, and hence not excellences.

Conclusion In articulating his rasa theory, Kavikarṇapūra integrates early views of rasa, particularly as articulated by Bhoja, with those of later authors, like Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha, as we have seen in Chapter 3. A similar tendency can be noticed here. Although the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha bears the unmistakable mark of Mammaṭa’s Kāvya‐prakāśa, Kavikarṇapūra frequently turns to Vāmana, a pre‐ Ānandavardhana critic, for concepts central to his poetics. Take, for instance, the question of the number of excellences (guṇa). As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra argues, following Mammaṭa (and Ānandavardhana) that there are three excellences—sweetness, energy, and clarity—and that the seven remaining excellences of the earlier authors should not be considered excellences.192 Yet, later he argues that the vaidarbhī style is characterized by the presence of all excellences, which he glosses as ‘all three or all ten’!193 (p.214) Even more surprisingly, Kavikarṇapūra accepts at times other excellences even than these ten. Thus in several places Kavikarṇapūra mentions the excellence tenderness (sukumāratā).194 Mammaṭa treats this excellence, like brilliance (kānti),195 as the mere absence of a defect; Kavikarṇapūra, on the other hand, does not explicitly discuss how the excellence can be incorporated into the tripartite division of excellences, but seems to accept it as a component of sweetness (mādhurya). Thus Kavikarṇapūra writes that just as language becomes poetic by the presence of rasa, so phonemes can suggest the ‘sweet’ amorous rasa (madhura‐rasa), by excellences like tenderness.196 Unlike Mammaṭa, Kavikarṇapūra does not include tenderness in the list of ten excellences, and never clearly defines it. Bhoja defines the phonetic excellence (śabda‐guṇa) tenderness as ‘predominantly not harsh’, yet not becoming ‘loose’ by a profuse use of soft phonemes,197 and Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of the excellence seems similar. In chapter 9 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha it is characterized as ‘being not harsh’ (aniṣṭhuratva),198 but, as he states in Chapter 6, if this excellence suggests sweetness it differs from softness (komalatva), which leads to looseness of composition.199 In the light of this, it seems reasonable to read Kavikarṇapūra’s claim that the seven remaining excellences ‘are not excellences’ to mean, as Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya comments, ‘they are not different excellences’ from the three that are properties of rasa.200 On closer examination, Kavikarṇapūra seems to use the excellences on two levels. First of all there are the three excellences— Page 29 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language sweetness, energy, clarity. These are properties of rasa, just as virtues are properties of the self, not of the body. They have individually been defined as affecting qualities that are suggested by a unique set of phonemes. But then (p. 215) there are the seven remaining excellences—explicitness, brilliance, exaltedness, cohesiveness, symmetry, homogeneity, and maturity. Kavikarṇapūra almost dismisses only one of these—homogeneity (samatā), which he says is sometimes a defect. Most of the others can be subsumed under one of the three excellences, as we have seen. Kavikarṇapūra thus reduces these ten to the three, they are not denied. Kavikarṇapūra does consider them concepts helpful for criticism, as we have seen. Unlike the three primary excellences, however, these seven are not as closely related to rasa. As phonetic, syntactic, or semantic properties of poetic language, they resemble more Daṇḍī’s and Vāmana’s excellences than Mammaṭa’s.201 This does not contradict their inclusion in the three primary excellences. While individually they are qualities of poetic language, they become components of sweetness, energy, or clarity when aligned with them. We thus have two sets of excellences: three that pertain directly to rasa, and seven that pertain directly to language itself.202 Then there is the inclusion of maturity (prauḍhi), an excellence which few theorists accept.203 Mammaṭa dismisses maturity as ‘mere strikingness’. It is not an excellence, he argues, because a composition can be considered poetry even without it.204 Kavikarṇapūra disagrees. All excellences do not have to occur in a composition to make it poetic; except for clarity, they are not inseparable characteristics of poetry. Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of maturity (‘maturity causes strikingness’)205 resembles Mammaṭa’s, but he is here more (p.216) profoundly influenced by Vāmana, who defines the semantic aspect of energy as ‘a maturity of meaning’.206 He explains it as the ability to use one word to express the meaning of an entire phrase, an entire phrase to express one word, to expand the meaning of one sentence into many or to contract many sentences into one, and to make every word relevant207—the very same description Kavikarṇapūra gives.208 Maturity is thus of much greater importance to Kavikarṇapūra than to Mammaṭa. Indeed, as we have seen, marvellousness (vaicitrya) is what can turn a bad poem into a good one, and a good poem into a great one. Clearly it is a literary excellence in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, and an important one at that. Vāmana’s influence is also noticeable elsewhere. First, in Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of vaidarbhī. According to Viśvanātha sweetness predominates in vaidarbhī.209 But Kavikarṇapūra writes that it is characterized by all the excellences, as we have just seen, as indeed Vāmana does: he considers vaidarbhī best because it can harmonize all excellences, whereas in gauḍī and pāñcālī particular excellences dominate (energy and brilliance, and sweetness and tenderness respectively).210

Page 30 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Vāmana’s views also echo in Kavikarṇapūra’s comments on the weaker variety of energy, ‘medium energy’ (madhyamaujas). As we have seen, energy and sweetness have entirely opposite characteristics—the former excites the reader’s mind, whereas the latter softens it; they call for different phonemes, different structures, and result in different styles. But when sweetness is joined with the excellence medium energy to convey the amorous or compassionate rasa, Kavikarṇapūra writes, the result is ‘very beautiful’ and called ‘tightly bound’ (gāḍha‐bandha). This term is borrowed from Vāmana, who uses it to describe the phonetic variety of energy (the śabda‐guṇa ojas), and his own examples of this excellence indeed have an element of Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of sweetness.211 As with maturity, Kavikarṇapūra reinterprets Vāmana’s concept and integrates it in his own poetics which builds on Mammaṭa. Finally, consider Kavikarṇapūra’s treatment of poetic ripeness (pāka). It is a concept treated by several poeticians—Bhoja, Rājaśekhara, and Vidyādhara, (p. 217) among others212—but no one but Vāmana links it with the vaidarbhī style,213 as Kavikarṇapūra does. What does all this tell us about Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics? Earlier we saw how Kavikarṇapūra judged the merit of poetry on two levels. First, based on the prominence of suggestion, and particularly the suggestion of rasa—the more prominently rasa figures in a poem, the more it is valued. The second judgement is based on the way sound and sense are brought together: if done in a striking way the poem’s value increases, regardless of its degree of rasa. The increased importance of literary excellences—especially those that are not directly rasa‐related—underscores the same idea: although rasa is Poetry’s soul, Poetry’s body should not be neglected, and careful adornment of his body can help accentuate the special virtues of his soul. The apparently greater bravery of the older son of the warrior woman—in the analogy Kavikarṇapūra uses to explain the nature of the excellences—is perhaps only due to his age and thus not a property of the body, but his body nevertheless helps to suggest it. This interest in the ornamentation of poetic language, and even more so that of the phonetic kind, is shown throughout the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, but particularly in Kavikarṇapūra’s treatment of style. With the reworking of Mammaṭa’s reinterpretation of Udbhaṭa’s threefold alliteration scheme, Kavikarṇapūra shows the importance of these phonetic figures of speech for his poetics. The lāṭa style is nearly synonymous with both types of lāṭa alliteration, and gauḍī too is characterized by repeated alliterations. The correlation between styles and alliteration follows Kavikarṇapūra’s conception of style itself. Style, which reveals the literary excellences, which in their turn suggest rasa, is a ‘particular arrangement of phonemes’ (varṇa‐vinyāsa‐viśeṣa)—not a particular arrangement of words (pada), as it is for all other literary theorists.214 In defining style, Kavikarṇapūra focuses on the smallest possible aspect of language (the

Page 31 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language meaningless, though meaning‐bearing phonemes), thereby emphasizing the importance of phonetic structures in poetry. The focus on the phonetic is also evident in Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of maturity (prauḍhi). We have seen that he develops this from one of Vāmana’s semantic excellences, that this leads to ‘marvellousness’ of both sound and sense (śabdārtha‐vaicitrya). Yet, as Kavikarṇapūra’s examples in chapter 1 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha clearly show, this marvellousness is particularly marked by phonetic figuration: every example he gives abounds in various types of alliteration and resonance (yamaka).215 Kavikarṇapūra’s attempt to bridge sweetness and energy, through his concept of ‘medium energy’, which (p.218) several of these verses also embody, further illustrates this. When this excellence is combined with sweetness, its phonemes are those of sweetness, but it retains the compounding of energy, as well as its alliteration. It is when these are two excellences are thus brought together, Kavikarṇapūra writes, that the poem attains ‘fullness’ in recitation.216 The seemingly small changes Kavikarṇapūra makes to the poetics he (primarily) inherits from Mammaṭa are significant because they better reflect the poetry of his time. There is little room in the poetics of suggestion of Ānandavardhana and his chief followers for elaborate ornamentation and verbal play. Suggestion alone is ‘the poetic essence that delights the heart of the sensitive audience’, Ānandavardhana argues, and ‘whatever differs from it is mere display (citra)’.217 This latter type of poetry is not real poetry, and is so called because it ‘resembles a painting (citra)’, which is not the real thing. Such poetry relies ‘merely on strikingness (vaicitrya) of sound and sense’, as is the case with difficult phonetic figures like resonance (yamaka).218 Such poetry ‘may be much used in the efforts of beginners who are seeking practice’ but is not something experienced poets who are taught in the principles of suggestion greatly admire.219 Ānandavardhana warns particularly against the use of phonetic figures in amorous poetry: because they detract from the poem’s rasa,220 when a poet uses these more than once, this ‘[can only be excused as] carelessness on his part’.221 We will return to this critique in Chapter 6, when discussing Kavikarṇapūra’s own poetry. Ānandavardhana’s influence has been enormous, and these views are echoed by many later literary critics. But most poets seemed to care little for Ānandavardhana’s views, and wrote ever more ornamented poetry, with a particular predilection for phonetic figures and complex word plays. They were primarily attempting to ‘rival or surpass a predecessor [poet]’, as David Smith has argued, rather than adhere strictly to the rules set forth in works of past poeticians, thereby deepening the divide between the practice of poets and the discipline of poetics—which Smith characterizes as ‘a self‐perpetuating and self‐ absorbed learned tradition’.222

Page 32 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (p.219) Kavikarṇapūra’s innovations are therefore significant, because they aim to explain not the ideal poetry of the critics, but the practised poetry of the poets—especially his own. The return to earlier authors on poetics, like Vāmana, and the emphasis on phonetic figuration therefore highlight that in writing the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra did not merely want to create an academic account of poetic ideals, but also provide a framework to think more fruitfully about the poetry of his time. Notes:

(1) …ayaṃ śabdārtha‐vyatikaraḥ kāvyatayā vyavaharaṇīyo rasātmakatvād iti rasātmakatva‐hetumator eva śabdārthayoḥ kāvya‐vyavahāraḥ…(AK p. 72/238). (2) Śarīraṃ śabdārthau dhvanir asava ātmā kila raso, guṇā mādhūryādyā upamiti‐mukho ’laṃkṛti‐gaṇaḥ / susaṃsthānaṃ rītiḥ sa kila paramaḥ kāvya‐ puruṣo, yad asmin doṣaḥ syāc chravaṇa‐kaṭutādiḥ sa na paraḥ (AK p. 2/5). Kavikarṇapūra is not the only theorist who personifies poetry; see De (1976, vol. 2, pp. 35–6). (3) This verse functions as a table of contents for the entire work; the topics are discussed in the order they appear in this verse. Sound and sense are discussed in Chapter 2, suggestion in 3 and 4, rasa in 5, the literary excellences in Chapter 6, the figures of speech in 7 and 8, style in chapter 9, and the defects in chapter 10. (4) See Vākya‐padīya 1.1–2. (5) Kavikarṇapūra’s version: Sac‐cid‐ānanda‐vibhavāt sakalāt parameśvarāt / āsīc chaktis tato nādas tasmād bindu‐samudbhavaḥ / nādo binduś ca bījaṃ ca sa eva trividho mataḥ / bhidyamānāt parād bindor ubhayātmā ravo’bhavat / sa ravaḥ śruti‐sampannaḥ śabda‐brahmābhavat param (AK p. 6/21). Lakṣmaṇa Deśika’s version: Sac‐cid‐ānanda‐vibhavāt sakalāt parameśvarāt / āsīc chaktis tato nādas nādād bindu‐sambhavaḥ / para‐śakti‐mayaḥ sākṣāt tridhā’sau bhidyate punaḥ / bindur nādo bījam iti tasya bhedāḥ samīritaḥ /…bhidyamānāt parād bindor avyaktātmā ravo’bhavat / śabda‐brahmeti taṃ prāhuḥ sarvāgama‐viśāradāḥ / śabda‐brahmeti śabdārtham śabdam ity apare viduḥ. (Śāradā‐tilaka 1.7–8, 11– 12). Neither Kavikarṇapūra, his commentators, nor the editors of the text indicate that these verses are quoted from another source. Kavikarṇapūra is not the only Caitanya Vaiṣṇava who cites the Śāradā‐tilaka: several verses of it are quoted in Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī’s Hari‐bhakti‐vilāsa (see De, 1961, p. 527). (6) The word sakala in the citation of the Śāradā‐tilaka is interpreted by Śaiva authors as referring to ‘the immanent aspect of the Godhead, who assumes the form of the universe, the salient feature of which is its being comprised of parts (kalā)’ (Padoux, 1990, p. 89). Kavikarṇapūra glosses the word with mūrta,

Page 33 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language ‘embodied’, a term of great importance in his theology, as we have seen in Chapter 2. (7) Śaiva authors, such as Abhinavagupta, read the text differently. Following the understanding of the Śāradā‐tilaka, the line translates as ‘This [bindu] itself is understood to be divided threefold: [a secondary] nāda, [a secondary] bindu, and bīja.’ (See Padoux, 1990, pp. 87ff). I have followed Viśvanātha’s readings of this verse; he takes saḥ (in the sixth quarter) to refers to parameśvara. Kavikarṇapūra does not clarify how he understands it, although he identifies bīja with bindu (binduḥ praṇavaḥ, sa ca bījam, AK p. 6/22), and does not comment further on a secondary nāda or bindu, which the Śaiva authors do. (8) Padoux (1990, pp. 96–7). (9) AK pp. 2/3–5. (10) Padoux (1990, p. 104). (11) BP 12.6.37, 39, & 43 (quoted in AK p. 6/22): Samāhitātmano brahman brahmaṇaḥ parameṣṭhinaḥ / hṛdy ākāśād abhūn nādo vṛtti‐rodhād vibhāvyate /… tato’bhūt tri‐vṛd oṃkāro yo’vyakta‐prabhavaḥ sva‐rāṭ…tato’kṣara‐samāmnāyam asṛjad bhagavān ajaḥ. (12) BP 12.6.43–46. (13) Binduḥ praṇavaḥ. Sa ca bījaṃ sarva‐varṇa‐prabhavatvāt (AK p. 6/22). (14) Yady api varṇā nityās tathāpi tad‐abhivyaktiḥ śarīra‐stha‐vāyunaiva bhavati (AK p. 6/21); tena pavana‐preraṇāpreraṇa‐vaśād evābhivyakty‐anabhivyaktī (AK p. 6/23). Cf. Scharf (1996, p. 199). (15) Ākāśasya nitya‐dravyatve tad‐guṇasyāpi nityatvaṃ, guṇāśrayo dravyam iti guṇa‐guṇinoḥ samavāya‐sambandhāt (AK p. 6/23). (16) Vastutas tu nityataiva teṣām ity ayam āntara‐sphoṭaḥ (AK p. 6/23). In his commentary, Viśvanātha spells it out a bit clearer: Vastutas tu teṣāṃ varṇānāṃ nityataiveti hetor antar‐upalabhyamāno’yaṃ nityo varṇa āntaraḥ sphoṭa iti prācāṃ pravādo’pi saṃgacchate. The Mīmāṃsakas vehemently oppose the sphoṭa theory; see Kunjunni Raja (1977, pp. 109ff). (17) Śṛṇoti ya imaṃ sphoṭaṃ supta‐śrotre ca śūnya‐dṛk / yena vāg vyajyate yasya vyaktir ākāśa ātmanaḥ. (BP 12.6.40, partially cited in AK p. 6/23). In translating this verse, I have followed Śrīdhara’s reading. (18) Nanu jīva eva taṃ śṛṇotu, nety āha—supta‐śrotre karṇa‐ pidhānādināvṛttike’pi śrotre sati. Jīvas tu karaṇādhīna‐jñānatvān na tadā śrotā.

Page 34 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language Tad‐upalabdhis tu tasya paramātma‐dvārikaiveti bhāvaḥ (Śrīdhara on BP 12.6.40). (19) Jātāndha‐mūka‐badhirasyāntaḥ svīya‐parāmṛśi / sva‐vāk‐śabdārthayor bodha āntara‐sphoṭa eva saḥ (AK p. 6/24). (20) Niraṃśa evābhinno nityo bodha‐svabhāvaḥ śabdārtha‐maya āntara‐sphoṭaḥ (AK p. 6/24). The source of this passage is unknown, but, Ashok Aklujkar pointed out to me, it resembles Puṇyarāja’s introductory comments on Vākya-padīya 2.7 and 2.30. (21) Matilal (1990, p. 85). (22) Sa eṣa jīvo vivara‐prasūtiḥ prāṇena ghoṣeṇa guhāṃ praviṣṭaḥ (BP 11.12.17, quoted in AK p. 6/22). Both Śrīdhara Svāmī and Viśvanātha interpret guhām (literally ‘cave’) as mūlādhāra‐cakra. Following Śrīdhara, Kavikarṇapūra identifies ghoṣa as nāda. (23) Paścāt paśyanty atha hṛdaya‐go (Prapañca‐sāra‐tantra 2.43, quoted in AK p. 2/3). (24) Kaviraj (1923–24, p. 1). (25) Buddhi‐yuṅ‐madhyamākhyaḥ (Prapañca‐sāra‐tantra 2.43, quoted in AK p. 2/3). (26) Vaktre vaikharyy atha (Prapañca‐sāra‐tantra 2.43, quoted in AK p. 2/3). (27) The identification of nāda with the āntara‐sphoṭa is not made explicit, but the Bhāgavata verses Kavikarṇapūra cites to illustrate both basically describe the same thing. Śrīdhara Svāmī (on BP 11.12.17) Viśvanātha (on AK p. 2/3) also identify nāda or ghoṣa with parā: ghoṣeṇa parākhyena nādavatā. (28) See AK p. 6/22: Sa ca bījaṃ sarva‐varṇa‐prabhavatvāt. (29) See also Śrīdhara Svāmī on BP 10.85.9: Diśām upādhi-kṛtākāśa‐pradeśānām avakāśo diśaś ca tvam. Khaṃ sāmānyākāśas tad āśrayaḥ sphoṭaś ca śabda‐ tanmātraṃ parāvasthā vāg ity arthaḥ. Nādaḥ paśyantī. Oṃkāroī madhyamā. Varṇaś cākṛtīnāṃ padārthānāṃ pṛthak kṛtiḥ pṛthak karaṇam abhiḍhāṇaṃ yasmāt tat padam. Varṇa‐padādy‐ātmikā vaikharī ca tvam ity arthaḥ. (30) See Vākya-padīya 1.44. Dhvani thus corresponds to Saussure’s signifier (signifiant) or the meaning‐bearing element, whereas sphoṭa is the meaning itself (signifié). This dhvani is not the same as the dhvani of the poeticians, although the latter claim the term is borrowed from the grammarians, as we shall see below.

Page 35 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (31) AK p. 6/25: Tatra pūrva‐pūrva‐varṇoccāraṇābhivyakta‐tat‐tat‐saṃskāra‐ sahakṛta‐carama‐varṇa‐saṃskāra‐niṣṭha‐pada‐janyaika‐padārtha‐pratyāyakatā pada‐sphoṭaḥ. Evaṃ pūrva‐pūrva‐padoccāraṇābhivyakta‐tat‐tat‐saṃskāra‐ sahakṛta‐carama‐pada‐saṃskāra‐niṣṭha‐vākya‐janyaika‐vākyārtha‐pratyāyakatā vākya‐sphoṭaḥ. Cf. Vākya-padīya 1.82–4. (32) Yathā ‘ayaṃ gauḥ’ ity ukte na hi gakāraukāra‐visargā eva pratīyante, api tu sāsnādimat kim apīti pratyakṣam (AK p. 7/28). (33) I. A. Richards, cited in Soskice (1985, p. 45). (34) I was not able to trace most of these citations, but, as mentioned above, we find several striking parallels in Puṇyarāja’s commentary on the Vākya-padīya. Bhattacharyya, Purīdāsa and Haridāsa Śāstrī, the editors of the text, tried to identify these passages (naming Puṇyarāja, Yoga-vāśiṣṭa‐rāmāyaṇa, and Mādhava’s Sarva‐darśana‐saṃgraha), but I could not locate these passages in any of the given texts. (35) DA 1.13, translation by Ingalls et al. (1990). (36) Ataḥ āhuḥ—‘buddhair vaiyākaraṇaiḥ’ [KP 1.4] iti kāvya‐prakāśa‐kṛtaḥ (AK p. 7/27). (37) Guy Beck remarks that Vaiṣṇavas generally favour the varṇa view of the Mīmāṃsakas over the sphoṭa theory of the grammarians (Beck 1993, p. 80). Among Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas, Kavikarṇapūra is, to my knowledge, the only one who defends the theory. Jīva Gosvāmī argues against the sphoṭa theory in the Sarva‐saṃvādinī (pp. 10–11), where he calls the theory cumbersome (garīyas), as it requires an additional element (sphoṭa) to explain linguistic competence and comprehension, and he shows his preference for the more elegant (laghīyas) Mīmāṃsaka view. As we have seen, the Bhāgavata discusses the different levels of sound, which is briefly commented upon by some Caitanya Vaiṣṇava commentators, such as Viśvanātha (e.g. BP 10.85.9, 11.21.36, 12.6.40). The word sphoṭa occurs twice in the Bhāgavata: BP 10.85.9 and 12.6.40 (which Kavikarṇapūra quotes). Jīva does not comment on the first verse in either of his Bhāgavata commentaries (Krama‐ sandarbha and Laghu‐vaiṣṇava‐toṣaṇī), and does not gloss on the word sphoṭam in the second verse. Sanātana does not comment on sphoṭa in his Vaiṣṇava‐toṣaṇī commentary on BP 10.85.9. Although Viśvanātha’s commentary on the sphoṭa section in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha is fairly elaborate, he seems to distance himself somewhat from the discussion on nāda with the words ‘atha yoga‐śāstra‐mate’ (commentary on AK 1.3). In the Sāhitya‐kaumudī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa glosses above cited kārikā of the Kāvya‐prakāśa somewhat ambiguously: the ‘learned’ (buddhaiḥ) are not Page 36 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language the grammarians (as Mammaṭa does), but ‘those learned in dhvani’ (dhvani‐ paṇḍitaiḥ), possibly a reference to the poeticians themselves (see SK 1.4). (38) Sa jayati yena prabhavati dṛśi sudṛśāṃ vyañjanā‐vṛttiḥ / atiśayita‐pada‐ padārtho dhvanir iva muralo dhvanir murārāteḥ (AK p. 1/2). My reading of the verse is based on Kavikarṇapūra’s own commentary. Kavikarṇapūra follows this with a second verse that can be read in the same three ways. (39) Śeṣobhayaḥ pakṣaḥ svīkāraḥ kāvyopayogitvāt (AK p. 2/4). (40) See AK (p. 7/31): Sādhv‐asādhutayādyo’pi. Ādyo varṇātmakaḥ…. Vyākaraṇa‐ praṇītatvaṃ sādhutvaṃ.…Tathāpi tair [=asādhu‐padair] yad vyavahāra‐niṣpattis tad vijñānāṃ tat‐smārita‐go-śabdādi-dvārā, ajñānāṃ tv ajña‐parasparā‐prāpta‐ saṃskāra‐dvāraiva. (41) Viśvanātha Kavirāja and Mammaṭa consider the word to refer primarily to the upādhi (KP 2.3, SD 2.4), although Mammaṭa leaves the matter somewhat open and mentions the jāti view as well (jātir eva vā, KP 2.3). See also KP 2.5. (42) Sādhavaś ca catur‐vidhāḥ, jātiḥ kriyā‐guṇa‐dravyaiḥ. Gauḥ pācakaḥ śuklo ḍittha iti kramāj jāty‐ādibhiś cāturvidhyam. Ca‐kārāj jātir eva padārtha iti ca matam. Tathā hi guḍa‐taṇḍulādi‐pācaka‐bhedena pācako’yaṃ pācako’yam iti pācakatvam asti. Evaṃ candra‐candana‐kundādiṣu ayaṃ śuklo’yaṃ śukla iti śuklatvam. Bāla‐vṛddha‐yuvādy‐udīrita‐ḍitthādy‐artheṣu ḍitthāditvam iti (AK pp. 7–8/32). See also Patañjali’s Mahā‐bhāṣya 1.1.2, KAD 2.13, KP 2.3, SD 2.4. (43) Mukhyo lākṣaṇikas tathā vyañjakaś ceti. Tridhā te śabdāḥ. Mukhyo vācakaḥ (AK p. 8/33). Yasyoccharaṇa‐mātreṇa sahajaṃ yat pratīyate, tasya tatra tu yā vṛttiḥ sābhidhā (AK p. 9/39). (44) See Mīmāṃsā‐sūtra 1.1.5. (45) See Nyāya‐sūtra 2.1.55 (na, sāmayikatvāc chabdārtha‐sampratyayasya) and Tarka‐saṅgraha 59 (asmāt padād ayam arthaḥ bodhavya itīśvara‐saṅketaḥ śaktiḥ). (46) See Vātsyāyana on Nyāya‐sūtra 2.1.55: kaḥ punar ayaṃ samayaḥ? Asya śabdasyedam artha‐jātam abhidheyam iti abhidhānābhidheya‐niyama‐niyogaḥ. (47) Saṃketa īśecchā tatra tattva‐kṛt (AK p. 8/33); mukhyo vācakaḥ, yas tu saṅketam aiśvaryaṃ dhatte, sa mukhyaḥ. Aiśvaram īśvara‐kṛtam, asmādi‐kṛtaṃ saṅketam api yo dhatte tasya dravyatve svārthaṃ pratimukhyatā (AK p. 8/33). (48) The standard example is gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ, which Kavikarṇapūra argues is not necessarily problematic, as one can take ghoṣaḥ here in the sense of ‘sound’ rather than ‘village’: ‘gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣa’ ity āptoktau kaścit parāmṛśati, gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣānvayābhāvāt, ghoṣa‐śabdo’tra dhvany‐arthaḥ, na tv ābhīra‐pally‐ Page 37 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language arthaḥ; tataḥ prativasatīti śrute gaṅgā‐śabdo vā sambandhi‐tīram abhidhatte, ghoṣa‐śabdo vā sva‐sambandhinaṃ pratibimbam abhidhatte (AK p. 10/40). (49) The metonymy based on similarity is called gaunī lakṣaṇā; all other forms are called śuddhā lakṣaṇā. The examples given here are Kavikarṇapūra’s. See AK pp. 10–11/44. (50) The examples are Kavikarṇapūra’s. See AK p. 10/41. (51) Kāvyasyātmā dhvanir iti budhair yaḥ samāmnāta‐pūrvas (DA 1.1). (52) Yad ayam abhrānto vaktā, tat‐prayojanam eva vicāryam. Yadi gaṅgā‐śabdas taṭaṃ lakṣayati, tadā tasya śaitya‐pāvanatvādikam eva prayojanam. Yadi vā ghoṣa‐śabdaḥ sva‐pratibimbaṃ lakṣayati, tadāpi ghoṣasya tat‐tīra‐naikaṭyātiśaya‐ pratipādanena tad eva tīra‐gataṃ śaitya‐pāvanatvādikaṃ, adhikaṃ ca gaṅgā‐ jalasya svacchatvam (AK p. 10/40). ‘Gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣa’ ity atra gaṅgā‐śabdaḥ prathamaṃ vācakatvenābhidhā‐vṛttikaḥ, anyathānvayābhāva eva na syāt. Anantaram abhidhā‐samāptau lakṣaṇām āśritya taṭaṃ lakṣayati. Tad‐anantaraṃ lakṣaṇā‐samāptau vyañjanām āśritya śaitya‐pāvanatvādikaṃ prayojanaṃ vyanakti (AK p. 12/49). (53) The former is technically called avivakṣita‐vācya or suggestion where ‘the literal meaning is not intended’; the latter vivakṣitānya‐para‐vācya or suggestion where ‘the primary meaning is intended, but leads to something else’ (DA 1.13, KP 3.24 & 4.25, SD 4.2, AK p. 16/66). (54) Premnā vidrutam ekavad yad ubhayos tan mānasaṃ mānasaṃ, sarvāsv eva daśāsu yan nava‐navaṃ tat sauhṛdaṃ sauhṛdam / yat kṛṣṇasya vinoda‐bhūr ahar‐ ahas tad yauvanaṃ yauvanaṃ, tad viccheda‐vidhau na yat paricayas taj jīvanaṃ jīvanam (AK p. 16/68). Viśvanātha indentifies the speaker of this verse as Rādhā, addressing her friend Lalitā when Kṛṣṇa left Vṛndāvana. (55) Saubhāgyam etad adhikaṃ mama nātha kṛṣṇa, prāṇair mamātani sukhaṃ praṇayena kīrtiḥ / dṛṣṭaś cirād asi kṛpāpi taveyam uccair, na smaryate na bhavatātma‐gṛhasya mārgaḥ (AK p. 17/69). Purīdāsa wrongly has mamātmani instead of mamātani in the second pada; I’ve followed Bhattacharyya’s correct reading. (56) Āśā‐mātre vilasad‐udayaḥ padminī‐cakra‐bandhuḥ, siddhābhogaḥ satatam aniśāmoda‐maitrī‐kaṣāyaḥ / rādhāśleṣādiṣu niravadhi‐vyāpṛtaḥ śoṇapādo, rociḥ‐ pūrair haratu bhajatāṃ śītatāṃ kṛṣṇa‐candraḥ (AK pp. 13/71–2). (57) See AK p. 99/308: vyatirekā vilakṣaṇaḥ, upamānāt. (58) Ingalls (1965, p. 26).

Page 38 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (59) Raso bhāvas tad‐ābhāsau vastv‐alaṃkāra eva ca…sarvaṃ dhvanis taj‐janitve kāvyaṃ ca dhvanir ucyate (AK p. 16/65). (60) DA 2.20. (61) Ātmā kila rasaḥ (AK p. 2/5). See also AK p. 16/66. (62) See AK p. 25/97, KP 4.44. (63) Avaraṃ tatra niṣpandaḥ (AK p. 4/13). Not all theorists accepted this as poetry. To call this variety poetry is for Viśvanātha an oxymoron, as we will see in chapter 5. Ānandavardhana, who called suggestion the soul of poetry, also rejects this type of poetry in the Dhvany-āloka (see DA 3.41–42), although Mammaṭa does accept it (KP 1.5 and 9.8). (64) See AK p. 4/16: atra kevalaṃ śabda‐vaicitryād dhvaner nispanda‐bhāvāc cāvaratvam. (65) Uttamaṃ dhvani‐vaiśiṣṭye madhyame tatra madhyamam / avaraṃ tatra niṣpanda iti tri‐vidham āditaḥ (AK p. 4/13); dhvaner dhvany‐antarodgāre tad eva hy uttamottamam (AK p. 4/14). Ānandavardhana already discussed combining and fusing various types of suggestion (see DA 3.43–44), but Kavikarṇapūra is, to my knowledge the first critic to recognize ‘nested’ suggestion, and the first to separately classify this type of poetry. Jagannātha, the author of the Rasa‐ gaṅgādhara, follows Kavikarṇapūra (see Rasa‐gaṅgādhara pp. 9ff). (66) Yātāsi svayam eva ratna‐padakasyānveṣaṇārthaṃ vanād, āyātāsi cireṇa komala‐tanuḥ kliṣṭāsi hā mat‐kṛte / śvāso dīrghataraḥ sa‐kaṇṭhaka‐padaṃ vakṣo mukhaṃ nīrasaṃ, kā te hrīr asamañjasā sakhi gatir dūre rahaḥ subhruvām (AK p. 4/16–17). (67) The verse states she did so on her own initiative, but suggests she was sent by Rādhā, who now mocks her. (68) Śabdārthayoś ca vaicitrye dve yātaḥ pūrvapūrvatām. Yadi dhvani‐vaiśiṣṭye dhvany‐antara‐vaiśiṣṭyaṃ syāt, yadi vā śabdārthayor vaicitryaṃ ca bhavati, tadā kāvyam uttamottamam. Evaṃ śabdārtha‐vaicitrye sati dve madhyamāvare pūrva‐ pūrvatāṃ yātaḥ, madhyamam uttamaṃ bhavati, avaraṃ madhyamaṃ bhavatīty arthaḥ (AK p. 4/14). (69) Kāvya‐śobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmā guṇāḥ. Ye khalu śabdārthayor dharmāḥ kāvya‐śobhāṃ kurvanti te guṇāḥ. Te caujaḥ‐prasādādayaḥ, na yamakopamādayaḥ. Kaivalyena teṣāṃ a‐kāvya‐śobhā‐karatvāt. Ojaḥ‐ prasādādīnāṃ tu kevalānām asti kāvya‐śobhā‐karatvām iti (KAS 3.1.1). See also Daṇḍī’s remark: Ity anūrjita evārtho nālaṃkāro’pi tādṛśaḥ / sukumāratayaivaitad

Page 39 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language ārohati satām manaḥ (KAD 1.71). Sukumāratā (tenderness) is one of the ten guṇas. (70) Gerow (1977, p. 231). (71) NS 16.92. Daṇḍī discusses these at great length in KAD 1.41–100. (72) See De (1976, Vol. 2, pp. 119–21). (73) See KAS 3.1 (śabda‐guṇas) and KAS 3.2 (artha‐guṇas). (74) Pṛtak‐padatvaṃ mādhuryam (KAS 3.1.21) and ukti‐vaicitryaṃ mādhuryam (KAS 3.2.11). (75) DA 2.7, translation after Ingalls, et al. (1990). (76) DA 2.7–10. Bhāmaha, who is not very fond of the concept of guṇas, was the first to reduce the guṇas to these three: see KAB 2.1–3. (77) Rasasyotkarṣakaḥ kaścid dharmo’sādhāraṇo guṇaḥ / śauryādir ātmana iva varṇās tad‐vyañjakā matāḥ (AK p. 72/237). (78) See KP 8.1. (79) Yat tu vīrasū‐sūtayoḥ śiśu‐yūnor ākāra‐gatam eva śūratvaṃ tac ca vayaḥ‐ kṛtam eva, tena savyabhicāra‐doṣād ākārasya śauryādi‐guṇo na bhavati, kintu tasya vyañjaka ākāraḥ (AK p. 72/237). (80) Ataḥ utkarṣakatvaṃ guṇatvam iti mukhyaṃ lakṣaṇam (AK p. 72/238). (81) AK p. 73/241. (82) Like Vāmana’s śabda‐guṇa, Kavikarṇapūra defines it as ‘luminosity’ (aujjvalyam, AK p. 74/242; see KAS 3.1.24). Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha consider it merely the absence of a defect, namely vulgarity (grāmyatva), and therefore not a separate excellence. See KP 8.7: Kaṣṭatva‐ grāmyatvayor duṣṭatvābhidhānāt tan‐nirākaraṇenāpāruṣya‐rūpaṃ saukumāryam aujjvalya‐rūpā kāntiś ca svīkṛte. See also SD 8.15. For Vāmana the artha‐guṇa kānti denotes the presence of ‘brilliant rasas’ (dīpta‐rasatvaṃ kāntiḥ, KAS 3.2.14), like the amorous (śṛṅgāra), which seems more in line with Kavikarṇapūra’s view of kānti as an element of mādhurya, which is a quality of the amorous rasa. (83) Vikaṭatvam udāratā (AK p. 74/242). (84) Padānām eka‐rūpatvaṃ sandhy‐ādāv asphuṭe sati śleṣaḥ (AK p. 74/242). (85) Ārohāvaroha‐kramaḥ samādhir iṣyate (AK p. 74/242). Cf. KAS 3.1.12. Page 40 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (86) AK p. 74/242. (87) Teṣv evāntar‐bhavanty eka eke vaicitrya‐bodhakāḥ / eke doṣa‐parityāgād gatārthā iti no daśa / artha‐vyaktiḥ prasādāntaḥ prauḍhir vaicitrya-bodhikāḥ (AK p. 74/242). (88) Varṇās tad‐vyañjakā matāḥ.…Guṇasya vyañjakā varṇāḥ (AK pp. 72/237–8). (89) AK p. 75/245. (90) AK pp. 75–6/246. (91) This is the explanation of Mammaṭa (KP 8.5–6) and Viśvanātha (SD 8.9). Kavikarṇapūra does not specify what effect this guṇa has on the mind. (92) AK p. 75/244. (93) AK p. 76/247. (94) Kavikarṇapūra writes: karuṇādau bhaven na vā (AK p. 76/247). Viśvanātha comments as follows: karuṇa‐rase kasyacin mate cāruḥ syāt, kasyacin mate na. (95) Śṛṅgāre’py eṣa [madhyamauja‐vyañjaka‐varṇaḥ, says Viśvanātha] cāruḥ syāt, karuṇādau bhaven na vā / mādhurya‐vyañjakair varṇair, yuktaś cet atisundara / gāḍha‐bandhaḥ sa ākhyātaḥ, pāṭhe vadana‐pūrtikṛt (AK p. 76/247). The other remaining rasas are not related to specific guṇas. Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha group śānta with śṛṅgāra and karuṇa (KP 8.4, SD 8.2), but like Kavikarṇapūra do not account for bhayānaka, hāsya, and adbhuta. Commenting on the Kāvya‐ prakāśa, Māṇikyacandra includes hāsya and adbhuta with śṛṅgāra and does not object against the addition of bhayānaka to the energetic rasas: Śṛṅgārāṅge hāsyādbhutādāv iti jñeyam. Yady api hāsyādbhutayoḥ citta‐vṛtti‐vistāra‐hetutayā ojo’py asti, tathāpi śṛṅgārāṅgatayā prakṛṣṭaṃ mādhuryam eva tatra pratīyate iti jñeyam (on KP 8.3). And: Vīra‐bībhatsāntaḥ‐pāṭhāt bhayānake’py oja ity eke (on KP 8.5). Cf. Ekāvali 5.3 & 5.5. (96) Indeed, very few authors attempt a comprehensive classification. See Gerow (1971, pp. 35–70). (97) The figure ‘showing’ (vibhāvanā), for example, describes the effects of an unmentioned cause, while the figure ‘stating the difference’ (viśeṣokti) describes the causes but not its effect; in the figure ‘mutual’ (anyonya) two objects are said to be each other’s cause, and a ‘garland of causes’ (kāraṇa‐mālā) lists a number of objects, each of which is the effect of the preceding. (98) See Gerow (1971) and Porcher (1978). (99) AK p. 77/251.

Page 41 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (100) AK p. 78/251. (101) AK p. 80/257. (102) See DA 3.41–42, KP 1.5, and SD 4.14, p. 247. (103) Citraṃ nīrasam evāhur bhagavad‐viṣayaṃ yadi / tadā kiṃcic ca rasavad yathekṣoḥ parva‐carvaṇam (AK p. 83/268). (104) Śyāmena me hṛd atiraktam akāri pītam (AVC 10.2). (105) Porcher (1978, p. 237). (106) See AK p. 77/249. (107) Porcher (1978, p. 237). (108) See AK pp. 113–14/340–3. Cf. KP 10.53ff. (109) Nanu ‘utkarṣakatvaṃ guṇam’ iti cet, tadālaṃkārāṇām apy utkarṣakatvaṃ vartate, teṣām api guṇatvam. Satyam, yathā hārādayo hy alaṃkārāḥ kaṇṭhādy‐ aṅgāny evopakurvanti nātmānaṃ, tathānuprāsa‐svabhāvokty‐ādayo’laṃkārāḥ śabdārtham eva, na tu rasam. (AK p. 73/238) The pūrva‐pakṣa resembles KAD 2.1. (110) Rasavat‐preya‐ūrjasvi‐samāhita‐samākhyayā / rasālaṃkṛtayo’py anyāś catasro rasa‐poṣikāḥ. (AK p. 115/344). (111) Yatra rase sphuṭatayā śabdālaṃkāro’rthālaṃkāro vā nirṇetuṃ na śakyate kevalaṃ rasa‐sāmagrī sphurati tatra rasālaṃkārā eva bodhavyāḥ. Te ca yathāyogyam eva sambhavati. Śṛṅgāre preyaḥ, ūrjasvī vīra‐bībhatsa‐raudreṣu, anyāv anyeṣu. Ete’pi sati sambhave śabdārthālaṃkārābhyāṃ samṣṛṣtau bahavo bhavantīty api jñeyam (AK p. 115/344). (112) See KAB 3.5–9, KAD 2.275–297. (113) See KAD 2.298–299. Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, and Kavikarṇapūra retain Daṇḍī’s figure samāhita as the figure samādhi. See KP 10.39, SD 10.85, and AK p. 109/332. (114) Pradhānatayā yatra sthito rasādis, tatrālaṃkāryaḥ.…Anyatra tu pradhāne vākyārthe yatrāṅga‐bhūto rasādis tatra guṇī‐bhūta‐vyaṅgye rasavat‐preya‐ ūrjasvi‐samāhitādayo’laṃkārāḥ (KP 4.3). In his commentary on this passage, Vidyācakravartī explains that it is called rasavat when rasa is subordinated, preyas when bhāva is subordinated, and ūrjasvī and samāhita when the semblance of rasa (rasābhāsa) and the semblance of bhāva (bhāvābhāsa) is subordinated. See also DA 2.5 and SD 10.95–96.

Page 42 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (115) See his notes on this passage on pp. 346–8 of his edition. (116) KAD 1.40. (117) Kāvyālaṃkāra 2.4. (118) Pollock (2006, p. 220). (119) KAS 1.2.14. (120) Iti vaidarbha‐mārgasya prāṇā daśa guṇāḥ smṛtāḥ / eṣāṃ viparyayaḥ prāyo dṛśyate gauḍa‐vartmani (KAD 1.42). (121) See Kāvyālaṃkāra 2.4. (122) Kāvyālaṃkāra 16.20. See also Kāvyālaṃkāra 14.37. The affectionate (preyas) rasa is one that Rudraṭa introduces, as we have seen in Chapter 3; see Kāvyālaṃkāra 12.3 & 16.17–19. (123) DA 3.46 (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (124) Vṛttir niyata‐varṇa‐gato rasa‐viṣayo vyāpāraḥ (KP 9.2). And: Ekasyāpy asakṛt paraḥ [=vṛtty-anuprāsaḥ]. Ekasya api‐śabdād anekasya vyañjanasya dvir‐ bahu‐kṛtvo vā sādṛśyaṃ vṛtty‐anuprāsaḥ (KP 9.2). This is in contrast with the other type of alliteration, chekānuprāsa, where one or more phonemes are only repeated once and which is ‘clever’ (vidagdha) (KP 9.2). (125) The ‘other’ phonemes (paraiḥ) are identified by several commentators as those that suggest prasāda. Thus Vidyācakravartī writes: Paraiḥ amadhuraiḥ apāruṣaiḥ prasāda‐viśeṣa‐prakāśakair ity arthaḥ (on KP 9.3). This is probably a correct reading, and does make sense as Mammaṭa only accepts three guṇas and attempts to harmonize in this section the guṇas with alliteration. It is nevertheless a little odd as Mammaṭa explains that prasāda is found everywhere, or in all rasas and all compositions (prasādo’sau sarvatra vihita‐sthitiḥ… Sarvatreti sarveṣu raseṣu sarvāsu racanāsu ca, KP 8.6) and not all commentators read this passage in this way; see for example Śrīdhara: Tām eveti hra‐ hlādibhyaḥ paraiḥ komalām eva. (126) Bhaṭṭa Gopāla writes: upanāgarikā nāgarikayopamitā (on KP 9.3). (127) Mādhurya‐vyañjakair varṇair upanāgarikeṣyate, ojaḥ‐prakāśakais tais tu paruṣā, komalā paraiḥ.…Tām [=komalām] eva kecid grāmyeti vadanti (KP 9.3). In his commentary, Māṇikyacandra stresses that this grāmya is not a negative quality: Na hi sarvaṃ grāmyaṃ duṣṭam eva. Grāmyam api kim api ramyaṃ bhavatīti nāmāntara‐tat‐paratā khalu. (128) See KASS 1.4–6.

Page 43 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (129) Keṣāṃcid etā vaidarbhī‐pramukhā rītayo matāḥ. Etās tistro vṛttayaḥ vāmanādīnāṃ mate vaidarbhī‐gauḍīyā‐pāñcāly‐ākhyā rītaya ucyante (KP 9.4). (130) Vyañjakāḥ syur varṇāś ca racanā api (AK p. 75/244). (131) Rītiḥ syād varṇa‐vinyāsa‐viśeṣo guṇa‐hetukaḥ (AK p. 118/351). (132) Varṇa‐vinyāsa‐viśeṣa iti varṇāṇāṃ rasānuguṇa‐guṇānurodhopādhika‐ racanā‐viśeṣa ity arthaḥ (AK p. 118/351). (133) Lāṭī and Kavikarṇapūra’s lāṭānuprasa (see below) are both associated with looseness (śaithilya). It is an essential part of the style: śaithilyaṃ yatra…sā lāṭī (AK p. 120/356). After illustrating lāṭānuprāsa with a verse, Kavikarṇapūra writes: Eṣa kaiścic chithila ucyate (AK p. 78/253). Vāmana defines the śabda‐ guṇa prasāda as śaithilyam (KAS 3.1.6), but explains that this is only a guṇa when it coexists with ojas (KAS 3.1.7–8). Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of śaithilya is clearly different. For him, it is closely linked with softness (komalatva). Lāṭānuprāsa is the alliteration of soft (komala) phonemes, and in Chapter 6, Kavikarṇapūra writes: varṇā mādhuryādi‐vyañjakāḥ sukumāratvād iti, atra na tu sukumāratvaṃ komalatvaṃ, tasya śithilatvāt. Yathā (KAD 1.43)— śithilaṃ, mālatī‐mālā lolāli‐kalilā yathety ācārya‐daṇḍinaḥ (AK p. 73/239). This resembles Bhoja’s understanding of śaithilya (see SKA p. 28 & p. 55), who also considers it to be characterized by komalatva and different from the śabda‐guṇa saukumārya. He sees this as the opposite of the śabda‐guṇa śleṣa and hence a doṣa, which is echoed in AVC 20.8:…kavitā‐gata‐śithila‐bandha‐doṣam iva… Bhāmaha mentions an excellence komala (KAB 1.34), although it is unclear if this would be similar to Kavikarṇapūra’s concept. Adding to the confusion, when illustrating lāṭānuprāsa, Kavikarṇapūra refers back to the verse in Chapter 6 following the above section (udāharaṇam ‘līlālasa‐lalitāṅgi’ ity ādi), on which he comments in Chapter 6 with the following words: tena saukumāryaṃ nāma rañjakatvam! (134) AK p. 119/355. (135) Mādhurya‐prāyako guṇaḥ…pāñcālī nigadyate (AK p. 119/354). (136) Kavikarṇapūra does not define this artha‐guṇa. Vāmana defines it as non‐ vulgarity (agrāmyatvam udāratā, KAS 3.2.12). (137) Na kevalam iyaṃ tathā‐vidha‐varṇa‐vinyāsād vṛty‐abhāvāc ca vaidarbhī, api tv artha‐gataudāryeṇāpi (AK p. 118/351). Kavikarṇapūra then illustrates this with a verse, and comments: Ity atrālpa‐vṛttitvāt tathā‐vidha‐varṇa‐vinyāsopādhi‐ guṇa‐trayavattvāc ca vaidarbhī yady api, tathāpi tathā‐vidhaudāryābhāvān na tathā śobhate. (138) For a connection between vaidarbhī and artha‐guṇas, see also KAS 1.2.20: tasyāṃ [=vaidarbhyāṃ] artha‐guṇa‐sampad āsvādyā. Page 44 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (139) Yat padāni tyajanty eva parivṛtti‐sahiṣṇutām / ta śabda‐nyāsa‐niṣṇātāḥ śabda‐pākaṃ pracakṣate (KAS 1.3.15). (140) Pāko’py asyāḥ [=vaidarbhyāḥ] sahāyaḥ syād āmra‐vārttaku‐pākavat.…Sa [=pākaḥ] ca dvidhaḥ—rasāla‐pako vārttaku‐pākaś ceti. Rasāla‐pāka eva sahāyaḥ syāt, śobhakaratvāt, netaraḥ. Pūrva‐pūrva‐daśāyāś ced uttarottara‐ramyatā / tadā rasāla‐pākaḥ syād viparīte tad‐anyakaḥ (AK p. 118/353). A more elaborate analysis of pāka can be found in chapter 5 of Rājaśekhara’s Kāvya‐mīmāṃsā (KM pp. 20–1). See also De (1976, Vol. 2, pp. 240–2). (141) Rathoddhatā is also suitable for vaidarbhī according to Kavikarṇapūra (AK p. 119/354). See also AK p. 116/345. (142) Evaṃ chando’py asyāḥ [=vaidarbhyāḥ] sahāyatāṃ vyanakti, tac ca vasanta‐ tilakopendra‐vajrādi (AK p. 118/353). Anyatra chandasi tathā‐vidha‐racanāyām api vaidarbhī na tathā camatkaroti. Yathā ‘vaidarbhī garbhiṇīva sphurati rasamayī kāmasu rukmiṇīva’ iti chando‐doṣān na tathā surasati. Etac chandas tu gauḍy‐anukūlam. Yathā—‘gauḍī gāḍhāpagūḍha‐prakaṭa‐haṭha‐ghaṭā garva‐ garbheva gaurī’ (AK p. 119/354). The metre of the last example is sragdharā. To my knowledge, Kavikarṇapūra is the only critic who makes a connection between metre and pāka. (143) Komalo lāṭa iṣyate. Komala‐varṇānuprāso lāṭānuprāsaḥ (AK p. 78/253). Although it is differently named, this is clearly Udbhaṭa’s grāmyā, who defines it as śeṣair varṇair yathāyogaṃ kathitāṃ komalākhyayā, grāmyaṃ vṛttiṃ praśaṃsanti kāvyeṣv ādṛta‐buddhayaḥ (KASS 1.6), which his commentator Pratīhārendurāja explains as paruṣopanāgarikopayukta‐varṇā viśiṣṭair varṇair lakārādibhir upanibadhyamāna grāmyā. (144) Gerow (1971, pp. 105–6). See KASS 1.8, KP 9.4, and SD 10.7. This figure resembles the figure yamaka, but in lāṭa there is an actual repetition of a word, not merely of the phonemes that constitute the word that seems to be repeated. Kavikarṇapūra gives the following example: ratnāni ratnākara eva santi puṣpāṇi puṣpākara eva dhatte / guṇo guṇajñe labhate prakāśaṃ yaśo yaśodā‐suta‐ sevayaiva (AK p. 78/253). (145) Tātparya‐mātra‐bhedatvāl lāṭa ity ucyate paraiḥ (AK p. 78/253). Although he claims here that ‘others’ (paraiḥ) call this lāṭa, it is clear from Kavikarṇapūra’s extensive analysis of this type of lāṭa (following Mammaṭa) that he too accepts this figure of speech under that name. He also refers to it in chapter 9 (cf. below). (146) Sā lāṭī syāl lāṭa‐jana‐priyānuprāsa‐nirbharā (AK p. 120/356). (147) Śaithilyaṃ yatra mṛdulair varṇair lādibhir utkaṭam; sā lāṭī syāt…(AK p. 120/356). This lāṭī is obviously very different from Viśvanātha’s, which is situated Page 45 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language between the vaidarbhī and pāñcālī (lāṭī tu rītir vaidarbhī‐pāñcālyor antare sthitā, SD 9.5), but resembles more the lāṭī Viśvanātha contrasts with his own: lāṭī tu mṛdubhiḥ padaiḥ (SD 9.5). (148) After giving the definition of lāṭī, Kavikarṇapūra writes: lāṭo vidagdha (AK p. 120/356), echoing his gloss of the second type of lāṭānuprasa (AK p. 78/253). The first example Kavikarṇapūra gives clearly illustrates his own lāṭānuprasa. He then writes: atra kevalaṃ śaithilyam. Lāṭānuprāsa‐bāhulye’pi tathā…and gives a verse that embodies the second, traditional type, followed by the comment eṣa lāṭānuprāsaḥ—eṣā’pi lāṭī rītiḥ. (149) Ity ādeḥ khalv anuprāsa‐rīti‐rūḍhasya vartmanaḥ / mādhurya‐bahulatve’pi gauḍīyā rītir iṣyate (AK p. 75/245). The illustration he gives contains several vṛtty‐anuprāsa, not chekānuprāsas. (150) Tad alpam api nopekṣyaṃ kāvye duṣṭaṃ kathaṃcana, syād vapuḥ sundaram api śvitreṇaikena durbhagam (KAD 1.7). (151) NS 16.91. (152) See KAS 2.1.1–2: Guṇa‐viparyayātmano doṣāḥ…Arthatas tad‐avagamaḥ. (153) DA 2.11, translation by Ingalls, et al. (1990). (154) Yadi doṣo bhavet tadā śravaṇa‐kuṭatādiḥ prasiddhaḥ sphuṭa‐doṣa eva doṣaḥ, na tu paraḥ kṣudrataraḥ rasānapakarṣakatvāt (AK p. 2/6). (155) Rasāpakarṣako doṣaḥ (AK p. 120/357). (156) Raso’trāsvāda ucyate (AK p. 120/357). Kavikarṇapūra comments as follows: Atra doṣa‐lakṣaṇe rasa‐śabdenāsvāda evocyate. Rasyata iti rasaḥ, na tu śṛṅgārādika ātma‐bhūto rasaḥ. (157) Yathā na kāṇatva‐khañjatvādikam ātmanaḥ kaurūpya‐kāraṇam api tu dehasyaiva, tathātra śabdārthayor eva doṣaḥ, nātma‐bhūtasya rasasya (AK p. 120/357). (158) Jha (1965, pp. 267–8). (159) Gerow (1977, p. 228). (160) Following Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha, Kavikarṇapūra analyses the defects according to their locus: defects of words (pada‐doṣa), defects of sentences (vākya‐doṣa), defects of morphemes (padāṃśa‐doṣa), defects of sense (artha‐ doṣa), and defects of rasa (rasa‐doṣa).

Page 46 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (161) This would not be a defect if the words occur in reported speech, if the words were spoken by a grammarian, or if the poem is to convey the furious rasa (see AK p. 138/391). (162) See for example the vākya‐doṣas naṣṭa‐visarga (or lupta‐visarga), in which the final visargas (ḥ) are by sandhi repeatedly elided, and āhata‐visarga, in which the case suffixes ending on visarga are similarly blunted to a final o (AK p. 130/376). (163) The vākya‐dośa hata‐vṛtti (AK p. 130/377). (164) That is, ungrammaticality (cyuta‐saṃskṛti), being incapable of giving the intended meaning (asamasita), grammatical unconventionality (aprayukta), being suppressed in sense (nihatārtha), meaninglessness (vyartha), inexpressiveness (avācaka), unintelligibility (apratīta), ambiguousness (sandigdha), having a meaning that is to be guessed (neyārtha), obscurity (kliṣṭa), and having a predicate that is subordinated (avimṛṣta‐vidheyāṃśa). (165) Those would be being deficient in words (hīna‐pada), the absence of syntactical connections between the parts of a sentence (naśyan‐mata‐yoga), confusion (saṃkīrṇa), the isolation of a word (ardhāntaraika‐vācaka), the omission of a needed noun (anabhihita‐vācya), disregarding common usage (prasiddha‐hata), having misplaced words or compounds (apadastha‐pada and asthānastha‐samāsa), having parenthetical phrases (garbhita), violation of uniformity (bhagna‐krama), and having a broken syntactical sequence (akrama). These, and ten other defects, are unique to the sentence; thirteen other defects can also occur in words (eight of which cause unclarity). (166) The artha‐doṣa kaṣṭārtha (AK p. 135/385). (167) The pada‐ and vākya‐doṣa kliṣṭa (AK pp. 123/363 & 126/370). (168) The pada‐ and vākya‐doṣa apratīta (AK pp. 122/361 & 126/368). (169) The pada‐doṣa cyuta‐saṃskṛti (AK p. 121/359). See also AK pp. 7/30–1. (170) The pada‐ and vākya‐doṣa aprayukta (AK pp. 121/359 & 125/367). This is not a defect in paronomasia (śleṣa); see AK p. 138/392. (171) See, for example, the vākya‐doṣas naśyan‐mata‐yoga (AK p. 131/378), saṃkīrṇa (AK pp. 132/379–80), and garbhita (AK p. 133/382). (172) See for instance the example given for the vākya‐doṣa hīna‐pada (AK p. 131/377), in which the poet omitted some essential words, and the artha‐doṣa sandigdha or saṃśayita (AK p. 135/386), in which the rasa of the speaker is not known, and therefore the exact meaning of the sentence cannot be ascertained.

Page 47 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language See also the artha‐doṣas hetu‐hata (AK p. 136/387), and sākāṅkṣā (AK p. 137/388). (173) The vākya‐doṣas apadastha‐pada and asthānastha‐samāsa respectively (AK p. 133/381). (174) The vākya‐doṣa adhika‐pada (AK p. 131/378). (175) The vākya‐doṣa kathita‐pada (AK p. 131/378). This would not always be a defect. See, for example, the discussion on the vākya‐doṣa bhagna‐prakrama (AK p. 133/382). Cf. Jha (1965, pp. 211–12). (176) The vākya‐doṣa samāpta‐punarātta (AK p. 131/378). (177) Adhama‐prakṛtiṣu viduṣakādau ca grāmyo guṇaḥ (AK p. 138/392). (178) The pada‐doṣa and vākya‐doṣa grāmya (AK pp. 122/361 & 126/368). (179) See the pada‐, padāṃśa‐, vākya‐, and artha‐doṣas aślīla (AK pp. 122–3/361– 2, 126/368–9, 129/375 and 137/390). See also the vākya‐doṣa visandhi (AK pp. 130/376–7). (180) The rasa‐doṣa pratiloma‐vibhāvādi (AK p. 140/395). (181) Rasānām śabda‐vācyatvaṃ sthāyināṃ vyabhicāriṇāṃ…rasa‐doṣā ime smṛtāḥ (AK p. 139/393). (182) The rasa‐doṣa vṛthā‐vistāra (AK p. 140/395). (183) The rasa‐doṣa aṅginaḥ anabhisandhāna (AK p. 140/395). (184) The rasa‐doṣa vṛthā‐hāsa (AK p. 140/395). (185) The rasa‐doṣa aṅgasyātivistṛti (AK p. 140/395). (186) The rasa‐doṣa abhīkṣṇyaśaḥ dīptiḥ (AK p. 140/395). (187) Nyūna‐padaṃ harṣa‐śoka‐mattatādhikye sati guṇaḥ (AK p. 138/392). (188) Aprayukta‐nihatārthau śleṣādau na duṣṭau (AK p. 138/392). (189) See AK p. 138/391–2. (190) Anaucityādṛte nānyad rasa‐bhaṅgasya kāraṇam / prasiddhaucitya‐bandhas tu rasasyopaniṣat parā (DA 3.14, quoted in AK p. 140/396; translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (191) See AK p. 76/248: yady api guṇa‐paratantrā racanādyās tad api vaktrādeḥ / aucityāt tad‐adhīnā bhavanti tasmād guṇo’pi tad‐adhīnaḥ. Page 48 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (192) Na tu guṇa ity arthaḥ (AK p. 74/242). (193) Samasta‐guṇeti guṇās trayo vā daśa vā (AK p. 118/352). Viśvanātha Cakravartī is of the opinion that Kavikarṇapūra mentions the option here—three or ten guṇas—for those who accept either three or ten guṇas, implying that Kavikarṇapūra accepts only three. Samasteti—mādhuryaujaḥ‐prasādās traya eva guṇāḥ samasta‐guṇāḥ, keṣāṃcin mate daśa‐vidhā guṇās te’pi mādhuryādi‐ guṇāntarbhūtā iti guṇa‐kiraṇe uktam. Atas tan‐matam ālambya daśa guṇā api samasta‐guṇā ity arthaḥ. It is quite unlikely, though, that Kavikarṇapūra himself was of the opinion that there are only three guṇas, for when explaining the example that illustrates Vaidarbhī, he attempts to show how all guṇas are present in that verse, and lists mādhurya, ojas, prasāda, saukumārya, and artha‐ gataudārya! (194) See also AVC 1.96: dvitīya‐goduhāṃ tu tāḥ kavyāḥ, sukavitā iva sukumāra‐ padāḥ. (195) For Vāmana’s influence on Kavikarṇapūra’s concept of kānti, see fn. 82. (196) Yathā ayaṃ śabdārtha‐vyatikaraḥ kāvyatayā vyavaharaṇīyo rasātmakatvād iti rasātmakatva‐hetumator eva śabdārthayoḥ kāvya‐vyavahāraḥ, tathāyaṃ varṇa‐samūho madhura‐rasādi‐vyañjakaḥ sukumārāditvāt iti sukumāratvādi‐ hetumatāṃ eva varṇānāṃ rasasya mādhuryādi‐vyañjakatve vyavahāraḥ (AK p. 72/238). (197) Aniṣṭhurākṣara‐prāyaṃ sukumāram iti smṛtam.…atra sarva‐komalatve’sati śleṣa‐viparyaya‐doṣa‐śaithilyābhāvād bāhulyena varṇānām anaiṣṭhuryāt saukumāryam (SKA p. 55). (198) AK p. 118/352. (199) Varṇā mādhuryādi‐vyañjakāḥ sukumāratvād iti atra na tu sukumāratvaṃ komalatvaṃ, tasya śithilatvāt (AK p. 73/239). Kavikarṇapūra quotes KAD 1.43 (where looseness, the opposite of the guṇa homogeneity, is illustrated). See also KAD 1.69: aniṣṭhurākṣara‐prāyaṃ sukumāram iheṣyate, bandha‐śaithilya‐doṣas tu darśitaḥ sarva‐komale. (200) Na tu guṇa iti—na guṇāntaram iti yāvat (AK p. 244). (201) Moreover, one could even argue that the three primary excellences have a corresponding secondary aspect—as qualities of poetic language, and not of rasa —alongside their primary nature. Viśvanātha hints at that in his commentary (AK p. 56/245): anuprāsa‐rīti‐yuktasyāsya mārgasya madhura‐varṇa‐bahulatve’pi gauḍīyā rītir evātra, na tu rasa‐niṣṭhaṃ mādhuryaṃ iti jñeyam. See also Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of explicitness: prasāda evauja‐miśra‐śaithilyātmā bhaved yadi, tadārthavyaktir iṣyate (AK p. 74/242). Does ojas here refer to the

Page 49 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language rasa‐niṣṭha‐guṇa or perhaps to an excellence more like Vāmana’s śabda‐guṇa ojas (gāḍha‐bandhatvam)? (202) Along those lines, one could also argue that Kavikarṇapūra accepted the twofold division of guṇas as pertaining to word forms (śabda) or their meanings (artha). The vaidarbhī style, as we have seen, can only occur when exaltedness of meaning (artha‐gataudārya) is present, an excellence Vāmana defines as ‘being not vulgar’ (KAS 3.2.12). Kavikarṇapūra has earlier already described the phonetic aspect of this excellence as that which makes the words seem to dance —exactly the definition Vāmana gives for the phonetic aspect of this excellence (KAS 3.1.22). Exaltedness is, however, the only excellence for which Kavikarṇapūra gives a dual (artha and śabda) definition. (203) E.g. SKA pp. 71, 86; Pratāparudrīya p. 224. (204) Tad‐vaicitrya‐mātraṃ, na guṇaḥ. Tad‐abhāve’pi kāvya‐vyavahāra‐pravṛtteḥ (KP 8.7). According to Vidyācakravartī, Mammaṭa mocks the guṇa and rīti theorists in this section of the Kāvya‐prakāśa: tasyāyam upahāsāvasara ity āha— keṣāṃcid iti. Since Mammaṭa defined poetry as ‘a combination of sound and sense, free from literary defects, possessing excellences, which has sometimes [only] few figures of speech’ (KP 1.4), and by thus including the guṇas in the definition, they become an inseparable characteristic of poetry. In his commentary on this section, Bhaṭṭa Gopāla rephrases how he believes Mammaṭa understood the guṇas: yad‐abhāve kāvya‐vyavahārasyaiva visaṃvādaḥ sa guṇa iti rahasyam! (205) Prauḍhir vaicitrya‐bodhikā (AK p. 74/242). (206) Arthasya prauḍhir ojaḥ (KAS 3.2.2). (207) Padārthe vākya‐vacanaṃ vākyārthe ca padābhidhā / prauḍhir vyāsa‐ samāsau ca sābhiprāyatvam eva ca (KAS 3.2.2). (208) Sābhiprāyatayā samāsa‐vyāsayoḥ satoḥ vākyārthe pada‐vinyāsaḥ padārthe vākya‐nirmitiḥ prauḍhiḥ (AK p. 74/242). (209) Mādhurya‐vyañjakair varṇai racanā lalitātmikā / avṛttir alpa‐vṛttir vā vaidarbhī rītir iṣyate (SD 9.3). He then contrasts this with Rudraṭa’s view that all ten guṇas occur in vaidarbhī. Vidyādhara too defines vaidarbhī as samagra‐guṇa‐ gumphitā (Ekāvalī 5.10). (210) KAS 1.2.11–15. (211) Gāḍha‐bandhatvam ojaḥ (KAS 3.1.5). Vāmana then illustrates it with a delicate verse quarter suggestive of an amorous theme: vilulita‐makarandā mañjarīr nartayanti.

Page 50 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Poetic Language (212) SKA pp. 71, 569; Kāvya‐mīmāṃsa pp. 20–1; Pratāparudrīya 2.35–37. (213) KAS 1.2.21. See also KAS 3.2.14: guṇa‐sphuṭatva‐sākalye kāvya‐pākaṃ pracakṣate.…Remember that in Vāmana’s poetics only the vaidarbhī style fully unites all guṇas. (214) Cf. viśiṣṭa‐pada‐racanā (KAS 1.2.7), pada‐saṅghaṭanā rītir (SD 9.1), etc. (215) E.g., his example of a good (uttama) poem that becomes best (uttamottama) by this marvellousness: nava‐jala‐dhara‐dhāmā koṭi‐kāmāvatāraḥ, praṇaya‐rasa‐ yaśo‐raḥ śrī‐yaśodā‐kiśoraḥ / aruṇad‐aruṇa‐dīrghāpaṅga‐bhaṅgyā kuraṅgīr, iva nikhila‐kṛśāṅgī raṅgiṇī tvaṃ kva yāsi (AK p. 5/13). (216) Pāṭhe vadana‐pūrti‐kṛt (AK p. 76/247). (217) Sa eva sahṛdaya‐hṛdayāhlāda‐kāri kāvya‐tattvam. Tato’nyac citram eva. (DA 1.13, translation after Ingalls, et al., 1990). (218) DA 3.41–42. (219) Tad evam idānīṃtana‐kavi‐kāvya‐nayopadeśe kriyamāṇe prāthamikānām abhyāsārthināṃ yadi paraṃ citreṇa vyavahāraḥ, prāpta‐pariṇatīnāṃ tu dhvanir eva kāvyam iti sthitam etat (DA 3.41–42, translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (220) See DA 2.16. (221) DA 2.15 (translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (222) Smith (1985, pp. 33–4).

Access brought to you by:

Page 51 of 51

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On Defining Poetry Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords Having studied Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics in great detail in Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5 will briefly study Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of poetry in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha. Kavikarṇapūra offers two definitions of poetry, and refutes the definitions of Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, and Vāmana. In so doing herethinks the nature of language itself and the relative merit of the various constituents of poetry that form the focus of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, but also develops a poetics that privileges the place of the poet‐cum‐critic who alone can determine what constitutes poetry and what does not. Keywords:   poetry, definition of poetry, Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, Vāmana, Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha

Alhough rasa is the essence of poetry, as we have seen in Chapter 4, Kavikarṇapūra argues it is not its defining characteristic. In chapter 1 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Kavikarṇapūra offers two definitions of poetry and a refutation of the definitions given by other authors on poetics. In his definitions of poetry, Kavikarṇapūra gives an enormous importance to the poet, as the creator of the literary work, and to the sensitive reader, as the recipient of the literary work. The skill of the former gives rise to the poem, but the sensitivity of the reader validates the poem through his experience. This chapter looks at the reasoning behind Kavikarṇapūra’s unusual definitions and his critiques of those of his predecessors, and explores the implications of these, contextualizing the discussion in the history of Sanskrit poetics, the culture of Sanskrit poetics, and the devotionalism of the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition.

The Definition of Poetry Page 1 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry In the beginning of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra states he will analyse poetry using the threefold Nyāya method. First, we need to identify the object of study, and offer a brief description (uddeśa). Then, we need to define it, by determining what is its defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa). Finally, we need to make an in depth study of its different features (parīkṣā).1 We have seen Kavikarṇapūra’s description of poetry and his detailed analysis of its features in Chapter 4, and turn to his definition only now, because a general understanding of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics helps us to grasp the significance of his definition of poetry. So, what is the definition of poetry? ‘The Nyāya theory of definition does not generally rest on synonymity,’ B. K. Matilal remarks, ‘but on sameness of (p. 221) reference.’2 A definition points to the defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa) of the definiendum or object to be defined, which sets it apart from all other objects. As Vātsyāyana puts it: ‘a defining characteristic is the property that distinguishes the object under study from what it is not’.3 For a definition to be valid, then, the definiens or lakṣaṇa (x) and the definiendum or lakṣya (y) must be coextensive terms and have an identical referent. This means that a definition is only true when x is not found in a locus where y is absent—or, in Nyāya terms, when x is pervaded (vyāpya) by y—and when the absence of x is not found in a locus where y occurs—or where x is the pervader (vyāpaka) of y. If the first condition is violated, there would be over‐pervasion (ativyāpti); the definition would be too broad. If the second condition is violated, there would be non‐ pervasion (avyāpti); the definition would be too narrow. If both are violated, there is impossibility (asambhava), and the definition is entirely invalid. The classic example is the definition of ‘cow’ (go): if we define a cow as a ‘brown animal’, there would be non‐pervasion, as not all cows are brown; if we say ‘cows are horned animals’, there would be over‐pervasion, as not all horned animals are cows; impossibility would occur if we define a cow as ‘a solid‐hoofed animal’. The correct definition of ‘cow’ is therefore ‘an animal that has a dewlap, etc.’4 The earliest literary critics—poeticians like Bhāmaha or Daṇḍī—spend very little or no time defining poetry,5 but as the discipline matures and Nyāya, particularly in its newer form of Navya Nyāya, becomes more influential, critics of the second millennium are increasingly trying to articulate poetry’s most precise definition. Works on poetics generally start with an attempt to define poetry, and in so doing generally critique the definitions given by earlier critics. Kavikarṇapūra too does so in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, where he gives not one, but two definitions of poetry. He pre‐emptively addresses potential criticisms of his definitions, and offers an innovative critique of the definitions given by Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, and Vāmana.

Page 2 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry The definitions of Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha, and Vāmana are obviously not chosen arbitrarily. As we have seen in preceding chapters, those three authors influenced Kavikarṇapūra most significantly, and theirs are the three works cited most often in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha (Vāmana is quoted five times, Viśvanātha eight times, and Mammaṭa sixteen times). The choice of these definitions also indicates, moreover, the main areas of their influence: for figures of speech, defects, and (to a lesser extent) excellences, Kavikarṇapūra (p.222) relies on Mammaṭa; his chapter on rasa—particularly its latter half—is largely modelled on Viśvanātha’s analysis of rasa and its constituents in the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa; and for his views on style (and the related excellences) Kavikarṇapūra turns to Vāmana, as we have seen in Chapter 4. Poetry and Figuration

The first author Kavikarṇapūra turns to is Mammaṭa, who defines poetry as ‘a combination of sound and sense, free from literary defects, possessing excellences, which has sometimes [only] few figures of speech’.6 In the light of Mammaṭa’s poetics, this definition is somewhat peculiar: Mammaṭa considers the suggestion of rasa the most important element in poetry, but neither suggestion nor rasa are mentioned here. One could argue, as some of his commentators do, that these elements are implied in the above statement— Mammaṭa discusses suggestion when analysing word and meaning, and he considers the literary excellences to be properties of rasa—but Mammaṭa does not do so in his very brief prose commentary on this verse.7 But even if these are implied, the definition would fail the standard of Nyāya, as it does not single out the essential, differentiating characteristic of the definiendum. The definition is thus an ill match for Mammaṭa’s own poetics, but it reflects quite accurately the poetics of older authors like Daṇḍī. As we have seen in Chapter 4, Daṇḍī advises poets to avoid any defects (doṣas), however small, because they can ruin an otherwise good poem. For him, the fundamental attributes of poetry are the excellences (guṇa) and the figures of speech (alaṃkāra), which he defines broadly as ‘those properties that create beauty in poetry’.8 Of these, the excellences are more important, because even without figures of speech they can embellish poetry.9 Mammaṭa’s definition thus neatly summarizes the poetics of Daṇḍī. S. K. De sees Mammaṭa as an important transition figure, who accepted ‘in the main the general position of the Dhvani‐ theorists’ but was ‘not entirely free from the influence of older schools’, as his definition shows.10 (p.223) Because of this, Mammaṭa’s definition has been often critiqued. Viśvanātha, for example, starts the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa with an attack on Mammaṭa’s definition. His definition is too narrow, he argues. Because Mammaṭa defines poetry as a composition that is ‘without defects’ (adoṣa), it excludes some good poetry in which the suggested sense can outweigh its defects so that the reader does not notice them. If one were to argue that the Page 3 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry negative particle (a‐ of adoṣa) here does not imply absence (‘free from defects’), but insignificance (‘very few defects’), then all poetry would have to be flawed in some way.11 Moreover, the reference to the excellences in the definition is inappropriate, Viśvanātha writes, since these are properties of rasa and therefore only secondary to rasa, the essence of the best poetry. It is thus rasa that he should have highlighted in his definition. Kavikarṇapūra takes a very different approach. For him Mammaṭa’s definition does not suffer from the error of non‐pervasion (avyāpti), as Viśvanātha argues, but rather from that of over‐pervasion (ativyāpti). The definition of the Kāvya‐ prakāśa is not too narrow, but too broad. If we would accept this definition, he argues, then even a compound as ‘a doe‐eyed [woman]’ (kuraṅga‐nayanā) would have to be called poetry, even though it is not even a phrase. It is a usage of words meant to convey a particular meaning; the woman’s eyes are compared to those of a doe, and the phrase thus contains a semantic figure of speech; it does not contain any defects, and can be considered to have excellences.12 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa dismisses Kavikarṇapūra’s argument in his commentary to the Sāhitya‐kaumudī. What the definition of the Kāvya‐prakāśa intends to say, he writes, is that poetry consists of a series of such passages, not an isolated fragment.13 Baladeva may make Kavikarṇapūra seem unnecessarily pedantic —‘indeed, that compound does fulfil Mammaṭa’s criteria, but we all know this is not what he meant’—but Kavikarṇapūra’s example points to something more important. As Baladeva admits, the compound alone cannot be considered poetry, but, he argues, when expressions like these are used together, then we have something we can call poetry. Therefore, figures of speech and excellences alone do not make poetry, because we use them daily in common discourse14— the compound could be uttered by a man to his wife over dinner. The context thus determines whether this is part of a poetic (p.224) composition or not— does it occur with similarly self‐consciously adorned expressions, or is it part of an everyday domestic discussion? The view that poetry is a series of such embellished phrases is problematic, Kavikarṇapūra argues in Chapter 6 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. If literary figures and excellences are what distinguish poetry from any other form of language, he argues, then poetry would have to be defined as ‘a composition of words that has figures of speech and excellences’, as indeed Mammaṭa more or less does. But when poetry is thus defined, both the figures and the excellences are inseparable from poetry itself. There is then no real difference between poetry and its embellishing factor; because they coalesce, the presence of the former implies the presence of the latter, and vice versa. But were that the case, what is embellishing what? Since something cannot embellish itself, it would be wrong to think of the figures of speech and excellences as conceived by the earlier theorists to be the source of beauty in poetry.15 In other words, Kavikarṇapūra agrees with Daṇḍī that the figures of speech—the jewellery of Poetry’s body— Page 4 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry and even the excellences found in poetic language are ‘properties that create beauty in poetry’, but the very notion that this is what they are implies that there is something they adorn. Here they may adorn poetry; elsewhere they may adorn more prosaic discourse. The figures and excellences can thus not be considered the defining characteristic of poetry. Poetry, Language, and Rasa

Since Mammaṭa states that rasa is poetry’s ‘principal significance’16 that is what he should have highlighted in his definition, rather than catalogue peripheral elements. That is Viśvanātha’s reasoning. Because the heart of poetry is rasa and this is only found in poetry, it alone is its defining characteristic. Poetry should thus be defined as ‘a sentence which has rasa as its essence’.17 This definition may seem obvious for a poetics that is centred around the suggestion of rasa, but if poetry is defined by rasa, any literary work that does not communicate rasa is therefore not poetry. A lot of what earlier critics considered poetry—the picture poems (citra‐kāvya), for example—is thus rejected. Kavikarṇapūra follows Viśvanātha in designating rasa the ‘essence’ or ‘soul’ (ātmā) of poetry, as we have seen in Chapter 4, but he also accepts poetry without rasa, even if only as the lowest form of poetry. In his critique of Viśvanātha’s definition Kavikarṇapūra takes a very different approach, however. (p.225) He focuses on the two criteria Viśvanātha gives for poetry in his definition—it is a sentence (vākya), and it has rasa. He rethinks them both, and shows through positive and negative concomitance (anvaya‐vyatireka) that Viśvanātha’s definition falls short. First of all, if Viśvanātha’s definition of poetry were correct, Kavikarṇapūra argues, then a sentence such as ‘Hari plays with the gopīs’ would have to be considered poetry, as it is a sentence (vākya) that embodies rasa.18 It is highly unlikely that any critic—least of all Viśvanātha himself—would agree with Kavikarṇapūra on this. The suggestion of rasa only occurs by the proper delineation of the stable emotion through its appropriate causes, effects, and subsidiary emotions. But this sentence lacks all that. Why then does Kavikarṇapūra argue that this phrase does have rasa? The concept of rasa referred to here is obviously not Viśvanātha’s, which is the audience’s emotive response to a literary work. However, as we have seen in Chapter 3 Kavikarṇapūra is interested in two types of rasa: literary rasa, which is the audience’s direct (pratyakṣa) experience in response to a literary work; and the devotional rasa he is taught by Śrīnātha and the Bhāgavata tradition, which arises from a devotional engagement but which can also be depicted in literature as the rasa of the characters, which is invisible (parokṣa). This sentence clearly does not contain the former rasa, but it can be said to contain the latter, because Page 5 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry whenever Kṛṣṇa, the supreme deity, meets with the gopīs, his most intimate devotees, their emotions will naturally be heightened, and that is rasa.19 This is an argument that makes little sense to literary critics like Viśvanātha, but it is a crucial one for devotional authors like Kavikarṇapūra, for whom rasa is not an exclusively literary concept. Rasa can be experienced outside a literary context, and can therefore not be the defining characteristic of poetry. The definition given in the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa thus suffers from ‘over‐ extension’ (ativyāpti). It is too broad. Kavikarṇapūra’s critique of Viśvanātha does not end here. If two things are co‐ referential, as should be the case in a definition, the presence of one of the terms always implies the presence of the other, and the absence of one implies the absence of the other. Kavikarṇapūra has already shown how the positive concomitance (anvaya) does not hold in Viśvanātha’s definition: there are instances where one term (a sentence whose essence is rasa) occurs without the other (poetry). But he goes on to show that the negative concomitance (vyatireka) does not hold either. Since Viśvanātha defined poetry as a (p.226) particular type of sentence, this would mean that that which is not a sentence is not poetry.20 But consider the following verse:21 Clothed in tortoise‐hair cloth, carrying a bow crafted from the horn of a hare, the son of the barren women appears wearing a crown of sky‐flowers.

In the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa, Viśvanātha reiterates the three conditions given by Naiyāyikas that a collection of words has to fulfil in order to become a sentence.22 The first of these is that it must be grammatically and syntactically correct. This is called expectancy (ākāṅkṣā): all the elements the reader needs to understand the sentence must be present. In ‘cow horse man elephant’, for example, this condition is absent, as there is no syntactical relation between the words. The second condition is contiguity (āsatti): no interval should exist between the parts that make up the sentence. For example, the two words ‘Devadatta’ and ‘goes’ will not form a sentence when not spoken together or when other words which do not belong to the sentence separate the two. The above verse fulfils both these conditions. But for a collection of words to be a sentence, grammatical correctness is not enough; it also has to make sense. The words used should have semantic coherence (yogyatā). Noam Chomsky’s famous phrase ‘colourless green ideas sleep furiously’ or the phrase ‘he sprinkles with fire’ do not constitute a sentence according to the Naiyāyikas, because the words used are incompatible: fire cannot be sprinkled since it is not liquid, nor do ideas sleep furiously, even if they could be green. Grammatically these sentences are correct, but semantically they are anomalous. The same is true of Kavikarṇapūra’s verse. A tortoise does not have hair, nor do hares have Page 6 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry horns; flowers do not grow in the sky, and neither can a barren woman give birth. Because it lacks semantic coherence, the verse is not a sentence. Yet, though it is not a sentence, Kavikarṇapūra argues, it is poetry.23 The position Kavikarṇapūra here takes on the importance of semantic coherence (yogyatā) in poetry is very novel, and later surfaces in the writings of Gāgā Bhaṭṭa, an important author on hermeneutics in seventeenth‐century Vārāṇasī,24 (p.227) as well as in Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha’s Rasa‐gaṅgādhara.25 Kavikarṇapūra thus argues that semantic coherence is not necessary in poetry; in fact, as Gāgā Bhaṭṭa illustrates, several figures of speech, such as a metaphoric identification (rūpaka), lack any semantic coherence—at least initially.26 What Naiyāyikas think of as nonsense non‐sentences can in fact be poetry. Thus, by negative concomitance (vyatireka) too, Viśvanātha’s definition is invalid. Poetry and Style

The last view Kavikarṇapūra examines is that of Vāmana, for whom style (rīti), which is determined by the excellences (guṇas), is the essence of poetry. It is important to note that for Vāmana the excellences are not merely differentiating characteristics of different styles, as is the case in Daṇḍī’s poetics. For Daṇḍī the presence of figures of speech (and the absence of literary defects) sets poetry apart from all other forms of language, whereas the excellences merely differentiate different types of poetry, such as the bombastic (gauḍī) or delicate (vaidarbhī). Vāmana, however, turns these two concepts around. In his poetics, the excellences are intrinsic to poetry because they make up the poetic style, which is the ‘soul’ of poetry; the figures of speech, on the other hand, are merely used to supplement the beauty that the excellences bestow.27 Hence the excellences and the styles they determine do not merely mark different types of poetry, but poetry itself. Without them there is no poetry. Kavikarṇapūra’s refutation of Vāmana’s ideas is simple and brief. He does not deny the existence of style, but argues that it cannot be the essence of poetry— its ‘soul’—because it is only an external aspect of poetry that is determined by rasa, its actual soul.28 Although style is an important aspect in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, it is not poetry’s defining characteristic, because it distinguishes different types of poetry from each other, not poetry from non‐poetry. It is therefore only a qualifying characteristic (viśeṣaṇa) of poetry, not a defining one (lakṣaṇa). Poetry as a Poet’s Creation

Now that we have explored why Kavikarṇapūra considers the other definitions inadequate, we can turn to his own definition: ‘Poetry,’ he writes, ‘is the (p.228) composition of a poet’s words.’29 At first glance it may seem that Kavikarṇapūra is not following ‘the Nyāya theory of definition’ we discussed earlier; his definition rather seems to ‘rest on synonymity’, as Matilal puts it. Kavikarṇapūra Page 7 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry does not list any of the characteristics of poetic language, and instead spells out what the etymology of the word ‘poetry’ (kāvya) already implies: that it is the product of a poet (kavi). As we will see, Kavikarṇapūra does intend this definition to identify the defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa) of poetry. Indeed, he argues immediately afterwards, this definition is very precise. If he had defined poetry as ‘a poet’s speech’ then whatever the poet says would have to be considered poetry; if he had defined it as ‘a composition or creation of a poet’, then sculptures made by the poet would be poetry too; and if he had defined it as ‘a composition of words’ then any text, such as a commentary, would be considered poetry.30 Kavikarṇapūra’s critics may counter that his definition leaves too much room for compositions that have no poetic merit whatsoever. If we were to accept this definition, would we not have to accept even works full of literary defects and entirely devoid of excellences as poetry if they happen to be written by a poet? In other words, is Kavikarṇapūra’s definition not too broad? Kavikarṇapūra answers this criticism by unpacking the key terms used in his definition. The word ‘composition’ (nirmiti), he explains, refers to ‘a composition that produces uncommon wonder (camatkāra)’.31 From this expanded definition, he argues, it follows naturally that poetry is a combination of sound and sense, whose essence is rasa, free from defects that would diminish rasa, and adorned with appropriate excellences and figures of speech.32 In other words, Mammaṭa’s and Viśvanātha’s definitions are implied in Kavikarṇapūra’s, but the poetic elements they singled out do not have to be mentioned in the definition since these do not occur in all forms of poetry. However, one may object, if we define ‘composition’ (nirmiti) as ‘a composition that produces wonder’ we can rephrase Kavikarṇapūra’s definition of poetry as follows: ‘A poet is someone who is expert at descriptions that produce extraordinary wonder. The words of such a person are poetry.’ But this is logically defective, as its premises are mutually dependent. The definition of poetry—‘words of a poet which produce extraordinary delight’—rests on the definition of a poet, yet the definition of a poet—‘someone who writes poetry, i.e., someone who is expert at writing words that produce extraordinary delight’—rests on the definition of poetry!33 (p.229) Kavikarṇapūra agrees with this. His definition would indeed be fallacious were it not that ‘the word “poet” is [here] used in a technical sense, and thus the fault of mutual dependency is averted’.34 This is the central point of his definition. That poetry is a verbal composition of a poet is plain even from the etymology of the word. But Kavikarṇapūra does not wish to state the obvious. The ‘poet’ of his definition is not just someone who writes poetry— although he obviously does that—but someone with specific characteristics. Kavikarṇapūra thus shifts the question about the defining characteristic of Page 8 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry poetry to the question about the poet’s defining characteristic. This shift is particularly remarkable when seen in the context of Sanskrit criticism up until Kavikarṇapūra’s time. Most authors on poetics have precious little to say about the poet but are primarily concerned with the poem as a completed work that can be analysed and critiqued. When they do address the role of the poet, it is part of a brief discussion on the sources or causes of poetry (kāvya‐hetu).35 But the poet is there subordinated to his creation, whereas Kavikarṇapūra places him at the very centre of his poetics. According to him, what differentiates poetry from non‐poetry is not its literary embellishments or its distinct style, nor even its capacity to embody and evoke emotions, but that it is composed by a poet. Who, then, is a poet?

The Poet ‘A poet,’ Kavikarṇapūra writes, ‘is defined as one who has a seed and is learned in all scriptures. If he has rasa and possesses imagination, then he is topmost.’36 Of the four characteristics mentioned here, Kavikarṇapūra argues the first— having a ‘seed’—is the most important. That is the defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa) of a poet; all other elements mentioned are merely qualifiers (viśeṣaṇa) that distinguish one poet from another. This ‘seed’ (bīja) is a specific proclivity (saṃskāra), Kavikarṇapūra explains. In Hindu psychological thought every act that we perform leaves an impression in our mind that lies there latent, as a subtle residue of those actions. These latent impressions ultimately generate their (p.230) ‘germinating potency’, as Lakshmi Kapani puts it, which is this germ or seed (bīja), ‘the dynamic aspect of these remnants’. If these latent impressions point to the past, she explains, the seed points to the future, and creates a certain proclivity (saṃskāra) for further action.37 This seed of the poet —the characteristic that defines him—is thus something that can be both acquired and deepened by repeated practice, as well as something that one is born with, as it might have been carried over from actions in a previous life. Kavikarṇapūra argues that without this seed no poetry can be composed. He defines it as ‘a special proclivity from the past that is the place from which poetry grows’, and continues: ‘The growth of poetry is twofold: [the first] is grounded in the creator [of poetry, the second] in its enjoyer; without this one can neither create nor enjoy poetry. Therefore this [particular proclivity] is the cause of both the production and enjoyment [of a literary work].’38 This idea is significant, particularly in the light of David Smith’s views on the diverging developments of Sanskrit poetry and literary criticism, which we discussed in Chapter 4. For Kavikarṇapūra there is no fundamental difference between a poet and a critic, between the act of composing poetry and the act of enjoying poetry —both arise from the same proclivity. In other words, only a good, sensitive reader can be a poet, and only a poet can be a sensitive reader.

Page 9 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry Proud Poets and Envious Critics

Although a poet should be able to compose poetry as well as enjoy or relish poetry, according to Kavikarṇapūra, very few are able to do so. Vāmana distinguishes two classes of poets: those who are ‘anorexic’39 and those that ‘eat even grass’. ‘The former,’ Vāmana writes, ‘are to be taught, because they have discrimination, not the latter, because they have none.’40 Kavikarṇapūra reiterates Vāmana’s views, and argues that poets who do not differentiate at all between defective and excellent verses—poets, in other words, who lack any critical ability—are no poets at all. They are disrespected in poetic circles. Only those that are capable of evaluating good poetry are poets. Even though they (p.231) might be hypercritical—or ‘anorexic’—and consider nothing worthy of being called poetry, both Vāmana and Kavikarṇapūra agree that it is better to be too critical than not critical at all. As Vāmana writes: ‘one’s nature cannot be changed’.41 That poets are harsh and insatiable critics is almost a truism in Sanskrit literature, and their critical nature is often said to arise from envy, an emotion very few poets lack. Bāṇa writes: ‘a monkey that is not restless, a poet who is not envious, a merchant who is not a thief…is rarely found in this world.’42 And Rājaśekhara offers the following advice to beginning poets: This is the greatest secret of cunning: do not recite good verses before someone who considers himself a poet. Not only will he not appreciate it, but he will destroy it by incorporating [your verse] into his own poetic work.43 ‘Indeed,’ he writes, ‘a critic who is not envious is very rare.…That critic, who is himself a good poet and can properly recognise literary excellences and defects, does not exist in this world; if by fate he does exist, he is not free from envy.’44 Kavikarṇapūra paints these poets in a similar light, in a way that resembles his condemnation, discussed in Chapter 2, of theologians who only critique the writings of others and only proclaim their own intellectual prowess. At the very beginning of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana he speaks of the poets’ envy and contempt, and the shallowness of many critics: Lovingly they look at poems of their own or of their own devotees. Never do they find fault in their own works. A lamp dispels darkness in all directions, but does not destroy the darkness in which it stands.45 Although spotless, good people first proclaim the faults in their own conduct. Although its splendour is dazzling at first fire emits only fume.46 Individually, every single word

Page 10 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry appears flawless, until (p.232) a poet strings them together with the needle of his tongue.47 O broom, you clean the earth from the dirt that others continually discard. Foul‐tongued one, that is why people fear your touch!48

The envy and hypercritical nature of many poets was nourished by the sometimes highly competitive environment in which Sanskrit poets worked. The promise of fame and the desire for prestige was a strong impetus for young poets, if not as an end in itself, then certainly for the fruits fame could bestow. Recognition of one’s poetic talents could result in obtaining patronage from the king or other rich individuals, and thus procured a livelihood for the author. The theoretical works on poetry therefore repeatedly assure that studying poetry will lead to fame.49 Vāmana, for instance, states that poetry leads to tangible and intangible results: while the poet is still alive, his poetry pleases his audience and will bring the poet renown,50 which, after his death, secures for him a place in heaven until the end of this world. Therefore, he argues, to acquire fame and to ward off infamy, the best poets should study the science of poetry.51 Bhāmaha also assures the aspiring poet that ‘for the composers of good poetical works, even if they have already attained heaven, a beautiful and incorruptible body made of their poetry remains [here on earth]. As long as his imperishable fame lasts on earth and in heaven, that pious person will inhabit the divine abode.’52 These goals are, in Kavikarṇapūra’s view, only secondary—at best. Writing poetry in praise of Kṛṣṇa is a devotional act. No doubt poetry can lead to prestige and wealth, but the poet should not write with those goals in mind. His desire should be to ‘dissolve in dense bliss while he is writing, by devoting his thoughts fully to the virtues, the charm, and the play of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. That is the highest gain for a connoisseur.’53 (p.233) Imagination and Poetic Conventions

Kavikarṇapūra then states a poet is ‘learned in all scriptures (āgama)’.54 He does not elaborate on this, but other authors give long lists of the various disciplines a poet should master. Obviously, the poet must be proficient in grammar to successfully wield the Sanskrit language. He must command the different disciplines of poetics—prosody, literary figuration, the literary excellences and their emotive import, rasa, and so on—and be knowledgeable in the compositions of great poets of the past. Apart from these, the poet must also be able to paint a realistic picture of the world he will describe, and thus needs to be familiar with a variety of worldly disciplines. To properly describe his characters’ love life, he needs to be familiar with works on erotics. He needs an understanding of politics, particularly—so writes Vāmana—to develop a strong Page 11 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry plot.55 Mammaṭa adds a few more to these: the poet needs to know what drives people, and should thus be familiar with all four of the human pursuits (social and religious duties, wealth, sensual enjoyment, and liberation). When the poem depicts military scenes, the author needs to be familiar with the various aspects of military culture, such as weaponry and the training of elephants and horses. He also has to be familiar with the world of the gods and epic heroes, and thus needs to be acquainted with the Indian epics, such as the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Purāṇas.56 Indeed, ‘there exists no word, no meaning, no science, and no art, which is not an aspect of poetry. O how heavy is the poet’s burden!’57 Kavikarṇapūra’s choice of words, however, is significant, as it has a strong religious connotation in Vaiṣṇava circles: ‘The term āgama generally means sacred texts and refers in particular to the revealed scripture.’58 It is especially used to refer to Pāñcarātra texts, which Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra particularly favour, as we have seen in Chapter 2. If understood this way, the poet of devotional verse needs not just a thorough knowledge of texts bearing on poetics, but also a firm grounding in theology. Impropriety (anaucitya), which spoils rasa, is not just caused by breaking poetic decorum, but also by theological errors, as we will see in Chapter 7. Kavikarṇapūra sees this vast learning as foundational. Poets are defined by their unique proclivities, yet their talents are shown within the boundaries of poetic rules and conventions. Radical departure from these rules would very (p.234) likely be seen as the mark of a mediocre or inexperienced poet, since a skilled poet would be capable of using these restrictions, which past poets have established, in striking ways. As Abhinavagupta says, there is nothing that a poet from the past has not already said, but a talented poet will find a way to restate the old with charm.59 That ability is called pratibhā. We have seen this term earlier, in the context of the various sonic stages; it referred there to the second stage of speech, when language and thought are still one, when in a sudden illumination (pratibhā) the speaker perceives what he wants to say. The term has a similar sense in the context of poetry, where it has often been translated as ‘imagination’, sometimes as poetic ‘genius’60, and refers to the poet’s ability to visualize what he will describe with vivid clarity. ‘The matter of poetry is without end,’ Ānandavardhana writes, ‘if the poet has the gift of imagination.…Even beauty of style…is impossible if there is no imagination in regard to the meanings.’61 It is this imaginative capacity that invests the poetic conventions with charm and can make even the most common themes sparkle. Kavikarṇapūra defines it with an oft‐cited definition by Bhaṭṭa Tauta, one of Abhinavagupta’s teachers: ‘imagination is understood as the intelligence that is expert at describing things in ever new ways’.62

Page 12 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry Often this imaginative intelligence is seen as a prerequisite for any poet. Thus Bhāmaha writes that ‘poetry comes [only] to the person who has imagination, and even then only sometimes’.63 Vāmana states that ‘the seed of poetry’ is a particular proclivity acquired in a previous life. He then identifies that seed with imagination (pratibhā), claiming that without it one cannot write poetry; if some poetry is produced without it, it will result in ridicule only.64 Although several authors argue that imagination is inborn,65 some, like Rājeśekhara say this is not always the case. He argues that creative imagination can be innate (sahaja), when it arises from proclivities of previous lives, (p.235) artificial (āhārya), when it arises from proclivities developed in this life, or taught (aupadeśika) through textual study.66 Furthermore, Rājaśekhara argues that this imaginative faculty is twofold: creative (kārayitrī) and receptive (bhāvayitrī). The poet needs to have this flash of imagination to describe his scenes, but so does the audience. This receptive imagination ‘brings into being the poet’s effort and intention’, he argues. ‘It makes the tree of the poet’s work fruitful; without it it would be barren.’67 The parallels with Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic germ or seed (bīja) are evident. Kavikarṇapūra uses nearly the same wording to describe this seed as these authors use to describe imagination, yet for Kavikarṇapūra the two are distinct. The poetic seed is the defining characteristic of a poet, whereas imagination is what distinguishes the best poets from all others. Why does he make this distinction? What is the real difference between these two qualities? Kavikarṇapūra has nothing more to say on this. Perhaps the distinction is charitable: unimaginative authors could still be considered poets in Kavikarṇapūra’s analysis, even if they lack the talent we encounter in the works of the masters. But the distinction is also related to Kavikarṇapūra’s classification of poetry itself. As we have seen in Chapter 4, the lowest form of poetry is devoid of any suggested sense, whereas the best poems are rich in suggestion—so rich, indeed, that in the very best poems even the suggestion is suggestive. Ānandavardhana argues that this imaginative intelligence is closely linked with suggestion. An imaginative poet can never exhaust the poetic possibilities ‘by the help of suggestion and subordinated suggestion’.68 Ānandavardhana emphasizes that this is particularly achieved by the suggestion of rasa. A theme, even if used by countless poets of the past, ‘really shines only by recourse to rasa’. When a topic is retold with rasa, ‘not even Vācaspati [the lord of speech], in a thousand efforts, could exhaust it, any more than he could exhaust the nature of the universe’.69 Thus, the principal way in which the poet can ‘describe things in ever new ways’, as Bhaṭṭa Tauta puts it, is by developing the emotions of the characters and thereby suggesting rasa. An idea, ‘although it has been worked over by the minds of countless poets, is not thereby weakened, but increases with ever new artistic abilities’.70 Kavikarṇapūra therefore states that the best poet—the composer of the best poetry—not only needs imagination Page 13 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (pratibhā) but also rasa, and (p.236) we see here, in Ānandavardhana’s thought, how closely related these two concepts are. The Poet’s Rasa and the Poet’s Authority

The idea that poet himself needs to ‘have rasa’ (sarasa) to compose poetry that suggests rasa is also found in Ānandavardhana’s poetics. Ānandavardhana, who understands rasa in the older sense, as a intensification of the characters’ emotions, argues that if a poet wishes to describe and develop the emotions of his characters, all the literary elements of his poem need to support the dominant emotion of his composition, which cannot be detracted by literary flaws or discordant elements. This is only possible if the poet is himself absorbed in the emotions he will describe, and, as it were, allows those emotions to direct his composition. As Ānandavardhana writes: In the endless world of poetry, the poet is the sole creator. That [entire] universe moves as he desires. If in his poetry the poet is in love, the entire world consists of rasa; if he is dispassionate, all is devoid of rasa.71 This idea is already found in the Nāṭya‐śāstra. Bharata writes that the literary emotions (bhāva) are so called because they ‘reveal (bhāvayan) the inner state of the poet’.72 Thus Vālmīki, the first poet (ādi‐kavi), was able to describe the enduring tragic tale of Rāma and Sītā in the Rāmāyaṇa because he himself experienced tragedy, and it is said that from his own experience of grief (śoka) the first verse (śloka) arose.73 Abhinavagupta cautions that the ‘poet in love’ of Ānandavardhana’s verse is not a licentious womanizer, but a cultured connoisseur of poetry, who finds delight in the refined emotions of literary works.74 This is echoed by other authors, like Rājaśekhara, but it is clear that the poet’s emotional experience is not restricted to the world of literature. A poet should not lead a life of excess, Rājaśekhara agrees, but he is nevertheless expected to know the joys of worldly life, which form the subject matter of most of his poetry. The ideal life of a poet he sketches in the Kāvya‐mīmāṃsā closely resembles the lifestyle Vātsyāyana outlines in the Kāma‐sūtra for a ‘man‐about‐town’ (nāgaraka)—the type of person that is the male protagonist (nāyaka) of most Sanskrit poetry.75 Bharata states that the dynamics of literary emotions are those of the emotions (p.237) of everyday life,76 and we have already seen how the poet is expected to know the ways of the world, including that of horses and elephants, what to speak of the world of his human characters.77 This issue is particularly relevant in a devotional context. As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra instructs the devotional poet to compose his poem not to procure fame or wealth, but to lose himself, ‘while he is writing’, in the bliss that contemplation on Kṛṣṇa evokes. When considered in the light of Ānandavardhana’s comments, it is that devotional immersion the poet Page 14 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry experiences that rules his writing and infuses it with its devotional emotions, as Kavikarṇapūra corroborates in a verse in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha (with an obvious play on the name Śrīnātha—both of his guru and of Kṛṣṇa, the Lord of Śrī): A good poet, his mind ardent for the rasa of Śrīnātha’s lotus feet, creates a composition whose rasa resides in his growing joy.78

The importance of the poet’s devotional experience is also highlighted in the inset play of the Caitanya‐candrodaya. As the play commences, Friendship and Devotion‐with‐Love observe and comment on the performance. From behind the scenes, the opening verses of the play (nāndī) are recited. Devotion‐with‐Love remarks: ‘I think that he will stage one act drama—a bhāṇa or a vyāyoga—since one of their characteristics is that “the nāndī is sung offstage”.’79 Shortly after the benedictory verses are recited, Haridāsa, in his role as the director of the drama, comes on stage, recites an additional verse and offers a handful of flowers. Director: (holding a handful of flowers in his cupped hands) The directions are brightened by the blazing brightness born from the luminent row of bees [or: of teeth]; its diffusing fine fragrance grants uncommon contentment; spotless, it perfects the lustre of his moon‐like nails— (p.238) like a smile of the secret dramatic arts, I scatter this handful of flowers at the lotus feet of the Lord. (He does that)

Devotion‐with‐Love: (looking) You have done this well. Although the benedictory verse was recited behind the scenes, when it was time to honour the audience, you offered instead this handful of flowers at the feet of the Lord. Look, my child, look! necklace on his neck, earrings on both his ears, on his broad chest a garland, armlets and bracelets on his arms, a turban on his head, anklets on his feet— the form of Haridāsa before us is like the vast embodied splendour of the beauty of the dramatic arts.

Friendship: But, my lady, this is not in accordance with scripture! Devotion‐with‐Love: Listen: The way of scripture is one, Page 15 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry another is the way of love. The former should follow injunctions, but the latter does not resort to rules.

Friendship: But for those who take to an unregulated path, the goal is only slowly achieved. Devotion‐with‐Love: That is not always true. In the forest, the rapid rivers swiftly lead one to one’s destination, though their course is not fixed, but not so on the naturally crooked river beds, even though those are fixed.

But enough of this talk. Let us now hear what he recites.80 As Friendship notices, Haridāsa ignores dramatic convention and improvises. He should praise the audience and announce what play will be performed, as the rules of dramaturgy dictate.81 He does do this a little later in the scene, but he first offers a handful of flowers—representing the play itself—to Kṛṣṇa. Devotion‐ with‐Love applauds him for this, and identifies Haridāsa himself with the dramatic performance: he appears now as the ‘embodied splendour of the beauty of the dramatic arts (nāṭya)’ because, as the director, the performance flows from his own emotions. His act might go against the conventional rules of dramaturgy, but since he now, as it were, embodies dramaturgy this is inconsequential. His very character assures the play’s quality and authenticity. If Friendship’s comments seem theological, it is because they are. Her questions on the scriptural path (śāstrīya‐mārga) echo devotional concerns raised (p.239) elsewhere in the Caitanya‐candrodaya about the importance of scriptural injunctions.82 Such questions are appropriate here, because the play that is enacted is itself a devotional act. Just as devotees mature in love can transgress the injunctions of scripture without consequence, so too can the director disregard the dramatic conventions when he is moved by his love (anurāga) for Kṛṣṇa. Indeed, as Devotion‐with‐Love concludes, not only does this not impede the flow of rasa, but this is most advantageous, because it enhances it. The wide Ganges winds but slowly through the plains of Bengal, but the rapid forest streams carry you quickly to your destination. The devotional experience of the author lies therefore at the heart of the creation of any type of devotional poetry. In that sense too, the poet stands at the very centre of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics: his experience not only creates the literary experience the poem embodies and communicates, but also validates it. The value of a devotional literary work is thus not measured merely by the literary qualities of the poem—the figures of speech, the styles, rasa, the plot, etc.—but more importantly by the devotional qualities of the poet. The author’s Page 16 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry poetic expertise should flow from his religious grounding, but even in the absence of the former, his writings still have value. As John Stratton Hawley remarks: ‘The sanctity of the speaker makes the poem worth listening to regardless of its literary quality, and if the poem conveys beauty as well as truth, so much the better.’83 These concerns are also reflected in the way Kavikarṇapūra writes about himself. The following passage from the Caitanya‐candrodaya, in which he introduces himself and his play—as custom requires84—is representative: Director:…Now, then, shaking off [all] reservations, and making good use of my body, I will enact a drama which destroys the dull darkness within the heart and can fulfil the desire of that king [Gajapati Pratāparudra]85— Śrī Caitanya‐candrodaya, composed by the poet Paramānandadāsa, who is favoured by Śrīnātha, who is the son of Śivānanda Sena, a dear associate of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, and [upon whom] that Lord bestowed his own compassion.86 (p.240) Kavikarṇapūra rarely writes about himself, but whenever he does, he generally identifies himself as the son of Śivānanda Sena, one of the foremost and dearest associates of Caitanya, as the favoured servant of his guru Śrīnātha, and as the object of Caitanya’s grace.87 As he explains at the end of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana, from Caitanya he received his poetic skills, his ‘splendour of speech’; from Śrīnātha, a ‘clarity of thought’; and from his father total devotion to Caitanya.88 It is these three persons that made him the poet he is, and whatever honour he might receive, is due to them. As he movingly states in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha: This poet who lost his lustre, whose faith is weak, —there is none equal to me— is [now] joyous with a resolute eagerness for Śrīnātha’s feet and has found rest.89

Compare this, for example, with the way the poet Bhavabhūti introduces himself.90 In the Uttara‐rāma‐carita he is said to be ‘an honoured descendant of Kaśyapa,…skilled in grammar, logic, and exegesis’, a ‘brāhmaṇa [or: a Brahmā], whom the Goddess Speech follows like one enslaved’.91 It is because he has mastered speech, and because he has ‘a natural friendship with actors’, Bhavabhūti composes a play that is, in his own opinion, ‘abounding in the best literary excellences (guṇa)’.92 Bhavabhūti establishes his credentials—and hence the value of his play—by stressing his upbringing in a family of learning, in which he has received an education befitting his descent. He is skilled in poetry and knows the world of actors intimately. He is an experienced poet, comparable Page 17 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry to Brahmā, the creator of the world, whom Sarasvatī follows as a dependent and dutiful wife. That is why his plays are worthy of his audience’s attention. There is, in other words, none like him. By contrast, Kavikarṇapūra generally says nothing about his poetic skill, and instead of extolling his own expertise, he directs whatever honour he may receive to his superiors. There is none like him either, he states, but in quite a different sense. His greatness does not lie in him, but in those who have made (p.241) him great, like his father, his guru, his Lord. It is not merely his mastery of speech that make his poems valuable for his readers. Rather, it is his relationship with these three individuals that establish his standing in the devotional community, and thereby his authority, as the hagiographical narratives about Kavikarṇapūra we explored in Chapter 1 clearly illustrate.

The Audience Immediately after defending his first definition of poetry, but before he discusses the characteristics of a poet, Kavikarṇapūra offers an additional definition of poetry, almost as an afterthought: Or else, [we could consider] only the universal, literariness (kāvyatva), like cowness, etc. The unique property by which we recognise the same form in every single instance of a cow which has characteristic features like a dewlap, and so on—thinking ‘this is a cow, this is [also] a cow’—is the defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa) of the universal, which is a unique property, namely cowness. In the same way, a union of sound and sense has a defining characteristic of literariness—that which can be relished in the heart of the sensitive audience—which is a special property, the universal, literariness.93 It is not so unusual for early modern critics to offer more than one definition of poetry—Jagannātha offers three in the Rasa‐gaṅgādhara94—but Kavikarṇapūra’s second definition is unusual not just because it is so different from his first— each of Jagannātha’s definitions is a restatement of the other—but also because it is perhaps even more unusual than his first.95 While the first definition rebuilds traditional poetics with the author at its very centre, this second definition, which gives the defining characteristic of the universal (jāti‐lakṣaṇa), reorients us again, and highlights the importance of the audience: poetry is that text (śabdārtha‐saṃghāta) which is tasted by the sensitive audience (sahṛdaya) in their hearts. In his commentary on this section, Viśvanātha extends the analogy with cowness: just as the conviction of farmers and other people who deal with cattle is the authority (pramāṇa) by which we can be assured that a particular animal is a cow, so the conviction of a sensitive audience is the authority by which we can distinguish poetry from (p.242) non‐poetry.96 In other words, that which the sensitive audience experience as poetry is poetry.

Page 18 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry Their delight is the defining characteristic of poetry’s universal (jāti), literariness. It is a difficult argument, with some history in Sanskrit criticism. Ānandavardhana, for example, presents a similar argument in the Dhvany‐āloka (1.1), when he gives voice to one of his (perhaps hypothetical) critics. Ānandavardhana’s opponent argues that ‘the defining characteristic of poetry is that which consists of sound and sense which delight the heart of a sensitive audience’.97 He is thus doubtful that suggestive poetry (dhvani) exists, because this sensitive audience does not know or recognize it. But, this critic continues, even ‘if you were to confer the title of “sensitive audience” on some few persons who belong to your persuasion, and on that basis assign to dhvani the title of poetry, you would not thereby gain the assent of the general body of educated men’.98 The issue that is contested here—whether there is such a thing as suggestive poetry—is not our concern here, but these comments of Ānandavardhana’s critic do highlight why such a stance is difficult: who determines who constitutes the sensitive audience that determines what true poetry is? Is it the majority of cultured readers—‘the general body of educated men’—or some select few that claim special insight? Kavikarṇapūra here does not define the ideal audience, although, as we have seen, he does do so when defining the poet. The essential characteristic of Kavikarṇapūra’s poet is that he has a seed or poetic proclivity, which is ‘the cause of [both] the production and enjoyment [of poetry]’.99 Indeed, both the person who creates the poem and the person who enjoys it cause it to exist. The poet brings the poem into the world, but the sensitive reader, as it were, recreates it in his experience. The true critics are thus the poets. The two definitions of poetry Kavikarṇapūra gives are thus related. There is a certain vagueness to this definition, but that is perhaps a strength. This definition defines the universal (jāti) which inheres in each separate instance of poetry. By understanding this unique property we can recognize each specimen of poetry for what it is. Thus, if a composition delights the sensitive, cultured readers, it is poetry. Whether poetry has rasa or not, whether it should have any figures of speech, whether it can have literary defects, and so on—all this is irrelevant in considering the universal, (p.243) literariness, because they are various characteristics of individual instances of poetry that may not be shared by all. What they do all share is that they delight the sensitive reader. Kavikarṇapūra’s reasoning may be novel and perhaps not the most persuasive because it relies on the subjective experience of the sensitive audience, but his two definitions do show us the importance he attaches to the social dimension of poetry. Like the practice of devotion, the practice of poetry is pursued in a community, and just as Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes the importance of friendship in the former, so does he condemn the envious rivalry of common critics in the Page 19 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry latter. The devotional poet writes not just for his own sake, but also in service to the community of devotees, as Kavikarṇapūra stresses in most of his works—his poetry is offered to Vaiṣṇavas to give them the delight of devotional rasa,100 to sing with them the praise of Kṛṣṇa’s play,101 and to ease the pain of their separation from their Lord.102 Although shallow critics will only notice a poem’s defects, not realizing that every composition is flawed, the sensitive devotees will not notice such shortcomings because their capacity to relish the work springs from the same source as the poet’s creative intent. As Kavikarṇapūra writes in the beginning of the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya, ‘if this book will be marred with flaws that do not arise from carelessness, the wise will never notice these because they are drunk on the songs of his glorious lotus feet. Therefore I have no hesitation whatsoever [in commencing this work], not even for a moment.’103 By defining poetry both as a poet’s creation and as the sensitive audience’s delight, Kavikarṇapūra highlights that a literary text is not just an independent object to be studied and analysed, but is the product of a particular author that is meant to be relished by a particular audience, and it is from the latter’s experience of the poem as much as from the former’s immersion in writing it that the poem derives its existence. Notes:

(1) Uddeśo lakṣaṇaṃ parīkṣā ceti granthasya trayo‐vyavahārāḥ (AK p. 2/6). The idea is derived from classical Nyāya; see Vātsyāyana on Nyāya‐sūtras 1.1.3: Trividhā cāsya śāstrasya pravṛttiḥ, uddeśo lakṣaṇaṃ parīkṣā ceti. (2) Matilal (1997, p. 166). (3) Tatroddiṣṭasyātattva‐vyavachedako dharmo lakṣaṇam (Vātsyāyana on Nyāya‐ sūtra 1.1.3). (4) See Annambhaṭṭa’s commentary on Tarka‐saṃgraha 3. (5) Daṇḍī offers only a description of poetry (KAD 1.10ff), not a strict definition, and one can wonder to what extent Bhāmaha’s statement ‘poetry is a harmony of sound and sense’ (śabdārthau sahitau kāvyam, KAB 1.16), which many scholars consider to be his definition of poetry, was really meant as a definition (lakṣaṇa) in the Nyāya sense. (6) Adoṣau śabdārthau saguṇāv analaṃkṛtī punaḥ kvāpi (KP 1.4). I follow Vidyācakravartī’s reading of analaṃkṛtī (nañ īṣad‐arthe). (7) Mammaṭa there does mention rasa, although he does not attempt to show how that does not contradict his definition. After citing a verse that has no striking figures of speech he comments: atra sphuṭo na kaścid alaṃkāraḥ rasasya ca prādhānyān nālaṃkāratā (KP 1.4). (8) Kāvya‐śobhā‐karān dharmān alaṃkārān pracakṣate (KAD 2.1). Page 20 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (9) See KAD 1.71: ity anūrjita evārtho nālaṃkāro’pi tādṛśaḥ / sukumāratayaivaitad ārohati satām manaḥ. Sukumāratā is one of Daṇḍī’s ten guṇas. (10) De (1981, p. 118). This has lead some commentators, like Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, to see the Kāvya‐prakāśa as a composite work, consisting of the kārikās, written by an earlier author (generally identified as Bharata, the author of the Nāṭya‐śāstra), and the prose commentary (vṛtti) on the text, written by Mammaṭa. (11) SD 1.2. Viśvanātha’s reasoning here is not entirely fair. In his attack of Mammaṭa’s definition, he takes the older concept of doṣa and argues that rasa‐rich poetry can have such defects and still be poetry, all the while ignoring Mammaṭa’s own understanding of doṣa (which Viśvanātha shares) as flaws that detract from rasa, not just grammatical or metrical lapses, and so on. Cf. KP 7.1, SD 7.1. (12) Cf. Māṇikyacandra’s commentary on KP 1.4: Saguṇāv iti. Anena śākaṭika‐ vākyānāṃ kāvyatvaṃ nirastam. (13) Nanu etat kuraṅga‐nayanety ādau paryāptam. Nirdoṣa‐saguṇālaṃkāra‐ śabdārtha‐rūpatvāt iti cen na. Tādṛśa‐vacana‐sandarbha‐rūpatāyās tatra vivakṣitatvāt (Commentary on SK 1.4). (14) See also Gerow (1971, p. 17). (15) AK p. 73/240–1. The source of the verse Kavikarṇapūra argues against in this section is unknown, but the passage closely resembles two sūtras of Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṃkāra‐sūtra (3.1.1–2). Cf. KAD 2.1, KAS 1.1.2. (16) Mukhyārtha (KP 7.1). (17) Vākyaṃ rasātmakaṃ kāvyam (SD 1.3). (18) ‘Vākyaṃ rasātmakaṃ kāvyam’ iti ca lakṣaṇaṃ ‘gopībhiḥ saha viharati harir’ ity ādau paryāptaṃ syāt, rasātmaka‐vākyatvāt (AK p. 3/8). See Viśvanātha at AK p. 55/238. (19) Or, reading the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha in the light of Rūpa’s ideas, one is also reminded of his comment in the Bhakti‐rasāmṛta‐sindhu (2.5.97) that ‘saints relish rasa when hearing even a little about Kṛṣṇa’ (harer īṣac‐chruti‐vidhau rasāsvādaḥ satāṃ bhavet). (20) Vyatirekeṇa doṣaḥ—yad vākyaṃ na bhavati, tat kāvyaṃ na bhavatīty āyāteḥ (AK p. 3/8).

Page 21 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (21) Kūrma‐loma‐paṭa‐cchannaḥ śaśa‐śṛṅga‐dhanur‐dharaḥ / eṣa vandhyā‐suto bhāti kha‐puṣpa‐kṛta‐śekhara (AK p. 3/8). (22) Vākyaṃ syād yogyatākāṅkṣāsatti‐yuktaḥ padoccayaḥ (SD 2.1). Cf. Tarka‐ saṃgraha 60–61. The examples given below are Viśvanātha’s. (23) Commenting on this section, Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya even argues that Viśvanātha Kavirāja should have no difficulties with accepting this verse as poetry: Darpaṇa‐kṛn‐mate’py atra kāvyatva‐sthāpanaṃ na durupapādam. Ākṣepāt viśiṣṭa‐bodha‐janana‐mukhena nūnam atrāpi camatkāritvam. ‘Rase sāraś camatkāra’ iti dharmadattokta‐diśā atra rasodbodhakatvam asty eva. (24) Gāgā Bhaṭṭa argues for this and quotes part of the verse Kavikarṇapūra quotes in his Rākāgama commentary on the Candrāloka. See Pollock (2001, pp. 16–18). (25) Rasa‐gaṅgādhara pp. 313ff. (26) Pollock (2001, p. 17). (27) KAS 2.1.1–2. (28) Yas tu ‘rītir ātmā kāvyasya’ iti paṭhati, na tad api sādhīyaḥ, rīter bāhya‐ guṇatvāt (AK p. 3/9). Cf. DA 3.46. (29) Kavi‐vāṅ‐nirmitiḥ kāvyam (AK p. 2/7). The phrase kavi‐vāṅ‐nirmitiḥ also occurs in KP 1.1. (30) Vāg ity ukte kavi‐vāg‐mātrasyaiva kāvyatvāpattiḥ, nirmitir ity ukte kavi‐kṛta‐ śilpāntarasyāpi, vāṅ‐nirmitir ity ukte vyākyātṛ‐viśeṣasya ca yasya kasyāpi vyākhyā‐kauśalasyāpi (AK p. 2/7). (31) Asādhāraṇa‐camatkāra‐kāriṇī racanā hi nirmitiḥ (AK pp. 2–3/7). (32) Tena rasāpakarṣaka‐doṣa‐rahitaṃ yathā‐sambhava‐guṇālaṃkāraṃ rasātmakaṃ śabdārtha‐yugalaṃ kāvyam iti lakṣaṇasya svarasaḥ (AK p. 3/7). (33) See AK p. 3/9: Yat tu ‘lokottara‐camatkāra‐varṇanā‐nipuṇaḥ kavis tasya tādṛg vacaḥ kāvyam’ ity api na sādhu, anyonyāśraya‐doṣa‐prasakteḥ; tathā hi— lokottara‐camatkāra‐varṇanā‐nipuṇaḥ kaviḥ, kaver lokottara‐camatkāra‐varṇanā‐ nipuṇā vāk kāvyam iti parasparāśrayaḥ. The source of the quotation is unkown, but resembles a passage in the Kāvya‐prakāśa (1.2): yat kāvyaṃ lokottara‐ varṇanā‐nipuṇa‐kavi‐karma tat. Some commentators, like Māṇikyacandra, take this phrase of the Kāvya‐prakāśa as a definition (lakṣaṇa) of poetry: Lakṣaṇaṃ tu —lokottara‐varṇanā‐naipuṇya‐janya‐karmatvam avaseyam. Yad vā—lokottara‐ varṇanāvattvaṃ nipuṇa‐kavi‐karmatvaṃ ceti lakṣaṇa‐dvayam.

Page 22 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (34) Kavir iti pāribhāṣikīyaṃ saṃjñeti parasparāśraya‐doṣa’pi nirastaḥ (AK p. 3/9). (35) An important exception, of course, are those works on kāvya‐śikṣā, such as Rājaśekhara’s Kāvya‐mīmāṃsā where the topic is discussed at considerable length. (36) Sabījo hi kavir jñeyaḥ sa sarvāgama‐kovidaḥ / sarasaḥ pratibhā‐śālī yadi syād uttamas tadā (AK p. 3/11). (37) Kapani (1992–93, p. 253). (38) Bījaṃ prāktāna‐saṃskāra‐viśeṣaḥ kāvya‐roha‐bhūḥ. Rohaś ca dvedhā— nirmātṛ‐mūlaḥ svādaka‐mūlaś ca, yaṃ vinā nirmātum svādayituṃ ca na śakyate. Tenotpatty‐āsvādayor evāsya kāraṇatā (AK p. 3/12). (39) See the Kāmadhenu commentary: arocako nāma vyādhi‐viśeṣaḥ. Yathāha vāgbhaṭṭaḥ—‘arocako bhaved doṣair jihvā‐hṛdaya‐saṃśritaiḥ’ iti. The reference is to Aṣṭāṅga‐saṃgraha 5.30, Vāgbhaṭṭa’s work on Āyur‐veda. Vāmana emphasizes that both terms have to be taken metaphorically: arocakī‐ satṛṇābhyavahāri‐śabdau gauṇārthau (KAS 1.2.1). (40) Arocakinaḥ satṛṇābhyavahāriṇaś ca kavayaḥ. Pūrve śiṣyāḥ, vivekitatvāt. Netare, tad‐viparyayāt (KAS 1.2.1–3, sūtras only). (41) Na ca śīlam apākartuṃ śakyam (KAS 1.2.3). (42) Kapir acapalaḥ, kavir amatsarah, vaṇig ataskaraḥ…jagati durlabhaḥ (Harṣa‐ carita p. 40). (43) Idaṃ hi vaidagdhya‐rahasyam uttamaṃ, paṭhen na sūktiṃ kavi‐māninaḥ puraḥ / na kevalaṃ taṃ na vibhāvayaty asau, sva‐kāvya‐bandhena vināśayaty api (KM chapter 10, p. 52). (44) Sa punar amatsarī jñātā ca viralaḥ.…Yaḥ samyag vivinakti doṣa‐guṇayoḥ sāraṃ svayaṃ sukaviḥ / so’smin bhāvuka eva nāsty atha bhaved daivān na nirmatsaraḥ. (KM Chapter 4, p. 14). (45) Ātmanaḥ priyatayā tanubhājāṃ nātmanaḥ kṛtiṣu dūṣaṇa‐dṛṣṭiḥ / sarvatas timiram asyati dīpo nātma‐mūla‐timiraṃ vinihanti (AVC 1.9). Cf. KM chapter 10, p. 51: Pitur guror narendrasya suta‐śiṣya‐padātayaḥ / avivicyaiva kāvyāni stuvanti ca paṭhanti ca. (46) Nirmale’pi sujanāḥ svacaritre doṣam eva purataḥ prathayante / ujjvale’pi sati dhāmni purastād dhūmam eva vamati sphuṭam agniḥ (AVC 1.10). (47) Tāvat padāni jāyante nirdoṣāṇi pṛthak pṛthak / yāvat svarasanā‐sūcyā tāni grathnāti no kaviḥ (AVC 1.12). Page 23 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (48) Nirmalayasi bhuvana‐talaṃ satatākṣiptena paramalena / khala‐rasane sammārjani tad api ca bhītir bhavat‐sparśo (AVC 1.13). (49) See for example KAB 1.2 & 1.6–8; KAD 1.5 & 1.105; SD 1.2 (quoting Bhāmaha); KP 1.2; KA 1.3. (50) Kāvyaṃ sadṛṣṭādṛṣṭārthaṃ prīti‐kīrti‐hetutvāt (KAS 1.1.5). (51) KAS 1.1.5. (52) KAB 1.6–7. (53) Yaśaḥ prabhṛty eva phalaṃ nāsya kevalam iṣyate / nirmāṇa‐kāle śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐ guṇa‐lāvanya‐keliṣu / cittasyābhiniveśena sāndrānanda‐layas tu yaḥ / sa eva paramo lābhaḥ svādakānāṃ tathaiva saḥ (AK p. 5/19). (54) Sarvāgama‐kovidaḥ (AK p. 3/11). (55) See KAS 1.3.1–10. (56) See KP 1.3: Nipuṇatā loka‐śāstra‐kāvyādy‐avekṣaṇāt, which Mammaṭa explains as follows: Lokasya sthāvara‐jaṅgamātmaka‐loka‐vṛttasya, śāstrāṇāṃ chando‐vyākaraṇābhidhāna‐kośa‐kalā‐catur‐varga‐gaja‐turaga‐khaḍgādi‐lakṣaṇa‐ granthānāṃ, kāvyānāṃ ca mahā‐kavi‐sambandhinām, ādi‐grahaṇād itihāsādīnāṃ ca. (57) Na sa śabdo na tad vācyaṃ na sā vidyā na sā kalā / jāyeta yan na kāvyāṅgam aho bhāro mahān kaveḥ (cited by Vidyācakravartī on KP 1.3). (58) Chari (1994, p. 14). See CCMK 2.12 & 21, 3.25; CMM 11.13.4. (59) Abhinavagupta on DA 4.6. (60) See Sreekantaiya (1937, pp. 61–2) and Shulman (2012, p. 81). (61) DA 4.6 (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (62) Prajñā nava‐navolleka‐śākinī pratibhā matā (AK p. 3/13). (63) Kāvyaṃ tu jāyate jātu kasyacit pratibhāvataḥ (KAB 1.5). (64) Kavitva‐bījaṃ pratibhānam. Kavitvasya bījaṃ kavitva‐bījaṃ janmāntarāgata‐ saṃskāra‐viśeṣaḥ kaścit, yasmād vinā kāvyaṃ na niṣpadyate, niṣpannaṃ vāvahāsāyatanaṃ syāt (KAS 1.3.16). Compare this with KP 1.3: Śaktiḥ kavitva‐ bīja‐rūpaḥ saṃskāra‐viśeṣaḥ. Yaṃ vina kāvyaṃ na prasaret, prasṛtaṃ vopahasanīyaṃ syāt. While Mammaṭa does not identify this bīja with pratibhā, most of his commentators do: see for example the commentaries of Vidyācakravartī and Māṇikyacandra. Similar statements can be found in Baladeva’s commentary on SK 1.3 (Kavitva‐bīja‐saṃskāra‐viśeṣaḥ śaktiḥ. Saiva Page 24 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry pratibhā); DA 4.6 (tasmiṃs [=pratibhā‐guṇe] tv asati na kiñcid eva kaver vastv asti); Hemacandra’s Kāvyānuśāsana 1.4 (pratibhāsya hetuḥ). Daṇḍī describes pratibhā as pūrva‐vāsanā‐guṇānubandhi (KAD 1.104). (65) Several critics argue that poetic tendencies are innate, or bestowed by the goddess Sarasvatī. Cf. KAD 1.104–105; DA 1.6, 4.17; Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṃkāra 1.16. See also Hemacandra’s concept of innate (sahaja) and conditional (aupadhikī) pratibhā (KA 1.4–6), and Baladeva’s comments on SK 1.3: Devatā‐ prasādādi‐jātaḥ kavitva‐bīja‐saṃskāra‐viśeṣaḥ śaktiḥ. Saiva pratibhā. (66) KM p. 12. (67) Sā hi kaveḥ śramam abhiprāyaṃ ca bhāvayati. Tayā khalu phalitaḥ kaver vyāpāra‐taruḥ, anyathā so’vakeśī syāt (KM p. 13). It is not quite clear whether Rājaśekhara understands these two types of imagination to be but two facets of the same thing, or two distinct qualities; he cites authors who claim both. See KM pp. 13–14. (68) Dhvaner itthaṃ guṇībhūta‐vyaṅgyasya ca samāśrayāt (DA 4.6, translation after Ingalls et al., 1990). (69) DA 4.8–10 (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (70) DA 4.10 (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (71) Apāre kāvya‐saṃsāre kavir ekaḥ prajā-patiḥ / yathāsmai rocate viśvaṃ tathedaṃ parivartate / śṛṅgārī cet kaviḥ kāvye jātaṃ rasa‐mayaṃ jagat / sa eva vīta‐rāgaś cen nīrasaṃ sarvam eva tat (DA 3.41–42). (72) Kaver antar‐gataṃ bhāvaṃ bhāvayan bhāvam ucyate (NS 7.2). (73) See Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.39 and DA 1.5 & 4.5. (74) See Abhinavagupta on DA 3.41–42. (75) Cf. KM 10 and Kāma‐sūtra 1.4. (76) See Nāṭya‐śāstra (NS 7.6): Loka‐svabhāva‐saṃsiddhā loka-yātrānugāminaḥ anubhāvā vibhāvāś ca jñeyās tv abhinaye budhaiḥ. Cf. KP 4.27–28; SD 3.14; AK p. 30/118. (77) Cf. Lokaḥ sthāvara‐jaṅgamātmā tasya vartanaṃ vṛttim iti (KAS 1.3.2); lokasya sthāvara‐jaṅgamātmaka‐loka‐vṛttasya…(KP 1.3). (78) Śrīnātha‐pāda‐pāthoja‐rasa‐lālasa‐cetasā / bhāvitā tata‐moda‐stha‐rasā sukavinā kṛtiḥ (AK p. 85/274). This verse, like the verse in praise of Śrīnātha cited below, is an inset verse of a complex citra‐kāvya.

Page 25 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (79) CCU p. 30/84. Reference is made to SD 6.289. As the play develops, however, it becomes clear that the only other characteristic the play shares with a bhāṇa or a vyāyoga is that it has only a single act. (80) CCU pp. 30–1/85–7. (81) E.g. SD 6.21. (82) See, for example, CCU p. 27/74: tvac‐caraṇāravinda‐makaranda‐kaṇāsvāda‐ bhājāṃ naiṣa panthāḥ. (83) Hawley (1988, p. 282). Cf. BP 1.5.10–11. (84) See NS 5.154, SD 6.28. (85) Just prior to this section, the Director described the pitiable condition of Pratāparudra who grieves after Caitanya’s passing. The play, which describes Caitanya’s acts, is meant to offer relief to the grieving king. The darkness in the heart will also be destroyed by this, as Kavikarṇapūra has just stated that Caitanya himself ‘dispels the darkness of the world’ (viṣaya tamāṃsi hinastu gauracandraḥ, CCU p. 1/1). (86) Sūtradhāraḥ:…tad adhunā dhunānaḥ sandehaṃ dehaṃ ca kṛtārthayann ayam ahaṃ śrīnāthenānugṛhītena tasyaiva bhagavato’ vato nija‐karuṇāṃ śrī‐ kṛṣṇa‐caitanyasya priya‐pārṣadasya śivānanda‐senasya tanujena nirmitaṃ paramānandadāsa‐kavinā vināśita‐hṛt‐kaṣāya‐timiraṃ śrī‐caitanya‐candrodayaṃ nāma nāṭakam abhinīya samīhita‐hitam asya nṛpateḥ kariṣyāmi (CCU pp. 2/3–4). (87) See AVC 1.3 & 5; AVC 22.52; GGD 3–4; KAK 6.74; CCMK 20.46. (88) AVC 22.52. (89) Śrīnātha‐pāda‐kautukya‐vratāmodī kaviḥ śamī / yasya dhvastā cchaviḥ sannā śraddhā kaścana mat‐samaḥ (AK p. 84/273). (90) When Kavikarṇapūra wants a secular illustration in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, he generally alludes to Bhavabhūti’s works. See, for example, AK pp. 33/131–2. (91) Asti khalu tatra bhavān kāśyapaḥ…pada‐vākya‐pramāṇa‐jño bhavabhūtir nāma…yaṃ brahmāṇam iyaṃ devī vāg vaśyevānuvartate (Uttara‐rama‐carita pp. 3–4). An similar description is given in the Mahā‐vīra‐carita 1.4. A much longer praise of his illustrious lineage is given in both the Mālatī‐mādhava (p. 18–22) and the Mahā‐vīra‐carita (1.4–5). (92) …nisarga‐sauhṛdād bharateṣu…prāya‐guṇa‐bhūyasīm (Mālatī‐mādhava p. 22).

Page 26 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On Defining Poetry (93) Athavā, kāvyatvaṃ nāma gotvādivaj jātir eva, yathā sāsnādy‐avayavavatīṣū go‐vyaktiṣū pratyekam ayaṃ gaur ayaṃ gaur ity anugatākārā yenāsādharaṇa‐ dharmeṇāvagatiḥ, sa eva jāti‐lakṣaṇaḥ ko’py asādharaṇa‐dharmo gotvam, tathā śabdārtha‐saṃghātasya sahṛdayāsvādyaḥ ko’pi kāvyatva‐lakṣaṇo dharma‐viśeṣaḥ kāvyatvaṃ jātiḥ (AK p. 3/10). Cf. SD 3.31: pramāṇaṃ carvaṇaivātra svābhinne viduṣāṃ matam. (94) See Rasa‐gaṅgādhara pp. 4–8. (95) And Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya does not approve: Lakṣaṇe pakṣāntara‐ kalpanaṃ lakṣaṇa‐kṛto durbalatvaṃ prakaṭayati.…Ato naitan manojñam (Bhattacharyya, at AK p. 10). (96) Nanu gotva‐jātau halika‐lokādi‐sarveṣām anugata‐pratītir eva pramāṇaṃ kāvyatva‐jātau kiṃ pramāṇam? Tatrāha—sa kāvyatva‐rūpo dharmaḥ sahṛdaya‐ hṛdayāsvādyaḥ, tathā ca sarvatra kāvye sahṛdayānāṃ kāvyatva‐rūpeṇānugatā pratītir eva kāvyatva‐jātau pramāṇam iti bhāvaḥ (Viśvanātha on AK p. 4/10). (97) Sahṛdaya‐hṛdayāhlādi‐śabdārtha‐mayatvam eva kāvya‐lakṣaṇam (DA 1.1). (98) Na ca tat‐samatāntaḥ‐pātinaḥ sahṛdayān kāṃścit parikalpya tat‐prasiddhyā dhvanau kāvya‐vyapadeśaḥ pravartito’pi sakala‐vidvan‐mano‐grāhitām avalambate (DA 1.1, translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (99) Tenotpatty‐āsvādayor evāsya kāraṇatā (AK p. 3/12). (100) See AVC 1.15, CCU p. 137/395. (101) CCU p. 4/9. (102) See CCMK 1.15–29, CCU p. 1–2/1–5. (103) Yady etasminn ahaha bhavitā dūṣaṇaṃ na pramādāt, kiñcit tasmin na khalu sudhiyām āgraho jātu bhāvī / yat te śrīmac‐caraṇa‐kamala‐dvandva‐ gāthānumattās, tasmād eṣu kṣaṇam api na me vartate kāpy apekṣā (CCMK 1.12).

Access brought to you by:

Page 27 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords The final two chapters turn to the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra’s longest and most sophisticated poem in praise of Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana. Each chapter studies a small section of this voluminous work but, by examining such brief passages in depth, it is hoped the reader will get a good sense of the complexity of his poetic and narrative style, and be encouraged to explore more of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry. Chapter 6 examines the style of Kavikarṇapūra’s prose, revisiting Kavikarṇapūra’s eclectic philosophy of language (Chapter 4) and drawing out its theological implications, which are argued to be essential to grasping the suggested sense of Kavikarṇapūra fusion of figures of speech that mark the prose of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. The chapter offers a close reading of the opening sentence of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, exploring how Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘splendour of speech’ conveys not just theological ideas, but is also meant to affect the reader and contribute to the realization of rasa. Keywords:   theology, style, philosophy of language, Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Vṛndāvana, paradox

While illustrating the varieties of suggestion in Chapter 3 of the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha, Kavikarṇapūra cites the following verse ‘of our teacher’, Śrīnātha: My ears tell me you are in Vṛndāvana, my eyes that you are everywhere, my mind that you are in my heart. Where are you, great one? Tell me. My life air, already weary, only roams Page 1 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss in my throat and runs always after you.1

This moving verse describes the intensity of love‐in‐separation, a state in which the lover deserted by Kṛṣṇa both suffers the pain of that separation and, maddened by the intensity of her love, is yet never separated from him, as she sees him everywhere and carries him in her heart. The poem is poignant just on this level, as the desperate plea of an anguished lover. But as Kavikarṇapūra points out in his commentary on this verse, theology makes the verse even more poignant. Here ‘three means of knowledge—verbal testimony, direct perception, and experience—conflict with each other, and yet all of them produce reliable knowledge. None of these lead to unreliable knowledge.’ Kavikarṇapūra continues: ‘this is [the suggestion of] a fact. And this [suggests] the fact that he [Kṛṣṇa] is all‐pervading. Thus, since it is contradictory for an individual to be present everywhere, there is [the suggestion of] the figure contradiction (virodha), or distinction (vyatireka).’2 The suggestion (p.245) here fully depends on Kṛṣṇa being divine: because he embodies contradictions, as we have seen in Chapter 2, her eyes and ears and mind are all correct, which thus leads to the suggestion of paradox. These paradoxes point to Kṛṣṇa’s uniqueness, and thus suggest the figure distinction, Kavikarṇapūra explains, as Kṛṣṇa is not like an ordinary lover. All this changes the way we understand her declarations, which no longer seem merely the poetic expressions of a maddened lover. She has attained the sages’ perfection of being constantly aware of God, and sees him everywhere, where ordinary people only see misleading forms of matter. She has reached the highest state of yogic meditation, in which she constantly witnesses God’s presence in her heart. She may also have heard scripture’s declaration that Kṛṣṇa never really leaves his divine residence, Vṛndāvana, but perpetually resides there.3 But all this only aggravates her pain—that what her ears, her eyes, and her mind tell her is in fact true, and not the result of some delusion, as would be the case if her lover were human, is what has driven her to such despair that she fears she may not continue to live if Kṛṣṇa does not deliver her from these paradoxes. ‘Where are you?’ is thus not merely an inquiry as to where Kṛṣṇa resides now, but a request to solve the uncertainty this paradox creates4—a desperate plea, because her life air, spent and stuck in her throat, will go wherever he is. Śrīnātha’s verse movingly describes an anguished lover, but the subtext, only brought out by suggestion, is profoundly theological. It is this welding of these two registers—the passionate poetry of love and the intellectual deliberations of theology—that make the poem so effective. The reader is carried through the poem by the power and anguish of her love, but becomes thereby aware of its

Page 2 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss theological depth. The theological subtext does not change the meaning of the poem, but only deepens it and enhances the poem’s rasa. It is this union of the poetical with the theological that we will explore in this chapter, in the way that Kavikarṇapūra develops this in chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana. The principles exhibited in his reading of Śrīnātha’s verse are brought out in this section of the campū and used with great effect, particularly the use of figures of speech and suggestion to bring out theological ideas, the mutual enrichment of rasa, theology, and style, and the importance of the figure of speech contradiction (virodha) in accomplishing all this. But before we examine these, we need to return to theology.

(p.246) The Limits of Language Kavikarṇapūra’s interest in poetry is profoundly shaped by this theological outlook, as we have seen in Chapter 2. He writes poetry to praise and contemplate Kṛṣṇa (and Caitanya), the embodied bliss who acts in this world with his companions like a non‐worldly (alaukika) worldly (laukika) being. Although Kṛṣṇa’s play may resemble that of mere mortals, he is the supreme deity, the efficient and material cause of these worlds, in whom all beings rest. This special ontological nature of the leading character (vibhāva) of his poetry may seem innocent, but, as Kavikarṇapūra illustrated in his reading of Śrīnātha’s verse, it can have important theological implications. Moreover, it carries a heavy theological burden. Can God even be described? The Upaniṣads, the foundational texts of classical Vedānta, state that brahman or God lies beyond this world of names (nāma) and forms (rūpa), which came into being after the creation of primary matter, when God infused the world with the living beings (jīvātmā).5 Words—names referring to forms—thus reverberate in the world of matter and cannot reach God, as the Taittirīya Upaniṣad states: ‘Before they reach it, words turn back, together with the mind.’6 God ‘cannot be expressed by speech’, but rather by God ‘speech itself is expressed’; God ‘cannot be grasped with one’s mind’, for ‘the mind itself is grasped by it’.7 (We have seen part of this idea already in Chapter 4, as the concept of the Bhāgavata’s internal sphoṭa: we are able to speak through the medium of God, but God himself is beyond the range of speech.) Yājñavalkya therefore declares in the Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka Upaniṣad that we can only speak meaningfully about God if we speak apophatically: ‘About this self one can only say “not__, not__”.’8 Indeed, Yājñavalkya teaches, ‘there is nothing beyond this “not__”’.9 Commenting on this passage, Śaṅkara explains that this negation is the only description that can be given of brahman, because ‘by denying all characteristics arising from limiting adjuncts (upādhi), [this refers to] that in which there are no characteristics, whether it is name, form, action, difference, class, or property—these being the things by which words have currency. But none of these characteristics exist in brahman, and hence it cannot be described Page 3 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss as being this or that.…When one wants to describe its essence, free from all characteristics arising from limiting adjuncts, one can in no way do so. This, then, is the only way [in which brahman can be (p.247) described]: to describe it as “not__, not__”, thereby negating all the descriptions that are found [in the Upaniṣads].’10 This is the classical Advaita approach, but one would expect that Vaiṣṇavas, who staunchly establish that God does have attributes, take a different approach. Yet Śrīnātha partially supports this argument. Commenting on Bhāgavata 8.3.24, which describes Kṛṣṇa as ‘the remainder of a negation’ (niṣedha‐śeṣa), he writes: ‘the remainder is what is left over from a negation—“This is not it; this is not it”. But why is he known only by this remainder, and not by language?’ As we have seen in Chapter 3, Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes four types of denotation: a word can refer to a universal or class (jāti), an individual (dravya), a property (guṇa), or an action (kriyā). Śrīnātha stresses, however, that Kṛṣṇa is neither of these four: he is not a god, nor an anti‐god, not a man and not an animal; ‘this eliminates class (jāti)’. He is neither female, nor male, nor neuter; ‘this eliminates the individual (dravya)’. He has no attributes or properties (guṇa), nor action (kriyā), because he is beyond cause and effect and transcends the attributes of matter. For Śaṅkara this process of negation results in a negation of all attributes; for Śrīnātha, however, this rather points to the uniqueness of God as Kṛṣṇa, who possesses infinite attributes, but is different from everything that exists within this world—he is never man, god, or beast, male, female, or neuter, and so on, even when he appears in this world among one of these. Therefore Śrīnātha concludes that ‘he that remains after the negation…is only Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the eternal youth, the supreme person, of whom there is no remainder’.11 Śrīnātha points here to the inefficacy of language in describing God: since language only denotes things of this world, it cannot refer to Kṛṣṇa who exists beyond it, but who can be understood by the process of negation. This is, however, clearly not the final word on the matter. If you follow this via negativa long enough you stop speaking, for to be consistent with this approach is to remain silent.12 Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha, who exhibit such extraordinary love for language in their writing, are clearly not satisfied with this. But how, then, do they address this devotional dilemma? (p.248) Kavikarṇapūra does not directly address this issue, but the linguistic philosophy he develops in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha has important theological implications that shed light on it. As we have seen in Chapter 4, language is a manifestation of God’s potency (śakti), and God is inseparable from his potencies.13 Language thus does not come into being with this world, but this world of names and forms exists, evolves, and ultimately dissolves in this sonic potency. Only as this world is created is language differentiated from thought; in the subtler stages the two are indistinguishable from each other. Although God is beyond name and form, beyond word and thought, he can nevertheless be Page 4 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss known and thought of, as we have seen in Chapter 2, if he bestows his grace. Similarly, we can speak about him meaningfully when touched by grace. In the Bhāgavata, Dhruva prays as follows upon receiving a vision of God: I bow to you, God, the supreme person, who possesses all potencies (śakti) and who, having entered [in me], enlivened with his own splendour my slumbering speech, my life air, hands, feet, ears, skin, and other [faculties].14 Śrīnātha comments as follows: Because [faculties] like speech are dormant for one who has obtained the state of meditative absorption (samādhi), by seeing him [God] they are awakened, and he praises only him with himself as their agent.…In reality the life airs, etc. do not exist in his state of samādhi, and even when he awakens [from his meditation] they do not again come into being. He obtains immediately with that very body the status of a companion of the Lord (pārṣada), therefore the gods do not govern his faculties. God’s potency accomplished all this, exactly like this. The reading [of this verse] is thus that the bodies of God’s companions are not material.15 Dhruva had attained a yogic state in which all his faculties came to rest, but when he received a direct vision of God, his faculties, which would have normally remained inactive, awoke again and thus he could praise God. Dhruva did not step down from his exalted state, Śrīnātha explains, but rather moved up. He passed through the Upaniṣadic silence attained in samādhi and arrived at praise. Although he was initially at a stage where speech was completely absent, by God’s intervention he became spiritually alive to praise God. This is possible, Śrīnātha comments, because God, having entered him, is (p.249) as it were the agent (kartṛ) of his own praise voiced by Dhruva. The faculties of our fallible bodies are governed by various gods—the eyes by the sun, the mind by the moon, etc.—but Dhruva’s body was no longer within their jurisdiction. He had become a companion (pārṣada) of God, and thereby attained a divine body, governed only by God, as we have seen in Chapter 2. One can thus speak meaningfully about God, when he allows himself to be spoken of. Although the verse does not state so explicitly, Śrīnātha stresses that it is God’s potency that enabled Dhruva to do so. She (for śakti is feminine) ‘brings those who are dead to life’16 and allows Dhruva—as a full person, endowed with all sensory capacities—to enter God’s reality. This potency manifests not just the temporary material world, but also Kṛṣṇa’s divine and eternal realm.17 She bewilders the world through ignorance, but also takes the form of knowledge (vidyā).18 She binds thought to the limits of language, but also lets speech break through the barriers of matter and rest at Kṛṣṇa’s feet.

Page 5 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Dhruva does not acquire a new means of communicating (something that is somehow not language). When he awakens into God’s reality, he composes prayers in praise of God through language, which as a divine potency, is able to refer meaningfully to him. Śrīnātha explains elsewhere that language is of two types: ‘embodied’ (sākāra) language, ‘known as Sarasvatī’, the goddess of speech, and ‘unembodied’ (nirākāra) language of the Lord, which ‘consists only of his nāda potency’.19 Enlivened by God’s potency and having become a companion of God, Dhruva now prays with the latter, which, though it is as much a form of language as the former, is not subject to the same limitations as common speech.20 However, even when thus spiritually enlivened by grace, God can never be truly described nor contemplated. Words and thoughts will always have to turn back before they truly reach him. The limitless greatness of God can never be contained in the limits of language. In due course of time one may somehow be able to count all particles of dust on the earth, the Bhāgavata warns us, but one can never count the qualities of the Lord, who is the abode of (p.250) all potencies (śakti).21 ‘How can you talk of him?’ Śrīnātha asks;22 as Brahmā, the creator, explains to the sage Nārada: ‘I do not know the end of the supreme person, whose strength is māyā, nor do the sages that were born before you, what to speak of those born after us.’23 This fact, Śrīnātha tells us, is particularly true of Kṛṣṇa, the original and most complete manifestation of God’s nature, whose qualities are absolutely endless.24 The poet’s attempt to describe Kṛṣṇa is therefore laughable. As Śrīnātha puts it, ‘he who thinks “I shall describe the qualities of the limitless Śrī Kṛṣṇa” and starts to do so, is a fool with the intelligence of a child.’25 But it is the child Dhruva whose dormant speech is woken by the touch of Kṛṣṇa’s potency, and it is the child Kavikarṇapūra who sucked Caitanya’s toe and burst forth into song. The enthusiasm and recklessness like that of a child trumps these dilemmas. In devotion there is no restraint, and a poet will not be silenced by these theological concerns. Even if, theologically speaking, the composition lacks semantic coherence (yogyatā) the result can still be poetry, we saw in chapter 5. As Kavikarṇapūra writes in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana: ‘Ah! How can even the lords of the immortals narrate Kṛṣṇa’s spotlessly bright play of milking the cows? Even very swift birds cannot reach the stars, yet [this] most arrogant and pitiable poet, greedy to relish [the rasa of Kṛṣṇa’s play], will describe it.’26

The Ānanda‐Vṛndāvana Bearing these theological ideas in mind, we can now turn to the opening chapter of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra’s longest and most sophisticated composition. The poem, a lengthy description of Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana, is a campū, a genre that developed late in the history of Sanskrit poetry.27 The genre was known to Daṇḍī (eighth century), but ‘it was not used to any great extent Page 6 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss until after the end of the first millennium A.D.’, and is thus ‘the last of all the (p. 251) literary genres’ of Sanskrit literature.28 Most of the early campūs are written by Jaina authors, but by the sixteenth century it gained popularity in Hindu, and particularly Vaiṣṇava, circles—Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas included.29 Genre conventions are important to some literary critics, like Viśvanātha and Daṇḍī, but the campū genre has only been defined in the most general terms. Viśvanātha merely writes that a campū is a poem written in both prose (gadya) and verse (padya).30 Daṇḍī qualifies this a little, defining it as ‘some compositions consisting of prose and verse’,31 because there are other genres in which prose and verse are mixed—the drama (nāṭaka), for example, and even the novel (kathā) or history (ākhyāyikā), which are both prose poems, do include an occasional verse.32 What sets the campū apart from these other genres, is that in it prose and verse are used in equal measure. In these other genres verse is generally used for a very specific purpose—to summarize the narrative, for example, or to express ‘an important idea, a poetic description, an impressive speech, a pointed moral, or a sentimental outburst’.33 With campūs, however, the poet is free to alternate between the two forms as he pleases. It is thus a true and balanced fusion of the tradition of versified poetry and the sophistication of prose poetry, and is therefore a genre that could only have flourished after both types of poetry were sufficiently developed. If Viśvanātha and Daṇḍī do not define any other characteristics of the campū, it is because there are few besides those that are borrowed from prose and metrical poetry. S. K. De argues that the campū ‘scarcely follows a fixed principle’ and has a certain ‘formlessness, or rather disregard of a strict form’.34 This is not entirely true, certainly not for individual campūs,35 but it does suggest why the genre was so popular with later authors: the fluidity of the genre gives an enormous freedom to the poet, who can move at will between the conventions of verse and prose and demonstrate his expertise in both. Several scholars argue that the campū developed out of prose poetry,36 which itself developed only after the conventions of versified poetry were (p.252) well‐established (the earliest prose poems date to the seventh century).37 Prose follows largely the same poetic conventions (in terms of figures of speech, style, literary qualities, etc.) as verse, but is more than just metrical poetry without metre. As the prose of Bāṇa (seventh century) and his predecessor Subandhu (fifth or sixth century?) exemplify,38 prose poems link long and abundantly ornamented sentences together to offer immensely detailed descriptions of places, persons, objects, and events, often involving long strings of the same figure of speech. As prose is free from rhythms imposed by metre,39 the poet is at greater liberty to play with phonetic effects, and prose poets often excel in their clever use of alliteration and various forms of paranomasia, which are both an unmistakable characteristic of this style. The prose poet can alternate light and heavy syllables as he pleases, or as the context requires—for example, long sequences of light syllables to accentuate elegance, or a series of heavy syllables Page 7 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss to express gravity or vigour.40 Although critics claim that prose poetry can have no or few compounds,41 ‘an abundance of compounds is the life of prose’, as as Daṇḍī writes.42 To the casual reader this rich ornamentation may appear like an ‘a real Indian jungle’ (in the words of an early German critic),43 but as Robert Heuckstedt has demonstrated in his insightful study of Bāṇa’s style,44 there is a meticulous structure to such poems. The lengthy descriptive passages and the repetition of figures of speech may slow down the narrative, but also add ‘an element of suspense’,45 as the sentence’s subject, object, or verb is temporarily withheld by these descriptive phrases and thereby only gradually revealed to the reader. Although there are far fewer poems written in this ornate prose than in pure verse, this medium became quite early on a favourite of poets. Indeed, Vāmana praises it as ‘the touchstone of poets’.46 It is important to keep these genre conventions in mind, because in writing the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana Kavikarṇapūra is not merely writing a poem about Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana, but a campū poem in praise of him. The choice of genre is not peripheral to the composition, but determines the entire nature of the work. It is within the restrictions of these genre conventions that the poet can show his true expertise. His genius is not limited by the constraints of (p.253) genre, but rather enhanced by them. It is within these limits that the presence of imagination (pratibhā)—the ability to describe things in ever new ways—is revealed. As a campū, the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana constantly alternates between prose and verse. However, in contrast to other campūs where versified passages generally outnumber those in prose, Kavikarṇapūra’s campū contains far more prose passages than verse,47 and it is in those passages that he develops his distinct style. It is Kavikarṇapūra’s prose that S. K. De particularly disliked and that particularly delighted Viśvanātha (and to which he brings homage in the Vraja‐ rīti‐cintāmaṇi). As we will see in the remainder of this chapter (and the next), the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana’s prose is immensely ornamented and, true to its genre, patient in its narrations and detailed in its descriptions. Kavikarṇapūra’s verse, by contrast, is generally light, elegant, playful. The demanding phonetic ornamentation that characterizes the prose is rarely found in the campū’s verse, which show an entirely different aspect of Kavikarṇapūra’s skill. If the prose sometimes makes for slow and difficult reading, the verse is quite the opposite and is often ‘simple and graceful’, as even S. K. De admits.48 Both, though, exemplify Kavikarṇapūra’s unique ear for sound—whether it is the prose’s repeated use of resonance or the light alliteration and elegance of his verse, there is an undeniable acoustic charm in the campū that catches the reader’s attention even if the meaning of the poem is not grasped. As Kavikarṇapūra

Page 8 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss states at the beginning of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, ‘the words of true poets delight, even without deeply understanding their meaning’.49 Chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana

As the title suggests, the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana is as much a praise of Vṛndāvana as it is of Kṛṣṇa. Kavikarṇapūra describes in great detail the play of Kṛṣṇa in (p. 254) Vṛndāvana,50 thereby illustrating the unique sweetness that the supreme deity exhibits only in that supreme abode on earth. As Śrīnātha explains, only in Vṛndāvana does Kṛṣṇa manifest himself as only consisting of bliss (ānanda).51 Before he describes Kṛṣṇa’s acts, beginning with his divine birth, Kavikarṇapūra first praises Vṛndāvana in chapter 1 of the campū. In 77 prose sentences and 40 verses, he offers a detailed description of the setting for the entire poem, as follows: • a general description of Vṛndāvana (AVC 1.17–21); • a description of its vegetation: the trees (1.22–26), the creepers (1.27), and the small forests (1.28–29); • a description of its six seasons: the rainy season (1.30–35), autumn (1.36– 42), winter (1.43–48), the cold season (śiśira) (1.49–54), spring (1.55–62), and summer (1.6–72); • a description of its most prominent natural landmarks: the river Yamunā (1.73–80), the hill Govardhana (1.81–85), and the hill Nandīśvara (1.86–90); • a description of its inhabitants: Kṛṣṇa’s parents, Nanda and Yaśodā (1.91– 94), Kṛṣṇa’s male friends (1.95), his female friends (1.96), Śrī Rādhā, Kṛṣṇa’s beloved (1.97–99), Candrāvalī, her rival in love (1.100), and the local brāhmaṇas (1.101–103); • a description of the surroundings: the market and its merchants (1.108), and the woods close to the capital of Vraja (1.109–115). The purpose of the opening chapter is clear: Kavikarṇapūra gradually introduces the various places and all the characters that will appear in the poem, apart from Kṛṣṇa himself, who only appears in the second chapter with the description of his birth. All the elements he describes here are the excitants (vibhāva) of the poem—both the foundational excitants (ālambana‐vibhāva; the characters) and stimulating excitants (uddīpana‐vibhāva; the forests, seasons, etc.)—and he aims to impress upon the reader that all these are not ordinary excitants, but non‐ material (aprākṛta) ones, thereby indicating that the rasa of this work will be non‐material as well. To stress the non‐worldly nature of the worldly Vṛndāvana involves, of course, a lesson in theology. However, poetry is not meant to instruct, but to delight. Kavikarṇapūra explains that instruction should not be the main (p.255) motivation of the poet, nor the principal goal of his poetry,52 for as Page 9 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Abhinavagupta comments ‘in comparison with instruction even in all four aims of human life, the bliss which it [i.e. the poem] renders is a far more important goal’.53 Moreover, overtly didactic passages would distract the reader from the poem’s far more important emotional content, and thus prevent the reader from total absorption in the work. Direct theological instruction is entirely out of the question, for the usage of jargon constitutes a defect (doṣa) that hampers rasa, and Kavikarṇapūra is explicit that this includes the use of theological terms.54 Kavikarṇapūra wrote the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana for his own pleasure and ‘to please the minds of those that grasp rasa’.55 The purpose of the work is to give its audience the delight of rasa, not to impart to them a lesson in theology. But how, then, does Kavikarṇapūra establish the divine nature of Kṛṣṇa’s realm and companions? He does not go as far as Jīva Gosvāmī, who sometimes inserts long theological reflections into the Gopāla‐campū and does not hesitate even to cite scriptural texts in support.56 Rather, Kavikarṇapūra uses the elements of poetry itself to convey his theological ideas. In some passages Kavikarṇapūra uses narrative to bring out a theological point. We have already seen how he does so in the Caitanya‐candrodaya’s inset play, and he occasionally uses a similar approach in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. In chapter 11, for example, he describes how, one day, the cows that Kṛṣṇa and his friends were tending wandered off while the boys rested, when suddenly a forest fire broke out. Throughout the passage, Kavikarṇapūra compares the plight of the cows and boys with that of people bound in this world. Anxious, the boys searched for the cows, but could not find them, like despairing persons do not find peace. Kṛṣṇa then told his friends to close their eyes, ‘be happy, and give up this illusion’,57 and then quickly swallowed the fire (p.256) whole. Kavikarṇapūra concludes: Kṛṣṇa, ‘who grants intense rasa, snuffs the flames of the forest fire of existence that always flares up among men, with a mere glance. Why is it so wondrous then for him to extinguish such a weak fire with the goddess of his own divine and all‐auspicious potency (śakti) and delight the cows of his own Gokula?’58 Kavikarṇapūra rarely makes the theological significance of a pastime so explicit, however, because narrations of Kṛṣṇa’s play are not parables or allegorical tales. They do not need a moral or a hidden theological meaning, but are told for their own sake, because absorption in such narrations is one of the principal devotional practices. Above all Kavikarṇapūra uses figures of speech and literary style to convey his theological convictions, and thus in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry, ‘delight and instruction’ are truly ‘not different in nature, for they occupy a single realm’.59 What enables him to do this, is his ‘splendour of speech’ (vāg‐vibhūti), his resonant and punning prose passages, as the opening sentence of the campū perfectly illustrates. Let us then begin with the beginning:60

Page 10 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (I) Asti sakalavaikuṇṭhasāram api na vaikuṇṭhasāram, vaprabhūteṣv api navaprabhūteṣu cinmahaḥsu samutpannam, akṛtakam api kṛtakam, prakṛtisiddham apy aprakṛtisiddham, ata eva nityabhūtam apy anityabhūtam, surasārthabahulam api surasārthadurlabham, vipallavair api vipallavasyāpy apadaiḥ, aprasavair api suprasavaiḥ, līlāyatanair apy alīlāyatanaiḥ śākhibhir ākīrṇam, mandārabahulam apy amandāram, bakulair api navakulaiḥ, tamālair api natamālair upaśobhitam, kiṃ bahunā — (II) bhagavad‐vapur iva ujjṛmbhamāṇa‐manmatha‐karaja‐lekhā‐rakta‐ candana‐dhavala‐kuca‐priyālatālī‐bhṛṅga‐rūpaṃ puru‐karuṇaṃ ca, muni‐ maṇḍalam iva śāṇḍilya‐lomaśādi‐sahitam upanata‐vānaprastha‐gaṇaṃ ca gāyatrī‐japākulitaṃ ca, samara‐sthalam iva amlāna‐bāṇa‐karavīra‐ kulākulitam carmi‐nirmita‐krīḍaṃ ca pīlu‐parivṛtaṃ ca, kuru‐ pāṇḍavāyodhanam iva gāṅgeyāruṣkarārjuna‐śaraparipūrṇaṃ śikhaṇḍi‐ maṇḍitaṃ ca, svam iva nirantarāśokātimukta‐puruṣa‐prāyam, (III) nirantarāla‐virājamāna‐jyotiś‐cakram apy avikartanam aniśeśam abhaumaṃ vibudham ajīvam akavigamyam amandaṃ viketu vitamo nistārakam, svatejasā tu subhāsvat supīyūṣa‐kiraṇaṃ sumaṅgalaṃ subudhaṃ sujīvaṃ sukavigamyaṃ subhānavaṃ suketu sutamaḥ sutārakam, (p.257) bhūviśeṣakam api na bhūviśeṣakam, sadā sakṣaṇam api kṣaṇarahitam, vyāpakam api navyāpakaṃ kiṃcana nikhilaguṇavṛndāvanaṃ vṛndāvanaṃ nāma vanam. (I) There is a forest, called Vṛndāvana, that guards all virtues (nikhila‐ guṇa‐vṛndāvana). It is the essence of the entire Vaikuṇṭha, but its potency is never blunted (na vai kuṇṭha‐sāra). It arises among pastures (vapra‐ bhūta), which are abounding with new things (nava‐prabhūta) and are the might of awareness (cit). Though it is uncreated (akṛtaka), it leads to joy (kṛta‐ka); although it is naturally perfect (prakṛti‐siddha), it is not established by matter (aprakṛti‐siddha); therefore, although it is eternal (nitya‐bhūta), it is the abode of Viṣṇu’s eternal living beings (a‐nitya‐ bhūta). Though it abounds with the wealth of sweet rasas (su‐rasārtha‐ bahula), the hosts of gods can hardly reach it (sura‐sārtha‐durlabha); it is pervaded by trees, which though adorned by the finest twigs (vipallava) are free from even a fraction of misfortune (vipal‐lava), which though unborn (aprasava) have fragrant fruits and flowers (suprasava), and though the place of [Kṛṣṇa’s] sports (līlāyatana), the buzzing of their bees falls naturally upon the ear (alī‐ilā‐ayatana). Though [Vṛndāvana] is crowded with celestial trees (mandāra‐bahula), great [souls] roam there (amanda‐āra); it is adorned with bakula trees, though they have an abundance of fresh [foliage] (nava‐kula), and with tamāla trees, though they have hanging garlands (nata‐māla); in short—

Page 11 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (II) it is like the body of the Lord, which is full of compassion, and which resembles a black bee [buzzing] in the creepers that are his lovers, whose breasts are white with sandal with streaks of red [caused] by his nails in the heat of passion, [or: it manifests manmatha trees, rows of karaja trees, red sandal, dhava, lakuca and priyāla, tālī, and bhṛṅga trees and has many karuṇa trees]; it is like a circle of sages, attended by Śāṇḍilya and Lomaśa and groups of surrendered forest ascetics, resounding with the chanting of the gāyatrī, [or: it has śāṇḍilya, lomaśa, and clusters of bent madhūka trees, and is pervaded by khadira trees and japā flowers]; it is like a battlefield, thronging with heroes holding bright arrows in their hands, and with the play of shield‐bearers, surrounded by elephants, [or: it is pervaded by clusters of amlāna, bāṇa and karavīra trees, the play of carmī trees and is surrounded by pīlu trees]; it is like the fight between the Kurus and the Pāṇḍavas, which is entirely covered by Arjuna’s arrows that are wounding Bhīṣma and which is adorned by Śikhaṇḍi, [or: it is completely filled with golden āruṣkara, arjuna and śara blossoms, and is adorned by peacocks and yellow jasmine flowers]; (p.258) it is like itself, roamed by persons who have transcended liberation and are ever free from sorrow, [or: it has many dense aśoka trees, mādhavī creepers and puruṣa trees]; (III) though it is61 a dense circle of shining light, it has no sun, no moon, no Mars, no Mercury, no Jupiter, no Venus, no Saturn, no Ketu, no Rahu, and no stars, but is beautifully luminous (subhāsvat) by its own brilliance; it is made of beautiful nectar (supīyūṣa‐kiraṇa) and it is very auspicious (sumaṅgala); the best souls (sujīva) who are immensely wise (subuddha) reside there and it is the goal of the best poets (su‐kavi‐gamya); by its brilliance it appears always new (subhā‐nava); it is a banner of beauty (suketu); even its darkness is lovely (sutamaḥ), and it gives devotion, the highest liberation (sutāraka); though it adorns the earth (bhū‐viśeṣaka), it is not qualified by matter (na bhū‐viśeṣaka); though there are always festivals (sakṣaṇa), it knows no time (kṣaṇa‐rahita); and though it is all pervasive (vyāpaka), it has obtained [Śrī Kṛṣṇa], who should be praised (navya‐āpaka). The first thing that strikes the reader of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, even one who is wholly unacquainted with Sanskrit or Sanskrit literary theory, is the profuse play with sound. This sentence, which is fairly representative of the entire work, abounds with the phonetic figure resonance (yamaka), in which the phonemes of a word or phrase are repeated without a single word being repeated. Page 12 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Kavikarṇapūra is particularly fond of this figure of speech, and uses it in all his poems, but nowhere with such gusto as in the prose of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, where he manages to maintain this style over twenty‐one long chapters, in 1377 sentences! This figure is then joined or blended with the closely related figure of paranomasia or pun (śleṣa), in which a single expression embraces two (or more) meanings. In section I and III these puns are then used to construct the figure of speech called contradiction (virodha), whereas those in section II are linked with similes (upamā), which form together a serial simile (mālopamā).62 As we will see, these figures are not merely ‘combined’ but rather ‘blended’, to use Kavikarṇapūra’s terminology as discussed in Chapter 4: the figures complement each other and thereby convey more together than they would on their own. As we will see, these figures do more than just ornament Kavikarṇapūra’s prose; they become the vehicle for his theology. We have seen in Chapter 2 that paradox is central to Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of God. Kṛṣṇa is both embodied and unembodied, limited and all‐ pervading, devoid of attributes and endowed with limitless attributes, (p.259) he is both common or worldly (laukika), but also uncommon or non‐worldly (alaukika). To express this paradoxical nature of God—or his divine abode, which is brahman63—Kavikarṇapūra needs to use a language of paradox. The figures of speech Kavikarṇapūra blends in this passage—particularly resonance (yamaka), paranomasia (śleṣa), and contradiction (virodha)—all involve some form of opposition, and allow Kavikarṇapūra to express what is otherwise inexpressible. Let us first look at Kavikarṇapūra’s use of resonance (yamaka). It is a phonetic figure of speech (śabdālaṃkāra) that is defined by the occurrence of ‘the same form of verse quarter or part of a quarter but with a difference in meaning’.64 In other words, a series of phonemes are repeated, giving the impression that one or more words are repeated. Resonance is concerned with the word form rather than its meaning, but as Marie‐Claude Porcher argues, a change in word form often results in a change in meaning, as poets are well‐aware: ‘Loin d’être une forme vide et négligeable, cette récurrence qu’est le yamaka entraîne toujours une certaine modification du signifié.’65 Kavikarṇapūra addresses this in a rather indirect way. When discussing the semantics of compounds in Chapter 2 of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Kavikarṇapūra makes the following unusual remark: ‘A denotative word, when it has the nature of a compound, becomes metonymic.’ He gives the following example: the primary meaning of the word dhīvara as established by convention is ‘fisherman’, but if taken as a compound—an instrumental tat‐puruṣa, to be precise—it refers to a wise person: someone who excels (vara) by his intelligence (dhiyā). In this case, Kavikarṇapūra writes, we have to resort to metonymy.66

Page 13 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss When a literal reading of a word fails, one has to resort to the secondary or metonymic sense (lakṣaṇā).67 This new, secondary meaning is arrived at because the primary meaning was not sufficient to provide a satisfactory reading. It replaces therefore the primary sense, but is nevertheless still related to it. In the classical example, ‘the village is on the Ganges’, the secondary meaning—‘on the bank of the Ganges’—dominates over the primary meaning—‘on the Ganges’. But the former generally does not replace the latter. Apart from certain occasions of ‘frozen metonymy’, where the secondary sense has become the primary (p.260) sense,68 the direct meaning does not lose its significance, but is carried over. Metonymy, the literary theorists argue, is used with a specific aim: it is meant to lead to a suggested sense, through the primary sense. Otherwise, why would a poet rely on metonymy, if it merely leads back to the literal? There is a difference between stating something or indicating something through metonymy. To say that ‘the village is situated on the bank of the Ganges’ is not the same as ‘the village is situated on the Ganges’. The latter certainly leads us to understand the former, but the former lacks the suggested sense the metonymy carries—that the village is cool, or that the water is pure, as we saw in Chapter 4.69 This is true of similar simple sentences inherited from ritualistic speculations,70 but even more so of metaphors, similes, and (in the context of this passage of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana) figures of speech involving word play and paradox. In such instances, our attention is specifically drawn to the apparent contradiction inherent in the sentence, which thereby triggers the suggestion. It follows from this that metonymy does not merely substitute an ornamented expression for a common one, as some critics claim.71 Most expressions that resort to the secondary sense cannot be replaced by a literal one without losing some meaning. They are irreducible. Earlier we talked about metonymy as applying to words and the metaphorical usages of single words, but it is actually more correct to speak of the metonymy of a complete utterance or sentence. For Kavikarṇapūra the sentence is the primary semantic unit, as we have seen before, and metonymy is the result of the perceived need for semantic coherence (yogyatā) of a complete utterance, not just of a single word. ‘[T]he locus of metaphor is not the word, but the complete (p.261) speech act. There could be no dictionary of metaphorical senses for words because words do not have metaphorical senses in themselves and only participate in the production of meaning at the level of complete utterance.’72 The secondary meaning of a word is thus only grasped by its relation to the other words that constitute the sentence, and by the context in which it is used. The context is particularly important. A sentence like ‘Devadatta is a lion’ can be understood literally when it refers to a lion in a local zoo with that name, but has to be understood non‐literally if it describes the man who lives next door. This is particularly relevant to our reading of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana: what is described Page 14 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss may appear to be a worldly (laukika) place in Northern India, but it is the divine abode of God, in whom all contradictions are reconciled. At the end of the chapter, Kavikarṇapūra writes: ‘Although all that I have described is non‐worldly (alaukika), in accordance with the Lord’s will all these agreed to manifest in this world. Eyes of flesh see it only as worldly (laukika), just as a white conch is perceived yellow by a defect of the eye.’73 In other words, what is to be taken literally and what is not may not be as straightforward as it seems. Or, to put it in the language of Kavikarṇapūra, what may seem contradictory (and therefore impels us to discard the literal meaning), may be but paradoxical or ‘contradictory and not contradictory’. The significance of Kavikarṇapūra’s claim that this metonymy also applies to compounds that can also be read as a word with a literal meaning, becomes clear in passages like the opening sentence of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. The use of resonance (yamaka) indicates that the seemingly repeated words have to be read differently, often as compounds: vipallava turns out to be vipal‐lava, etc. Like Kavikarṇapūra’s example of the wise man or fisherman (dhīvara), they can be read in more than one way, and therefore, Kavikarṇapūra warns us, we have to understand a secondary sense, and thereby become aware of the intended suggestion. But it also creates some uncertainty: how should we read this—is it a wise man, or a fisherman? Kavikarṇapūra plays with this uncertainty in the above passage, and throughout the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana: the compounds in section I and III leave the reader somewhat confused as to how they should be read. This is furthermore only accentuated by withholding the subject of the sentence until the very end of the sentence (something that is rather difficult to maintain in translation). The sentence starts with the verb (asti, ‘there is’), but not until the very end of the sentence does the reader realize what exactly is described: ‘a forest named Vṛndāvana’ (vṛndāvanaṃ nāma vanam). The reader is thus kept in the dark as to how exactly each compound should be interpreted. The reading of (p.262) the first compound in each phrase (e.g. nityabhūtam) influences the reader in his preliminary interpretation of the second part (e.g. anityabhūtam) as negating the first. As this reading does not seem to fit—why would the poet negate what he has just said—this ‘literal’ meaning of the second compound will ultimately be supplanted by a secondary one. The first reading, however, never quite disappears. This process causes ambiguity—which compound negates which, or does neither negate the other?—and Kavikarṇapūra deliberately leaves the reader with this uncertainty. Take for instance the phrase bakulair api navakulair74 tamālair api natamālair upaśobhitam: Vṛndāvana is adorned with bakula and tamāla trees, which are navakula and natamāla respectively—which have ‘many young [leaves]’ (nava‐ kula) and ‘hanging garlands’ (nata‐māla), or (more literally in the light of the preceding word) which are not bakula and tamāla trees (na bakula, na tamāla). Page 15 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Although the reader is meant to take it as the former, the latter reading is also intended. Yes, there are indeed bakula and tamāla trees in Vṛndāvana, their foliage is indeed fresh and garlands hang from their branches, but they are also not quite bakula and tamāla trees as we know them. They have beautiful twigs and branches (vipallava), but are free from even a fraction of misfortune (vipal‐ lavasya apada), and they are not born (aprasava), but have nevertheless beautiful fruits and flowers (suprasava). As he elaborates just a little further into the campū: ‘like Brahmā these trees are self‐born;…like the sun they offer beautiful shade (have a bright splendour); like the Kumāras they have beautiful basins (are ever young); like the moon their roots (rays) cause constant delight; …like the discipline of action (karma‐yoga)…their fruits do not shrivel up (their results are unseen), they do not grow from seeds (are beginningless), they form natural rows (are endless), and they grow without being protected (multiply when not taken care of); they remain lush when not watered, and produce flowers and fruits irrespective of season; like paintings, like the speech of a good poet, they lack nothing and have nothing in excess. They all have sprouts, young shoots, buds, flowers, and fruits—both ripening and ripe—at the same time. Thus they always flourish.’75 Can we thus really say they are bakula or tamāla trees? As Kavikarṇapūra explains, they are ‘non‐worldly (alaukika), like the descents of the Lord, (p.263) because they possess multiple potencies and consist only of pure awareness (cit), [though] to the people they appear worldly (laukika).’76 Similarly the phrase vapra‐bhūteṣv api nava‐prabhūteṣu cin‐mahaḥsu samutpannam (‘it appeared amidst pastures, which are nevertheless abounding with new things and the greatness of awareness’) plays with these ambiguities. On the one hand Vṛndāvana is a pasture ground for Kṛṣṇa’s cows and calves, yet it is also not a pasturing ground (na vapra‐bhūta) because it is brahman, which is Kṛṣṇa’s own power of awareness (cin‐mahaḥ). As Kavikarṇapūra has just stated it is the very essence of Vaikuṇṭha (vaikuṇṭha‐sāra), even though it does not look like Vaikuṇṭha (na vaikuṇṭha‐sāram)! But it is also the place where Kṛṣṇa ever exhibits new sports (nava‐prabhūta), and its own unique potency is never diminished (na vai kuṇṭha‐sāram).77 Both meanings are again relevant and equally true. As we have seen in Chapter 2, Sārvabhauma teaches in the Caitanya‐candrodaya that ‘whatever Vedic text talks of [brahman being] attributeless (nirviśeṣa), that very same text only establishes [brahman as being] with attributes (saviśeṣa).’78 The same could be said about these passages of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. Kavikarṇapūra leads the reader first to Yājñavalkya’s apophatic stage in which one can only say about transcendence that it is ‘not__, not__’ (neti neti), negating everything Kṛṣṇa’s abode is not, before bringing him to an awareness of the variety in its divine splendour. What is thus suggested is the figure contradiction (virodha), which is ‘the appearance of contradiction’—based either on a universal (jāti), an individual (dravya), a property (guṇa), an action (kriyā), or a combination of these.79 ‘In reality there is no contradiction,’ Kavikarṇapūra explains, ‘but it appears like a Page 16 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss contradiction.’80 The apparent contradiction is here more than just poetic. As we have seen in Chapter 2, the divine does embody real contradictions, which are not contradictory only in the sense that they can somehow exist along side each other. Vṛndāvana is described as a worldly place that has common trees, like the tamāla, but the paranomasia repeatedly brings out the contradiction—it is not a worldly place, which does not have tamāla trees. By juxtaposing the affirmative with the negative, Kavikarṇapūra brings out that tension between the worldly and non‐worldly, thus demonstrating that the transcendental thwarts our logic and mundane conceptual categories, and is therefore ‘that which remains after negation’. Śrīnātha argues that God can only be spoken of through negation, not (p.264) through language, because God is not denoted by the four classes of primary meaning, being altogether different from what they denote. Kavikarṇapūra talks here of the variegatedness of Vṛndāvana, yet he remains true to his teacher’s thought, by repeatedly negating what he has just established through the suggestion of the apparent contradiction. It is important to keep the sphoṭa theory in mind here. When we read or hear a word, each phoneme leaves a mental impression, and once all phonemes have been uttered, the meaning of the word is revealed or ‘bursts forth’—we have then understood the meaning of the word. This process is repeated for each word, but the meanings of each word are only grasped once the entire sentence is understood as an undivided unit. But what happens with homophones and similar ambiguous expressions? Kavikarṇapūra (following both Bhartṛhari and Mammaṭa) argues that ‘a difference in meaning leads to a difference in word form’81 and that when we encounter homophones, words that have the same word form but a different meaning, we are dealing with two distinct words. Generally, the grammarians explain, the context will make it clear which word is intended, but paranomasia (both in yamakas and in śleṣas) complicates this. Which of the meanings that are conveyed burst forth? Bhartṛhari, who is not concerned with poetic language as such, argues that in some cases, when the ambiguity remains unresolved, ‘the different meanings of the single expression are heard simultaneously. Fire is [sometimes] used at the same time for illumination and heating.’82 Kavikarṇapūra therefore states that in the figure pun (śleṣa) ‘words which are different due to a difference in meaning but which can be pronounced simultaneously [i.e. homophones] cease being different’.83 The figure fuses two different words (or sentences), resulting in a single sphoṭa, thereby strengthening the impact of the figure contradiction (virodha) and evoking the paradoxical nature of the divine abode that is the earthly Vṛndāvana. Section II similarly plays with double meanings, although here no contradiction is suggested. Rather, the puns are joined with a series of similes (upamā), a figure that highlight similarities rather than differences. Although the comparison seems at first to be based purely on the double meaning of the qualifying compounds, and thus merely reduced to phonetic puns, the semantic Page 17 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss similes remain nevertheless primary. The coalescence of the two apparently unrelated subjects in these phrases surprises the reader, and it is by that surprise that the suggested meaning arises. (p.265) At first the passage seems to say little more than that the varieties of trees and flowers that grow in Vṛndāvana is enormous, and thus continues on from the description of the tamāla trees at the end of section I. But each simile brings out something that sets Vṛndāvana apart from any ordinary forest. Take the first simile, for example: Vṛndāvana is like Kṛṣṇa’s body. The comparison has an overtly theological tone. Vṛndāvana is identified with Kṛṣṇa, because it manifests from his own potency (śakti), it is brahman, as we have seen, and is thus non‐different from himself.84 But Kṛṣṇa’s body is then identified with ‘a black bee [buzzing] in the creepers that are his lovers, whose breasts are white with sandal, with streaks of red [from the scratches caused] by his nails in the heat of passion’. The image quickly becomes very complex: Kṛṣṇa is like a bee, the gopīs are like slender vines, whose flowers are their breasts—pale white with red streaks—which the bee enjoys. What is suggested is that Vṛndāvana is thus like Kṛṣṇa not just in an ontological sense, in that they both are divine, but that it is above all the place where Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs play. The simile thus foreshadows one of the main themes of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana.85 Vṛndāvana is, like Kṛṣṇa’s body, ‘full of compassion’ (puru‐karuṇa) because it manifests his divine love play in this world, and makes it possible for those that suffer in the Kali age to overcome their sorrow by singing of Kṛṣṇa’s play, as we have seen in Chapter 2. Yet, although Vṛndāvana is the place of Kṛṣṇa’s passionate love affairs with the gopīs, this is not the worldly passion we know here. For Vṛndāvana knows no attachment to sensual enjoyment, and is therefore like ‘a circle of sages, attended by Śāṇḍilya and Lomaśa and groups of surrendered forest ascetics, resounding with the chanting of the gāyatrī’. Moreover, it also suggests that Vṛndāvana is not an ordinary forest, but that which surrendered sages like Śāṇdilya and Lomaśa strive to attain.86 In the end, however, Vṛndāvana has no suitable object of comparison but itself: ‘it is like itself’. This is a self‐comparison (ananvayopamā), a simile where the object of comparison is the subject, since the latter is so unique that nothing else can compare with it.87 This passage demonstrates particularly well how the double meanings are to be read simultaneously: Vṛndāvana has many dense aśoka trees, mādhavī creepers, and puruṣa trees, but—read otherwise—it is equally the home of devotees who have transcended even (p.266) liberation and are eternally free from sorrow. Both meanings influence each other: Vṛndāvana is not an ordinary worldly forest, but lies outside this vale of tears and is the destination of those who have gone beyond liberation, but, read in the other direction, the destination of those who are truly liberated is not some abstract, unqualified state of being, but a forest of divine aśoka and puruṣa trees.

Page 18 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic paradoxes reach their culmination at the beginning of section III. Vṛndāvana is ‘a dense circle of shining light, it has no sun (avikartanam), no moon (aniśeśam), no Mars (abhaumaṃ), no Mercury (vibudham), no Jupiter (ajīvam), no Venus (akavigamyam), no Saturn (amandaṃ), no Ketu (viketu), no Rāhu (vitamo), and no stars (nistārakam)’. This is in conformance with the Upaniṣads, which similarly state that in the divine realm ‘the sun does not shine, nor the moon and stars; there lightening does not shine, of this common fire need we speak!’88 The preceding passages have already suggested that although it manifests in this world Vṛndāvana is Kṛṣṇa’s divine abode, and hence it does not fall under the influence of any of the (worldly) planets or luminaries. But as becomes evident in the rest of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana there is a sun and moon in Vṛndāvana, and its nightly skies are decorated with numerous stars. Where do these then come from? The Upaniṣads continue: ‘Him alone, as he shines, do all things reflect; this whole world radiates with his light.’89 Kavikarṇapūra expresses this again through the fusion of the figures of speech we have so far explored. ‘It has an auspicious sun (subhāsvat) by its own brilliance,’ he continues, ‘an auspicious moon (supīyūṣa‐ kiraṇa), Mars (sumaṅgala), Mercury (subudha), Jupiter (sujīva), Saturn (sukavigaṃya), Ketu (suketu) and Rāhu (sutamaḥ), and stars (sutāraka)’. Here too we have a series of puns: by its own splendour it is luminous (subhāsvat), consists of beautiful ambrosia (supīyūṣa‐kiraṇa) and is therefore most auspicious (sumaṅgala). The best souls (sujīva) with excellent intellectual capacity (subuddha) reside there, and it is the goal of the best poets (su‐kavi‐ gamya). By its own brilliance Vṛndāvana appears ever fresh (subhā‐nava); it is a banner of beauty (suketu)—even its darkness is lovely (sutamaḥ)—and it gives devotion, the highest liberation (sutāraka). Kavikarṇapūra does not leave it at that, however, and builds on this even further. Just as the second series of attributes contain a pun, so do the first: Vṛndāvana knows no destruction (avikartana). Kṛṣṇa resides there continuously (aniśa),90 and it is thus not material (abhauma). It is inhabited by people with unique intelligence (vibuddha). There are no living beings (ajīva), and learned scholars cannot (p. 267) reach it (akavigamya). It is the highest (amanda). There are no bad omens (viketu), and the mode of darkness does not exist there (vitamaḥ), but it awards liberation (nistāraka). In this reading too both lists have to be read together. For example, the best living beings (sujīva) reside there, but they are technically not living beings (ajīva), because, as Śrīnātha explains, ‘the living being is consciousness conditioned by ignorance’ but ‘a devotee is consciousness conditioned by knowledge’.91 Its residents possess unique intelligence (vibuddha and subuddha), but Vṛndāvana cannot be attained by scholars (a‐kavi‐gamya), although the best poets can reach it (sukavi‐gamya). Vṛndāvana grants liberation (nistāraka), but this is not the ordinary liberation of the nondualists, but rather the true liberation (sutāraka) of devotion.

Page 19 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Thus Vṛndāvana adorns the earth (bhū‐viśeṣaka), but is not of the earth (na bhū‐ viśeṣaka). There are constant celebrations (sa‐kṣaṇa), but although there seems to be a progression of time (sa‐kṣaṇa), it is free from the influence of time (kṣaṇa‐rahita), because it exists in eternity.92 Similarly it is beyond the confines of space: it pervades all (vyāpaka), and yet is a specific place, and thus does not pervade all (na vyāpaka). This is all true because it has obtained Kṛṣṇa, who embodies these contradictions, and is thus to be praised (navya‐āpaka). Kavikarṇapūra chooses to introduce Vṛndāvana to the reader with a sentence so resonant with double entendre in order to impress upon the reader the unusual nature of the place. The passage exemplifies the style of Sanskrit prose poetry, and is in that regard not unusual, but what interests us here is the effect to which Kavikarṇapūra has used this style. The passage’s paranomastic prose creates confusion: nothing is as it seems, and one is forced to constantly reassess what one thought one knew. In doing this Kavikarṇapūra captures the nature of the divine realm, where logic is defeated, because there things that are contradictory somehow exist alongside each other. Kavikarṇapūra’s style itself thus accentuates the paradoxical nature of God and his abode, in a subtler yet more direct way than mere theology could.

Rasa and Phonetic Ornamentation While Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics prepares the way for this type of poetry, this highly ornamented style would have not found much favour with some of the leading (p.268) Sanskrit poeticians. As we have seen at the end of Chapter 4, Ānandavardhana’s objections to such poetry are pronounced, and exerted considerable influence on later authors. He argues that the type of figures Kavikarṇapūra profusely employs in a poem like the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana are a hindrance to the suggestion of rasa. We will here examine Ānandavardhana’s critique in greater depth, as this will help us, by contrast, to see Kavikarṇapūra’s own views more clearly. Ānandavardhana argues that complex word play—particularly resonance (yamaka) and puns (śleṣa) that rely on a different division of words, both of which are profuse in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, as we have just seen—divert the attention of the poet away from rasa, the principle purpose of poetry: Inasmuch as a figure that is subordinate to a rasa is characterized by the fact that no separate effort is required on the part of the poet to create it, it follows that if a poet who is concentrating on putting together a rasa should leave that trend of thought and apply himself to some other effort, the figure that might result would not be subordinate to the rasa. When one intentionally and repeatedly makes yamakas, there invariably is involved the undertaking of a separate effort, which takes the form of searching for the particular words that will fit.93

Page 20 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss As we have seen in the previous chapter, Ānandavardhana argues that the emotive content of the poem is fully dependent on the emotive state of the poet: ‘If in his poetry the poet is in love, the entire world consists of rasa; if he is dispassionate, all is devoid of rasa.’94 If the author is too preoccupied with the construction of complex phonetic figures of speech, he cannot focus on the emotions he intends to portray in the poem, and will therefore not be able to compose a poem that contains rasa. Ānandavardhana emphasizes that this is particularly true of difficult phonetic figures like resonance (yamaka), ‘difficult [arrangements], or puns involving the breaking up of words in two different ways’.95 This is not the case with most semantic figures, like metaphoric identification (rūpaka), because ‘the rasas are suggested by particular meanings and by words that convey these meanings’ and such semantic figures ‘are the particular meanings which are able to reveal rasas. Therefore they are not extraneous devices in helping to suggest these rasas.’96 Intricate phonetic figures can at times play a subordinate role, but ‘this subordination is impossible in the case of love, the soul of suggestive poetry’.97 While single instances of such difficult figures can be tolerated, an excessive use of it destroys the tender mood needed for the suggestion of love. Thus: ‘in love…the use of (p.269) echoing alliteration (yamakas) and the like, even if the author is well able to compose them, is [what can only be excused as] carelessness on his part, especially in love‐in‐separation’.98 Ānandavardhana, who sees rasa as internal to the text, is thus primarily concerned about the poet’s ability to invest rasa into his poem. Can he do so when he needs to concentrate on creating intricate figures of speech? Abhinavagupta, who as we have seen considers rasa to be the experience of the reader, extends the problem in his commentary on the above passages to the audience of a literary work: can they experience the emotions of the poem when their attention is diverted by such complex ornamentation?99 The argument against complex phonetic figures is thus twofold: first, the poet cannot properly compose amorous poetry if he is preoccupied with anything but the direct delineation of those emotions. His mind should focus on rasa and whatever figures arise automatically in that effort can be utilized. The second objection is related to this: just as phonetic figures like complex puns prevent the poet from communicating rasa, so is the reader who is distracted by these figures unable to relish rasa. Ānandavardhana’s is the more difficult argument of the two, because it is so subjective. Can even an immensely skilled poet never write rasa into the resonance and paranomasia he employs? Abhinavagupta clearly thinks some poets can. Although he restates Ānandavardhana’s critique of paranomasia and resonance in his commentary on the Dhvany‐āloka, he takes a very different stance in his commentary on the Ghaṭa‐karpara, a short poem attributed to Kālidāsa. The poem contains the lament of a woman for her absent beloved—and deals thus with that ‘exceptionally tender’ emotion of love‐in‐separation100—but Page 21 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss also uses resonance (yamaka) in every verse. Abhinavagupta defends this in his commentary on the final verse, speaking for the author of the poem: Though resonance (yamaka) is an immense obstacle to the rasa of love‐in‐ separation, I have used them [in this poem], because they are not the result of a separate endeavour, and, quite the contrary, these figures of resonance have resulted in a succession of words that result in a specific reading that enhances rasa.101 Ānandavardhana states that these figures detract from rasa, but, Abhinavagupta argues, ‘this is not a royal decree’. ‘What should be avoided is (p.270) carelessness, which causes an obstacle to the realisation of rasa.’102 Complex phonetic figures of speech can be used even in amorous poetry as long as it is done with due consideration. This is only the prerogative of the talented, however, for only they can turn what would ordinarily be a defect into a virtue: ‘this great poet’s skill (vaidagdhī), naturally gentle, is such that out of a transgression here arises an utterly exquisite emotion’.103 That Abhinavagupta’s judgement of this poem is influenced by his respect for Kālidāsa is made explicit earlier in his commentary: ‘We know from tradition that the author of this poem is the great poet Kālidāsa. Even in their imagination, even in their dreams, sensitive readers (sahṛdaya) will not see any flaw, however insignificant, in his poetry.’104 Viśvānātha, Viṣṇudāsa, Premadāsa, and the other Vaiṣṇavas who read Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry seem to respond in the same manner. As we have seen in Chapter 1, they consider Kavikarṇapūra not just a talented poet, but a divinely inspired one whose talent was bestowed by Caitanya during his childhood. The Ānanda‐vṛndāvana’s constant use of resonance, its echoing alliteration, its playful paranomasia, its paradoxical prose—for them these aspects do not detract from the poem, but are part of what draws them to this work. In their eyes Kavikarṇapūra’s skill in crafting poetry of such magnificence only proves the greatness of Caitanya’s grace. In other words, they would agree with Abhinavagupta that Ānandavardhana’s critique of such a style cannot be considered absolute. Kavikarṇapūra’s poetic talents are considered a divinely bestowed gift, and hence he need not worry whether his attention will be diverted from the rasa to the purely verbal aspects of poetry. Both flow naturally by Caitanya’s grace, and are thus not in opposition to each other. If Kavikarṇapūra indeed violates conventional poetic standards, this is done out of his love for Kṛṣṇa—like Haridāsa’s transgression of dramatic conventions in the Caitanya‐candrodaya—and should therefore not be seen as detracting from his absorption in rasa, but rather as enhancing it. The evident facility with which Kavikarṇapūra uses resonance throughout his long campū does indeed suggest such phonetic play came to him much more easily than it does to most poets. Nevertheless, Ānandavardhana’s argument is Page 22 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss hard to verify and the appeal to the special talents of a poet—whether Kālidāsa or Kavikarṇapūra—are perhaps not wholly persuasive (p.271) either. But the issue reflects an aspects of poetry to which Kavikarṇapūra indirectly draws attention when he attempts to define poetry. Poetry is not just a union of sound and sense that embodies certain poetic elements, but is the creation of a poet, whose perceived poetic expertise often affects the way the poem is encountered. But, more importantly, it is in the positive reception of a work that it can be recognized as poetry, Kavikarṇapūra claims: when the sensitive audience enjoys it, the poem is certified and as it were recreated, because the ability to compose and the ability to relish spring from the same ‘seed’ (bīja), as we have seen in chapter 5. In recognizing the poem as a poem, that sensitive, cultured audience thus validates not just the poem but also its creator, whose tastes they probably share. Kavikarṇapūra draws attention to this in the very beginning of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana. In one of its opening verses he laments: Now that the companions of Lord Caitanya, alas, departed to the place they all desired or will soon leave for their own abode, my learned skill is ruined, the current of amorous rasa is lost, and the fragrance of a good poet’s poetry, barely born, will find no support.105

Kavikarṇapūra writes for Caitanya’s devotees, but now that they have passed away (or will do so soon, perhaps before the poem’s completion) he fears his poem will be like the fragrance of flowers that bloom in the absence of pollinating bees. Note that Kavikarṇapūra singles out two aspects of the poem: the clever, learned skill (vaidagdhī) of his composition, and its amorous rasa (praṇaya‐rasa‐rīti), to which we will return later in this chapter. But what, then, of Abhinavagupta’s view—does this preoccupation with word play hinder the realization of rasa for the reader? To a certain degree the answer to this question is also necessarily subjective, but to ground it in literary theory we need to return to the fundamentals of Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics. Particularly important to this discussion are the notions of literary excellences (guṇa) and style (rīti), which, as we have seen in Chapter 4, link the suggestion of rasa with the syntactic and phonetic structures of language. What is the style of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana? Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya argues that the poem is written in the gauḍī style,106 and it is not too hard to see why. The gauḍī style, which originated in Bengal (Gauḍa), has always been associated with a predilection for alliteration and profuse ornamentation—or, in the famous words of Bāṇa, for a ‘fanfare of phonemes’ (akṣara‐ḍambara).107 (p.272) Kavikarṇapūra too stresses the style’s close association with alliteration, as we Page 23 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss have seen. The dominant excellences of this style are those related to energy (ojas), such as exaltedness (udāratā), which makes words dance, cohesiveness (śleṣa), which makes separate words appear as one, and symmetry of accentuated and non‐accentuated phonemes (samādhi)—all of which are indeed prominent in the campū. Critics claim that prose poetry excels in compounds, as we have seen, and compounding is seen as an aspect of the quality energy (ojas). All this seems to point in the direction of gauḍī. This assessment is problematic however, not just in terms of rasa (to which we will turn later), but also on stylistic grounds. As Bhattacharyya notes, Kavikarṇapūra clearly follows Vāmana in considering the vaidarbhī style to be the most complete and best of all the styles.108 It alone has all the excellences, and Kavikarṇapūra devotes almost more time to the analysis of this style than the three other styles combined. It is this style, I argue, that best describes the poetry of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. The resonant prose does indeed have a touch of energy (ojas), but other qualities—brilliance (kānti), tenderness (sukumāratā), sweetness (mādhurya), and particularly Kavikarṇapūra’s special quality, maturity (prauḍhi) which causes marvellousness—are also undeniably present in various parts of the poem. The prose contains plenty of compounds, but most of them are short, and the alliteration used is generally single (chekānuprāsa), and is particularly the ‘cultured’ (upanāgarikā) variety which suggests sweetness and does not mark the gauḍī style, as we have seen. Nevertheless, Kavikarṇapūra argues that amorous poetry can be composed with some of the characteristics of energy (ojas), as indicated by his notion of ‘medium energy’ (madhyaujas), which, when joined with sweetness (mādhurya) leads to poetry that is ‘very beautiful’.109 Moreover, even passages in which energy (ojas) does predominate Kavikarṇapūra considers potentially belong to the vaidarbhī style. When discussing gauḍī in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, Kavikarṇapūra gives a verse that has all the characteristics of the style—energy, compounds, alliteration—but argues this is not an instance of gauḍī: ‘Although energy dominates in this verse and it abounds in alliteration, by [excellences] like clarity (prasāda) or a tenderness of meaning this is an instance of the vaidarbhī style.’110 (p.273) Of course, style and the excellences are important not for their own sake, but because they relate to rasa. Kavikarṇapūra claims ‘the current of amorous rasa’ (praṇaya‐rasa‐rīti) characterizes the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, and, as we will see in Chapter 7, the campū does indeed develop this theme most fully. Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta would claim that the poem’s style and rasa conflict, but as we have just seen, Kavikarṇapūra differs, and argues that tender rasas can be suggested by qualities usually associated with the energetic rasas. However, although his poetics thus allows for the amorous rasa to be suggested by such such poetry, the rationale for Kavikarṇapūra’s use of this style is to be found elsewhere, in relation to a different rasa.

Page 24 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss Abhinavagupta argues that the use of resonance in Ghaṭa‐karpara does not conflict with the poem’s emotions, but on the contrary ‘nourishes the soul [of the poem]’.111 Kavikarṇapūra uses those figures likewise. The resonance and puns in chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana suggest the paradoxical characteristics of Vṛndāvana and Kṛṣṇa’s companions, and establish their non‐worldly (alaukika) worldly (laukika) nature. As noted before, Kavikarṇapūra thereby highlights that whatever follows, however material (prākṛta) it may seem, is truly non‐material (aprākṛta), and that the suggested rasas will thus be equally so. But the style he adopts here also suggests rasa. Everything, down to the individual phonemes, contributes to its realization, because rasa is not the result of an intellectual deliberation but is suggested by its various components (the excitants, and so on) and evoked by the qualities of poetic language. The paradoxes and puns used in chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana aptly suggest that in Vṛndāvana nothing is ever quite what it at first seems, as the reader is repeatedly forced to go back and re‐evaluate what has just been read. The place and its inhabitants seem at first common, but then are revealed to be anything but ordinary. The emotion that is thus evoked is that of wonder (vismaya), which is the chapter’s stable emotion.112 The close link between paradox, phonetic ornamentation, and wonder in Kavikarṇapūra’s thought is evident when we look at the way Kavikarṇapūra treats wonder in his other works. In the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha he illustrates the marvellous rasa with this verse: ālokaḥ sakhi loka‐locana‐mudām udrekam udbhāvayan soma‐stoma‐nidāgha‐dhāma‐nivaha‐pradyota‐sadyo‐haraḥ meghe māghavane maṇāv api ghṛṇā‐nirvāhako nīlimā sāmānādhikarṇyam atra kim aho citraṃ tamas‐tejasoḥ (p.274) My friend, his brilliance thrills the eyes of all, and steals at once the splendid light of both the moon and the burning sun, but his blackness obliterates the lustre of the clouds, and that of the sapphire too. How wondrous! In him inhere both radiance and darkness.113

Kṛṣṇa’s contradictory qualities—here his darkening lustre114—evoke wonder, which is then enhanced, Kavikarṇapūra writes, by contemplating even less paradoxical attributes of Kṛṣṇa, like his loveliness.115 Although the verse does not use resonance, it is rich in alliteration, and this play with sound contributes to the sense of wonder. The connection with resonance and wonder is made more explicit in the Caitanya‐candrodaya. When characters in the drama are amazed (savismayaḥ) or filled with wonder (camatkāra), Kavikarṇapūra almost invariably uses resonance and extensive alliteration, as if their amazement Page 25 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss makes their words stumble. Indeed, stuttering is one of the involuntary reactions to emotions (sāttvika‐bhāva),116 and Kavikarṇapūra writes that the ensuants (anubhāva) of the wondrous rasa are not voluntary responses, as is the case with the other rasas, but rather the involuntary responses (sāttvika‐bhāva).117 The notion of wonder (camatkāra) is central to Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of poetry, that ‘composition of a poet’s words’. A composition (nirmiti), he explains, is ‘an arrangement that causes uncommon wonder’, and a poet is one who is expert at composing poetry that causes such wonder.118 Rasa itself—the soul of Poetry—is essentially the experience of wonder,119 because the marvellous (adbhuta) rasa is present in all other rasas. Vanamālidāsa Śāstrī, a modern commentator on the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, goes so far as to claim that wonder is the principal characteristic of the campū genre—the etymology of the word itself indicates this, he claims: ‘having awakened (p.275) wonder (camatkṛtya) it illumines (punāti), which means it awakens wonder in a sensitive audience (sahṛdaya) and satisfies [them].’120 The etymology may be curious, but it is resonant of Kavikarṇapūra’s own view of poetry. Because wonder lies at the heart of all rasas, Kavikarṇapūra maintains elements of this ornamented prose throughout the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, although not without adjusting the style to suit whatever emotion is being suggested. In scenes that demand energy—as in the passages describing Indra’s anger at Kṛṣṇa for having stopped his sacrifice in chapter 15—the compounds grow longer, the alliteration becomes more recurrent and stronger to reflect the change in temper. Similarly, in amorous sections of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana—like the section we will examine in Chapter 7—the involved verbal play lessens a little as Kavikarṇapūra shifts more frequently to verse. But since every rasa is a form of wonder, and since even the tender rasas can be accentuated by elements of energy, the phonetic ornamentation does not detract from these emotions even there. In the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra claims that the marvellous rasa ‘is only non‐material’.121 This is a puzzling comment, as we have noted in Chapter 3, but it is an important one in this context. Wonder figures prominently in Kavikarṇapūra’s theology too.122 As we have seen in Chapter 2, Kṛṣṇa’s attributes cause wonder, and any realization of his divine form and non‐worldly worldly play is an experience of blissful wonder greater than that of the bliss of brahman,123 and greater even than that of his non‐worldly play.124 Indeed, in the Caitanya‐candrodaya Kavikarṇapūra states that the ‘sign of the supreme Lord’ (pārameśvaraṃ liṅgam) is that he ‘causes wonder (camatkāra) is everyone’s minds’.125 The Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, a book‐length meditation on Kṛṣṇa’s worldly play, is an expression of that wonder found in the experience of devotion. Like the above cited verse, several of the illustrations of the various rasas in the Alaṃkāra‐ Page 26 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss kaustubha are first person utterances—in accordance with the (p.276) earlier rasa theorists—and in a sense, so is Kavikarṇapūra’s longest poem. The Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana conveys not just the rasa of its characters, nor does it just evoke rasa in the reader, but is also an expression of Kavikarṇapūra’s own devotional rasa. As he states at the beginning of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, this is his praise of ‘the nectar of Kṛṣṇa’s play’126 and he writes of ‘Kṛṣṇa’s wonderful acts’ not just ‘to delight the minds of those who grasp rasa’, but also for his ‘own delight’.127 As we have seen in chapter 5, the best poet is filled with rasa (sarasa) and invests his poem with his own emotions, by absorbing his mind in the joy of Kṛṣṇa’s play as he writes. The Ānanda‐vṛndāvana thus expresses Kavikarṇapūra’s experience of the wonder of Kṛṣṇa’s play, which is reflected in his style—the outer quality (bāhya‐guṇa) of that rasa.128 Words—even highly ornamented ones—cannot describe Kṛṣṇa. Although descriptions of Kṛṣṇa need not be meaningless, as Dhruva’s case exemplifies, they can never do justice to the limitless wonder and bliss that is found in him, as we have seen at the beginning of this chapter. Words will ever fall short. Therefore Gopīnāthācārya declares in the Caitanya‐candrodaya, that even one blessed by grace will fail to do justice to what he knows: ‘it is not within the realm of speech; it can only be known by experience (anubhava)’.129 Similarly, commenting on Bhāgavata 2.9.31, Śrīnātha writes: He [God] who has all such forms, qualities, and activities, cannot be described even by me [Brahmā], because he is inexpressible (anirvacanīya). How then should I know him?…It is only knowable through experience; it is not within the range of words. That is what is meant.130 The experience of Kṛṣṇa, which comes from Kṛṣṇa’s grace, is a special ‘means of knowledge’ (pramāṇa), we have seen in Chapter 2, that can never be put into words and is only available to those that give themselves to Kṛṣṇa in devotion. The various theologians who thrive on debates can never come to know God, and their constant, combative speech—even when about him—only drives them further from Kṛṣṇa. The Mīmāṃsakas of Vraja could not perceive the great bliss that Kṛṣṇa showed his devotees. As with Kṛṣṇa, so with rasa. It too is ‘not expressible in words’.131 It is a singular experience of bliss and wonder, and is not the result of intellectual deliberation, as the other forms of suggestion are. Several critics argue that ‘old (p.277) Mīmāṃsakas and Vedic scholars’—those intellectuals who are obsessed with the sense and sound of speech—can never grasp what its experience is like.132 And yet words do reveal it. Although rasa itself is inexpressible, a skilled poet can suggest it and the language of his poetry can reveal its qualities (guṇa) through the poem’s style (rīti), its syntactic and phonetic properties. The experience of Kṛṣṇa may be inexpressible, but it is not incommunicable. As we Page 27 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss have seen at the end of Chapter 3, the experience of devotional rasa is the experience of the embodied bliss that is Kṛṣṇa. It is this that the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana attempts to evoke. As the pun in its title indicates, it is a poem that guards (avana) a multitude of bliss (ānanda‐vṛnda) found within its pages, and thereby reveals the ‘Vṛndāvana of bliss’, the ‘Vṛndāvana that is bliss’.133 The poem thus leads the sensitive reader into that realm of wonder, into a state of bliss which overpowers all other sensory functions, and leaves him amazed—his eyes and mind opened wide with wonder.134 It is in this experience (anubhava) that Kṛṣṇa can be known. The ‘learned skill’ (vaidagdhī) and ‘the current of amorous rasa’ (praṇaya‐rasa‐ rīti) Kavikarṇapūra draws attention to at the beginning of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana are therefore inseparable in his mind. The continuous resonance and punning not only attempt to awaken wonder in the reader, but also foreshadow the wonder that is the essence of the rasa experience that is to come. Notes:

(1) Śruti‐yugam abhidhatte śrīla‐vṛndāvane’sīty anudiśam iti netra‐dvandvam ātmā hṛdīti / kva nu bhavasi mahātman brūhi kaṣṭāsavo’mī tvad‐anusaraṇa‐ pānthāḥ kaṇṭha eva bhramanti.…etad padyam asmad‐guroḥ (AK p. 19/78–80). (2) Asyāḥ prauḍhoktau śabda‐pratyakṣānubhava‐rūpaṃ pramāṇa‐trayaṃ paraspara‐vyāhatam api sarvam eva pramā‐karaṇam. Na kutrāpy apramāṇyam iti vastu, tena ca tvaṃ vyāpako’sīti vastu, tenaikasya sarvānugatatvād virodhe virodhālaṃkāro vyatireko vā (AK p. 19/79). (3) See AVC 22.51. (4) Indeed, Kavikarṇapūra argues that this question therefore suggests the figure of speech doubt (sandeha), which is the statement of an uncertainty: kva nu bhavasīti praśnena sandehālaṃkāraḥ (AK p. 19/79). (5) Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.3.3. (6) Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.4 and 2.9 (translation by Olivelle, 1996). (7) Kena Upaniṣad 1.5 & 6. (8) Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.9.26 & 4.5.15 (translation by Olivelle, 1996). (9) Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka 2.3.6 (translation after Olivelle, 1996). (10) Sarvopādhi‐viśeṣāpohena, yasmin na kaścid viśeṣo’sti nāma vā rūpāṃ vā karma vā bhedo vā jātir vā guṇo vā. Tad‐dvāreṇa hi śabda‐pravṛttir bhavati. Na caiṣāṃ kaścid viśeṣo brahmaṇy asti. Ato na nirdeṣṭuṃ śakyate idaṃ tad iti…. Yadā punaḥ svarūpam eva nirdidikṣitaṃ bhavati nirasta‐sarvopādhi‐viśeṣaṃ, tadā na śakyate kenacid api prakāreṇa nirdeṣṭum. Tadā ayam evābhyupāyo yad Page 28 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss uta prāpta‐nirdeśa‐pratiṣedha‐dvāreṇa ‘neti neti’ iti nirdeśaḥ. (Śaṅkara on Bṛhad‐āraṇyaka 2.3.6). (11) CMM 8.3.24. (12) Cf. Stiver (1996, p. 19): ‘It is very difficult to speak and write about what one has experienced, in short, to communicate meaningfully about it, without supposing that one can indeed communicate about it, which is what they want to deny. In fact, mystical writings are very extensive and often very illuminating. Perhaps the only consistent response would simply to be silent and not say or write anything.’ (13) See AVC 18.967. (14) Yo’ntaḥ praviśya mama vācam imāṃ prasuptāṃ sañjīvayaty akhila‐śakti‐ dharaḥ sva‐dhāmnā / anyāṃś ca hasta‐caraṇa‐śravaṇa‐tvag‐ādīn prāṇān namo bhagavate puruṣāya tubhyam (BP 4.9.6). (15) Prathamaṃ samādhi‐daśāṃ āpannasya vāg‐ādīnāṃ suptatvāt tad‐darśanena punas teṣāṃ prabodham upalabhya tasya tat‐kartṛtvena tam eva stauti.… Vastutas tu tasya samādhi‐daśāyāṃ prāṇādayo nāsan, vyutthāne’pi punar nābhavan—sadyas tenaiva dehena pārṣada‐prāptam, tena tasyendriyādhiṣṭhātṛ‐ devatā api nāsan. Sarvaṃ bhagavac‐chaktir eva tathā tathā cakāra. Etena pārṣada‐tanūnām aprākṛtatvam ity ayam eva panthāḥ (CMM 4.9.6). See also AVC 18.67. (16) Mṛta‐sañjīvanī śaktis (CMM 4.9.6). (17) See CMM 2.9.32–33, 3.5.23–26. See also Sheridan (1986, pp. 31–3). (18) Yasya bhagavataḥ śaktayo vidyā‐rūpā avidyā‐rūpāś ca (CMM 6.16.33). (19) Vāṇī hi dvedhā sākārā nirākārā ceti. Brahmaṇaḥ sākārā sā sarasvatīti khyātā, bhagavato nirākārā kevala‐nāda‐śakti‐mayī (CMM 7.4.24). (20) Cf. CMM 7.4.24: prākṛta‐kaṇṭha‐tālv‐ādy‐uccārita‐varṇānām uccarita‐ pradhvaṃsatā bhagavad‐vacasi nāstīti bhāvaḥ. As we have seen at the beginning of Chapter 2, something similar happens from the perspective of the reader who can properly understand such compositions. Only Brahmā, Śrīnātha argues (CMM 6.16.33), can truly understand the scriptures, because he has had a direct experience of God, whereas others interpret it variously, according to the state of their own minds, conditioned by the proclivities (vāsanā) they have acquired. The medium in both cases is language, but someone who has been blessed with an experience of Kṛṣṇa can understand what the words of texts like Dhruva’s prayers really refer to; others can only get an approximation, at best.

Page 29 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (21) Rajāṃsi bhūmer gaṇayet kathañcit kālena naivākhila‐śakti‐dhāmnaḥ (BP 11.4.2). (22) CMM 2.7.41. (23) Nāntam vidāmy aham amī munayo’grajās te / māyā‐balasya puruṣasya kuto’varā ye (BP 2.7.41). (24) See Śrīnātha’s comments on BP 11.4.3, where Drumila starts to describe Nārāyaṇa, even though he just admitted that attempting to describe God is foolish and futile: kṛṣṇa‐kathāḥ samyak kathayitum na śakyata eva, nārāyaṇasya yat kiṃcit kathayāmīti bhāvaḥ. (25) Anantasya śrī‐kṛṣṇasya guṇān kathayiṣyāmīti ya upakramate, sa bāla‐ buddhir mūrkhaḥ (CMM 11.4.2). (26) Tad‐go‐dohanasya nirāvila‐sitaṃ vilasitaṃ kim are’mareśā api vaktuṃ śaknuvanti, laghīyāṃso hi nabha‐saṅgamā na bha‐saṅgamāya prabhavanti, tathāpi kavir varāko varākopena rasanā‐lobhena varṇayati (AVC 11.40). (27) The etymology of the word campū is obscure and debated; see Rao (1965, pp. 175–7). (28) Lienhard (1984, pp. 265, 266). (29) There are several campūs written in the early history of the Caitanya tradition: apart from Kavikarṇapūra’s Ānanda‐vṛndāvana‐campū, we have Jīva’s Gopāla‐campū (in two parts), Raghunāthadāsa’s Muktā‐caritra, and Raghunandana’s Gaurāṅga‐campū. There is also a short work on the characteristics of the campū genre, Campū‐lakṣaṇa, attributed to Jīva Gosvāmī, one of the very few written on the genre, which indicate its popularity among Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas. (30) Gadya‐padya‐mayaṃ kāvyaṃ campūr ity abhidhīyate (SD 6.336). (31) Gadya‐padya‐mayī kācic campūr ity abhidhīyate (KAD 1.31). (32) The anonymous Hṛdayaṅgamā commentary on Daṇḍī’s Kāvyādarśa 1.31 (published in Rangacharya’s edition of the text) argues that the campū also differs from other works that also consist of prose and verse, like drama (nāṭaka), in that drama is composed in both Sanskrit and Prakrit, whereas campūs use only a single language. This does not apply to the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana, which also uses some Prakrit, even though Sanskrit dominates. See, for example, AVC 21.30–31. (33) De (1943, p. 56). (34) De (1943, p. 56). Page 30 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (35) See Brzezinski (1990b). (36) See Lienhard (1984, p. 266). (37) Lienhard (1984, p. 228). (38) For a study of Bāṇa’s style, see Heuckstedt (1985); for Subandhu’s see Bronner (2010, pp. 20–56). (39) However, some critics argue that the prose can sometimes have a ‘scent’ of metres (vṛtta‐gandhi) and briefly follow the rhythm of a metre. See KAS 1.3.23 & SD 6.330. (40) See Hueckstedt (1985, pp. 139–48). (41) KAS 1.322–25, SD 6.330–31. (42) Ojaḥ samāsa‐bhūyastvam etad gadyasya jīvitam (KAD 1.80). (43) ‘Kurz diese Prose ist ein wahrer indischer Wald, wo man vor lauter Schlinggewächsen nicht fortkommt, sich den Weg erst mit aller Anstrengung durchhauen muss und überdem noch häufig von heimtückinschen wilden Thieren, in gestalt von Worten, die man nicht versteht, in Schrecken gestetz wird’ wrote Albrecht Weber in 1853, cited in Heuckstedt (1985, p. 12). (44) Hueckstedt (1985). (45) Bronner (2010, p. 27). (46) Gadyaṃ kavīnāṃ nikaṣaṃ vadanti (KAS 1.3.21). (47) The following illustrates the prose/verse proportion in the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana. (Keep in mind that prose passages are often very long, and that Purīdāsa sometimes includes a short prose passage in a section with a verse, so that the number of prose passages is sometimes a little higher than the number of sections minus the number of verses.) The chapters with a higher proportion of verse describe Kṛṣṇa’s play with the gopīs (like chapters 17–20, which describe the rāsa‐līlā) or contain a lot of prayers, which are generally in verse (like chapter 15, describing Kṛṣṇa’s lifting of Govardhana). Chapter 1: 118 sections, of which 56 verses. Chapter 2: 26 sections, 4 verses. Chapter 3: 18 sections, 2 verses. Chapter 4: 34 sections, 10 verses. Chapter 5: 84 sections, 46 verses. Chapter 6: 66 sections, 25 verses. Chapter 7: 159 sections, 66 verses. Chapter 8: 84 passages, 16 verses. Chapter 9: 70 passages, 18 verses. Chapter 10: 76 sections, 9 verses. Chapter 11: 177 sections, 73 verses. Chapter 12: 104 sections, 44 verses. Chapter 13: 85 sections, 28 verses. Chapter 14: 134 sections, 57 verses. Chapter 15: 259 sections, 140 verses. Chapter 16: 29 sections, 8 verses. Chapter 17: 158 sections, 90 verses. Chapter 18: 149 Page 31 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss sections, 88 verses. Chapter 19: 109 sections, 96 verses. Chapter 20: 134 sections, 101 verses. Chapter 21: 58 sections, 17 verses. Chapter 22: 52 sections, 37 verses. Total: 2183 sections, of which 1031 verses. (48) De (1961, p. 627). (49) Arthādi‐paryākalanaṃ vināpi prahlādayante sukaver vacāṃsi (AVC 1.11). (50) As is clear from Kavikarṇapūra’s description in chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana, Vṛndāvana is taken here in a very broad sense, as encompassing the entire Vraja area, rather than to the town of Vṛndāvana itself, much like Rūpa Gosvāmī uses the name Mathurā to refer to the entire region (Mathurā‐maṇḍala) in several of his works. (51) See CMM 1.13.49: gokula‐vāsināṃ vṛndāvane ānanda‐mātra‐mayatvena dvi‐ bhuja‐sphūrtiḥ, dvārakāyāṃ yādavādīnām ānanda‐mahaiśvaryādinā catur‐bhuja‐ sphūrtiḥ. (52) AK pp. 5/19–20. (53) Catur‐varga‐vyutpatter api cānanda eva pāryantikaṃ mukhyaṃ phalam (Abhinavagupta on DA 1.1; translation by Ingalls, et al.). Cf. KAB 1.2, KP 1.2, and SD 1.2. (54) See AK p. 126/368: Koṣebhyo annamayādibhyo viśvādibhyaś ca yaḥ paraḥ / sa te prāṇa‐patiḥ kṛṣṇaḥ saubhāgyaṃ kim ataḥ param. Atrānnamayādayaḥ pañca-koṣāḥ, viśva‐tejasa‐prājñāś ca traya ātmānaḥ, kevalaṃ vedānta‐śāstra‐ mātra‐prayuktatvād apratītāḥ. Tenedam apratītaṃ vākyam. (55) …mano-vinodāya rasa‐grahāṇāṃ cakre sva‐modāya ca karṇapūraḥ (AVC 1.15). (56) The difference in approach of Jīva Gosvāmī becomes very clear when we compare the opening of the Gopāla‐pūrva‐campū with the opening of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. For the former, see Brzezinski (1992b). (57) Bho bho nayanāni pidadhvaṃ modadhvaṃ mocayadhvaṃ ca mohaṃ ca (AVC 11.19). Earlier in the campū Kavikarṇapūra tells of another forest fire that trapped Kṛṣṇa’s family and friends. He removed it too, manifesting his majestic potency (aiśvarī śaktiḥ, AVC 9.67), and the fire ‘quickly vanished, like a shaft of lightning, like a dream, like an illusion, like a magician’s trick’ (vidyuto vahnir iva na cira‐sthāyī, svapna‐dṛṣṭa iva, bhramopagata iva, aindra-jālikodīrita iva, AVC 9.68), so that the people of Vraja even wondered whether they had all imagined it. The parallels with Śrīnātha’s views on liberation from material bondage, discussed in Chapter 2, are quite evident.

Page 32 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (58) Eṣa hi ghana‐rasa‐do nara‐sadottha‐bhava‐dava‐davathuṃ karuṇotkaṭākṣaḥ kaṭākṣa‐mātreṇaiva yo harati, tasya kim idam citraṃ yad idaṃ kṣudra‐davaṃ davaṃ sakala‐saubhagavatyā bhagavatyā nija‐śakti‐devyā śamayāṃ cakre, śam āyāṃ cakre ca tasya nija‐gokula‐go‐kulam iti (AVC 11.20). (59) Na caite prīti‐vyutpattī bhinna‐rūpe eva, dvayor apy eka‐viṣayatvāt (Abhinavagupta on DA 3.10–14; translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (60) I have here omitted hyphenating compounds when Kavikarṇapūra intends a pun that relies on a different division (as in most of section I and some of section III). The division of this sentence into sections is my own. (61) Viśvanātha gives a number of readings of this passage in his commentary, one being that Vṛndāvana is a circle of light, another that it has a circle of light, i.e. the Sudarśana disk of Kṛṣna. (62) Upamā is elaborately discussed in AK pp. 86–90/278–86; mālopamā in AK pp. 90/286–7. (63) See below, and CMM 3.7.19, 10.87.37, 11.20.37. (64) Yamakaṃ tv artha‐bhinnānāṃ padādīnāṃ samākṛtiḥ (AK p. 79/254). He then glosses padādīnām as pada‐padāvayavānām. (65) Porcher (1978, p. 238). (66) Vācako’pi śabdaḥ sāmāsa‐sadbhāve sati lākṣaṇiko bhavati. Dhīvara iti kaivartta‐vācakaḥ śabdaḥ, dhiyā vara iti tṛtīyā‐tat‐puruṣa‐samāsena subuddhiḥ pratipādyate. Tatra tu lakṣaṇaiva. Evaṃ sarvatra lakṣaṇā bodhavyā. Diṅ‐mātram udāhṛtam (AK p. 9/38). (67) The concept of lakṣaṇā (metonymy) is much broader than the concept of metaphor. Metaphor is an instance of lakṣaṇā, but not all lakṣaṇā is metaphor. Keeping this in mind, I do at times use the term metaphorical to apply to lakṣaṇā; in those cases it is used in a broader sense. (68) Frozen metonymy does not signify ‘dead metaphors’ or those metaphors that we have grown so accustomed to that we no longer find them striking. Rather, they are words or phrases whose meaning has shifted from the original direct meaning (as established etymologically) to the secondary meaning, whereby the latter totally overshadows the former. Kavikarṇapūra gives the example of Viṣvaksena, the name of one of God’s devotees. He writes: ‘Although words like viṣvaksena, etc., which mean “he who has armies in all directions,” can be etymologically explained [as referring to] a great king, etc. who has many armies, and because the Lord [is also called Viṣvaksena as his power is everywhere] by his potency (śakti), the conventional secondary meaning of the word refers only to a particular devotee of the Lord’ (AK p. 10/43, see also CMM Page 33 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss 1.2.8). The example Mammaṭa gives is kuśala, which originally meant ‘bringing kuśa grass’, but is now used exclusively as meaning ‘competent’ or ‘expert’. (KP 2.4). (69) ‘Gaṅgāyām ghoṣaḥ prativasati’ ity ādau prayojanam, tat tu śaitya‐ pāvanatvādi (AK p. 10/43). Kavikarṇapūra also distinguishes some other cases where no suggestion occurs. He calls these gata‐vyaṅgya‐lakṣanā but does not discuss them further, as they are ‘not highly regarded’ (AK p. 11/47). Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha do not include this type; cf. KP 2.13 and SD 2.10. (70) Cf. Ganeri (1999, pp. 92–3). For more examples and further analysis, see Kunjunni Raja (1977, pp. 233–9). (71) See Soskice (1985, pp. 24–6). In Indian thought, the Mīmāṃsakas and the Naiyāyikas did not discuss the motive behind metonymy, and hence they could be seen as representing a substitution view of metonymy. (72) Soskice (1985, pp. 68–9). (73) Uktam etad akhilam alaukikam api bhagavad‐icchayā svīkṛta‐loka‐madhya‐ pātitvaṃ māṃsa‐cakṣuṣo laukikam eva paśyanti nayana‐doṣa‐vaśāc chaṅkham api pītam iva (AVC 1.116). (74) The Bengali script, which Kavikarṇapūra used, does not differentiate between ba and va, and in Bengali they are pronounced identically, so Kavikarṇapūra would have read this as nabakulair api. See also SD 10.10: Yamakādau bhaved aikyaṃ ḍa‐lor ba‐vor la‐ros tathā ity ukta‐nayāt ‘bhuja‐latāṃ jaḍatāṃ harir ānayat’ ity atra na yamakatva‐hāniḥ. (75) Ye’mī taravaḥ parameṣṭhina iva svayam‐bhuvaḥ,…taraṇaya iva succhāyāḥ, sanakādaya iva sadāvāla, candrā iva samāhlādi‐pādāḥ,…karma‐yogā iva… avyabhicāri‐phalā abīja‐samutpannā anāropita‐śreṇī‐bandhā aparipālita‐vardhitā anabhiṣikta‐snigdhā asamaya‐niyama‐puṣpa‐phalāḥ, citra‐lekhā iva sukavi‐ vyāhārā iva anyūnānatiriktāḥ, sarva eva sama‐kālam evāṅkurita‐pallavita‐ mukulita‐kusumita‐phalita‐pacyamāna‐pakva‐phalās tad‐avasthā eva sarvadā jarījṛmbhante (AVC 1.22). (76) Sarva eva bhagavad‐avatārā iva cid‐ātmakatayā vividha‐śaktimattvena cālaukikā eva loke laukikā iva dṛśyante (AVC 1.26). (77) Viśvanātha comments that, although Vṛndāvana is the essence of Vaikuṇṭha, its own special power, sweetness (mādhurya), can never be overpowered by that of Vaikuṇṭha, majesty (aiśvarya): satāpi mahatā paramaiśvaryeṇa na kuṇṭhī‐ bhūtaṃ mahā‐mādhurya‐rūpaṃ balam asyety arthaḥ (Viśvanātha on AVC 1.17). (78) CCU p. 78/222.

Page 34 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (79) See AK pp. 101/315–16. (80) Virodhaḥ sa virodhābhaḥ. Virodhābha iti vastuto na virodhaḥ, virodha iva bhāsata ity arthaḥ (AK p. 101/314). (81) Artha‐bhedena śabda‐bhedaḥ (AK p. 82/265). Cf. KP 9.7. See also Kunjunni Raja (1977, pp. 32–48). (82) Aneka śaktir ekasya yugapac chrūyate kvacit / agniḥ prakāśa‐dāhābhyām ekatrāpi niyujyate (Vākya‐padīya 2.472). (83) Bhinnā apy artha‐bhedena yugapad bhāṣaṇa‐kṣamāḥ / tyajanti bhinna‐ rūpatvaṃ śabdā yac chleṣa eva saḥ (AK p. 82/265). He then explains that the figure is called śleṣa, literally ‘embrace’ or ‘union’, because it embraces two meanings: artha‐dvaya‐śleṣaṇāc chleṣaḥ. Cf. KP 9.7. (84) See CMM 2.9.32, 3.5.23–26. (85) Indeed, Kavikarṇapūra returns to this very image at the beginning of the rāsa‐līlā: doḥ‐śākhāvalayair dṛḍhaṃ valayito nistoditaḥ pīvarair, vakṣoja‐ stavakaiḥ kharair atha nakhākāraiḥ kṣataḥ kaṇṭakaiḥ / krīḍāyāṃ ramaṇī‐maṇī‐ maya‐latodyāneṣu mādyan manāḥ, śrīmān ekaka eṣa kṛṣṇa‐madhupaḥ sammodam abhyāyayau (AVC 17.156). (86) It is in this light too that we should read the martial images used in the other passages of section II. Kavikarṇapūra not infrequently uses such images in the campū to describe the ‘battle of love’; see, for example, AVC 14.102–134 (and particularly 110). (87) Ekasyaivopamānopameyatve’nanvayopamā eka‐vākye (AK p. 90/287). (88) Kaṭha 5.15, Muṇḍaka 2.2.10, and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.14 (translation by Olivelle, 1996). See also Bhagavad‐gītā 15.6. (89) Kaṭha 5.15, Muṇḍaka 2.2.10, and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.14 (translation by Olivelle, 1996). (90) Viśvanātha comments: aniśam eva īśaḥ śrī‐kṛṣṇo yatrāniśam īṣṭe iti vā. (91) Ato’vidyopādhi‐caitanyaṃ jīvaḥ, vidyopādhit‐caitanyaṃ bhaktaḥ (CMM 6.16.33). (92) See BP 1.11.6, 2.9.10, 3.15.3, 10.9.13–14. See BP 1.11.6, 2.9.10, 3.15.3, 10.9.13–14. As Kavikarṇapūra writes later on, there are indeed seasons in Vṛndāvana, but these are more spatial than temporal: ‘the six seasons—which seem material (prākṛta) but are non‐material (aprākṛta) because they serve the play of the Lord—divide it [i.e. Vṛndāvana] into distinct parts’ (yasya ca kālātītasyāpi ṣaḍbhir eva ṛtubhir bhagaval‐līlaupayikatayāprākṛtair api prākṛtair Page 35 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss iva bhāsamānaiḥ kṛta‐vibhāgāḥ, AVC 1.29). See also AVC 12.34 and AK p. 61– 2/215–16. (93) DA 2.16 (translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (94) DA 3.41–42. (95) Dhvaner ātma‐bhūtaḥ śṛṅgāras tātparyeṇa vācya‐vācakābhyāṃ prakāśyamānas tasmin yamakādīnāṃ yamaka‐prakārāṇāṃ nibandhanaṃ duṣkara‐śabda‐bhaṅga‐śleṣādīnāṃ śaktāv api pramāditvaṃ (DA 2.15, translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (96) DA 2.16 (Translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (97) Dhvany‐ātma‐bhūte śṛṅgāre tv aṅgatā nopapadyate (DA 2.16, translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (98) Dhvany‐ātma‐bhūte śṛṅgāre yamakādi‐nibandhanam / śaktāv api pramāditvaṃ vipralambhe viśeṣataḥ (DA 2.15, translation by Ingalls, et al., 1990). (99) See Abhinavagupta’s commentary on DA 2.16. (100) See DA 2.15: vipralambhe viśeṣata ity anena vipralambhe saukumāryātiśayaḥ khyāpyate. (101) Atra ca yamakānāṃ vipralambha‐śṛṅgāra‐rasātiśaya‐vighna‐bhūtānām api mayā tathā apṛthag‐yatna‐nirvartyatayā nibandhaḥ kṛtaḥ, yena pratyuta rasa‐ paripoṣaka‐viśiṣṭa‐vyākhyābhidhāyi‐pada‐paramparā‐lābho yamakaiḥ sampannaḥ (Abhinavagupta on Ghaṭa‐karpara 21). See also Masson (1975). (102) Abhinavagupta cites DA 2.15 and 2.17 and comments: na hi ayaṃ rājājñā, api tu rasa‐bandha‐vighna‐kāritva‐pramādaḥ pariharyāḥ (Abhinavagupta on Ghaṭa‐karpara 21). (103) Iyāṃ sā vaidagdhī prakṛti‐madhurā tasya sukaver / yad atrotpādād apy atisubhaga‐bhāvaḥ pariṇataḥ (Abhinavagupta on Ghaṭa‐karpara 21). (104) Kiṃ ca, atra kartā mahā‐kaviḥ kālidāsa ity anuśrutam asmābhiḥ. Na ca asya kāvye tṛṇa‐mātram api kalaṅka‐pātram utprekṣitavanto mano‐rathe’pi supte’pi sahṛdayāḥ (Abhinavagupta on Ghaṭa‐karpara 20). The authorship of the Ghaṭa‐ karpara is uncertain, however; see Bernard Parlier’s introduction to his edition of the text (pp. 2–3). (105) Gate sva‐svābhīṣṭaṃ padam ahaha caitanya‐bhagavat‐, parivāre paścād gatavati ca tasmin nija‐padam / viluptā vaidagdhī praṇaya‐rasa‐rītir vigalitā, nirālambo jātaḥ sukavi‐kavitāyāḥ parimalaḥ (AVC 1.6).

Page 36 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (106) Bhattacharyya (1964, p. 88). (107) Harṣa‐carita 7. (108) Etac ca gauḍīyasya granthakārasya kaustubha‐kṛtaḥ vaidarbhī‐rīteḥ sarvātiśāyitva‐buddhi‐prasūtam iti nāsti sandeha‐lavo’pi (Bhattacharyya, AK p. 355). As hinted at here, Bhattacharyya sometimes still views the styles in very geographical terms: in his otherwise good article on the gauḍī rīti (Bhattacharyya, 1964, pp. 75–89) he considers practically every poet from Bengal to write in the gauḍī style. (109) AK p. 76/247. (110) Atra saty apy ojo‐guṇa‐bhūyiṣṭhatve vṛtti‐bāhulye’py artha‐kaumalya‐ prasādādibhir vaidarbhī‐mārga‐patitaiveyam (AK p. 118/353). The quality prasāda is here clearly taken in its older sense, not as Mammaṭa’s quality that pervades all forms of poetry. Cf. KAS 3.2.3: artha‐vaimalya‐prasādaḥ. (111) Atra ca pratyuta ātma‐paripoṣakatvam eva uktena prakāreṇa yamakānām iti (Abhinavagupta on Ghaṭa‐karpara 21). (112) Cf. SKA p. 513. (113) AK p. 34/141. (114) Kavikarṇapūra is fond of this particular paradox. In the Caitanya‐ candrodaya (p. 39/111) Rādhā says: ‘With his body he darkens the entire world / which his face then adorns with the disc of a full moon’ (śyāmīkaroti bhuvanaṃ vapuṣā dig‐antān / pūrṇendu‐maṇḍala‐mayī kurute mukhena). See also AVC 14.46: śyāmaḥ śyāmalayan diśaḥ sva‐mahasāṃ pūreṇa dūreriṇā. (115) Uddīpanaṃ tal‐lāvaṇyādi (AK p. 34/141). (116) See AK p. 62/217. (117) AK p. 34/141. (118) Asādhāraṇa‐camatkāra‐kāriṇī racanā hi nirmiti (AK pp. 2–3/7) and lokottara‐ camatkāra‐varṇanā‐nipuṇaḥ kaviḥ (AK p. 3/9). (119) V. Raghavan (1942, pp. 268–9) writes that ‘it is a striking coincidence that, like the concept of Rasa, the concept of Camatkāra also came into the Alaṅkāra Śāstra from the Pāka śāstra [culinary texts]. Its early semantic history is indistinct and dictionaries record only the later meanings, the chief of which are ‘astonishment’ and ‘poetic relish’. In [sic] appears to me that originally the word Camatkāra was an onomatopoeic word referring to the clicking sound we make with our tongue when we taste something snappy, and in the course of its

Page 37 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss semantic enlargements, Camatkāra came to mean a sudden fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type.’ (120) Camatkṛtya punāti, arthāt sahṛdayān vismitīkṛtya prasādayatīti campūḥ. (Vanamālidāsa Śāstrī on AVC 1.15). (121) Ayam aprākṛta eva (AK 5.73). (122) Wonder gains in prominence in Kavikarṇapūra’s later works, as is clear from a comparison of his two works on Caitanya. The Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐ kāvya does not use the word camatkāra once, while the word vismaya occurs only seven times (CCMK 2.114, 5.1, 8.47, 9.79, 12.48, 12.59 & 14.105), and adbhuta only three times (CCMK 3.88, 11.24 & 17.58). But in the (shorter) Caitanya‐candrodaya the word camatkāra is used 21 times and adbhuta 15 times, generally in exclamations of wonder, as in ‘O, this is amazing!’ (aho adbhutam). Vismaya is used 18 times, often in stage directions (sa‐vismayaḥ, ‘with wonder’). (123) See CCU p. 11/30:…svayaṃ‐bhagavatā vraja‐rāja‐kumāreṇa viracitāsu puruṣārtha‐sārthāpārthīkaraṇa‐samartha‐śravaṇa‐kīrtanādiṣu brahmānandād api camatkāra‐kāriṇīṣu gokula‐mathurā‐dvārāvatī‐līlāsu. (124) Alaukikāl laukikam eva śaurer vṛttaṃ camatkāri tad eva līlā (CCU p. 43/119). (125) Etāvantaṃ hi pārameśvaraṃ liṅgam asya, yad bāla eva sakala‐jana‐citta‐ camatkāra‐kārakaḥ (CCU p. 6/14). (126) AVC 1.8. (127) See AVC 1.15: mano‐vinodāya rasa‐grahāṇāṃ, cakre sva‐modāya ca karṇapūraḥ. (128) AK p. 3/9. (129) Tat kathā‐viṣayo na bhavati, anubhava‐vedyam eva bhavati (CCU p. 71/203). (130) Yadvat yādṛśāni rūpa‐guṇa‐karmaṇi yasya sa iti mayāpi vaktuṃ na śakyate, anirvacanīyatvāt. Tarhi mayā kathaṃ jñātavyam ity āha—tathaivety ādi.… Anubhavaika‐vedyatvād, vāg‐viṣayam na tad ity arthaḥ (CMM 2.9.31). (131) …rasa iva aśabda‐vācyaḥ…(AVC 8.8). (132) See, for example, SD 3.8: tatra yady ādyā na syāt tadā śrotriya‐jaran‐ mīmāṃsakādīnām api sa syāt. See also Hemādri on Muktā‐phala 11.2, pp. 187–8, and De (1976, vol. 2, p. 135).

Page 38 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Vṛndāvana of Bliss (133) See Viśvanātha’s commentary on AVC 1.15: Ānandānāṃ vṛndam avati pālayati tathā-bhūtaṃ nāmadheyaṃ yasyās tām. Śleṣeṇa—ānanda‐rūpaṃ vṛndāvanaṃ vṛndāvana‐sambandhi‐kṛṣṇa‐caritraṃ ca varṇanīyatvena vartate yatra tan‐nāmadheyaṃ yasyās tām. (134) See AK pp. 31–2/129 and Viśvanātha’s commentary on this section.

Access brought to you by:

Page 39 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

On the Rasa of Love Rembert Lutjeharms

DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198827108.003.0008

Abstract and Keywords The development of rasa in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana is the topic of Chapter 7. As this chapter demonstrates, Kavikarṇapūra’s ‘narratology’ is based not on action, but on the emotional being of the protagonist. The chapter therefore articulates Kavikarṇapūra’s argument that Kṛṣṇa is the chief protagonists, and it looks at his defence of Kṛṣṇa’s extra‐marital relations with the gopīs. This prepares an examnation of one narrative section of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling of Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance from the gopīs just prior to their celebrated circular (rāsa) dance. The focus of this chapter is the development of rasa, and particularly the rasa of Love (prema‐rasa), a concept that is central and unique to the theology of Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha. Keywords:   rasa, prema‐rasa, rāsa, Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa, Rādhā, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, narratology

O, please do not laugh at my boldness! O saints knowledgeable in rasa, this is an attempt to relieve the itch of the madness that arose from my knowledge of rasa. I do not offend, since a person who is insignificant and sick and weakened by hunger still longs for delicious sweets he cannot obtain.1 Kṛṣṇa stood on the broad, sandy bank of the Yamunā, ‘outmatching the charm of a million gods of love’, and addressed the gopīs, who listened attentively to what he said, pleased with the ‘soft, sweet rasa of his words which streamed from his moon‐like face’ and which ‘quenched the fervid fire of their hearts’.2 He instructed them to gather around him so they could commence a grand circular dance, but the gopīs hesitated. They had earlier been abandoned by Kṛṣṇa, and Page 1 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love now feared letting him go. ‘We will be far from you,’ they said, ‘when we form a circle. Our hearts tremble [at this thought]—we can’t be separated from you again; we can’t bear more sorrow.’3 But Kṛṣṇa assured them that although he would stand in the centre of the circle, he would simultaneously also dance beside each individual gopī, so that none would have to leave him even for a moment. Pacified the gopīs eagerly encircled him, except one: ‘honoured as a rare gem among women, and with the approval of all the other gopīs, Vṛṣabhānu’s daughter [Rādhā], as it were astonished, remained in the middle with Kṛṣṇa, and observed the thrilled circle of women.’4 And so the dance began. The circle of girls shone like a picture poem (citra‐kāvya), continuously with natural and complete joy, their feet moving [sometimes] clockwise and (p.279) [sometimes] counter‐clockwise [but] never tripping once, adorned by their sweet singing [always with easily created sarvatobhadras, with a succession of verse quarters that are in reverse and in the proper order, with lines that consist of one consonant, equal in both delightful languages5], like phonetic figures, constantly embracing [each other], with clever choreography, and giving the impression of being repeated [always with puns, with single and repeated alliterations, radiant with the figure of speech apparent redundancy], like the eye, with Kṛṣṇa at the centre [dark in the middle], like metre, appearing lovely when they moved in unison and when they did not [made charming by having verse quarters of uneven a even length].6 Fearing that their circle had expanded too rapidly, the gopīs approached each other again, placed their arms on each other’s shoulders, ‘as if to ward off the poetic defect of looseness, they assumed a tight formation (gāḍha‐bandha)’.7 Kṛṣṇa then approached each gopī again and placed himself between them, dancing now before them and now behind them, weaving his way between each girl, like the patterns of picture poems (citra‐kāvya).8 As the dance continued, and Kṛṣṇa zigzagged between the gopīs, one wondered whether the circle suddenly ‘outshone a fancied wreath of the night’s darkness and the light of the moon, of relentless lightning and dark storm clouds, of golden campakas and blue lotuses, of gold and sapphire’.9 Thus Kavikarṇapūra begins the description of Kṛṣṇa’s circular (rāsa) dance in chapter 20 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana—a description that he will not abandon for another 40 passages of lengthy prose and lively verse. The celebration of the rāsa dance is widely believed to be ‘the most important and elevated passage’ of the Bhāgavata itself,10 and the exuberance with which Kavikarṇapūra narrates this episode alone indicates he shares that view. And, as is suggested by the repeated use of literary similes in this section of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, it is here that the perfection of all poetic practice is to be found.

Page 2 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love To understand the significance of Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling of the Bhāgavata’s account of this circular dance, we need to look to what preceded the dance, for the narrative of the entire work culminates here—and specifically the episode (p.280) that immediately precedes the dance in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, which tells how Kṛṣṇa hid himself from the gopīs, and how they suffered in separation from him. That is the pivotal moment in the entire poem, which demonstrates the subtlety of his narrative techniques, the importance of narrative for rasa, and the uniqueness of the rasa of Love (prema).

Rasa and Narrative The realization of rasa occurs through narrative. The experience of rasa arises from the particulars of the plot, and the constituent elements of the experience— the excitants (vibhāvas), ensuants (anubhāvas), and transient emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāvas)—are all narrative elements. Academic discussions on rasa, however, often focus on the philosophical or psychological aspect of the rasa experience, in isolation from narrative, because modern scholars, Edwin Gerow writes, ‘have tended to follow the line established by Abhinavagupta and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka in the 9th and 10th centuries, in emphasizing its intuitive, cognitive and even transcendental (or theological) character, instead of seeking to understand it in and through the plays that articulate it.’11 Kavikarṇapūra has little to say about plot specifically—a subject that in Sanskrit criticism is generally only discussed in dramaturgy12—but his analysis of the constituents of rasa clearly lays the foundation for what we could call his narrative grammar. Like earlier theorists, Kavikarṇapūra shows a profound interest in classifying the constituents of rasa, focusing particularly on the leading characters (nāyaka and nāyikā) whose emotions are the focus of the poem. The focus is thus not on action, as it would be in the modern narratology of a structuralist like Roland Barthes, who classifies characters ‘not according to what they are but according to what they do’, and who defines them ‘not as a “being”, but as a “participant”’.13 As we will see, for Kavikarṇapūra the focus is indeed on the being of the leading characters themselves, and the action of the narratives primarily deals with their emotional states. The two—character and action—are therefore very closely related in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics, because the action of the characters is dependent on their being. (p.281) Kavikarṇapūra’s psychology of rasa resembles that of Bhoja, as we have seen in Chapter 3, but it is Viśvanātha’s Sāhitya‐darpaṇa that shapes his analysis of the characters. Kavikarṇapūra generally mirrors Viśvanātha’s classification, paraphrases his definitions, and at times even follows him verbatim. However, there are some notable differences. Since Kavikarṇapūra describes the divine drama of Vṛndāvana, in which Kṛṣṇa is the leading man, he needs to modify Viśvanātha’s theory in some places to suit the story he is interested in. Like Viśvanātha, Kavikarṇapūra identifies four main types of the leading man: the ‘constant and noble’ (dhīrodātta), the ‘constant and Page 3 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love haughty’ (dhīroddhata), the ‘constant and composed’ (dhīra‐praśānta), and the ‘constant and playful’ (dhīra‐lalita). Like Viśvanātha, Kavikarṇapūra further subdivides the four main types—but particularly the leading male who is playful (dhīra‐lalita)—into four types, based on their amorous relations: the faithful (anukūla), who is devoted to a single person; the compliant (dakṣiṇa), who loves all women equally; the cheat (śaṭha), who acts as if he loves a single person, but actually does not love her; and the bold (dhṛṣṭa), who acts shamelessly and is not afraid to lie, offend, or even chastise.14 All these types Kṛṣṇa embodies most perfectly.15 He is ‘the master of all leading men (nāyaka)’.16 From him, ‘the son of Gokula’s king, sprout all pure rasas. He resides on the crown of all leading men, he is adorned with utterly non‐worldly attributes and is the true leading man.’17 He can be all these types, Kavikarṇapūra explains, apart from the noble and composed, the cheat, and the bold,18 even though these are incompatible, because they are not mutually incompatible on account of his play (līlā). The son of Gokula’s king is thus most certainly the overlord of all leading men. He can be constant and composed towards his family elders, constant and haughty towards his deluding opponents, but always constant and playful towards the women of Vraja. He is said to be faithful to Rādhā; compliant (p.282) towards all the others; and by his play he is sometimes even bold, and at times even a cheat.19 Although it would seem contradictory that one person could be both faithful and compliant, Kavikarṇapūra states this is only possible for a ‘non‐worldly leading man’,20 and illustrates it with the following verse, which (Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments) describes Kṛṣṇa resting with the gopīs after the rāsa dance: Resting his feet on Śyāmā’s lap, his head on the broad thighs of Kalā, as his hair is combed by Surekhā’s fingers, watching the arms that swing the whisks, listening to what his beloved says, his cupped hands reaching into a hand that holds betel, his chest against Kastūrikā’s chest, his back against Candrā[valī]’s bosom, O, that dark splendour falls asleep.21

Thus, as Kṛṣṇa lies on his side, surrounded and attended by various gopīs, whom he all loves equally as a compliant lover, he is yet listening to the words of Rādhā, his beloved, to whom he also remains faithful. This paradox of Kṛṣṇa’s distributed yet singular love is only explainable, in Kavikarṇapūra’s mind, by Kṛṣṇa’s paradoxical non‐worldly nature, and we will return to this below, as he develops this point in the narrative of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. Kavikarṇapūra deviates more substantially from the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa when discussing the secondary male characters, the leading man’s associates. Page 4 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Viśvanātha differentiates various types: the companion, who assists him in the plot’s main action; those involved in his love affairs; those who assist him in matters of state; religious figures, courtiers, soldiers, and so on.22 Kavikarṇapūra distinguishes only four: friends (sakhi); dear friends (priya‐sakhi); jocular friends (narma‐sakhi); and dear jocular friends (priya‐narma‐sakhi).23 (p. 283) As these friends do not occur in the passage of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana we will explore later in this chapter, we need not comment further on them here, except to signal that by classifying the companions of the leading man in this way, Kavikarṇapūra moves away from the court, which is the setting for most Sanskrit poetry, and locates his leading man in a pastoral setting. Kavikarṇapūra’s Kṛṣṇa is not the king of Dvārakā or the royal heir of Mathurā, but the Kṛṣṇa of Vraja. Although he is ‘the son of Gokula’s king’, he is not concerned with matters of state, but frolics with his friends through Vṛndāvana’s woods. Nevertheless, in every other aspect of his analysis Kavikarṇapūra follows Viśvanātha’s courtly culture: the leading man is not a rustic village boy, but one who possesses all the virtues expected of refined courtly figures. We have seen already how Kavikarṇapūra describes Kṛṣṇa using the typologies of courtly men, and he indicates this too in the virtues the leading man possesses: he is of good descent, prosperous yet detached, truthful, magnanimous, modest, moral, tolerant, well‐dressed, self‐controlled, etc.24 The virtues of the leading women— the cowherd women of Vraja, in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetics—are similarly borrowed from Viśvanātha’s courtly setting. More elements of courtly culture are transposed to Vṛndāvana’s rural setting, particularly those involving amorous affairs: from characters like couriers and envoys who facilitate the communication between lovers, to the entire procedure of courtship and the refined pleasure of love.25 This may at first seem incongruous, but as Kavikarṇapūra reminds his readers throughout the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa is indeed the son of Gokula’s king, and, as we have seen in Chapter 6, the pastoral setting of Vṛndāvana also hides the majestic, royal aspect of the divine realm.

Propriety and Kṛṣṇa’s Love Since the action of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana revolves around the emotions of the leading characters, the development of those depends on the being of the leading characters. Kavikarṇapūra’s leading man is the divine Kṛṣṇa and most of the campū’s action is about his amorous relationship with the gopīs of Vṛndāvana. This is highly problematic for many Sanskrit critics, on many counts, and Kavikarṇapūra addresses their concerns in both the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana and the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. First of all there is the question of the propriety of describing Kṛṣṇa’s amorous affairs at all. Kālidāsa, widely esteemed by theorists as one of (p.284) the greatest poets, vexed those theorists when he described in detail the lovemaking of Śiva and Pārvatī in the Kumāra‐sambhava (chapter 8). Did the celebrated poet

Page 5 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love violate the rules of propriety (aucitya) in depicting the love life of gods? Could a similar criticism be levelled at Kavikarṇapūra for describing that of Kṛṣṇa? Some theorists were ambiguous in their critique of Kālidāsa’s Kumāra‐ sambhava. Ānandavardhana, for example, argues that in the hands of ‘a great poet’ the descriptions of ‘the sexual enjoyment of the highest gods…does not appear as vulgarity because it is concealed by his skill’, but it is not entirely clear whether he considers it therefore excusable or not.26 Mammaṭa, however, is unambiguous: the love life ‘of the highest gods should not be described. Describing that is like describing the sexual enjoyment of one’s parents. It is highly inappropriate.’27 It should be noted that the designation ‘highest god’ (uttama‐devatā) here is not a theological claim, but an aesthetic one. As Mammaṭa explains, there are three types of characters: they can be highest (uttama), medium (madhyama), or lowest (adhama).28 As Ānandavardhana explains, ‘if we assign a type of love to characters of the upper class by recourse to what is appropriate to the lower class, how ridiculous will be the result!…The description of vulgar sexual enjoyment between characters of the upper classes, kings and ladies, is highly indecent, just like the description of the sexual enjoyment of our parents. Precisely the same charge appears within the sphere of the gods.’ It would be appropriate, he continues, to describe ‘other forms [of their love], such as the interchange of glances and the like’, but the ‘vulgar sexual enjoyment’ is to be avoided, even if great poets do not always do so.29 Kavikarṇapūra agrees with these views, and echoes Mammaṭa’s comments: ‘the sexual enjoyment of highest gods and the like, such as Pārvatī and Śiva, should not be described. What Śrī Kālidāsa and others did is wrong. (p.285) That is like describing the sexual enjoyment of your own parents.’30 But what then of the Vaiṣṇavas’ descriptions of the love play of their God? ‘Some argue the same applies to Śrī [Lakṣmī] and Keśava [Viṣṇu]’, Kavikarṇapūra continues, ‘but some do describe it, because he is their Lord, not a deity (devatā).’31 However, the love ‘of Rādhā and Mādhava should certainly be described, because as the Lord of all he is not one of the deities (devatā). This is enjoined [by the Bhāgavata]: ‘He who, endowed with faith, should describe or listen to this play of Viṣṇu with the young wives of Vraja, obtains the highest devotion to the Lord, and, becoming sober, before long quickly sheds the disease of the heart.’32 Thus, Ānandavardhana’s claim that there is not ‘any difference between divine and human proprieties in the sphere of love’33 does not apply to Kṛṣṇa, according to Kavikarṇapūra, for he is neither a human being nor a god. His love affairs with the gopīs are in no way ‘vulgar’ (grāmya), but are pure and can cure the disease of the heart, which, Śrīnātha explains, are ‘flaws such as lust’. We are thus enjoined by the Bhāgavata to describe this, because ‘this very play with the gopīs cleanses the heart, which other practices can barely do. That is the secret.’34

Page 6 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love This does not mean, however, that all considerations of propriety can be dispensed with in poetry about Kṛṣṇa, justifying any transgression by asserting that he is, after all, God. Indeed, Kavikarṇapūra is quick to add that whatever leads to impropriety (anaucitya) should certainly not be described because, as Ānandavardhana states (DA 3.14), ‘besides impropriety, there is no cause for the spoiling of rasa’.35 The point, however, is that what is improper in relation to Kṛṣṇa cannot be determined with regards to worldly principles of propriety, but has to be established on theological grounds. Indeed, Śrīnātha quotes that same passage from the Dhvany‐āloka (3.14) thrice in his commentary on the Bhāgavata, and in each instance applies it to impropriety caused by an insufficient grasp of Vaiṣṇava theology.36 (p.286) Kṛṣṇa’s Extra‐marital Affairs

The importance of this is seen most clearly in Kavikarṇapūra’s comments about the leading women (nāyikā). The first problem is the plural—leading women. As Kavikarṇapūra explains, polyamorous love normally leads to impropriety.37 But the more problematic issue—to which Kavikarṇapūra also devotes most of his attention—is that Kṛṣṇa’s relationship with the gopīs is extra‐marital, as the above cited Bhāgavata verse hints: not only is Kṛṣṇa not married to the gopīs, but many of them are married to other men. Sanskrit critics have generally condemned such topics as distasteful for the cultured reader, although poets— particularly Prakrit poets—were fond of this theme. If such poetry leads to rasa, some critics argue, it is only a semblance of rasa (rasābhāsa). Kavikarṇapūra’s position is ambiguous, but more accommodating than most critics’. Citing a verse I have not been able to trace, he writes: ‘Although the love for a woman wedded to another is a semblance of rasa (rasābhāsa), by the specificity of suggestion it may still be [accepted as an instance of] the best poetry.’…Since even the semblance of rasa, when it reaches the state of wonder (camatkāra), involves suggestion, [such verses are accepted as] the best poetry by the rules of suggestion, but not by the rules of impropriety.38 However, this is only with regards to worldly topics, he continues, and later he clarifies that he does not consider extra‐marital relations appropriate for leading female characters (nāyikā) that are worldly (laukika).39 However, with regards to non‐material (aprākṛta) [rasa], love for another’s wife is said to be the best, as it is higher than everything else. It does not lead to impropriety, by the rule that it is an ornament (bhūṣaṇa), not a flaw (duṣaṇa), as it is established to be non‐worldly (alaukika), and because it [therefore] falls outside the range of logic. For it is said (Mahābhārata 6.6.11): ‘logic does not apply to those things which are non‐worldly.’ Because the wives of Vraja have no loyalty to their husbands as their minds are directed only to Kṛṣṇa, and because [their husbands] have sexual Page 7 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love relations with them by serving [the gopīs’] shadow forms, which are created by māyā, this is, on the contrary, entirely pure, because their mental state of fondness [i.e. love]40 is characterised only by pure attachment (anurāga).41 (p.287) Kavikarṇapūra’s argument for the purity of Kṛṣṇa’s relationship with the married gopīs is thus threefold: it is beyond the laws of logic and propriety, because it is non‐worldly; the gopīs’ husbands did not really have a sexual relationship with the gopīs, but only with their ‘doubles’ which are created by māyā; and the gopīs love for Kṛṣṇa is pure. The non‐worldly nature of Kṛṣṇa and his play we have already discussed in Chapter 2; the other two issues we will address here. Two issues are involved in the married gopīs relationship with their husbands. First of all, although some of the gopīs were indeed married, they had no attraction to their husbands. As Kavikarṇapūra writes later in the Alaṃkāra‐ kaustubha, extra‐marital affairs would certainly lead to impropriety in worldly poetry, but not here in this non‐worldly context, because their love is exclusively directed to Kṛṣṇa, and ‘because it is grounded in a single person, it does not lead to a semblance of rasa—since semblance is caused by impropriety, and this is absent here, this is certainly proper.’42 This argument does not, however, address the propriety of extra‐marital affairs themselves, but only deals with the nature of the gopīs’ exclusive attraction to Kṛṣṇa. What about their husbands? That the gopīs’ husbands had a sexual relationship not with the gopīs, but with their illusory doubles, is mentioned in the Bhāgavata (10.33.37), and Kavikarṇapūra elaborates on this in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. The gopīs had no attraction to their husbands and their marriage was unconsummated. In chapter 14 the jester Kusumāsava, Kṛṣṇa’s proud but ignorant brāhmaṇa friend, consoled the gopīs’ mothers‐in‐law, who could not understand why their daughters‐in‐law seemed not attracted to their husbands. The obvious (laukika) reason, he said, did not require his extraordinary learning—their husbands were just unattractive. However, the hidden reason for this, Kusumāsava explained, was non‐worldly (alaukika): some hostile yoginī, whose lotus‐feet are honoured by yoginīs, and who is capable of cleaving the sun in half, [called] Yogamāyā has arranged an illusory wedding. She then eagerly praised this wedding here on earth among those that do not know better, and then made these husbands lacking and [the gopīs] averse to them. Moreover, by their very nature these [gopīs] are not human. Therefore, her love for them is immensely great and fierce. Thus, considering that a union of humans and non‐ humans would now be improper, that very same unstoppable (p.288)

Page 8 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love yoginī has personally given them opposing views, and because these views are so potent, she does not permit [their husbands] even to touch them.43 Yogamāyā is ‘the Lord’s incomparable potency’44 whose ‘power makes possible that which is seemingly impossible’.45 She wanders through Vṛndāvana as an old yoginī and orchestrates the meetings of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa46 by casting her illusive spell on the inhabitants of Vraja to enhance their love for Kṛṣṇa.47 As Kavikarṇapūra explains in chapter 11 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Yogamāyā assembles other women—doubles, a reflection of each one of them, equal to them in beauty and form—for those who considered themselves their husbands, and, repeatedly acting as the unofficial messenger for these [gopīs] who have descended with [Rādhā,] the eternally perfect (nitya‐ siddha) embodiment of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s beloved, she will guide all of them, skilled in the arts, at the right time for the glory of their union with Kṛṣṇa. Who can doubt this? What special display of cleverness does not kindle their [i.e. Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s] play which is theologically grounded (siddhānta‐siddha)?48 As Kavikarṇapūra hints at here, Yogamāyā does not merely bewilder the gopīs’ husbands, but also themselves, as he clarifies elsewhere. After describing their first romantic encounter with Kṛṣṇa, Kavikarṇapūra writes: Thus, Yogamāyā by her unrestrained power now made these eternally perfect lovers, who are superior even to Lakṣmī, continue to think themselves to be married, bewildered by the contraction of Love. Yet she also arranged their meeting with Kṛṣṇa, unnoticed by their superiors—who intensely thought of themselves as such—and of those who thought themselves to be their husbands, who supported other women which were their reflections, equal in lustre, beauty, and form.49 (p.289) In the Alaṃkāra‐kaustabha Kavikarṇapūra explains that because the gopīs are married, their love for Kṛṣṇa becomes more intense: ‘Because they are restricted by their fathers, brothers, and others and because they also fear their own boldness, their love, which is hidden and intense, is relished in all respects as sweet rasa.’50 The gopīs too are thus caught in that illusion, and their love for Kṛṣṇa is thereby enhanced. Similarly, at the end of the rāsa‐līlā (echoing the above mentioned Bhāgavata passage) Kavikarṇapūra writes: And those who considered themselves their husbands were not suspicious of these beautiful women. In their shadow forms they remained by their side—or so these men constantly thought.51

Page 9 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Playing on the double meaning of the word para (‘another’, as well as ‘supreme’), he adds: He is not another’s man, nor are they another’s woman. He is the supreme man, and they certainly the supreme women.52

As Kavikarṇapūra clarifies a little earlier, the gopīs truly are Kṛṣṇa’s, for they are ‘his own potencies, which give him delight’, although he, ‘the connoisseur (rasika), is the embodiment of solid bliss’.53 Their marriage to their husbands is thus illusory—but an illusion maintained by Yogamāyā to enhance Kṛṣṇa’s play. Finally, the third reason Kavikarṇapūra gives here in defence of Kṛṣṇa’s extra‐ marital relations with the gopīs is the purity of the latter’s love. Throughout his writings Kavikarṇapūra cautions that we should not mistake their love for worldly love. As we have seen in Chapter 3, both Kavikarṇapūra and Śrīnātha distinguish between common amorous love (rati) and the Love (prema) that is found in Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. In the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana too, Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes this difference. The love the gopīs attained should not be mistaken for worldly passion, as it is not a material emotion that comes (p.290) and goes. Rather, it is an eternal and eternally perfect emotion, as Kṛṣṇa tells the gopīs in chapter 12 of the campū: This desire of yours is not something of the present moment, but was established, together with the eternality of its proclivities (vāsanā), long before what came before. It is eternal, real, and full of rasa. By its universality, it is my very nature (svabhāva). For, The passion (rāga) that the pure hearted nurture for me, who am the greatest bliss, I never—even for a moment—allow to be controlled by passion. Rather, I consider it to be the very essence of my own bliss. This well of rasa, whose strength is its very own, does not share in any other rasa.

You who are naturally perfect now have this innate emotion, for which even Śrī prays. Even in the case of common people, sexual desire (kāma) and the like cannot sprout in that supreme ocean of rasa for me. Burnt or roasted grains never sprout.54 While describing the gopīs’ first feelings of love (pūrva‐rāga) for Kṛṣṇa, Kavikarṇapūra stresses the same:

Page 10 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love The way of rasa of these eternally perfected ones is eternally perfect, and can at no time become averse [to Kṛṣṇa]. It is not determined by age, nor is the way it will act. The intensity of their passion when they enter youth is thus not surprising; it was born the very moment they were born.55 Not all the gopīs, however, are eternally liberated (nitya‐siddha). When Kṛṣṇa appears on earth, some forest ascetics who had observed Sītā and Rāma in the Daṇḍaka forest and had desired a similar amorous relationship with God, appeared as gopīs along with Kṛṣṇa’s eternal companions.56 If they had not (p. 291) fully attained the purity necessary to be with Kṛṣṇa, these former sages burnt whatever impurities they still had through the suffering of separation from Kṛṣṇa, and, giving up their bodies, like a snake gives up its old skin, they attained ‘the non‐material fortune of a beautiful body [fit for] the glory of union with Kṛṣṇa’.57 Here too Kavikarṇapūra stresses that what they attained is not material: That those lovers, who possess the proclivities of love, did not attain oneness [i.e. liberation], is not extraordinary, because the proclivities (vāsanās) are eternal. When the qualities (guṇa) of matter entirely disappear, they attain a form that is fully non‐material (nirguṇa) and conforms to their proclivities. This indeed is the luminous power of love for Kṛṣṇa, which is the crown jewel of good conduct.58 This issue—that Kṛṣṇa’s associates are beyond the influence of matter and have transcended liberation—is very important to Kavikarṇapūra, as we have seen at length in Chapter 2, but he clearly considers it particularly important in this context, as he raises it regularly in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana when describing amorous scenes. Kavikarṇapūra is keen to stress that the gopīs should not be considered ordinary women, nor should Kṛṣṇa be seen to be a man infatuated with women. As he states in the campū: ‘lustful men are wretched and women are wicked. I [Kṛṣṇa] am not wretched, though I am lusty, because that is my play (līlā); nor are they like ordinary women, because they are blessed by the touch of my body. Therefore, apart from me, lustful men are certainly wretched, and apart from them, women are certainly wicked.’59 This echoes the Bhāgavata’s own claim (10.30.34) as read by Śrīnātha. Ordinary women are wicked, Śrīnātha explains, because they do not worship Kṛṣṇa, but choose to serve a ‘living corpse’.60 But the gopīs are not women—‘indeed, they are [his] potency of awareness and bliss, [and hence] there is no difference between them, suggesting that when he enjoys with one, he enjoys with them all.’61 Thus the issue of polyamorous love—which Kavikarṇapūra does not dwell on—is also addressed. Kavikarṇapūra repeatedly inserts such brief theological comments on the nature of the gopīs’ love to remind the reader that he does not tell an ordinary love story, but one that is ‘theologically grounded’ (siddhānta‐siddha), as he (p.292) Page 11 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love stated in a campū passage cited above,62 and that its principles of propriety are thus not merely aesthetic, but also theological. Although the Bhāgavata exhorts its readers to both listen to and narrate Kṛṣṇa’s amorous play, as we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra also cautions against doing so indiscriminately. The gopīs’ love is pure and perfect, and precisely because it is so it should not be discussed casually. Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes this in the Caitanya‐candrodaya. After his conversion, Sārvabhauma encouraged Caitanya to meet Rāmānanda Rāya, an established poet at Pratāparudra’s court and ‘a natural Vaiṣṇava’ (sahaja‐vaiṣṇavaḥ).63 When they met shortly afterwards, Caitanya discussed devotion with Rāmānanda, and at last Rāmānanda expresses Rādhā’s Love (prema) for Kṛṣṇa in two verses, the first of which we have already encountered in Chapter 3. The scene is narrated by a brāhmaṇa to Sārvabhauma and king Pratāparudra: Rāmānanda (holding [Caitanya’s] feet): My friend, he is not my lover, I am not his lover. For us this distinction does not exist. Madana [the god of love] seems to have forcefully ground our minds [and mixed it] with the rasa of Love.

Or, ‘I am the beloved. You are the beloved.’ —this thought now does not arise. Our thinking too has been destroyed. The notion of ‘you’ and ‘I’ is gone. ‘You are my king. I am your subject.’64 —this is our conviction now, and yet our life airs remain. What is more astonishing than this?

Sārvabhauma: What did the Lord say then? Brāhmaṇa Listen, this is what I saw next: Like a hooded cobra to a snake charmer’s song he listened, with great love transfixed, to what he said. Then—either because he considered it inappropriate or because he was overpowered by bliss— with his lotus hand the Lord blocked [Rāmānanda’s] mouth!

(p.293) King: Bhaṭṭācārya, what is the significance of this?

Page 12 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Bhaṭṭācārya: Your majesty, Love (prema) is limitless; it does not bear any limitation. Thus, when the Lord heard the limitless Love of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa in the first half [of the verse], the Lord made that the goal of his life. He covered Rāmānanda’s mouth to show that this is secret.65 Thus, Kavikarṇapūra disagrees with Ānandavardhana and claims that it is indeed proper to describe the love of the gopīs and Kṛṣṇa, yet restraint is required because it is secret (rahasya). Such talks are not meant for public discourse.

The Narrative of the Ānanda‐vṚndāvana The Ānanda‐vṛndāvana is a retelling of the Bhāgavata’s tenth book, and the Bhāgavata, as interpreted by Śrīnātha, is a constant presence in the campū, even if mostly in the background.66 Kavikarṇapūra generally follows the Bhāgavata’s narrative very closely, and verses, phrases, and indeed individual words of the Bhāgavata are frequently alluded to in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, to such an extent that it often can be read as a poetic commentary on the text. This is not to say, however, that Kavikarṇapūra never strays from the Bhāgavata or even alters its narratives. He frequently elaborates on the Bhāgavata’s account, and also adds considerable new episodes—particularly amorous episodes—that are intended to further develop the rasa of the characters and the poem. Although the focus of this chapter is the amorous episodes of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, the campū is not exclusively concerned with Kṛṣṇa’s love affairs, as so many Caitanya Vaiṣṇava works are. One of the great accomplishments of Kavikarṇapūra’s poem is the way it develops Kṛṣṇa’s various relationships— with his parents, his friends, and his lovers—largely parallel to one another. The rasa of parental affection (vātsalya) is dominant in the early chapters (2–7) of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, describing Kṛṣṇa’s childhood. In the middle chapters (7–15), Kavikarṇapūra describes Kṛṣṇa’s antics with his friends as they played in Vṛndāvana’s woods while tending to the cows, and as they teased and taunted the young gopīs, who had all fallen in love with Kṛṣṇa. These three emotional currents are masterfully brought together in chapter 15, the longest chapter of the campū, describing Kṛṣṇa’s lifting of Govardhana. As Kṛṣṇa held aloft the mountain to give shelter to his devotees from Indra’s torrential assault on Vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra describes at length Kṛṣṇa’s playful banter with his (p.294) friends, his flirting with the gopīs, as well as the anxiety of his parents, and, at the end of the episode, Indra’s reverential devotion to Kṛṣṇa. After a very brief chapter on Varuṇa’s abduction of Nanda, which further establishes Kṛṣṇa’s divine identity (part of which we discussed in Chapter 2), the remainder of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana (chapters 17–22) exclusively develops the amorous theme. Among these, four long chapters (17–20) describe the nocturnal circular (rāsa) dance Kṛṣṇa performed with the gopīs in Vṛndāvana’s woods.

Page 13 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love In describing the development of the gopīs’ love, Kavikarṇapūra innovates considerably—sometimes entire chapters find no counterpart in the Bhāgavata— but he continues to do so within the framework of the Purāṇa’s narrative, to which he constantly returns. In a way, these ‘new’ narratives are essential to Kavikarṇapūra’s reading of the Bhāgavata narrative, because they add considerable emotional depth to them. Kavikarṇapūra introduces the gopīs in chapter 1 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. ‘Among them,’ he writes, is one like a string of jewels on the crown of all women, like the vaidarbhī style endowed with all virtues, such as sweetness, vitality, and grace, adorned by all ornaments, and rich rasa and emotions (endowed with all literary qualities, such as sweetness, energy, and clarity, is adorned with literary figures, and is rich in rasa and emotions), like the golden ketaki flower of the garden of Love (prema), like a bouquet of lightning in a cloud of sweetness, like a golden line on the touchstone of beauty…named Śrī Rādhikā.67 Rādhā is the chief gopī whose love for Kṛṣṇa exceeds that of all the other gopīs. She is no mortal, Kavikarṇapūra adds, and is universally worshipped: ‘Some call her Mahālakṣmī, Tantric people call her Lalitā, while others call her the blissful potency (ānandinī‐śakti).’68 Indeed, she is ‘honoured by all assemblies of jewels among women, and has surpassed the ocean’s daughter [Lakṣmī]’.69 But, besides Rādhā, there is a second prominent leader among the gopīs: Candrāvalī. She is ‘supremely delightful, like a row of moons (candrāvalī),’ Kavikarṇapūra writes. ‘Like matter she possesses virtues (posseses guṇas); like the functions of the faculty of sight she possesses beauty (form); like the character of water, she has rasa (moisture); like a cluster of flowers, she is immensely dignified (delights others).’70 Although she is indeed ‘a jewel among (p.295) women’,71 she is Rādhā’s main rival, and competes with her for the attention of Kṛṣṇa, who loves them both. Both are loved by Kṛṣṇa, but Rādhā is Kṛṣṇa’s true companion. Kavikarṇapūra establishes this through the narrative of the entire Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, as we will see, but alludes to this already here, when he first mentions the characters of Kṛṣṇa’s play. Whereas he describes only Candrāvalī’s beauty and grace, he adds several similes when he introduces Rādhā. She is ‘like a bouquet of lightning in a cloud of sweetness, like a golden line on the touchstone of beauty’. These are common images in Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry, as we will see,72 and already here suggest the intimate connection between the golden Rādhā and the dark Kṛṣṇa. As he states later in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are ‘a pair of jewels that adorn the neck of the goddess of Vṛndāvana’—they are like two jewels inseparably strung on the same thread of love.73 Therefore, although she Page 14 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love and Candrāvalī are rivals, and although Kṛṣṇa favours both at various times, Rādhā is not just one among many gopīs—even one among many leaders of gopīs74—but Kṛṣṇa’s most favoured and eternal companion. And, as we will see below, that is because she is ‘like the golden ketaki flower of the garden of Love (prema)’. The first indication of Rādhā’s special position is given shortly after the gopīs’ first feelings of love (pūrva‐rāga). In chapter 9 of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra retells Kṛṣṇa’s battle with Kāliya, a snake who poisoned the Yamunā. Kṛṣṇa dove into the poisonous waters, and was caught by Kāliya who held him in his coils. But then, as Kṛṣṇa’s friends and family plunged in utter despair and feared they would lose the lord of their lives, Kṛṣṇa slipped out of Kāliya’s grip and gracefully danced on the snake’s many hoods, kicking him into submission. The polluted waters were restored to their purity, and as darkness was about to fall, the residents of Vṛndāvana decided to spend the night on those pristine shores. So far, Kavikarṇapūra follows the Bhāgavata closely, but then he adds a brief episode. The cowherd community set up camp. They placed Kṛṣṇa in the centre, surrounded by the king of Vraja and his other relatives, and encircled in the four directions by Kṛṣṇa’s friends, by the elder gopīs, by the young girls accompanied by their mothers, and by the wedded gopīs accompanied by their husbands. Around them, Kavikarṇapūra describes, was a circle (p.296) of archers, circled by the cows, and a final circle of armed guards.75 The entire community delighted in the day’s events, retelling Kṛṣṇa’s ‘pleasing, grand play of punishing Kāliya, wonderfully varied in its execution’, late into the night. Thus they all fell asleep, except for the gopīs, who profited from this rare moment of proximity to Kṛṣṇa: The eyes and minds of the married gopīs and [unmarried] young girls attained unparalleled delight at this pregnant moment, arranged by destiny, as they looked unceasingly and ardently at the unobstructed moon of Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s face. But, when the joy of her eyes excelled that of Candrāvalī and the other chief gopīs, their [i.e. hers and Kṛṣṇa’s] longing for Love, which had sprouted earlier, now attained this unexpected bloom, as all‐consuming desire burst forth. Their necks strained by their eagerness to see each other, and at that very moment their trembling lotus‐eyes suddenly met, and locked.76 This was rare opportunity for the gopīs. Although they were in the presence of their parents and husbands, when everyone else fell asleep, they had a rare moment in which they could uninhibitedly look at Kṛṣṇa’s radiant face—which like the moon on a cloudless night, was no longer obstructed by the obstacles imposed by their families. But one of them loved Kṛṣṇa more than the others, and her joy at seeing Kṛṣṇa was even greater than that of the others. More importantly, her love was reciprocated most by Kṛṣṇa, and the ‘longing for Love (prema)’ she and Kṛṣṇa shared now burst forth. Kavikarṇapūra leaves this Page 15 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love special gopī unnamed, as if to heighten the tension—who is that gopī whom Kṛṣṇa loved to love? Kavikarṇapūra names her only when, craning their necks to get the best view of each other, their eyes met, and as they did they knew at once that their attraction was mutual: When Rādhā looked at him, Hari’s glance trembled like a line of lotuses struck by a wagtail’s tail; when Kṛṣṇa looked at her, Rādhikā’s glance budded, as if an arrow of the god of love hit a lotus and shattered.77

(p.297) In Sanskrit literature, glances are often compared to lotuses. When Rādhā’s nervous, wagtail‐like eyes78 met those of Kṛṣṇa, they made him look at her long but nervously, and when he did so, her lotus‐like glances closed to a bud, out of shyness, as if Kāma’s flower budded arrow suddenly vanished. As their play of glances continued, the world around them seemed to vanish: For both of them the darkness seemed made of the pollen of the blossoms of their passion, and that brief moment, as it were, grew much longer. All the others, including Candrāvalī, figured out that Kṛṣṇa had fallen in love with Vṛṣabhānu’s daughter [Rādhā] and went to sleep, while some remained awake, narrating to each other tales of Kṛṣṇa, when a fierce and foreboding commotion broke out, ‘O! O! Disaster! Disaster!’.79 The disaster that ended this tender moment was caused by a fire that had flared up in a nearby forest and threatened to consume the sleeping cowherd community. Kavikarṇapūra here resumes the Bhāgavata narrative, and in what little remains of this chapter, he describes how Kṛṣṇa extinguished the fierce fire so quickly that the startled cowherd community wondered whether the fire was but a bad dream. The placement of this brief episode is powerful, because its tenderness is brought out even more by contrast with the dramatic fight with Kāliya which precedes it and the dreadful fire that follows. Like the moment Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa shared that night on Yamunā’s shores, the moment in Kavikarṇapūra’s Ānanda‐vṛndāvana is short—two sentences and one verse—but it seems much longer by the impression it makes on the reader—and indeed, which it made on the other gopīs. Kṛṣṇa did not ignore the other gopīs from here on and flirted with them all, yet it was clear that Rādhā was most dear to him. The friends of Rādhā were naturally delighted by this, but Candrāvalī and her friends, distressed by this turn of events, sought to divert Kṛṣṇa’s attention to them. Padmā, Candrāvalī’s confidante, assured her friend that Rādhā’s love for Kṛṣṇa may indeed have been reciprocated first on that night, but as long as their love was not consummated, Page 16 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love there was still hope for her.80 Candrāvalī and her friends became very forthright in their flirting, desperate as they were to attract Kṛṣṇa. They had some success, but Kṛṣṇa became increasingly more drawn to the shy Rādhā, who was not so easy to approach—she and her friends did (p.298) not give in quickly to Kṛṣṇa’s advances. Indeed, those two characteristics—her shyness and her confident reluctance—characterize Kavikarṇapūra’s portrayal of Rādhā, and were what drew Kṛṣṇa to her: ‘whatever contrary action [Rādhā] made, that indeed matched Kṛṣṇa’s interest [in her]’.81 Indeed, a little after that night on banks of the Yāmuna, Kṛṣṇa clearly re‐ asserted his preference for Rādhā over Candrāvalī.82 Later, when Vṛṣabhānu, Rādhā’s father, held a great feast in his palace, Rādhā cooked for the guests— chief of which were Nanda and Yaśodā, as chieftains of Vraja. Yaśodā, so impressed with Rādhā’s culinary skills, expressed her desire to have her cook for her son daily, which Rādhā’s mother, honoured by the opportunity to serve Vraja’s royal household, gladly arranged. Without having to fear criticism from her superiors, Rādhā could thus effortlessly be close to Kṛṣṇa, even if still in the presence of his parents.83 As their love thus grew, soon—and inevitably—Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa arranged to meet in a forest bower at night for their first union, which Kavikarṇapūra elaborately describes.84 The gopīs are all nameless in the Bhāgavata, and the rivalry described here is thus an innovation. It is not really Kavikarṇapūra’s innovation, however. With the growing popularity of Jayadeva’s Gīta‐govinda and the vernacular poetry of Caṇḍīdāsa and Vidyāpati, it had become impossible to think of Kṛṣṇa without Rādhā long before Kavikarṇapūra’s time, and early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava commentators on the Bhāgavata see an allusion to her in the Bhāgavata—in an important section we will encounter later.85 Candrāvalī (and many of the other gopīs) had by Kavikarṇapūra’s time also become a key figure in Kṛṣṇa’s story; Mālādhara Vasu (fifteenth century), for example, gives her prominence in the Kṛṣṇa‐vijaya, his Bengali retelling of the Bhāgavata’s tenth and eleventh (p. 299) books which Caitanya is said to have loved.86 In other words, Kavikarṇapūra does not innovate when introducing (or identifying) these characters. They had already become part of the Bhāgavata narrative he inherits. But in developing the narrative in the way he does he brings out certain ideas that mark his and his teacher’s theology—chief of which is their understanding of the rasa of Love (prema). This is particularly so in his treatment of the rāsa episode, to which we now turn.

Kṛṣṇa’s Disappearance One night in autumn, Kṛṣṇa, eager for ‘love’s delights’,87 began playing his flute. Hearing the song of that flute, the Bhāgavata tells, the gopīs were irresistibly drawn, and rushed to the forest to meet their beloved, Kṛṣṇa, rashly abandoning whatever it was they were doing. But when they arrived, Kṛṣṇa feigned surprise, and instructed them to return to their homes, as a forest is no fit place for young Page 17 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love girls to roam at night. The gopīs were devastated by Kṛṣṇa’s apparent cruelty. They had abandoned everything for him, they said, only to be abandoned by him. They pleaded with him. Laughing it all off, he revealed his true intentions, and sported with them on Yamunā’s banks. But Kṛṣṇa realized the gopīs had grown proud, ‘intoxicated with their good fortune’,88 states the Bhāgavata, and to remove their pride he disappeared. Kavikarṇapūra retells this elaborately, in a single sentence, using a long series of images to explain the reasons for Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance and the emotional effect it had on the gopīs: Thus, as their ship sank in that roaring river—so very difficult to cross—in which the great god of love swims and which had granted them rapture and joy, he, as it were forced those who were drowning to bail out the waters of pride that were flooding them within; and placing them on the wheel of their petty, unpleasant act, as it were, made them spin; like a physician who can alleviate such a calamity, as it were prescribing them wholesome medicine to cure an unprecedented case of the painful affliction called ‘hangover’ which follows the stupor caused by (p.300) excessive consumption of the ageless liquor of rapture and joy; like a painter resolved to colour with red dye a spotless cloth, to prevent it from being soiled and to give it a different appearance—thinking that no other colour can be enjoyed as long as the vividness of pure white remains—he, as it were, at once made the misfortune found in separation sprout, which is like a nectar that moistens [the mind] and drives away the nourishing bliss heightened by the rapture of love; as it were causing to descend a dense darkness of utterly insurmountable distress among the multitude of rays of the full moon of bliss; and, as it were, manifesting masses of poison in that flood of nectar and that ocean of milk; like flames of fire thrown on a pile of pure and fragrant saffron, like a bolt of lightning in a cloudless sky, like poison spreading without the bite of a poisonous snake, since they considered it impossible and did not contemplate it, he, the creator of all totalities of time, suddenly, as they were looking at him, right there, disappeared into their praiseworthy, playful, impassioned hearts.89 Kavikarṇapūra writes that Kṛṣṇa disappeared ‘into their hearts’, because Śrīnātha explains that Kṛṣṇa ‘did not go elsewhere; he was hidden [but] was right there’.90 It is a point he returns to later. At first, however, the gopīs could not believe that Kṛṣṇa who is ‘placed in their heart’ (antar‐hita) had indeed ‘disappeared’ (antarhita),91 but then they turned to each other to discuss what happened. ‘One of us has deceived us and run off with him to a grove (kuñja),’ proffered one gopī, and so they set off to search from bower to bower. But when they could not find him, they quickly grew despondent, abandoned their search,

Page 18 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love and realized the gravity of their plight. ‘They considered the wide world as it were void’, Kavikarṇapūra explains, though he seemed to see [them], they did not see him, though he seemed to touch [them], they did not touch him, though he was speaking, they were aware of him but did not speak about him, though he existed outside them, they experienced him in their heart and did not find him outside of them; (p.301) like the blue lotus behind the ear he was external to their ears, like the kohl on their eyes, he was far from their eyes, like [a necklace of] sapphires on their chest he had withdrawn in their chest; they realised that though one, he appeared to them in all directions, though he was all around them, he had entered their hearts, though he touched them with his lotus hand, they could not reciprocate his touch, though he pressed them to his chest, he could not be embraced, though he kissed them with his moon‐like face, they could not kiss him back; when, suddenly, they became like a broken puppet, as if they were painted in the air, as if their lives were uprooted, as if their hearts were embraced by burning embers, as if their bodies were anointed with deadly poison, as if their chests were rent by a saw, then it was to these beautiful women like lemon juice in their wounded minds, like fire on dry wood, like a dagger in their vitals and like a snake bite in their chest, like a raging fever in their body, like a spike in their stomach; as if their eyes went blind, as if their ears went deaf, as if their skin slept, as if they went fully mad; [thus] a pitiless plenitude of pain dishonoured them.92 This passage clearly bears Kavikarṇapūra’s signature. First of all, there is the allusion to the āryā verse he composed as a child: Kṛṣṇa is the dark lotus behind their ears—because they only listen to words about him—he is the kohl around their eyes—because they only see him—and is the necklace of sapphires that adorns their chest—because they only embrace him.93 But Kavikarṇapūra here inverts this: Kṛṣṇa is like the blue lotus adorning their ears, or the kohl on their eyes, because although he is still so close he is now beyond the range of their ears and eyes, and he is hidden in their heart, like a sapphire necklace lost in their bosom. Theologically too this passage clearly is Kavikarṇapūra’s. The gopīs realizsed that Kṛṣṇa had indeed gone, and that realization tormented them in every possible way, both physically and (p.302) mentally, as he here describes. But, keeping his distinctive theology of paradox in mind, the gopīs were not just suffering separation from Kṛṣṇa, but in that separation also realized his paradoxical nature.

Page 19 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love To prevent them from dying of grief, ‘madness for Śrī Kṛṣṇa’ concealed their own minds from them, and while immersed in ‘that ebbing ocean of madness that obliterates the functions of the mind’ their hearts attained ‘the form of Kṛṣṇa’ and by acting out Kṛṣṇa’s own actions they were able to remain alive.94 They continued their search, singing of Kṛṣṇa’s play, quite unaware of where they were going, while ‘unnoticed by them, the mysterious goddess Yogamāyā followed them like a shadow, and removed [from their path] the painful, sharp objects they did not see’.95 The gopīs moved from bower to bower, searching for Kṛṣṇa. But their search was troubled by the forest’s dense growth, which obstructed their view, and so they turned to the trees and plants asking them about Kṛṣṇa’s whereabouts, in the hope of turning the obstacles into allies. Kavikarṇapūra here follows the Bhāgavata closely, with one important difference: whereas in the latter the gopīs mostly just ask each plant where Kṛṣṇa is, in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana the gopīs go through a range of emotions. Initially there is a distinct accusatory tone not found in the Bhāgavata: the gopīs were convinced some of the (male) trees were complicit in Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance and therefore refused to talk to them. Thus, to various trees they said: Why do you remain silent? Do you not deceive us? It is true! You have seen him! Why else would you be stunned with overwhelming bliss, as we can see?96

And, addressing other trees: You, sinless ones, have seen Śyāma walking down this path —he has stolen our minds! Do not lie, with your leaves shaking ‘no, no, no, no.’ Why else are your [branches] bristling?

So they spoke, and when they received no reply, they said: ‘Oh, they belong to his party, and thus, because they are hard‐hearted, they do not reply.’97 (p.303) The (female) creepers and flowers, which they approached next, had themselves just enjoyed Kṛṣṇa’s presence, the gopīs thought, and were thus too overwhelmed to respond. Even though there is a hint of jealousy in some of these verses,98 as their search continued, the gopīs plied each plant more humbly, praying for their compassion. But when none of the creepers replied, they interrogated the animals that wandered through those woods. The gopīs were convinced that these animals had appeared to help them and lead them to Kṛṣṇa. Thus, about a doe they meet they claim that ‘among all the creatures here—trees, creepers, animals—she alone is compassionate, as she journeys through this forest of jasmine, as it were showing us Kṛṣṇa’s path, as it were

Page 20 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love extinguishing our fever that burns fiercer than fire’.99 And when they encountered a female swan on Yamunā’s banks, the gopīs said: Come here, swan! Come here, my friend! Tell us: has the sun’s daughter [Yamunā], with profound affection, sent you here? Ah, yes! As he now roams on her banks, she desired to lead us to him and quickly commanded you [to come here].100

Soon the gopīs ceased their constant ‘questions, doubts, and certainty’—the intermediate stage of their madness, according to Kavikarṇapūra—and became so absorbed in thought of Kṛṣṇa that their minds attained a great purity and their pride disappeared. Kṛṣṇa then manifested himself in their minds and they saw themselves as their beloved: ‘when arose the thought “I am Kṛṣṇa”, that boundless wave of oneness which erected a series of theatre stages, who [among the gopīs], by being possessed by him, did not shine in the enactment of the Lord’s play—[based on] what they had heard and what they had seen—which caused wonder and anxiety?’101 Kṛṣṇa’s play, Kavikarṇapūra continues, is of two types: that which is similar (sajātīya), and that which is dissimilar (vijātīya) to (p.304) one’s own mood. ‘The intense rasa which is similar is agreeable to one’s mind and, like a roaring river erodes its banks, quickly melts the mind; the dissimilar, which causes distaste, does not lead to oneness, since [Kṛṣṇa] cannot possess the mind, because it is not absorbed [in him].’102 Yogamāyā, who, as we have seen, shadowed the gopīs, feared that they would be unable to perform those parts of Kṛṣṇa’s play that were contrary to their own mood—such as the roles of the demons Kṛṣṇa killed—and therefore took on such roles herself.103 Kavikarṇapūra here integrates the views of his teacher, Śrīnātha, who argues for this in his commentary on the corresponding Bhāgavata passage. Oneness with Kṛṣṇa, Śrīnātha explains, can only be attained when the highest form of Love (prema) overpowers all other modes of thought, but since there is no Love in the dissimilar roles of demons like Pūtanā, the mind cannot be absorbed through them. Therefore, he explains, when the Bhāgavata (10.30.14) describes how one person (kasyācit) acted as demon Pūtanā and the other as the infant Kṛṣṇa who sucked the life out of her breast, we should understand that the former is Yogamāyā who takes on that role, while the latter was played by a gopī.104 As we have seen in Chapter 3, Kavikarṇapūra argues the actor can experience rasa if, like a member of the audience, he is able to absorb himself in the play he performs. The gopīs had become actors, performing Kṛṣṇa’s play on the stage erected by their total absorption in him, as Kavikarṇapūra puts it, and they thus truly blur the distinction between actor and audience. By their total absorption in thought of Kṛṣṇa they are like the audience, but that absorption leads to them taking up the role of actors, rather than the other way around. Because, in their state of madness, the gopīs really did think themselves to be Kṛṣṇa, their Page 21 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love enactment of Kṛṣṇa’s play was thus not a typical dramatic performance: they did not see themselves as actors playing a role, but, in a sense, as the characters of the play itself, and the distinction between the reader’s rasa and the character’s rasa we discussed in Chapter 3 is thus also complicated. Their every act was motivated by Love, whose stable emotion is ‘melting of the mind’ and thus erodes the distinctions between themselves and Kṛṣṇa. It is for that very reason that they were not able to perform the roles that run counter to their Love. Yogamāyā therefore had to perform those roles. The oneness of identity (tādātmya) discussed here is thus not an absolute nondual oneness, but an emotional one caused by Love, as Śrīnātha argues. But Kavikarṇapūra also claims there was more to it than this. As we have seen, he earlier claimed that Kṛṣṇa hid himself in their hearts, and he returns to this here. Twice he clarifies his own view. ‘Their effort in contemplating Kṛṣṇa (p. 305) was not superimposed, even lightly. I think that he who performed each of those pastimes entered into them. This was not oneness (tādātmya).’105 A little later he states so again: ‘I think that he entered the cave of their heart and personally performed each of those pastimes in order to taste them. Otherwise, how could their speech and bodies still act, when their minds ceased to function, and their consciousness had been fully suppressed?’106 As we have seen earlier, the gopīs minds and bodies were paralysed when Kṛṣṇa disappeared, and their sensory faculties ceased to function—‘as if their eyes went blind, as if their ears went deaf…’. They thus underwent a parallel transformation to that of Dhruva, as discussed in Chapter 6, who passed through a state of inaction when God manifested himself in him through his potencies. In this state of divine rapture, the gopīs, assisted by Yogamāyā, performed episodes from Kṛṣṇa’s life, enacted in the order they appear in the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana, thus providing a succinct summary of the entire campū up until this point. The final performance is by a gopī who enacted how Kṛṣṇa called them all at night, dallied with them briefly in the woods, and then disappeared. Immediately their ‘dream of oneness was broken’,107 and they regained consciousness: Their minds returned, their eyes and other faculties opened, their suffering revived, their awareness rose, their worry intensified. Every doe‐eyed gopī, as they searched for Kṛṣṇa, their eyes cast in every direction, grew again despondent as before.108

Page 22 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love What makes Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling of the Bhāgavata narrative so effective is the close attention he pays to the mental states of the gopīs. In the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana their emotions are immensely varied, and follow each other in quick succession. The gopīs move from pride to confusion to sorrow to madness to anger to jealousy to hope to despair. It is these transient emotions (vyabhicāri‐ bhāva) that determine the action here, and which help to bring (p.306) out the nature of their love. Such close attention to the diverse emotions that accompany the stable emotion is characteristic of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, as indeed also of the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha. Neither Mammaṭa nor Viśvanātha have much to say about the transient emotions; they both list them and then illustrate each of them. Later, both talk of four ways or stages in which they can be presented in a poem: their rising (udaya), quelling (śānti), combination (sandhi), and blending (śabalatā).109 They discuss these four stages but briefly (Mammaṭa does not even define them but merely gives four illustrations), but Kavikarṇapūra offers a lengthy exposition on how these four can be used and particularly combined to create sixteen main varieties (and more than 130,000 sub‐varieties!).110 It is perhaps tempting to dismiss this as an instance of the ‘growing speculative passion for fine distinctions’ which S. K. De says characterizes many of the works of this period.111 But when one patiently reads through Kavikarṇapūra’s analysis and examples, it is harder to dismiss this as mere pedantry. It is clearly an aspect of his rasa theory he cares about deeply, and in illustrating and analysing these combinations of transient emotions, he is training his readers in noticing these transitions from one emotion to another— as he applies it in this section of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana—in order to enrich the rasa realization. The second aspect concerns the stable emotion. The emotion that dominates this episode is love in separation (vipralambha).112 This may appear to be too obvious to even state, but the way Kavikarṇapūra develops this here points to a crucial aspect of his rasa theory. In love in separation the primary excitant (ālambana‐vibhāva), the person who is the object of the emotion is absent, yet the stable emotion, love, does nevertheless arise, because, as Kavikarṇapūra argues, ‘though there is separation, love is self‐manifesting, in exactly the same way [as in union]’.113 The stable emotion is thus certainly love—and not sorrow (śoka), as one might suspect—even though the lovers are separated. Or are they? Although Kṛṣṇa disappeared from the gopīs, he did not vanish, Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes, but hid in their hearts. And when the gopīs suffered from his apparent absence, their very minds ‘melted’ in thought of him, leading them to identify with him as they enacted his play. Kavikarṇapūra stresses, moreover, that the gopīs did not merely mould their minds to Kṛṣṇa, but Kṛṣṇa himself also appeared in them. He possessed them, as he enacted his own play through them, thus leading to a complete union of the lovers. Thus, even when they are apart, Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs can never be separated. This, then, points to

Page 23 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Kavikarṇapūra’s rasa of Love (prema)—this rasa is the actual rasa of the section, of which love in separation is but a supportive part (aṅga). (p.307) As we have seen in Chapter 3, both Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra argue that the rasa experienced by the gopīs is not the amorous (śṛṅgāra) rasa, but the rasa of Love (prema), from which emerge all the other rasas, like waves of the ocean, and into which they merge back. Kavikarṇapūra’s comments on Love in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha and Caitanya‐candrodaya are tantalizingly brief, but its nature is brought out more fully here, in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. As we have seen, Love obliterates the distinction between object and subject: the lovers are so intimately bound to each other that they cannot be separated. Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling of this Bhāgavata episode only underscores this, and this is even further emphasized in the remainder of the chapter, in the suffering of Rādhā.

Rādhā’s Suffering Soon after the gopīs resumed their search, they found Kṛṣṇa’s footprints in the soft sand. Enthusiastically they followed these, and later saw another pair of footprints alongside them, ‘of one whom he guided, who had obtained the essence of great fortune, [whose likeness] is rarely found on earth or even in heaven, who is most dear, whose friendship is beneficial and free from deceit, who was proud because she easily obtained the love of her beloved who held her against his heart, who worships with the joy of spontaneous love, of Rādhā’.114 The discovery of Rādhā’s footprints divided the group. Śyāmā, one of Rādhā’s close friends, rejoiced: Blessed is she, the best of gems among the greatest gem‐like women found on earth! She is immensely virtuous the source of fortune and joy. We can tell this is Rādhā! The moon could not possibly exist without its rays, nor the spring without the sweet song of the cuckoo, nor rain clouds without a flash of lightning.115

But Padmā, Candrāvalī’s confidante whose ‘thoughts are naturally envious’,116 retorted that Rādhā had betrayed them and now had revealed her selfish (p. 308) interests. She abandoned her devoted companions so she could enjoy the company of Kṛṣṇa alone. Śyāmā defended her friend: Into that current of the river of rasa —the nectar of the revelry of Kṛṣṇa’s love— she has thrown herself, and, since childhood, has lost complete control over her body. Like duckweed, she cannot stop the strong current of the swift stream that carries her wherever it does.117 Page 24 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love In deserting her friends, Rādhā did not betray their friendship, she explained. Although they had always been inseparable, Rādhā had always excelled her friends, as her position of favour now made clear: Born together, grown together as one, they are inseparable. A fragrant beautyberry blossom forsakes its calyx in due course, but does not ever offend.118

The gopīs continued following the footprints, reading the changing imprints in the sand as signs of what transpired—here they walked arm in arm, here he carried her, here he picked a flower for her, here she sat on his lap. This only aggravated the envy of her rival gopīs, who realized that her fortune was due to their misfortune. But as they followed those footprints and witnessed the intimacy that these marks revealed, they were also reminded that Rādhā really was Kṛṣṇa’s favourite. The narrative then shifts to Rādhā herself. The Bhāgavata states that the gopī Kṛṣṇa had singled out—who, like all the gopīs, is nameless in the text—had become proud (dṛptā, BP 10.30.37), and thought: ‘Our beloved has left the [other] gopīs, who were impelled by desire, and now serves me [alone].’119 She then arrogantly told Kṛṣṇa she could walk no further; he should carry her. ‘Climb on my shoulders,’ Kṛṣṇa told her, and as she tried to do so, he vanished from her as well. Śrīnātha reads this passage differently. He writes: ‘Rādhā remembered all her friends and pondered. Why? ‘She considered herself the best of all women’ (BP 10.30.35). What is meant by this? [She thought:] ‘I have become the best of all, but this is not appropriate for me.’120 It is for this reason, he argues, that she (p.309) told Kṛṣṇa she could walk no further, and asked him to carry her. Kavikarṇapūra works Śrīnātha’s reading into his narrative, and gives it even greater emphasis: She whose heart is supremely tender, the best of the most affectionate, who is like the emblem of the beautiful and fortunate—for so long so rarely found—was eager for amorous play, but dissatisfied at heart. She then thought to herself: ‘Ah! By separating me from my friends, the lord of my life grants me alone exceptional love. Alas! How will they live? I should act somewhat contrarily so that he will not go very far from here, and, all will gradually meet us here.’121

Page 25 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love In other words, Rādhā acted out of compassion, not pride. She certainly desired to enjoy with Kṛṣṇa, but she was dissatisfied, thinking of her deserted friends. Rādhā therefore told Kṛṣṇa she could longer continue walking, and suggested they rest for a moment. Kṛṣṇa, however, only perceived the apparent pride: outwardly, he considered her words, which seemed wondrous, to be piercing like arrows, and perceived their prickly pride, though they were naturally prideless. However, within he thought: ‘This pride of her delights my mind, and is certainly befitting a beautiful, independent lover. I will use that to disappear from her.’ [Kṛṣṇa], whose lotus‐eyes remind one of the rising sun, and who acts harshly for the special sport of removing superficial pride, said: ‘If there is nothing here to transport you, then satisfy yourself by climbing on the lustrous loveliness of my solid shoulders.’ Saying this, while fully visible, being right there, he vanished before her eyes.122 When Kṛṣṇa disappeared, Rādhā’s world became inverted: what gave joy now grieved, what adorned now polluted. Her ‘skilled speech—a river of nectar on earth—which had soaked her in joy, became a river of venom; the perfectly (p. 310) scented sandal paste she had used to anoint her body burned like coal; the perfect mascara she had applied to adorn her eyes, seemed to have become brackish water polluted by poison’.123 Her necklace suddenly seemed a strangling serpent, her other jewellery toxic instruments of torture.124 Rādhā immediately pleaded Kṛṣṇa to reveal himself. Unlike the other gopīs she did realize he had not gone, but merely hid himself: O lord! O lover! O singular stream of love! Beloved, where are you? Please reveal yourself to me! I know you remain right here, yet because you are distant to my eyes I am consumed by my every searing breath.125

She knew she was inseparable from Kṛṣṇa, yet suffered from the apparent separation—a pain so piercing that it seemed she would die, yet one prolonged by every breath she took. Again Kavikarṇapūra emphasizes Rādhā did not act out of pride. Continuing her plea, she said: No. What I said—what made you angry— is no offence induced by pride. To delay us so that they could catch up I said I could walk no further—not out of pride.126

Page 26 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love She begged Kṛṣṇa to reveal himself again, if only to save her innocent friends, who would surely die were they to see her in this state. She concluded: Cursed is Night, if she is not loved by the moon who commands the dark. Cursed is the lotus, if she is not seen by her lord, the blazing sun. Cursed is that life which is despised by the very lord who rules that life. Only when they delight one’s beloved do virtues become virtues.127

Unable to bear the separation any longer, Rādhā fell unconscious to the ground, as it were suspended between life and death. As she fainted, the entire forest suffered with her: (p.311) Creepers sprinkled her with the nectar of their flowers. Bees fanned her with frantic beating of their wings. Flocks of birds cried ‘Hā! Hā!’ Deer, their sight clouded by tears, anxiously shielded her. All forest dwellers offered service appropriate for that moment.128 Her own shadow became like a bed of soft lotus petals; the light of the moon a cooling balm of sandal on her body; her arms became bracelets of slender lotus stalks to lessen her fever; and Fainting her dearest friend in severing the awareness of her suffering.129

It is then that the gopīs found Rādhā, deserted by Kṛṣṇa and unconscious on the forest floor, ‘as if a cloudless flash of lightning had fallen from the sky, as if a beam of condensed moon light was pulled to earth by its own weight, as if a golden chain had loosed from the crown of the triple world’s splendour, as if the earth cast out an abundance of the gold of its own fortune, as if a mass of fine saffron had self‐manifested, as if the beauty of the woods embraced a golden hibiscus flower…’. Seeing her, they exclaimed: ‘Oh, what is this? It is she—she whom the son of Gokula’s king, when he left us like a cloud lightning, like the moon its rays, took with him, like the greatest gem its splendour, and then disappeared, as he became rougher than a rock when her luck ran out.’130 We have seen the images the gopīs use here several times before, but here they illustrate well the difference between Rādhā and the other gopīs. Clouds are adorned by lightning, but can exist without them—although not the other way Page 27 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love round—and even the moon can appear without its rays, when it rises in full daylight, although it does not then reveal its full charm. But a gem cannot be separated from its splendour; they are one, though we conceive of them as distinct.131 Similarly, Kṛṣṇa’s beauty is enhanced by the gopīs, but he can leave (p.312) them without losing himself. However, he is inseparable from Rādhā— how, then, could he have left her? The sight of Rādhā alone thus confused the other gopīs. Kṛṣṇa could not really have abandoned her too, they reasoned. She must have fallen asleep, exhausted after making love, and he must roam around nearby, probably hiding himself when he heard the others arrive. Did Kṛṣṇa perhaps leave her because she too had become proud? Kavikarṇapūra’s gopīs barely considered that. This could not be the case; ‘he is not that insidious—he would not make her burn in the searing forest fire of separation, and with exceptional cruelty, abandon her who does not deserve it’.132 ‘Clearly this can’t be her, since we don’t see Kṛṣṇa here! Our confusion rebounds and convinces us this is her. All glory to the goddess called Sweetness who has appeared in person to cure our madness while casting the world in delusion.’

Moving closer, they again expressed their doubts: ‘No, it is not her, since Like a wilted lotus stalk, she lies, discarded. We can find no pulse, however faint. Is this perhaps Pity personified? Or, Fainting, perhaps, born from absence of one’s beloved?’

They moved even closer. Then, noticing that they were approaching and seemingly jealous, her friend Fainting left her.133 ‘My Lord! Where are you?’ Rādhā muttered, falteringly, as she awoke. Immediately, the gopīs recognized her. ‘It is her!’ they said, and coming to her with joy, despair, wonder, confusion, and longing, like geese who have ceased their quarrels to the roots of a golden lotus, like tributaries to the celestial Ganges, like the range of emotions to love that has become stable (sthāyī), like all the microtones to the state of the seven notes, like the abundance of rasas, emotions, literary excellences, and figuresof speech to the poetry of a good poet, like figures such as metaphoric identification (p.313) to the figure simile, like cakoras to the rays of the moon,

Page 28 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love like many birds to the beauty of a new garden, like a cluster of lilies to a lotus pond, all of them surrounded her.134 This is a key passage in this section, and indeed in the entire Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. Rādhā’s suffering drew all the gopīs to her, and the rivalry that began that night on Yāmuna’s shore, just after Kṛṣṇa tamed Kāliya, had now come to an end. Now, the gopīs all delighted in Rādhā—like the natural friendship that exists between lotuses and geese, Viśvanātha explains. Just as its tributaries flow naturally to the Ganges, they all found rest in her. Just as all the emotional components (excitants, ensuants, transient emotions, etc.) support and then merge into the stable emotion, or just as all the microtones come together in the musical notes, so did all the gopīs share in Rādhā. Just as all forms of literary ornamentation embellish poetry, so did all the gopīs adorn Rādhā. Just as the figure simile (upamā) provides the basic form of many other figures of speech, like metaphoric identification (rūpaka), so was something of Rādhā’s own character present in all the other gopīs. Just as cakora birds are nourished by the rays of the moon, so were all the gopīs nourished by Rādhā. Just as birds flock to gardens, so were all the gopīs drawn to Rādhā. Just as lilies are found in ponds, which support their very existence, so were all the gopīs dependent on Rādhā. As Kavikarṇapūra clarifies in the discussion that ensues, it is Rādhā’s suffering that created this unity. Even her rivals were moved by the unbearable—and utterly undeserved—pain inflicted upon her. Together, they lamented Rādhā’s fate and cursed Kṛṣṇa’s cruelty, but each of them uniquely, reflecting their earlier, individual differences in their shared grief. ‘Alas! How did you, like me, gain such wicked fate?’ one said. ‘The lord of your life—where is he, that scoundrel?’135 Others who had earlier defended Rādhā, said: ‘Leaving us, he enjoyed with you—that alone soothed the fever of our separation, but now it has redoubled. Curse us! What we witness—this state you are in—is utterly unprecedented.’136 Others, who were at first not sympathetic with Rādhā, now shared her suffering: This searing pain of yours, beautiful one, has made our own inner pain disappear. (p.314) The power of a poison that defies all cures is only destroyed by contact with a greater poison.137

In their commentaries on the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Viśvanātha Cakravartī and Vanamālīdāsa Śāstrī both identify each of these gopīs here, as either belonging to Rādhā’s or Candrāvalī’s group, thereby emphasizing that both groups were now moved by Rādhā’s suffering. This reading is clearly what Kavikarṇapūra intends, but identifying each individual speaker detracts from the way Kavikarṇapūra brings out this new unity. Throughout the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kavikarṇapūra names the gopīs, thereby giving them a distinct character that Page 29 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love deepens the narrative and helps to bring out Rādhā and Candrāvalī’s rivalry. But here these gopīs are suddenly nameless, and will remain so for the remainder of the rāsa episode. They have now attained a unity, and their self‐awareness and individual interests—which caused Kṛṣṇa to disappear at the start of this episode —have now been dissolved so that they are united in their love for and service to Kṛṣṇa. Only Rādhā is named from here on, and repeatedly so. Two chapters later, for example, when the dance finally begins, Kavikarṇapūra again departs from the Bhāgavata narrative to single her out. The Bhāgavata (10.33.3) describes how the gopīs formed a circle, and Kṛṣṇa multiplied himself, so that he stood between each pair of gopīs. The dance starts in the same way in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, but, as we have seen at the beginning of this chapter, Kavikarṇapūra then places Kṛṣṇa at the centre of the circle, and Rādhā stands there with him watching her friends dance delightfully around them—with the wholehearted approval of all the gopīs.138 This image is very fitting, because she does indeed stand centrally in the remainder of the rāsa chapters, and indeed the remainder of the entire campū. Although the different gopī factions are retained in the following chapters, they were now all united in attending Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. This is most vividly brought out in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana’s final chapter. Kavikarṇapūra here describes an elaborate swing festival held in spring (not narrated in the Bhāgavata). During the festival the divine couple were seated centrally, surrounded by all the other gopīs, each seated on their own swings. The former rivalry is not forgotten in this chapter, however, but is expressed through a wild celebration of Holi: Candrāvalī and Rādhā’s friends battled each other from their swings with an assault of colours, but Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, eagerly joined them from their own swing, and ultimately won the fight. While the Bhāgavata does not even name Rādhā, she occupies central stage in Kavikarṇapūra’s retelling, to emphasize that Kṛṣṇa should not be worshipped without his inseparable companion Rādhā. (p.315) The gopīs continued to express their grief, until one naive gopī asked ‘What is the cause of your calamity?’ This innocent question provoked the final comment of this section. One gopī said annoyed: Friends, why do you question her? Love (prema) is her very nature! Oh, who can imagine such Love? To those afflicted, it is like poison and nectar. Simultaneously, its emotions torment, delight, paralyse, revive.139

Rādhā then spoke, telling them all what happened, ‘revealing the character of her heart, which is like a crucible to melt the gold of Love’,140 while the others listened with wonder and dismay. They then resumed their search for Kṛṣṇa, now led by Rādhā. Deeper they wandered into the forest, until they found themselves enveloped by darkness, the light of the moon clouded by the Page 30 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love branches of the trees. They retraced their steps and reached the soft sands of Yamunā’s shores. There they sat down, and began to sing of their sorrow: The sweetness of their song—as it were the heart of the rasa of separation, as it were melting the adamantine heart of thunder, as it were alluring the minds of mountains, trees, and vines—who could bear to retell that? Some say even the Goddess of Speech cannot repeat it, as her voice chokes with tears.141 Kavikarṇapūra aptly ends the gopīs’ discussion with a declaration about Rādhā’s Love (prema). As we have seen, it is precisely this that the earlier episode brings out most strikingly, but Rādhā’s own suffering suggests this even more poignantly. When the gopīs finally found Rādhā, it was the incongruity of the situation that shocked them: only when they saw her alone, separated from Kṛṣṇa, did they all realize the profundity of her Love—a bond so strong it could not tolerate any separation. They thus first met her with incredulity—this could certainly not be Rādhā, because Kṛṣṇa was nowhere to be found! But when Rādhā regained consciousness, their recognition shocked them so profoundly that it united them all in her sorrow. The realization of her Love thus ended their rivalry, and prepared them to join Kṛṣṇa’s circular dance, where all would be equally joined with him in love, yet all equidistant from the Love of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, whom they circled and served. Kavikarṇapūra thus illustrates the paradox we encountered at the (p.316) beginning of this chapter—that he can be fully faithful to Rādhā, while yet loving all the other gopīs equally. Kavikarṇapūra again emphasizes the importance of Love a little later in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, just after Kṛṣṇa returned. A series of witty questions and answers ensued between the lovers, and the gopīs expressed their delight to be reunited but also their residual anger at the way he had treated them.142 At one point Kṛṣṇa questioned the gopīs: Who is to be worshipped? He who has rasa. Who has rasa? He who is the abode of Love. What is Love? That which knows no separation. What is that separation? That by which one cannot live.143

The gopīs’ answers were a clear critique of Kṛṣṇa’s callousness—why do they still worship him, they argue; because he could live without them, he clearly did not possess Love for them. But in the discussion that followed, the gopīs’ angry judgement of Kṛṣṇa is proven wrong. Kavikarṇapūra soon follows this with a discussion on the different kinds of requited and unrequited love, drawn from the Bhāgavata itself (BP 10.32.16–19). The Bhāgavata offers this discussion as an Page 31 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love explanation, if not justification, for Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance, and Kavikarṇapūra recounts the arguments faithfully, concluding with the Bhāgavata’s justification. Kṛṣṇa explained: If I do not serve those who constantly serve me, this is to increase their longing, just as when the gold he had gained is gone a man drowns in constant thought of it.144

However, Kavikarṇapūra does not seem satisfied with this justification. When Kṛṣṇa had said this, the gopīs appeared fully satisfied, but ‘their faces did not express the distress of their hearts’,145 and so Kṛṣṇa spoke again, dismissing all he had just said: this ‘applies to common people, not to those who are venerable’.146 As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra argues that the gopīs’ love is (p. 317) both perfect and pure, and therefore does not need to be perfected or purified. Kṛṣṇa’s declaration in the Bhāgavata can thus not apply to them. In the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa therefore continued: One cannot rise above the utmost. There is nothing above the supreme Lord. There is nothing superior to this love. One does not reach another state beyond this ultimate state.147

Moreover, Your passion has reached its pinnacle, fawn‐eyed friends, what higher state can it reach? Sugar‐cane juice does not continue to crystallize when it turns into rock candy.148

Moreover, Continuously serving you, I remained close by, though concealed from your eyes —how else could your life air, ready to forsake you, have been forced to stay.149

Kṛṣṇa could not desert them, but continued to serve them even as he remained hidden. As the gopīs said earlier, a life of Love bears no separation, and that the gopīs did not die therefore indicated that Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs were indeed united, even in separation. Kṛṣṇa begged them for forgiveness ‘for my great recklessness’,150 and explained that ‘in time, what is utterly disagreeable, but done by one’s lover, grants the beloved something agreeable,’ just as the ‘the

Page 32 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love scorching heat, born from the blaze of the sun, generates great delight in the lotuses’ tender core’.151 As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra started this episode on this theme: in disappearing Kṛṣṇa was not just teaching them humility (and thereby unity with each other and Rādhā), but also granted greater variety to their experience of bliss, ‘like a painter resolved to colour with red dye a spotless cloth, to prevent it from being soiled and to give it a different appearance—thinking (p.318) that no other colour can be enjoyed as long as the vividness of pure white remains— he, as it were, at once made the misfortune found in separation sprout’.152 The final comment in the gopīs’ discussion, cited above, stated that in Rādhā’s suffering ‘poison and nectar’ were blended in an inexpressible way, for although it appears like suffering and ‘drives away the nourishing bliss heightened by the rapture of love’ it is yet ‘like a nectar that melts [the mind]’.153 As Kavikarṇapūra stresses in the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha, although separation may appear to be bereft of bliss, it cannot be said to be so: ‘because bliss is a property of the self, and because the self is never dependent on the external sensory faculties [which suffer the pain of separation], bliss certainly fully manifests.’154 Faced with such purity of love, Kṛṣṇa expressed his indebtedness to the gopīs: Ah, the love you have shown me in a single moment, I am not able to reciprocate, even in a lifetime of the gods. You will have to be repaid by your very own virtues.155

Conclusion Kavikarṇapūra uses narrative to suggest that the gopīs’ rasa is, ultimately, the rasa of Love, not that of common amorous love. We have seen in Chapter 3 that Kavikarṇapūra’s rasa theory is twofold, and the significance of that is brought out here. As we have seen, Kavikarṇapūra argues that both the characters and the audience can experience rasa—even if the rasa of the former is ‘imperceptible’ (parokṣa)—and he thus unites the two dominant interpretations of Bharata’s rasa theory. Following classical literary theory, Kavikarṇapūra offers a detailed classification of the protagonists and their supporting characters, as we have seen. These types are categorized in literary theory, but for a Vaiṣṇava like Kavikarṇapūra they are not merely critical concepts to analyse the narrative of literary works, but categories that reflect the eternal play of Kṛṣṇa. In the Alaṃkāra‐kaustubha Kavikarṇapūra limits his analysis to the constituents of the amorous rasa, but in his other works he highlights those related to other rasas in the world of Kṛṣṇa—and indeed Caitanya. The Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā highlights how various roles assumed by devotees in Caitanya’s play—father, mother, guru, (p.319) lover, brother, friend, messenger, servant, etc.— correspond to a divine design manifested in Kṛṣṇa’s play in Vṛndāvana. As we have seen in the previous chapter, at the beginning of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana Kavikarṇapūra elaborates on this by describing all the principal players in Page 33 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Kṛṣṇa’s sports that the reader will encounter in the poem—the dramatis personae not just of the literary work in which they will appear, but also of the divine drama which the literary work depicts. The characters of the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana are thus not ‘tools’ to bring out a higher truth, through allegory—as such devotional narratives are sometimes read156—but are themselves that higher truth. Kavikarṇapūra uses narrative and all the tools of poetics to depict that rasa of the characters, because that rasa illuminates the dynamics of love in the divine realm, even if the actual experience of it remains, for us mortal readers, imperceptible. Thus, if we place the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana in the context of Kavikarṇapūra’s devotional world, outlined in Chapter 2, this is not merely a description of the gopīs’ Love, but a meditation and celebration of it. This is made possible by the experience of rasa the poem generates for the audience. Although Kavikarṇapūra draws some distinctions between the rasa of the characters and that of the audience, as we have seen, by its absorption in the poem, the audience comes to experience the characters and their world as real. The audience becomes a spectator of their acts, and with an overwhelming sense of wonder, becomes a participant in their emotions, through the experience of rasa. The readers of the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana share in the gopīs’ emotions, not by experiencing the intensified emotions they experience, but by experiencing a different rasa that is grounded in their own stable emotion—that special property of consciousness—and developed into rasa by witnessing the characters (vibhāva), their actions (anubhāva), and their rapid change of emotions (vyabhicāri‐bhāva) described in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. The reader thus retains some distance from the gopīs’ own suffering, but that allows them to see what the gopīs in their separation from Kṛṣṇa were unable to perceive: that Kṛṣṇa indeed did not ever leave them, but is forever carried in their hearts. But the Bhāgavata’s narrative of the rāsa dance, which Kavikarṇapūra retells in such detail in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana, is for him more than just a meditation on the way God played with his dearest devotees in the past, when he descended to this world, or of the way he will continue to do so in the divine realm. Rather, it is for him also a narrative that explains the experience of his own community— the community of Caitanya’s devotees. The rāsa dance reflects not just Kavikarṇapūra’s understanding of the nature of God and of devotion, as we have seen, but also of his vision of the devotional community itself. (p.320) The exalted Love of Rādhā and the other gopīs can be experienced by us, Kavikarṇapūra argues throughout his works, because of the person of Caitanya. It is through Caitanya’s experience of the gopīs’ intense passion for Kṛṣṇa that others can know it too. Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa ‘thirsty for the rasa of his own bliss’ who ‘compassionately bathes even the wicked with [that] nectar’.157 Or, as Advaita declares in the Caitanya‐candrodaya: ‘Now, you, the blessed Lord, have a form perfectly fit to grasp the taste of that [Love of the gopīs]. May we Page 34 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love drink the drops that slowly seep through your fingers as you endlessly sip from your cupped hands the exalted, secret, thick nectar of that sweetest juice.’158 By experiencing it himself as Caitanya, Kṛṣṇa gives Rādhā’s extraordinary love for himself to the world, even if only in drops. Kavikarṇapūra can thus not think of the gopīs’ Love for Kṛṣṇa without thinking of Caitanya, as the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana narrative itself indicates. Śrīnātha and Kavikarṇapūra not only identify the gopī whom Kṛṣṇa singled out as Rādhā— which other early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava commentators on the Bhāgavata also do, as we have seen—but they also dismiss the Bhāgavata’s (apparent) claim that this one gopī too became proud. Their rereading of Rādhā’s character is profoundly shaped by their understanding of Caitanya. Since Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa who ‘wishes to see the passion of Vṛndāvana’s queen’,159 as we have seen in Chapter 2, we can only understand her through him. Śrīnātha’s and Kavikarṇapūra’s personal relationship with Caitanya frames their interpretation of the Bhāgavata narrative —as indeed Śrīnātha admits at the very commencement of his commentary160— and it is through their encounters with Caitanya that they reread the narrative of the rāsa dance. Indeed, Kavikarṇapūra specifically refers to this rāsa dance to explain Caitanya’s dual identity in both the Caitanya‐caritāmṛta‐mahā‐kāvya and the Gaura‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā.161 It is therefore through him, who is ‘a golden mountain of true Love’,162 that Kavikarṇapūra understands Rādhā’s devotion to Kṛṣṇa and the nature of Love. Caitanya’s desire to deliver the world and bring his devotees to Vṛndāvana, as Kavikarṇapūra describes at the end of the Caitanya‐candrodaya, is therefore an expression of Rādhā’s desire to lead the gopīs to Kṛṣṇa, as we see here in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. Indeed, as the Ānanda‐ vṛndāvana suggests, it is because he experienced Rādhā’s love that (p.321) he desires the deliverance of others, by granting them what he himself experienced as his own devotee. And that experience of Rādhā’s love draws all devotees together in mutual friendship, so that they can dance around the divine couple, whom Caitanya embodies, while they are all simultaneously embraced by the dark splendour of Vṛndāvana’s cowherd prince. (p.322) Notes:

(1) Aho naḥ sāhasam hasantu na santo yad ayam upakramo rasajñāḥ rasa‐jñāna‐ mada‐kaṇḍū‐khaṇḍanāya nāyam asmākam aparādho yataḥ kṣudro’pi kṣud‐ropita‐ vaikalyo’kalyo’pi durlabham iṣṭa‐miṣṭa‐dravyam abhilaṣati (AVC 17.87). (2) AVC 20.1. (3) Valaya‐sadṛśāvasthānena sthānena bhavati bhavad‐dūra‐vartitvam, asmākam smākampate hṛdayam, nāparaṃ dūrī‐bhavitum utsahāmahe, sahāmahe nāparaṃ duḥkham (AVC 20.4).

Page 35 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (4) Tatra prathamam eva ramaṇī‐maṇī‐bhāvenāsāmānyatayā mānyatayā ca sarvānumatyā kṛṣṇena sahaiva madhyam adhyavasthitā vṛṣabhānu‐putrī citrī‐ bhūtā satīva paritoṣavatīṃ ramaṇī‐maṇḍalīm ālokayaṃ cakāra (AVC 20.7). (5) Sanskrit and Prakrit, says Viśvanātha: sulalitābhyāṃ bhāṣābhyāṃ prākṛta‐ saṃskṛta‐mayībhyāṃ samaṃ tulyam. (6) Citra‐kāvyam iva sadā sukara‐sarvatobhadraṃ pratilomānuloma‐pāda‐ kramaṃ ca ekākṣara‐caraṇaṃ ca sulalita‐bhāṣā‐samaṃ ca, śabdālaṃkāraṇam iva sadāśleṣaṃ cheka‐vṛttyānuprāsaṃ punar‐uktavadābhāsa‐bhāsuram, nayanam iva madhya‐kṛṣṇam, chanda iva sadā viṣama‐sama‐bhāva‐ramaṇīya‐bhāvaṃ ramaṇī‐ maṇḍalam ābhāti sma (AVC 20.6). (7) Kavitā‐gata‐śithila‐bandha‐doṣam iva dūrī‐cikīrṣur gāḍha‐bandham aṅgī‐ kartum… (AVC 20.8). (8) See AVC 20.9–16. (9) …sā maṇḍalī / kiṃ jyotsnā‐timiraiḥ kim u sthira‐taḍin‐meghair atho campaka‐,śyāmābjair uta kāñcanendra‐maṇibhiḥ kḷptām api ajaiṣīt srajam (AVC 20.15). (10) Schweig (2005, p. 14). (11) Gerow (1979, p. 559). (12) Bharata discusses plot (itivṛtta) at some length in the Nāṭya‐śāstra (chapter 21), as do later authors of dramaturgy, such as Dhanañjaya (Daśa‐rūpaka chapter 1). Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Nāṭaka‐candrikā is almost entirely concerned with the topic (see Broo, 2011). Few authors on poetics devote much attention to it in the context of non‐dramatic literature. (13) Barthes (1977, p. 106). (14) See AK p. 44/172. (15) Like Viśvanātha, Kavikarṇapūra further subdivides these sixteen types according to whether they are highest (uttama), medium (madhyama), or lowest (adhama), resulting in forty‐eight types (see below for more on this threefold division). Kavikarṇapūra then adds a further subdivision: he can be divine (divya), divine and not divine (divyādivya), or not divine (divya), for a total of 144 types. Viśvanātha does not include this last division here, although he discusses these three types elsewhere in the Sāhitya‐darpaṇa (see SD 6.9 & p. 423). Kavikarṇapūra does not elaborate on them, but Viśvanātha clarifies that the ‘divine and not divine’ leading man is ‘divine, but considers himself a man, like

Page 36 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love Śrī Rāmacandra’ (divyādivyaḥ yo divyo’py ātmani narābhimānī, yathā śrī‐ rāmacandraḥ, SD 6.11). (16) Sarva‐nāyakādhīśaḥ (AK p. 44/173). (17) Sarva‐śuddha‐rasa‐vṛnda‐kandalaḥ sarva‐nāyaka‐ghaṭā‐kirīṭa‐gaḥ / atyalaukika‐guṇair alaṅkṛto gokulendra‐tanayaḥ su‐nāyakaḥ (AK p. 43/169). (18) Earlier, Kavikarṇapūra also comments that Kṛṣṇa is not a ‘rogue leading man’ (sarva‐nāyaka‐ghaṭeti sarva‐śabdo dhūrta‐nāyaka‐varjana‐paraḥ, AK p. 43/169). (19) Dhīra‐praśānta‐śaṭhayor dhṛṣṭasya ca bheda‐varjitair aparaiḥ / līla‐vaśataḥ sarvair aviruddhatvād viruddhe’pi / gokula‐rāja‐kumāras tena paraṃ sarva‐ nāyakādhīśaḥ / dhīrodātto guruṣu jñātiṣu dhīroddhato vipakṣeṣu / māyāviṣu niyatam asau vraja‐puryāṃ dhīra‐lalitaḥ syāt / anukūlo rādhāyāṃ sarvāsv aparāsu dakṣiṇaḥ kathitaḥ / līlā‐vaśāt kadācana dhṛṣṭo’pi śaṭhaś ca kutrāpi (AK p. 44/173). Viśvanātha Cakravartī adds that he can be composed towards his devotees (dhīra‐praśānta bhakteṣu). (20) Evam ekatra rato’py alaukika‐nāyakatvād dakṣino’pi (AK p. 44/174). (21) Śyāmāṅke caraṇau kaloru‐phalake śīrṣaṃ surekhāṅgulau, keśāṃś cāmara‐ cālikā‐bhuja‐taṭe dṛṣṭiṃ priyoktau śrutim / tāmbūlārpaṇikā‐kare kara‐puṭīṃ kastūrikorasy uraś, candrā‐vakṣasi pṛṣṭham arpayad aho nidrāti nīlaṃ mahaḥ (AK p. 44/174). Viśvanātha interprets Candrā to be Candrāvalī. (22) See SD 3.39–46. (23) AK p. 45/175. I am not sure where this classification is derived from (if it is indeed derived from earlier sources). It is not unique to Kavikarṇapūra, but found in other early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts; see, for example, Rūpa’s Rādhā‐ kṛṣṇa‐gaṇoddeśa‐dīpikā 1.2.21–38, Ujjvala‐nīlamaṇi 2.1, 13, BRAS 3.3.21–51. Rūpa comments that some of these friends of Kṛṣṇa are known from scripture (śāstra), others from folklore (loka, BRAS 3.3.52). (24) See AK pp. 43/170, 45–6/177–80. (25) Cf. Majumdar (1987). (26) See DA 3.6: Tathā hi mahā‐kavīnām apy uttama‐devatā‐viṣaya‐prasiddha‐ saṃbhoga‐śṛṅgāra‐nibandhanādy‐anaucityaṃ śakti‐tiraskṛtatvāt grāmyatvena na pratibhāsate, yathā kumāra‐sambhave devī‐sambhoga‐varṇanam (Translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). Abhinavagupta interprets this to mean that only after reading the description of their lovemaking—and being carried away by it—do we realize the impropriety of it. Although Ānandavardhana does not say whether our perception of such poetry later changes—as would be the case with a Page 37 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love semblance of rasa (rasābhāsa)—his later comments (DA 3.10–14) do suggest that he does indeed consider it a flaw, even if it is unnoticed, and therefore something that should be avoided. (27) Kiṃ tu ratiḥ saṃbhoga‐śṛṅgāra‐rūpā uttama-devatā-viṣayā na varṇanīyā. Tad‐varṇanaṃ hi pitroḥ saṃbhoga‐varṇanam ivātyantam anucitam (KP 7.14, p. 147). Viśvanātha repeats this view in SD 7.15. (28) See KP 7.14. (29) DA 3.10–14 (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). See also CMM 10.33.25: athavā, ātma‐nyavaruddha‐saurata ātmanā nyavaruddhaṃ saurataṃ grāmya‐ dharmo yenety ekam eva padam. Īśvarasya tasya īśvarīnāṃ ca tāsāṃ grāmya‐ dharmo’nucitaḥ, ‘anaucityādṛte nānyad rasa‐bhaṅgasya kāraṇam’ [DA 3.14] iti rasa‐grantha‐kāraḥ. Tathā‐vidha‐dampatīnāṃ tu parasparādhara‐pāna‐ cumbanāliṅganādir abādha eva śṛṅgāraḥ. (30) Uttama‐devatādīnāṃ pārvatī‐parameśvarādīnāṃ śṛṅgāra‐varṇanaṃ ca na kāryam. Yat tu kṛtaṃ śrī‐kālidāsādibhis tad duṣṭam. Tad‐varṇanaṃ hi sva‐pitroḥ śṛṅgāra‐varṇanam iva (AK p. 140/395). (31) Evaṃ śrī‐keśavayor apīti kecit. Kecit tu varṇayanti, tayor īśvaratvād devatātvaṃ neti (AK p. 140/395–6). He then gives examples from the Kāvya‐ prakāśa (Chapter 5, p. 270) and Govardhana’s Āryā‐saptaśatī (verse 8). (32) Rādhā‐mādhavayos tu varṇanīyam eva, sarveśvaratvena devatātvābhāvāt, vidhi‐vākyaṃ ca [BP 10.33.39] ‘vikrīḍitaṃ vraja‐vadhūbhir idaṃ ca viṣṇoḥ śraddhānvito’nu śṛṇuyād atha varṇayed yaḥ’ ity ādi (AK p. 140/396). (33) DA 3.10–14b (translation by Ingalls et al., 1990). (34) Etena gopībhiḥ saha sa khalu vilāso hi sādhanāntareṇāpi duṣkaraṃ hṛdaya‐ śodhanaṃ karotīti rahasyam (CMM 10.33.39). (35) Kintu yatra yatrānaucityaṃ pratīyate, tat tad eva na varṇanīyam iti (AK p. 140/396). He then cites DA 3.14. (36) See CMM 10.8.31, 10.22.8, 10.33.25. See also CC 3.5.91–158. (37) See AK p. 32/131. (38) Yady apy ayaṃ rasābhāsaḥ paroḍha‐ramaṇī‐ratiḥ / tathāpi dhvani‐vaiśiṣṭyād uttamaṃ kāvyam eva tat.…ābhāso’pi camatkāra‐daśāyāṃ dhvani‐bhāg bhavet iti dhvani‐maryādayaivottama‐kāvyatvaṃ, na tv anaucitya‐rītyā (AK p. 32/133). (39) Loke pūrvaiḥ paroḍhā na gaṇyate (AK p. 47/181).

Page 38 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (40) As we have seen in Chapter 3, Kavikarṇapūra defines love as such in AK p. 31/124. (41) Aprākṛte tu paroḍha‐ramaṇī‐ratir eva sarvottamatayā bhūyasī śruyate, na tasyā anaucitya‐pravartitvam, alaukikatva‐siddher bhūṣaṇam eva na tu dūṣaṇam iti nyāyāt, tarkāgocaratvāc ca. Tathā ca [Mahābhārata 6.6.11]—‘alaukikāś ca ye bhāvā na tāṃs tarkeṇa yojayet’ iti ca. Vraja‐vadhūnāṃ kṛṣṇaikatāna‐ mānasatvena sva‐pati‐niṣṭhatvābhāvāt teṣāṃ ca māyā‐kalita‐tac‐chāyānuśīlanena tad‐aṅga‐saṅgamāt pratyuta kevalānurāga‐mātropādhitayā ceto‐rañjakatāyāḥ śuddham eva (AK p. 32/133–4). See also AK p. 47/181–2. (42) Alaukike tu kṛṣṇādhikaraṇaka‐rates tad eka‐mātra‐niṣṭḥatvān na rasābhāsaḥ, anaucitya‐pravartitā ābhāsā iti, tad‐abhāvāt pratyutaucityam eva (AK p. 47/181). (43) Kācid atra pratiyoginī yoginī yoginī‐rājita‐padāravindā raviṃ dārayitum api samarthā yogamāyā māyā‐vivāhaṃ kārayitvā kautukavatī kau tu kavatītareṣu tad‐abhijñato vivāham iti punar āsāṃ narāsāmprataṃ pati‐vidveṣaṃ ca janayām āsa. Svabhāvataḥ punar imā na mānavyaḥ. Tenāsu tasyā mahatī maha‐tīvra‐tarā prītir ata eva mānavāmānavānāṃ saṅgatir asāmprataṃ sāmprataṃ tv iti svayam eva mati‐bhedaṃ kārayitvā rayitvāc ca tasya sparśādikaṃ ca na kārayati raya‐ tigmā sā khalu yoginī (AVC 14.10–11). (44) Yogamāyā ca bhagavatī bhagavato nirupamā śaktiḥ (AVC 2.3). (45) Lasad‐aghaṭana‐ghaṭana‐samartha‐prabhāvayā yogamāyayā (AVC 17.124). See also AVC 2.3: aśeṣa‐viśeṣa‐durghaṭa‐ghaṭanā‐paṭīyastvam urarī‐kṛtya…Cf. CMM 10.29.1: rāsa‐vilāse durghaṭa‐ghaṭanā‐paṭīyasīṃ yogamāyām… (46) See CCU p. 29/81, 35/100 & 37/105. (47) See Gupta (2014, pp. 51–96). (48) Iyaṃ tu bhagavato mahā‐yogavato mahā‐yoga‐śaktis tāsāṃ patim‐ manyamānām anyā nārīs tat‐tat‐praticchāyāś chāyā‐rūpā rūpākṛtibhis tat‐tat‐ samānāḥ samānāyya, nitya‐siddha‐śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐preyasī‐svarūpeṇa rūpeṇa sahāvatīrṇānāṃ āsāṃ aniyojita‐dūtī‐bhāvaṃ bhāvaṃ bhāvaṃ, kṛṣṇāṅga‐ saṅgama‐maṅgalāya tāḥ sakalāḥ sakalāḥ yathā‐samayaṃ yad upaneṣyati, tatra kaḥ sandeha iti siddhānta‐siddhāṃ tad ubhayoḥ keliṃ ke limpanti na vaidagdhyādi‐vilāsa‐viśeṣāḥ (AVC 11.78). (49) Evaṃ tāsāṃ nitya‐siddhānāṃ lakṣmīto’pi śreyasīnāṃ preyasīnāṃ prema‐ sāṅkocya‐samūḍhām ūḍhā‐matiṃ yaiva yogamāyā sva‐māyā‐svacchandatayā samapād iha, saiva mānanā‐gurūṇāṃ gurūṇāṃ patim‐manyamānām anyā nārīs tat‐tat‐praticchāyā‐rūpāc chāyā‐rūpākṛti‐tulyāś ca bibhratām aviṣayaṃ ca cakāra tāsāṃ kṛṣṇena saha saṅgamam (AVC 10.74). See also KAK 6.12.

Page 39 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (50) Pitṛ‐bhrātr‐ādi‐saṅkocāt sva‐dhārṣṭyādi‐bhāyād api / guḍhā yasyā ratir gāḍhā sarvathā surasāyate (AK p. 48/183). (51) Te’pi ca na patim‐manyāḥ tāḥ sudṛśaḥ smābhyasūyanti / chāyā‐rūpatayā tāḥ pārśvasthā ity amaṃsatāviratam (AVC 20.131). See also CMM 10.2.25, 10.33.38. (52) Para‐puruṣatvaṃ tasya na para‐nārītvam ca no tāsām / para‐puruṣatvaṃ tasmin para‐nārītvaṃ ca tāsv eva (AVC 20.132). See also AVC 10.26: parama‐ puruṣa evāyaṃ na hi para‐puruṣaḥ. (53) Sāndrānanda‐kalevareṇa rasikenānandinībhiḥ samaṃ svābhiḥ śaktibhir ābhir eva parito gopāṅganā‐nāmabhiḥ (AVC 20.128). See also Viśvanātha on AVC 20.132. (54) Tad ayaṃ vo manorathaḥ sādhu nādhunātanatvam eti, vāsanā‐sanātanatvena saha pūrva‐pūrva‐siddha eva, tad ayaṃ nityaḥ satyaḥ sarasaś ca. Sādhāraṇyena mamāyaṃ svabhāvaḥ. Tathā hi, sthavīyasy ānande mayi vinihitaṃ dhauta‐hṛdayair na rāgaṃ rāgatvāśrayam api karomi kṣaṇam api paraṃ tu svānandāmṛta‐mayatayā taṃ pravidadhe na hi svacchandaujā bhavati rasa‐kūpo’nya‐rasabhāk Bhavatīnāṃ tu svabhāva‐siddhānām addhā nāma svabhāvo’yaṃ bhāvo yaṃ śrīr api prārthayate. Sāmānyānām api mayi parame rasa‐sindhau kāmādyā nāṅkurāyante, na kvathitā na ca bhṛṣṭā yavādayo hanta bījanti. (AVC 12.101– 102) Cf. BP 10.22.25–26, CMM 10.22.25–26. (55) Nitya‐siddhānāṃ āsāṃ nitya‐siddhā nāmāsāmmukyaṃ nārhati kadācid api sā rasa‐rītiḥ. Na ca sā vayaḥ‐kṛteti vayaḥ‐kṛteti‐kartavyatā ca tasyā iti kaiśorāgame rāga‐meduratā ca tāsāṃ na vismaya‐janikā jani‐kāla‐samakālam evājani (AVC 8.12). (56) AVC 2.2. (57) AVC 17.47. (58) Naitac citraṃ ratimatām atādātmyaṃ yad etad aho rati‐vāsanā‐sanāthānāṃ vāsanā‐sanātanatvena guṇoparamaḥ paramas tu bhavann eva vāsanānurūpaṃ rūpaṃ nirguṇam eva janayati, naya‐tilaka‐bhūtāyāḥ kṛṣṇa‐rater iyaṃ hi prabhāvaḥ prabhā‐bahulaḥ (AVC 17.48). (59) Kāmī dīnaḥ, strī ca durātmā, nāhaṃ kāmitve’pi dīno līlā‐kāmitvāt, naitā api sāmānya‐strī‐vat, mad‐aṅga‐saṅga‐maṅgalavattvāt, tena mad‐vyatiriktaḥ kāmī dīna eva, etad‐vyatiriktāḥ striyo durātmān (AVC 18.117). Page 40 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (60) CMM 10.30.35. (61) Nāyaṃ kāmī, naitā api striyaḥ strī‐prabhṛtayaḥ, etāḥ kila cid‐ānanda‐śakti‐ rūpāḥ, āsāṃ pārthakyaṃ nāsti, ekayā saha ramaṇam eva sarvāsām ramaṇam iti bodhayan (CMM 10.30.35). (62) AVC 11.78. (63) CCU p. 81/231. For more on this description, see O’Connell 1993b. (64) The words used here—bhartṛ and bhāryā—are commonly used for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, but as this goes against everything Kavikarṇapūra argues in his other works about Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s extra‐marital relationship, I have here translated it as ‘king’ and ‘subject’. I take the verse to be a description of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s meeting in Kurukṣetra, when the latter has become king of Dvārakā (see BP 10.82.40–48, and CC 2.13.120–161, 3.1.75–79). (65) CCU pp. 84–5/241–3. (66) There are a few places where Kavikarṇapūra cites the Bhāgavata or refers to a specific passage. See, for example, AVC 1.43, 5.35, 18.117. (67) Āsāṃ madhye sakala‐ramaṇī‐mauli‐maṇi‐māleva, vaidarbhī‐rītir iva mādhuryauja‐prasādādi‐sakala‐guṇavatī sakalālaṃkāravatī rasa‐bhāva‐mayī ca, kanaka‐ketakīva premārāmasya, taḍin‐ mañjarīva madhurima‐jaladharasya, kanaka‐rekheva saundarya‐nikaṣa‐pāṣāṇasya…kāpi śrī‐rādhikā nāma (AVC 1.97). (68) Yām khalu mahālakṣmīr iti kecana, laliteti tāntrikāḥ, ānandinī‐śaktir iti kecid āmananti (AVC 1.99). (69) Ramaṇī‐maṇi‐sabhā‐sabhājitā jitābdhi‐tanayā […] vārṣabhānavī (AVC 14.88). (70) Dvitīyā ca kācid yūthapā candrāvalīva paramāhlādinī, prakṛtir iva guṇa‐mayī, nayanendriya‐vṛttir iva rūpavatī, apāṃ vṛttir iva rasa‐mayī, kusumāvalir iva paramodārā, candrāvalī nāma…(AVC 1.100). (71) …lalanā‐ratnam (AVC 1.100). (72) See also AK p. 87/282: Śyāme vakṣasi kṛṣṇasya gaurī rājati rādhikā / kanakasya yathā rekhā vimale nikaṣopale. (73) See AVC 10.49, where Rohiṇī describes the couple as toṣa‐hetur ayi ghoṣa‐ pura‐śrī‐kaṇṭha‐bhūṣaṇam idaṃ maṇi‐yugmam. Rādhā’s friends respond: Yad idaṃ ghoṣa‐pura‐śrī‐kaṇṭha‐bhūṣaṇam idam maṇi‐yugmam ity ekādhikaraṇa‐ karaṇa‐pratipādakaṃ vaco’viprakṛṣṭaṃ prakṛṣṭam arthaṃ bodhayati, ghoṣa‐ pura‐śrī‐kaṇṭha‐mauli‐maṇi‐maṇḍana‐yugmam ity anukter atisulalitam etat. See also Viśvanātha’s and Vanamālidāsa’s commentary.

Page 41 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (74) Kavikarṇapūra indeed clarifies that there are many leaders: evaṃ śrī‐rādhā‐ sapakṣā śyāmā nāma kāpi yūthapeti bahvya eva yatra yūthapāḥ (AVC 1.100). (75) AVC 9.57. (76) Iti maṇḍalīṃ vyūhya vividha‐vicitra‐caritra‐cārima‐garima‐kāliya‐mardana‐ līlā‐kathānukathanena niśārdhaṃ gamayatām ayatām atha nidrām api strī‐ puṃsānām madhye daivopasāditena tena rasamayena samayena śrī‐kṛṣṇa‐ mukha‐candram abādham eva sānurāgam animeṣam īkṣamāṇanāṃ vadhūnāṃ kumārikāṇāṃ ca cākṣuṣe mānase ca bhoge nirbharaṃ nirvahati sati mukhyānāṃ candrāvalī‐prabhṛtīnāṃ cātiśāyini nayanotsave pūrvam evāṅkurita‐prema‐ manorathayor atha yogam ākasmikaṃ tam āsādya paraspara‐didṛkṣā‐sadṛkṣā samutkaṇṭhā samutkaṇṭhā samutpanīpadyate sma yadi, tadaivākasmikam abhimukhīnam ubhayor eva cāturakṣikam akṣi‐kamala‐khelanam āsīt (AVC 9.58). (77) Rādhāloke prasarati harer dolito dṛṣṭa‐pātaḥ, pucchāghātād iva madirayor vepitāmbhoja‐rājī / kṛṣṇāloke sati mukulitā rādhikāyāḥ kaṭākṣāḥ, padmāghātād iva rati‐pateḥ prāpta‐bhaṅgāḥ pṛṣatkāḥ (AVC 9.59). (78) Kavikarṇapūra compares Rādhā’s restless eyes with the skittish wagtail also beautifully in CCU p. 40/112: añjanī mṛga‐dṛśo dṛg‐añcalaḥ pañjarastha iva bhāti khañjanaḥ. (79) Evaṃ muhūrtaṃ mūrtaṃ mūrcchantam iva tam anurāga‐sumanaḥ‐parāga‐ paṭalāndhakāram anubhavatos tayoś candrāvalī‐prabhṛtiṣv api kṛṣṇaṃ vārṣabhānavyāṃ navyāṃ ratim udvahantam anumāntīṣu sakalāsv aparāsu nidrām upagacchantīṣu keṣucid api mithaḥ kṛṣṇa‐kathā‐kathanenaiva jāgratsu ‘bho bho atyāhitam atyāhitam’ ity ahita‐sucakaḥ kaṣṭataraḥ ko’pi kalakalaḥ samullalāsa (AVC 9.90). (80) AVC 10.3–4. (81) Upanamayati yad yat prātikulyaṃ natāṅgī / prabhavati kila tat tat kṛṣṇa‐ kautūhalāya (AVC 11.86). (82) See AVC 10.1–28. (83) See AVC 10.29–72, particularly 71–72. (84) See AVC 11.67–99. (85) BP 10.30.28 states that when Kṛṣṇa disappeared with the (nameless) gopī, he was ‘worshipped (rādhita or ārādhita) by her’. Early Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas see this as an indication that it is indeed Rādhā whom Kṛṣṇa singled out: see, for example, Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya’s Kṛṣṇa‐prema‐taraṅginī (śuddha‐bhāve hari ārādhila ei rāmā / saphala rādhikā‐nāma dhare pūrṇa‐kāmā, 10.30.28); Sanātana’s Vaiṣṇava‐toṣanī 10.30.28 and Jīva’s Laghu‐vaiṣṇava‐toṣanī 10.30.28 Page 42 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (rādhayati ārādhayatīti rādheti nāma‐kāraṇaṃ ca darśitam); Jīva’s Prīti‐ sandarbha 109 (yataś ca rādhayatīti niruktyā tasyā rādheti saṃjñāpi jāteti bhāvaḥ). See also Sanātana’s Bṛhad‐bhāgavatāmṛta 1.7.158. However, earlier commentators do not interpret these words as such, nor attach any importance to the verse. Śrīdhara’s comments are immensely brief, and he has nothing to say about the identity of this gopī, nor do Madhva (who does not comment on the verse) and Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha (who does not identify her). Vallabha offers a lengthy interpretation of the verse, but does not identify the gopī as Rādhā. (Neither Vopadeva nor Hemādri cite or comment on the verse, as most of this Bhāgavata chapter is skipped in Muktāphala 12.) Mālādhara Vasu does not identify this gopī as Rādhā either and leaves her unnamed in the Kṛṣṇa‐vijaya (pp. 40–1), although he later writes extensively about Rādhā’s participation in the rāsa dance (pp. 44–7). For a useful overview of Rādhā’s general rise in literature, see Miller (1977, pp. 26–37). (86) CC 2.15.99–101. Mālādhara makes Rādhā and Candrāvalī the two principal gopīs, each with their own group of friends, whom he names; see Kṛṣṇa‐vijaya pp. 44–7. The earliest reference to Candrāvalī I have found is in an anonymous verse cited in the Subhāṣitāvalī of Vallabhadeva (thirteenth century), verse 98: rādhā‐mohana‐mandiraṃ jagamiṣoś candrāvalī‐mandirād, rādho kṣemam iti priyasya vacanaṃ śrutvāha candrāvalī / kṣemaṃ kaṃsa tataḥ priyaḥ prakupitaḥ kaṃsaḥ kva dṛṣṭas tvayā, rādhā kveti tayoḥ prasanna‐manasor hāsodgamaḥ pātu vaḥ. In the Gīta‐govinda, Jayadeva refers to Rādhā’s friends and her rivals, although he does not name any of them. Caṇḍīdāsa also uses the name Candrāvalī occasionally, but it seems he does so to refer to Rādhā herself; see Kṛṣṇa‐kīrtana p. 707. (87) Rantuṃ manaś cakre (BP 10.29.1, translation by Schweig, 2005, p. 25). (88) Tāsāṃ tat‐saubhaga‐madaṃ vīkṣya (BP 10.29.48, translation by Schweig, 2005, p. 39). (89) Evaṃ saubhaga‐mada‐nade madana‐devayādasi mahā‐srotasi na sutare tarer bhaṅga iva magnānāṃ tāsāṃ antargata‐mada‐jala‐pūraṃ dūrī‐kariṣyann iva; nija‐durlīlatā‐latā‐cakram āropya tā bhrāmayitum upakrānta iva; durjara‐ saubhaga‐mada‐madirātiśaya‐sevana‐lasad‐alasa‐daśā‐pūrva‐rūpa‐ madātyayābhidha‐viṣama‐gadam agadaṅkāra iva cikitsaṃs tad‐upadrava‐hāri lalitam agadaṃ sampādayann iva; sahaja‐dhavalatā‐latā‐bala‐tādavasthye rāgāntarasya rasyatā na bhavatīti niṣkapaṭasya paṭasya tad‐upaśamayituṃ rūpāntaram āpādayituṃ ca lodhrādi‐kaṣāyeṇa kaṣāyita‐karaṇāya pravṛtto raṅgājīva iva; madana‐mada‐namitānanda‐tundilatāvidrāvakaṃ drāvakaṃ rasam iva vipralambha‐lambhana‐dauravasthyaṃ sadya evāṅkurayann iva; paripūrṇa evānanda‐candrikā‐paṭale dustara‐tara‐duḥkha‐tamaḥ‐stomam avatārayann iva; pravāhe ca paiyūṣe paiyūṣe ca sarasi kāla‐kūṭa‐kūṭam utpādayann iva; parimala‐ saubhāgya‐bhāji navāgni‐śikhāvalāv agni‐śikhāvalāvakṣepam iva, nirjaladharaṃ Page 43 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love kuliśa‐pātam iva, nirāśīviṣam āśī‐viṣa‐visarpam iva, sarvāsām asambhāvanā‐ viṣayo bhāvanā‐viṣayaś ca yan na bhavati, tad akasmād eva nirīkṣamāṇa eva prastute stute vilāsa‐rase sarase hṛdi tatraiva tirodhānaṃ sa nikhila‐kalā‐kalāpa‐ vedhā vidadhāti sma (AVC 17.158). (90) Na tu sthānāntaram gataḥ, antarhita eva tatraiva sthita ity arthaḥ (CMM 10.29.48). See also CMM 10.30.2–4. (91) Athaivam antarhitam antar‐hitam api… (AVC 18.1). Cf. BP 10.30.1. (92) …bhū‐valayaṃ tadā śūnyam iva manyamānā tam atha dṛśyamānam ivāpi na paśyantī, spṛśyamānam ivāpi na spṛśantī, kathayantam ivāpi jānatī na tat‐kathāṃ śṛṇvantī, bahir‐vartamānam iva hṛdaye’nubhavantī na bahir upalabhamānā, śravaṇayoḥ kuvalayam iva śravaṇa‐bahir-bhūtam, nayana‐kajjalam iva nayana‐ dūra‐gāminam, vakṣaso nīla‐maṇim iva vakṣaso’ntaritam, ekam api diśi diśi sphurantam, diśi vidiśi santam api hṛdaye praviśantam, kara‐kamalena spṛśantam api prati‐sparśana‐duṣprāpam, vakṣasā śliśyantam api praty‐ āśleṣānarham, mukha‐candramasā cumbantam api praticumbane’kṣaṇam avagacchantī, kṣaṇaṃ bhitti‐puttalikeva, nabhasi citriteva, unmūlita‐jīvaneva, jvalad‐aṅgārāliṅgita‐hṛdayeva, kāla‐kūṭa‐kūṭa‐lipta‐śarīreva, kara‐patreṇa vidīryamāṇa‐vakṣasthaleva yadi samajaniṣṭa, tadāsyā rāmāvaler manasi kṣate jambīra‐rasa iva, śuṣke dāruṇi dahana iva, marmaṇi churikeva, urasi coraga‐ kṣatam iva, śarīre mahā-jvara iva, jaṭhare mahā‐śula iva, nayanayor āndhyam iva, śravaṇayor bādhiryam iva, tvaci suptateva, saṃvidi mahonmāda iva, kaścana dāruṇo duḥkha‐paripākaḥ paribhavakārī babhūva (AVC 18.4). (93) Kavikarṇapūra uses the same image elsewhere in the Ānanda‐vṛndāvana. See AVC 11.30 (describing the gopīs): tataś ca kajjalam iva nayanayor indīvaram iva śravasor indranīla‐maṇi‐hāra iva vakṣasaḥ kastūrikānulepanam iva sarvāṅgasya sa tāsām abhavat. See also AVC 13.31 (describing the brāhmaṇa wives who offered Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma food): tad idam aho maho’pi tāsāṃ nayaneṣu kajjalāyitam, kavarīṣu kuvalya‐mālāyitam, śravaṇeṣu tāpiñcha‐ gucchāyitam, payodhareṣu nīla‐maṇi‐hārāyitam, sarvāṅgeṣu nīla‐nicalāyitam. (94) Tathāntar‐vṛtti‐nivṛtti‐nirate tarala‐taraṅga‐nikare tasminn unmādormi‐ mālini hṛdayam āviśya hṛdayasya kṛṣṇākāra‐kāraṇatāṃ prāptavati…(AVC 18.12). Cf. BP 10.30.2–3. (95) Tadā tābhir alakṣyamāṇaiva yogamāyāgamā yā bhagavatī chāyeva tāsām anvanuyāntī yā tīvratāṃ prātikūlya‐kṛtāṃ harati, sā tābhir api nājñāyata (AVC 18.13). (96) Tūṣṇīṃ tiṣṭhatha kiṃ na vañcayatha naḥ satyaṃ sa vo gocaraḥ / stambho’yaṃ katham anyathā balavatānandena yaḥ kalpitaḥ (AVC 18.14). Cf. BP 10.30.5.

Page 44 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (97) Śyāmo’nena pathā bhavadbhir anaghair gacchan samālokitaḥ / cittaṃ yo’pajahāra no na na na nety ādhūyamānair dalair, mā mithyā gadathā’nyathā katham ayaṃ romodgamo vaḥ sthiraḥ / ity ālapya tad‐uttaram anālabhya punar ūcire ‘aho amī tad‐gaṇā eva tenaiva dāruṇatayā na prativacanaṃ racayanti’ (AVC 18.15–16). Cf. BP 10.30.6. (98) A prominent exception to this is tulasī, the plant sacred to Kṛṣṇa. She is addressed in a series of verses and brief prose, and is said to be ‘naturally compassionate’ and free from envy (AVC 18.20), willing to share Kṛṣṇa with them (AVC 18.19). However, she too suffers the plight of the gopīs, as she too is pained by separation from Kṛṣṇa and is thus unable to respond (AVC 18.21). Cf. BP 10.30.7. (99) Iyam eva dayāvatī yāvatīnāṃ taru‐latā‐mṛga‐jātīnāṃ jātīnāṃ vane yāntī darśayantīva kṛṣṇa‐vartma kṛṣṇa‐vartmato’pi dāha‐karaṃ saṃjvaraṃ naḥ śamayatīva (AVC 18.41). Cf. BP 10.30.11. (100) Ehy ehy haṃsi sakhi śaṃsa pataṅga‐putryā, kiṃ preṣito’si puru-vatsalayā tvam atra / ām tat‐taṭīm anu sa vartata eva tasmād, asmān nināyayiṣur āśu dideśa sā tvām (AVC 18.44). (101) Evaṃ praśna‐saṃśaya‐niścayādikāyām unmādasya madhyamāvasthāyāṃ viratāyāṃ pākāvasthopakrame krameṇa sadā sad-bhāva-bhāva‐bale’valeparahite para‐hite ceta-si cetasiddhe satata‐sphuraṇa‐kāraṇa‐kānta‐kṛṣṇāvirbhūti‐bhūtivaśāt kṛṣṇo’ham iti miti‐gamyetara‐tādātmya‐taraṅgo raṅgotkara‐kārī yadi babhūva, tadā tad āveśāc chrutāvalokita‐cakita‐camatkāra‐kāraṇe bhagavato līlānukāre kā rejur natarām (AVC 18.52). Viśvanātha comments that the play that was ‘heard’ is ‘the slaying of Pūtanā, etc.’, that which was ‘seen’ refers to ‘the lifting of Govardhana, etc.’. (102) Tatra sajātīyā mano’nukūlā kūlāvaghātinī nadī kūlam iva ghana‐rasā drutaṃ drutaṃ karoti manaḥ, vijātīyā virasatādā tādātmyāya na ghaṭate tatra manaso’niveśāveśābhāvāt (AVC 18.54). (103) AVC 18.55. (104) See CMM 10.30.14–15. (105) Kṛṣṇa‐bhāvanāyā nāyāso’tra laghutaro’pi ropita āsīt, manye sa eva tāsāṃ tathā‐tathā‐līlaḥ sann antaraṃ praviveśa, naitat tādātmyam iti (AVC 18.56). (106) Tās tā līlāḥ svayam anukaroty evam āsvāda‐hetor, manye tāsāṃ hṛdaya‐ kuharaṃ sanniviṣṭaḥ sa eva / no ced antaḥ‐karaṇa‐viratau saṃvidaḥ sannirodhe, tāsāṃ ceṣṭā vacana‐vapuṣor jāyate kasya hetoḥ (AVC 18.67). (107) Sadya eva sahaiva tādātmya‐nidrā‐bhaṅgaḥ sampadyata (AVC 18.84).

Page 45 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (108) Āyātaṃ mana‐ādibhir vikasitaṃ netrādibhir jīvitaṃ, santāpena samutthitaṃ bata vidā saṃmūrcchitaṃ cintayā / bhūyaḥ prāg iva kṛṣṇa‐mārgaṇa‐vidhau kāmaṃ kuraṅgī‐dṛśaḥ, sarvā dikṣu vidikṣu datta‐nayanāḥ kātaryam abhyāyayuḥ (AVC 18.85). (109) See KP 4.13, SD 3.267. (110) See AK pp. 63–72/220–36. (111) De (1976, vol. 2, p. 216). (112) See AK pp. 37ff/153ff. (113) Viprakarṣe’pi rates tathaiva svataḥ‐siddhatvāt (AK p. 37/153). (114) …nītāyā nītāyāmi‐saubhāgya‐rasāyā rasāyā divo’pi durāpāyāḥ kasyāścit priyatamāyā māyā‐rahita‐hita‐sauhṛdāyā hṛdāyāta‐vallabha‐praṇaya‐saulabhya‐ labhyamāna‐mānāyāḥ sahaja‐praṇaya‐sukhārādhāyā rādhāyāś caraṇa‐lāñchanāni …(AVC 18.96). (115) Dhanyeyaṃ jagatī‐gatonnata‐vadhū‐ratneṣu ratnottamaṃ, saubhāgyotsava‐ bhūḥ prabhūta‐sukṛtā rādhaiva nirdhāritā / jyotsnā candramasaṃ vinā pika‐ girāṃ lakṣmīr vasantaṃ vinā, vidyud vāri‐dharaṃ vinā na bhavituṃ sambhāvanām arhati (AVC 18.97). (116) Sahaja‐matsara‐mate (AVC 18.99). (117) Sā kṛṣṇa‐praṇayotsavāmṛta‐rasa‐srotasvatī‐srotasi, kṣiptāṅgī śiśutāvadhi sva‐vapuṣi svācchandya‐hīnā vapuḥ / yatra kvāpi mahārayeṇa mahatā tat‐ strotasā nīyate, tasmād vārayituṃ na pārayati sā śaivālavad bhāsate (AVC 18.99). (118) Jātaṃ sahaiva vapuṣā saha vardhamānam, aikyena no pṛthag iti pratipadyamānam / āsādya kālam upakoṣam asau tyajantī, naivāparādhyati hi gandha‐phalī kadāpi (AVC 18.100). (119) Hitvā gopīḥ kāma‐yānā mām asau bhajate priyaḥ (BP 10.30.36). (120) Sā ca rādhā sarvāḥ sakhīr anusmṛtya manasi cakāra. Kiṃ tat? Sarva‐ yoṣitāṃ variṣṭham ātmānaṃ mene. Ko’rthaḥ? Ahaṃ sarva‐pradhāna‐bhūtā, mamaitan na yujyate (CMM 10.30.37–8). Śrīdhara, by contrast, comments: tā gopīr hitvā māṃ bhajata iti hetor ātmānaṃ variṣṭhaṃ mene iti. (121) Atha sā parama‐komala‐hṛdayā hṛdayālutamānām agraṇīḥ śubhagānāṃ subhagānāṃ sucira‐durāpatākā patākeva kevalam ātma‐niṣṭhayā rata‐ niṣṭhayārata‐mānasā vicārayām āsa. mayy ekasyām atiśaya‐ratiḥ prāṇa‐nātho mad‐ālyas Page 46 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love tā vicchedād ahaha dadhate hā kathaṃ prāṇa‐yogam tasmād vāmyaṃ kim api karavai yena neto vidūraṃ gacched eṣa kramata iha tās tāś ca sarvā milanti (AVC 18.118–19). (122) Sa ca camatkāram iva tasyās tad idam uditaṃ ditaṃ kurvāṇo bāṇopamam iva bahir matvā tasyāḥ sahajam apy amadaṃ tu danturaṃ samadam iva bahir‐ jānan, antas tu ‘svāyattakāntāyāḥ kāntāyāḥ samucitam eva madaṃ mad‐antaraṃ pramadayantam etam etasyām api tirodhāne tīrthaṃ karomi’ iti vicārayan bahir‐ madāpanoda‐vinoda‐viśeṣa‐dāruṇa‐bhāvo’ruṇabhā‐bodhita‐kamala‐nayano nayanodakaṃ kim api jagāda. ‘Calana‐sāmagrī yadi na dṛśyate, tadā madīyam imam aṃsa‐maṃsala‐lāvaṇya‐lakṣmīkaṃ kṛtārthīkuruṣvāroheṇa’ iti vadan dṛśyamāna eva tatraiva vartamāna eva tad‐akṣi‐gocaratāṃ vijahau (AVC 18.121– 22). (123) Sā vāg‐vaidagdhī sukhāvagāha‐kṛte vasudhā‐sudhā‐taraṅgiṇī viṣa‐ taraṅgiṇītvam āgateva anulepanārtham ānītaṃ sugandha‐sāra‐gandha‐sāra‐ paṅkaṃ jvalad‐aṅgāratām iva samupagataṃ nayana‐bhūṣaṇārtham āhṛtaṃ siddha‐kajjalaṃ kajjalaṃ viṣa‐dūṣitam iva sampannam (AVC 18.123). (124) AVC 18.124. (125) Hā nātha hā ramaṇa hā praṇayaika‐sindho, kvāsi priya prakaṭaya sva‐ vilokanaṃ me / āṃ vedmi yady api bhavantam ihaiva santaṃ, dūre dṛśor iti tathāpy asubhir dunomi (AVC 18.125). (126) Naivāparādham iha kiṃcana garva‐hetor, naivoditaṃ vaca idaṃ ruṣito’si yena / tāsāṃ samāgamana‐mūla‐vilamba‐hetor no pāraye calitum ity avadaṃ na garvāt (AVC 18.127). (127) Dhig yāminīṃ na ramate yadi yāminīśo, dhik padminīṃ yadi na paśyati padminīśaḥ / dhig jīvitaṃ yad avahelati jīviteśo, bhuktaḥ priyeṇa hi guṇo guṇatām upaiti (AVC 18.130). (128) Valyaḥ puṣpa‐rasaiḥ sahaiva siṣicur bhṛṅgyo bhṛśaṃ vījayāṃ, cakruḥ pakṣa‐ vidhūnanaiḥ khaga‐ghaṭā hā heti nādaṃ vyadhuḥ / sāraṅgyo galad‐aśru‐kātara‐ dṛśaḥ sāśaṅkam āvavrire, vanyair eva samādadhe parijanaiḥ kālocitaṃ sevanam (AVC 18.133). (129) Svacchāyaiva sarojinī‐dalamayī śayyeva tasyā abhūt, jyotsnaivājani gandha‐ sāra‐salilāsekaḥ śarīropari / bāhu eva mṛṇāla‐valli‐valayas tasyā viyoga‐jvare, mūrchaivābhavad uttamā priya‐sakhī duḥkhānubhūti‐cchide (AVC 18.134). (130) …nabhasaḥ patitāṃ nirjaladāṃ saudāminīm iva, gurutayā bhuvi nipatitāṃ kaumudīnāṃ sāra‐paṭalīm iva, trailokya‐lakṣmyā mukuṭa‐koṭito vicyutāṃ kanaka‐ ratna‐mālām iva, dharayaiva samudgīrṇāṃ nija‐saubhāgya‐kanaka‐sampattim Page 47 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love iva, svayam udbhinnāṃ kuṅkuma‐vāṭikām iva, vipina‐lakṣmyaivāṅkapālī‐kṛtāṃ kām api hiraṇyamayīṃ sthala‐kamalinīm iva…aho kim idam, saiveyaṃ yām asmān vihāya vidyutam iva jaladaś candrikām iva candraḥ prabhām iva maṇi‐ varo gṛhītvāntaradhād gokula‐rāja‐tanayo’nayodayena dāruṇo dāruṇo’pi (AVC 18.136). (131) See CCU pp. 78/223–4. (132) …nāpy evaṃ yato na tasya tatheyam avaidagdhī dagdhī‐kṛtya viraha‐dava‐ dahanenainām atad‐arhām ekām ekānta‐kaṭhoratayā svayam antardhāsyati (AVC 18.138). (133) Saiveyaṃ vā na bhavati yato dṛśyate nātra kṛṣṇaḥ, saivaiṣeti pratiphalati yat tad dhi no bhrāntir eva / sarvāsāṃ no mada‐vihataye mādhurī nāma devī, kācin mūrtā jayati jagatī‐moham utpādayantī. Iti nikaṭam upasarpantyaḥ punar api saṃśerate sma. Nāpyevaṃ yataḥ—mlānā mṛṇālīva nipatya vartate, spando na mando’pi ca lakṣyate tataḥ / iyaṃ hi mūrtiḥ karuṇasya kiṃ na vā, mūrcchaiva kiṃ vā priya‐viprayoga‐jā. Iti nikaṭataram upasarpanti sma. Tataś ca tāsām āgamanam ākalayya prasūyāsūyām iva sā tasyā mūrcchā‐sakhī tāṃ tatyāja (AVC 18.139–41). (134) …sa‐harṣa‐viṣāda‐vismaya‐saṃbhramautkaṇṭhyam upakaṇṭham upasarpantyaḥ kanaka‐kamalinī‐mūlaṃ niṣkalahaṃ kalahaṃṣa‐vadhva iva, sura‐ saritaṃ sarid‐antarāṇīva, sthāyitāṃ prāptavatīṃ ratiṃ sarva‐bhāvānāṃ śreṇaya iva, svara‐saptaka‐sampadaṃ sarvāḥ śrutaya iva, sukavi‐kavitāṃ rasa‐bhāva‐ guṇālaṃkāra‐sampada iva, upamālaṅkṛtiṃ rūpakādy‐alaṅkṛtaya iva, amṛta‐kara‐ kiraṇa‐kandalīṃ cakora‐lalanā iva, navodyāna‐lakṣmīṃ nānā‐vidha‐vihaga‐ vadhva iva, kamalākara‐sampadaṃ kamalinī‐vitataya iva, sakalāḥ paritaḥ parivavruḥ (AVC 18.142). (135) Ūce kācana mad‐vidheva bhavatī hā hanta kaṣṭāṃ daśām, etāṃ prāptavatī kathaṃ kva sa tava prāṇādhināthaḥ śaṭhaḥ (AVC 18.142). Interestingly, Viśvanātha and Vanamālīdāsa identify the gopī as Candrāvalī. (136) Asmān vihāya bhavatīṃ yad asāv ahārṣīt, tenaiva hi praśamito viraha‐jvaro naḥ / so’yaṃ punar dvi‐guṇa eva babhūva dhiṅ no, yad vīkṣyate tava daśeyam abhūta‐pūrvā (AVC 18.143). (137) Etena te sumukhi kaṣṭatareṇa duḥkhenāsmākam antaritam antaragāmi duḥkham / bhaiṣajya‐mātra‐paribhūti‐kṛto viṣasya vīryaṃ hi naśyati mahā‐viṣa‐ saṅgamena (AVC 18.145). (138) See AVC 20.7, 17 & 53. See also Schweig (2005, pp. 148–9). (139) Kiṃ pṛcchata bhoḥ sakhyaḥ? Tasyaiva premṇa evāyaṃ svabhāvaḥ. Tat prema ko bata vibhāvayituṃ samarthas, tulyaṃ viṣeṇa sudhayāpy anurāgiṇīṣu /

Page 48 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love santāpayanti rasayanti vimūrcchayanti, saṃjīvayanti yugapad bata yasya bhāvāḥ (AVC 146). (140) …muṣāṃ prema‐hemāvartinīm iva hṛdaya‐vṛttim udghāṭya (AVC 18.147). (141) Tad‐gāna‐mādhuryaṃ vipralambha‐rasasya hṛdayam iva hṛdayam iva dambholer api drāvayat, giri‐taru‐latānām antaḥ‐karaṇam ivākarṣat yad abhūt, tad anuvarṇane kaḥ kṣamatām, matāntare bāṣpa‐ruddha‐kaṇṭhatayā girāṃ devī ca nānukathayitum iṣṭe (AVC 18.149). (142) See AVC 19.90–91 and Viśvanātha’s commentary on these verses. (143) Ka upāsyo yo rasavān, kaḥ saraso yaḥ padaṃ premṇaḥ / kim prema yad aviyogaṃ, kaḥ sa viyogo na yena jīvanti (AVC 19.92). (144) Ahaṃ anubhajato bhajāmi no yat tad iha tad‐utkalikā‐vivṛddhi‐hetoḥ / upanata‐dhana‐hānito yathāyaṃ bhavati janas tad‐anusmṛtau nimagnaḥ (AVC 19.102). (145) …viprasanna‐vadanā vadanālakṣita‐hṛdaya‐mālinyā (AVC 19.103). Kavikarṇapūra expresses the mixed feelings of the gopīs, who should rejoice like lotuses in the sun, with a very fitting pun: these ‘spotless women’ (vimlāna‐ kamalā)—or, these ‘wilted lotuses’—were ‘like an assembly of a lotus lake’s beauty in the presence of the regal sun’ (vimlāna‐kamalā kamalākara‐lakṣmī‐ pariṣad iva divasa‐nātha‐samakṣaṃ, AVC 19.103). (146) …tat sāmānyāśrayam, mānyāśrayaṃ tu naitat (AVC 19.104). This reading of the Bhāgavata narrative is derived from Śrīnātha; see CMM 10.32.20–2. (147) Na parama‐mahataḥ parāsti vṛddhir, na bhagavataḥ parataḥ parāt paro’sti / na hi bhavati rater ato’tibhūmiś, carama‐daśā na daśāntaraṃ prayāti (AVC 19.104). (148) Kiṃ ca, ayam avadhim iyāya vo’nurāgaḥ, kam aparam etu mṛgekṣaṇāḥ prakarṣam / upari paricitaḥ sitopalāyāḥ, bhavati na hīkṣu‐rasasya ko’pi pākaḥ (AVC 19.105). See also AK pp. 31/127–8. (149) Kiṃ ca, sthitam anubhajataiva vaḥ samīpe, nayana‐pathāntaritena mādṛśena / atha kim aparathā yiyāsavo vaḥ, param asavo na nivāritā babhūvuḥ (AVC 19.106). (150) Tad api yad atisāhasaṃ mayaitat kṛtam iha tat sudṛśo mama kṣamadhvam (AVC 19.107). (151) Dayita‐racitam uccaiḥ prātikūlyaṃ ca kāle janayati dayitānām ānukūlya‐ prakāram / atimudam abhitāpo marma‐marma‐prasaktāṃ racayati nalinīnāṃ gharma‐jo gharma‐bhāsaḥ (AVC 19.108). Page 49 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

On the Rasa of Love (152) AVC 17.158. (153) AVC 17.158. (154) Ānandasyātma‐dharmatvād ātmanaś ca bahir‐indriyāpekṣitva‐mātrābhāvāt sphūrti‐para evānandaḥ (AK p. 37/153). (155) Ayi mayi bhavatībhir yaḥ kṣaṇenānurāgaḥ, samatani na mayāsau hanta devāyuṣāpi / pratividhim upanetuṃ śakyate tena yūyaṃ, svayam upakṛta‐ bhāvaṃ svair guṇaiḥ saṃprayāta (AVC 19.109). (156) See Siegel (1978, pp. 178–84). (157) Svānanada‐rasa‐satṛṣṇaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ caitanya‐vigraho jayati / ā‐pāmaram api kṛpayā sudhayā snapayām babhūva bhūmau yaḥ (AK p. 1/1). (158) Samprati sampratipādyamāna‐tad‐āsvāda‐svādara‐gṛhīta‐samucita‐ vigrahasya tava saubhagavato bhagavato niravadhi tad eva madhuratara‐rasa‐ rahasya‐pīyūṣa‐yūṣa‐māhita‐gaṇḍūṣam ācamato’ṅguli‐vivara‐vigalitā iva tat‐ kaṇāḥ kva nāmāsmābhir apy ācamante (CCU p. 12/31). (159) …viśvambhara‐devasya…vṛndāvaneśvarī‐bhāvam anucikīrṣoḥ…(CCU p. 29/79). (160) CMM 0.1. (161) CCMK 1.1, GGD 1. (162) Sat‐prema‐hemācalaḥ (AVC 1.3).

Access brought to you by:

Page 50 of 50

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Appendix One

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

(p.323) Appendix One Rembert Lutjeharms

Commenting on Bhāgavata 1.2.11, Śrīnātha writes: Those who know reality (tattva)—the Vaiṣṇavas—name it ‘supreme Lord’ (bhagavān). That alone is what they call reality. What is it like? [The verse says] brahmeti: in him there is even brahman’s movement (itiḥ)—[the verbal root] i is used in the sense of ‘moving’ and thus the noun [is formed] with the suffix kti. It is said (Gītā 14.27) ‘I am the resting place even of brahman’ and so on. The ‘resting place’ means ‘the limit’, ‘the peak’. ‘Image’ (pratimā) does not fit in this interpretation.1 The same [applies to the word] paramātmeti. That knowledge which is unbroken, unitary (advaya)—or else, that which is without a second—only the Vaiṣṇavas know, but no one else. Or else, [advaya means] without [the distinction between] a knower and a known. Or else [if we split the words differently], jñāna‐mat means ‘it destroys knowledge’ and vayaḥ means ‘his lustre’—[the verbal root] vī has the sense of ‘procreation’, ‘lustre’, and so on; to which the suffix aṇ is applied. It means that [his] splendour destroys the functions of all faculties. Hence only the supreme Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the [ultimate] reality. As will be said (BP 1.3.8): ‘but Kṛṣṇa is the Lord himself’. Or else, the reality that is called ‘bhagavān’, some call that nondual knowledge ‘brahman’, some call it ‘paramātmā’.2 [But] some—the Sātvatas—obtain that reality through devotion alone, as it is said [in the next verse, BP 1.2.12]. In his commentary to Bhāgavata 6.16.33 he once again returns to this verse: This is a good opportunity to elucidate the theology (siddhānta) of the Sātvatas. The Lord (bhagavān) is indivisible consciousness, whose form is Page 1 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Appendix One bliss, and who possesses a multitude of peerless potencies for his play (līlā), and to govern matter (māyā), the wise, and the ignorant, and so on. He is Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Vāsudeva, and the supreme person (puruṣottama). The supreme Self (paramātmā), the friend of the living beings, is but a part of him. Brahman is the unsurpassed greatness of the Lord. Nārāyaṇa, the fourth, is the first descent (avatāra) of the Lord. All the living beings (jīva) are but a part of him. Matter (māyā) is the powerful potency to make, unmake, and change. The living being (jīva), then, is consciousness characterised by ignorance. A devotee is consciousness characterised by knowledge. This is the proof for this: ‘that indeed is the form of the Lord, pure existence, powerful’ (BP 1.3.3). This is what it means: the form of the Lord is existence (sattva), is of the nature of existence. What is it like? It is particularly pure. What does this mean? What matter creates—[the elements] beginning with mahat—is impure; the pure is different from that; that which is beyond both matter (prakṛti) and spirit (puruṣa) is particularly pure. And therefore it is powerful. The principle (tattva) above all principles is he who governs all potencies, like matter (māyā). According to some (p.324) there are twenty‐five principles, according to others there are twenty‐six, or twenty‐eight. In regards to the first, the twenty‐sixth is the Lord; in the second, the twenty‐seventh; in the third, the twenty‐ninth. Uddhava refers to these three views, as in this verse (BP 11.22.2): ‘we have heard you [Kṛṣṇa] say there are nine, eleven, five, and three [i.e. twenty‐eight]. But some say there are twenty‐six, and others say twenty‐five.’ This is the proof that brahman is the might of the Lord: Dhruva said ‘My lord, that [supreme joy] does not exist in brahman, though it is your own greatness’ (BP 4.9.10). Uddhava said ‘they go to your splendour, called brahman’ (BP 11.4.47). He himself states ‘I am the resting place of brahman’ (Gītā 14.27), and ‘because I am beyond the perishable and superior even to the imperishable…’ (Gītā 15.18). And the Sātvatas, who are particularly learned, say: ‘the imperishable brahman, and the brahman that is higher than the highest are your splendour’. But why do you differentiate Śrī Kṛṣṇa from brahman and the supreme Self (paramātmā)?” Who is differentiating? As it is said in the first [book of the Bhāgavata]: ‘Those who know the truth call that truth…’ (BP 1.2.11). We explained it exactly like that: that which is called Lord (bhagavān) those who know the truth call the truth. What is it like? Perception (jñānam)—in him everything

Page 2 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Appendix One is known. The suffix yuṭ is used to denote that when he is known, everything is known, since he is without a second (advaya). But how is he without a second, since it is heard that he is different from brahman and the supreme Self (paramātmā)? To answer this doubt, the Bhāgavata verse says brahmeti: in him is the movement (itiḥ) or motion also of brahman, in him is the movement (itiḥ) or motion also of the supreme Self—we thus stated that he is nondifferent from both of these, not that he is distinct. However, Uddhava does differentiate these: ‘Renounced sages, who are clothed by the wind, who are diligent in practice, observe strict celibacy, are peaceful and are sinless, go to your splendour called brahman. But, great yogī [Kṛṣṇa], we who roam here on the roads of action will pass through this impenetrable darkness with your devotees by narrations about you’ (BP 11.6.47‐8). He makes a distinction here: the sages who are clothed in the wind go to the splendour of yours called brahman, but we [will cross this darkness] by narrations about you. This establishes that Śrī Kṛṣṇa is supreme. And here is the proof that he is superior even to Nārāyaṇa: ‘Nārāyaṇa, who is called “the fourth” is known by the word “Lord” (bhagavān)’ (BP 11.15.16). He is superior even to this fourth [form] as follows: ‘among the nine forms of the Sātvatas, I am the original form, the supreme’ (BP 11.16.32). Here the nine forms are Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, Nārāyaṇa, Hayagrīva, Nṛsiṃha, Vāmana, Brahmā. Among these he is the original form. Notes:

(1) This is Śrīdhara Svāmī’s interpretation of the word. See Śrīdhara on Gītā 14.27. (2) CMM 1.2.11.

Access brought to you by:

Page 3 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

(p.325) Bibliography Rembert Lutjeharms

AB Abhinava-bhāratī commentary of Abhinavagupta on Bharata’s Nāṭya-śāstra. AK Alaṃkāra-kaustubha of Kavikarṇapūra. AM Advaita-maṅgala of Haricaraṇadāsa. AVC Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū of Kavikarṇapūra. BP Bhāgavata Purāṇa. BR Bhakti-ratnākara of Narahari Cakravartī. BRAS Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmī. CB Caitanya-bhāgavata of Vṛndāvanadāsa. CC Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. CM Caitanya-maṅgala of Locanadāsa. CCMK Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya of Kavikarṇapūra. CCU Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka of Kavikarṇapūra. CM Caitanya-maṅgala of Locanadāsa. Page 1 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography CMM Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā of Śrīnātha Cakravartī. DA Dhvany-āloka of Ānandavardhana. DR Daśa-rūpaka of Dhanañjaya. GGD Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā of Kavikarṇapūra. GPT Gaura-pada-taraṅginī of Jagadbandhu. JCM Caitanya-maṅgala of Jayānanda. KAB Kāvyālaṃkāra of Bhāmaha. KAD Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍī. KAK Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī of Kavikarṇapūra. KAS Kāvyālaṃkāra-sūtra of Vāmana. KASS Kāvyālaṃkāra-sāra-saṅgraha of Udbhaṭa. KCC Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-carita of Murāri Gupta. KM Kāvya-mīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara. KP Kāvya-prakāśa of Mammaṭa. NS Nāṭya-śāstra of Bharata. PKT Pada-kalpa-taru. PR Pratāparudrīya of Vidyānātha. PV Prema-vilāsa of Nityānandadāsa. SD Sāhitya-darpaṇa of Viśvanātha Kavirāja. SK Sāhitya-kaumudī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. SKA Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja. SP Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhoja. Page 2 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography If more than one edition of a primary text is given in the bibliography, I always refer to the edition marked with an asterisk, unless otherwise noted. References to the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha of Kavikarṇapūra (e.g. AK p. 1/2) are first to the edition of (p.326) Purīdāsa Mahāśaya, then to the edition of Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya (of which R. S. Nagar’s edition is a facsimile reprint). References to the Caitanya-candrodaya of Kavikarṇapūra (e.g. CCU p. 4/7) are first to the edition of Purīdāsa Mahāśaya, then to the edition of Rāmchandra Miśra. Editions of Kavikarṇapūra’s works

Alaṃkāra-kaustubha, with the Subodhinī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited, with a Bengali translation, by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Murshidabad: Rādhāramaṇayantra, 1898. Alaṃkāra-kaustubha, with an old commentary. Edited with a gloss by Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya. 2 Volumes. Rajshahi: Varendra Research Society, 1926 & 1934. Alaṃkāra-kaustubha, with the Subodhinī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1955. Alaṃkāra-kaustubha, with the commentary of Lokanātha Cakravartī. Edited by R. S. Nagar. Delhi: Parimal Publishing, 1981. Alaṃkāra-kaustubha. Translated into English by Matsya Avatāra Dāsa and Gaurapada Dāsa. Vrindavan: Ras Bihari Lal & Sons, 2015. Alaṃkāra-kaustubha, with the Subodhinī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited by Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, n.d. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū. Published serially in The Pandit, starting at No. 101, Vol. IX (1874); continued in The Pandit New Series, volume I. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū, with the Sukha-varttanī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1954. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū. Translated by Bhanu Swami and Subhag Swami. Edited by Mahanidhi Swami. N.p.: Mahanidhi Swami, 1999. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū. Edited by Vanamālīdāsa Śāstrī, with a Hindi commentary. Vṛndāvana: Kṛṣṇa Kṛpā Dāsa, 2000. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū, with the Sukha-varttanī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited, with a Bengali translation, by Manīndranātha Guha. Navadvīpa: Śrī Śrī Rādhākṛṣṇacandra Mandira, 2009. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū. Translated into Hindi by Vrajavibhūti Śrī Śyāmadāsa. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Harināma Saṅkīrtana Maṇḍala, 2012.

Page 3 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū, with the Sukha-varttanī commentary of Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited by Mukundadeva Śāstrī, Śyāmalāla Gupta, and Śrīkṛṣṇalāla Gupta. Mumbai: the editor, n.d. Ānanda-vṛndāvana-campū: Dola-līlā (21–22 stavaka). Edited and translated into Bengali by Anādi Mohana Gosvāmī. Ghoṣahāṭa: Śrī Śrī Śyāmasundara Mandira Sudhākuñja, n.d. Āryā-śatakam. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa, with a Sanskrit commentary. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1947 [461 gaurābda]. Caitanya-candrodaya, with a commentary by Viśvanātha Śāstrī. Edited by Rājendralāl Mittra. Calcutta: J. Thomas, 1854. [Bibliotheca Indica Nos. 47, 48, 80]. Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭakam. Edited, with a commentary, by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara Bhaṭṭācārya. Kalikātā: Sarasvatī Yantra, 1885. (p.327) Caitanya-candrodaya. Edited by Paṇḍita Kedāranātha. Bombay: Tukārām Jāvajī, 1906. [Kāvyāmālā 87]. Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka. Edited with Bengali translation by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Mūrśidābād: Baharamapūra Rādhāramaṇa Press, 1923 [san 1330]. Caitanya-candrodaya. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1954. Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka. Edited with a Hindi commentary by Rāmchandra Miśra. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1966. [Haridāsa Sanskrit Granthamālā 267]. Caitanya-candrodaya. Edited, with a Bengali translation, by Manīndranātha Guha. Pānihāṭī: Sāvitrī Guha, 1971. Caitanya-candrodaya. Edited and translated by Kuśakratha Dāsa. 10 Volumes. N. p.: The Kṛṣṇa Institute, 1989. Caitanya-candrodaya. Translated into Hindi by Gaṇeśadāsa Cugha. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Harināma Saṅkīrtana Maṇḍala, 2011. Caitanya-candrodaya. Edited by Bhaktivilāsa Tīrtha, with a Bengali translation by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Vidyālaṃkāra. Māyāpura: Caitanya Maṭha, n.d. Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya. Edited, with a Bengali translation, by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Second Edition. Murshidabad: Rādhāramaṇayantra, 1925.

Page 4 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography *Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛtam Mahā-kāvyam. Edited by Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, 1983 [gaurāṅgābda 497]. Caitanya-carita [=Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya]. Edited and translated by Kuśakratha Dāsa. Los Angeles: The Kṛṣṇa Institute, 1992. Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛtam [=Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya]. Edited by Prankishor Goswami. Calcutta: Prankishor Goswami, n.d. Caitanya-sahasra-nāma-stotra. Edited and translated by Kuśakratha Dāsa. N. p.: The Kṛṣṇa Institute, 1988. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Edited by Rāmadeva Miśra, with a Bengali translation by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Murshidabad: Rādhāramaṇayantra, 1922. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. In Grantha-ratna-pañcakam, edited with a Hindi translation by Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā, pp. 1–40. Kusumasarovara: Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā, 1953 [saṃvat 2011]. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Edited and translated by Kuśakratha Dāsa. Culver City: The Kṛṣṇa Institute, 1987. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Translated by Bhūmipati Dāsa. Edited by Pūrnaprajña Dāsa. Vrindaban: Rasbihari Lal & Sons, 2004. *Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Edited by Gaurasundaradāsa, with a Bengali translation by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Rādhākuṇḍa: Gaurasundaradāsa, 2006 [1413 baṅgābda]. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. Edited and translated into Hindi by Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī. N.p.: Gauḍīya Vedānta Prakāśana, 2008. Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. In: Vraja ke parikara: Śrīla Kavi Karṇapūra viracita Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā, pāttroṃ ke camatkārī caritra evaṃ rahasyamayī līlāoṃ sahita. Edited by Dr Girirāja. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Harināma Saṅkīrtana Maṇḍala, 2011. (p.328) *Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1954. Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī. Translated by Bhanu Swami, edited by Mahanidhi Swami. Vrindavan: Mahanidhi Swami, 2002. Primary Sources

Abhinavagupta, Ghaṭa-karpara-vivṛti. Edited and translated into French by Bernard Parlier. Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne, 1975.

Page 5 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Akiñcanadāsa, Vivarta-vilāsa. Edited by Kṛṣṇa Bhaṭṭācārya. Fifth Edition. Calcutta: Tārācānda Dāsa, 1956. Ānandavardhana, Dhvany-āloka, with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Edited by Pattabhirama Sastry. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1940. Annambhaṭṭa, Tarka-saṃgraha, with the author’s Tarka-dīpikā, and the Nyāyabodhinī of Govardhana. Edited by Yashwant Vasudev Athalye. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1988 [Bombay Sanskrit Series. 55]. Bhagavad-gītā, with the Subodhinī commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Edited, with a Bengali translation, by Nārāyaṇadāsa Bhaktisudākara. Fourth edition. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission, 1996 [510 gaurābda]. *Bhāgavata Purāṇa, with the Bhāvārtha-bodhinī commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī. Edited by J. L. Shastri, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. Bhāgavata Purāṇa, with multiple Sanskrit commentaries. Edited by Kṛṣṇaśaṅkara Śāstrī. 13 Volumes. Ahmedabad: Śrī Bhāgavatavidyāpīṭha, 1965– 1975. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Sāhitya-kaumudī, with the author’s Kṛṣṇānandinī commentary. Edited by Paṇḍita Kedrānātha and Kāśīnāth Pāṇḍurang Parab. Bombay: Tukārām Jāvajī, 1897 [Kāvyāmālā 65]. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Prameya-ratnāvalī. Edited by Akshaya Kumar Shastri, with an old commentary Kānti-mālā, new original commentary, and Bengali translation. Calcutta: Sanskrit Sahitya Parishat, 1927 [Sanskrit Sahitya Parishat Series 18]. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Kāvya-kaustubha. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1944. Bāṇa, Harṣa-carita, with the Saṅketa commentary of Śaṅkara. Edited by Kāśīnāth Pāṇḍurang Parab. Bombay: Tukaram Javaji, 1912. Bhāmaha, Kāvyālaṃkāra. Edited with Introduction etc. by Batuk Nath Sarma and Baladeva Upadhyaya, Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1928 [Kashi Sanskrit Series 61]. Bharata, Nāṭya-śāstra, with the Abhinava-bhāratī commentary of Abhinavagupta. Vol. 1: Chapters 1–7. Edited by M. Ramakrishna Kavi. Second Edition. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1956 [Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 36]. Bhavabhūti, Mahā-vīra-carita, with the commentary of Vīrarāghava. Edited by T. R. Ratnam Aiyar, S. Rangachariar, and Kāśīnāth Pāndurang Parab. Bombay: Tukaram Javaji, 1892. Page 6 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Bhavabhūti, Mālatī-mādhava, with the Rasa-mañjarī commentary of Pūrṇa Sarasvatī. Edited by K. S. Mahādeva Śāstrī. Trivandrum: Government Central Press, 1953 [Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 170]. (p.329) Bhavabhūti, Uttara-rāma-carita, with the commentary of Vīrarāghava. Edited with an English translation by M. R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Bhoja, Samarāṅgana-sūtradhāra. Edited by T. Gaṇapatiśāstrī and Vasudeva Saran Agrawala. Baroda: Oriental Research Insititute, 1924 & 1966 [Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 25]. Bhoja, Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa, with the commentaries of Rāmasiṃha and Jagaddhara. Edited by Kedarnatha Durgaprasad and Wasudev Laxman Sastri Pansikar. Second Edition. Bombay: Pandurang Jawaji, 1934 [Kāvya-mālā. 95]. Bhoja, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśā. Edited by Venkatarama Raghavan. Cambridge, MA: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, 1998 [Harvard Oriental Series 53]. Bilvamaṅgala Līlāśuka, Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, with the commentary of Caitanyadāsa and a Bengali translation. Edited by Kedarnath Dutt Bhaktivinoda, Sajjana-toṣaṇī Vol. 10, 1898, pp. 8–22, 41–65, 73–96, 105–16, 149–52. Bilvamaṅgala Līlāśuka, Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta, with the Kṛṣṇa-vallabhā commentary of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa, the Subodhinī of Caitanyadāsa, and the Sāraṅga-raṅgadā of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. Critically edited by Sushil Kumar De. Dacca: The University of Dacca, 1938. Caitanyadāsa, Caitanya-kārikā. Edited by Rasika Lāla Candra. Kālikātā: ŚīlaPres, 1905 [1311 sāla]. Caṇḍīdāsa, Kṛṣṇa-kīrtana. Edited by Vasantarañjana Rāya Vidvadvallabha. Kālikātā: Vāṅgīya-sāhitya-pariṣat Mandira [Sāhitya-pariṣad-granthāvalī 58]. *Daṇḍī, Kāvyādarśa, with the commentaries of Jīvanānda Vidyāsāgara Bhaṭṭācārya and V. Nārāyanaiyar. Edited by Ramasvami Sastrulu. Madras: Vavilla Ramasvami Sastrulu, 1964. Daṇḍī, Kāvyādarśa, with the commentary of Taruṇavācaspati and the anonymous Hṛdayaṅgamā commentary. Edited by Rao Bahadur M. Rangacharya. Madras: Brahmavadin Press, 1910. Dhanañjaya, Daśa-rūpaka, with the Avaloka commentary of Dhanika, and the Laghu-ṭīkā subcommentary of Bhaṭṭa Nṛsiṃha. Edited, with introduction and

Page 7 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography notes, by T. Venkatacharya. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1969 [The Adyar Library Series 97]. Gautama, Nyāya-sūtras, with the Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana and the Vṛtti of Viśvanātha Bhaṭṭācārya. Edited by Vināyaka Ganeśa Āpṭe. Pune: Ānandāśrama Mudraṇālaya, 1922 [Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 91]. Govardhana, Āryā-saptaśatī, with the Vyaṅgyārtha-dīpanā commentary of Ananta Paṇḍita. Edited by Paṇḍita Durgāprasād, Kāśināth Pāṇḍurang Parab, and Vāsudev Laxmaṇ Śāstrī Paṇśīkar. Third Edition. Bombay: Pāndurang Jāwajī, 1934 [Kāvya-mālā 1]. Haricaraṇadāsa, Advaita-maṅgala. Edited by Ravīndranātha Māiti. Bardhaman: Bardhamāna Viśvavidyālaya, 1966. Hemacandra, Kāvyānuśāsana, with an anonymous ṭippaṇa. Edited by Rasiklal C. Parikh. Bombay: Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, 1938. Jagadbandhu, Gaura-pada-taraṅginī. Edited by Mṛṇālakānti Ghoṣa. Second Edition. Calcutta: Rāmakamala Siṃha, 1935. (p.330) Jagannātha Paṇḍita, Rasa-gaṅgādhara, with the commentary of Nageśa Bhaṭṭa. Edited by Pandit Durgaprasad and Kasinatha Pandurang Parab. Bombay, Nirnaya-sagara Press, 1888 [Kāvya-mālā 12]. Jayadeva, Gīta-govinda, with the Sarvāṅga-sundarī commentary of Nārāyaṇadāsa and the Śruti-rañjanī commentary of Lakṣmaṇa Sūri. Edited by Bhagaban Panda. Bhubaneswar: Directorate of Culture, 1985 [Orissan Oriental Text Series (Sanskrit) 20]. Jayānanda, Caitanya-maṅgala. Edited by Bimanbehari Majumdar and Sukhamay Mukhopadhyay. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1971 [Bibliotheca Indica 293]. Jīva Gosvāmī, Bhāgavata-sandarbha (Ṣaṭ-sandarbha). Edited by Purīdās. Vrindavan: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1951. Jīva Gosvāmī, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1942. Jīva Gosvāmī, Gopāla-pūrva-campū. Edited with a Hindi translation and commentary by Śyāmadāsa. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Harināma Saṅkīrtana Maṇḍala, 1968. Jīva Gosvāmī, Gopāla-uttara-campū. Edited with a Hindi translation and commentary by Śyāmadāsa. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Harināma Saṅkīrtana Maṇḍala, 1970.

Page 8 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Jīva Gosvāmī, Krama-sandarbha. Edited by Purīdāsa. Vrindavan: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1952. Jīva Gosvāmī, Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī. Edited by Purīdāsa. Dhaka: Śacīnātharāya Caturdhurī, 1946. Jīva Gosvāmī, Prīti-sandarbha. Edited, with a Hindi translation, by Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, 1986. Jīva Gosvāmī, Sarva-samvādinī. Edited by Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā. Rādhākuṇḍa: Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā, 1944. Jīvadeva, Utsāhavatī-rūpaka. Edited by Dukhisyama Pattanayak. Bhubaneswar: Directorate of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, 1978 [Orissan Oriental Text Series (Sanskrit) 10]. Jīvadeva, Bhakti-vaibhava-nāṭaka, with the Bhakti-vaijayanti-stotra. Edited by K. S. Behera and U. N. Dhal. Bhubaneswar: Orissa Sahitya Akademi, 1998. Karṇapūra Kavirāja, Guṇa-leśa-sūcaka. In: Śrī Śrīnivāsācārya-grantha-mālā, edited with a Bengali translation by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, n.d. Kavikarṇapūra, Pārijāta-haraṇaṃ Mahā-kāvyam. Edited by Anantalal Thakur. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1956. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Caitanya-caritāmṛta. Edited by Bhakti Kevala Auḍulomi Mahārāja, with the Amṛta-pravāha-bhāṣya of Saccidānanda Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, and the Anubhāṣya of Vārṣabhānavīdayitadāsa. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission, 1957. Kulaśekhara, Mukunda-mālā. Edited and translated by S. Satyamurthi Iyengar. Bangalore: Sri Raghavendrashrama, 1987. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Tantra-vārtika. Edited by Gaṅgādhara Śāstrī. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Depot, 1903. Lakṣmaṇa Deśika, Śāradā-tilaka. Edited by Arthur Avalon. Calcutta: Āgamānusandhāna Samiti, 1933. Locanadāsa, Caitanya-maṅgala. Edited by Bhakti Śrīrūpa Bhāgavata Mahārāja. Third Edition. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission, 1991. (p.331) Madhva, Karma-nirṇaya, with the commentaries of Jayatīrtha, Rāghavendra Tīrtha, Śrīnivāsa Tīrtha, Satyanātha Tīrtha, and Calārī

Page 9 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Narasiṃhācārya. Edited by L. S. Vadirajacharya. Bangalore: Dvaita Vedanta Studies and Research Foundation, 2010. Mālādhara Vasu, Kṛṣṇa-vijaya. Edited by Bhaktidayita Mādhava Gosvāmī. Nadiya: Śrī Caitanyavāṇī, 2002. Mammaṭa, Kāvya-prakāśa, with the commentary of Śrīdhara. Edited with introduction and notes by Sivaprasad Bhattacharyya. Calcutta: Sanskrit College, 1959 & 1961 [Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series 7 & 15]. Mammaṭa, Kāvya-prakāśa, with the Saṅketa commentary of Māṇikyacandra and the Madhumatī commentary of Ravi Bhaṭṭācārya. Edited by N. S. Venkatanathacharya. Oriental Research Institute, 1974 & 1977 [Oriental Research Institute Series 120 & 122]. *Mammaṭa, Kāvya-prakāśa, with the Sampradāya-prakāśinī commentary of Vidyācakravartī, and Sāhitya-cūḍā-maṇi commentary of Bhaṭṭa Gopāla. 2 Volumes. Edited by R. Harihara Śāstrī. Trivandrum: Government Press, 1926 & 1930 [Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 88 & 100]. Murāri Gupta, Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛta. Edited by Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, 1984. Nābhādāsa, Bhakta-māla, with the Bhakti-rasa-bodhinī commentary of Priyādāsa, and two modern Hindi commentaries by Gaṇeśadāsa and Rāmakṛpāladāsa. Vṛndāvana: Śrīmad-guru-pustakālaya, 1996. Narahari Cakravartī, Bhakti-ratnākara. Edited by Nandalāla Vidyāsāgara. Second Edition. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission, 1960. Narahari Cakravartī, Narottama-vilāsa. Edited by Rākhāladāsa Kaviratna. Second Edition. Calcutta: Adharacandra Cakravartī, 1924. Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvācaspati, Vaiṣṇavācāra-darpaṇa. Kālikātā: Kailāsacandra Bāndopādhyāya, 1861. Nityānandadāsa, Prema-vilāsa. Edited by Yaśodālāla Tālukdāra. Calcutta: Yaśodālāla Tālukdāra, 1913 [san 1320]. Pada-kalpa-taru. 5 Volumes. Edited by Satīścandra Rāya. Calcutta: Rāmakamala Siṃha, 1916–1932. Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī. Edited and translated into English by Śrīśa Chandra Vasu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988. Prapañca-sāra-tantra. Edited by Arthur Avalon. Calcutta: Āgamānusandhāna Samiti, 1935.

Page 10 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa, Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka [=Caitanyacandrodaya-kaumudī]. Calcutta: Kamalāsana Yantra, 1853 [śaka 1775]. Puruṣottama Deva, Abhinava-gīta-govinda-mahā-kāvya. Edited by Bhagaban Panda. Bhubaneswar: Directorate of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, 1977 [Orissan Oriental Text Series (Sanskrit) 8]. Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, Sādhana-dīpikā. Edited by Haridāsa Śāstrī. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, n.d. Rāghava Paṇḍita, Kṛṣṇa-bhakti-ratna-prakāśa. Edited Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1954. Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya, Kṛṣṇa-prema-taraṅginī. Edited by Bhaktikevala Auḍulomi Mahārāja. Calcutta: Śrī Gauḍīya Maṭha, 1966. (p.332) Raghunāthadāsa, Stavāvalī. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Śacīnātharāya Caturdhurī, 1947. Rājaśekhara, Kāvya-mīmāṃsā. Edited by C. D. Dalal and R. A. Sastry, revised and enlarged by K. S. Ramaswami Sastri Siromani. Baroda: Oriental Insitute, 1934 [Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 1]. Rājavallabha Gosvāmī, Murali-vilāsa. Edited by Nīlakānta Gosvāmī and Vinoda Vihārī Gosvāmī. Baghnāpāḍā: Surendranātha Bandyopādhyāya, 1895 [caitanyābda 409]. Rāmānanda Rāya, Jagannātha-vallabha-nāṭaka. Edited by Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā with a Hindi translation. Kusumasarovara: Śrī Gaurahari Press, 1943 [2021 saṃvat]. Rāmānuja, Śrī-bhāṣya. Critically edited by M. A. Lakshmithathachar. 4 Volumes. Melkote: The Academy of Sanskrit Research, 1985–1991. Rāmānuja, Vedārtha-saṃgraha. Critically edited and translated with annotations by J. A. B. Van Buitenen. Poona: Deccan College, 1956 [Deccan College Monograph Series 16]. Rudrabhaṭṭa, Rasa-kalikā. Critically edited with an English translation and exposition by Kalpakam Sankaranarayanan. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1988 [Adyar Library Series 117]. Rudraṭa, Kāvyālaṃkāra. Edited by Durgaprasad and Wasudev Lakshman Shastri Panshikar. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1928. Rūpa Gosvāmī, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, with commentaries of Jīva Gosvāmin, Mukundadāsa, and Viśvanātha Cakravartī. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra 1961 [gaurābda 475].

Page 11 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Rūpa Gosvāmī, Dāna-keli-kaumudī. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Śrī Śacinātha Rāya, 1947. Rūpa Gosvāmī, Nāṭaka-candrikā, with the Hindi Prakāśa commentary. Edited by Bābūlāla Śukla Śāstrī. Varanasi, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1964 [Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 97]. Rūpa Gosvāmī, Padyāvalī. Critically edited by Sushil Kumar De. Dacca: University of Dacca, 1934 [Dacca University Oriental Publications Series, No. 3]. Rūpa Gosvāmī, Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā. In: Grantha-ratna-pañcakam, edited with a Hindi translation by Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā. Kusumasarovara: Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā, 1953 [saṃvat 2011]. Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, with the commentary of Viṣṇudāsa. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribol Kuṭīra, 1955 [gaurābda 469]. Rūpa Kavirāja, Sāra-saṅgraha. Edited by Krishnagopal Goswami Sastri. Calcutta: The University of Calcutta, 1949 [The Asutosh Sanskrit Series 3]. Śaṅkara, Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya. Edited by V. Sadanand. Madras: Samata Books, 1999 [Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya 7]. Śaṅkara, Bṛhad-āraṇyakopaniṣad-bhāṣya. Edited by V. Sadanand. Chennai: Samata Books, 1999 [Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya 10]. Siṃhabhūpāla, Rasārṇava-sudhākara. Critically edited by T. Venkatacharya. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1979 [Adyar Library Series 110]. Śrīnātha Cakravartī, Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā. Edited by Haridāsa Dāsa. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra, 1952 [gaurābda 466]. *Śrīnātha Cakravartī, Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā. Edited by Purīdāsa Mahāśaya. Vṛndāvana: Haridāsa Śarmā, 1955. (p.333) Udbhaṭa, Kāvyālaṃkāra-sāra-saṃgraha, with the Kāvyālaṃkāra-sāralaghu-vṛtti of Pratīhārendurāja. Edited by Mangesh Ramkrishna Telang. Bombay: Tukarām Jāvajī, 1915. Vaiṣṇava Padāvalī. Compiled and edited by Harekṛṣṇa Mukhopādhyāya. Calcutta: Sāhitya Saṃsad, 1947 [baṅgābda 1353]. Vallabhadeva, Subhāṣitāvalī. Edited by Peter Peterson and Paṇḍit Durgāprasāda. Second Edition, edited by Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Institute Press, 1961.

Page 12 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Vāmana, Kāvyālaṃkāra-sūtra-vṛtti, with Kamadhenu Sanskrit and Vidyadhari Hindi Commentaries, published by Kedara Natha Sharma, Varanasi: Chaukhamba Amarabharati Prakashan, 1979. Vātsyāyana, Kāma-sūtra, with the Jaya-maṅgala commentary of Yaśodhara. Edited, with a Hindi translation, by Śrīdevduṭṭa Śāstrī. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1999 [Kashi Sanskrit Series 29]. Vedānta Deśika, Pāñcarātra-rakṣā. Edited by M. Duraiswami Aiyangar and T. Venugopalacharya, with an introduction in English by G. Srinivasa Murti. Third Edition. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1996. Vidyānātha, Pratāparudrīya. Edited by V. Raghavan, with the Ratnāpaṇa commentary of Kumārasvāmin. Madras: The Samskrit Education Society, 1970. Vidyādhara, Ekāvalī, with the commentary of Mallinātha Tarala. Edited by Pramila Misra. Bhuvanesvara: Odisārājya Paryyatana-Krīdā Samskṛtinirdeśalayah, 1983. Vidyārāma, Rasa-dīrghikā. Edited by Gopālanārāyaṇa Bahurā. Jodhpur: Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, 1959 [Rājasthāna Purātana Grantha-mālā 41]. Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Svakīyātva-nirāśā-vicāra tathā Parakīyātva-nirūpaṇam. Edited by Kṛṣṇadāsa Bābā. Kusuma-sarovara: Gaurahari Press, 1962 [saṃvat 2020]. Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Svarūpa-caritāmṛta, in: Stavāmṛta-laharī. Edited with a Sanskrit commentary and Bengali translation by Haribhakta Dāsa, pp. 41–7. Vṛndāvana, 1991 [505 gaurābda]. Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Gaura-gaṇa-svarūpa-tattva-candrikā. Edited and translated by Demian Martins. Vrindavan: Jiva Institute, 2015. Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Vraja-rīti-cintāmaṇi. Edited by Haridāsa Śāstrī with a Sanskrit commentary and Hindi translation. Vṛndāvana: Gadādhara-gaurahari Press, n.d. Viśvanātha Kavirāja, Sāhitya-darpaṇa. Edited by Durgaprasad Dvivedi, New Delhi: Daryaganj, 1982. Vopadeva, Muktā-phala, with the commentary of Hemādri. Edited by Pandit Isvara Chandra Sastri and Pandit Haridasa Vidyabagisa. 2 Volumes. Calcutta, 1920 [Calcutta Oriental Series 5].

Page 13 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Vṛndāvanadāsa, Caitanya-bhāgavata, with the Gauḍīya-bhāṣya of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī. Edited by Bhakti Kevala Auḍulomi Mahārāja. Calcutta: Gauḍīya Mission, 1961. Yadunandanadāsa, Karṇānanda. Edited by Rāmanārāyaṇa Vidyāratna. Murshidabad: Haribhaktipradāyinī Sabhā, 1891 [baṅgābda 1298]. Yāmuna, Āgama-prāmāṇya. Critically edited by M. Narasimhachary. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1976. (p.334) Secondary Sources

Ācārya, Nirupama (2003): Śrī Caitanyacandrodaya o Caitanyacandrodaya Kaumudī: Tulanāra āloke. Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot. Acharyya, D. (1984): The Life and Times of Śrīkṛṣṇacaitanya. Calcutta, Firma KLM. Aklujkar, Ashok and Edwin Gerow (1972): ‘On Śānta Rasa in Sanskrit Poetics’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92(1): 80–7. Ansari, Muzaffar Ahmed (2012): ‘The Samarāṅganasūtradhāra: Themes and Context for the Science of Vastu’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 22(1): 35– 55. Bainerjī, Siprā (2000): Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya aur Kavikarṇapūra racita Caitanyacandrodaya. Ambālā Chāvanī, IBA Publications. Beck, Guy (1993): Sonic Theology: Hinduism and Sacred Sound. Columbia, University of South Carolina Press. Barthes, Roland (1977): Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana. Bhaktivinoda, Kedarnatha Dutta (1892–93): ‘Nūtana Patrikā.’ Sajjana-toṣanī vol. 4, pp. 24–6. Bhattacharyya, A. K. (1982): A Corpus of Dedicatory Inscriptions from Temples of West Bengal (c. 1500 AD to c. 1800 AD). Calcutta: Navana. Bhattacharyya, Dinesh Chandra (1940): ‘Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma’. The Indian Historical Quarterly 16: 58–69. Bhattacharya, Gopika Mohan (1976): ‘Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma—The Naiyāyika’. Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda) 26(1): 81–6. Bhattacharyya, Sivaprasad (1950): ‘The Kāvyakaustubha and its Great Source of Inspiration’. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 26: 99– 106.

Page 14 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Bhattacharyya, Sivaprasad (1956): ‘Two Ascriptions Examined’. Our Heritage 4(1): 1–19. Bhattacharyya, Sivaprasad (1963): ‘Bhoja’s Rasa-ideology and its Influence on Bengal Rasa-śāstra’. Journal of the Oriental Institute (University of Baroda) 13(2): 106–19. Bhattacharyya, Sivaprasad (1964): Studies in Indian Poetics. Calcutta: Indian Studies. Bose, Manindra Mohan (1930): The Post-Caitanya Sahajiā Cult of Bengal. Calcutta: The University of Calcutta. Bronner, Yigal (2002): ‘What is New and What is Navya: Sanskrit Poetics on the Eve of Colonialism’. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 441–62. Bronner, Yigal (2010): Extreme Poetry: The South Asian Movement of Simultaneous Narration. New York: Columbia University Press. Broo, Måns (2011): ‘Drama in the Service of Kṛṣṇa: Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Nāṭakacandrikā’, in Bertil Tikkanen and Albion M. Butters (eds), Pūrvaparaprajñābhinandana: East and West, Past and Present. Indological and Other Essays in Honour of Klaus Karttunen. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, pp. 55–65. Bryant, Edwin (2003): Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God: Srimad Bhagavata Purana, Book X with chapters 1, 6 and 29–31 from Book XI. London: Penguin. Brzezinski, Jan K. (1990a): ‘The Authenticity of the Caitanyacaritāmṛtamahākāvya’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53(3): 469–90. Brzezinski, Jan K. (1990b): ‘The Gopālacampū of Jīva Gosvāmin’. Doctoral Thesis. School of Oriental and African Studies. (p.335) Brzezinski, Jan K. (1992a): ‘Prabodhānanda, Hita Harivaṃśa and the “Rādhārasasudhānidhi”’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 55(3): 472–97. Brzezinski, Jan K. (1992b): ‘Goloka Vṛndāvana: A Translation of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Gopāla-campū (Chapter One)’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 1(1): 61–98. Brzezinski, Jan K. (1996): ‘Verse en Prose Poetry in the Gopālacampū’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 4(4): 105–38. Brzezinski, Jan K. (1997): ‘Does Kṛṣṇa Marry the Gopīs in the End? The Svakīyavāda of Jīva Gosvāmin’, Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 5(4): 49–110.

Page 15 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Brzezinski, Jan (2007): ‘Jiva Goswami: Biography and Bibliography’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 15(2): 51–80. Buchta, David (2014): ‘Pedagogical Poetry: Didactics and Devotion in Rūpa Gosvāmin’s Stavamālā’. Doctoral Thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Burton, Adrian P. (2000): ‘Temples, Texts, and Taxes: The Bhagavad-gītā and the Politico-Religious Identity of the Caitanya Sect’. Doctoral Thesis. Australian National University. Carney, Gerald T. (1979): ‘The Theology of Kavikarṇapūra’s Caitanyacandrodaya, Act II’. Doctoral Thesis. Fordham University. Carney, Gerald T. (1989): ‘Caitanya and his Mother Saci Discuss Sannyāsa: A Note to Kavikarṇapūra’s Caitanya-candrodaya 4.1’, in Tony K. Stewart (ed.), Shaping Bengali Worlds, Public and Private. East Lansing: Asian Studies Centre, Michigan State University [South Asia Series Occasional Papers no. 37]. Carney, Gerald T. (1992): ‘Caitanya in Vraja: Another Construction’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 1(1): 134–45. Carney, Gerald T. (1996): ‘Entering the Dynamics of Vaiṣṇava Devotion: The Inset Play in Act III of Kavikarṇapūra’s Caitanyacandrodaya’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 5(1): 53–63. Case, Margaret H. (ed.) (1996): Govindadeva: A Dialogue in Stone. New Delhi, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Chakravarti, Chintaharan (1946): ‘Muslim Patronage to Sanskrit Learning’, in D. R. Bhandarkar, et al. (eds), B.C. Law Volume, Part II. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, pp. 176–82. Chakravarti, P. C. (1933): The Linguistic Speculations of the Hindus. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Chakravarti, Ramakanta (1985): Vaiṣṇavism in Bengal: 1486–1900. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. Chari, S. M. Srinivasa (1994): Vaiṣṇavism: Its Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Discipline. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Chari, V. K. (1990): Sanskrit Criticism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Chatterjee, A. N. (n.d.): Śrīkṛṣṇa Caitanya: A Historical Study of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. New Delhi: Associated Publishing Company. Dāsa, Haridāsa (1969): Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya. Second Edition. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra. Page 16 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Dāsa, Haridāsa (1987): Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna. 2 Vols. Navadvīpa: Haribola Kuṭīra. Davies, Brian (1993): An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p.336) De, Satīścandra (1933): Gaurāṅgadeva o Kāñcanapallī: Govinda Karmakārera Karacāra evaṃ Caitanyadevera dakṣiṇātya-bhramanera vistṛta ālocanā sahita. Kalikātā: Satīścandra De. De, Sushil Kumar (1925): Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics. London: Luxac & Co. De, Sushil Kumar (1934a): ‘Some Bengal Vaiṣṇava Works in Sanskrit’. Indian Culture 1(1): 21–9. De, Sushil Kumar (1934b): The Padyāvalī. An Anthology of Vaiṣṇava Verses in Sanskrit compiled by Rūpa Gosvāmin. Dacca: University of Dacca. De, Sushil Kumar (1942): Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali sources. First Edition. Calcutta: General Printers and Publishers Limited. De, Sushil Kumar (1943): ‘The Campū’. Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute 1(1): 56–65. De, Sushil Kumar (1961): Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali sources. Second Edition. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. De, Sushil Kumar (1976): History of Sanskrit Poetics. 2 Volumes. Calcutta, Firma KLM Private Limited. De, Sushil Kumar (1981): Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics. Calcutta, Firma KLM. Delmonico, Neal Gorton (1990): ‘Sacred Rapture: A Study of the Religious Aesthetics of Rūpa Gosvāmin’. Doctoral thesis. Chicago, University of Chicago. Delmonico, Neal (1998): ‘Sacred Rapture: The Bhakti-Rasa Theory of Rūpa Gosvāmin’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 6(1): 75–98. Delmonico, Neal (1999): ‘Trouble in Paradise: A Conflict in the Caitanya Vaiṣṇava tradition’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 8(1): 91–101. Dimock, Edward C. (1966): The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic Mysticism in the Vaiṣṇava-sahajiyā Cult of Bengal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Page 17 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Dimock, Edward C. (1976): ‘Religious Biography in India: The “Nectar of the Acts” of Caitanya’. In: Frank E. Reynolds and Donald Capps (eds), The Biographical Process: Studies in the History and Psychology of Religion. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 109–120. Dimock, Edward C. and Tony K. Stewart (1999): Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja: A Translation and Commentary. Cambridge, MA, Dept. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies Harvard University [Harvard Oriental Series 56]. Dwivedi, R. C. (1977): The Poetic Light: Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Eaton, Richard M. (1993): The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. Berkeley: University of California Press. Elkman, Stuart M. (1986): Jīva Gosvāmin’s Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Movement. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Frazier, Jessica (2009): Reality, Religion, and Passion: Indian and Western Approaches in Hans-Georg Gadamer and Rūpa Gosvāmi. Lanham: Lexington Books. Ganeri, Jonardan (1999): Semantic Powers: Meaning and the Means of Knowing in Classical Indian Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p.337) Gerow, Edwin (1971): A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech. The Hague: Mouton. Gerow, Edwin (1977): Indian Poetics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Gerow, Edwin (1979): ‘Plot Structure and the Development of Rasa in the Śakuntalā, Pt. 1’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99(4): 559–72. Gerow, Edwin (1987): ‘The Dvaitin as Deconstructionist: Viṣṇudāsācārya on “Tat tvam asi”: Part 1’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 107(4): 561–79. Gerow, Edwin (1994): ‘Abhinavagupta’s Aesthetics as a Speculative Paradigm’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 114(2): 186–208. Girija, A. (1991): Alaṃkārakaustubha of Kavikarṇapūra: A Study. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Goswami, Kananbehari (2008): Bāghanāpāḍā Sampradāya o Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya. Kolkata: Rabīndrabhāratī Viśvavidyālaya. Goudriaan, Teun and Sanjukta Gupta (1981): Hindu Tantric and Śākta literature. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Page 18 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Gupta, Gopal K. (2014): ‘Illusion and Identity: Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa’. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Gupta, Ravi M. (2007): The Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta of Jīva Gosvāmī: When Knowledge Meets Devotion. London: Routledge. Haberman, David L. (1988): Acting as a Way of Salvation. A Study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana. New York: Oxford University Press. Haberman, David L. (2003): The Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmin. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts & Motilal Banarsidass. Habib, Irfan (1996): ‘A Documentary History of the Gosā’ins (Gosvāmīs) of the Caitanya Sect at Vṛndāvana,’ in: Margaret Case (ed.), Govindadeva: A Dialogue in Stone. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, pp. 131–59. Hāladāra, Gurupāda (1944): Vyākaraṇa-darśana-itihāsa: Prathama Khaṇḍa. Kālikātā: Śrī Bhāratīvikāśa Hāladāra. Hardy, Friedhelm (1983): Viraha-bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in South India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Haldar, Ira (2016): Caitanya Biographies by Kavi Karnapura: A Study. Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot. Hare, James P. (2011): ‘Garland of Devotees: Nābhādās’ Bhaktamāl and Modern Hinduism’. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. Hawley, John Stratton (1988): ‘Author and Authority in the Bhakti Poetry of North India’. The Journal of Asian Studies 47(2): 269–90. Hawley, John Stratton (2013): ‘How Do the Gauḍīyas Belong? Kavikarṇapūra, Jaisingh II, and the Question of the Sampradāy.’ Journal of Hindu Studies 6(2): 114–30. Hopkins, Steven Paul (2002): Singing the Body of God: The Hymns of Vedāntadeśika in Their South Indian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hueckstedt, Robert A. (1985): The Style of Bāṇa: An Introduction to Sanskrit Prose Poetry. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Ingalls, Daniel H. H. (1951): Materials for the Study of Navya-nyāya logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ingalls, Daniel H. H. (1965): An Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry: Vidyākara’s ‘Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Harvard Oriental Series 44].

Page 19 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography (p.338) Ingalls, Daniel H. H., J. M. Masson, and M. V. Patwardhan (1990): The Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Harvard Oriental Series 49]. Jha, Bechan (1965): Concept of Poetic Blemishes in Sanskrit Poetics. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. Jha, Rajeshwar (1977): Madhyakālīna Pūrvāñcalaka Vaiṣṇava Sāhitya. Paṭana: Maithilī Academy. Kane, P. V. (1923): The Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha (Paricchedas I–X). Bombay, Pandurang Vaman Kane. Kane, P. V. (1961): History of Sanskrit Poetics. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass. Kane, P. V. (1974): History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law). Second Edition. 5 Volumes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kapani, Lakshmi (1992–93): La Notion de Saṃskāra dans l’Inde Brahmanique et Bouddhique. 2 Volumes. Paris: Édition-Diffusion de Boccard. Kapoor, O. B. L. (1976): The Philosophy and Religion of Śrī Caitanya: The Philosophical Background of the Hare Krishna Movement. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Kapstein, Matthew T. (trans.) (2009): The Rise of Wisdom Moon by Krishna Mishra. New York: New York University Press & JJC Foundation. Kaviraj, Gopinath (1923–24): ‘The Doctrine of Pratibhā in Indian Philosophy.’ Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 5: 1–18, 113–32. Kaviraj, Gopinath (1961): Gleanings from the History and Bibliography of the Nyaya-Vaisesika Literature. Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyaya. Kawthekar, Prabhākar Nārāyaṇ (ed.) (2004): Kavi Karṇapura Gosvāmin’s The Chamatkāra Chandrikā: The Unexplored Sanskrit Kāvya of the 15th Century AD. Delhi: Nag Publishers. Keller, Calr-A. (1988): ‘The Symbol of Norm-transgressing Love according to the Sārasaṃgraha.’ In Edmund Weber and Tilak Raj Chopra (eds), Shri Krishna Caitanya and the Bhakti Religion. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, pp. 101–12. Kennedy, Melville T. (1993): The Chaitanya Movement: A Study of Vaishnavism in Bengal. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

Page 20 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Kunjunni Raja, K. (1977): Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras, The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Lahiri, P. C. (1937): Concepts of Rīti and Guṇa in Sanskrit Poetics in their Historical Development. Ramna, Dacca: The University of Dacca. Lewis, C. S. (1942): A Preface to Paradise Lost. London: Oxford University Press. Lienhard, Siegfried (1984): A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit—Pali—Prakrit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Lutjeharms, Rembert (2009): ‘Splendour of Speech: The Theology of Kavikarṇapūra’s Poetics’. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Lutjeharms, Rembert (2014): ‘An Ocean of Emotion: Rasa and Religious Experience in Early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Thought’, in Ravi Gupta (ed.), Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Philosophy: Tradition, Reason and Devotion. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 175–230. Lutjeharms, Rembert (2017): ‘“All Vaiṣṇavas are gurus”: Narahari Sarakra on Vaiṣṇavas, gurus, and the fate of the Gauḍīya tradition’, Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 25, pp. 151–84. (p.339) Lutjeharms, Rembert (2018): ‘“Why Do We Still Sift the Husk-like Upaniṣads?” Revisiting Vedānta in early Caitanya Vaiṣṇava Theology’ in John Stratton Hawley and Tyler Williams (eds), Texts and Traditions in Early Modern North India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mahapatra, Kedarnath (ed.) (1960): A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts of Orissa in the Collection of the Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar. Volume II: Kāvya, Alaṃkāra and Sangīta Manuscripts. Bhubaneswar: Orissa Sahitya Akademi. Mahapatra, Kedarnath (1976), ‘Sri Jayadeva Was Not a Poet of the Court of Lakshmana Sena’. The Orissa Historical Research Journal 22(2): 28–51. Majumdar, Biman Bihari (1936): ‘Śrī-caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭakera Racanākāla’. Baṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣat Patrikā 42(1): 49–51. Majumdar, Biman Bihari (1959): Śrī Caitanya-caritera Upādāna. Second Edition. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Majumdar, Biman Bihari (1987): ‘Image of Feudal Society in the Vaisnava Literature of the Sixteenth Century’, in Krishna Mohan Shrimali (ed.), Essays in Indian Art, Religion, and Society. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, pp. 236.

Page 21 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Majumdar, R. C. (ed.) (1990): The Delhi Sultanate. History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. Six. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Manring, Rebecca J. (2005): Reconstructing Tradition: Advaita Ācārya and Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism at the Cusp of the Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Manring, Rebecca J. (2011): The Fading Light of Advaita Ācārya: Three Hagiographies. New York: Oxford University Press. Manring, Rebecca J. and Tony K. Stewart (1996–97): ‘In the Name of Devotion: Acyutacaraṇa Caudhuri and the Hagiographies of Advaitācārya’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 5(1): 103–26. Masson, J. L. (1975): ‘When is a Poem Artificial? A Note on the Ghaṭakarparavivṛti’ Journal of the American Oriental Society 95(2): 264–6. Masson, J. L. and M. V. Patwardhan M. V. (1969): Śāntarasa and Abhinavagupta’s Philosophy of Aesthetics. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Masson, J. L. & M. V. Patwardhan M. V. (1970): Aesthetic Rapture: The Rasādhyāya of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Poona: Deccan College. Matilal, B. K. (1990): The Word and the World: India’s Contribution to the Study of Language. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1997): Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Miller, Barbara Stoler (1977): Love Song of the Dark Lord: Jayadeva’s Gītagovinda. New York: Columbia University Press. Mitra, Rajendralala (1871–92): Notices of Sanskrit MSS. 10 Volumes. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. Mohapatra, Gopinath (1982): Jagannātha in History and Religious Traditions of Orissa. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak. Mukherjee, Prabhat (1979): History of the Chaitanya Faith in Orissa. New Delhi: Manohar. Mukherji, Tarapada and Irfan Habib (1987): ‘Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and its Environs’. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 48: 234–50. (p.340) Mukherji, Tarapada and Irfan Habib (1989–90): ‘Land Rights in the Reign of Akbar (The Evidence of the Sale-deeds of Vrindaban and Ariṭha)’. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 50: 236–55.

Page 22 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Mukherjee, Tarapada and J. C. Wright (1979): ‘An Early Testamentary Document in Sanskrit’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42(2): 297– 320. Mukherji, Ramaranjan (1966): ‘The Contribution of Kavikarṇapūra to Indian Poetics.’ Anvīkṣā: Research Journal of the Department of Sanskrit of Jadavpur University, Calcutta 1(1): 76–86. Nātha, Rādhāgovinda (2003): Śrī Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛtera Bhūmikā. Sixth impression. Calcutta: Sādhanā Prakāśanī. O’Connell, Joseph T. (1983): ‘Vaiṣṇava Perceptions of Muslims in Sixteenth Century Bengal’, in Milton Israel and N. K. Wagle (eds), Islamic Society and Culture: Essays in Honour of Professor Aziz Ahmad. Delhi: Mahohar, pp. 289– 313. O’Connell, Joseph T. (1993a): ‘Historicity in the Biographies of Caitanya’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 1(2): 102–32. O’Connell, Joseph T. (1993b): ‘Rāmānanda Rāya: A Sahajiyā or a Rāgānuga Bhakta?’. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 1(3): 36–58. Okita, Kiyokazu (2014): Hindu Theology in Early Modern South Asia: The Rise of Devotionalism and the Politics of Genealogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olivelle, Patrick (trans.) (1996): Upaniṣads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Otter, Felix (2010): Residential Architecture in Bhoja’s Samarāṅganasūtradhāra: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Padoux, Andre (1990): Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras. Translated by Jacques Gontier. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pollock, Sheldon (1998): ‘Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and the Problem of Rasa: A Historical Introduction and Annotated Translation.’ Asiatische Studien 70(1): 117–92. Pollock, Sheldon (2001): ‘New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-century India’. The Indian Economic and Social History Review 38(1): 5–31. Pollock, Sheldon (2002): ‘Introduction: Working Papers on Sanskrit KnowledgeSystems on the Eve of Colonialism.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 431–9. Pollock, Sheldon (2005): ‘The Revelation of Tradition: Śruti, Smṛti, and the Sanskrit Discourse of Power’, in Frederico Squarcini (ed.), Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia. Firenze: Firenze University Press & Munshiram Manoharlal, pp. 41–61.

Page 23 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Pollock, Sheldon (2006): The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pollock, Sheldon (trans. and ed.) (2016): A Rasa Reader: Classical Indian Aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press. Porcher, Marie-Claude (1978): Figures de Style en Sanskrit: Theories des Alaṃkāraśāstra. Analyse de Poemes de Veṅkaṭādhvarin. Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Prabhupāda, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (1996): Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī. 9 Volumes. Los Angeles, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Raddock, Elisabeth Eva (2011): ‘Listen how the Wise One Begins Construction of a House for Viṣṇu: Chapters 1–14 of the Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra’. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. (p.341) Raghavan, V. (1942): Studies on Some Concepts of the Alaṅkāra Śāstra. Adyar: The Adyar Library. Raghavan, V. (1963): Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa. Madras: Punarvasu. Raghavan, V. (1975): The Number of Rasa-s. Third Edition. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. Raghavan, V. (1978): Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa. Second Edition. Madras: Punarvasu. Rao, M. K. Suryanarayana (1965): ‘Origin and Development of Campūs’. In G. T. Deshpande, A. M. Shastri, and V. W. Karambelkar (eds), Felicitation Volume: A Collection of Forty-two Indological Essays Presented to Mahamahopadhyaya V.V. Mirashi. Nagpur: Vidarbha Samshodhan Mandal, pp. 175–89. Sanyal, Hitesranjan (n.d.): Trends of Change in the Bhakti Movement of Bengal. Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences [Occasional Paper 76]. Śāstrī, Haraprasāda (1900–07): Notices of Sanskrit MSS. Second Series. 3 Volumes. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. Scharf, P. M. (1996): The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy: Grammar, Nyaya, and Mimamsa. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Schrader, F. Otto (1973): Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya Samhitā. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre.

Page 24 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Schweig, Graham M. (2005): Dance of Divine Love: The Rāsa Līlā of Krishna from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, India’s Classic Sacred Love Story Introduced, Translated, and Illuminated. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sen, Dinesh Chandra (1914): Vanga Sahitya Parichaya, or Selections from the Bengali Literature from the Earliest Times to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. 2 Volumes. Calcutta: The University of Calcutta. Sen, Dinesh Chandra (1917): The Vaisnava Literature of Mediaeval Bengal. Calcutta: The University of Calcutta. Sen, Sukumar (1935): A History of Brajabuli Literature, Being a Study of the Vaiṣṇava Lyric Poetry of the Poets of Bengal. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Sen, Sukumar (1963): Bāṅgālā Sāhityera Itihāsa. 4 Volumes. Calcutta: Eastern Publishers. Sen, Sukumar (1979): History of Bengali Literature. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Sensarma, P. (1977): The Military History of Bengal. Ganganagar: Darbari Udjog. Sharma, Raghu Nath (1996): Bhakti in the Vaiṣṇava Rasa-śāstra. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan. Shāstrī, Haraprasāda (1931): A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collections of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Vol. VI: Vyākaraṇa Manuscripts. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Shāstrī, Haraprasāda (1934): A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collections of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Vol. VII: Kāvya Manuscripts. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Sheridan, Daniel P. (1986): The Advaitic Theism of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Shulman, David (2012): More than Real: A History of the Imagination in South India. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Siegel, Lee (1978): Sacred and Profane Dimensions of Love in Indian Traditions as Exemplified in the Gītagovinda of Jayadeva. Delhi: Oxford University Press. (p.342) Singh, Guru Bipin (1982–90): Vaiṣṇava Saṅgītaśāstra. 2 Volumes. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia [Jadavkumar Rastrabhasha Series 23]. Smith, Daniel H. (1975): A Descriptive Bibliography of the Printed Texts of the Pāñcarātrāgama Vol. 1. Baroda: Oriental Institute.

Page 25 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Bibliography Smith, David (1985): Ratnākara’s Haravijaya: An Introduction to the Sanskrit Court Epic. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Soskice, J. M. (1985): Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sreekantaiya, T. N. (1937): ‘“Imagination’ in Indian Poetics’. The Indian Historical Quarterly 13: 59–84. Stewart, Tony K. (1985): ‘The Biographical Images of Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya: A Study in the Perception of Divinity’. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago. Stewart, Tony K. (1994): ‘One Text From Many: Caitanya Caritāmṛta as “Classic” and “Commentary”’, in W. Callewaert and R. Snell (eds), According To Tradition: Hagiographical writing in India. Callewaert and R. Snell. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 229–56. Stewart, Tony K. (1997): ‘When Rāhu Devours the Moon: The Myth of the Birth of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya’. International Journal of Hindu Studies 1(2): 221–64. Stewart, Tony K. (2010): The Final Word: The Caitanya Caritāmṛta and the Grammar of Religious Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Stiver, Dan R. (1996): The Philosophy of Religious Language: Sign, Symbol, and Story. Cambridge: Blackwell. Swami, Mahanidhi (1993): Gaudiya Vaisnava Samadhis in Vrindavana. N. p.: Mahanidhi Swami. Tarkatīrtha, Rādhāmādhava (1954): ‘Śrīnivāsa Ācārya’. Our Heritage 2(1): 191– 202. Venkatkrishnan, Anand (2015): ‘Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, and the Bhakti Movement’. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. Wong, Lucian (2015): ‘Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Studies: Mapping the Field’. Religions of South Asia 9(3): 305–31. Wulff, Donna M. (1984): Drama as a Mode of Religious Realization: The Vidagdhamādhava of Rūpa Gosvāmī. Chico: Scholar’s Press [AAR Academy Series 43]. Zbavitel, Dušan (1976): Bengali Literature. Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Access brought to you by:

Page 26 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index

A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal: Kavikarnapura's Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms

Print publication date: 2018 Print ISBN-13: 9780198827108 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827108.001.0001

(p.343) Index Abhinava-bhāratī of Abhinavagupta 129, 151 see also Abhinavagupta Abhinava-gīta-govinda of Divākara Miśra 4 Abhinavagupta on aims of poetry 255 on bhakti (devotion) 147, 167 on figures of speech and rasa 269–70, 273 influence of 132, 134 on Kālidāsa 269–70, 273, 284 on poets 236, 269–70 on pratibhā (imagination) 234 on rasa 129–31, 133, 134, 144, 174, 255, 269 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 146, 147, 152 on sound 179 see also Abhinava-bhāratī; Dhvany-āloka-locana Ācāryaratna 121–2 Acharyya, Debnarayan 34 actor devotional 101–2, 238–9, 304–5 and rasa 124, 128–9, 131, 133, 134, 140–1, 304 Acyutānanda 55 Advaitācārya 16, 20, 43, 55, 106 as avatāra (descent) of Kṛṣṇa 53, 100 and Caitanya tree 53, 104 leadership of 21 and Kavikarṇapūra 35, 52 as Kṛṣṇa 101–2 in pañca-tattva 53 as Sadāśiva 53, 55, 101–2 and Śivānanda Sena 25 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 48–9 Advaita-makaranda of Lakṣmīdhara 69 Advaita-maṅgala of Haricaraṇadāsa, see Haricaraṇadāsa Page 1 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Advaita Vedānta 42, 69, 85, 87–8, 91, 94 brahman in 78, 81, 247 and Buddhism 78, 80 and liberation 108–9 and Pāñcarātra 89 and sannyāsa (renunciation) 107 see also Śaṅkara Āgama-prāmāṇya of Yāmuna 88–90 Akbar 6, 59 Akiñcanadāsa citing Kavikarṇapūra’s works 64 on Kavikarṇapūra 36, 37, 39–40 on parakīyā (extra-marital love) 64 Aklujkar, Ashok 181 alaṃkāra, see figures of speech Alaṃkāra-kaustubha of Kavikarṇapūra 11–14, 39, 45–6, 58 on anaucitya/aucitya (impropriety/propriety) 213, 285 on anubhāva (ensuant) 136, 212 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa on 67, 223 on bhakti-rasa (rasa of devotion) 164–71 and Bhoja 135, 139–40, 162–3, 164, 172, 281 commentaries on 65–6 on citra-kāvya (picture poems) 201 on classification of poetry 194–5, 217, 235 contents of 177 dating of 45–6 on dhvani (suggestion) 186 on doṣa (defect) 210–13 on figures of speech 177, 199–203, 223–4 on gāḍha-bandha (‘tightly bound’) 199 and grammarians 184, 185 on guṇa (excellence) 196–9, 206, 213–16, 223–4 on Kālidāsa 284–5 on language 178–89 and Mammaṭa 12–13, 45, 134–5, 162, 164–5, 185, 213, 221–3 on paradox 83, 244–5 parallels with other works of Kavikarṇapūra 46 on poetry 177, 220–9, 241–3, 271 on poet 227–41 Prakrit in 7 on prema (Love) 162–3, 167–8 on rasa 135, 137–44, 210, 225 on rasa as soul of poetry 177, 193, 224–5, 227 reception of 66–7 on rīti (style) 205–9, 217, 227, 271–2 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 162, 165, 167 on sentence 225–7 on sphoṭa 180–4, 185–6 on sthāyi-bhāva (stable emotion) 135–7, 140–1, 143, 162–6 as Vaiṣṇava work 11, 45, 144 Page 2 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and Vāmana 197, 206–7, 213–17, 221–2, 224, 227, 230–1 on vatsala-rasa (rasa of parental affection) 162–3, 171 (p.344) on vibhāva (excitant) 135, 136, 139, 140, 165, 166–7, 175, 212 and Viśvanātha Kavirāja 12, 45, 135, 221–2, 224–7, 281, 282 on vyabhicāri-bhāva (transient emotion) 135, 136, 139, 141, 212 alaukika/laukika (non-worldly/worldly) Kṛṣṇa as 83, 96–7, 246, 258–9, 281–2 līlā (play) of Kṛṣṇa as 96–7, 119–20 gopīs as 286–7 and pramāṇas (means of knowledge) 74–5 and rasa 133, 166–7 Vṛndāvana as 261, 262–3, 273 wonder as 108, 275 ānanda (bliss) and bhakti (devotion) 23, 98, 113, 117, 167, 232 of brahman 80–1, 96, 98, 104, 117, 119–20, 121, 186, 275 God as 80–1, 85–8, 117, 170, 276–7, 289, 290, 320, 323 and mokṣa (liberation) 119–20 and poetry 232, 237, 255 and prema (Love) 161, 168, 172 Rādhā and gopīs as potency of 101, 291, 294 of rasa 129, 131, 133, 137–8, 139, 142, 167, 169, 170, 176, 276–7, 318 and self (ātmā) 131, 318 and separation 318 as (un)embodied 80–1, 86–7, 95, 97, 108, 176, 277, 289 and Vṛndāvana 254, 277 Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta 129 on anaucitya (impropriety) 213, 284, 285 on classification of poetry 218 on critics 242 on dhvani (suggestion) 185, 189–90, 193, 218 on doṣa (defect) 210, 213 on guṇa (excellence) 196, 197 on Kālidāsa 284 on language 178 on phonetic figures 218, 268–9 on poets 236, 268–9 on pratibhā (imagination) 235–6 on rasa 236, 269 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 145 on vaicitrya (marvellousness) 218 Ānanda-vṛndāvana of Kavikarṇapūra 3, 10, 30, 39, 40, 44–5 and Bhāgavata 10–11, 44–5, 118–19, 293–4, 299, 302, 308–9, 314, 316 and Caitanya-candrodaya 45 dating of 45 musical passages in 8 Prakrit in 7, 251 prose and verse in 253, 279 Page 3 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and rasa 271, 276–7, 277 reception of 65–6 rīti (style) of 271–2 S.K. De on 9–10 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 118–19, 120, 304 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on 10, 31–2, 35, 65–6, 253, 295, 313, 314 anaucitya/aucitya (impropriety/propriety) Ānandavardhana on 213, 284, 285 and gods 283–5 Kavikarṇapūra on 213, 285 and rasa 213, 284–5 Śrīnātha on 285 and theology 233, 285 Aniruddha 88, 324 Annambhaṭṭa 221 anubhāva (ensuant) of adbhuta-rasa (wondrous rasa) 274 defined 123, 136 doṣa (defect) of 212 anubhava (experience) and knowledge of God 74, 87, 108, 276–7 as pramāṇa (means of knowledge) 244 anumāna (inference) and knowledge of God 75, 77, 82–3 and scripture 77 Anupama (Vallabha) 49, 55, 56 Anurāga-vallī of Manoharadāsa 59 Appayya Dīkṣita 13 aprākṛta/prākṛta (non-material/material) God’s form as 79 rasa as 166–7, 168–71, 273, 275 Vṛndāvana as 254, 267, 273 see also alaukika/laukika arthālaṃkāra, see figures of speech, semantic Āryā-saptasatī of Govardhana 285 Āryā-śataka of Kavikarṇapūra 39, 46–7 authorship of 46–7 and Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī 46–7 Aṣṭāṅga-saṃgraha of Vāgbhaṭṭa 230 aucitya, see anaucitya audience and poet 230, 241–3, 271 and rasa 124, 128–34, 135–44, 170, 304, 319 avatāra (descent) Advaitācārya as 53, 100 Caitanya as 20, 99–106 Gadādhara Paṇḍita as 22 reasons for Kṛṣṇa’s 97–9, 265 (p.345) Bainarjī, Siprā 16 Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa Page 4 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on Kavikarṇapūra 38 and Mādhva tradition 43–4 on pratibhā (imagination) 234 see also Kāvya-kaustubha; Prameya-ratnāvalī; Sāhitya-kaumudī Balarāma 53 Nityānanda as 53, 101 Bāṇa 231, 252 Barthes, Roland 280 Beck, Guy 186 Bengal as Caitanya Vaiṣṇava centre 15–16 political history of 6–7 Bhadra, Jagadbandhu 40 Bhagavad-gītā 50, 82, 92, 98, 323, 324 Śrīnātha Paṇḍita on 92 Bhagavānācārya 1–2, 55 Bhagavan-nāma-kaumudī of Lakṣmīdhara 150 Bhāgavata-muktā-phala, see Muktā-phala Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3, 4, 5, 15, 50, 153 and Ānanda-vṛndāvana 10–11, 44–5, 118–19, 293–4, 299, 302, 308–9, 314, 316 on bhakti (devotion) 108, 112, 150, 154 on Caitanya 99, 103, 107 on kīrtana (praising) 115–16 on Kṛṣṇa’s descent 98 on God’s nature 79, 81, 84, 96 on gopīs 285, 287, 291 on grace 74 on language 179–80, 181, 182 on mokṣa (liberation) 109, 110, 111 and Pāñcarātra 89, 92 and rasa 159–60 on rāsa-līlā 279, 299, 314 on scripture 75–6 on sound 179–80 on sphoṭa 181, 182 as spotless pramāṇa 50, 75 and Vopadeva 150–1, 154–5 Bhagavat-sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmī 79 Bhakta-māla of Nābhādāsa 35 bhakti (devotion) 94 Abhinavagupta on 147, 167 Bhāgavata Purāṇa on 108, 112, 150, 154 and bhāva 148–9, 150, 156, 164, 165 and bliss 23, 98, 113, 117, 167, 232 Caitanya teaching 112–17 as communal practice 114–15, 243 emotional vs. intellectual 112 genealogy of 111–12 and grace 73–4, 111–12, 114 Page 5 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index as highest aim 110, 113 and kīrtana (praising) 115–17 and knowledge 108–9, 119 and mokṣa (liberation) 109–11, 113, 147, 149, 267 and poet 232, 237, 243, 276 as prescribed/unprescribed 153–4 as rasa 147–71 with rasa 112–13, 153–62, 166, 170 and renunciation 107–8 and scripture 73–4, 75, 99, 110 and vairāgya (renunciation) 107–8 and vāsanā (proclivity) 108, 113, 114, 121 Vopadeva on 153–4 as yoga (discipline) 107, 111 Bhakti-bhāgavata of Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 4 Bhakti-rasa-bodhinī of Priyādāsa 35 Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa, see Rasāmṛta-śeṣa Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu of Rūpa Gosvāmī 5, 58, 60, 61, 62, 66, 111, 150, 159, 225 Jīva’s commentary on 61 Bhakti-ratnākara of Narahari Cakravartī 44, 59, 60 and Kavikarṇapūra’s works 63–4 Bhakti-ratna-prakāśa of Rāghava Gosvāmī 57, 61, 94 Bhakti-vaibhava of Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 4, 42 Bhakti-vaijayanti-stotra of Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 4 Bhaktivinoda, Kedarnath Dutt 27 Bhāmaha 11, 196 on figures of speech 203 on poetry 221 on poets 232, 234 on pratibhā (imagination) 234 Bharata on doṣa (defect) 209 on guṇa (excellence) 196, 209 on number of rasas 123, 144–6 on plot 280 on poets 236 on rasa 122–4 on sthāyi-bhāva 122, 144–5 on vyabhicāri-bhāva 123, 144–5 see also Nāṭya-śāstra Bhartṛhari 178, 180, 183, 184, 185, 264 see also sphoṭa Bhāṣā-sāra-saṃgraha of Kavikarṇapūra 39 Bhattacharyya, Sivaprasad 14, 40, 46, 134, 163, 165, 166, 169, 203, 214, 226, 271–2 Bhaṭṭa Gopāla 205 Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa 124, 125, 142, 143, 145 Bhaṭṭa Narasiṃha 128, 160 Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka 130, 143, 176 Bhaṭṭa Tauta 129, 234 Bhavabhūti 142, 166, 168, 170, 240 (p.346) Bhāvanā-sāra-saṃgraha of Siddha Kṛṣṇadāsa 45 Page 6 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Bhoja and Daṇḍī 125 on guṇa (excellence) 206, 214 on prema (Love) 126, 127, 162 on pāka (ripeness) 216–17 on preyo-rasa (affectionate rasa) 146–7, 163 on rasa 125–8 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 145, 147, 163 on uddāta-rasa (magnanimous rasa) 147, 152 on uddhata-rasa (haughty rasa) 147, 152 on vatsala-rasa (rasa of parental affection)  156, 162–3 see also Samarāṅganasūtradhāra; Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa; Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa Bhūgarbha Gosvāmī 27 Bilvamaṅgala 5, 27, 86 bliss, see ānanda Brahmā 75–6, 179, 249, 250, 262, 324 brahman attributes of 77–84, 94, 263 as bhagavān 79, 81–2 bliss of 80–1, 96, 98, 104, 117, 119–20, 121, 186, 275 etymology of 77 form of 78–81, 95–6, 99 and Kṛṣṇa 98, 99, 117, 323–4 and language 178, 246–7 and liberation 109 as nirviśeṣa 77–84, 94 taught in scripture 73, 75, 77 Upaniṣads on 77–8, 81, 246, 263 Vṛndāvana as 259, 265 Brahmānanda Bhāratī 85 Brahma-sūtras 79, 85–6, 88, 89, 92 Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 77–8, 246 Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta of Sanātana Gosvāmī 3, 5, 58, 60, 298 Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmī 50 Brzezinski, Jan 3, 6, 15, 29, 63 Buchta, David 6 Caitanya, see Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Caitanya-bhāgavata of Vṛndāvanadāsa 41 see also Vṛndāvanadāsa Caitanya-candrāmṛta of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī 3, 5 Caitanya-candrodaya-kaumudī of Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa 31, 62 see also Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa Caitanya-candrodaya of Kavikarṇapūra 3, 42 and allegory 42 and Bhakti-vaibhava of Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 42 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta 63 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya 42 date of 34, 42 inset play in 101–2, 121, 175, 237–9 and Jagannātha temple 7, 34 Page 7 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and Prabodha-candrodaya of Kṛṣṇamiśra 42 Prakrit in 7 and Pratāparudra 33–4 reception of 62–3 Vedānta in 91–2 on war between Pratāparudra and Ḥusain Shāh 7 and wonder 274, 275 Caitanya-caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 15, 63 see also Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya of Kavikarṇapūra 41 authorship of 41 and Caitanya-candrodaya 42 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta 63 date of composition 31, 41 and Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 62–3 and Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛta of Murāri Gupta 41 reception of 62–3 and Śrīnātha 34 and wonder 275 Caitanyadāsa, priest at Govindadeva and Gīta-govinda 5, 28 and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta  5, 27–8 Caitanyadāsa, Sahajiyā author 161 Caitanyadāsa, son of Śivānanda Sena 27, 35 as author of Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya 41 as author of Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta commentary 27–8 and Caitanya-kārikā 28 Caitanya-kārikā of Caitanyadāsa 28 Caitanya-maṅgala of Locanadāsa 58, 71 Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā of Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 50–1 importance of 50 and Muktā-phala 157–8 sources of 50–1, 155 Caitanyāmṛta-vyākaraṇa of Kavikarṇapūra 38 Caitanya-sahasra-nāma-stotra of Kavikarṇapūra 38 Caitanya-śataka of Kavikarṇapūra 38 camatkāra, see wonder Camatkāra-candrikā of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 38 (p.347) campū 3, 8, 250–2, 274–5 Campū-lakṣaṇa of Jīva Gosvāmī 251 Caṇḍīdāsa 298 Candrāvalī 282, 294 rival of Rādhā 201, 297–8, 314 Carney, Gerald 16 Catur-varga-cintāmaṇi of Hemādri 150 Chakravarti, Ramakanta 57–8, 103 Chāndogya Upaniṣad 81, 91, 246 Chomsky, Noam 226 Cirañjīva Sena 54 companion, see pārṣada Page 8 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Dāmodara Paṇḍita 48 Dāna-keli-cintāmaṇi of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 3 Dāna-keli-kaumudī of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 58 Daṇḍī and Bhoja 125 on doṣa (defect) 209, 222 on figures of speech 203, 222, 227 on genres 250–2 on guṇa (excellence) 195, 196, 197, 222 and Mammaṭa 222 on poetry 221, 222 on pratibhā (imagination) 234 on rasa 125, 143 on rīti (style) 204, 227 Dāsa, Haridāsa 38, 46, 58, 66, 159, 162 Daśa-rūpaka of Dhanañjaya 131 debate 93, 94–5 defect, see doṣa Delmonico, Neal 12, 129, 161 De, Satīścandra 23, 38 De, Sushil Kumar on Alaṃkāra-kaustubha 14 on Āryā-śataka 46 on bhakti-rasa (rasa of devotion) 148–9 on Caitanya Vaiṣṇava poetry 6 on campū 251 on Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 43–4 on Kavikarṇapūra’s poetry 9–10, 253 on Kāvya-prakāśa 12, 222 on poetics 306 devotion, see bhakti Dhanañjaya on rasa 131–3, 140 on plot 280 Dhanika 131–2, 140 dhvani (linguistic sound) 180, 183–4, 185 dhvani (suggestion) Ānandavardhana on 185, 189–90, 193, 218 and Bhartṛharian dhvani 184–6 of fact 191, 244 of figure of speech 192, 244 Kavikarṇapūra on 186, 190–5 as life-air of poetry 177, 193, 194 and metonymy 259–61 of rasa 12, 193 of suggestion 194–5 types of 190–4 Dhvany-āloka of Ānandavardhana 129, 155, 190 see also Ānandavardhana Dhvany-āloka-locana of Abhinavagupta 129 Page 9 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Divākara Miśra 4 doṣa (literary defect) Ānandavardhana on 210, 213 and anaucitya (impropriety) 213 Bharata on 209 Daṇḍī on 209, 222 and decorum 212 and guṇa (excellence) 206, 209, 213, 214, 215 Kavikarṇapūra on 210–13 Mammaṭa on 211 phonetic 211 and rasa 141, 210–11, 212–13 śaithilya (looseness) 206 semantic 211–12 and theology 255 Vāmana on 209, 210 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 211 Dvārakā 98, 105, 254, 283, 292 Eaton, Richard 6 Ekāvalī of Vidyādhara 199, 216 ensuant, see anubhāva excellence, see guṇa excitant, see vibhāva experience, see anubhava figures of speech (alaṃkāra) and beauty 202, 222, 224 Bhāmaha on 203 combining of 202 Daṇḍī on 203, 222, 227 Kavikarṇapūra on 199–203, 223–4 Mammaṭa on 203, 204–5, 207–8 as ornaments 177, 199, 202, 224 phonetic (śabda-) 200–1, 202, 279 see also figures of speech, phonetic and rasa 201, 202–3, 218, 268–70, 273 semantic (artha-) 199–200, 201, 202 see also figures of speech, semantic suggestion of 192, 244 types of 199 Vāmana on 227 figures of speech, phonetic (śabdālaṃkāra) anuprāsa (alliteration) 200, 202, 217, 252 chekānuprāsa (single alliteration) 200, 205, 207, 272, 279 (p.348) citra-kāvya (picture poems) 201, 218, 224, 278–9 grāmyā (rustic) alliteration 205, 207 komalā (soft) alliteration 205, 207 lāṭānuprāsa 206, 208 Mammaṭa on 204–5, 207–8 and meaning 201–2 paruṣā (rugged) alliteration 205, 207 punar-uktavadābhāsa (apparent redundancy) 279 Page 10 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and rasa 204–5, 218, 268–70, 273 and rīti (style) 204–5, 206, 207–9, 217 śleṣa (paranomasia, pun) 186, 201, 211, 213, 258–9, 264, 268–9, 279 Udbhaṭa on 205 upanāgarikā (cultured) alliteration 205, 207, 209, 272 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 208 vṛtty-anuprāsa (repeated alliteration) 200, 205, 207, 279 and wonder (camatkāra) 273–4 yamaka (resonance) 200, 208, 217, 218, 258–9, 261, 262, 264, 268–70, 274–5 figures of speech, semantic (arthālaṃkāra) ananvayopamā (self-comparison) 265 anyonya (mutual) 200 apahnuti (denial) 200 bhrāntimat (confused) 200 dīpikā (zeugma) 200 kāraṇa-mālā (garland of causes) 200 mālopamā (serial simile) 258 pratīpa (reverse) 200 rūpaka (metaphorical identification) 200, 227, 268, 312–13 sandeha (doubt) 200 śleṣa (paranomasia, pun) 186, 201, 211, 213, 252, 258–9 svabhāvokti (natural description) 202 upamā (simile) 199, 258, 264, 312–13 utprekṣa (ascription) 200 vibhāvanā (showing) 200 virodha (contradiction) 200, 244–5, 258–9, 263–4 viśeṣokti (stating the difference) 200 vyatireka (distinction) 192, 244 foundational excitant, see vibhāva friendship 112, 114–15, 158–9, 162, 164, 165 Gadādharadāsa 35 Gadādhara Paṇḍita 22, 26, 65 as guru of Acyutānanda 55 as Lalitā 54, 101–2 in pañca-tattva 53 as Rādhā 22, 53, 54 Gāgā Bhaṭṭa 226–7 Gaṅgeśa 69 Gaura-gaṇa-svarūpa-tattva-candrikā of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 64 Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā of Kavikarṇapūra 29, 34, 39, 42–4, 103, 105, 318–19, 320 authorship of 43–4 and Caitanya-candrodaya 43 date of 42 and Mādhva tradition 43 as œcumenical text 52, 68 and Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā 38 reception of 62, 63–4 sources of 43 gaura-nāgara-vāda 22 Page 11 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and Kavikarṇapūra 54 Gaurāṅga-campū of Raghunandana 251 Gaura-pada-taraṅginī 26, 40 genre 250–3 Gerow, Edwin 145, 195, 211, 280 Ghaṭa-karpara of Kālidāsa 269–70, 273 Gīta-govinda of Jayadeva 3–4, 5, 298 God beyond range of worldly pramāṇas (means of knowledge) 75, 84 as bliss 80–1, 85–8, 117, 170, 276–7, 289, 290, 320, 323 form of 78–84, 94, 95–6, 99 as ineffable 74, 117–18, 246–7, 250, 276 and language 178, 179, 246–50 and paradox 83–4, 244–5, 258–9, 273–4 and scripture 73–7, 244–5 see also brahman; Kṛṣṇa Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī 22–3, 39–40 and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta 5 see also Hari-bhakti-vilāsa Gopāla-campū of Jīva Gosvāmī 3, 58, 61, 251, 255 and svakīyā (marital love) 64 Gopāla Guru 44 gopīs 55, 191–2, 265, 278 as alaukika (non-worldly) 286–7 as best devotees of Kṛṣṇa 50, 101 Bhāgavata Purāṇa on 29, 285, 287 and Caitanya 101, 320–1 inseparable from Kṛṣṇa 291, 306, 317 as liberated 290 love of 160–1, 167–8, 286–7, 288, 289–93, 306–7, 318 as nāyikās (leading women) 283, 286 and prema (Love) 160–1, 167–8, 288, 289–93, 306–7, 318 Rādhā as chief of 101, 278, 288, 294–5, 311–13 as śakti (potency) 291 (p.349) and Yogamāyā 287–9, 302, 304, 305 see also parakīyā; svakīyā Gopīnāthācārya 24, 84, 109–10, 276 and Caitanya 69, 71, 74 and Sārvabhauma 69, 74, 93, 106–7 gosvāmī 23 Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 15, 22–3, 31, 34, 38, 40, 58 and Caitanya 22, 55–7, 103 and Kavikarṇapūra 35–7, 52, 55–61 and vernacular literature 15 see also individual names Govardhana 285 Govindadeva temple 5, 27, 37, 63, 64 Govinda-līlāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 3 grace and conversion of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 72 and bhakti (devotion) 73–4, 111–12, 114 and discernment 74, 111–12 and knowledge of God 73–7, 84, 119, 276 Page 12 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and mokṣa (liberation) 109, 110 and scripture 73–7 guṇa (literary excellence) 195–9, 312 Ānandavardhana on 196, 197 artha- and śabda- 196, 197, 206, 214, 215, 216 artha-vyakti (explicitness) 196, 197, 215 Bhāmaha on 196, 206 Bharata on 196, 209 Bhoja on 206, 214 and consciousness 198–9 Daṇḍī on 195, 196, 197, 222 and doṣa (defect) 206, 209, 213, 214, 215 and gāḍha-bandha (tightly bound) 199, 216, 279 kānti (brilliance) 196, 197, 214, 215, 272 Kavikarṇapūra on 196–9, 206, 213–16, 223–4 komalatva (softness) 206, 214 mādhurya (sweetness) 196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 209, 213, 214, 217–18, 272, 294 madhyaujas (medium energy) 199, 216, 217–18, 272 Mammaṭa on 196, 197, 198, 199, 205, 215 number of 196–8, 213–15 ojas (energy) 196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217–18, 272, 294 prasāda (clarity) 196, 197, 198, 211, 213, 214, 272, 294 prauḍhi (maturity) 197–8, 215–16, 217–18, 272 and rasa 196–7, 198–9, 214–15, 273, 277 and rīti (style) 204, 206, 209, 213, 216, 227, 271–2 śaithilya (looseness) 206, 214 samādhi (symmetry) 196, 197, 215, 272 samatā (homogeneity) 196, 197, 214, 215 śleṣa (cohesiveness) 196, 197, 215, 272 sukumāratā/saukumārya (tenderness) 195, 196, 206, 214, 222, 272 udāratā (exaltedness) 196, 197, 214, 215, 272 Vāmana on 195–6, 197, 206, 215 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 197, 198, 199, 216, 223 Guṇa-leśa-sūcaka of Karṇapūra Kavirāja 39, 59, 60 Hāladāra, Gurupāda 38 Haldar, Ira 16 Haṃsa-dūta of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3 Hardy, Friedhelm 112 Hari-bhakti-vilāsa of Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī 80, 179 Haricaraṇadāsa on Kavikarṇapūra 35 on Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 49 Haridāsa 96, 100, 237–8, 270 Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa of Jīva Gosvāmī 61 Harṣa-carita of Bāṇa 231 Hawley, John Stratton 44, 239 Hayaśīrṣa Pañcarātra 78, 80, 89 Hemacandra 148, 151, 152, 234 Hemādri 150–5, 156, 157–8, 167, 277 Page 13 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Heuckstedt, Robert 252 Humāyūn 6 Ḥusain Shāh 22 war with Pratāparudra 7 impropriety, see anaucitya ineffability and Advaita Vedānta 82 of God 74, 117–18, 246–7, 250, 276 of rasa 276–7 Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 174, 193 Īśvara Purī 20, 43, 116 Jagadānanda Paṇḍita 24 Jagāi and Mādhāi 113 Jagannātha temple 24, 72, 106–7 access to 69–70 and Gīta-govinda 4 sacked during Afghan rule 7, 34 Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja 13, 148, 194, 227, 241 Jagannātha-vallabha of Rāmānanda Rāya 3, 4 Jahāngīr 6, 39, 59 Jāhnavādevī 55 Jaimini 90, 94 jāti (universal) 180, 187, 241–2, 247, 263 (p.350) Jayadeva 3 see also Gīta-govinda Jha, Bechan 210–11 Jīva Gosvāmī 3, 7, 12, 15, 23, 34, 150 Akiñcanadāsa on 36 on Bhāgavata Purāṇa 92 on brahman 77, 79 and Gosvāmī works 58–61 letters of 60 on Rādhā 298 and Sāhitya-darpaṇa 12, 13, 66 on sphoṭa 186 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 50 on worldly rasa 169 see also Bhagavat-sandarbha; Bṛhat-krama-sandarbha; Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa; Gopāla-campū; Krama-sandarbha; Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī; Mādhava-mahotsava; Prīti-sandarbha; Rasāmṛta-śeṣa; Saṅkalpa-kalpa-druma; Sarva-saṃvādinī Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 4, 42 jñāna (gnosis) 98, 108–9 and bhakti (devotion) 108–9, 119 and mokṣa (liberation) 109 Kaḍacā of Svarūpa Dāmodara 48 Kaivalya-dīpikā of Hemādri 151 Kali 85, 94, 98–9, 102, 103, 107, 112–13, 116, 121, 265 Kālidāsa 130, 269–70, 273, 283–5 Kāma-sūtras of Vātsyāyana 236 Kaṃsa 154, 157–8, 161, 169–70, 299 Page 14 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Kaṇāda 94 Kāñcarāpāḍā/Kāñcanapalli/Kāñcanapāḍā 23 Kapila 94 Kapila Pañcarātra 80, 89 Kaṭha Upaniṣad 266 Karṇānanda of Yadunandanadāsa 59, 60 Karṇapūra Kavirāja 39–40, 60 Kāśīśvara 62 Kavikarṇapūra of Kāmarūpa 38–9 Kavikarṇapūra of Tripura 39 Kavikarṇapūra, Paramānandadāsa Sena on Acyutānanda 55 on Advaitācārya 53–4 Akiñcanadāsa on 36, 37 āryā verse of 30, 31, 38, 46, 301 and Bengal 15 and Caitanya 29–33, 103–4, 240, 250, 270 on Caitanya 38, 40, 51–3, 57–8, 99–106 on Caitanya tree 104–5 on critics 231–2 date of birth of 28 on difficult poetry 8–9, 253 as disciple of Caitanya 30, 32 as disciple of Śrīnātha 32, 34, 47 divine identity of 64 on Gadādhara Paṇḍita 44, 53, 54 and gaura-nāgara-vāda 54 and Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 35–7, 52, 55–61 on himself 29, 239–41 and Jagannātha 33 on Jāhnavādevī 55 and Jīva Gosvāmī 56 and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 28–9, 58 Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja on 29–30 and Mādhva tradition 43–4 mother of 27, 54 and Murāri Gupta 38, 41, 43, 57 name of 27–8, 29 on Narahari Sarakāra 54 and Narottamadāsa 34–5 on Nityānanda 25, 52–4 on pañca-tattva 52–3 and Pāñcarātra 88–92, 95 and political chaos in Bengal and Orissa 6, 34 and Pratāparudra Deva 33–4 Premadāsa on 31, 68, 270 Priyādāsa on 35, 36–7 on Rāghava Gosvāmī 57 on Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī 57 Page 15 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 55–6 reception of works by 61–7 residence of 28–9, 33–7 and Rūpa Gosvāmī 35, 37, 55, 56–7 samādhi (tomb) of 37 on Sanātana Gosvāmī 55–6, 57 scholarship on 15–16 on Śivānanda Sena 25, 26, 43, 52, 54, 240 and Śrīkhaṇḍa Vaiṣṇavas 52, 54, 55 on Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 34, 35, 44–5, 47–8, 237, 240, 244 and Śrīnivāsa 34–5 and Svarūpa Dāmodara 30, 32–3 Uddhavadāsa on 33 and Vaiṣṇava communities 51–61, 319, 320–1 and Vedānta 91–2, 94–5 vernacular songs of 40 on Vīrabhadra 55 Viṣṇudāsa on 28, 62, 68, 270 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on 29, 30, 31–2, 35, 68, 270 works of 38–47, see also individual titles see also Alaṃkāra-kaustubha; Ānandavṛndāvana; Āryā-śataka; Caitanya-candrodaya; Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya; Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī Kāvyādarśa of Daṇḍī, see Daṇḍī (p.351) Kāvya-kaumudī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 67 Kāvya-kautuka of Bhaṭṭa Tauta 129 Kāvyālaṃkāra of Bhāmaha, see Bhāmaha Kāvyālaṃkāra of Rudraṭa 151 see also Rudraṭa Kāvyālaṃkāra-sāra-saṃgraha of Udbhaṭa 205 see also Udbhaṭa Kāvyālaṃkāra-sūtra-vṛtti of Vāmana and Alaṃkāra-kaustubha 197, 206–7, 213–17, 221–2, 224, 230–1 see also Vāmana Kāvya-mīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara 229 see also Rājaśekhara Kāvyānuśāsana of Hemacandra 148, 151, 234 Kāvya-prakāśa of Mammaṭa 151 and Abhinavagupta 132 and Alaṃkāra-kaustubha 12–13, 45, 134–5, 162, 164–5, 185, 213, 221–2 authorship of 67, 222 and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 13, 67, 222 in Bengal 12 influence of 132 Kena Upaniṣad 246 Keśava Bhāratī 20, 91 Keśavāṣṭaka of Rūpa Gosvāmī 38 Khaḍadaha 21 Khetarī 35 kīrtana (praising) 115–18 Krama-sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmī 186 Kṛṣṇa and brahman 98, 99, 117, 323–4 as Caitanya 85, 99–106 Page 16 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index childhood līlā of 97 as embodied bliss 80, 95, 108 ineffability of 250 meaning of 117 name of 115–16 and Nārāyaṇa 95–6 as nāyaka (leading man) 175, 281–2 and paradox 244–5, 258–9, 273–4 and Rādhā 101, 281–2, 295–8, 308–10, 314 reasons for descent of 97–9, 265 as supreme 50, 285, 323–4 and wonder  83, 98, 108, 117, 121, 273–4, 275, 277 see also brahman; God Kṛṣṇa Caitanya access to Jagannātha temple 69–70 and Bengali devotees 15 birth of 116 and companions 99, 102–3 as concealed avatāra (descent) 103 as devotee of Kṛṣṇa 100–2, 115–17 and Gopīnāthācārya 69, 71, 74 and gopīs 101, 320 and Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 22, 55–7, 103 as Jagannātha 106 life of 20–1 and Kali 112–14 and Kavikarṇapūra 29–33, 103 and kīrtana (praising) 115–17 as Kṛṣṇa 85, 99–106 and Mādhva tradition 43–4 and name of Kṛṣṇa 115–16 in pañca-tattva 52–3 in Purī 69–70, 102 and poetry 1–2, 5 and prema (Love) 320–1 as Rādhā 101–2, 105, 121–2, 320–1 and rasa 112–13, 121–2, 144 as sannyāsī (ascetic) 20, 107 and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 69–74 and Śivānanda Sena 24–5, 26–7, 29, 103–4 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 48–9 Kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛta of Murāri Gupta 41 Kṛṣṇacaraṇadāsa 59 Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 15, 23, 28, 39 Akiñcanadāsa on 36 as disciple of Nityānanda 23 on Gadādhara Paṇḍita 54 on Haridāsa 100 and Kavikarṇapūra 28–9, 58, 63 on Kavikarṇapūra 28–30 Page 17 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta 5 on literature and theology 1–2 on Paramānanda Purī 29 and Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 28, 48 on Rūpa Gosvāmī 57 on Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 71 on Śivānanda Sena 24–7 on Śivānanda’s sons 27–8 on Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 47 and Svarūpa Dāmodara 48 see also Caitanya-caritāmṛta; Govinda-līlāmṛta Kṛṣṇadeva Rāya 47 Kṛṣṇāhnika-kaumudī of Kavikarṇapūra 3, 30, 34, 39, 40, 45 and Āryā-śataka 46–7 dating of 45 use of rhyme in 8 Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta of Bilvamaṅgala 5, 27, 86 Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava of Sanātana Gosvāmī 3, 5 Kṛṣṇamohana Gosvāmī 66 Kṛṣṇa-prema-taraṅginī of Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya 79, 298 Kṛṣṇa-vijaya of Mālādhara Vasu 298–9 Kumārahaṭṭa 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 34, 47 (p.352) Kumāra-sambhava of Kālidāsa 284 Kumārila Bhaṭṭa 91 Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta of Rūpa Gosvāmī 79 Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī of Jīva Gosvāmī 60, 186, 298 and Kāvya-prakāśa 12 Lakṣmaṇa Deśika 178–9 see also Śāradā-tilaka Lakṣmaṇa Sena 3 Lakṣmīdhara 69, 150 Lalitā as friend of Rādhā 54, 101, 191 Gadādhara Paṇḍita as 54, 101–2 name of Rādhā 294 Rāmānanda Rāya as 43 Lalita-mādhava of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 4, 58 language apophatic 246–7, 263–4 and body 182–3 and creation 183 denoting dravya, guṇa, jāti, kriyā 187, 247 embodied and unembodied 249 as eternal 180 and God 178, 179, 246–50 and grammar 187, 211 marvellousness of, see vaicitrya Mīmāṃsā on 178, 180, 188, 189, 260 Nyāya on 178, 180, 188, 189, 260 as śakti (potency) 179, 248–9 sentence (vākya) 225–7 Page 18 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index semantic powers of 188–90, see also meaning stages of 182–3 and thought 182 laukika, see alaukika/laukika Lewis, C. S. 10 liberation, see mokṣa līlā (play) 3, 81, 170, 281, 291 aprakaṭa/prakaṭa (unmanifest/manifest) 141, 144 Kṛṣṇa’s non-worldly worldly 96–7, 119–20, 122, 246 see also rāsa-līlā Līlāśuka, see Bilvamaṅgala Locanadāsa on Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 58 on Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 71 logic 286–7 and knowledge of God 74, 84, 87, 108, 267 Lokanātha Cakravartī 66 Love, see prema Mādhava-mahotsava of Jīva Gosvāmī 3, 58, 61 Mādhavendra Purī 20, 43, 104, 112 Madhva 43–4, 87, 298 on brahman 78, 79, 80 Mādhva tradition 43–4, 91 Mahābhārata 50, 73, 90, 145, 233, 286 Mahā-nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 92 Mahā-vīra-carita of Bhavabhūti 240 Majumdar, Biman Bihari 34, 39, 40, 103 Mālādhara Vasu 298–9 Mālatī-mādhava of Bhavabhūti 142, 166, 170, 240 Malladeva 39 Mammaṭa Bhaṭṭa on bhakti (devotion) 148–9, 156, 164, 167 and Daṇḍī 222 on dramatic rasas 142, 146 on doṣa (defect) 211 on figures of speech 203, 204–5, 207–8 on guṇa (excellence) 196, 197, 198, 199, 205, 215 on homophones 264 on Kālidāsa 284 on poetry 215, 222–3 on poets 233 on rasa 142, 146, 222 on rīti (style) 204–5, 215 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 146, 165, 199 on suggestion 190, 193 on vyabhicāri-bhāva (transient emotion) 306 see also Kāvya-prakāśa Māṇikyacandra 132, 199, 205, 223, 229, 234 Manoharadāsa 59 marvellousness, see vaicitrya Masson, J. L. 132, 134 Page 19 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Maṭha-pratiṣṭhitā-tattva of Raghunandana 80 Mathurā 34, 36, 37, 57, 98 Mathurādāsa 28 Matilal, B. K. 182, 220–1, 228 māyā 82, 84, 94, 95, 109, 250, 286–7, 323–4 meaning denotative (abhidhā) 188, 259 established by convention 188 literal, see denotative metonymy (lakṣaṇā) 188–9, 259–61 Mīmāṃsā on 188, 260 Nyāyā on 188, 260 and sphoṭa 184, 264 suggestion (vyañjanā), see dhvani (suggestion) yogyatā (semantic coherence) 226, 250, 260 metre 207, 211, 252, 279 Milton, John 10 Mīmāṃsā 51, 89, 90, 91, 119, 152, 276–7 influence on poeticians 185, 189 (p.353) influence on Vaiṣṇavas 186 on language 178, 180, 188, 189, 260 Mīmāṃsā-sūtras of Jaimini 90, 178, 188 Mithilā 69 mokṣa (liberation) and bhakti (devotion) 109–11, 113, 147, 149, 267 and bliss 119–20 and gnosis 109 and grace 109, 110 Kavikarṇapūra on 110, 149 and rasa 149 and śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 145–7 sāyujya (union) 120 Śrīnātha on 109, 110–11, 149 Mughals and Bengal and Orissa 6–7, 59 patronage of temples 14 Muktā-caritra of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 3, 251 Muktā-phala 150 and Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā 155, 157–8 Mukunda Datta 24, 96 Mukundadāsa of Śrīkhaṇḍa 54 Mukundadāsa of Vṛndāvana 28, 36 Mukundadeva 6–7 Mukunda-mālā of Kulaśekhara 156 Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 78, 266 Muralī-vilāsa of Rājavallabha 57 Murāri Gupta 38, 57 on Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 22, 57, 58 on Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 70, 71, 107 Page 20 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on Śivānanda Sena 24 Muslims 100 Nābhādāsa 35 Naihāṭī 21, 29 nāma-saṅkīrtana (singing of the name) 115–16 Nārada 96–7, 101, 154, 250 Narasiṃha Deva II 4 Narahari Cakravartī 35, 59 see Bhakti-ratnākara; Narottama-vilāsa Narahari Sarakāra 22, 39 Kavikarṇapūra on 54 and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 72 and Śivānanda Sena 25, 54 Nārāyaṇa 95–6, 250, 323, 324 Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad 92 Nārāyaṇīya 80, 89 Narottamadāsa 28 bringing works of Gosvāmīs to Bengal 58–61 dating of 58–9 hagiographies of 69 organising gatherings 34–5 Narottama-vilāsa of Narahari Cakravartī 59 Nāṭaka-candrikā of Rūpa Gosvāmī 14, 280 and Sāhitya-darpaṇa 12 Nātha, Rādhāgovinda 58 Nāṭya-śāstra of Bharata commentators on 124, 129, 130 dating of 122 influence of 124, 145 nāyaka (leading man) Kṛṣṇa as best 175, 281–2 and narrative 280 and poet 236–7 and secondary characters 282–3 types of 147, 281, 284 nāyikā (leading woman) gopīs as 283, 286 and propriety 286 types of 284, 286 Navadvīpa 12, 20, 26, 51, 54, 101, 116 as centre of Navya Nyāya 69 Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvacaspati on Kavikarṇapūra 38, 64 on Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 47, 64 Navya Nyāya 69, 178, 221 see also Nyāya Nityānanda 20, 22, 23, 55 as Balarāma 53, 101 and Caitanya tree 54, 104 Kavikarṇapūra on 25, 52–4, 104 leadership of 21 Page 21 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index in pañca-tattva 53 and Śivānanda Sena 25, 54 as Yogamāyā 101–2 Nityānandadāsa 49, 59, 60 Nṛsiṃha 106 Nyāya 1, 51, 83, 89, 93 on definition (lakṣaṇa) 220–1 influence on poeticians 185, 189 on language 178, 180, 188, 189, 260 see also Navya Nyāya Nyāya-sūtras of Gautama 178, 188, 220 Pada-kalpa-taru 26, 40 Padoux, André 179 Padyāvalī of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 39, 72 pāka (ripeness) 206–7, 216–17 Pāñcarātra 78, 80–1, 233 authority of 80, 81, 88–90 on bliss 80, 85 on brahman 78, 80 Kavikarṇapūra on 81, 88–92, 95 Śrīnātha on 80, 89–90, 92, 94–5, 95, 323, 324 Yāmuna on 88–90 pañca-tattva (five principles) 52–3 Pāṇihāṭi 21 (p.354) paradox and God 83–4, 244–5, 258–9, 273–4 and Vṛndāvana 259, 273 parakīyā (extra-marital love) 64–6 Akiñcanadāsa on 36, 64 Kavikarṇapūra on 286–92 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on 65–6 see also gopīs; svakīyā Parakīyātva-nirūpaṇa of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 65 Paramānanda Bhaṭṭācārya 40, 62 Paramānanda Gupta 40 Paramānandadāsa Sena, see Kavikarṇapūra Paramānanda Purī 29 Pārasī-pada-prakāśa of Kavikarṇapūra 39 Pārijāta-haraṇa of Kavikarṇapūra 39 pārṣada (companion) 99, 102–3, 110, 111, 116, 176, 248–9 Patañjali 94 Patwardhan, M. V. 132, 134 poet Abhinavagupta on 236, 269–70 Ānandavardhana on 236, 268–9 and audience 230, 241–3, 271 and bhakti (devotion) 232, 237, 243, 276 Bhāmaha on 232, 234 defined 229 Kavikarṇapūra on 229–41 and learning 233 Page 22 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Mammaṭa on 233 and patronage 34, 232 and poetry 227–9 and pratibhā (imagination) 229, 234–6 Rājaśekhara on 229, 231, 234–5, 236 and rasa 229, 235–7, 275 Vāmana on 230–1, 232, 233 poetry aims of 232, 255 and audience 230, 241–3 Bhāmaha on 221 and bliss 232, 237, 255 classification of 194–5, 217, 218, 235 Daṇḍī on 221, 222 definition of 220–9 as devotional act 232 dhvani (suggestion) as life-air of 177, 193, 194 Kavikarṇapūra on 177, 220–9 Mammaṭa on 215, 222–3 personified 177 and poet 227–9 prose 251–2 rasa as soul of 177, 193, 224–5 and scripture 229, 233, 237–9 and theology 254–6 and wonder 207, 228, 274–5 Pollock, Sheldon 5, 14, 90, 124, 172 Porcher, Marie-Claude 201, 259 potency, see śakti Prabodha-candrodaya of Kṛṣṇamiśra 42 Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī 3, 7 as author of Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi 3 residence in Purī of 5 Pradyumna 55, 88, 324 Prakrit 3, 7 pramāṇa (means of knowledge) alaukika/laukika (non-worldly/worldly) 74, 75 and grace 74–5 and knowledge of God 74, 84, 244–5 and poetry 241–2 see also anumāna; logic; pratyakṣa Prameya-ratnāvalī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 44 Prapañca-sāra-tantra 182 Pratāparudra Deva 4, 6, 21 and Jīvadeva Kaviḍinḍima 4 and Rāmānanda Rāya 4 and Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 69, 292 war with Ḥusain Shāh 7 Pratāparudra-yaśo-bhūṣaṇa (Pratāparudrīya) of Vidyānātha 128–9, 216–17 pratibhā 70, 182, 234–6, 253 Page 23 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Pratīhārendurāja 208 pratyakṣa (direct perception) and knowledge of God 75, 77, 87, 244–5 and Vṛndāvana 261 prema (Love) Bhoja’s concept of 126, 127, 162 and bliss 161, 168, 172 and Caitanya 320–1 and gopīs 160–1, 167–8, 288, 289–93, 306–7, 318 as highest goal 50, 99, 104–5, 109, 111 and preyo-rasa (affectionate rasa) 163 and Rādhā 167–8, 172–3, 175–6, 191, 292–3, 294–5, 315–16 as rasa 112, 156, 160–2, 162–3, 167–8, 172–4, 175–6, 316, 318 as secret 292–3 and śṛṅgāra-rasa (amorous rasa), 160–1 167–8, 306–7 and vatsala (parental affection) 156 and Vṛndāvana Gosvāmīs 56 Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa 62–3 on Kavikarṇapūra 31, 68 on Kavikarṇapūra’s works 39, 46 Prema-vilāsa of Nityānandadāsa 49, 59, 60 Prīti-sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmī and Sāhitya-darpaṇa 12, 13 Priyādāsa 35, 36–7 propriety, see anaucitya (p.355) protagonist, see nāyaka psychophysical responses, see sāttvika-bhāva Puṇyarāja 181, 184 Purāṇas 73, 74, 81, 103, 115–16, 233 and Pāñcarātra 91 as smṛti 90–1 Purī 21, 26, 29, 102 and Kavikarṇapūra 33–4, 52 Purīdāsa, see Kavikarṇapūra Purīdāsa Mahāśaya 159 Puruṣottama Deva 4 Rādhā 4, 104–5, 192, 194–5 Caitanya as 101–2, 105, 121–2, 320–1 as chief gopī 101, 278, 288, 294–5, 311–13 Gadādhara as 22, 53, 54 and Kṛṣṇa 101, 281–2, 295–8, 308–10, 314 and prema (Love) 167–8, 172–3, 175–6, 191, 292–3, 294–5, 315–16 and rasa 121–2, 175 rival of Candrāvalī 201, 297–8, 314 as śakti (potency) 101, 294 Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā of Rūpa Gosvāmī 38, 58, 282 Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī on Kavikarṇapūra’s works 39–40, 44 citing Kavikarṇapūra 63, 64, 65 Page 24 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on svakīyā/parakīyā (marital/extra-marital love) 64, 65 Rādhā-rasa-sudhā-nidhi of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī 3 Rāghava Gosvāmī 57, 61, 94 Raghavan, V. 162–3, 172, 274 Raghunandana 54, 55, 251 Raghunātha Bhāgavatācārya 79, 298 Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī 22, 57 Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 3, 7, 22–3, 58, 65 residence in Purī 4 and Kavikarṇapūra 28 Kavikarṇapūra on 55–6 and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 28, 48 and Rāghava Gosvāmī 57 and Rūpa Gosvāmī 64 and Śivānanda Sena 25–6, 28, 56 and Svarūpa Dāmodara 22, 25, 32, 48 and Yadunandanācārya  24 see also Dāna-keli-cintāmaṇi; Muktā-caritra; Stavāvalī Raghunātha Śiromaṇi 69 Rājarājadeva II 4 Rājaśekhara on pāka (ripeness) 207 on poets 229, 231, 234–5, 236 on pratibhā (imagination) 234–5 Rāmadāsa 27, 28 Rāmakeli 23 Rāmānanda Rāya 3, 65, 108, 292 divine identity of 43 and Pratāparudra Deva 4 Rāmānuja 87, 89 on brahman 77, 78, 80 Rāmāyaṇa 131, 233, 236 Raṅga Purī 43 rasa Abhinavagupta on 129–31, 133, 134, 144, 174, 255, 269 adbhuta- (marvellous) 123, 138, 170–1, 199, 273–5, see also wonder Ānandavardhana on 236, 269 and actor 124, 128–9, 131, 133, 134, 140–1, 304 and anaucitya (impropriety) 213, 284–5 aprākṛta/prākṛta (non-material/material) 166–7, 168–71, 273, 275 and audience 124, 128–34, 135–44, 170, 304, 319 and bhakti (devotion) 112–13, 147–71, 155–62, 166, 170, 201 Bharata on 123–4 Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa on 124 bhayānaka- (fearful) 123, 137, 142, 150, 153, 158–9, 199, 204 Bhoja on 125–8 bībhatsa- (horrific) 123, 137, 142, 150, 154, 157, 158, 159, 163, 169–70, 199, 202 and bliss 129, 131, 133, 137–8, 139, 142, 167, 169, 170, 176, 276–7, 318 and brahman 176 and Caitanya 112–13, 121–2, 144 Page 25 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and camatkāra (wonder) 129, 133, 137, 138, 150, 153, 154, 167, 275, 286 and characters 124–8, 131–2, 134, 140–4, 153, 319 Daṇḍī on 125, 143 and doṣa (defect) 141, 210–11, 212–13 and depersonalization 174–5 Dhanañjaya and Dhanika on 131–2, 146 dramatic 142–3, 146, 151, 162, 171–2 and figures of speech 201, 202–3, 204–5, 218, 268–70, 273 and guṇa (excellence) 196–7, 198–9, 214–15, 273, 277 hāsya- (comic) 123, 150, 151, 199 as ineffable 276–7 karuṇa- (compassionate) 123, 141–2, 150, 157, 168, 199, 204 Kavikarṇapūra on 137–44 and Kṛṣṇa 102, 281 Mammaṭa on 142, 146, 222 and narrative 280 number of 123, 142, 144–8, 152, 156, 162–6, 171 (p.356) as parokṣa/pratyakṣa (imperceptible/visible) 141–3, 225, 318 and poets 229, 235–7, 276 prema- (Love) 156, 160–2, 162–3, 167–8, 172–4, 175–6, 316, 318 preyas- (affectionate) 43, 146–7, 162–3, 184, 204 raudra- (furious) 123, 125, 150, 159, 199, 204 and rīti (style) 204, 227, 273, 276–7 sakhya- (friendship) 158–9, 162, 165 śānta- (peaceful) 142, 145–7, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 162, 165, 167, 171, 199 as singular 127, 128, 137–9, 157 as soul of poetry 177, 193, 224–5, 227 śṛṅgāra- (amorous) 123, 125, 126–7, 128, 148, 149, 150, 160–1, 167–8, 172, 197, 199, 306–7 suggestion of 12, 193 and theology 1, 233, 285 uddāta- (magnanimous) 147, 152 uddhata- (haughty) 147, 152 vatsala- (parental affection) 43, 112, 146, 148, 156, 159, 162–3, 171, 293 vīra- (heroic) 123, 147, 150, 199, 203 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 132–3, 167, 173–4, 223, 224–5 rasābhāsa (semblance of rasa) 1, 166–7, 284, 286–7 rasa-bhakti (devotion with rasa) 112, 155–62, 166, 170 Rasa-bhakti-candrikā 156, 161–2, 166 Rasa-dīrghikā of Vidyārāma 150, 156 Rasa-gaṅgādhara of Jagannātha Paṇḍitarāja 148, 194, 227, 241 Rasa-kalikā of Rudra Bhaṭṭa 174, 175 rāsa-līlā 278–80, 299, 314, 319–21 Rasāmṛta-śeṣa of Jīva Gosvāmī 66, 67 Rasa-vilāsa of Sudeva 150 ratha-yātrā (cart procession) 21, 24 Rāya, Satīścandra 38, 40 renunciation, see vairāgya Ṛg Veda 79 Page 26 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index rīti (style) and alliteration 204–5, 206, 207–9, 217, 272 Ānandavardhana on 204 of Ānanda-vṛndāvana 271–2 Daṇdī on 204, 227 gauḍī 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 227, 271–2 and guṇa (excellence) 204, 206, 209, 213, 216, 227, 271–2 Kavikarṇapūra on 205–9, 217, 227, 272 lāṭī/lāṭīyā 204, 205, 206, 208 Mammaṭa on 204–5, 215 and metre 207 pāñcālī 204, 205, 206, 216 and rasa 204, 227, 273, 276–7 as regional 203–4, 272 Rudraṭa on 204 vaidarbhī 204, 205, 206–7, 213, 215, 216–17, 227, 272, 294 Vāmana on 204, 206–7, 216, 227, 272 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 208 Rudra Bhaṭṭa 174 Rudraṭa 11, 145, 151, 216 on preyo-rasa (affectionate rasa) 146–7, 204 Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 7, 15, 22–3, 40, 49, 58, 65, 150, 166, 254 and Caitanya 22, 55–7 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya  62 and Kavikarṇapūra 35, 37 as leader of Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas 22 residence in Purī 4–5 as Rūpa Mañjarī 64 and Svarūpa Dāmodara 56 see also Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu; Dāna-keli-kaumudī; Haṃsa-dūta; Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta; Lalita-mādhava; Keśavāṣṭaka; Nāṭakacandrikā; Padyāvalī; Rādhā-kṛṣṇa-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā; Stava-mālā; Uddhavasandeśa; Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi; Vidagdha-mādhava Rūpa Kavirāja 65, 68 śabdālaṃkāra, see figures of speech, phonetic śabdārtha-vaicitrya, see vaicitrya Śacīdevī 20 Sādhana-dīpikā of Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, see Rādhākṛṣṇa Gosvāmī Sāhitya-darpaṇa of Viśvanātha Kavirāja and Alaṃkāra-kaustubha 12, 45, 135, 221–2 influence on Caitanya Vaiṣṇava texts 12, 66 see also Viśvanātha Kavirāja Sāhitya-kaumudī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa 13, 186 and Alaṃkāra-kaustubha 67, 223 and Kāvya-prakāśa 13, 67, 222 sahṛdaya, see audience śakti (potency) 53, 94, 120, 250, 255, 256, 260, 265 and knowledge 93, 249 gopīs as 291 language as 179, 248–9 Rādhā as 101, 294 Page 27 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Yogamāyā as 288 Samarāṅgana-sūtradhāra of Bhoja 156, 163 saṃskāra, see vāsanā Sanātana Gosvāmī 3, 22–3, 40, 49, 58, 65 (p.357) and Caitanya 22, 55–7 and Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya 62 as leader of Vṛndāvana Vaiṣṇavas 22, 55 Kavikarṇapūra on 55–6, 57 representing Caitanya 55 residence in Purī 5 and sphoṭa 186 see also Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta; Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava; Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī sañcari-bhāva, see vyabhicāri-bhāva Saṅgīta-mādhava of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī 3, 5 Saṅkalpa-kalpa-druma of Jīva Gosvāmī 3 Śaṅkara on brahman 77, 80, 81, 83, 246–7 on Pāñcarātra 88, 90 see also Advaita Vedānta Śaṅkara Paṇḍita 48 Saṅkarṣaṇa 53, 55, 88, 92, 324 Śāntipura 20, 21, 23, 35 Sanyal, Hitesranjan 103 Śāradā-tilaka of Lakṣmaṇa Deśika 178–9, 180 sarasā bhakti, see rasa-bhakti Sāra-saṅgraha of Rūpa Kavirāja 65 Sarasvatī 2, 240, 249, 315 Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa of Bhoja 125, 128, 155, 162–3, 164 Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya as Advaita Vedāntist 69, 85 and Caitanya 69–74 in Caitanya-candrodaya 71–4, 77–81, 85–6, 87, 88, 106–7 in Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya 70–1, 72 family of 69 and Gopīnāthācārya 69, 74, 93, 106–7 in hagiographies of Caitanya 70, 71, 72 and Navya Nyāya 69 and Pratāparudra Deva 69, 292 works of 69, 72, 107 Sarva-saṃvādinī of Jīva Gosvāmī 186 śāstra (scripture) 73, 94 and bhakti (devotion) 73–4, 75, 99, 110 and brahman 73, 75, 77 and grace 73–7 Kavikarṇapūra’s and Śrīnātha’s use of term 73 and knowledge of God 73–7, 244–5 Śāstrī, Vanamālidāsa 274–5, 295, 313, 314 sāttvika-bhāva (psychophysical responses) 123, 274 Sātvata, see Pāñcarātra scripture, see śāstra Sen, D.C. 33 Page 28 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Sen, Sukumar 26, 28, 36, 40 Shāh Sultanate of Bengal 6 see also Ḥusain Shāh Sher Khān Sur 6 singing, see kīrtana Śiśupāla 154, 158, 161, 166 Sītā 55 Śivānanda Cakravartī 26 Śivānanda Sena 24–7, 31 and Bengali pilgrims 25 and Advaitācārya 25 and Caitanya 24–5, 26–7, 29, 103–4 family of 27–8 in hagiographies 24 Kavikarṇapūra on 25, 26, 43, 52, 54, 240 Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja on 24–7 and Kumārahaṭṭa 23, 24 Murāri Gupta on 24 and Narahari Sarakāra 25, 54 and Nityānanda 25, 54 œcumenicism of 25, 52, 68 and Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 25–6, 28, 56 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 47 vernacular songs ascribed to 26–7 Vṛndāvanadāsa on 24 Smith, David 11, 218, 230 sound Bhāgavata Purāṇa on 179–80 as eternal 180 Kavikarṇapūra on 178–80, 182–3 Śāradā-tilaka on 178–9 stages of 179–80 sphoṭa 180–6 Bhāgavata Purāṇa on 181 and Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas 186 and homophones 264 internal (āntara-) 180–1, 246 Jīva Gosvāmī on 186 and linguistic competence 181–2 and Mīmāṃsā 180, 186 and Sanātana Gosvāmī 186 Śrīdhara Svāmī on 181 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on 186 Śrīdhara 148, 205, 298 Śrīdhara Svāmī 149, 181, 182, 183, 298, 308, 323 Śrīkānta Sena 25, 26, 29, 48 Śrīkhaṇḍa 22, 24, 25, 26, 35, 54, 55 Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 16, 17, 47–51 and Advaitācārya 48–9 on anaucitya (impropriety) 285 Page 29 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on Bhagavad-gītā 92 on bliss 87, 98, 161, 254, 323 on brahman 323–4 and Bhoja 155, 156, 160 and Caitanya 48–9 on Caitanya 50, 99, 103, 107 (p.358) and Caitanya-caritāmṛta-mahā-kāvya 72 divine identity of 64 as guru of Kavikarṇapūra 32, 34, 35, 47 on God 87–8, 323–4 on God’s form 82–3, 95 on jīva (living being) 267 on knowledge of God 75–7 on Kṛṣṇa’s descent 98–9 and Kumārahaṭṭa 23, 47 on language 247, 249 on māyā 82, 323–4 on Pāñcarātra 80, 89–90, 92, 94–5, 95, 323, 324 on paradox 83–4, 87–8, 245 on pramāṇas (means of knowledge) 75–7 on prema (Love) 50, 156, 159, 160–2, 163–4, 304 on Rādhā 308, 320 on rasa 112, 149, 150 and Rasa-bhakti-candrikā 161–2 on sakhya-rasa (rasa of friendship) 158–9 on scripture 75–7 and Śivānanda Sena 47 and Svarūpa Dāmodara 48, 49 on vatsala-rasa (rasa of parental affection) 156, 159 and Vedānta 51, 91–2, 94–5 on vyūhas (emanations) 88 see also Caitanya-mata-mañjuṣā Śrīnivāsa 28, 39 bringing works of Gosvāmīs to Bengal 58–61 dating of 58–9 hagiographies of 69 organising gatherings 34–5 Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita 20, 23, 100, 121 as Nārada 53, 101 in pañca-tattva 53 Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa of Bhoja 125–8, 162–3 Stava-mālā of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 38 Stavāvalī of Kavikarṇapūra 33, 38 Stavāvalī of Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 3, 64 sthāyi-bhāva (stable emotion) Abhinavagupta on 131 and bhakti (devotion) 112, 150, 158–9 of bhakti (devotion) 148–9, 151, 156, 164–6 Bharata on 122 Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa on 124 Page 30 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Bhoja on 125–7 Daṇḍī on 125 doṣa (defect) of 212 Dhanañjaya and Dhanika on 132 Kavikarṇapūra on 135–7, 140–1, 143, 162–6 number of 122, 144–8, 162 of śānta-rasa 145–6, 162, 165 as singular 135, 136–7 Viśvanātha Kavirāja on 132–3 Stewart, Tony K. 16, 27, 33, 37, 54, 61, 63, 100 stimulating excitant, see vibhāva style, see rīti Subandbhu 252 Subhāṣitāvalī of Vallabhadeva 299 Sudeva 150 Sulocana Sena 54 svakīyā (marital love) 64–5 and Jīva Gosvāmī 36, 64 Svakīyātva-nirāśā-vicāra of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 65 Svarūpa-caritāmṛta of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 32–3 Svarūpa Dāmodara 1–2, 5, 16 and Kavikarṇapūra 30, 32–3, 43 and Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja 48 and pañca-tattva 53 and Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī 22, 25, 32, 48 and Rūpa Gosvāmī 32 and Sanātana Gosvāmī 32 and Śrīnātha Paṇḍita 48, 49 and Vedānta 92 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on 32–3 Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 78, 92, 266 Śyāmānanda bringing works of Gosvāmīs to Bengal 58–61 dating of 58–9 hagiographies of 59 Śyāmānanda-prakāśa of Kṛṣṇacaraṇadāsa 59 Śyāmānanda-rasārṇava of Kṛṣṇacaraṇadāsa 59 Taittirīya Upaniṣad 77, 246 Tantras 73 Tarka-saṃgraha of Annambhaṭṭa 221 Tarkatīrtha, Rādhāmādhava 58 Tattva-cintāmaṇi of Gaṅgeśa 69 transient emotion, see vyabhicāri-bhāva Udbhaṭa 205, 206–7, 217 Uddhavadāsa 33, 38 Uddhava-sandeśa of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3 Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi of Rūpa Gosvāmī 5, 14, 62, 150, 282 universal, see jāti Upaniṣads 50, 109 Page 31 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on brahman 77–8, 81, 246, 263 and Pāñcarātra 88–90 see also individual Upaniṣads (p.359) Utsāhavatī-rūpaka of Jīvadeva Kaviḍiṇḍima 4 Uttara-rāma-carita of Bhavabhūti 168, 240 Vāgbhaṭṭa 230 vaicitrya (marvellousness) Ānandavardhana on 218 and prauḍhi (maturity) 197–8, 215–16, 217 of sound and sense 8–9, 217 and types of poetry 194–5, 218 Vaikuṇṭha 119, 120, 257, 263 vairāgya (renunciation) and bhakti (devotion) 107–8 and Caitanya 107–8 Vaiṣṇavācāra-darpaṇa of Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvacaspati, see Navadvīpacandra Vidyāvacaspati Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā 36, 64 Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī of Sanātana Gosvāmī 58, 60, 186, 298 Vakreśvara Paṇḍita 104 Vākya-padīya of Bhartṛhari 178, 181, 183, 184, 264 Vallabhācārya 298 Vallabhadeva 299 Vallabha Sena 26 Vāmana on doṣa (defect) 209, 210 on figures of speech 227 on guṇa (excellence) 195–6, 197, 209, 215 on pāka (ripeness) 206–7, 217 on poets 230–1, 232, 233 on pratibhā (imagination) 234 on prauḍhi (maturity) 216 on prose poetry 252 on rīti (style) 204, 206–7, 216, 227, 272 Vaṃśī-śikṣā of Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa 63 see also Premadāsa Siddhāntavāgīśa Vaṃśīvadana 63 Varṇa-prakāśa of Kavikarṇapūra 39 vāsanā (proclivity) and bhakti (devotion) 108, 113, 114, 121 of poet 229–30, 233–5, 242 and prema (Love) 172, 176, 290, 291 and rasa 126, 130, 134, 137, 140 and scripture 76, 249 and theology 76, 81, 85, 176 Vāsudeva 88, 324 Vāsudeva Datta 24 Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma, see Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya Vātsyāyana (author of Kāma-sūtras) 236 Vātsyāyana (Naiyāyika) 188, 220, 221 Veda  73, 76, 80, 81, 89, 91 see also Ṛg Veda; śāstra Page 32 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index Vedānta and Kavikarṇapūra 91–2 on language 189 on meditation 117 and Pāñcarātra 88–90, 91 Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya teaching 69, 70, 77 and Śrīnātha 51, 91–2, 94–5 Vedānta Deśika 89 vernacular literature 5, 102, 117 vibhāva (excitant) 11, 132, 135, 139, 140, 159, 165, 174, 175, 280 ālambana- (foundational) 123, 125, 126, 127, 136, 254, 306 in Ānanda-vṛndāvana 254, 319 doṣa (defect) of 212 defined 122, 136 ontology of 166–7, 169, 175, 246, 254 typology of 174–5 uddīpana- (stimulating) 123, 127, 136, 152, 154, 254 Vidagdha-mādhava of Rūpa Gosvāmī 3, 4, 58 Vidyācakravartī 146, 148, 203, 205, 215, 222, 233, 234 Vidyādhara 216 Vidyānātha 128–9, 131, 133, 143, 160, 216–17 Vidyāpati 298 Vidyārāma 150, 156 Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha 298 Vīrabhadra 55 Vīra Hāṃvīra 58, 59–60 Viṣṇu, see Nārāyaṇa Viṣṇudāsa Gosvāmī 28, 62, 68, 270 Viṣṇupriyā 20, 107 Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma 107 Viśvanātha Cakravartī on the Ānanda-vṛndāvana 10, 253, 295, 313, 314 commentary on Alaṃkāra-kaustubha of 65, 66 commentary on Ānanda-vṛndāvana of 31–2, 35, 65–6 on Kavikarṇapūra 30, 31–2, 35, 68, 270 on Kavikarṇapūra’s names 29, 30 on Kavikarṇapūra’s residence 35 on parakīyā (extra-marital love) 65–6 on prema (Love) 172 on rasa 139, 140, 141, 168–9 on sound 182 on sphoṭa 186 see also Camatkāra-candrikā; Gaura-gaṇa-svarūpa-tattva-candrikā; Parakīyātva-nirūpaṇa; Svakīyātva-nirāśā-vicāra; Svarūpa-caritāmṛta; Vraja-rīticintāmaṇi (p.360) Viśvanātha Kavirāja on bhakti (devotion) 147–8, 167 on doṣa (defect) 211 on figures of speech 203 on genre 251 Page 33 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index on guṇa (excellence) 197, 198, 199, 216, 223 and Kāvya-prakāśa 223 on poetry 223 on rasa 132–3, 167, 173–4, 223, 224–5 on rīti (style) 208 on śānta-rasa (peaceful rasa) 148, 167, 199 on sthāyi-bhāva (stable emotion) 132–3 on vatsala-rasa (rasa of parental affection) 146, 148 on vyabhicāri-bhāva (transient emotion) 306 Vivarta-vilāsa of Akiñcanadāsa 36, 37 see also Akiñcanadāsa Vopadeva 150–1, 152, 153–5, 156, 157–8, 298 on bhakti (devotion) 153–4 on bhakti-rasa (rasa of devotion) 150 see also Muktā-phala Vraja-rīti-cintāmaṇi of Viśvanātha Cakravartī 66, 253 Vṛndāvana 36 as alaukika/laukika (non-worldly/worldly) 261, 262–3, 273 as brahman 259, 265 and Caitanya 22, 105 as Caitanya Vaiṣṇava centre 6, 7, 14 as Kṛṣṇa’s abode 50, 101, 245, 253–4, 257–8 līlā (play) of 35, 96–7, 102, 144, 253–4 and paradox 259, 273 Śrīnātha on 254 and Vaikuṇṭha 257, 263 Vṛndāvanacandra Tarkālaṃkāra Cakravartī 66 Vṛndāvanadāsa on gaura-nāgara-vāda 22 on Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana 58 on Haridāsa 100 and Kumārahaṭṭa 23 on Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya 71, 72, 107 on Śivānanda Sena 24 Vṛndāvana-mahimāmṛta of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī 3 Vṛtti-mālā of Kavikarṇapūra 39 vyabhicāri-bhāva (transient emotion) 126, 127, 133, 135, 139, 141, 147, 148, 152, 158, 160, 280, 313 in Ānanda-vṛndāvana 305–6, 319 defined 123, 136 doṣa (defect) of 212 nirveda (indifference) as 146, 165 number of 144 stages of 306 and sthāyi-bhāva (stable emotion) 144–5, 146, 148, 164–5 vyañjanā, see dhvani (suggestion) Vyāsa Śarmā 59, 60 vyūha (emanation) 88 see also Aniruddha; Pradyumna; Saṅkarṣaṇa; Vāsudeva wonder as alaukika/aprākṛta (non-worldly/non-material) 108, 275 and Kṛṣṇa 83, 98, 108, 117, 121, 273–4, 275, 277 Page 34 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020

Index and phonetic figures of speech 273–4 and paradox 274–5 and poetry 207, 228, 274–5 and rasa 129, 133, 137, 138, 150, 153, 154, 167, 170–1, 199, 273–5, 277, 286 Wulff, Donna 6 Yadunandanācārya 24 Yadunandanadāsa 59, 60 Yājigrāma 35, 60 Yāmuna 88–90 Yogamāyā Nityānanda as 101–2 and gopīs 287–9, 302, 304, 305 as śakti (potency) 288

Access brought to you by:

Page 35 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: SUNY Binghamton University; date: 28 September 2020