Can Sanskrit Drama Tell Us Anything More?

Author(s): Maria Christopher Byrski

Source: Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 445-452
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3206378
Accessed: 02-11-2015 18:10 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Theatre
Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MARIA CHRISTOPHER BYRSKI

Can Sanskrit Drama Tell Us Anything More?

Several years of teaching Sanskrit drama at the Department of Indology,

University of Warsaw, have revealed to me the weakness inherent in the way
Sanskrit drama is usually expounded. This pattern has been so forcefully
extablishedby such scholars as M. Winternitz,A. B. Keith, S. K. De and others,
thatit is by no meanseasy to challengeit. Yet it seems to me thata completelynew
set of criteria--or at least substantiallymodifiedones-should be applied to the
evaluationof a dramatictext. My principalobjectionto those hithertoappliedis that
they are haphazardand for the most part subjective. I shall try to substantiatethis
view and offer some positive suggestions. Since Sanskritliterary criticism as a
whole developedout of the studyof theatricalarts, my suggestionsmaybe relevant
to the entire field of Sanskritliterature.
A well-knownPolish scholar,J. Krzyzanowski,writes in his Nauka o literaturze
(Science of Literature), "Literary criticism which is unable to be so fresh and
sensitive as to view literaryworks throughthe eyes of theirfirst critics is not worth
much."1 Scholars like Wilson, Wintemrnitz, Keith and De have made detailed
studies of the history of aesthetics but have failed to apply its criteria when
evaluatingthe dramasthemselves. For example, Winternitzstresses that, in order
properlyto approachan Indianliterarywork, it is necessary "to immerseoneself in
the spiritof Indiaif only for a while andbelieve all thatIndiansbelieve." Yet he can
find in the N-tyaSstra only "a decidedly barrenscience, which is dealing more
with classification and schematisation than with an investigation of facts and
formulationsof principles."2 When it is no longer a question of paying mere
lip-serviceto Indianliteraturebut makinga radicalchangein the entire mannerof
reasoning, this is how Winternitzunderstandshis "immersing in the spirit of
India"! Nevertheless, it would be unjust to discredit all existing criticism only
because it is defective. Let me thereforetry, before I restate my reservations,to
analyze what has been achieved in this field.
As a startingpointlet us turnagainto Krzy?anowski.In ChapterVIII ofNauka o
literaturzehe says that the criticism of a literarywork in its entirety must apply

MariaChristopherByrskiis an adjunctprofessorin theDepartmentoflndology, Universityof Warsaw.

He has translatedSanskritdramasinto Polish, and publishedmany articles and a book, Conceptof
AncientIndianTheatre(New Delhi, 1973).Thepresentpaperis a revisionof one deliveredat the Inter-
national Sanskrit Conference, Delhi, 1972, and published in the Journal of the Sangeet Natak Akademi,
No. 27 (Jan.-March1973).
S(Wroclaw,1969),p. 272.
2 A History ofl Indian Literature (Delhi, 1963), pp. 117, 241.

445

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
446 / ETJ, December 1975

sociological, historical, aesthetic (or formal)and ethical criteria. By sociological

criteriaKrzyianowkiunderstands"the durationin time and territorialrangeof the
appreciation,"and by historical, "the problemof originality,and the problemof
setting a given writer against the backgroundof his literarytraditionas well as
defininghis attitudetowardsit." These criteriahave to be takenin conjunction,for
"it is necessary to considerthe fundamentalattitudeof the epoch towardsliterary
traditionand the way it understandsthe problem of originality." The aesthetic
criteriaare, of course, the "peculiaritiesof formalnature"and "the factors which
shapethe outerformof the literaryworkin relationto its innerstructure."Finally,
by ethicalcriteriaKrzyianowski understands"the appreciationof a literarywork
based on the assumptionthat it always is an expression of some reactionsto life.
The more they are general, universal, and unconnected with the exigencies of a
particularmoment which has given birth to the work in question, the broader,
deeper and more universalwill be the response they evoke."
Traditionalcriticism of Sanskritdramaoperates mainly with sociological and,
above all, with historical criteria, quite often ignoring-because of its Western
provenance-the indigenousliterarytraditionand its peculiar, not very stringent
attitude towards originality. The remaining two criteria tend to be applied
haphazardlyor not at all. Moreover, in the case of Europeanscholars, they are
applied from the modern, Western point of view; while in the case of Indian
scholars, they are appliedeither accordingto Westernstandardsor, by disputing
those standards,still concentrateattentionupon the same points. It can be safely
said that Western scholars either ignore the achievements of Sanskrit literary
criticismor dismiss them aftertotally inadequateconsideration.If Indianscholars
turn to Sanskritaesthetics, they apply it in fragmentaryand disorderlyfashion.
Evidently, then, both Indianand Westernscholars show the same bias towards
sociological and historicaltreatmentof the subjectwhile neglectingaesthetic and
ethical criteria. This bias has led to considerableachievement in the spheres of
criticismneglected by traditionalIndianscholarship;there have been carefuland
painstakinginvestigations of Krzyianowski's "duration in time and territorial
rangeof appreciation,"as well as of chronologyand of the degree of originalityof
individualauthors. It is thanks to the historical and sociological bias of modern
criticism that we can today attempt the chronologicalpresentation of Sanskrit
drama. But if we still cannot-especially in the West-reconcile ourselves to
peculiaritiesof style, diction, ethics andbehavioralpatternsin the Sanskritdramas,
it is because we are still, it seems, unableto look at them throughthe eyes of their
firstcritics. We constantlyadmitthatsuchan attitudeis necessaryandyet we reject
"the eyes" which they have left to us in the form of their ancient aesthetics.
To make my point clearer let me try to review the opinions of the acknowl-
edged authoritieson one particularSanskritdrama.True to our principles, let us
choose our representative work with the eyes of the earliest (if not exactly
contemporary)critics: "Among poetical compositions, dramais most delightful
and among dramas, the Sakuntali."3

3 This anonymousand other similaropinions have been collected by A. B. Gajendragadkar,

The
Abhijndna-SakuntalJ ofKlalida`sa, 6th ed.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
447 / SANSKRITDRAMA

In H. H. Wilson's The Theatre of the Hindus, ?akuntali is not separately

discussed. But in the course of consideringother plays he says that ?akuntal&
cannot give a proper idea of Indian theatre. According to him, it is a mythical
and pastoralplay which he praises for frankdescriptions,tenderness of feelings,
delicate beauty of thought, the highest elegance of style, and an interesting
heroine.4A. Macdonell showers even more generous epithets upon the drama,
praising it for "the richness of creative fancy . . . skill in the expression of
tender feelings . . ., undisturbed harmony of the poetic sentiment . . ." He
concludes that in the drama"every passion is softened without being enfeebled.
The ardour of love never goes beyond aesthetic bounds, it never maddens to
wild jealousy or hate. The torments of sorrow are toned down to profoundand
touching melancholy. It is here at last that the Indian genius found the law of
moderation in poetry . . . Kalidasa stands highest in poetical refinement, in
tendernessand depth of feeling."5
Winternitztackles the play with great precision. He first discusses the recep-
tion of the play in Germany and then remarks that Kalidasa is the greatest
Sanskritpoet and Sakuntali the finest work of art that man can imagine.6He
quotes Goethe's opinion of the play, which is the best example of what we could
call "critical impressionism." It is to Goethe that we owe such resounding
epithets as unfathomabledepth, summitof talent, presentationof naturalorder,
the best way of life, the purest moral endeavor, the most sober divine medita-
tion, etc., etc! Analysis of the playwright'ssources and remarkson the popular-
ity of SakuntalHin India are followed by his own opinion that in Kalidasa's
poetry there is no dramaticelement, such as it is understood in the West, but
ratherthat Sakuntali is narrativein form. Thoughhe adds that "whoever would
try to measurethe depths of this consciously attemptedfable-likedramawith the
yard-stick of Greek tragedy, would be unable to recognize its unequalled
beauty," Winternitz does not apply any yardstick other than that of Greek
theatre but mainly confines himself to imploringthe readerto an admirationfor
this magnificent work. Finally, he gets on to safer ground; he returns to the
reception of the play in Europeand lists its Indianversions.
The Indian scholar S. K. De begins his remarksabout
;akuntalgby writing
that it "reveals a rare balance of mind, which harmonisesthe artistic sense with
the poetic, and results in the practice of singular moderation."' According to
him, Sakuntala is the full-blownflower of Kalidasa'sgenius and in it we have a
unique alliance of his poetic and dramatic gifts. "As a dramatist K-tlidisa
succeeds mainly by his poetic power in two respects: he is master of poetic
emotion which he can skillfullyharmonisewith characterand action, and he has
the poetic sense of balance and restraint which a dramatist must show if he
would win success." De then takes refuge in a catalogueof images and sonorous
adjectives, which begins: "we see to best effect K~lidisa's method of unfolding
a character, as a flower unfolds its petals in rain and sunshine . . . There is

4 (Calcutta, 1955), pp. 2, 58.

5A History of Sanskrit Literature (1929; rpt. Delhi, 1962), pp. 298, 305.
6 Winternitz, pp. 237ff.
7 S. N. Dasgupta and S. K. De, A History of Sanskrit Literature (Calcutta, 1962), pp. 134-149.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
448 / ETJ, December 1975

temperancein the depth of passion, and perspicuityand inevitablenessin action

and expression, but above all this dramasurpasses by its essential poetic quality
of style and treatment."
A. B. Keith, too, opens by saying that Sakuntald "certainly represents the
perfection of Kalidasa's art."8 He summarizesthe play and discusses different
Indianversions of it. By way of criticalappreciationhe offers us:
Cakuntal's dawning love is depicted with perfect skill ... The king is a worthy hero....
His love for his son is charminglydepicted. ... [Cakuntali]has sufferedtribulationof spiritand
gainedin depth and beauty of nature.
The other charactersare models of skilful presentation .... Kanva is a delightfulfigure ...
The companionsof the heroine are paintedwith delicate taste; both are devoted body and soul
to theirmistress, but Anasiiyais serious and sensible; Priyamvadatalkativeand gay ...
Klidasa excels in depictingthe emotions of love;.., he is hardlyless expert in pathos; the
fourth Act of the Cakuntali is a model of tender sorrow. .... The humour of the Vidisaka is
never coarse; ..

Despite so much praise, however, he goes on to say,

Admirableas is Kalidisa's work, it would be unjustto ignorethe fact that in his dramasas in his
epicshe showsno interestin the greatproblemsof life anddestiny. .. . He was incapableof viewing
the world as a tragic scene, of feeling any sympathyfor the hardlot of the majorityof men, or
appreciatingthe reignof injusticein the world. It was impossibleto him to go beyond his narrow
range; ...

Keith does give an expert analysis (from the European point of view) of
the style and languageof Sakuntala, and where he is forced to do so by the very
natureof the Sanskritlanguage,he accepts certainelementsof Indianrhetoric.Yet
a strongfeeling persists that the critic has missed the point.

Where scholars are content with images and impressions,popularsurveys can

hardlybe expected to do better. One of the most recentpopularstudies of Sanskrit
literature offers: "The play opens with the picture of exultant manhood. . . . Her
beautyis tender, fresh and unspoiltlike the woodlandcreepers she affectionately
tends every day .... Kalidasa's poetic powers are at their best in this
play, . . . they are conserved and blended with profoundly moral perception." Y
And a Hindisurvey, very popularwith college students,adoptsthe sameapproach.
Its author,B. Upadhyaya,offers a differentdate for Kalidasathando those writing
in English.Moreimportant,he follows the categoriesof traditionalaesthetics and,
to a certainextent, traditionalethics (althoughcurrentethics seem to exertra strong
pull-for instance, on his view of gindharva vivaha).10 Yet the advantage of
arrangingthe discussion under partly traditionalcaptions like plot, characters,

8 The Sanskrit Drama (Oxford, 1924), pp. 152ff.

" K. Chaitanya, A New History of Sanskrit Literature (Bombay, 1962), pp. 316, 157-160.
Samskrt siihitya ka itihasa (Kaii, 1961), pp. 173ff. the ghandarva vivdha was in ancient India
o10
one of manyadmissableforms of contractingmarriage.It was done by mutualconsent of the parties
involved and without the permission of elders. Among the warrior class this was a perfectly
legitimateif not advisableformof marriage.But in presentdayIndianmoralityit is consideredby the
average person to be one of the grossest abuses. See an excellent paper by K. P. Jog, "A Fresh
Revaluationof the Inner Meaningof the Sakuntala,"VelankarCommemorationVolume
(Poona,
1965), pp. 206ff.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
449 / SANSKRITDRAMA

beauty (saundarya-bhavana), sentiment, and message is nullified by the subjectiv-

ity of his opinion.

In spite of its brevity, this review of the more commonly known compre-
hensive works in the field of Sanskrit drama of Sanskrit literature in general
should have made clear how derivative criticism of Sanskrit drama has been. Much
has been done in the historical and sociological sphere; one might even say that
there can be further progress here only if new source material comes to light. But
aesthetic and ethical appreciation is still dominated by generalisation, affected
"impressionism," sentimental effusion and, occasionally, tedious journalism.

Now the question of positive proposals arises. I shall continue to take Sakuntalki
as an example, and sketch out how it might be approached by way of Sanskrit
aesthetics.

The tools for the formal evaluation of a play have always been ready at hand.
Occasionally, and at random, they have been picked up by different critics. Yet I am
not aware of any effort to apply them consistently. The most important of them is in
my view the concept of the five sandhis (spans). It seems that this concept has been
somewhat misunderstood as far back as the Daiarupaka. Here it is enough to say
that sandhis are the spans of the itivrtta (plot), and that what should be investigated
is their duration, their interrelationship, the way they are bound together into one
whole, and their relative importance in the play." They provide a means to
understand the harmony of composition of a particular play. Intimately connected
with the sandhis is the concept of rasa. Bharatamuni said that a poet should apply
the sandhyaligas in such a way that they evoke the proper aesthetic response, and
rasa should be discussed after or along with the sandhis. Its dependence on the
sandhis must be clearly understood. It should be discussed as a continuous
experience, changing and developing in the course of the play. Only after these two
aspects (the five sandhis and rasa) have been thoroughly investigated can the critic
proceed to discover the other means by which the author achieves his result-
-notably, of course, matters of style.12
Let me try to give substance to the method I have outlined. In the absence of
the entire critical apparatus from which they are drawn, my conclusions may not
convince. Nevertheless, they are not subjective impressions and they can easily
be checked against the criteria of Sanskrit poetics.

In Sakuntal, the hero's desire to attain his goal is the dominating motif of Act
I. We learn about the particular nature of his desire and goal through the words
11 See my Concept of Ancient Indian Theatre (New Delhi, 1974), pp. 101ff. Sandhis are, so to
speak, builtup on what are called phases or motifs(avasthad).There are five such motifs which were
formulatedin the Nd~tyaldstrain an effort to define an abstractidea of any action. The first phase is
called arambhJ (beginning)and its main feature is a desire of achievement;the second is yatna
(effort);the third,praptyijid(hope of attainment);the fourthis niyatapti(frustration);and the last is
phaligama (achievement).
12 Shoulda play be judged not only by the standardspromulgatedin the Nityaa&stra but also from
the point of view of individualaestheticians(e.g., from the point of view of dhvani theory)?I should
say so, providedthe critic himself shares the particularview. His subjectiveopinion may come into
play after thoroughapplicationof objective standards.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
450 / ETJ, December 1975

of the two hermits who bless the king by wishing him a son and successor. The
appearanceon the stage of Sakuntalaand her meeting with the hero intensifies
this motif. While she bringsto the play a distinct erotic hue, it is neverthelessnot
so much a love-comedy as a dramaof unfulfilledfatherhood. Act II continues
that motif but simultaneouslyintroducesanother which is a consequence of the
initial desire, namely, the motif of yatna (effort). And here we enter the second
sandhi, pratimukha(ahead span) The king, throughhis own initiative and with
the help of propitiouscircumstances,makes a concrete effort to fulfil his desire,
which has now also become Sakuntala's. He assumes an incognito, sends his
companionshome and, to defend the hermitsfrom evil demons, remains in the
hermitage.The effort made by is delicately embodied in her writinga
love-letter. The motif of effort is continueduntil the incident in Act III where it
Sakuntal,
transpiresfrom the conversationof her friends that the gandharva marriagehas
been contracted and that Sakuntali has found a deserving husband. Here the
secondsandhi ends and the third,garbha (a womb span), begins; here also begins
the motif which is hope of attainment.The hero and the heroine are married.
Sakuntalaconceives. Her foster-fatherKanva accepts the union, blesses it, and
sends off the pregnantheroine to join her lawful husband. This span of action
has already been anticipatedby the blessings of the hermits. But now it is the
most prominentmotif which lasts till the second scene of Act V, where the king,
on seeing the pregnantheroine, is constrainedby the curse of Durvasas to ask
bluntly: "What is this broughtbefore me?"

Now the thirdsandhi ends and the sequence of situationswhich are dominated
by the frustrationof the attainmentbegins. As I mentioned, this was anticipated
by the Durvass incident. But what was only a slight apprehensionnow grows
into a real despair. Abandoned, Sakuntall dies-though the Indian tradition
disguises it as taking refuge in heaven. The recovery of the ring which restores
the king's memorythrustshim too into a pit of abysmaldespair. He continues in
this state until near the end of Act VI when a messenger from heaven, Matali,
appears and implores the king to come to the rescue of the gods in their fight
with the demons. He invites him to mount the chariot of Indra. This chariot in
fact sounds a tragic note: for we must remember that in Indian tradition a
heavenly chariot often symbolises death.13Could we assume that Kalidasa in-
tends to suggest if not death at least a radicalchange of existence for Dusyanta?
Indiandramais far from Greek tragedy, in that the end of earthly existence not
only does not imply man's final defeat but should not even be called death. Even
today the most common appellation of the event is svargavasa (sojourn in
heaven). Sakuntall and Dusyantawill unite in heaven and reincarnateon earthto
fulfil their cycle of existence so cruelly (or benevolently) interruptedby an
adverse fate. Act VII delivers the action of the play out of its tragic impasse and
the series of situations of this act constitutes the fifth sandhi, nirvahalza(an
accomplishmentspan), in which the principalmotif is the attainmentof the goal.
Dusyanta recovers his wife, though only in heaven, and finds the desire of his

*
E.g., the dying Duryodhana of the Urubhahngahas a vision of a heavenly chariot coming to fetch
him to heaven, and Dagaratha of the Pratemanitaka, having heard rumblings of a chariot, takes it for
the chariot of death.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
451 / SANSKRITDRAMA

heart--his son. The blessings of the hermits have come to fulfilment and the play
ends in integrationof the desiringand the desired.

Sakuntala is a very harmoniouslybuilt drama.The sandhis never end abruptly

but smoothly merge into each other. In this way each sandhi carries suggestions
of the other four so that the play presents a succession of harmonisedchords. So
harmonious a sequence of events should evoke in a spectator an equally
harmoniousunfolding of emotional response. By identifyinghimself with what
happens on the stage, he will be carried through a whole gamut of diverse
sentiments.Finally he will experienceperfect unity and fulfilment,which accord-
ing to the Natya~istra is none other than the sentimentof wonder itself.
To begin with, Kalidsa chooses two spheres of emotional response: heroism
and love, with a light admixture of laughter. In Sakuntald the rapid flow of
heroic emotion comes to an abruptstop at the outskirtsof the hermitage.Before
the next dominant emotion sets in with full force there is an emotional hiatus
which makes its onset even more dramatic. The next two sandhis show the
emotion of love growing in strength. Nevertheless there is simultaneously an
undercurrentof apprehensionwhich culminatesin Durvasas' curse. This brings
in a lightning-like streak of violent sentiment which seems emotionally to
anticipatelater developments. By the end of the thirdsandhi the action steadily
increases in pathetic sentiment, which reaches a climax in the scene of
SakuntalR'sdeparture. The sentiment of laughter meanwhile appears only in
occasional flashes. The very nature of the fourth sandhi demands a radical
change in the emotional charge. In Sakuntalad this change is achieved in the
scenes at Dusyanta's court and consists of a very rapid intensification of the
pathetic sentiment. This sentiment appears on two occasions: once in the words
of Sakuntala and the second time in the despair of the hero (the pathos of these
scenes is purposely contrasted with the laughter of the fisherman's incident).
The last sandhi shows the slow rise of the sentiment of wonder, which in full
accordance with the directive of Bharatamuni ends the play, together with
reverberations of the pathetic and the heroic.

The above analysis is too brief to be more then a suggestion of a possible

method of criticism. If the method is accepted, discussion need no longer be
limited to an exchange of subjective opinions but can lead to ever more precise
and minute analysis and description of the emotional contents of a play.

I shall not pursue the aesthetic criteria here, for they have received most
attention from scholars in the past. The only remark which I would venture at
the present time is that aspects of style should not only be exemplified by
randomly chosen passages but also that at least one larger portion of the text
should be selected for careful analysis of its meaning, structure, expression (i.e.,
guna, alamkara--qualities, embellishments-etc.), and the relation between
them. If necessary, such an analysis should be undertaken for the entire text.

It is now time to consider the last group of criteria, those that are ideological
ones. The first and foremost task here is to find out how Indian tradition

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
452 / ETJ,December 1975

formulates the social and psychological conditions for human fulfilment. If we

survey for this purposethe entire sphere of the Hindudharma we shallfind there
a concept which is of capital importancefor literarycriticism. The purusirthas
lay down certainconditions for humanfulfilment.14 Since a play is a representa-
tion of life it follows that the fulfilmentof its kirya (action) must be judged in the
light of these conditions. Karya is an action prompted by desire, carried on
through effort, dwelling in hope of an achievement, suffering frustrationand
ending in fulfilment. Whatever man does should be judged in the light of its
relationshipto the fourpurusitrthas-for they express the fullness of humanlife.
Thereforethe traditionalupadela, that is, the moral import of a play, should be
judged by the intensity of its reflection of one or more of the purustdrthas.
To make these remarks more concrete, let us once again have recourse to
Sakuntalli.The achievementaimed for in this play-the common opinion invari-
ably says-is the fulfilmentof love in the union of SakuntalBand Dusyanta. Yet if
this is so, then why does the play not end with the gafidharva viva~ha?The first
consummatedmeeting of the lovers is the climax of an action which has their
union as its sole purpose. But this union does not end the play; the final
achievement of the play is a son for Dusyanta. Thus the climax comes exactly
where it should come, at the nirvahanasandhi. We can define the play fully only
as a dramaof unfulfilledfatherhood.Ifputralabha (getting male progeny) is the
goal of the play, there can be little doubt that the first purusartha-dharma-is
the principalone. Yet at the same time it is quite evident that the principalfactor
throughwhich this is attainedis love. Consequentlywe may describe the play in
question as being dharmapradhanaand ktrmdkrita(pursuing virtue through
love). Having defined it in these general terms, we may try to determine the
attitude of the playwrighttowards such a goal. Till the arrivalof the heroine at
Dusyanta's court little happens out of the ordinary. Both the departure of
Sakuntalafrom her father's house and an apparentneglect of her by the king
seem to indicate an ordinary love-story. It is only with the rejection of the
hermit's daughterthat the action takes a very unexpected and meaningfulturn.
Sakuntaladies of despair. No amountof soft-pedallingwill conceal this fact. But
what is death for those who believe in reincarnation?It is an interimsvargavdsa
(sojourn in heaven).5 And not only for the despairingking is also
Sakuntal•:
invited to heaven by the gods and the symbol of final departurethat we know so
well from elsewhere-a chariot of the gods-is despatched to fetch him. It is
there that Sakuntalaand Dusyanta will enjoy the fruit of their union.
In this light we can see that the message of the play is that the end of earthly
existence does not mean an ultimate defeat. If man is engaged in the pursuitof
his dharma, he will not only overcome an adverse fate but death itself will come
to him as a loving invitationfrom the gods to share their world till yet one more
returnto the earth.
14 Originally there were three aims of human life (purusirtha): dharma, virtue; artha, welfare; and
kiima, love. Later on the fourth was added: moksa, final liberation from the shackles of discursive
reality.
15 True to Bharatamuni's injunction, Kalid~sa does not show death on the stage but only departure
to heaven.

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:10:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions