Versified History of Sanskrit Poetics TH

Charles A. Filion, M.A.
Versified History
of Sanskrit Poetics:
The Soul is Rasa
Gaurapada Dāsa, M.A.

(Charles A. Filion)
Copyright © Reserved 2017
Art on the cover by Puskara das

puskarpaintings.com
Layout by Gaurapada Dāsa

Introduction
Poetry is the artistic use of words that evokes our mojo. Like other
forms of art, poetry is meant to give us the astonishing sense of
“wow”. The poetic theory refined by Sanskrit rhetoricians, such
as the Dhvani theory and the ornaments of meaning, also apply to
other languages, given that the Sanskrit rhetoricians’ methodology
of analysis is universal. But Sanskrit is especially well suited:
It is the best medium for poetry because Sanskrit phonemes are
distinctly pure, because Sanskrit is favorable for double meanings
and because it is based on a rich tradition.
The highest aesthetic experience is a type of self-realization:

Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha remarks: cid eva rasaḥ, “The spirit soul is
Rasa.” The word rasa often means “aesthetic delight,” but in this
context Rasa means rapture: the mix of transcendental bliss and
astonishment. It is up to us to take the steps to realize this.
Sanskrit poets wrote for scholars. Dr. Keith notes:
The neglect of Sanskrit Kāvya is doubtless natural. The great

poets of India wrote for audiences of experts; they were
masters of the learning of their day, long trained in the use of
language, and they aim to please by subtlety, not simplicity of
effect. They had at their disposal a singularly beautiful speech,
and they commanded elaborate and most effective metres.
Under these circumstances it was inevitable that their works
should be difficult, but of those who on that score pass them
by it may fairly be said ardua dum metuunt amittunt vera viai.1
This Latin maxim by Lucretius (c. 99 – c. 55 BCE) means: “They

fear while it is arduous. They lose the true path.”
1 Keith, A.B. (1956) History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface p. 7.
7
8 Versified History of Sanskrit Poetics
Some Sanskrit rhetoricians promulgated secular poetry; others,

such as Ānandavardhana, Viśvanātha Kavirāja and Paṇḍita-rāja
Jagannātha, hinted that bhakti is the ultimate goal of life; and yet
other theorists, including Rūpa Gosvāmī and Kavi Karṇapūra, used
poetry to promulgate bhakti, but in all instances the underlying
purpose of studying poetry is to realize that symbolism is an
essential aspect of life. The study of poetic expression makes us
think outside the box, gives us a feel for symbolism and, with
logical reasoning, enables us to read the signs in day-to-day life.
God communicates indirectly2 and reciprocates in accordance with
His dictum: ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy
aham, “I serve them in the same way they devote themselves to
Me” (Bhagavad-gītā 4.11). Sanskrit poetics perfectly mixes art
and philosophy. Utpala, the teacher of Abhinava-gupta’s preceptor
(Lakṣmaṇa Gupta), states:
tais tair apy upayācitair upanatas tanvyāḥ sthito ’py antike

kānto loka-samāna evam aparijñāto na rantuṁ yathā |
lokasyaiṣa tathānavekṣita-guṇaḥ svātmāpi viśveśvaro
naivālaṁ nija-vaibhavāya tad iyaṁ tat pratibhijñoditā || 3
Although his friends lead him to his beloved, if she does not
recognize him as her lover she will view him like she views any
other man, and so he could not possibly take pleasure with her.
Similarly, even though the Lord is directly related to oneself,
the soul, if His qualities are unnoticed His glory will remain
imperceptible. On this analogy is established the usage of the
term Pratyabhijñā in philosophy. (Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikā
4.17)
Abhinavagupta explains: jñātasyāpi viśeṣato nirūpaṇam

anusandhānātmakam atra pratibhijñānaṁ, na tu tad evedam
2 vedā brahmātma-viṣayās tri-kāṇḍa-viṣayā ime, parokṣa-vādā ṛṣayaḥ

parokṣaṁ mama ca priyam, “The Vedas consist of three parts (rituals; worship
of gods; and realization of Brahma) and explain that the soul is Brahma
(transcendental). The Vedic mantras are esoteric, and the Vedic seers speak in
esoteric terms. I too prefer an indirect mode of expression” (Bhāgavatam 11.21.35).
3 yathoktam asmat-parama-gurubhiḥ śrīmad-utpala-pādaiḥ (Locana 1.8).
Introduction 9
ity etāvan-mātram, “Pratyabhijñā is not simply the ordinary

recognition “That is that.” Rather it is a realization involving a
deeper understanding of what is known in a general way” (Locana
1.8). This was Abhinavagupta’s comment on Ānandavardhana’s
statement that a great poet is one who is able to recognize which
sounds and which meanings can give rise to a first-rate implied
sense.4 Ultimately, poets make us ponder over the nature of real
love.
Like the Sanskrit language itself, Sanskrit poetics is very systematic.

Rājaśekhara says the knowledge of poetical theory is necessary to
correctly interpret Vedic texts. In addition, he says poetics forms
a seventh Vedāṅga (auxiliary branch of learning).5 The Upaniṣads
and other scriptures on Vedānta philosophy are founded on poetic
expression.
Figurative usage is a main feature of poetics. This book is called

“Versified” History of Sanskrit Poetics because it abounds in
verses: The best stanzas of each poetical rhetorician are shown so
that the history of the evolution of the concept of rasa is apparent.
Moreover, in the section on Ānandavardhana is a dissertation on
the Dhvani theory and on its prototype, Sphoṭa-vāda, which are
the apex of the philosophy of language. Other specialties lacking
in previous books in the field of the history of Sanskrit poetics
include citra-kāvya diagrams, the evolution of the scripts, the rise
of the concept of bhakti, the distinct contributions of Vaishnavas,
a discussion on the mystical basis of poetics (the soul is Rasa),
and comparisons between Sanskrit poetics and English poetics.
The nectar of all related books is found here. Over and above that,
the chapter on Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha and Appendix II, which
include his best examples, constitute a succinct rendering of Rasa-
gaṅgādhara, the most influential treatise on Sanskrit poetics in
modern times.
4 so ’rthas tad-vyakti-sāmarthya-yogī śabdaś ca kaścana | yatnataḥ

pratyabhijñeyau tau śabdārthau mahā-kaveḥ || (Dhvany-āloka 1.8)
5 upakārakatvād alaṅkāraḥ saptamam aṅgam iti yāyāvarīyaḥ, ṛte ca tat-
svarūpa-parijñānād vedārthānavagateḥ. yathā, “dvā suparṇā sayujā…
[Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.6]” (Kāvya-mīmāṁsā 1.2). In like manner, in his Bāla-
Rāmāyaṇa Rājaśekhara writes: nigamasyāṅgaṁ yat saptamam (10.74).
The term Alaṅkāra-śāstra means poetics, and so the poetical rhet-

oricians are called Ālaṅkārikas. Nowadays, kāvya (poetry) is
considered a category of sāhitya (literature), although the word
sāhitya (lit. togetherness) was invented, around the ninth century,
as a synonym of kāvya to reflect the togetherness of sound and
meaning in poetry.
The word kāvya is derived as kavi-karma (the work of a poet).6

The suffix ṣyañ is applied in the sense of tasya karma (the activity
of that person) after the word kavi by the rule: guṇa-vacana-
brāhmaṇādibhyaḥ karmaṇi ca (Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.1.124). The word
kavi (poet) also means paṇḍita (scholar).7
Poetry is one of the sixty-four arts. It is included in the 55th art,

called kriyā-vikalpa. Daṇḍin writes:
guṇa-doṣān aśāstra-jñaḥ kathaṁ vibhajate naraḥ |

kim andhasyādhikāro ’sti rūpa-bhedopalabdhiṣu ||
ataḥ prajānāṁ vyutpattim abhisaṁdhāya sūrayaḥ |
vācāṁ vicitra-mārgāṇāṁ nibabandhuḥ kriyā-vidhim ||
How can an uneducated person make a distinction between

a literary quality and a literary fault? Is a blind man able to
distinguish various forms? Therefore the sages, intending to
promote the citizens’ proficiency in belles-lettres, laid down the
procedures of the making of various styles. (Kāvyādarśa 1.8-9)
Here Daṇḍin uses the term kriyā-vidhi (the procedure of the

making). In that regard, mentally composing a verse is the 54th art,
called mānasī kāvya-kriyā. Since it is thus mentioned immediately
before, in the list of the sixty-four arts in Śaiva Tantra, the term
kriyā in kriyā-vikalpa has the sense of kāvya-kriyā. Dr. Kāṇe writes:
“As the word kāvya-kriyā is very near, it mentions simply kriyā-
6 yat kāvyaṁ lokottara-varṇanā-nipuṇa-kavi-karma (Kāvya-prakāśa 1.2).

7 vidvān vipaścid doṣa-jñaḥ san sudhīḥ kovido budhaḥ | dhīro manīṣī jñaḥ
prājñaḥ saṅkhyāvān paṇḍitaḥ kaviḥ || dhīmān sūriḥ kṛtī kṛṣṭir labdha-varṇo
vicakṣaṇaḥ | dūra-darśī dīrgha-darśī (Amara-koṣa 2.7.5-6)
Introduction 11
kalpa and not kāvya-kriyā-kalpa.”8 However, Dr. Kāṇe rejects Dr.

Raghavan’s opinion that before the days of Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha,
kriyā-kalpa (the rules of the making) was the name of Sanskrit
poetics (1998: 342). Nonetheless, in reference to Daṇḍin’s verse,
Dr. Lele writes: “The word kriyā-vidhi in the above kārikā means
kāvyālaṅkāra-śāstra.”9 Thus Daṇḍin’s words vicitra-mārgāṇāṁ
kriyā-vidhi (the procedures of the making of various styles) could
be his version of the term kriyā-kalpa (the rules of the making)
(kāvya-kriyā-vikalpa).
The progress of Sanskrit poetical rhetoric can be divided in three

main periods: (1) The old tradition, (2) The invention of the Dhvani
theory by Ānandavardhana (c. 850 CE), and (3) The climax of
the poetry of the moderns. Mammaṭa’s Kāvya-prakāśa, the bible
of poetics, marks the apex of the second phase. The third phase,
characterized by less praise of kings, was initiated by Maṅkha
and by Śiṅga-bhūpāla (ironically), and is distinguished by the
excellent works of Viśvanātha Kavirāja (who gave a great boost to
Vaishnava poetry), Bhānu Datta, Rūpa Gosvāmī, Kavi Karṇapūra,
and Jagannātha.
Sanskrit is the language of a culture that teaches how to be Rasika.

What does it mean to have swagger? Who is suave? Who is
sophisticated? The Sanskrit poets show us the way.
Gaurapada Dāsa, M.A.

India
March 2017
About The Author
Gaurapada began studying Sanskrit grammar in a traditional

Indian environment: Under the tutelage of His Grace Gopī-parāṇa-
dhana Prabhu, he completed the three-year course at Śrīmad-
8 Kane, P.V. (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 343. Nonetheless, in the

sequence in Kāma-sūtra, they are listed far apart: mānasī kāvya-kriyā, abhidhāna-
koṣa, chando-jñānam, kriyā-kalpa (1.3.15).
9 Lele, W.K. (2005) A Critical Study of Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtrāṇi, p. 16.
bhāgavata-vidyā-pīṭham, in Govardhana (U.P. India): He learned

Jīva Gosvāmī’s grammatical treatise Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa in
depth and edited Matsya Avatāra’s translation of it (Ras Bihari Lal
& Sons: 2016).
In addition to his master’s degree in Sanskrit (Tirupati, India),

Gaurapada holds a degree in science and is a certified chef.
Translations to his credit include:
◊ Puruṣa-sūkta (with the commentary of Śaunaka),
◊ Prayuktākhyāta-mañjarī (of Rūpa Gosvāmī),
◊ Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: A Symphony of Commentaries on the
Tenth Canto (six volumes),
◊ Vishnu Purana, Fifth Canto: Krishna’s pastimes.
In the field of Sanskrit poetics, he translated:

♦ Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa (the definitions of Sāhitya-darpaṇa with
Gaudiya Vaishnava examples),
♦ Sāhitya-kaumudī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (the definitions of
Kāvya-prakāśa with Vaishnava examples),
♦ Alaṅkāra-kaustubha of Kavi Karṇapūra (co-translation with
Matsya Avatāra),
♦ Rasa-gaṅgādhara of Jagannātha.
Contents
INTRODUCTION 7
PREAMBLE
The origin of poetry 19
The poetical derivation of the term śloka 19
The development of literature 25
The greats of Sanskrit literature 26
The definition of a masterpiece 28
The secondary greats of Sanskrit literature 29
The grandmasters of Sanskrit poetic theory 37
The six schools of Sanskrit poetics 38
The customary topics in a treatise on poetics 40
Kashmir 43
The purpose of poetry 50
The evolution of the classification of bhakti 53
Poetesses 54
Anthologies 59
One simile seen through the prism of Alaṅkāra 60
The documented origins of Sanskrit poetic theory 62
Pāṇini 67
The evolution of the scripts 72
The possible influence of greek dramaturgy 80
The Sanskrit language 88
THE BEST THEORIES AND EXAMPLES

OF THE POETICAL THEORISTS
1. Bharata Muni (Nāṭya-śāstra) 91
Eight rasas 95
Four literary ornaments 97
Ten guṇas 101
Thirty-six kāvya-lakṣaṇas 104
Table of the kāvya-lakṣaṇas 107
13
Differences between nāṭya-rasa and kāvya-rasa 114

The theme of each chapter 118
Bharata’s sons are cursed and come to Earth 123
Two recensions 130
Commentaries and tradition 133
2. Viṣṇu-dharmottara Upapurāṇa 135
3. Bhaṭṭi (Bhaṭṭi-kāvya) 137
4. Daṇḍin (Kāvyādarśa) 144
Sequence of topics 150
Ten guṇas 153
Ornaments of meaning 158
Ornaments of sound 172
5. Medhāvin 184
6. Bhāmaha (Bhāmahālaṅkāra) 187
Ornaments 196
7. Udbhaṭa (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sāra-saṅgraha) 202
Ornaments of sound 205
8. Vāmana (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra) 217
Rītis and guṇas 222
Table of Vāmana’s twenty guṇas 227
Ornaments 233
9. Rudraṭa (Kāvyālaṅkāra) 238
Vakrokti 239
Rītis and vṛttis 241
Yamaka 243
Citra-kāvya 247
Rasa 263
10. Ānandavardhana (Dhvany-āloka) 265
First-rate poetry 275
Second-rate poetry 279
The origins of the concept of implied meaning 281
Dhvani in grammar:
The Kashmiris’ burden of proof 285
Patañjali’s theory of Sphoṭa 287
Contents 15
Bhartṛhari’s theory of Sphoṭa 298

Philosophy influences poetic theory 319
The Kashmiri Shaivite tradition 320
The evolution of the Dhvani theory 339
Miscellaneous topics 348
11. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka (Hṛdaya-darpaṇa) 349
12. Rājaśekhara (Kāvya-mīmāṁsā) 359
13. Mukula Bhaṭṭa (Abhidhā-vṛtti-mātṛkā) 368
Diagrams of figurative usage 370
14. Abhinavagupta (Locana-ṭīkā) 373
15. Dhanañjaya (Daśa-rūpaka) 382
16. Kuntaka (Vakrokti-jīvita) 388
17. Agni Purāṇa 396
18. Bhoja 404
Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 406
Sources 407
Guṇas 410
Ornaments 415
Rasa 423
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa 427
19. Rudra Bhaṭṭa (Śṛṅgāra-tilaka) 436
20. Kṣemendra (Aucitya-vicāra-carcā) 439
21. Mahimā Bhaṭṭa (Vyakti-viveka) 445
22. Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa) 455
Four theories of rasa
Lollaṭa 458
Śaṅkuka 460
Nāyaka 464
Abhinavagupta 467
Two meanings of rasa 471
Yamaka 476
The two authors of Kāvya-prakāśa 482
23. Ruyyaka (Alaṅkāra-sarvasva) 485
24. Hemacandra (Kāvyānuśāsana) 493
25. Śrīdhara Svāmī (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā-ṭīkā) 495
Supplement on Lakṣmīdhara 501
26. Vāg-bhaṭa I (Vāg-bhaṭālaṅkāra) 503
27. Vāg-bhaṭa II (Kāvyānuśāsana) 504

28. Jayadeva (Candrāloka) 506
29. Vopadeva (Muktā-phala) 513
The grammatical treatises post-Aṣṭādhyāyī 517
The purpose of writing the Muktā-phala 520
Eighteen subdivisions of bhakti 527
Supplement on Madhusūdana Sarasvatī 528
30. Vidyādhara (Ekāvalī) 532
31. Vidyānātha (Pratāpa-rudrīya) 534
32. Śiṅga-bhūpāla (Rasārṇava-sudhākara) 540
33. Viśvanātha Kavirāja (Sāhitya-darpaṇa) 546
The kings of Orissa 548
The meaning of Sāhitya-darpaṇa 551
The derivation of the term śṛṅgāra 552
Illustrative examples 552
The sweetness of Dr. Kane 556
The differences between Sāhitya-darpaṇa
and Kāvya-prakāśa 556
34. Bhānu Datta (Rasa-mañjarī, Rasa-taraṅginī) 559
35. Rūpa Gosvāmī
(Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi) 566
36. Jīva Gosvāmī (Prīti-sandarbha) 571
37. Kavi Karṇapūra (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha) 577
Yamaka 580
Citra-kāvya 582
Rasa 585
38. Keśava Miśra (Alaṅkāra-śekhara) 591
39. Appaya Dīkṣita
(Kuvalayānanda, Citra-mīmāṁsā) 594
40. Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha (Rasa-gaṅgādhara) 600
Definition of poetry 612
Four categories of poetry 616
Features of Rasa-gaṅgādhara 620
Criticism 630
Jagannātha and Nāgeśa 638
Twelve theories of rasa 645
The last great Sanskrit poet 655
Contents 17
41. Krishna Kavi (Mandāra-maranda-campū) 661

42. Viśveśvara Paṇḍita (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha) 667
43. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
(Kāvya-kaustubha, Sāhitya-kaumudī) 669
The soul is Rasa 670
AFTERWORD
Einstein’s three stages of religion 677
Synchronicity 685
APPENDIX I
The best of Bhartṛhari’s three centuries 689
Nīti-śataka 691
Śṛṅgāra-śataka 694
Vairāgya-śataka 700
A verse of vakrokti by Ratnākara 702
APPENDIX II
Illustrative examples by Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha 705
APPENDIX III
Mythology in Hinduism 747
APPENDIX IV
Comparisons between
Sanskrit poetics and English poetics 751
Technical differences between
English Poetics and Sanskrit Poetics 756
APPENDIX V
Tribute to Kālidāsa 763
GLOSSARY 769
SANSKRIT PRONUNCIATION GUIDE 777
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary texts 781
Translations and studies 787
Preamble
The Origin of Poetry
etaphorical language occurs in the Vedas, and the
M Bhāgavata Purāṇa states that Brahmā is ādi-kavi (the

first scholarly poet) (1.1.1), whereas in the tradition of
poetics, Rāmāyaṇa is called ādi-kāvya (the first poetic composition)
and Vālmīki is named ādi-kavi.1 Ānandavardhana wrote: yathādi-
kaver vālmīkeḥ, “For example, a verse from Vālmīki, the ādi-kavi ”
(Dhvany-āloka 2.1). This tradition originates from Aśvaghoṣa (c.
80–150 CE), who indicated that Vālmīki was the first to compose
poetry: vālmīki-nādaś ca sasarja padyaṁ jagrantha yan na cyavano
mahārṣiḥ, “Valmiki’s sounds created poetry in verse form, which
Maharishi Chyavana could not compose” (Buddha-carita 1.43).
The Poetical Derivation

of the Term śloka
The word śloka means ‘verse’, but is also the technical name of
the most common type of anuṣṭup meter.2 Many anuṣṭup verses
are seen in the Vedas, but in poetics the tradition is that the śloka
meter was fortuitously invented by Vālmīki: In Rāmāyaṇa, the
word śloka is poetically derived from śoka:
1 Mani, Vettam (1975) Puranic Encyclopedia, p. 640 (under “Rāmāyaṇa”).

2 The fifth syllable must be short, the sixth must be long, the seventh of the first
and third lines must be long, and the seventh of the two other lines must be short.
The rest of the syllables are optionally long or short: śloke ṣaṣṭhaṁ guru jñeyaṁ
sarvatra laghu pañcamam | dvi-catuḥ-pādayor hrasvaṁ saptamaṁ dīrgham
anyayoḥ || (Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Appendix 1). The word śloka
(verse) is formed by adding the suffix ghañ after the verbal root ślok[ṛ] saṅghāte
(1A) (to versify): ślokaḥ, puṁ, ślokyate iti ślokṛ saṅghāte + ghañ. (Śabda-kalpa-
druma)
19
vicacāra ha paśyaṁs tat sarvato vipulaṁ vanam ||

tasyābhyāśe tu mithunaṁ carantam anapāyinam |
dadarśa bhagavāṁs tatra krauñcayoś cāru-niḥsvanam ||
tasmāt tu mithunād ekaṁ pumāṁsaṁ pāpa-niścayaḥ |
jaghāna vaira-nilayo niṣādas tasya paśyataḥ ||
taṁ śoṇita-parītāṅgaṁ veṣṭamānaṁ mahītale |
bhāryā tu nihataṁ dṛṣṭvā rurāva karuṇaṁ giram ||
tathā tu taṁ dvijaṁ dṛṣṭvā niṣādena nipātitam |
ṛṣer dharmātmanas tasya kāruṇyaṁ samapadyata ||
tataḥ karuṇa-veditvād adharmo ’yam iti dvijaḥ |
niśāmya rudatīṁ krauñcīm idaṁ vacanam abravīt || 3
One day, Vālmīki, wandering in a forest, saw a pair of curlews

mating. While Vālmīki was looking on, a hunter killed the male
bird. Seeing it lying on the ground and oozing blood, its mate
cried piteously. Observing the dead bird, shot by the hunter,
the Ṛṣi lamented. Thereafter, since he understood about
lamentation, that Brāhmaṇa considered the hunter immoral
and, hearing the cries of the female curlew, spoke as follows:
mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvam

agamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ |
yat krauñca-mithunād ekam
avadhīḥ kāma-mohitam || 4
mā—not; niṣāda—O hunter; pratiṣṭhām—peace of mind (or

renown); tvam—you; agamaḥ—have gone5 (obtained); śāśvatīḥ—
everlasting; samāḥ—years; yat—because; krauñca—of curlews
(or snipes, herons); mithunāt—because of the intercourse; ekam—
one [curlew]; avadhīḥ—you killed; kāma-mohitam—which was
bewildered by lust.
3 Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.8-13.
4 The syntactical connection, or prose order, is: niṣāda! tvaṁ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ
(vyāpya) pratiṣṭhāṁ mā agamaḥ, yat (tvaṁ) krauñca-mithunād ekaṁ kāma-
mohitaṁ (krauñcam) avadhīḥ. The words in parentheses are added to form the
sentence.
5 The verb agamaḥ is in the aorist tense. It is connected with mā. This negatory
word mā[ṅ] is used with a verb in the aorist tense to give it the sense of a
prohibitive imperative. By rule, the verb should lose its first letter a (Siddhānta-
kaumudī 2219). Thus the form agamaḥ is poetic license. Abhinavagupta says here
the form agamaḥ is used to fill the meter: “agamaḥ” iti chāndasenāḍ-āgamena.
(Locana 1.5)
Preamble 21
“Hunter, may you never find peace of mind for many years,
because due to the intercourse of two curlews you killed one,
which was bewildered by lust.” (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.14)
tasyaivaṁ bruvataś cintā babhūva hṛdi vīkṣataḥ |

śokārtenāsya śakuneḥ kim idaṁ vyāhṛtaṁ mayā ||
cintayan sa mahā-prājñaś cakāra matimān matim |
śiṣyaṁ caivābravīd vākyam idaṁ sa muni-puṅgavaḥ ||
pāda-baddho ’kṣara-samas tantrī laya-samanvitaḥ |
śokārtasya pravṛtto me śloko bhavatu nānyathā ||
Vālmīki, a great seer, became introspective: “How is it that I,

pained by sorrow, uttered this about the bird?” He, the best
of sages, became thoughtful and addressed his disciple: “It
must be that I, pained by sorrow (śoka), set forth the śloka: It
consists of four lines, has the same kinds of syllables, is based
on a scheme and has rhythm.” (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.15-17)
Vālmīki returned to his hermitage. Then Brahmā came. Vālmīki

immediately stood up and honored him: Brahmā was seated.
Afterward, Brahmā pointed to a seat on the ground. Vālmīki sat
on it. He kept thinking: “While repeatedly lamenting the female
curlew, I, engrossed in sorrow, sang a minor śloka.” Brahmā read
his mind, smiled and said: “You fashioned a śloka. O Brāhmaṇa,
Sarasvatī arose by my will. You should write about Rāma’s deeds
in full. Narrate what happened, just as you heard from Nārada.
Whatever is unknown to you will be revealed to you. This poem
will be faultless. Compose a beautiful Rāma-kathā (discourse on
Rāma) made with delightful verses. This Rāmāyaṇa will remain
known in the three worlds as long as there are mountains and rivers
on Earth.” Then Brahmā departed. Vālmīki became astonished.6
6 śiṣyas tu tasya bruvato muner vākyam anuttamam | pratijagrāha saṁhṛṣṭas

tasya tuṣṭo ’bhavad guruḥ || so ‘bhiṣekaṁ tataḥ kṛtvā tīrthe tasmin yathā-
vidhi | tam eva cintayann artham upāvartata vai muniḥ || bharadvājas tataḥ
śiṣyo vinītaḥ śrutavān guroḥ | kalaśaṁ pūrṇam ādāya pṛṣṭhato ‘nujagāma ha
|| sa praviśyāśramapadaṁ śiṣyeṇa saha dharma-vit | upaviṣṭaḥ kathāś cānyāś
cakāra dhyānam āsthitaḥ || ājagāma tato brahmā loka-kartā svayaṁ-prabhuḥ |
caturmukho mahātejā draṣṭuṁ taṁ munipuṁgavam || vālmīkir atha taṁ dṛṣṭvā
All his disciples, utterly amazed, repeatedly spoke this verse:
samākṣaraiś caturbhir yaḥ pādair gīto maharṣiṇā |

so ’nuvyāharaṇād bhūyaḥ śokaḥ ślokatvam āgataḥ ||
What Maharishi sung with four lines that have the same kinds
of syllables is a sorrow which, due to a metrical repetition,
became a verse. (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.39)
In establishing the Dhvani theory, Ānandavardhana referred to the

aforesaid verse that begins mā niṣāda as an example of first-rate
poetry: kāvyasyātmā sa evārthas tathā cādikaveḥ purā, krauñca-
dvandva-viyogotthaḥ śokaḥ ślokatvam āgataḥ, “A first-rate implied
meaning is the soul of poetry. For instance, in days of yore the ādi-
kavi had sorrow (śoka) which became a verse on account of the
separation of a pair of curlews” (Dhvany-āloka 1.5).
This first-rate implied sense is a semblance of pathos (śoka-

bhāvābhāsa-dhvani) because the object (viṣaya ālambana) of
Vālmīki’s pathos is an animal.
sahasotthāya vāg yataḥ | prāñjaliḥ prayato bhūtvā tasthau paramavismitaḥ ||

pūjayām āsa taṁ devaṁ pādyārghyāsanavandanaiḥ | praṇamya vidhivac cainaṁ
pṛṣṭvānāmayam avyayam || athopaviśya bhagavān āsane paramārcite | vālmīkaye
maharṣaye saṁdideśāsanaṁ tataḥ || upaviṣṭe tadā tasmin sākṣāl lokapitāmahe
| tad gatenaiva manasā vālmīkir dhyānam āsthitaḥ || pāpātmanā kṛtaṁ kaṣṭaṁ
vairagrahaṇabuddhinā | yas tādṛśaṁ cāruravaṁ krauñcaṁ hanyād akāraṇāt
|| śocann eva muhuḥ krauñcīm upaślokam imaṁ punaḥ | jagāv antargatamanā
bhūtvā śokaparāyaṇaḥ || tam uvāca tato brahmā prahasan munipuṁgavam | śloka
eva tvayā baddho nātra kāryā vicāraṇā || macchandād eva te brahman pravṛtteyaṁ
sarasvatī | rāmasya caritaṁ kṛtsnaṁ kuru tvam ṛṣisattama || dharmātmano
guṇavato loke rāmasya dhīmataḥ | vṛttaṁ kathaya dhīrasya yathā te nāradāc
chrutam || rahasyaṁ ca prakāśaṁ ca yad vṛttaṁ tasya dhīmataḥ | rāmasya saha
saumitre rākṣasānāṁ ca sarvaśaḥ || vaidehyāś caiva yad vṛttaṁ prakāśaṁ yadi vā
rahaḥ | tac cāpy aviditaṁ sarvaṁ viditaṁ te bhaviṣyati || na te vāg anṛtā kāvye kā
cid atra bhaviṣyati | kuru rāma kathāṁ puṇyāṁ ślokabaddhāṁ manoramām || yāvat
sthāsyanti girayaḥ saritaś ca mahītale | tāvad rāmāyaṇakathā lokeṣu pracariṣyati
|| yāvad rāmasya ca kathā tvatkṛtā pracariṣyati | tāvad ūrdhvam adhaś ca tvaṁ
mallokeṣu nivatsyasi || ity uktvā bhagavān brahmā tatraivāntaradhīyata | tataḥ
saśiṣyo vālmīkir munir vismayam āyayau || (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.18-37)
Preamble 23
Then this idea dawned on Vālmīki: kṛtsnaṁ rāmāyaṇaṁ kāvyam

īdṛśaiḥ karavāny aham, “With this sort of verse, I should make
the entire Rāmāyaṇa a poem” (Rāmāyaṇa 1.2.40). In addition, in his
composition Vālmīki infused Rāma’s sorrow in separation from Sītā
and vice versa. Thus Ānandavardhana points out that Rāmāyaṇa is
imbued with karuṇa-rasa (lamentation), an implied sense.7
Moreover, Vālmīki’s masterpiece is centered on an exemplary hero:

Rāma was a model son, a model brother, a model husband, a model
ruler, and a model man. This began the tradition of emphasizing
that poetry should always be based on a hero. Commenting on
Pratāpa-rudrīya, Kumāra Svāmin quotes an ancient verse to show
that the readers imbibe the human traits portrayed in the poetry.8
In addition, Kumāra Svāmin cites Bhoja: “Even a few words of
a poet act like ornaments for the ears of scholars if the hero has
superexcellent qualities.”9
For all these reasons, and considering that the rasa between Sītā
and Rāma is transcendental, in poetics Vālmīki is called ādi-kavi
mostly because, as a pun, he is the foremost (ādi) poet.
Vālmīki taught Rāmāyaṇa to Lava and Kuśa. Eventually, both of

them recited it in Rāma’s presence. This began the tradition of
composing poetry for a king and staging drama in the king’s court.
Later, Vyāsa composed Mahābhārata. Those two masterpieces,

Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, are the two epics of ancient India.
They consist of 24,000 verses and 100,000 verses respectively.
7 rāmāyaṇe hi karuṇo rasaḥ svayam ādi-kavinā sūtritaḥ “śokaḥ ślokatvam

āgataḥ” ity evaṁ-vādinā, nirvyūḍhaś ca sa eva sītātyanta-viyoga-paryantam eva
sva-prabandham uparacayatā. (Dhvany-āloka 4.5)
8 prasiddhaṁ caitan mahā-prabandheṣu “parivaḍḍhai viṇṇāṇaṁ sambhāvijjai
jaso viḍappaṁdi guṇā | sutrai supurusa-cariaṁ kiṁ tajjeṇa ṇa haraṁti
kavvāṭhṭhāvā ||” (parivardhate vijñānaṁ sambhāvyate yaśo ’rjyante guṇāḥ
| śrūyate supuruṣa-caritaṁ kiṃ tad yena na haranti kāvyālāpāḥ). yatra punar
uttama-puraṣa-caritaṁ na nibadhyate, tat kāvyaṁ parityājyam eva. tan-mūlā
ceyaṁ smṛtiḥ “kāvyālāpāṁś ca varjayet” iti. (Ratnāpaṇa 1.8)
9 nirūpitaṁ ca bhoja-rājena “kaver alpāpi vāg-vṛttir vidvat-karṇāvataṁsati |
nāyako yadi varṇyeta lokottara-guṇottaraḥ ||” iti. (Ratnāpaṇa 1.10)
The traditional count of 100,000 verses actually stands for

about 74,000 verses plus long prose passages. Most verses in
Mahābhārata are in the anuṣṭup meter.
Dr. Kāṇe traces the origin of the term śloka to at least the time of
Yāska (600–700 BCE):
The Nirukta (III.4-5) shows that long before Yāska heated

controversies had raged on various questions of inheritance,
[…]. The manner in which Yāska writes suggests that he is
referring to works in which certain Vedic verses had been
cited in support of particular doctrines about inheritance.
It is further a remarkable thing that in connection with the
topic of inheritance Yāska quotes a verse, calls it a śloka and
distinguishes it from a ṛk.10 This makes it probable that works
dealing with topics of dharma existed either composed in the
śloka metre or containing ślokas. […] It will be seen later on
that the extant dharma-sūtras of Gautama, Baudhāyana and
Āpastambha certainly belong to the period between 600 to
300 B.C. […] Patañjali shows that in his days dharma-sūtras
existed and that their authority was very high, being next to the
commandments of God.11
The Rāmāyaṇa is a composite work: The consensus is that parts

of the the first canto (bāla-kāṇḍa) and of the last canto (seventh)
(uttara-kāṇḍa) are interpolations. Based on this, the fourth
century BCE is generally accepted as the date of the composition
of Rāmāyaṇa.12 In India, some Sanskrit scholars say Rāmāyaṇa
was written between 600 and 500 BCE, and Mahābhārata
around 500 BCE. Still, the mention of the Hunas in the bhīṣma-
parva of Mahābhārata appears to imply that the redaction of the
Mahābhārata was still ongoing in 400 CE.
10 tad etad ṛk-ślokābhyām abhyuktam | aṅgād aṅgāt sambhavasi… sa jīva

śaradaḥ śatam || aviśeṣeṇa putrāṇāṁ dāyo bhavati dharmataḥ | mithunāṇāṁ
visargādau manuḥ svāyambhuvo ’bravīt ||
11 Kane, P.V. (1930) History of Dharma-śāstra (Vol. 1), pp. 8-9.
12 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramayana-Indian-epic
Preamble 25
Rāma lived in Tretā yuga, and Vālmīki was a contemporary

of Rāma. Thus, for thousands of years the Rāmāyaṇa was only
communicated by recitation. Naturally, over time both the work and
the style of the language evolved. It was put in writing much later.
The same holds true for other ancient works such as Mahābhārata,
Manu-smṛti, and Bhāgavatam.
At first, Mahābhārata was shorter. At the outset, Vyāsa says the

work is called Bhārata. He adds that he made both a detailed
version and an abridged version. On top of that, he says there
are several variations of the text.13 Nowadays it is well known
that there are two recensions of the Mahābhārata: Northern and
Southern. Everyone uses the Northern recension (the Pune Critical
Edition), but the southern one contains more details. The former
has eighteen cantos (parvan), whereas the latter has twenty-four.
The Bhārata was part of a work named Jaya, which included the
Purāṇas. All the Purāṇas begin with the same verse, which mentions
the name of the work, Jaya.14 At the outset of Mahābhārata, the
second half of the verse slightly differs (devīṁ sarasvatīṁ caiva
tato jayam udīrayet): The name Vyāsa is not seen therein, since he
uttered the Mahābhārata. The word Jaya refers to the victory of
the Pandavas at the Kurukṣetra War, but Śrīdhara Svāmī derives
the term in the instrumental voice: “[the work] by means of which
material life is overcome”.15
The Development of Literature

Kālidāsa and other great poets took inspiration from Rāmāyaṇa,
Mahābhārata, the Purāṇas, and Nāṭya-śāstra. The poetical
rhetoricians wrote treatises by looking at the masterpieces of those
poets and by choosing verses therein as illustrative examples of
their own poetical categories.
13 vistīryaitan mahaj jñānam ṛṣiḥ saṅkṣepam abravīt | iṣṭaṁ hi viduṣāṁ

loke samāsa-vyāsa-dhāraṇam || manv-ādi bhārataṁ kecid āstikādi tathāpare |
tathoparicarādy anye viprāḥ samyag adhīyate || (Mahābhārata 1.1.49-50)
14 nārāyaṇaṁ namaskṛtya naraṁ caiva narottamam | devīṁ sarasvatīṁ vyāsaṁ
tato jayam udīrayet ||. In Bhāgavatam, the verse is 1.2.4.
15 jayaty anena saṁsāram iti jayo granthas tam udīrayet. (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā
1.2.4)
The Greats of Sanskrit Literature

♦ Kālidāsa (c. 400 CE) wrote Kumāra-sambhavam, Raghu-vaṁśam,
Mālavikāgnimitram, Vikramamorvaśīyam, Abhijñāna-śākuntalam,
Megha-dūta, Ṛtu-saṁhāra, Nalodaya, and so on. Many concepts
of Nāṭya-śāstra are found in his works.16 Kālidāsa is regarded as
the Shakespeare of India. Abhijñāna-śākuntala is said to be the
best Indian literary work. The story is adapted from Mahābhārata.
♦ Bhāravi (c. 550–600 CE) is the author of Kirātārjunīyam (Siva,

in the guise of a hunter, attacks Arjuna); it is based on Mahābhārata.
The fifteenth chapter of Kirātārjunīya contains many verses on the
topic of Citra-kāvya (picture poetry; or verses of few consonants),
including a verse made with one syllable (except another at the
end): na nonanunno ’nunneno na nā nānānanā nanu, nunno ’nunno
na nunneno nānenānunnanun na nut (Kirātārjunīya 15.14). Dr.
Keith translates: “No man is he who is wounded by a low man ; no
man is the man who wounds a low man, o ye of diverse aspect ; the
wounded is not wounded if his master is unwounded ; not guiltless
is he who wounds one sore wounded.”17 “Bhāravi had become as
famous as Kālidāsa in 634 A.D.”18
♦ Bāṇa (c. 580–640 CE) was patronized by King Harṣa (590–647

CE).19 He composed Kādambarī, due to which he is considered the
first novelist, and Harṣa-caritam. Both are mostly written in prose:
The first one is in the category of kathā (novel), the second in the
category of ākhyāyikā (historical narrative, real facts). Bāṇa passed
away before completing Kādambarī. It was completed by his son
Bhūṣaṇa Bhaṭṭa. Bāṇa, Bilhaṇa and Maṅkha are the only Sanskrit
authors to have given chronological details about themselves.
16 De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, pp. 30-31.

17 Keith (1956) History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 114.
18 Kane, P.V. (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 99.
19 Harṣa, also called Harṣavardhana, was a king who ruled northern India from
606 to 647 from his capital Kannauj, in modern-day Uttar Pradesh. Three dramas
are attributed to him: Ratnāvalī, Priya-darśikā, and Nāgānanda. Mammaṭa
says the poet Dhāvaka composed Ratnāvalī in the name of Harṣa: śrīharṣāder
dhāvakādīnām iva dhanam (Kāvya-prakāśa 1.2); Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa comments:
dhāvakaḥ kaviḥ. sa hi śrīharṣa-nāmnā ratnāvalīṁ kṛtvā bahu-dhanaṁ labdhavān
iti prasiddham (Uddyota 1.2).
Preamble 27
♦ Bhavabhūti (c. 700–740 CE),20 patronized by Yaśovarman21

(Yaśovarman of Kannauj, c. 725–752 CE), wrote three dramas:
Mahāvīra-caritam, Mādhavī-mādhavam and Uttara-rāma-caritam.
♦ Māgha (c. 750 CE)22 composed Śiśupāla-vadha. In the nineteenth

chapter, he shows his skill in composing verses of Citra-kāvya.
This is an anonymous yet famous verse about Māgha: upamā
kālidāsasya bhāraver artha-gauravam, daṇḍinaḥ pada-lālityaṁ
māghe santi trayo guṇāḥ, “The similes of Kālidāsa, Bhāravi’s
depth of meaning, and Daṇḍin’s charming usage of words (long
compounds)—all three qualities are found in Māgha.”23
♦ Jayadeva (c. 1150–1200 CE)24 composed the unexcelled Gīta-

govindam, which hints at Rādhā’s superiority over Krishna. This
over-the-top masterpiece immediately sparked a massive interest
to hear stories about the intimate dealings between Rādhā and
Krishna. The book fostered a widespread interest in music and
dance and was a major source of inspiration for Bengali Vaishnava
poets on the topics of māna, svādhīna-bhartṛkā, sakhī, uddīpana,
sāttvika-bhāva, and vyabhicāri-bhāva.
♦ Śrīharṣa (late twelfth century) wrote Naiṣadha-caritam, which

relates, with astounding literary beauty, the love story of Nala and
Damayantī, an episode from Mahābhārata.
20 Kane (1998) p. 45.

21 Kane (1995) The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, p. 219.
22 “Māgha, who as shown above on p. 113, flourished about or before 750
A.D. appears to have only three guṇas in view” (Kane (1998) History of Sanskrit
Poetics, p. 381). As a pun, Māgha refers to the Nyāsa (c. 700 CE) in these words:
anutsūtra-pada-nyāsā sad-vṛttiḥ san-nibandhanā (Śiśupāla-vadha 2.112).
23 Often Kālidāsa’s usage of a term of comparison such as iva (like) signifies
the utprekṣā ornament (fanciful assumption). This heightens his glory. Further,
scholars say Bhāravi was able to achieve a depth of meaning with few words. But
Mallinātha, commenting on Kirātārjunīya, says Bhāravi’s words have nārikela-
pāka (mature like a coconut: the meat is below the surface meaning): nārikela-
phala-sammitaṁ vaco bhāraveḥ sapadi tad vibhajyate (maṅgalācaraṇa 6).
24 “Tradition makes Jayadeva, along with Govardhana, Śaraṇa, Umāpati and
Kavirāja, a protege of Lakṣmaṇa-sena whose inscription at Gayā is dated saṁvat
1173 or 1116 A.D. (Bühler’s Kashmir Report, p. 64). Jayadeva himself mentions
Govardhana and others as his contemporaries (fourth verse of Gīta-govinda).
We may say that Jayadeva flourished in the first half of the 12th century.” (Kane
(1995) Intro, p.5). But some say Lakṣmaṇa-sena ruled between 1179 and 1206 CE.
The Definition of a Masterpiece

Of the above titles, these five are well known as masterpieces
(mahā-kāvya): Kālidāsa’s Kumāra-sambhava and Raghu-vaṁśa,
Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīya, Māgha’s Śiśupāla-vadha, and Śrīharṣa’s
Naiṣadha-carita. All of them draw from the Mahābhārata. Daṇḍin
defined a mahā-kāvya (Kāvyādarśa 1.14-20); Dr. Keith explains:
Though inferior in some slight degree to the Kumāra-

sambhava, the Raghu-vaṁśa may rightly be ranked as the
finest Indian specimen of the Mahā-kāvya as defined by writers
on poetics. Daṇḍin lays down that the subject should be taken
from old narratives or traditions, not therefore invented ; the
hero should be noble and clever ; there should be descriptions
of towns, oceans, mountains, seasons, the rising and setting of
the sun and the moon, sport in parks or the sea, drinking, love-
feasts, separations, marriages, the production of a son, meeting
of councils, embassies, campaigns, battles, and the triumph of
the hero, though his rival’s merits mey be exalted. It should not
be too compressed, and it should be replete with sentiments
(rasa) and the emotions which underlie them (bhāva). It
should have effective transitions (sandhi), an allusion to the
five stages of action recognized by the writers on drama, by
which from its opening the movement advances after a halt
to the central moment, pauses, and reaches the denouement.
The metres must be charming, and each Canto, which should
not be too long, should end with a change of metre. The poem
should begin with a prayer, paying homage or in addition
invoking a blessing, or an indication of the subject-matter. It
should promote the ends of Dharma, conduct, Artha, worldly
success, Mokṣa, final beatitude, and Kāma, love.25
Of the five mahā-kāvyas, Naiṣadha-carita is renowned as the

masterpiece which most appeals to both the heart and the intellect:
Śrīharṣa not only fashioned amazing embellishments, such as
yamaka, śleṣa and utprekṣā, he constantly made clever allusions
to diverse Hindu customs and to the Indian systems of philosophy.
25 Keith, A.B. (1956). History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 92.

Preamble 29
The Secondary Greats of Sanskrit Literature

1. Guṇāḍhya (first century CE)26 wrote Bṛhat-kathā, in the
Paishachi dialect. It was most likely based on Buddhist tales. Daṇḍin
cites the work,27 but it is lost. Bṛhat-kathā and Pañcatantra were
the predecessors of Arabian Nights, also named The Thousand and
One Nights, a Persian compilation dating from the ninth century.
According to tradition, Kṣemendra’s Bṛhat-kathā-mañjarī and
Somadeva’s Kathā-sarit-sāgara are Sanskrit adaptations of the last
chapter, the only one extant in those days, of Guṇāḍhya’s Bṛhat-
kathā. Dr. Kāṇe says Bṛhat-kathā is also the source of Bāṇa’s
Kādambarī.28 Guṇādhya was a contemporary of Śarvavarman:
Bhrngin is born at Mathura under the name Gunadhya. Having

become an orphan he sets out for Ujjayini where King Madana,
the consort of the learned Lilavati, daughter of the king of
Gauda, is ruling. The Pandit Śarvavarman, who is in the king’s
service, appreciates the talents of Gunadhya and obtains for
him a place of pandit at the Court. Then comes the story of the
king’s mistake on the word modaka. Gunadhya asks for twelve
years to teach the king grammar. Śarvavarman only two. There
is a bet as in the other version of the legend. Śarvavarman wins
it, thanks to the revelation of the grammar Kalapa (Katantra).
Gunadhya is condemned to silence; he goes to live as an ascetic
in a hermitage. The ascetic Pulastya passing by, advises him to
write his tales in the Paisaci language;29
26 “On an identification of Śātavāhana and Śālivāhana it has been said by

modern scholars that the patron of Guṇādhya lived about 78 A.D., the date of the
Śālivāhana era.” (Srinivasachariar, M. History of Classical Sanskrit Literature,
p. 417)
27 kathāpi sarva-bhāṣābhiḥ saṁskṛtena ca badhyate | bhūta-bhāṣā-mayīṁ
prāhur adbhutārthāṁ bṛhat-kathām || (Kāvyādarśa 1.38)
28 “It seems that Bāṇa derived the dry bones of his story from the Bṛhatkathā
of Guṇāḍhya” (Kane (1913) Kādambarī, uttara-bhāga, Bombay (published by
the author), Introduction, p. 27) (source: https://archive.org/details/Kadamabari_
Uttarabhaga-PV_Kane_1913).
29 Srinivasachariar, M. (1974) History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 416.
2. Aśvaghoṣa (c. 80–150 CE) was a Brāhmaṇa who converted to

Buddhism. He wrote Buddha-carita. Dr. Sushil Kumar De notes:
But in the Buddha-carita of Aśvaghoṣa, as Cowell notes, we

have the use of common poetic figures like upamā, utprekṣā,
and rūpaka, as well as of elaborate ones like yathā-saṁkhyā and
aprastuta-praśaṁsā in an ingenious way, which presumably
betrays an acquaintance with the teachings of poetics. […] and
we have also in 3.51 the use of the term rasāntara to indicate
a counter emotion which cancels an already prevailing one.
Aśvaghoṣa uses the terms hāva and bhāva (4.12) in the sense
they have in dramaturgic Rasa systems.30
Dr. Kāṇe states:

Similar remarks apply to Aśvaghoṣa’s other Mahākāvya, the
Saundarananda. In X.2 there is anuprāsa and in X.11 there
is yamaka ‘calat-kadambe hima-van nitambe tarau pralambe
camaro lalambe |’. Compare Nāṭya-śāstra 17.84 (halī balī lalī
etc.); the same verse is K.M. ed. 16.85 […]. Prof. H. Luders
published in 1911 fragments of a drama of Aśvaghoṣa called
Sāri-putra-prakaraṇa which had nine Acts. That shows that
ancient dramas on which the rules of the Nāṭya-śāstra were
most probably based were lost or forgotten when later dramas
like those of Bhāsa and Kālidāsa took the field.31
3. Śūdraka (c. 200 CE), the pen name of King Indranigupta, wrote
Mṛc-chakaṭikā, said to be one of the earliest Sanskrit plays.
4. Vātsyāyana (sometime between 200 CE and 400 CE) wrote

Kāma-sūtra. “The Nāṭya-śāstra mentions Kāmitantra or Kāmatantra
(XXV.38, 53-567) and Kāmaśāstra (XXXV.46). But as it divides
women into twenty-four classes, and Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra into
four classes these names do not seem to relate to the Kāmasūtra,
which probably comes later.”32
30 De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, pp. 13-14.

32 Ghosh, Manomohan (1951) The Nāṭya-śāstra ascribed to Bharata Muni. Vol.
I, Introduction, p. 80. Dr. Ghosh’s edition is in the thirty-six-chapter recension.
Preamble 31
“Kāma-sūtra 1.1.10 mentions a work of Pāñcāla Bābhravya in

7 adhikaraṇas on kāma-śāstra.”33 Vātsyāyana ends his book by
saying that one should not be too lusty and should have regard
for moral codes (dharma) and prosperity (artha).34 He is not the
Vātsyāyana who wrote Nyāya-sūtra.
5. Bhāsa (c. third century CE)35 was the most prominent dramatist
before Kālidāsa36 and is considered the best playwright after him.
The plays of Bhāsa were found only in 1912. With the advent
of Kālidāsa, everyone forgot about Bhāsa. He is famous for his
Svapna-vāsava-dattā. His other well-known works include Ūru-
bhaṅgam, Karṇa-bhāram, Cāru-dattam, Dūta-ghaṭotkacam, Dūta-
vākyam, Pañcarātram, and Pratimā-nāṭakam. Most of his plays
are based on Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. Bhāsa rarely follows
the dictates of Nāṭya-śāstra.
6. Viṣṇu Śarmā (sometime between 200 BCE and 300 CE) is the
author of Pañcatantra, so called because it consists of five chapters
and because each chapter illustrates one tantra (precept). He is
one of the most widely translated non-religious authors in history.
“Next to the Bible this is the book which has received the greatest
publicity and popularity.” (Puranic Encyclopedia, p. 554).
It is famous worldwide: It was translated in Pahlavi (the Iranian

language between the third and ninth centuries) in the sixth century
CE and in Arabic in the eighth, and reached Europe in the eleventh:
“In France, at least eleven Pañcatantra tales are included in the
Elsewhere as well (24.150, or 22.151 in the other recension), there is a mention of

a treatise on love (kāma-tantra). Dr. Manomohan Ghosh comments: “This work
seems to be lost and is not the present sūtra text ascribed to Vātsyāyana” (ibid.,
Vol. I, p. 460).
34 tad etat kuśalo vidvān dharmāthāv avalokayan | nātirāgātmakaḥ kāmī
prayuñjānaḥ prasidhyati || (Kāma-śāstra 7.2.59)
35 http://www.britannica.com/biography/Bhasa
36 Kālidāsa, in the introduction to his first play Mālavikāgnimitram, writes,
“Shall we neglect the works of such illustrious authors as Bhāsa, Saumilla, and
Kaviputra? Can the audience feel any respect for the work of a modern poet, a
Kālidāsa?”
work of La Fontaine.”37 Vettam Mani writes:
The original title of the book is believed to be “Karataka and

Damanaka” by a few.
5) Two editions. Two different editions of the book are
now found. One edition popular in Kashmir is known as
Tantrākhyāyikā. The other is in the form found in Kathā-
sarit-sāgara and Bṛhat-kathā-mañjarī. The original Sanskrit
work is very rarely found. There are several editions of this
in Dakṣiṇa Bhārata. Changes in the stories according to the
change of times are also noted.38
The foundational theme in Pañcatantra is that within six months

Viṣṇu Śarmā taught three sons of a king. Yet he never accepted
money for imparting knowledge. Further, Dr. Macdonnel observes:
If not actually a Buddhistic work, the Panchatantra must be

derived from Buddhistic sources. This follows from the fact
that a number of its fables can be traced to Buddhistic writings,
and from the internal evidence of the book itself. Apologues
and fables were current among the Buddhists from the earliest
times. They were ascribed to Buddha, and their sanctity
increased by identifying the best character in any story with
Buddha himself in a previous birth. Hence such tales were
called Jātakas, or “Birth Stories.” There is evidence that a
collection of stories under that name existed as early as the
Council of Vesālī, about 380 B.C.; and in the fifth century A.D.
they assumed the shape they now have in the Pāli Sutta-piṭaka.
Moreover, two Chinese encylopædias, the older of which was
completed in 668 A.D., contain a large number of Indian fables
translated into Chinese, and cite no fewer than 202 Buddhist
works as their sources. In its present form, however, the
Panchatantra is the production of Brahmanas, who, though
they transformed or omitted such parts as betrayed animus
against Brahmanism, have nevertheless left uneffaced many
37 Jean Johnson, Donald James Johnson (2005) Human Drama: World History:
From 500 to 1450 C.E., Volume 2, Markus Wiener Publishers. (en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Pancatantra)
38 Mani, Vettam (1975) Puranic Encyclopedia, p. 554.
Preamble 33
traces of the Buddhistic origin of the collection. Though now

divided into only five books, it is shown by the evidence of
the oldest translation to have at one time embraced twelve.
What its original name was we cannot say, but it may not
improbably have been called after the two jackals, Karaṭaka
and Damanaka, who play a prominent part in the first book; for
the title of the old Syriac version is Kalilag and Damnag, and
that of the Arabic translation Kalīlah and Dimnah.39
7. Subandhu (c. 450–500 CE) wrote Vāsava-dattā, renowned for

the usage of śleṣa: “Subandhu’s boast of having used śleṣa (as
his commentators interpret) in every word of his composition is
not an idle one; and from his use of it, one can indeed incline to
the view that Subandhu’s śleṣa is no other than our modern poetic
figure of the same name [literal pun], especially as Bharata’s
definition of śleṣa as a Guṇa [coalescence of words] is hardly
applicable to Subandhu’s case.”40 “He specifies also two important
poetic figures, viz., utprekṣā and ākṣepa.”41 Subandhu, Bāṇa (esp.
Kādambarī) and Daṇḍin (Daśa-kumāra-carita) are the greats of
Sanskrit prose. Bāṇa too is renowned as a master of śleṣa (literal
pun), especially of śleṣa mixed with another ornament (upamā,
utprekṣā, parisaṅkhyā, virodhābhāsa, etc.). Sometimes, what the
old-school theorists called śleṣa is not a śleṣa, but an implied pun
(vastu-dhvani), if not a semblance of a pun (śleṣābhāsa).
8. Amaru (seventh or eighth century CE) wrote Amaru-śataka,

a very influential work in śṛṅgāra-rasa (love). There are four
different versions, ranging in length from 96 to 115 verses, but only
51 are common to all four versions. Amaru was a Kashmiri king:
Almost nothing is known about the biography of Amaru. A tale

narrated by some of the commentators and by the author of the
so-called biography of Śaṅkara (Śaṅkaradigvijaya) goes to say
that the real writer of the Amaru-śataka is no other than the
famous Vedānta philosopher Śaṅkara. It is said there that with
the help of magic he entered into the body of the Kashmiri king
39 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) A History of Sanskrit Literature, Ch.14, pp. 369-370.

40 De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. II, p. 29.
41 De, S.K. (1988) Vol. I, p. 15.
Amaru and had intercourse with the latter’s hundred wives

for the purpose of gaining first-hand knowledge of modes of
love. As a proof of his knowledge of the science of erotics, he
composed the Śataka.42
Dr. Keith says this story is “absolutely foolish”.43 The story is told
by many in the context of Śaṅkara’s debate with Maṇḍana Miśra
and his wife. However, some say the debate occurred in Bihar; they
do not mention that the king was named Amaru.44
9. Murāri (sometime between the eighth century and the tenth

century) wrote the drama called Anargha-rāghava.
10. Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa (eighth century) is the author of the drama

Veṇī-saṁhāra.
11. Bilvamaṅgala (eighth or ninth century)45 wrote Kṛṣṇa-

karṇāmṛta.
12. Kulaśekhara (early ninth century; or c. 1100 CE), also known

as Kulaśekhara Varman, was a king and the ninth Alvar. He wrote
Mukunda-mālā-stotra and is identified as the Kulaśekhara who
composed several plays, such as Subhadra-dhanañjaya.
13. Ratnākara (ninth century) is known for his Hara-vijaya, an
42 Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz (1985) History of Indian Literature.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 127.
44 https://ourdharma.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-mandana-misra-vs-adi-
sankara-debate/
45 “The history of Bilvamaṅgala Ṭhākura is given in a book called Śrī-vallabha-
digvijaya. He appeared in the eighth century of the Śaka Era in the province
of Draviḍa and was the chief disciple of Viṣṇu Svāmī. In a list of temples and
monasteries kept in Śaṅkarācārya’s monastery in Dvārakā, Bilvamaṅgala is
mentioned as the founder of the Dvārakādhīśa temple there. He entrusted the
service of his Deity to Hari Brahmacārī, a disciple of Vallabha Bhaṭṭa.” (A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Svami, Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.1.57 Purport, Bhaktivedānta Book
Trust). Dr. Keith writes: “In the eleventh century Līlāśuka or Bilvamaṅgala
produced his Kṛṣṇakarṇāmṛta or Kṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta” (Keith (1956) p. 218).
Preamble 35
epic that relates Śiva’s defeating Andhaka. He is also famous for

his Vakrokti-pañcāśikā. He was a Kashmiri, in the court of King
Avantivarman (857–884 CE).
14. Viśākha Datta (ninth century) wrote a drama called Mudrā-

rākṣasa: Cāṇakya Paṇḍita (c. 370–280 BCE) brought Candragupta
Maurya to power (this began the Maurya dynasty: 322–185 BCE)
and cunningly brought the empire of Dhana Nanda to an end.
15. Buddha Svāmin (before the tenth century), from Nepal, wrote
Bṛhat-kathā-śloka-saṅgraha. It is based on Guṇāḍhya’s Bṛhat-
kathā.
16. Yāmunācārya (early tenth century) is the author of the sublime

Stotra-ratna.
17. Trivikrama Bhaṭṭa (early tenth century) wrote Nala-campū,

also called Damayantī-kathā, the oldest extant work in the campū
genre (a poetic work in prose and verse).
18. Somadeva (10th century), also called Somaprabha and

Somadeva Suri, was a Jain monk who wrote Yaśas-tilaka-campū
in 959 CE.
19. Kṣemendra (c. 990 – c. 1070 CE), a Kashmiri, wrote Bṛhat-

kathā-mañjarī (7500 verses), Rāmāyaṇa-mañjarī, Bhārata-
mañjarī, Daśāvatāra-carita, Samaya-mātṛkā, and so on. The term
mañjarī (lit. flower bud) signifies a short version of something.
20. Somadeva (fl. 1063–1081 CE), another Kashmiri, wrote Kathā-

sarit-sāgara (the ocean for the rivers of stories). It contains nearly
22,000 verses and is very popular in India: It is a major source of
information for Vettam Mani’s Puranic Encyclopedia.
21. Bilhaṇa (eleventh century) (also written Bihlaṇa), a Kashmiri,

wrote Vikramāṅkadeva-carita, Karṇa-sundarī, and Caura-
pañcāśikā. Some say he was under the patronage of Vikramaditya
II in Maharashtra (ruled 1076–1126 CE, from Kalyan).
22. Sāgara-nandī (c. 1100 CE) wrote Nāṭaka-lakṣaṇa-ratna-kośa.
23. Maṅkha (early twelfth century), also called Maṅkhaka, was a

Kashmiri. He was the best pupil of Ruyyaka. Maṅkha wrote his epic
Śrīkaṇṭha-carita around 1140 CE,46 concerning Śiva’s destruction
of Tripura, and a dictionary called Anekārtha-kośa.
24. Govardhana (12th century) wrote Āryā-sapta-śatī.
25. Nārāyaṇa (12th century)47 wrote Hitopadeśa. It is a rework of

Pañcatantra and is more copious, with new stories.48
26. Mallinātha (c. 1325–1425 CE) wrote scholarly commentaries

on Kālidāsa’s Raghu-vaṁśa, Kumāra-sambhava, and Megha-
dūta, on Bhāravi’s Kirātārjunīya, on Bhaṭṭi’s Bhaṭṭi-kāvya, on
Māgha’s Śiśupāla-vadha, on Śrīharṣa’s Naiṣadha-carita, and on
Vidyādhara’s Ekāvalī.
In point of grammar, sometimes a title is in the neuter gender

although the nominal base is masculine. An example is Kālidāsa’s
Raghu-vaṁśam: The derivation is a bahuvrīhi adjective of kāvyam,
which is neuter: raghor vaṁśo varṇito yasmiṁs tat kāvyam, “The
poetical work in which Raghu’s dynasty is described.” The same
idea applies to Jayadeva’s Gīta-govindam: gīto govindo yasmiṁs
tat kāvyam, “The poetical work in which Govinda is sung.”
However, in the name of Kālidāsa’s Abhijñāna-śākuntalam, the
word śākuntalam means “in reference to Śakuntalā” and is derived
as: śakuntalām adhikṛtya kṛtaṁ śākuntalaṁ nāma nāṭakam, “A
drama called Śākuntalam was made in reference to Śakuntalā,” by
the rule: adhikṛtya kṛte granthe (Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.87). Then the word
abhijñāna, which stands for abhijñānena in the construction (due
to a token of remembrance, i.e. the ring), was added.
46 Kane, P.V. (1995), The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, Introduction, p. 6.

47 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Panchatantra-Indian-literature#ref119060
48 “A similar collection of fables is the celebrated Hitopadeśa, or “Salutary
Advice,” which, owing to its intrinsic merit, is one of the best known and most
popular works of Sanskrit literature in India, and which, because of its suitability
for teaching purposes, is read by nearly all beginners of Sanskrit in England. It is
based chiefly on the Panchatantra, in which twenty-five of its forty-three fables
are found.” (Macdonell, A.A. (1900) Ch. 14, p. 373).
Preamble 37
The Grandmasters of Sanskrit Poetic Theory
Author Date Treatise

Bharata Muni c. 100 BCE Nāṭya-śāstra
Daṇḍin c. 680 CE Kāvyādarśa
Bhāmaha c. 720 Bhāmahālaṅkāra
Udbhaṭa c. 800 Alaṅkāra-sāra-saṅgraha
Vāmana c. 800 Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra
Rudraṭa c. 850 Kāvyālaṅkāra
Ānandavardhana c. 850 Dhvany-āloka
Abhinavagupta c. 950–1020 Locana (commentary)
Mammaṭa c. 1050–1100 Kāvya-prakāśa
Ruyyaka c. 1100–1150 Alaṅkāra-sarvasva
Viśvanātha Kavirāja c. 1350 Sāhitya-darpaṇa
Rūpa Gosvāmin 1489–1564 Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu
Kavi Karṇapūra 1524–1576 Alaṅkāra-kaustubha
Jagannātha c. 1590–1665 Rasa-gaṅgādhara
Dr. Kāṇe establishes a hierarchy as follows: “In the galaxy of

Sanskrit rhetoricians Viśvanātha is a star of the second magnitude
only. Beside the brilliance of Ānandavardhana, Mammaṭa and
Jagannātha his light appears dim.”49
Mammaṭa is indebted to Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana.

Viśvanātha Kavirāja is indebted to Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka. Kavi
Karṇapūra follows Mammaṭa. Jagannātha mostly agrees with
Mammaṭa and Ruyyaka, and took the best ideas of various other
poetical theorists.
49 Kane (1995) The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, Introduction, p. 9.

The Six Schools of Sanskrit Poetics

Sanskrit poetics is divided in six schools:
1. The Rasa school (aesthetic delight is most important), started
by Bharata Muni (or Nandikeśvara) and emphasized by Lollaṭa,
Śaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka, Rājaśekhara, Bhoja, Rudra Bhaṭṭa,
Śiṅga-bhūpāla, and Bhānu Datta,
2. The Alaṅkāra school (ornaments are most important) of
Daṇḍin, Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, and Rudraṭa,
3. The Rīti school (style is of primary importance) of Vāmana
(influenced by Daṇḍin),
4. The Dhvani school (an implied sense is the life of poetry)
started by Ānandavardhana and popularized by Abhinava-
gupta and Mammaṭa,
5. The Vakrokti school (poetic expression)50 of Kuntaka, and
6. The Aucitya school (appropriateness) of Kṣemendra.
Of those, only two schools stand out: The Alaṅkāra school and the
Dhvani school.51 The exponents of the Alaṅkāra school lived before
Ānandavardhana invented the Dhvani theory (the methodology of
analysis of an implied sense). In the Alaṅkāra school, the rasas are
classed as various ornaments. At first, the Rasa school was based
on dramaturgy. The concept of rasa is included in the Dhvani
school and is termed rasa-dhvani: A rasa is always implied, not
expressed with its own name. In addition, Ānandavardhana argued
that a distinction must be made between rasa classed as an alaṅkāra
(ornament, i.e. the rasa is not the main thing in the description) and
rasa as a first-rate implied sense.
50 Kuntaka’s concept of vakrokti (poetic expression) is taken from Bhāmaha.

It is not the same as Mammaṭa’s vakrokti (ambiguous speech), invented by
Ratnākara and popularized by Rudraṭa. Vāmana used the term vakrokti in yet a
different way.
51 raso ’laṅkāra-rītī ca dhvanir vakroktir eva ca | aucityaṁ ceti kāvyasya
prasthānāni krameṇa ṣaṭ || teṣām eṣāṁ raso rītir aucityaṁ ca dhvanes tanau |
samādhiṣata vakroktiś cālaṅkāre vyalīyata || alaṅkāro dhvaniś ceti dvayaṁ
tat kāvya-vartmani | nārāyaṇo naraś ceti dvayaṁ yadvad avasthitam || (Rewā
Prasāda Dvivedī’s Kāvyālaṅkāra-kārikā 19-21)
Preamble 39
However, those who are classed in the Rasa school lived before the
Dhvani theory was invented, or else they do not accept it (except
perhaps Bhānu Datta).
Daṇḍin propounded alaṅkāras and expounded Bharata Muni’s ten

guṇas (literary qualities), whereas other moguls of the Alaṅkāra
school rejected Bharata Muni’s methodology of guṇas: “Daṇḍī’s
Kāvyādarśa is to some extent an exponent of the Rīti school of
poetics and partly of the Alaṅkāra school.”52 Daṇḍin mentioned
two styles: Vaidarbhī (used in Vidarbha, Maharashtra) and Gauḍī
(used in Gauḍa, Bengal). Vāmana added Pāñcālī. The consensus is
that Vaidarbhī is the best—because Kālidāsa used this style.53
The Rīti school evolved Bharata Muni’s ten guṇas and promulgated
their various combinations, thus giving rise to specific categories
of rīti (style). In Vāmana’s system, the concepts of Rasa and
Dhvani are called kānti-guṇa and samādhi-guṇa respectively.
Ānandavardhana only accepted Bhāmaha’s three guṇas (mādhurya,
ojas, prasāda) and linked them to specific rasas. Mammaṭa
smashed Vāmana’s methodology by proving that on the whole the
ten guṇas are included either in those three or in other poetical
categories. According to him, there is no need to acknowledge the
concept of rīti, for the Vaidarbhī is the same as mādhurya-guṇa
(sweetness) and the Gauḍī is the same as ojas-guṇa (vigor).
Rudraṭa, Rājaśekhara, Bhoja, Viśvanātha Kavirāja and Kavi

Karṇapūra expounded rīti although they are not classed in the
Rīti school. Rudraṭa added a fourth rīti, Lāṭī. Bhoja accepted Lāṭī
and added Āvantī and Māgadhī. Viśvanātha and Kavi Karṇapūra
acknowledged the first four rītis, but their definitions of Lāṭī
differ from each other. In poetics, rīti is the source of the most
disagreement among theorists.
The Vakrokti school is an offshoot of the Alaṅkāra school and

classifies Ānanda’s categories of Dhvani in a different way.

53 “Kālidāsa (who wrote in the vaidarbha-mārga)” (Kane (1998) p. 95).
The Aucitya school is an offshoot of the Rasa school. The Vakrokti

school and the Aucitya school are not schools proper because they
have no official follower. Only the respective followers of Udbhaṭa
and of Vāmana were given names: Audbhaṭas and Vāmanīyas.54
Udbhaṭa and Vāmana, two contemporary Kashmiris, represented
the first rival schools. The Alaṅkāra school, headed by Udbhaṭa,
won out because Vāmana’s methodology of guṇas, begun by
Bharata Muni, elaborated by Daṇḍin and expanded by Bhoja, is
too intricate. The next two rival schools were the Alaṅkāra school
and the Dhvani school. By writing Locana, a commentary on
Ānandavardhana’s Dhvany-āloka, Abhinavagupta popularized the
Dhvani theory. Mammaṭa refined the various aspects of poetics,
gave the final blow to Vāmana’s plethora of guṇas, incorporated
the best ornaments of the Alaṅkāra school and championed the
Dhvani school. Since then, most poetical theorists adhere to
Mammaṭa’s methodology. Jagannātha, however, is in a class of his
own: He says only astonishment is the life of poetry: kāvya-jīvitaṁ
camatkāritvaṁ cāviśiṣṭam eva (RG, KM p. 7).
The Customary Themes

in a Treatise on Poetics
After an invocatory verse to one’s choice deity, usually the author
discusses the purpose of poetry. Then the author states his definition
of poetry. The greatest divergence of viewpoints concerns what the
soul of poetry is: This marks the distinction between the schools
of poetics. Afterward, categories of poetry are detailed. Poetry
has two main branches: dramaturgy (dṛśya-kāvya) (poetry worth
seeing) and poetry in book form (śravya-kāvya) (poetry worth
hearing). However, Viśvanātha Kavirāja says dramaturgy is called
dṛśya-śravya-kāvya.55 In usage, the word kāvya by itself refers to
śravya-kāvya.
The broad categories of literature are: padya (verse), gadya

(prose), and miśra (a mix of the two, also called campū). Vāmana

55 iti sāhitya-darpaṇe dṛśya-śravya-kāvya-nirūpaṇo nāma ṣaṣṭhaḥ paricchedaḥ
(Sāhitya-darpaṇa 6.337). This is in conformity with Nāṭya-śāstra: krīḍanīyakam
icchāmo dṛśyaṁ śravyaṁ ca yad bhavet (1.11).
Preamble 41
says that among literary works, dramaturgy is the best.56 Movies

are offshoots of dramaturgy. Everyone knows that watching a good
movie is a favorite form of relishment (rasa): rasa eva nāṭyam
(Abhinava-bhāratī 6.15-16); tena nāṭya va rasaḥ, nānukāryādiṣv
iti kecit (Locana 2.4).
Other categories of poetry, invented by Ānandavardhana, are first-

rate poetry (dhvani-kāvya) (it contains a first-rate implied sense),
second-rate poetry (guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya-kāvya) (it contains a
second-rate implied sense: the implied sense is not more astonishing
than the literal meaning of the statement), and third-rate poetry (the
sounds and the meanings are astonishing, but there is no rasa).
Abhinavagupta and Viśvanātha do not recognize the third category
as real poetry because there is no rasa (a sthāyi-bhāva that has
become relishable owing to the description).
A Prakrit language can be used in Sanskrit poetics. A Prakrit

language is a regional language directly derived from Sanskrit,
like Śaurasenī in the region of Mathurā. Kavi Karṇapūra wrote
many examples in Śaurasenī. Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Lalita-mādhava
and Vidagdha-mādhava are filled with Śaurasenī Prakrit. A dialect
is called apabhraṁśa. Daṇḍin, Bhāmaha, Hemacandra and others
accept that a dialect is a suitable medium of poetry.57 The dialect of
Vraja, Braj Bhasha, is a spin-off of Śaurasenī.58 In addition, some
Bengali Vaishnava songs are outstanding. Daṇḍin mentioned Gauḍī
Prakrit.59 However, he says Maharashtri is the Prakrit language par
excellence.60
56 sandarbheṣu daśa-rūpakaṁ śreyaḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 1.3.30);

sandarbheṣu prabandheṣu daśa-rūpakaṁ nāṭakādi śreyaḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra
1.3.30 vṛtti).
57 tad etad vāṅ-mayaṁ bhūyaḥ saṁskṛtaṁ prākṛtaṁ tathā | apabhraṁśaś ca
miśraṁ cety āhur āryāś catur-vidham || (Kāvyādarśa 1.32); saṁskṛtaṁ prākṛtaṁ
cānyad apabhraṁśa iti tridhā || (Bhāmahālaṅkāra 1.16)
58 “Braj Bhasha language also spelled Braj Bhasa, Braj Bhakha, or Brij Bhasa
language descended from Shauraseni Prakrit and commonly viewed as a western
dialect of Hindi.” (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Braj-Bhasha-language)
59 śaurasenī ca gauḍī ca lāṭī cānyā ca tādṛśī | yāti prākṛtam ity evaṁ
vyavahāreṣu sannidhim || (Kāvyādarśa 1.35)
60 mahārāṣṭrāśrayāṁ bhāṣāṁ prakṛṣṭaṁ prākṛtaṁ viduḥ (Kāvyādarśa 1.34).
Prakrit languages are no longer spoken; Marathi, the principal

language in Maharashtra, developed from Maharashtri Prakrit.
Next, given the importance of sound (śabda) and meaning (artha),

their definitions and mutual relation need to be discussed. This
leads to a disquisition on the literary functions (vṛtti) (Denotation,
Indication, Suggestiveness), the types of meaning (literal, indirect,
suggested, suggestive), the rasas, the literary qualities (guṇa), the
literary defects (doṣa), the styles (rīti), the ornaments of sound
(śabda alaṅkāra) and the ornaments of meaning (artha alaṅkāra).
The topics of rasa and alaṅkāra are the most expansive.
The treatises on Sanskrit poetics are divided in various groups:

◊ Most of the well-known treatises on poetics expound the above
topics except dramaturgy,
◊ Only four (Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa, Pratāpa-rudrīya, Rasārṇava-
sudhākara and Sāhitya-darpaṇa) include dramaturgy;
◊ Some works (Nāṭya-śāstra, Daśa-rūpaka, Nāṭaka-candrikā)
only expound dramaturgy;
◊ Many treatises include topics of kāma-śāstra (such as the
categories of lovers and of ladyloves and their emotional
states): Nāṭya-śāstra, Kāvyālaṅkāra, Daśa-rūpaka, Rasārṇava-
sudhākara, Sāhitya-darpaṇa, Alaṅkāra-kaustubha, etc.;
◊ Some are only concerned with ornaments: Kāvyālaṅkāra-
sāra-saṅgraha, Alaṅkāra-sarvasva, Kuvalayānanda,
Citra-mīmāṁsā;
◊ A few only propound a special theory of poetics: Dhvany-āloka
(it sets forth the Dhvani theory), Vakrokti-jīvita (a peculiar way
of categorizing poetic expression, in opposition to the Dhvani
theory), and Vyakti-viveka (inference replaces the Dhvani theory),
◊ A few only treat of the theory of rasa, such as Śṛṅgāra-tilaka,
Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, and Rasa-taraṅginī; and
◊ Some only discuss a specific topic: Abhidhā-vṛtti-mātṛkā,
Śabda-vyāpāra-vicāra, and Vṛtti-vārttika only explain literary
functions, and Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi only treats of kāma-śāstra.
In most treatises, a topic is discussed in three steps: kārikā

(definitional verse) (or sūtra, a portion of a kārikā), vṛtti
(elaboration), and udāharaṇa (example).
Preamble 43
In Sanskrit culture, there was no copyright: The theorists often

copied the examples of their predecessors without giving the
author’s name. Those who composed all their examples are Daṇḍin,
Bhāmaha (for the most part), Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa, Kuntaka, Pīyūṣa-
varṣa Jayadeva, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha, Bhānu Datta, Rūpa
Gosvāmī, Kavi Karṇapūra, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha, and Krishna
Kavi. In point of originality, the verses of Daṇḍin, of Bhānu Datta,
of Rūpa Gosvāmī, of Kavi Karṇapūra, and of Jagannātha stand out.
Furthermore, to designate the word “chapter”, a rhetorician might

select a peculiar term, such as uddyota (in Dhvany-āloka), ullāsa
(in Kāvya-prakāśa), unmeṣa (in Ekāvalī), and kiraṇa (in Alaṅkāra-
kaustubha).
Kashmir
India is the motherland of Rasa—India is the land of love—, and
Kashmir was the land of Kāvya. Sir Gaṅgānātha Jhā observes:
“Sāhitya in India appears to have passed on from Kashmir to
Mithilā, and thence to Bengal; it is now almost confined to the
Deccan.”61 Dr. Sushil Kumar De remarks:
An attempt has been made in the foregoing pages not only

to indicate the diversity as well as immensity of Sanskrit
Alaṅkāra literature, but also to settle its relative chronology
as a workable basis for an historical treatment. If we leave
aside its unknown beginnings and Bharata, the historic period
of its growth covers broadly a thousand years from 800 to
1800 A.D. It is marked by a speculative activity, surprising
alike for its magnitude and its minuteness. This activity in its
early stage centres in Kashmir, to which place belong most of
the famous and original writers on Poetics. We do not indeed
know the place of origin of the two earliest writers, Bharata
and Bhāmaha, but immediately after them we find Vāmana,
Udbhaṭa, Rudraṭa, Mukula, Ānandavardhana, Lollaṭa, Bhaṭṭa
61 Jhā, Gaṅgānātha. Kāvya-prakāsha of Mammata, 1985 [1924], Preface, p. 12.

Mithilā is the modern Tirhut in Bihar, India.
Nāyaka, Abhinavagupta, Kṣemendra, Kuntaka, Mammaṭa and

Ruyyaka flourishing in Kashmir. The only important exception
is found in Daṇḍin who was probably a South Indian writer.
Coming to later times we find the study extending itself to

Central India, Gujarat, the Dekkan and Bengal. In South
India, no doubt, this study was kept alive by a succession of
brilliant, if not very original, writers; but these contributions
of later times, though greater in bulk and sometimes superior
in a certain acuteness, never supersede the volume of original
work done in Kashmir, which may be fittingly regarded as the
homeland, if not the birthplace, of the Alaṅkāra-śāstra. The
writers of Central India, Gujarat, the Dekkan and Bengal only
carry on the tradition, as well as acknowledge the authority, of
the Kashmirian originators of the discipline.62
The Monier-Williams Dictionary says the name kaśmīra is “perhaps

a contraction of kaśyapa-mīra” (Kaśyapa’s lake). In days of yore,
the region of Kashmir was rasa (liquid):
In the Raja-tarangini, a history of Kashmir written by Kalhana

in the mid-12th century, it is stated that the valley of Kashmir
was formerly a lake. According to Hindu mythology, the
lake was drained by the great rishi or sage, Kashyapa, son
of Marichi, son of Brahmā, by cutting the gap in the hills at
Baramulla (Varaha-mula). When Kashmir had been drained,
Kashyapa asked Brahmans to settle there. Rishi Kashyapa
reclaimed the land of the Kashmir valley from a vast lake,
known as “Satisar,” named after goddess Sati, the consort of
Lord Shiva.63 This is still the local tradition, and in the existing
physical condition of the country, we may see some ground for
the story which has taken this form. The name of Kashyapa
is by history and tradition connected with the draining of the
lake, and the chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley
was called Kashyapa-pura or by other sources Kashyapa-
62 De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, p. 321.

63 hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/Kashmir-Paradise-Lost
Preamble 45
mar, which has been identified with Kaspapyros of Hecataeus

(Stephanus of Byzantium) and Kaspatyros of Herodotus
(3.102; 4.44).64 Kashmir is also believed to be the country
meant by Ptolemy’s Kaspeiria.65.66
In addition, the Sanskrit word kāśmīra (“existing in kaśmīra”)

means saffron. Moreover, Kashmir was deeply influenced by
Buddhism, from 273 BCE, when Aśoka implemented it, to 600 CE.
The growth of Buddhism resulted in systematized education, the
teaching of equality to all, and full status to women. Especially in the
fifth century, Kashmiris spread Buddhism to China. Subsequently,
poetry in Kashmir became intimately linked to Shaivism. Dr.
Raghunath Safaya expounds:
The greatest contribution of Kashmir to Indian culture is

the development of a new philosophy, more rational than
other philosophies of India, and a definite improvement
upon Vedanta philosophy. Unlike Vedanta which regards
the physical world a trap and delusion (Maya) and creates a
tendency of withdrawing from worldly life, Kashmiri Saivism
accepts the reality of the phenomenal world as a manifestation
of the Universal mind. It is a synthesis of the realism of the
West and idealism of the East, welding the science (of the
material world) and religion in a devotional monotheism.
A Kashmirian could not afford to shut his eyes from the
enchanting beauty of nature revealed in his homeland, and call
it unreal. But instead he calls it manifestation of the divinity,
or the divine energy (Sakti) which is the source of the whole
movement of the universe, and Siva—Universal mind. It is
this divine energy that acts as central fire, stirring each and
every atom (Anu) with its sparks.
Jiva is nothing but the atom with the divine spark. Siva, Sakti
and Anu are thus the three fundamental principles of Saivism.
64 Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) Kashmir

65 Houtsma, Martijn Theodoor (1993), E.J. Brill’s First Encyclopedia of Islam,
1913-1936, (p. 792) .
66 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir (retrieved on 6-6-2015)
It is, therefore, named as Trika philosophy. It gave Kashmir

a revelation of life as a real dynamic endowed with creative
possibilities, and not as a deception or illusion. It retorted
that maya of Sankara had a defeatist tone, symptomatic of
disillusionment and loss to the individual and the nation.
Vasugupta (825 A.D.) the author of Siva-sutra was the first

to discover and explain the Agamic teaching of Saivism in a
systematic form. It is said that this knowledge was revealed to
him in the Harvan Valley. He explained these sutras in the form
of Spanda-Karika. Bhatta Kallata, a pupil of Vasugupta, gave
publicity to his master’s work and wrote Spanda-sarvasva.
Somananda (850 A.D.) who was a younger contemporary

of Vasugupta, made a little departure from Vasugupta, and
founded the Pratyabhijna school of Saivism as opposed to the
Spanda school of Vasugupta. Both these branches developed
side by side, but the latter received more popularity. Somananda
says that the Ultimate can be realized through recognition
(Pratyabhijnana) of it by the individual in himself in practical
life. This principal of recognition is absent in Spanda.
Somananda’s work is entitled Siva-drsti. […] The Pratyabhijna
system was further elaborately discussed by Utpalacarya, a
pupil of Somananda who wrote Isvara-pratyabhijna-karika
and Isvara-siddhi with his own Vrtti, in about 930 A.D.
Abhinavagupta, grand pupil of Utpalacarya, is an authority on

Pratyabhijna system.67
In that way, the backbone of Kashmiri poetry was a practical

philosophy. Dr. Kāṇe writes: “Abhinavagupta boldly states that this
Pratyabhijñā philosophy is meant for all men whatever, without
67 Safaya, Raghunath. Contribution of Kashmir to Indian Literature. Excerpts:

“Kashmiri Pandits: A Cultural Heritage” (Prof. S. Bhatt, ed.). (http://www.koausa.
org/Vitasta/12a.html) (retrieved on 6-6-2015)
Preamble 47
any reference to caste or the like.68”69 Like Gaudiya Vaishnavism,

Kashmiri Shaivism emphasizes the non-difference between po-
tency and the possessor of it:
The non-difference of śakti and śaktimat advanced by the

teachers of the Pratyabhijñā School of Kashmir may be noted
here. Compare:
śaktiś ca śaktimad-rūpād vyatirekam na vañchati |

tādātmyam anayor nityaṁ vahni-dāhikayor iva ||
Abhinavagupta’s Bodha-pañcāśikā v. 3.70
Literary productivity in Kashmir ended around 1200 CE. Dr.

Sheldon Pollock explains:
Sanskrit literary culture in Kashmir, as noted earlier, does

not enter history before the sixth century (with the poet
Bhartṛmeṇṭha), but by the middle of the twelfth century more
innovative literature was being written there than perhaps
anywhere else in South Asia. The audience before which
Maṅkha read out his Śrī-kaṇṭha-carita indicates the vibrancy
of literary culture in the 1140s. In addition to Ruyyaka, the
greatest literary theorist of the century, and Kalhaṇa, author
of the remarkable historical poem Rāja-taraṅginī, a host of
men were present who embodied the literary-cultural values
of the age: Trailokya, “who was as accomplished in the dry
complexities of science as he was bold in the craft of literature,
and thus seemed the very reincarnation of Śrī Tutātīta” (i.e.,
Kumārila); Jinduka, who “bathed in the two streams of
(Mīmāṁsā) thought, of Bhaṭṭa and Prabhākara, and thereby
washed off the pollution of the Kali age,” and who at the same
time wrote “goodly verse”; Jalhaṇa, “a poet to rival Murāri and
68 yasya kasyacij jantor iti nātra jāty-ādy-apekṣā kacit iti sarvopakāritvam

uktam | Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-vimarṣiṇī vol. II. p. 276.
69 Kane (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 241.
70 Bhattacharya, Bishnupada (1985). Bhartrhari’s Vakyapadiya and Linguistic
Monism. Poona, India: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, p. 12.
Rājaśekhara”; Maṅkha’s brother Alaṅkāra, who wrote literary

works that “circulated widely in manuscript form” and made
him the peer of Bāṇa.71 In short, this was a time and place
where the combination of intellectual power and aesthetic
sophistication was manifested that marked Sanskrit literary
culture at its most brilliant epochs. What makes this particular
generation of Sanskrit poets so noteworthy, however, is that
it turned out to be Kashmir’s last. Within perhaps fifty years,
creative Sanskrit culture in Kashmir all but vanished. […] as
a whole the generation immediately following Maṅkha’s is a
near-total blank.72
Sanskrit literary culture was also very strong in Maharashtra. The

renowned Vaidarbhī style is so called because it originated in
Vidarbha, later called Berar, in present-day Maharashtra. However,
literature in Maharashtra began with poems in Maharashtri Prakrit:
The earliest anthology is King Hāla’s Gāhā Sattasaī or Gatha Kosha
(Sanskrit: Gāthā-saptaśatī) (1st century CE). It consists of 700
single-verse poems in Maharashtri. Prakrit literature, especially
Gāthā-saptaśatī, had a tremendous influence on Sanskrit poetics.
Dr. Kulkarni expounds:
The work is divided, as is clear from the title, into seven

śatakas, centuries, collections of hundred gāthās each, which
however, differ very much in various MSS preserved to us. This
anthology is mostly of erotic contents. Each gāthā presents
a miniature picture complete in itself. These gāthās mainly
depict village life and the peasantry. The family life of the
lower strata of the society is portrayed in its various contexts,
but the erotic aspect dominates. […] Hāla, the renowned poet
and compiler whose literary fame rests on Gāthā-sapta-śatī in
Prakrit, thus sings the glory of Prakrit poetry:
“Those who do not know how to recite and hear (appreciate)

Prakrit poetry which is (like) nectar (itself)—how do
71 Śrī-kaṇṭha-carita 25.26.
72 Pollock, Sheldon (2003) Literary Cultures in History, p. 92.
Preamble 49
they not feel abashed (embarrassed) while they carry on

discussion or talk about the nature of love?” (GS 1.2)
Here Hāla draws our attention to two salient features of Prakrit

poetry: its sweetness and its eroticism. […]
The whole discussion would show how the Prakrit works

Setubandha, Gauḍavaho and Lilāvaī have greatly influenced
Ānandavardhana, the greatest writer on Sanskrit Poetics. […]
Gāthāsaptaśatī: This anthology is highly popular with the

writers on Sanskrit poetics beginning with Ānandavardhana.
It is, however, the author of Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa and
Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa who freely quotes the gāthās from this
anthology by hundreds.73
Moreover, poetry, especially dramaturgy, used to be the real wealth

of the king, a wealth dependent on the king:
The location of the performance is the royal court, whose

fortunes were by and large to be the fortunes of kāvya. Where
the court collapsed, as in thirteenth-century Kashmir, an entire
creative literary tradition, however great, could collapse with
it;74
Different circumstances seem to account for the slow depletion

of energy in Sanskrit literary culture in Vijayanagara. Named
after its capital city in Karnataka, this remarkable transregional
political formation ruled much of India below the Vindhya
mountains from the Arabian Sea to the borders of Orissa
between 1340-1565. In stark contrast to Kashmir at the time,
Sanskrit literary production here was continuous and intense,
and the domain of cultural politics of which it formed part
was far more complex, for this was a multilingual empire,
where literary production occurred also in Kannada, Tamil,
and Telugu.75
73 Kulkarni, V.M. (1993) More Studies in Sanskrit Sāhitya-Śāstra, Ahmedabad:

Sarasvati Pustak Bhandar, Sarasvati Oriental Series No. 6, pp. 147-160.
74 Pollock, Sheldon (2003) p. 120.
75 Pollock, Sheldon (2003) p. 94.
The Purpose of Poetry

According to the foremost rhetoricians, Indian literature aims at
uplifting society: One should be a good person like Rāma; one
should not do a bad deed.76 Rudraṭa explains: “By means of poetry,
those who have a propensity to take pleasure understand the four
goals of life in a short time and in a gentle way. People fear the
scriptures, which are tasteless. Therefore poetry endowed with
rasas should be made with the greatest efforts so that it makes
people come to their senses like the scriptures do, but in another
way.”77
Abhinavagupta elaborates upon the purpose of poetry: yad āha,

“kīrtiṁ svarga-phalam āhuḥ” ity-ādi, śrotṝṇāṁ ca vyutpatti-
prītī yadyapi sthaḥ, yathoktam “dharmārtha-kāma-mokṣeṣu
vaicakṣaṇyaṁ kalāsu ca, karoti kīrtiṁ prītiṁ ca sādhu-kāvya-
niṣevaṇam” iti tathāpi tatra prītir eva pradhānam, anyathā prabhu-
sammitebhyo vedādibhyo mitra-sammitebhyaś cetihāsādibhyo
vyutpatti-hetubhyaḥ ko ’sya kāvya-rūpasya vyutpatti-hetor jāyā-
sammitatva-lakṣaṇo viśeṣa iti prādhānyenānanda evoktaḥ. catur-
varga-vyutpatter api cānanda eva pāryantikaṁ mukhyaṁ phalam.
ānanda iti ca grantha-kṛto78 nāma.
76 yat kāvyaṁ lokottara-varṇanā-nipuṇa-kavi-karma tat kānteva

sarasatāpādanenābhimukhī-kṛtya rāmādi-vad vartitavyaṁ na rāvaṇādi-
vad ity upadeśaṁ ca yathā-yogaṁ kaveḥ sahṛdayasya ca karotīti sarvathā
tatra yatanīyam (Kāvya-prakāśa 1.2); caturvarga-phala-prāptir hi
kāvyato rāmādi-vat pravartitavyaṁ na rāvaṇādi-vat ity ādi kṛtyākṛtya-
pravṛtti-nivṛtty-upadeśa-dvāreṇa supratītaiva (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 1.2);
rāmādi-vad vartitavyaṁ na kvacid rāvaṇādi-vat | ity eṣa mukti-dharmādi-
parāṇāṁ naya īryate || (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 3.25)
77 nanu kāvyena kriyate sa-rasānām avagamaś catur-varge | laghu mṛdu
ca nīrasebhyas te hi trasyanti śāstrebhyaḥ || tasmāt tat kartavyaṁ yatnena
mahīyasā rasair yuktam | udvejanam eteṣāṁ śāstra-vad evānyathā hi syāt
|| (Kāvyālaṅkāra 12.1-2)
78 P.V. Kāṇe explains: “I hold that grantha-kṛt is everywhere used by
the Locana for the vṛtti-kāra.” (Kane (1998) p. 168).
Preamble 51
tena sa ānanda-vardhanācāryaḥ etac-chāstra-dvāreṇa sahṛdaya-

hṛdayeṣu pratiṣṭhāṁ devatāyatanādi-vad anaśvarīṁ sthitiṁ
labhatām gacchatv iti bhāvaḥ.
“Regarding Vāmana’s opinion: kīrtiṁ svarga-phalam āhuḥ, “They

say the result of fame is heaven” (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 1.1.5):
Although the readers develop proficiency and experience pleasure—
for instance: dharmārtha-kāma-mokṣeṣu vaicakṣaṇyaṁ kalāsu ca,
karoti kīrtiṁ prītiṁ ca sādhu-kāvya-niṣevaṇam,79 “Cultivating
good poetry makes for sagacity in the matter of dharma, artha,
kāma, and mokṣa, and for expertise in the arts, and is conducive to
pleasure and fame” (Bhāmahālaṅkāra 1.2)—, nonetheless among
them only pleasure is foremost. Otherwise what would be the point
of saying that poetry, which is compared to one’s beloved wife (in
terms of giving advice in a subtle and soothing way) and which
is a cause of being cultured, is better than these other causes of
being cultured: the Vedas, which are comparable to a master, and
the Mahābhārata, which is comparable to a friend? Therefore only
pleasure (ānanda) is being affirmed as foremost. Moreover, only
pleasure is the main gain, even from a proficiency in the four goals
of life. And so Ānanda is the name of the writer of the elaboration
(vṛtti). Therefore the elaboration80 suggests the following: By
means of this treatise, may the teacher named Ānandavardhana
find a firm place in the hearts of persons of good taste like a deity
becomes enshrined in a temple.” (Locana 1.1)
Abhinavagupta was a Kashmiri Shaivite of the highest caliber.

According to him, the topmost pleasure is transcendental bliss, not
erotic bliss. Dr. Kāṇe notes:
Abhinavagupta went to the other extreme and propounded the

view that śānta was the greatest rasa because of its relation
to mokṣa, the highest goal of human life, and because all
79 sādhu-kāvya-nibandhaṇam (Bhāmahālaṅkāra 1.2)

80 This elaboration is being referred to: atha ca rāmāyaṇa-mahābhārata-
prabhṛtini lakṣye sarvatra prasiddha-vyavahāraṁ lakṣayatāṁ sahṛdayānām
ānando manasi labhatāṁ pratiṣṭhām iti prakāśyate. (Dhvany-āloka 1.1 vṛtti)
poetic pleasure is alaukika and like brahmāsvāda. Vide

Abhinava-bhāratī vol. I. p. 340 ‘sarva-rasānāṁ śānta-prāya
evāsvādaḥ’.81
Even an early writer like Aśvaghoṣa states that whatever else

he included in his work other than relevant to the subject of
Mokṣa was included because of the rules of poetics in the same
way as a bitter medicine is mixed with honey in order that it
may be pleasant to drink (Saundarananda 18.63 yan mokṣāt
kṛtam anyad atra hi mayā tat kāvya-dharmāt kṛtaṁ pātuṁ
tiktam ivauṣadhaṁ madhu-yutaṁ hṛdyaṁ kathaṁ syād iti).82
This was echoed by Bhāmaha: svādu-kāvya-rasonmiśraṁ śāstram

apy upayuñjate, prathamālīḍha-madhavaḥ pibanti kaṭu bheṣajam
(Bhāmahālaṅkāra 5.3). The gist is that the intelligence of the heart
must accompany the intelligence of the mind. In Sanskrit, the
words “mind” and “heart” are synonymous.83 Dr. Lele expounds:
The question arises: How does poetry and other fine arts help
us achieve the four puruṣārthas ? An answer to this question
can be attempted on the following lines. The ancient Indian
poet was free to choose a subject from the Rāmāyaṇa, the
Mahābhārata and the other purāṇas or could write on a totally
imaginary subject. The latter commanded the same respect and
affection as the paurāṇika subject did. The poet was required
to make extensive and intensive reading of several sciences
and arts before actually putting pen to paper. This extensive
reading used to sow the seeds of the various principles of
dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa in the mind of the poet. If
a poet decided to reinterpret and present a paurāṇika kathā-
vastu [a topic in a Purāṇa or in a Itihāsa], the readers would
realize the values of life from a fresh perspective.84

82 Kane, P.V. (1998) p. 348.
83 cittaṁ tu ceto hṛdayaṁ svāntaṁ hṛn mānasaṁ manaḥ, “The words citta,
cetas, hṛdayam, svāntam, hṛd, mānasam, and manas [are synonymous and mean
either heart or mind, depending on the context]” (Amara-koṣa 1.4.31).
84 Lele (2005) A Critical Study of Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtrāṇi, p. 21.
Preamble 53
At the other end of the spectrum, Vāmana only asserted that poetry
is one of the fine arts whose goal is the expression of beauty.
His definition of poetry is: kāvyaṁ grāhyam alaṅkārāt, “Poetry
is that which is worthy of acceptance because of ornamentation”
(Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 1.1.1); saundaryam alaṅkāraḥ, “Here ‘orna-
mentation’ means literary beauty” (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 1.1.2).
For his part, Kuntaka had this vision: By studying good poetry, well-
mannered persons will implement a new form of appropriateness
in their lives.85 The world is crooked in a bad way whereas poetry
is crooked in a good way. The study of poetry awakens dimensions
of the heart. Therefore a connoisseur is called sa-hṛdaya, or rasika
(a person of good taste).
The Evolution of the Classification of Bhakti

In Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Rūpa Gosvāmī explained that bhakti
can become rasa and therefore it should be designated as such—
bhakti-rasa. How does bhakti, in terms of chronology, rise to
the status of rasa (aesthetic delight)? At first, bhakti was merely
considered part of a particular literary ornament. Later it was only
considered a sthāyi-bhāva (foundational mood). Finally it was
deemed a sthāyi-bhāva that could reach the level of rasa. The
following is a list of preeminent scholars on Sanskrit poetics, most
of whom articulated a theory on Rasa:
ȃ Daṇḍin: Refers to bhakti in his example of preyas alaṅkāra

(Kāvyādarśa 2.276).
ȃ Bhāmaha: Follows Daṇḍin in this matter (Bhāmahālaṅkāra
3.5).
ȃ Udbhaṭa: The first theorist to include śānta among the rasas.
His example of preyas alaṅkāra only refers to vātsalya (affection
for a junior).86
85 vyavahāra-parispanda-saundaryaṁ vyavahāribhiḥ | sat-kāvyādhigamād eva

nūtanaucityam āpyate || (Vakrokti-jīvita 1.4)
86 iyaṁ ca suta-vātsalyān nirviśeṣā spṛhavatī | ullāpayitum ārabdhā kṛtvemaṁ
kroḍa ātmanaḥ || (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sāra-saṅgraha, illustration 4.1)
ȃ Rudraṭa: The first theorist to include preyas among the rasas

(Kāvyālaṅkāra 12;3 15.17-18). But he does not refer to bhakti.
ȃ Dhanañjaya: Implicitly subsumes bhakti in bhāvas such as
harṣa and utsāha (Daśa-rūpaka 4.77).
ȃ Ānandavardhana: Follows Udbhaṭa by adding śānta to the
traditional eight rasas (Dhvany-āloka 3.26 vṛtti).
ȃ Abhinavagupta (Abhinava-bhāratī, Dhvanyāloka-locana):
Bhakti is merely a related aspect of śānta-rasa.
ȃ Bhoja (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa): Expounds
the traditional eight rasas plus four more, but no inclusion of
bhakti.
ȃ Mammaṭa: Follows Ānandavardhana, but includes bhakti as
a subcategory of rati, under the heading devādi-viṣayā rati
(Kāvya-prakāśa 4.35). Thus bhakti is only a bhāva.
ȃ Śrīdhara Svāmī: Bhakti can become rasa (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā
10.43.17).
ȃ Vopadeva: Bhakti takes the form of one of the nine rasas
(Muktāphala 11.1).
ȃ Viśvanātha Kavirāja: Follows Mammaṭa (Sāhitya-darpaṇa
3.261).
ȃ Madhusūdana Sarasvatī: Bhakti can become rasa (Bhakti-
rasāyana 2.76-78).
ȃ Rūpa Gosvāmī: Bhakti can become rasa.
ȃ Kavi Karṇapūra: Bhakti is devādi-viṣayā rati, but it can
become rasa (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 5.25).
ȃ Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha: Follows Mammaṭa (Rasa-
gaṅgādhara, KM pp. 45-46).
Sanskrit Poetesses
The first poetess of renown was Kālidāsa’s wife. Yet approximately
forty Sanskrit poetesses, with a total of over 200 poems to their
credit, are said to have become prominent in modern Sanskrit
culture.87 Those poets include Silabhattarikā, Vijjā, Marulā,
87 Asian Literary Voices: From Marginal to Mainstream. Philip F. Williams

(ed.). Amsterdam University Press, 2010, p. 149.
Preamble 55
Morikā, Tirumalāmbā (Varadāmbikā-pariṇaya-campū) (c. 1540)

Priyaṁvadā (c. 1600, Bengal) (Śyāma-rahasya), Vaijayantī Deva-
kumārikā (Vaidyanātha-prāsāda-praśasti), and Lakṣmī Rājñī (c.
1890) (Santāna-gopāla-kāvya). Dr. Krishnamachariar expounds
the history:
Among the authors of the Ṛg Veda, there are some women.

The Ātreya house produced the poetesses Viśvavarā (V.28)
and Āpalā (VIII.91). In the Kakṣīvat house there was a line
of poetesses and of these Ghoṣā was the greatest. She was
the daughter of Kakṣīvan. She calls herself a princess and
probably her father was a ruler. She remained unmarried to a
late age, when she was favoured with a husband by the grace
of Aśvins. She wrote in Jagatī metre and her verses are easy
and well balanced (I.117, 122). Juhū (X.109), Śaśvatī (VIII.1),
Māndhātrī (X.134), Mādhavī (I.91), Śaśiprabhā (IV.4),
Anulakṣmī (II.78, III.28, 63, 74 and 76), Revā (I.87), Pahāyī
(I.83) and Rohā (II.63) are also poetic seers of the hymns.
Aśvalāyana mentions Gārgī, Vacaknavī and Badavā Prāṭitheyī
along with the ancient venerable Ṛṣis. Lopāmudrā is referred
to in Anukramaṇī (I.179-192).
Dhanadeva’s verse is quoted in Śārṅga-dhara-paddhati: śīlā-

vijjā-mārulā-morikādyāḥ kāvyaṁ kartuṁ santu vijñās striyo
’pi | vidyāṁ vettuṁ vādino nirvijetuṁ viśvaṁ vaktuṁ yaḥ
pravīṇaḥ saḥ vandyaḥ || Rājaśekhara praises some poetesses,
Śīlā, Vijjā or Vijjikā, Subhadrā, Prabhudevī, Vikaṭa-nitambā.88
Śīlā’s expression followed her imagery, Vikaṭa-nitambā’s verse

was elegant in simplicity. The style of Subhadrā appealed to
the poetic mind and stuck to it forever. Morikā and Mārulā
excelled in suggestions of ideas.
Vijjā was Sarasvatī incarnate except that she was dark in

complexion. Vijjakā has been identified with the queen of
88 Krishnamachariar (1937) History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 391.

The Śārṅgadharapaddhati (163) reads Dhanadeva’s verse as: nirvijetuṁ dātuṁ.
Candrāditya, son of Pulakesin II, from the Nerur and Kochre

grants dated 659 A.D.
Rājaśekhara-carita mentions poetesses, Kāmalīlā, Sunandā,

Kanakavallī, Madhurāṅgī, Lalitāṅgī and Vimalāṅgī (of
Malava). Ballāla’s Bhoja-carita mentions some poetesses too,
but it is doubtful if these were not fictitious names.
The anthologies also quote verses of Jaghana-capalā (Padyav.),

Avilambita-sarasvatī (Padyav.), Indulekhā (Subh.), Kuntīdevī
(Subh.), Candāla-vidyā (Skm), Nagamā (Sp), Padmāvatī
(Pmt), Madālasā (Sp), Rājaka-sarasvatī (Skm), Lakṣmī (Sp),
Vīra-sarasvatī (Padyav), Sarasvatī (Skm), and Sītā (Bhoja-
prabandha).89
Dr. Kāṇe writes:
The date of Daṇḍin can also be arrived at in another manner.

Śārṅga-dhara-paddhati (No. 108), Jahlaṇa (Sūkti-muktāvali
p. 47) and other anthologies quote a verse of a poetess Vijjakā
‘nīlotpala-dala-śyāmāṁ vijjakāṁ mām ajānatā | vṛthaiva
daṇḍinā proktaṁ sarva-śuklā sarasvatī ||’. She quotes in
this verse the last pāda of the first verse of the Kāvyādarśa.
Dhanadeva is quoted in the Śārṅga-dhara-paddhati (No. 163)
as enumerating Vijjā among poetesses.90
No ancient or medieval author says that there were two different

poetesses that flourished almost about the same period. It is
possible that the poetess was known as Vijjā and Rājaśekhara
sanskritized the name as Vijayā, while others sanskritized
as Vidyā. Therefore, it is very likely that Vijjakā and Vijayā
are the same. If that be conceded, then the verse sarasvatīva
indicates that Vijjikā was a Kārṇāṭī (a princess of Karṇāṭaka
or a resident thereof) and that she wrote a work or works in
the Vaidarbha-mārga rivalling Kālidāsa. No work expressly
89 Krishnamachariar (1937) p. 391.

Preamble 57
ascribed to her has yet been found. If the poetess Vijayā was a
princess, then it is probable that she is the same as the famous
queen Vijaya-mahādevī. […] Thus, if this identity be accepted
(as I submit it should be), her grants being dated in 659 A.D.,
there is confirmation of the date of Daṇḍin as between 660-
680 arrived at above (p. 120).91
One very beautiful verse attributed to her in Śārṅga-dhara-

paddhati (No. 582) where the sound is an echo to the sense
may be quoted here viz. the one that refers to corn-threshing
by young women: vilāsa-masṛṇollasan-musala-lola-doḥ-
kandalī-paraspara-pariskhalad-valaya-niḥsvanodbandhurāḥ
| lasanti kala-huṅkṛti-prasabha-kampitoraḥ-sthala-truṭad-
gamaka-saṅkulāḥ kalama-kaṇḍanī-gītayaḥ || (Śārṅga. p. 94
and Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa V. p. 602). She is the greatest
of poetesses. A further question about Vijayā or Vijjakā arises
whether she is the author of the drama Kaumudī-mahotsava,
which Mr. R. Kavi published some years ago.92
Bhoja cites the above verse to illustrate the śabda variety of

vaiṣayikī rati (love increases by delightful sounds):
vilāsa-masṛṇollasan-musala-lola-doḥ-kandalī-
paraspara-pariskhalad-valaya-niḥsvanodbandhurāḥ |
lasanti kala-huṅkṛti-prasabha-kampitoraḥ-sthala-
truṭad-gamaka-saṅkulāḥ kalama-kaṇḍanī-gītayaḥ ||
The songs of the women who thresh the grains are striking.
Those songs, well-rounded with the noise of clashing bracelets
on their creeper-like arms as the women gently handle the
resplendent flails with gracious movements, are replete with
note modulations which pulsate in the region of their chests
while their breasts forcibly shake with a soft melodious sound.
(Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa, illustration 5.87)
91 Kane (1998) p. 129.

92 Kane (1998) p. 131.
Dr. Kāṇe continues:
Numerous verses are ascribed to this Vijjakā in the anthologies,

two of which dṛṣṭiṁ he prativeśini (No. 500 Kavīndra.) and
dhanyāsi yā kathayasi (298 Kavīndra.) ascribed to Vidyā
are very frequently quoted in alaṅkāra works. Vide Intro. to
Kavīndra-vacana-samuccaya edited by Dr. Thomas (pp. 106-
108) for all verses attributed to her. Both of them are quoted
in Mammaṭa’s Śabda-vyāpāra-vicāra and the second in the
Kāvya-prakāśa (IV).93
This is Vijjā’s verse cited in Kāvya-prakāśa:
dhanyāsi yā kathayasi priya-saṅgame ’pi

viśrabdha-cāṭuka-śatāni ratāntareṣu |
nīvīṁ prati praṇihite tu kare priyeṇa
sakhyaḥ śapāmi yadi kiñcid api smarāmi ||
Sakhī, you are fortunate: When you meet your lover, you say
hundreds of pleasing intimate words, even during a pause in
lovemaking. As for me, I swear I do not remember anything
the minute my lover puts his hand on the knot of my girdle.
(Kāvya-prakāśa verse 61)
Mammaṭa elaborates: atra tvam adhanyā, ahaṁ tu dhanyeti

vyatirekālaṅkāraḥ, “Here the vyatireka ornament (contrast with
similitude) is implied: “You are unfortunate, and only I am for-
tunate”” (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 61 vṛtti). Moreover, “You are
fortunate” is the vyāja-stuti ornament (artful praise) although here
the irony does not invalidate the literal sense.
Notably, Mira Bai (1498–1547 CE) was a Rajput princess who

lived in the north Indian state of Rajasthan: She sang in Vraja-
bhasha, sometimes mixed with Rajasthani, in praise of Krishna,
whom she considered her husband.
93 Kane (1998) p. 132.

Preamble 59
Anthologies
An anthology (subhāṣita) is a multitude of verses grouped by
specific topics selected by the compiler, who adds the name
of the author after a verse. The oldest available anthology in
Sanskrit is Kavīndra-vacana-samuccaya (10th century), by an un-
known author. It consists of 525 verses.94 Other famous Sanskrit
anthologies are:
♦ Subhāṣita-ratna-kośa, by Vidyākara (c. 1050–1130 CE), a
Buddhist scholar living in what is now Bengladesh. It contains
1738 verses and was translated in English by Dr. Daniel H.H.
Ingalls.
♦ Sad-ukti-karṇāmṛta, compiled in 1205 CE by Śrīdhara-dāsa.
It contains 2380 quotations from 446 poets, mostly of Bengal.
♦ Sūkti-muktāvalī by Jalhaṇa (1258).
♦ Śārṅgadhara-paddhati, by Śārngadhara (1283–1301 CE). It
comprises 4689 verses culled from 264 authors.
♦ Subhāṣita-sudhā-nidhi, compiled by Sāyaṇa, at the court of
either Harihara I (r. 1336–1357) or Bukka (r. 1344–1377) of
Vijayanagar.
♦ Subhāṣitāvalī, by Vallabhadeva (fifteenth or sixteenth century):
It contains about 3500 stanzas taken from approximately 350
poets.
Dr. Macdonnell adds:

Though composed in Pāli, the Dhammapada may perhaps be
mentioned here. It is a collection of aphorisms representing the
most beautiful, profound, and poetical thoughts in Buddhist
literature.95
Dr. Pollock notes:

Anthology-making has a long history in Sanskrit and Prakrit
literary culture. If we leave aside the ancient testimonies of
spiritual awakening in Pali (Theragāthā and Therīgāthā), this
begins with a text mentioned earlier, the Maharashtri Prakrit
94 The work can be downloaded from: https://archive.org/details/

KavindraVacanaSamuccaya.
95 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) A History of Sanskrit Literature, Ch. 14, p. 379.
Gāhākoso (treasury of lyrics, or Gāhāsattasaī, the seven

hundred lyrics), attributed to King Hāla of the Sāravahana
dynasty (c. third century).96
One Simile Seen Through the Prism of Alaṅkāra

Most rhetorians agree on the definitions of the principle figures of
speech. However, quite often they invented their own subvarieties
simply to explain one verse of a great poet. Indeed, sometimes
a verse generates astonishment precisely because it is a slight
variation of a well-known theme. To relish Sanskrit poetry, the
readers must recognize the figures of speech, but most importantly
the translator must stay true to the text. And although the rhythm
and the ornaments of sound are lost in translation, or else they are
replaced with the translator’s rhymes and so on, the basic ornaments
of meaning should be noticed. Thus the simile that the round face
of a beautiful woman is like the moon can be utilized to illustrate a
long series of figures based on similarity:
1. Upamā (simile): “Thy face is like the moon.”

2. Upameyopamā (reciprocal comparison): “The moon is like
thy face, thy face is like the moon.”
3. Ananvaya (self-comparison): “Thy face is like thy face alone”
or “Thy face only compares to thy face.”
4. Pratīpa (inverted comparison): “The moon is like thy face.”
5. Prativastūpamā (two sentences have an implied similarity):
“In heaven the moon reigns, on Earth thy face prevails.”
6. Dṛṣṭānta (exemplification):“In the heaven the moon, on Earth
thy face.”
7. Nidarśanā (illustration): “Thy face bears the beauty of the
moon.”
8. Smaraṇa (remembrance): “The sight of the moon brings thy
face before me” or “Upon looking at thy face, I thought of the
moon.”
9. Rūpaka (metaphor): “Thy face is a moon” or “Thy moon face”
or “The moon of thy face.”
96 Pollock, Sheldon (2003) Literary Cultures in History, p. 114.

Preamble 61
10. Pariṇāma (modification): “By smiling, the moon of thy face

enchants everyone.”
11. Utprekṣā (fancy): “For sure, thy face is a moon.”
12. Apahnuti (concealment): “This is the moon, not thy face.”
13. Niścaya (certainty): “This is not a moon, it’s thy face.”
14. Vyatireka (contrast with similitude): “Your immaculate face
does not compare to the spotted moon” or “Thy face shineth
ever, the moon by night alone.”
15. Sandeha (doubt): “Is this thy face or the moon?”
16. Bhrāntimān (confusion): “Mistaking it for the moon, the
Cakora bird flieth toward thy face.”
17. Ullekha (angles of description): “The Cakoras, thinking it is
the moon, and the bees, thinking it is a lotus, fly to thy face.”
18. Dīpaka (illuminator, syllepsis): “Thy face and the moon
delight in the night.”
19. Tulya-yogitā (equal connection with an attribute): “The moon
and the lotus are vanquished by thy face.”
20. Sahokti (conjoined expression): “At night, the moon arouses
emotions, and so does your face.”
21. Samāsokti (concise expression): “Thy face is beautifully
spotted with black eyes and adorned with the light of smile.”
22. Atiśayokti (superexcellence): “This is a second moon.”
23. Atiśayokti (introsusception): “The moon” (in reference to her
face).
24. Atiśayokti (with the word ‘if’): “If the moon were spotless,
thy face would compare to it.”
25. Śleṣa (pun): “Thy face is radiant like the moon.”
26. Atyukti (hyperbole): “Four moons combined would make a
suitable vehicle for thy face.”
Most of these examples are sourced in Appaya Dīkṣita’s Citra-

mīmāṁsā (Kāvya-mālā edition p. 6). Yet other ornaments can be so
constructed. For instance:
Punar-uktavad-ābhāsa (semblance of redundancy): tvan-mukhaṁ
candra iva sundaraṁ candra iva sugandhi ca, “Thy face is beautiful
like the moon and as fragrant as camphor.”
Yamaka (word rhyme): vidhur vidhur iva, “Krishna is like the
moon.”
The Documented Origins

of Sanskrit Poetic Theory
Yāska mentioned that simile occurs in the Vedas: athāta upamāḥ.
yad atat tat sadṛśam iti gārgyaḥ. tad āsāṁ karma, jyāyasā vā guṇena
prakhyātatamena vā kanīyāṁsaṁ vāprakhyātaṁ vopamimīte,
athāpi kanīyasā jyāyāṁsam.
“Now, therefore, the similes. Gārgya said: “What is not exactly that
is similar to that.” The function of a simile is to compare either an
inferior quality to a superior quality or a not so well-known thing to
a very well-known thing. There is also the comparison of a superior
one with an inferior one” (Nirukta 3.13).
The general rule is that the standard of comparison (upamāna)

is either superior to or more well-known than the subject of the
comparison (upameya). Nowadays the reverse is called the pratīpa
ornament.
The Nighaṇṭu gives a list of words expressive of a simile: idam

iva. idaṁ yathā. agnir na ye. caturaścid dadamānāt. brāhmaṇā
vrata-cāriṇaḥ. vṛkṣasya nu te puruhūta vayāḥ. jāra ā bhagam.
meṣo bhūto ’bhi yan nayaḥ. tad-rūpaḥ. tad-varṇaḥ. tadvat. tathety
upamāḥ (Nighaṇṭu 3.13).
Yāska subdivided simile in five categories:

∆ karmopamā (a similarity of action), expressed with the word
yathā (as) (Nirukta 3.15),
∆ bhūtopamā (an existing comparison) expressed with the word
bhūta (is), for instance: meṣo bhūtaḥ, “like a ram” (Ṛg-Veda
8.2.40) (Nirukta 3.16),
∆ rūpopamā (a similarity of form) (metaphor), expressed with
the word rūpa, for example: hiraṇya-rūpaḥ sa hiraṇya-sadṛk
(Ṛg-Veda 2.35.10); Yāska explains hiraṇya-rūpaḥ as: hiraṇya-
varṇasyevāsya rūpam, “Agni’s form is like the form of the
golden color” (Nirukta 3.16),
∆ siddhopamā (accomplished simile) expressed either with vat
(like) or with iva (like) (Nirukta 3.16), and
Preamble 63
∆ luptopamā (elliptical simile), also called arthopamā (Nirukta

3.18). Yāska’s luptopamā is a simile without a word of com-
parison.
Dr. Belvalkar comments:

Only two of these varieties recognised by Yāska deserve a
particular attention. What he calls luptopamā is the rūpaka
of the Ālaṅkārikas, and Daṇḍin’s definition of that figure
is suggestive in that connection: upamaiva tirobhūta-
bhedā rūpakam ucyate [“A simile in which a difference
has disappeared is called a metaphor ” (Kāvyādarśa 2.66)].
Interpreted more scientifically the siddhopamā eventually
became a regular pramāṇa called upamiti.97
Yāska mentioned other words, such as na, cid, nu, ā, and thā, that
denote a simile in the Vedas (Nirukta 1.4; 3.16).
In his rules, Pāṇini explicitly referred to the concept of simile.98

In addition, he mentioned Śilālin and Kṛśāśva as authorities on
dramaturgy:
pārāśarya-śilālibhyāṁ bhikṣu-naṭa-sūtrayoḥ, “In regard to
aphorisms governing mendicants and aphorisms on acting, [the
suffix ṇini is used in the meaning of ‘enounced by him’] after
the words Pārāśarya and Śilālin” (Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.110), and
karmanda-kṛśāśvād iniḥ, “[When the meaning is “he by whom
bhikṣu-sūtras are enounced” or “he by whom naṭa-sūtras are
enounced,”] the suffix ini is used after the words Karmanda
and Kṛśāśva” (Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.111).
97 Belvalkar, S.K. and Raddī, Raṅgācārya B. (1920). Daṇḍin’s

Kāvyādarśa Pariccheda II, p. 79. The means of knowing called upamiti
or upamāna (comparison and analogy) is explained in the commentaries
on Tattva-sandarbha 9.
98 upamānāni sāmānya-vacanaiḥ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.55); upamitaṁ
vyāghrādibhiḥ sāmānyāprayoge (2.1.56) (upamita means upameya);
tulyārthair atulopamābhyāṁ tṛtīyānyatarasyām (2.3.72); upamānād
ācāre (3.1.10); tena tulyaṁ kriyā ced vatiḥ (5.1.115); tatra tasyeva
(5.1.116).
In grammar, a suggestive meaning is called a jñāpaka (indicator:

an expression or rule which expresses more than what it states).
Pāṇini himself was a poet. His work is called Jāmbavatī-jaya.
Cāṇakya Pandit, also called Kauṭilya (crookedness) because

he was cunning, was the first to write about literary blemishes:
“In Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra the defects of the art of writing are:
vyāghāta (contradiction), punarukta (repetition), apaśabda
(grammatical incorrectness) and samplava (misarrangement of
words).”99
Cāṇakya Pandit studied at Takṣaśilā (modern Taxila, Gandhar,

Pakistan). He not only understood symbolism, an achievement of
studying poetry, he indirectly taught it. For instance:
15. Learn one thing from a lion; one from a crane; four a
rooster; five from a crow; six from a dog; and three from a
donkey.
16. The one excellent thing that can be learnt from a lion is that
whatever a man intends to do should be done by him with a
whole-hearted and strenuous effort.
17. The wise man should restrain his senses like the crane and
accomplish his purpose with due knowledge of his place, time
and ability.
18. To wake at the proper time; to take a bold stand and fight;
to make a fair division of wealth and property among relations;
and to earn one’s own bread by personal exertion are the four
excellent things to be learned from a rooster.
19. Union in privacy (with one’s wife); boldness; storing away
useful items; watchfulness; and not easily trusting others;
these five things are to be learned from a crow.
20. Contentment with little or nothing to eat although one may
have a great appetite; to awaken instantly although one may
be in a deep slumber; unflinching devotion to the master; and
bravery; these six qualities should be learned from the dog.

Preamble 65
21. Although a donkey is tired, it continues to carry its burden;

it is unmindful of cold and heat; and it is always contented;
these three things should be learned from the donkey.
22. A person who practices these twenty virtues will become
invincible in all undertakings.100
Cāṇakya also stated qualities in a composition. Dr. De writes:
In Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra there is a chapter devoted to the

procedure of writing śāsanas [teachings], where mention
is made of artha-krama [sequence of topics], paripūrṇatā
[completeness], mādhurya [grace of style], audārya [high-
mindedness] and spaṣṭatva [clarity] as excellences which
should be attained. These may correspond to the Guṇas
defined in earlier Alaṅkāra works, but perhaps they represent
the common-sense view of the matter.101
Kauṭilya (ii.28) mentions the following characteristics of

the art of writing: artha-krama (arrangement of subject-
matter), sambandha (relevancy), paripūrṇatā (completeness),
mādhurya (sweetness), audārya (dignity), and spaṣṭatva
(clearness).102
Dr. Manomohan Ghosh remarks:

The description of the king, the senāpati, the amātya and the
prāḍvivāka as given in the Nāṭya-śāstra (XXXIV.78-87) might
well have been taken from the now lost work of Bṛhaspati
recognised by Kauṭilya as one of his sources103
100 Cāṇakya-nīti 6.15-22. The above translation is essentially the same as the
translation by Miles Davis (Patita Pavana dasa): http://sanskritdocuments.org/
all_pdf/chaaNakyaNiti.pdf.
101 De, S.K. (1988) Vol. I, p. 12. Words in square brackets are added to a
citation.
102 De, S.K. (1988) Vol. II, p. 15.
103 Ghosh, Manomohan (1951) The Nāṭya-śāstra, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 81.
Patañjali pointed out a poetical work composed by Vararuci:

vārarucaṁ kāvyam (Mahābhāṣya 4.3.101). According to Rāja-
śekhara, the book was called Kaṇṭhābharaṇa.104
Further, Dr. Kāṇe notes:
The Hṛdayāṅgamā, a commentary on the Kāvyādarśa,

informs us that Kāśyapa and Vararuci had composed works
on Poetics before the Kāvyādarśa—‘pūrveṣāṁ kāśyapa-
vararuci-prabhṛtīnām ācāryāṇāṁ lakṣaṇa-śāstrāṇi saṁhṛtya
paryālocya’ (on I.2) and ‘pūrva-sūribhiḥ kāśyapa-vararuci-
prabhṛtibhiḥ’ (on II.7). The com. Śrutānupalinī on the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā mentions Kāśyapa, Brahmadatta and Nandisvāmī as
the predecessors of Daṇḍin. […] All these works are no longer
available.105
Sometimes Kātyāyana is called Vararuci. He is not the astronomist

Vararuci (c. 350 CE), one of Vikramāditya’s nine gems, who wrote
Prākṛta-prakāśa, the oldest treatise on the grammar of Prakrit
language.
Moreover, Patañjali discussed figurative usage by stating four

kinds of connections between the main meaning and the figurative
sense. In that regard, he invented the now well-known example
“the cowherd settlement on the Ganges” as an illustration of
the connection of nearness: tat-sāmīpyāt, gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ
(Mahābhāṣya 4.1.48).
In Vedānta-sūtra, Vyāsa mentioned simile and metaphor: ata eva

copamā sūryakādi-vat (3.2.18); ānumānikam apy ekeṣām iti
cen na śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīter darśayati ca (1.4.1). The
metaphors refer to the analogies between the body and a chariot,
and so on, in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.9-11 (Bhāgavatam 4.29.18-20).
104 yathārthatā kathaṁ nāmni mā bhūd vararucer iha | vyadhatta

kaṇṭhābharaṇaṁ yaḥ sadārohaṇa-priyaḥ || (Kāvya-mīmāṁsā)
Preamble 67
Pāṇini
Pāṇini was aware of Greek civilization, and therefore his
contemporaries were so too. Pāṇini used the word yavana
(Greek) in this aphorism: indra-varuṇa-bhava-śarva-rudra-mṛḍa-
himāraṇya-yava-yavana-mātulācāryāṇām ānuk (Aṣṭādhyāyī
4.1.49). Kātyāyana explains: yavanāl lipyām, “[The suffix ān[uk]
is applied] after yavana in the sense of script” (Vārttika 4.1.49)
(Siddhānta-kaumudī 505). Thus the word yavanānī means Greek
script.
Sanskrit grammar is called tri-muni-vyākaraṇam (Kāśikā

2.1.19) because three savants established the rules, based on the
usage: Pāṇini (Aṣṭādhyāyī), Kātyāyana (Vārttika) and Patañjali
(Mahābhāṣya). In Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini codified the rules of Vedic
Sanskrit—the language of the Vedas—and of classical Sanskrit,
that is, the language of the Dharma-śāstras, Purāṇas, and so on.
Those two types of Sanskrit are not completely mutually distinct,
since the latter originates from the former. Dr. Keith expounds:
From the language of the Ṛgveda we can trace a steady

development to Classical Sanskrit, through the later Saṁhitās
and the Brāhmaṇas.106
It is, in point of fact, perfectly obvious that there is a steady

progress through the later Saṁhitās, the Brāhmaṇas, and the
Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads, and that the Bhāṣā, the spoken
language of Pāṇini’s grammar, is closely related to, though not
identical with, the language of the Brāhmaṇas and the older
Upaniṣads.107
What is clear is that Sanskrit represents the language of

Brahmanical civilization, and the extent of that civilization
was ever increasing, though the Brahmanical religion had
to face competition from new faiths, in special Buddhism

107 Keith (1956) p. 4.
and Jainism, from the fifth century B.C. The Buddhist texts
themselves afford the most convicting evidence of all of the
predominance of Brahmanism ; the Buddha is represented as
attempting not to overthrow the ideal of Brahmanism, but to
change its content by substituting merit in place of birth as the
hall-mark of the true Brahmin.108
Kātyāyana commented on Pāṇini, and Patañjali commented on

both. Pāṇini’s date is sandwiched between the Persians’ incursions
in modern-day Pakistan and Alexander’s invasion (326 BCE): The
proof is that Pāṇini mentions the town called Sangala (Gr. Saṅgala,
Sk. Sāṅkala, lit. “the place where the Saṅkalas live”) in the sūtra:
saṅkalādibhyaś ca (4.2.75):
Pāṇini derives the name of the town from the proper name
Saṅkala. Sāṅkala is a city completed by (Prince?) Saṅkala.
This city Alexander razed to the ground as a punishment for
the stout resistance of its defenders, and Pāṇini could not have
thereafter spoken of it in the manner in which he does. Pāṇini,
therefore, must have lived before Alexander’s invasion.109
Max Müller dates Pāṇini about 350 BCE,110 whereas Dr. Belvalkar
is of the opinion that Pāṇini lived much earlier:
Lastly, reverting once more to Kātyāyana’s vārttika to 4.1.175

[kāmbojāl luk, Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.1.175], if the word śaka forms a
genuine part of the kambojādi-gaṇa, it will be necessary to
suppose that Pāṇini did not know that the Śakas or Skythians
had a country or a kingdom of their own. Now the first king of
the Skythians was Deioces (Divaukas) whose date is cir. 700
B.C., and Pāṇini must have lived before B.C. 700 or at least
not long after that date.111
108 Keith (1956) p. 8.

109 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) An Account of the Different Existing Systems of
Sanskrit Grammar, p. 14.
110 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 11.
111 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) pp. 14-15.
Preamble 69
Dr. Belvalkar says Yāska, who wrote Nirukta, the commentary

on Nighaṇṭu, lived around 800 or 700 BCE, and adds that at least
one century must be calculated between Pāṇini and Yāska to
account for the advances in the wording of the rules of grammar in
Aṣṭādhyāyī.112 Nowadays the consensus is that Pāṇini lived about
the 5th century BCE.113 Further, Dr. Belvalkar writes:
The Kathā-sarit-sāgara (taraṅga 4) makes Pāṇini a contem-

porary of Kātyāyana and Vyāḍi and Indradatta, along with
whom he studied at the house of Upādhyāya Varṣa. Not
succeeding in his studies, Pāṇini practiced penance and
received from God Śiva the fourteen pratyāhāra sūtras.114
Varṣa was a teacher in Pāṭaliputra (modern Patna, Bihar). The

grammarian Vyāḍi was the author of huge treatise called Saṅgraha,
now lost: “Vyāḍi, mentioned by Kātyāyana (vārttika 45 to 1.2.64),
was the author of an extensive work called Saṅgraha, referred to in
the Mahābhāṣya,115 which is in fact based upon it.”116 Nonetheless
Dr. Belvalkar disagrees with Somadeva’s above statement:
Between Pāṇini and the next great grammarian, Kātyāyana,

came many authors who attempted, more or less successfully,
to emend of justify Pāṇini’s rules, and some of the metrical
vārttikas found in the Mahābhāshya probably belong to these
predecessors of Kātyāyana. […] The Kathā-sarit-sāgara makes
Kātyāyana the contemporary of Pāṇini, or more accurately, the
senior of the two; […]. We must be prepared however to give
up this view and presuppose between Pāṇini and Kātyāyana
that much time which the nature of the changes in the forms
of language above indicated will reasonably require; and
unless we assume that language and customs were in an
112 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) pp. 5-6.

113 http://www.britannica.com/biography/Panini-Indian-grammarian
114 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 16.
115 Vol. I p. 64 line 2. The Vākyapadīya describes the Mahābhāshya as
saṅgraha-pratikañcukaḥ.
116 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 26. The term saṅgraha-pratikañcuka (Vākya-
padīya 2.484) means “the disguise of Saṅgraha”.
extraordinarily volatile condition in ancient times, about two

to three centuries would not by any means be too great an
interval that we can suppose to have elapsed between them.
In the present state of our knowledge we cannot therefore,
unfortunately, arrive at a greater approximation than 500-350
B.C., nearer to the latter limit if the relation of Kātyāyana with
the Nandas mentioned in Kathā-sarit-sāgara has any basis in
fact.117
Still, Kātyāyana’s objective was to find fault with Pāṇini. Some say
this indicates that they were contemporaries. Dr. Belvalkar notes:
Notwithstanding this there are, according to Patañjali’s

showing, a good many cases where his criticisms are misplaced,
or are the result of misunderstanding Pāṇini.118
His object was not to explain Pāṇini but find faults in his
grammar, thus he has left unnoticed many sūtras that to him
appeared valid. Of the nearly 4,000 sūtras [of Aṣṭādhyāyī,]
Kātyāyana noticed over 1,500 in about 4,000 vārttikas.119
Based on the legend, Pāṇini cannot be placed earlier than 350 BCE.
Vettam Mani writes:
4) A legend. There was a preceptor named Varṣa in Pāṭalīputra

and Pāṇini had his education under him. Varṣa gradually
acquired a large number of disciples and Pāṇini was the
most dull-witted among them. But he was greatly devoted to
his Guru and this pleased the wife of the Guru and she took
great interest in Pāṇini. One day she called Pāṇini to her side
and advised him to go to the Himālayas and do penance to
propitiate Śiva to get knowledge from him. Pāṇini obeying
instructions went and performed penance. Śiva was pleased
and he granted him knowledge about a new grammar. By the
time Pāṇini came back from the Himālayas with his grammar
117 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) pp. 23-24.

118 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 25.
119 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 24.
Preamble 71
another disciple of Varṣa, Vararuci by name, had come down

with a grammar from Indra. Pāṇini challenged Vararuci for
a polemical contest. It took eight days and on the eighth day
Vararuci defeated Pāṇini. At once there was a great humming
sound from the sky and the grammar book of Vararuci was
destroyed. After that Pāṇini defeated all his co-disciples in
polemics and emerged as the greatest grammarian of the world.
(Kathā-pīṭha-lambaka, Kathā-sarit-sāgara, Taraṅga 4).120
Pāṇini was born in Gandhar (modern-day north Pakistan and east

Afghanistan). Kandahar, a city in South Afghanistan, is so called
because of it. Specifically, Pāṇini originated from a place called
Śalātura121:
[I]n later literature, Pāṇini is also known by the name

Śālāturīya,122 which is probably derived from his native place.
Cunningham has identified Śālātura with the present Lahaur in
the Yusufzai valley. In the days of Hiuen Tsang the valley was
known as Udyāna and Śālātura was a prosperous town. Today
it is an obscure deserted village in the northwestern Frontier
Province, near Attock123 [in the region of Gandhar.]
It is believed that Pāṇini taught at Taxila. For his part, Patañjali is

said to be an incarnation of Śeṣa. The master poet Śrīharṣa refers
to him as such (phaṇin, serpent) in this amazing verse; here the
golden swan despatched by Nala approaches the capital, Kuṇḍina:
parikhā-valaya-cchalena yā
na pareṣāṁ grahaṇasya gocarā |
phaṇi-bhāṣita-bhāṣya-phakkikā
viṣamā kuṇḍalanām avāpitā ||
120 Mani, Vettam (1975) Puranic Encyclopedia, p. 566 (under “Pāṇini”).

121 This is the proper spelling, based on the rule: tūdī-śalātura-varmatī-kūca-
vārāḍ ḍhak-chaṇ-ḍhaṣ-yakaḥ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.94).
122 śālāturīya-śakaṭāṅgaja-candragomī etc. from Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi
stanza 2.
123 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 15.
The city marked with a circle under the guise of its moat was
not accessible to outsiders (as a pun: it could not be grasped
even by the best). The city was as difficult to penetrate as some
propositions in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya. (Naiṣadha-carita 2.95)
The abovementioned term kuṇḍalanā (circle) refers to the practice

of drawing a circle around words to show that their purport is not
understood hence the passage ought to be disregarded. Śrīharṣa
alludes to this in yet another over-the-top verse:
tad-ojasas tad-yaśasaḥ sthitāv imau

vṛtheti citte kurute yadā yadā |
tanoti bhānoḥ pariveṣa-kaitavāt
tadā vidhiḥ kuṇḍalanāṁ vidhor api ||
Under the guise of circles, the Creator fashions a halo around

the sun and another around the moon whenever he remembers:
“These two luminaries are insignificant in comparison to Nala’s
dazzle and fame.” (Naiṣadha-carita 1.14)
The Evolution of the Scripts

Sanskrit has no native script of its own. Until the nineteenth
century CE, usually Sanskrit was written in the regional script. The
Karoṣṭhī script was the ancient Indic script used by the Gandhar
culture of ancient Northwest India to write the Gāndhārī language
and the Sanskrit language:
Kharoshti, writing system used in northwestern India before

about 500 CE. The earliest extant inscription in Kharoshti dates
from 251 BCE, and the latest dates from the 4th–5th century
CE. The system is believed to have derived from the Aramaic
alphabet while northwestern India was under Persian rule in
the 5th century BCE. Aramaic, however, is a Semitic alphabet
of 22 consonantal letters, while Kharoshti is syllabic and has
252 separate signs for consonant and vowel combinations. A
cursive script written from right to left, Kharoshti was used
Preamble 73
for commercial and calligraphic purposes. It was influenced

somewhat by Brahmi, the other Indian script of the period,
which eventually superseded it.124
At any rate, Pāṇini must have used the Brāhmī script, written from
left to right. Dr. Macdonell states:
A considerable length of time was, moreover, needed to

elaborate from the twenty-two borrowed Semitic symbols the
full Brāhmī alphabet of forty-six letters. This complete alphabet,
which was evidently worked out by learned Brahmans on
phonetic principles, must have existed by 500 B.C., according
to the strong arguments adduced by Professor Bühler. This
is the alphabet which is recognised in Pāṇini’s great Sanskrit
grammar of about the fourth century B.C., and has remained
unmodified ever since. It not only represents all the sounds
of the Sanskrit language, but is arranged on a thoroughly
scientific method, the simple vowels (short and long) coming
first, then the diphthongs, and lastly the consonants in uniform
groups according to the organs of speech with which they are
pronounced. Thus the dental consonants appear together as t,
th, d, dh, n and the labials as p, ph, b, bh, m. We Europeans,
on the other hand, 2500 years later, and in a scientific age, still
employ an alphabet which is not only inadequate to represent
all the sounds of our languages, but even preserves the random
order in which vowels and consonants are jumbled up as
they were in the Greek adaptation of the primitive Semitic
arrangement of 3000 years ago.125
Like Karoṣṭhī, Brāhmī was an abugida, meaning each letter

represents a consonant whereas vowels are written with obligatory
diacritics, called mātrās in Sanskrit, except when the vowel begins
a word.126 Still, many variations of the ancient Brāhmī script have
been recorded:
124 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Kharoshti
125 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) A History of Sanskrit Literature, Ch. 1, pp. 16-17.
126 For example, consult the table of the ten forms of the Brāhmī letter
ka conjoined with each vowel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_
script#Characteristics.
The palæographical evidence of the Aśoka inscriptions, in any

case, clearly shows that writing was no recent invention in the
third century B.C., for most of the letters have several, often
very divergent forms, sometimes as many as nine or ten.127
The Sanskrit phonemes are not always well-represented by

characters of Prakrit: In Bengali script, for instance, the letters b and
v are the same. Due to such shortcomings of regional scripts, for the
most part Sanskrit remained an oral tradition. The earliest known
inscriptions in Sanskrit date to the first century BCE. They are in
Brāhmī script, which was originally used for Prakrit. Ironically, the
first known specimens of written Sanskrit postdate those of Prakrit
languages, its linguistic descendants. In northern India, the oldest
Brāhmī inscriptions date from the third century BCE—the famous
Prakrit pillar inscriptions (dated to 250–232 BCE) of king Ashoka
(304–232 BCE), an emperor in the Maurya dynasty.
The first script of India was that of the Harappan Civilization

(3300–1700 BCE), but it has no scope in this regard. Dr. Vasishtha
writes:
Indus valley script is the oldest available Indian script. In

spite of many claims, it is still undeciphered. A timespan of
about one millennia separates the Indus valley script (may be
called proto-Indian script) from the first appearance of any
other Indian script. One incomparably important among these
scripts is the Brāhmī script. The users of the former script
are ethnically still unknown to us. When did Brāhmī script
first appear cannot be said with any certainty. […] Literary
evidences show it to have been in widespread general use
in the fifth century B.C. Epigraphically we first come upon
its tracks in the Mauryan king Aśoka. The Brāhmī alphabets
employed in the Aśokan inscriptions exhibit no complete
homogenous form; there are on the contrary a whole lot of
small local variants.128

128 Vasishtha, R. K. (2001) Brāhmī Script, Its Palaeography. pp. 1-2.
Preamble 75
The Sarasvatī River dried up around 1900 BCE, and this led to
the fall of the Harappan Civilization. According to the information
in Ṛg-Veda, the Sarasvatī was a river that flowed westward into
the Sindhu River.129 Many scholars say that what remains of the
Sarasvatī River is the Ghaggar-Hakra River, an intermittent river
in India and Pakistan that flows only during the monsoon season.130
Perhaps in that regard, Śrīharṣa composed this verse (Damayantī
speaks to Nala):
adṛśyamānā kvacid īkṣitā kvacin

mamānuyoge bhavataḥ sarasvatī |
kvacit-prakāśāṁ kvacid asphuṭārṇasaṁ
sarasvatīṁ jetu-manāḥ saras-vatīm ||
Your clever speech (sarasvatī ), sometimes discerned and occa-

sionally obscure, in response to my question aims at defeating
the Sarasvatī, a river visible in some places and scantly flowing
elsewhere on its course. (Naiṣadha-carita 9.4)
In any case, one theory is that Brāhmī developed from the Indus
script 131 (Harappan script). The Devanāgarī script occurred much later:
Devanāgarī, (Sanskrit: deva, “god,” and nāgarī (lipi),

“[script] of the city”) also called Nāgarī, script used to write
the Sanskrit, Prākrit, Hindi, Marathi, and Nepali languages,
developed from the North Indian monumental script known as
Gupta and ultimately from the Brāhmī alphabet, from which
all modern Indian writing systems are derived. In use from
the 7th century CE and occurring in its mature form from the
11th century onward, Devanāgarī is characterized by long,
horizontal strokes at the tops of the letters, usually joined in
modern usage to form a continuous horizontal line through the
script when written.132
129 For the details, consult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati_River. To

locate the Sarasvatī, consult: http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/sarasvati-river.
html.
130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River
131 http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm (retrieved 7-26-2015)
132 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Devanagari
Nāgarī script evolved from the Kuṭila script, an offshoot of

the Gupta script:
The first century A.D. is the most important period for the
history of the Brāhmī script simply because changes introduced
at the beginning of this century proved to be a turning point,
paving the way for accelerated changes and consequently
developing into regional scripts. […] We also find use of
visarga in this period.
The Kuṣāṇa inscriptions show a further step in the development

of Brāhmī script of Northern India. Medial signs in this period
became curved. […]
By now, work of writing appears to have become a necessity

for which swiftness was counted as an additional quality. As
a result cursive forms emerged. Places like Sāñchi, Mathurā,
Kaumb, Sāranātha, Śrāvastī, etc. developed into important
centers of writing activity and soon produced their own styles.
During this period, the Brāhmī script of northern India can be
recognised to have been divided into distinct schools of east
and west, even though differences in these two schools were
limited only to a few letters.133
The script which emerged in the later half of the fourth century
A.D. from the northern style of the Brāhmī, is called the Gupta
script. Since the Guptas were ruling over northern India, this
script is named after them.134
By the sixth century, many changes had occurred in the Gupta

script also. This led the development of the siddhamatṛkā script
whose letters were shaped like acute angles. An inscription
of 588-89 A.D. from Bodh-Gaya of Mahānāman I is among
the earliest examples in the siddhamatṛkā script. It is also
called kuṭila script. This script is also named kuṭilākṣara and
vikaṭākṣara. […] This script remained prevalent in northern
133 Vasishtha (2001) pp. 17-18.

134 Vasishtha (2001) pp. 23-24.
Preamble 77
India till the ninth century A.D. Later on, Devanāgarī, Nāgarī,
and Śāradā scripts developed from it.135
As Ojha observed, “in the sixth century A.D., the Brāhmī

alphabet, especially vowel signs, adopted curly features; thus
it was named Kuṭila script.”136 He further added that “it is a
modulation from the Gupta script.” […]
Use of the Kuṭila script is well noticed in the inscriptions of

Yaśodharman [c. 550 CE]. It is also found in the inscriptions
of the later centuries, belonging to Harṣa, Aṁśuvarman,
Śilāditya, Ādityasena, etc. It was used frequently up to the
ninth century A.D. in the northern India and it gave rise to
Nāgarī and Śāradā scripts later on. Ornamentation, with the
help of the ‘pen’, of the letters is mainly responsible for the
development of the Kuṭila script. Thick and thin lines, serif,
letters with long tails, wedge or nail heads, foot marks, etc. are
the result of the ‘pen’. These are the chief characteristics of the
Kuṭila style of the Brāhmī.137
The Śāradā script was the script in Kashmir. Further, the use of the
term devanāgarī is relatively recent. Regarding the significance of
nāgarī (of the city), Dr. A.K. Siṅgh mentions various hypotheses:
V.S. Agrawala, on his part, opines that it was the script

connected with nagara, which he identifies, on the authority of
the play Pādatāḍitakam (c. 5th century A.D.), with Pāṭaliputra.
K.D. Bajpai likewise identifies nagara with Pāṭaliputra. But
Anant Chaudhari theorised that the Kuṭila script refined by the
Nāgaras, the clever Paṇḍits, of Pāṭaliputra nagara during 8th
and 9th centuries, is the cause of the appellation Nāgarī. This
refined form of course was simple and efficient in writing as
compared to the Kuṭila letters. […] While it may be conceded
that Pāṭaliputra was called nagara, it does not ipso facto follow
that the script used in or around that particular city alone was
termed Nāgarī.
135 Vasishtha (2001) p. 26.

136 Ojha, G.H., Bhāratīya Prāchīna Lipimālā, p. 42.
137 Vasishtha (2001) p. 140.
Śeṣa Kṛṣṇa, the author of the Prākṛt Candrikā (c. A.D. 1050)
has recorded twenty-seven apabhraṁśas, two of which are
named Nāgara and Upanāgara. According to G.A. Grierson,
the close connection of Nāgara apabhraṁśa with Śaurasenī
Prākṛt of Central Gangetic Doab points to the probable region
of its use. This region has been the seat of the Nāgarī script
from the beginning up to now. Finally, T.P. Verma believes
in the growth of regional languages and their employment in
written literature. Against this background it is somewhat safer
to assume that the script that was used for writing the Nāgara
apabhraṁśa possibly came to be known as Nāgarī.
Here it can be recalled that at least three items are associated

with the Nāgara or Nāgarī. These are Nāgarī script, Nāgara
and Upanāgara apabhraṁśas, and the Nāgara style of temple
architecture. It is noteworthy that the geographical extensions
of all these are almost the same, i.e. the whole of northern
India excluding Punjab in the West and Bengal in the East. […]
We can assume that perhaps Nāgara or Nāgarī had a definite
geographical connection about which our predecessors had
no ambiguity. They used this term by prefixing Deva-, Jaina-,
Nandi- for scripts, and Nāgara and Upanāgara for apabhraṁśas
as well as for a definite style of temple architecture prevalent
in a definite area.
Considering the antiquity of the term ‘Nāgarī’, we find that

the Jaina commentators Hemachandra Sūri (A.D. 1118) and
Malayagiri (c. 2nd-3rd quarter of the 12th century A.D.) mention
Nāgarī in their commentaries. This indicates that the Nāgarī
appellation had become popular by the twelfth century A.D.
In point of fact, Hemachandra Sūri quotes an ancient verse,
possibly of the tenth or the eleventh century A.D., to the effect,
which indicates that the name Nāgarī was known even a few
centuries prior to the twelfth century A.D.138
138 Siṅgh, A.K. (1990) Development of Nāgarī Script. Delhi: Parimal

Publications, pp. 18-20. Dr. Siṅgh specifies that Hemacandra’s commentary is
called Viśeṣāvaśyaka-bhāṣya-vṛtti, and Malayagiri’s is called Malayaginyā nandi-
vṛtti.
Preamble 79
In South India, particularly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, between the

6th century and the 19th century CE the Grantha script was widely
used to write Sanskrit. It evolved from the southern version of the
Brāhmī script.
Furthermore, Dr. Macdonnell remarks:
The two ancient materials used in India were strips of birch

bark and palm leaves. The employment of the former,
beginning in the North-West of India, where extensive birch
forests clothe the slopes of the Himālaya, gradually spread to
Central, Eastern, and Western India. […] The oldest known
Sanskrit MS. written on birch bark dates from the fifth century
A.D., and a Pāli MS. in Kharoshṭhī, which became known in
1897, is still older, but the use of this material doubtless goes
back to far earlier days. Thus we have the statement of Quintus
Curtius that the Indians employed it for writing on at the time
of Alexander. […]
Paper was introduced by the Muhammadan conquest [around

1000 CE]. […] The birch bark and palm leaf MSS. are held
together by a cord drawn through a single hole in the middle,
or through two placed some distance apart. This explains how
the Sanskrit word for “knot,” grantha, came to acquire the
sense of “book.” […] The actual use of ink (the oldest Indian
name of which is mashi) is proved for the second century B.C.
by an inscription from a Buddhist relic mound, and is rendered
very probable for the fourth century B.C. by the statements of
Nearchos and Quintus Curtius.
All the old palm leaf, birch bark, and paper Sanskrit MSS. have
been written with ink and a reed pen, usually called kalama (a
term borrowed from the Greek kalamos). In Southern India,
on the other hand, it has always been the practice to scratch
the writing on palm leaves with a stilus, the characters being
subsequently blackened by soot or charcoal being rubbed into
them.139
139 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) A History of Sanskrit Literature, Ch. 1, pp. 18-19.
The Possible Influence of Greek Dramaturgy

Taxila was an ancient learning center. In 1980, it was listed as a
UNESCO World Heritage Site. After Alexander’s invasion, it
became a cultural and commercial hubbub, since it was on the
royal road which connected Greece and Persia in the west to the
kingdom of Magadha and its capital Pāṭaliputra (Patna) in the east:
Taxila is known from references in Indian and Greco-Roman

literary sources and from the accounts of two Chinese Buddhist
pilgrims, Faxian and Xuanzang. Literally meaning “City of
Cut Stone” or “Rock of Taksha,” Takshashila (rendered by
Greek writers as Taxila) was founded, according to the Indian
epic Ramayana, by Bharata, younger brother of Rama, an
incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. The city was named
after Bharata’s son Taksha, its first ruler. The great Indian epic
Mahabharata was, according to tradition, first recited at Taxila
at the great snake sacrifice of King Janamejaya, one of the
heroes of the story. Buddhist literature, especially the Jatakas,
mentions it as the capital of the kingdom of Gandhara and as
a great centre of learning. Gandhara is also mentioned as a
satrapy, or province, in the inscriptions of the Achaemenian
(Persian) king Darius I in the 5th century BCE. Taxila, as the
capital of Gandhara, was evidently under Achaemenian rule
for more than a century. When Alexander the Great invaded
India in 326 BCE, Ambhi (Omphis), the ruler of Taxila,
surrendered the city and placed his resources at Alexander’s
disposal. Greek historians accompanying the Macedonian
conqueror described Taxila as “wealthy, prosperous, and well
governed.”
Within a decade after Alexander’s death, Taxila was absorbed

into the Mauryan empire founded by Chandragupta, under
whom it became a provincial capital. However, this was only
an interlude in the history of Taxila’s subjection to conquerors
from the west. After three generations of Mauryan rule, the
city was annexed by the Indo-Greek kingdom of Bactria. It
remained under the Indo-Greeks until the early 1st century
Preamble 81
BCE. They were followed by the Shakas, or Scythians, from

Central Asia, and by the Parthians, whose rule lasted until the
latter half of the 1st century CE.140
Another important proof of Greek influence in India is found

in Patañjali’s commentary on Pāṇini’s sūtra: anadyatane laṅ.
Patañjali gives the example: aruṇad yavanaḥ sāketam, “The
Greeks pillaged Saket (Mahā-bhāṣya 3.2.111). Saket is another
name of Ayodhya. Those Greeks were from Bactria (present-day
northern Afghanistan):
With the fall of the Mauryas a new dynasty, that of the Sungas,
came to power under Pushyamitra (187-151 B.C.) […].
During his reign, the Greeks of Bactria invaded India and it is
likely the districts also suffered the effects of the invasion of
Menander, who carried his arms as far as Madhyamika, Saketa
and Pataliputra.141
Most likely, Menander was the king of Bactria:
Menander, also spelled Minedra or Menadra, Pali Milinda

(flourished 160 BCE?–135 BCE?), the greatest of the Indo-
Greek kings and the one best known to Western and Indian
classical authors. […] Menander was born in the Caucasus,
but the Greek biographer Plutarch calls him a king of Bactria,
and the Greek geographer and historian Strabo includes him
among the Bactrian Greeks “who conquered more tribes
than Alexander [the Great].” It is possible that he ruled over
Bactria, and it has been suggested that he aided the Seleucid
ruler Demetrius II Nicator against the Parthians.142
In this matter, Dr. Belvalkar talks about the dating of Patañjali:
The main arguments for assigning him to 150 B.C. are these:
140 http://www.britannica.com/place/Taxila
141 http://www.brandbharat.com/english/up/districts/Ballia/history_Ballia.
html
142 http://www.britannica.com/biography/Menander-Indo-Greek-king
i. The instance iha puṣyamitraṁ yājayāmaḥ in such a context

that the event must have occurred within the lifetime of
Patañjali. ii. Similarly the instances aruṇad yavanaḥ sāketaṁ
and aruṇad yavano madhyamikām, which refer to a siege
by Menander. iii. As a collateral evidence, the mention of a
financial expedient of the Mauryas.
Regarding the personal history of Patañjali very little is

known. He was a contemporary of Pushyamitra and probably
much honoured by him for his learning.143
Dr. Kāṇe says Patañjali is greater than Pāṇini:
I may bring to the notice of Dr. Mookerjee that, though

Pāṇini is the author of a perfect sūtra, Patañjali’s authority is
regarded as greater than even that of Pāṇini by later Sanskrit
grammarians. Vide what the Kaumudī says on the sūtra ‘na
bahuvrīhau’.144
Dr. Macdonell remarks:
It is an interesting question whether the Indian drama has any

genetic connection with that of Greece. It must be admitted
that opportunities for such a connection may have existed
during the first three centuries preceding our era. On his
expedition to India, Alexander was accompanied by numerous
artists, among whom there may have been actors. Seleucus
gave his daughter in marriage to Chandragupta, and both that
ruler and Ptolemy II. maintained relations with the court of
Pāṭaliputra by means of ambassadors. Greek dynasties ruled
in Western India for nearly two centuries. Alexandria [on
the Indus; modern name: Uch, Pakistan] was connected by a
lively commerce with the town called by the Greeks Barygaza
(now Broach), at the mouth of the Narmadā (Nerbudda) in
Gujarat; with the latter town was united by a trade route the
city of Ujjayinī (Greek Ozene), which in consequence reached
143 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 27.

Preamble 83
a high pitch of prosperity. […] Indian inscriptions mention

Yavana or Greek girls sent to India as tribute, and Sanskrit
authors, especially Kālidāsa, describe Indian princes as waited
on by them. Professor Weber has even conjectured that the
Indian god of love, Kāma, bears a dolphin (makara) in his
banner, like the Greek Eros, through the influence of Greek
courtesans. […]
It is doubtful whether Greek plays were ever actually performed

in India; at any rate, no references to such performances
have been preserved. The earliest Sanskrit plays extant are,
moreover, separated from the Greek period by at least four
hundred years. The Indian drama has had a thoroughly
national development, and even its origin, though obscure,
easily admits of an indigenous explanation. The name of the
curtain, yavanikā, may, indeed, be a reminiscence of Greek
plays actually seen in India; but it is uncertain whether the
Greek theatre had a curtain at all; in any case, it did not form
the background of the stage.145
According to Dr. Macdonell, various Greeks sojourned in India:
The earliest date of this kind is that of the invasion of India

by Alexander in 326 B.C. This was followed by the sojourn
in India of various Greeks, of whom the most notable was
Megasthenes. He resided for some years about 300 B.C. at the
court of Pāṭaliputra (the modern Patna),146
Dr. Manomohan Ghosh writes:
The word “Nāṭya” has often been translated as ‘drama’ and the
plays of ancient India have indeed some points of similarity
with those of the Greeks. But on a closer examination of the
technique of their production as described in the Nāṭya-śāstra,
the Hindu dramas represented by the available specimens will
145 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) A History of Sanskrit Literature, Ch. 16, pp. 414-
416.
146 Macdonell, A.A. (1900) Ch. 1, p. 13.
appear to be considerably different. Unless this important

fact is borne in mind any discussion on the subject is liable to
create a wrong impression.147
Monier-Williams’ Dictionary states that perhaps the Sanskrit

word javanikā (curtain) originates from the word yavana. The
term javanikā is seen in Bhāgavatam verses 1.8.19, 10.13.57, and
10.84.23. The word yavana is a distortion of Ionia. Many soldiers
in Alexander’s army were from Ionia, a province in Ancient Greece.
Most likely, the letter “v” in yavana was pronounced as a “w”. Dr.
Belvalkar observes:
The fact that Pāṇini in iv. I.49 (indra-varuṇa-bhava-śarva-

rudra-mṛḍa-himāraṇya-yava-yavana-mātulācāryāṇām ānuk)
mentions Yavanas (and the female formation Yavanānī from
the stem) has led most western scholars to put down Pāṇini to
a date not earlier than B.C. 350. The underlying assumptions
are: i. that ‘Yavanas’ can designate none but the Ionian Greeks,
and ii, that India did not have her knowledge of ‘Yavanas’
prior to Alexander’s invasion, B.C. 327. Now regarding
point i. the late Rājendralāl Mitra in his ‘Indo-Aryans’ gave
ample evidence to prove that for no period of Indian history
could we be quite certain that the word Yavana necessarily
designated the Ionian Greeks. But even if we agree to wave
this consideration for the present, point ii. is by no means a
settled fact. The ‘v’ sound in the word ‘Yavana’ represents an
original digamma (I) in greek; and as the digamma was lost as
early as B.C. 800, the Sanskrit word ‘Yavana’ must be at least
as old as the ninth century before Christ. The Ionians appear in
history long before B.C. 1000 and it is not at all improbable that
the Indians knew them, as well as their neighbouring races,—
such as Assyrians (asura-asūra-asūrya) Skythians (śaka-
śakha-sthānīya), Medes (mada-meda-madaga), Persians
(pārasīka), Parthians (pahlava), etc.—perhaps centuries
before Alexander’s invasion. At any rate if Indian troops are
known to have formed part of the army of Darius in the battle
147 Ghosh, Manomohan (1951), The Nāṭya-śāstra, Vol. I, Introduction, p. 42.

Preamble 85
of Platacae (B.C. 479), India’s knowledge of the Greeks can

go back to the middle of the fifth century before Christ. The
fact is—and scholars are just beginning to recognise it—that
we have been too hasty in condemning the Pauranic accounts
of the frontier tribes and races (e.g. those in Vishnu Purāṇa
or in the Mahābhārata, Bhīshma-parva, Chap. vi) as purely
imaginative fabrications. We have so far altogether ignored
the extensive commerce and interchange of ideas that went
on between the Indian Aryans and their brethren beyond the
frontiers as far as the Mediterranean—and this long before
B.C. 400.148
However, Dr. Sushil Kumar De comments: “It is now generally

admitted that the word Yavanikā cannot be taken as an argument
for proving Greek influence on the Indian stage or drama.”149
Dr. De says this is because the word javanikā can be derived by
Sanskrit grammar. He points out that the word yavanikām occurs
in Nāṭya-śāstra 5.12, and a variant reading is javanikām. He says
the latter is listed in classical dictionaries, such as Amara-koṣa
(2.6.120), where the commentators give these derivations: (1)
Kṣīrasvāmin: javante ’syāṁ javanikā, (2) Sarvānanda: javanaṁ
vego ’syā astīti javanikā, “It has speed, thus it is a curtain,” and
(3) Bhānuji Dīkṣita: javaty asyām, juḥ sautro dhātuḥ gatau vege
ca, lyuṭ, svārthe kan. Here Bhānuji Dīkṣita says the verbal root ju
has the sense of either motion or speed and was invented to explain
the synonymous words javanī and javanikā. Dr. De remarks that
in Abhidhāna-cintāmaṇi, Hemacandra derives the word javanī as:
javante ’syāṁ javanī. Dr. De continues:
Although the form Javanikā is thus authenticated, the

etymology of the commentators is considered too fanciful,
and is brushed aside by modern scholars, who assume that
the word Javanikā is nothing but a Prakritic form of the word
Yavanikā. But it is clear that this assumption proceeds with the
acceptance of the Yavanikā-Ionian equation and thereby really
begs the question.
148 Belvalkar, S.K. (1997) p. 13.

149 De, S.K. (1981) Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 148.
There is yet a third form Yamanikā which does not appear

to have received any serious consideration. […] The form
Yamanikā, on the other hand, perhaps makes a better and more
natural sense. It is obviously derived from the root yam ‘to
stop or restrain’, signifying a covering or curtain; and it would
not be unjustifiable to suggest that it was perhaps the original
form, which is almost lost or replaced by the other two forms,
Yavanikā and Javanikā. That it is not a fictitious derivative of
lexicographers is clear from the fact that the word yamanī,
from which it is directly derived, appears to be old, being
traceable as far back as the Vājasaneyī-Saṁhitā (14.22).150
The text reads: yantrī rāḍ yantry asi yamanī dhruvāsi dharitrī
(Vājasaneyī-Saṁhitā 14.22).
In South India, the presence of the Romans dates from at least 200
BCE, at Arikamedu (Tamil Nadu). Greek artifacts were also found
there.
Another important proof of Greek presence in India is the

Heliodorus Pillar, a stone column erected in Madhya Pradesh in
the second century BCE by Heliodorus, a Greek ambassador. The
Archeological Survey of India posted this sign on the site:
HISTORY OF THE PILLAR
This column is locally called Khamb Bābā and is worshipped

especially by fishermen. It bears two inscriptions in Brāhmī
characters and Prākrit language. One of these inscriptions
records that the column was set up as a Garuḍa pillar in honor
of God Vāsudeva (Vishnu) by Heliodorus a Greek inhabitant
of Taxila who had come to the court of Bhāgabhadra king of
Central India as an ambassador from Antialcidas an Indo-
Bactrian king of the Punjab. Heliodorus had evidently adopted
Hinduism as he has styled himself a Bhāgavata i.e. a follower
of the Vaishnava sect. The approximate date of the column is
150 before Christ.
150 De, S.K. (1981) Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 150-152.
Preamble 87
Many other types of correlations between the two cultures can be

established:
In its grammatical structure, Sanskrit is similar to other

early Indo-European languages such as Greek and Latin. It
is an inflected language. For instance, the Sanskrit nominal
system—including nouns, pronouns, and adjectives—has
three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), three
numbers (singular, dual, and plural), and seven syntactic
cases (nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative,
genitive, and locative), in addition to a vocative.151
Further in that regard, the Greek Pythagoras lived between 582 and
500 BCE. Dr. Macdonell states:
[T]he dependence of Pythagoras on Indian philosophy and

science certainly seems to have a high degree of probability.
Almost all the doctrines ascribed to him, religious,
philosophical, mathematical, were known in India in the sixth
century B.C. The coincidences are so numerous that their
cumulative force becomes considerable. The transmigration
theory, the assumption of five elements, the Pythagorean
theorem in geometry, the prohibition as to eating beans, the
religio-philosophical character of the Pythagorean fraternity,
and the mystical speculations of the Pythagorean school, all
have their close parallels in ancient India. The doctrine of
metempsychosis in the case of Pythagoras appears without
any connection or explanatory background, and was regarded
by the Greeks as of foreign origin. He could not have derived
it from Egypt, as it was not known to the ancient Egyptians.
In spite, however, of the later tradition, it seems impossible
that Pythagoras should have made his way to India at so early
a date, but he could quite well have met Indians in Persia.152
151 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Sanskrit-language
The Sanskrit Language

The word saṁskṛta is formed by inserting the affix s[uṭ] between
the prefix sam and kṛta, a past passive participle of the root
[ḍu]kṛ[ñ] karaṇe (to do, make). Still, Jīva Gosvāmī states: śāstrīya-
bhāṣārthaḥ saṁskṛta-śabdaḥ, kārya-paryāyas tac-chabdaḥ,
saṁskāra-śabdaś cāvyutpannaḥ, “The word saṁskṛta which means
the language of the scriptures, the word saṁskṛta (“prepared” with
regard to food) which is a synonym of the word kārya (made),
and the word saṁskāra cannot be grammatically explained” (Hari-
nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa 559). Pāṇini, and later Jīva Gosvāmī, said
that the affix s[uṭ] is applied between sam and kṛ in the sense of
either bhūṣaṇa (ornament) or samavāya (assembling) (Aṣṭādhyāyī
6.1.137-138) (HNV 559). In that sense, the word saṁskṛta
literally means “embellished”. For instance: vācaṁ codāhariṣyāmi
mānuṣīm iha saṁskṛtām, yadi vācaṁ pradāsyāmi dvijātir iva
saṁskṛtām, rāvaṇaṁ manyamānā māṁ sītā bhītā bhaviṣyati,
“I will speak the Sanskrit language (saṁskṛtā vāk, “embellished
speech”) as spoken by humans here. If I utter the Sanskrit language
like a Brāhmaṇa does, Sītā will be afraid and think I am Rāvaṇa”
(Rāmāyaṇa 5.30.17-18). In Rāmāyaṇa, the word saṁskṛta was also
used as a noun: dhārayan brāhmaṇaṁ rūpam ilvalaḥ saṁskṛtaṁ
vadan, “assuming the form of a Brāhmaṇa and speaking Sanskrit”
(3.11.56).
Yāska and Pāṇini used the term bhāṣā (spoken language; classical
Sanskrit) instead of saṁskṛta.153 In Manu-smṛti, the word saṁskṛta
is an adjective used in the sense of “someone who received a
saṁskāra.” For instance: saṁskṛtātmā dvijaḥ (2.164). Daṇḍin said
Sanskrit is a divine language spoken by Maharishis: saṁskṛtaṁ
nāma daivī vāg anvākhyātā maharṣibhiḥ (Kāvyādarśa 1.33).
According to tradition, the Vedas were cognized by Ṛṣis in
their trance. Sanskrit is eternal: anādi-nidhanā nityā vāg utsṛṣṭā
svayambhuvā, “The eternal words have no beginning nor end and
were evolved by Brahmā” (Mahābhārata, 12.225.55).154 However,
153 iveti bhāṣāyāṁ ca. anvadhyāyaṁ ca (Nirukta 1.4); athāpi bhāṣikebhyo

dhātubhyo naigamāḥ kṛto bhāṣyante—damūnāḥ, kṣetra-sādhā iti. athāpi
naigamebhyo bhāṣikāḥ—uṣṇam, ghṛtam iti (Nirukta 2.2); bhāṣāyāṁ sada-vasa-
śruvaḥ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 3.2.108); prathamāyāś ca dvi-vacane bhāṣāyām (ibid. 7.2.88).
154 Cited by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in Govinda-bhāṣya 2.1.4.
Preamble 89
Western scholars say: Sanskrit is derived from Vedic Sanskrit, which

dates back to 1500 BCE; Vedic Sanskrit is a kind of Indo-Iranian
language and originates from Proto-Indo-European language,
which existed in Anatolia (modern Turkey) around 6500 BCE; this
Proto-Indo-European language is the mother of the languages of
Europe, the Middle East, and the northwest Indian subcontinent.155
Furthermore, Śrī Krishna was on Earth around 3100 BCE:
Astrophysicist Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from the

University of Memphis, clearly showed with astronomical
analysis that the Mahabharata war took place in 3067 BCE.
Examining the Mahabharata, books 3, 5, and 18, his sky
map software showed that all these descriptions converge in
the year 3067. Achar also acknowledged that some 30 years
earlier, in 1969, S. Raghavan had arrived at the same date.156
Moreover, in Sanskrit, words acquired new meanings because of

the usage. How did the word rasa, which literally means juice, turn
out as a loose synonym of ānanda (bliss, pleasure)? In literature,
the word rasa is first seen in that sense in Nāṭya-śāstra, but in
the scriptures the usage dates farther back: raso vai saḥ, rasaṁ hy
evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati, “God is Rasa. By achieving Rasa,
one becomes blissful” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7) (c. 550 BCE).
Perhaps over time the word rasa acquired this new meaning because
of the term soma-rasa (Soma juice). For example: somo devo na
sūryo ’dribhiḥ pavate sutaḥ, dadhānaḥ kalaśe rasam, “The Moon
god, not the sun, blows with the mountains and is pressed, pouring
the juice into the jar” (Ṛg-Veda 9.63.13). The juice extracted from
the Soma plant was figuratively said to confer immortality: apāma
somam amṛtā abhūma, “We drank soma and became immortal”
(Ṛg-Veda 8.48.3). The Soma plant was used in fire sacrifices and is
now extinct. Its juice is said to have been a mild intoxicant. But in
the Bṛhad-āṛaṇyaka Upaniṣad, estimated to have been composed
earlier, around 700 BCE, God, figuratively said to abide in the
right eye, is described as the essence (rasa) of the subtle body:
etasya tyasyaiṣa raso yo ’yaṁ dakṣiṇe ’kṣan puruṣas tyasya hy eṣa
rasaḥ... prāṇā vai satyam. teṣām eṣa satyam (2.3.5-6).
155 For more details, consult: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Proto-Indo-European.

156 http://stephenknapp.info/advancements_of_ancient_indias_vedic_culture
(For more information, consult: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War).
The Best Theories and Examples
of the Poetical Theorists
Now let us pay tribute to the grandmasters and masters of Sanskrit
poetic rhetoric.
1. Bharata Muni
he Nāṭya-śāstra is the oldest extant work on the theory of
T Sanskrit poetics. It treats of dramaturgy, but the main concepts

of modern poetics are sourced in it. Encyclopedia Britannica
says Bharata Muni wrote Nāṭya-śāstra sometime between the first
century BCE and the third century CE.157 Dr. Sushil Kumar De
states: “He has been variously assigned to periods ranging from the
2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D.”158
Dr. Manomohan Ghosh, a translator of Nāṭya-śāstra, writes: “After

making a closer study of the concluding chapters, the translator is
inclined to support the view of the late Haraprasada Sastri who
concluded that the work belonged to 200 B.C.”159
However, Dr. Kāṇe supports Dr. Ghosh’s original opinion: “the

date of the Nāṭya-śāstra must be placed between 100 B.C. and 200
A.D. Although I do not agree with several things that he says, the
date he arrives at cannot, in my opinion, be far from the truth.”160
157 http://www.britannica.com/topic/Natyashastra#ref1038329
159 Ghosh, Manomohan (1951) The Nāṭya-śāstra, Vol. II, Introduction, p, 28.
160 Kane (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 41-42. For the details, consult
Ghosh (1951), Vol. 1, Introduction p. 84.
91
Like most ancient Indian texts, the Nāṭya-śāstra was preserved

and transmitted orally until it was put in writing. Each part of
the country where the text became popular used its own script.
Regional variations of the text occurred.
There are scores of commentaries on Nāṭya-śāstra, but the most

authoritative is Abhinavagupta’s Nāṭya-veda-vivṛti, commonly
known as Abhinava-bhāratī.
Further, the authorship of Nāṭya-śāstra by one person, Bharata

Muni, is in question. Dr. Kāṇe elucidates:
If a conjecture is to be hazarded it would be more plausible

to say that after Pāṇini and some centuries before Kālidāsa
a person called Bharata composed a work on the dramatic
art (not necessarily the present Nāṭya-śāstra) which was
improved into the present work. Gradually, orthodox opinion
stiffened against actors, dancers and singers in the times of
the Dharmasūtras and early Smṛtis. Āp. Dh. Ś. (I.1.3.11-12)
prescribes that a student was not to see dancing and not to
frequent sabhās and samājas. Manu II.178 provides that a
student was to avoid dancing, singing and instrumental music.
[…] Naṭa was a low caste and was included among the seven
antyajas (vide History of Dharma-śāstra vol. II. pp. 70, 84).
The Nāṭyaśāstra makes a valiant attempt to raise the status of
the dramatic art, places it on a very high pedestal and infuses
a spiritual and religious element in it. It is with this view that
probably the first five chapters were added.161
Taking into consideration all that has been stated above one
may say that at least sometime before the 3rd or 4th century
A.D. there was a recast made by one man in which were
included prose passages in sūtra-bhāṣya style, ancient āryā
161 Kane (1998) p. 22. In that regard, it is unlikely that Brahmacārīs learned
the sixty-four arts, to say nothing of learning them from a spiritual master. The
sixty-four arts are detailed in Kāma-sūtra: “In the Kāma-sūtra I.3.16 sixty-four
kalās are enumerated which maidens had to learn secretly (abhyāsa-prayojyāṁś
ca cātuḥṣaṣṭikān yogān kanyā rahasy ekākiny abhyaset | Kāma-sūtra I.3.14) and
which were to be learnt by veśyās also (Kāma-sūtra I.3.20).” (Kane (1998) p. 343)
Bharata Muni 93
verses and ślokas together with kārikās composed by the

recaster. Then in different places and at different times some
verses came to be added here and there by people learned in
the śāstra.
The problems of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra, its authorship and

its date will remain puzzles and matters of conjecture till the
earlier works such as those of Kohala, Nandikeśvara and the
commentaries of Udbhaṭa and others are discovered.
Turning to the question of the authorship of the Nāṭya-śāstra,

many difficulties arise. Long before Abhinava’s day there
were people who held that the first six verses of chap. one
were composed by a pupil of Bharata and that the questions
and answers in the body of the work also were composed by
a pupil and the text by Bharata. Abhinavagupta emphatically
discards this idea and holds that the whole work is Bharata’s
as there is no evidence for holding that it is the outcome of
composite authorship and as authors very often employ the
third person for themselves. […] As stated above, the K.M.
edition has at the end the words that the work is that of
Nandi and Bharata and is concerned with saṅgīta. It appears
that Nandi (Nandikeśvara?) had, according to some mss.,
something to do with the Nāṭya-śāstra. Then there is Kohala
whose relation with the Nāṭya-śāstra is not quite clear. […]
It appears that Kohala’s work influenced the redactors of the
Nāṭyaśāstra.162
In the Nāṭyaśāstra itself the word bharata is used in the sense

of actor: pṛṣṭhe kutapaṁ nāṭye yuṅkte yato mukhaṁ bharataḥ |
sā pūrvā mantavyā prayoga-kāle tu nāṭya-jñaiḥ || 14.65 (K.M.
13.61, G.O.S. 13.66). From the above discussion it would be
clear that it is very difficult to say who the author of the original
kernel of the Nāṭyaśāstra was. Holding as I do that the first five
chapters were later additions, it is not possible for me to say
who the author of the prose passages and the versified chapters
162 Kane (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 23-24.

about abhinaya, daśa-rūpaka, and other closely allied subjects

was.163
It is quite possible that someone who had mastered the

traditional lore of the histrionic art and was well-disposed to
bharatas (actors) put together most of the present Nāṭyaśāstra
and in order to glorify the tribe of bharatas passed it on as the
work of a mythical hero. Such things are common in Sanskrit
Literature. The whole of the vast Purāṇa literature is foisted
on Vyāsa, but hardly anyone can believe that the 18 Purāṇas
and 18 Upapurāṇas are the work of one man called Vyāsa.
The word ānuvaṁśya used with regard to certain āryās and
ślokas points in the direction of a mass of verses being already
available for inclusion in a formal treatise on nāṭya. The extant
Nāṭyaśāstra mentions that it summarizes the views of ancient
ācāryas on śabda-lakṣaṇa ‘pūrvācāryair uktaṁ śabdānāṁ
lakṣaṇaṁ tu vistaraśaḥ | punar eva saṁhṛtārthaṁ lakṣaṇataḥ
sampravakṣyāmi ||’ (Ch. ed. 15.22, K.M. 14.22; but G.O.S.
14.24 omits reference to pūrvācārya). The Bhāva-prakāśana
(10th adhikāra pp. 285-287) narrates a legend about the origin
of the Nāṭya-veda. It states that Śiva ordered Nandikeśvara to
teach Nāṭya-veda to Brahmā before whom appeared Bharata
with five pupils, to whom Brahmā said ‘bear this Nāṭyaveda’
[…]. This legendary account probably shows that the author
of Bhāva-prakāśana was not prepared to accept the extant
Nāṭyaśāstra as the work of a mythical Bharata but that he
ascribed its composition to bharatas who had studied Nāṭya.
This gives support to my hypothesis stated above.164
Dr. Sushil Kumar De specifies: “On the Āryā verses Abhinava

remarks (on vi.85): tā etā hy āryā eka-praghaṭṭakatayā purvācārya-
lakṣaṇatvena paṭhitāḥ, muninā tu sukha-saṁgrahāya yathā-
sthānaṁ viniveśitāḥ. In his opinion former teachers composed
these Āryās and Bharata inserted them in proper places.”165
163 Kane (1998) p. 27.

164 Kane (1998) p. 28.
Bharata Muni 95
Eight Rasas
In modern poetics,Bharata Muni is especially famous for this dictum:
na hi rasād ṛte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate. tatra vibhāvānubhāva-
vyabhicāri-saṁyogād rasa-niṣpattiḥ, “No meaning takes place
without a rasa. In that regard, the effectuation of rasa occurs from
the blend of vibhāvas, anubhāva, and vyabhicāri bhāva” (Nāṭya-
śāstra 6.32). The last sentence is called the rasa-sūtra (the definition
of aesthetic delight). This means a sthāyi-bhāva (foundational
mood) enhanced by appropriate vibhāvas (esp. uddīpana, stimuli),
by an anubhāva (bodily reaction, including the sāttvika-bhāvas),
and by a vyabhicārī (transient emotion) is called rasa in the sense
that it has become relishable. Then this rasa can turn into the real
rasa (rapture, Rasa). That dynamic is the essence of poetics. Dr.
Kāṇe expounds upon Bharata’s theory:
The business of the drama was to evolve rasa in the spectator

by means of the four kinds of abhinaya.166 The Nāṭya-śāstra
says that without rasa nothing can be done in drama (nahi
rasād ṛte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate | Nāṭya-śāstra G.O.S. vol.
I. p. 274) and the Abhinava-bhāratī remarks that one rasa
runs like a thread in a dramatic representation (eka eva tāvat
paramārthato rasaḥ sūtra-sthānīyatvena rūpake pratibhāti |
a. bhā. vol. I. p. 273) [Abhinava-b. 6.32]. In the Nāṭya-śāstra
the largest portion is devoted to matters specially concerning
the dramatist and the actor, while the analysis of the emotional
effect desired to be produced and actually produced on the
audience is dealt with mainly in chapters 6 and 7. It may be
noted here that according to the Kāvya-mīmāṁsā p. 1 (quoted
on p. 1 above) Bharata dealt with rūpakas and Nandīkeśvara
with rasas. But the present Nāṭya-śāstra deals with both these
subjects and no ancient work of Nandikeśvara on rasas has
come down to us.167
166 The four kinds of abhinaya are āṅgika (concerning the movements of the
head, face, the hands and other limbs of the body, described in chap. 8-13 of the
Nāṭyaśāstra), vācika (in chapters 15-22, dealing with metres, lakṣaṇas, figures
of speech, plot, the vṛttis), āhārya (dress, ornaments, etc. in chap. 23), sāttvika
(horripilation, tears, bhāva, hāva, etc. in chap. 24).
167 Kane, P.V. (1998) p. 357. Here the word rūpaka means dramaturgy.
Bharata Muni’s grouping of rasas is accepted by all poetical

rhetoricians except Rūpa Gosvāmī. Bharata Muni did not invent
the rasas:
śṛṅgāra-hāsya-karuṇā raudra-vīra-bhayānakāḥ |
bībhatsādbhuta-saṁjñau cety aṣṭau nāṭye rasāḥ smṛtāḥ ||
ete hy aṣṭau168 rasāḥ proktā druhiṇena mahātmanā |
“In dramaturgy, there are eight rasas: śṛṅgāra (love), hāsya

(humor), karuṇa (lamentation), raudra (anger), vīra (heroism),
bhayānaka (fear), and the two called bībhatsa (disgust) and
adbhuta (astonishment). These eight rasas were stated by Druhiṇa
(Brahmā), the great soul.” (Nāṭya-śāstra 6.15-16)
In some editions, Bharata Muni mentions śānta-rasa later on

(śānta-raso nāma vijñeyaḥ, Nāṭya-śāstra 6.82): But some say the
entire topic of śānta-rasa (the mindset of liberation) in the sixth
chapter is an interpolation. There are two recensions of Nāṭya-
śāstra. One version has thirty-six chapters, the other thirty-seven.
The section on śānta-rasa, at the end of the sixth chapter of the
latter, is not in the former. Dr. Kāṇe remarks:
[T]he Nāṭyaśāstra is unsatisfactory and has been tampered

with in almost every chapter. […] The Kāvyādarśa (II.292
iha tva aṣṭa-rasāyattā rasavattā smṛtā girām) shows that
even in the 7th century the recognized rasas were only eight.
Abhinavagupta notes that some people did not recognize nine
rasas but only eight and that in old mss. he found a disquisition
on śānta rasa and its sthāyi-bhāva śama. […] Regnaud’s
edition of chap. 6 reads tv aṣṭau nāṭya-rasāḥ smṛtāḥ. This
establishes that Śānta had not been recognised as a rasa at
the time of Kālidāsa (between 350–450 A.D. at the latest) but
had been recognized long before Abhinavagupta (i.e. centuries
before 1000 A.D.) and that Abhinavagupta knew that there
168 Abhinavagupta’s reading is: bībhatsādbhuta-śāntāś ca nava nāṭya-rasāḥ

smṛtāḥ || ete nava (https://www.scribd.com/doc/233612081/Natya-Shastra-of-
Bharata-Muni-With-Abhinava-Bharati-I-Madhsusudan-Shastri). However, in
Locana 1.4 Abhinavagupta cites the above verse (ete hy aṣṭau etc.).
Bharata Muni 97
were two recensions of N.S. Udbhaṭa in his Kāvyālaṅkāra-

sāra-saṅgraha (IV.5) mentions nine rasas […]. Śāntarasa was
recognized in the mss. of the Nāṭyaśāstra at some time after
400 A.D. and before 750 A.D.169
Not counting the sthāyi-bhāva of śānta, there are forty-nine bhāvas:

eight sthāyīs—rati, hāsa, śoka, krodha, utsāha, bhaya, jugupsā,
and vismaya (Nāṭya-śāstra 6.17)—eight sāttvika-bhāvas and
thirty-three vyabhicāri-bhāvas.170 In Bharata Muni’s methodology,
rati is only one type of sthāyi-bhāva—the sthāyī either of śṛṅgāra
or of affection for a god, a king, etc.—whereas in Rūpa Gosvāmī’s
system of bhakti, rati is a synonym of sthāyi-bhāva.
Four Literary Ornaments

Bharata Muni says there are only four ornaments: dīpaka (one verb
for many subjects, or one noun for many verbs) (syllepsis), rūpaka
(metaphor), yamaka (word rhyme), and upamā (simile).171 His
example of dīpaka consists of one verb for many subjects:
sarāṁsi haṁsaiḥ kusumaiś ca vṛkṣā

mattair dvirephaiś ca saroruhāṇi |
goṣṭhībhir udyāna-vanāni caiva
tasmin na śūnyāni sadā kriyante ||
The lakes, by swans, the trees, by flowers, the lotuses, by

maddened bees, and the gardens and parks, by various groups,
are made splendorous. (16.56)
Bharata Muni illustrates rūpaka (metaphor):
padmānanās tāḥ kumuda-prahāsā

vikāsi-nīlotpala-cāru-netrāḥ |
169 Kane (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 12-13.

170 evam ete kāvya-rasābhivyakti-hetava ekonapañcāśad-bhāvāḥ
pratyavagantavyāḥ | ebhyaś ca sāmānya-guṇa-yogena rasā niṣpadyante |
(Nāṭya-śāstra 7.7)
171 upamā rūpakaṁ caiva dīpakaṁ yamakaṁ tathā | alaṅkārās tu vijñeyā
catvāro nāṭakāśrayāḥ || (16.41)
vāpī-striyo haṁsa-kulair naḥ svanadbhir

virejur anyonyam ivāhvayantyaḥ ||
Women are our ponds: Their faces are lotuses, their laughter is
a lily, and their beautiful eyes are open lotuses. The women had
fun while as if calling one another by means of crying swans.
(16.59)
Bharata Muni defines yamaka as śabdābhyāsa, “a repetition of

sound” (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.60). This verse exemplifies pādānta
yamaka (rhyme):
lokānāṁ prabhaviṣṇur
daityendra-gadā-nipātana-sahiṣṇuḥ |
jayati sura-daitya-jiṣṇur
bhagavān asura-vara-mathana-kārī viṣṇuḥ ||
He is the creator of the worlds. He can rush with a mace upon

the master of devils. He nicely defeats gods and demons. Lord
Vishnu, the crusher of the best of asuras, is glorious. (16.66)
Bharata Muni’s yamaka encompasses all the modern subcategories

of ornaments of sound. He states ten varieties of yamaka, but
most of his examples of yamaka are simply types of anuprāsa
(alliteration).172 In Viśvanātha Kavirāja’s methodology, the above
rhyme is classed as antya anuprāsa (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.6).
Moreover, Bharata Muni writes: nānā-rūpaiḥ svarair yuktaṁ
yatraikaṁ vyañjanaṁ bhavet, tan mālā-yamakaṁ nāma vijñeyaṁ
172 For example: (1) ardhenaikena yad vṛttaṁ sarvam eva samāpyate,
samudga-yamakaṁ nāma taj-jñeyaṁ paṇḍitair yathā—“ketakī-
kusuma-pāṇḍuradantaḥ śobhate pravarakānanahastī | ketakī-kusuma-
pāṇḍuradantaḥ śobhate pravarakānanahastī ||” (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.69-70):
Here ketakī and śobhate have the same respective meaning in each half
verse, thus the repetition is a lāṭa anuprāsa (the same word is used in
another clause without a difference in meaning), and (2) ādau pādasya tu
yatra syāt samāveśaḥ samākṣaraḥ, pādādi-yamakaṁ nāma tad vijñeyaṁ
budhair yathā—“viṣṇuḥ sṛjati bhūtāni viṣṇuḥ saṁharate prajāḥ | viṣṇuḥ
prasūte trailokyaṁ viṣṇur lokādhidaivatam ||” (16.78-79): This is a lāṭa
anuprāsa of viṣṇu.
Bharata Muni 99
paṇḍitair yathā, “When the same consonant is used with various

vowels, that is called mālā-yamaka. For instance:
lalī balī halī mālī khelī mālī salī jalī |

khalo balo ’balo mālī musalī tvābhirakṣatu || 173
May Bala protect you. He has shoots, strength, the plough

weapon and a garland. He plays, is an owner, has water and
a liquid, is mischievous, is an army, has no woman, has a field
and has the cudgel weapon. (16.84-85)
The verse is insipid, but is a perfect example of poetry in the eyes

of those who adhered to the Sauśabdya theory (sound is more
important than meaning), prevalent until circa 900 CE. Bharata
Muni even counts vīpsā (distributive sense) as a yamaka: ādau
dvau yatra pādau tu bhavetām akṣare samau, sandaṣṭa-yamakaṁ
nāma vijñeyaṁ tad budhair yathā—paśya paśya ramaṇasya me
guṇān yena yena vaśa-gāṁ karoti mām, yena yena hi sameti
darśanaṁ tena tena vaśa-gāṁ karoti mām, “Just see, see my
lover’s qualities, by any one of which he makes me submissive. He
makes me submissive by means of whichever quality with which
he gets to look at me” (16.76-77).
Nowadays, yamaka (word rhyme) is defined as a repetition of

sound with a difference in meaning: This interpretation is seen in
Daṇḍin’s and Bhāmaha’s examples.
Bharata Muni lists five kinds of similes: praśaṁsā (based on a

praise), nindā (based on a rebuke), kalpitā (based on imagination),
sadṛśī (founded on uniqueness, lit. similarity), and kiñcit-sadṛśī
(founded on some similarity). This is the example of praśaṁsā
upamā:
dṛṣṭvā tu tāṁ viśālākṣīṁ tutoṣa manujādhipaḥ |

munibhiḥ sādhitāṁ kṛcchrāt siddhiṁ mūrtimatīm iva ||
173 balo balocca-lolākṣo muṣalī tvābhirakṣatu (17.84 in the thirty-six chapter-

recension)
The king became content by looking at the wide-eyed woman

who was like a personified mystical perfection accomplished by
sages with hardhip. (16.48)
This verse illustrates nindā upamā:
sā taṁ sarva-guṇair hīnaṁ sasvaje karkaśa-cchavim |

vane kaṇṭakinaṁ vallī dāva-dagdham iva drumam ||
She kept embracing that rough-looking man who had no qual-

ity like a creeper clings to a thorny tree scorched by fire. (16.49)
Bharata Muni exemplifies kalpitā upamā, the prototype of the

utprekṣā ornament (fanciful assumption):
kṣaranto dāna-salilaṁ lālā-manthara-gāminaḥ |

mataṅgajā virājante jaṅgamā iva parvatāḥ ||
Elephants exuding rut fluid, slowly wandering with drool, and

taking pleasure look like mountains on the move. (16.50)
This illustrates sadṛśī upamā, the prototype of the ananvaya orna-

ment (self-comparison):
yat tvayādya kṛtaṁ karma para-cittānurodhinā |

sadṛśaṁ tat tavaiva syād atimānuṣa-karmaṇaḥ ||
What you did today in conformity with other people’s hearts is

only comparable to your superhuman deeds. (16.51)
This verse exemplifies kiñcit-sadṛśī upamā:
sampūrṇa-candra-vadanā nīlotpala-dalekṣaṇā |
matta-mātaṅga-gamanā samprāpteyaṁ sakhī mama ||
My confidante has a face like a full moon, eyes like blue lotus
petals, and a gait like that of a mad elephant. Here she comes.
(16.52)
Bharata Muni 101
Ten Guṇas
Bharata Muni propounded ten literary qualities (Nāṭya-śāstra
16.96-114) (17.96-106 in the thirty-six-chapter recension).Daṇḍin,
Vāmana, Bhoja, and Vidyānātha followed that methodology in
principle. The later concepts of figurative usage and of implied
sense were included in specific guṇas.
The Ten Guṇas in Nāṭya-śāstra
Guṇa Meaning
śleṣa union: coalescence of words (the phonetic
combinations are not harsh, and the words
form one block in Devanagari script) i
prasāda clarity: the unexpressed sense appears from
the words used, owing to an easy connection
between the words and their sense ii
samatā evenness: the words are not difficult to
understand, there is no useless meaning, and
there are not too many uncompounded words
i Bharata Muni’s definition of śleṣa is: īpsitenārtha-jātena sambaddhānāṁ

parasparam, śliṣṭatā yā padānāṁ hi śleṣa ity abhidhīyate, “Mutually connect-
ed words that coalesce with a desire generated from a purpose is called śleṣa”
(Nāṭya-śāstra 16.98). According to Vāmana, the purpose is only smoothness of
sound: masṛṇatvaṁ śleṣaḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 3.1.11).
ii Bharata’s prasāda includes figurative usage. His definition is: apy anukto
budhair yatra śabdo ’rtho vā pratīyate, sukha-śabdārtha-saṁyogāt prasādaḥ
parikīrtyate, “When a sound, or a meaning, though not literally expressed, is per-
ceived, owing to an easy connection between the words and their sense, by intel-
ligent persons, that is prasāda” (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.100). “Perhaps by this Guṇa,
Bharata means to imply some kind of hint (anukta artha), transparent from the
words used (such as we find, e.g., in the figure mudrā in Candrāloka, and Kuva-
layānanda), which may correspond partly to the metaphorical mode of expression
included by Vāmana in his peculiar definition of vakrokti (iv.3.8), or comprised
by later writers under lakṣaṇā or upacāra.” (De, S.K. (1988) History of Sanskrit
Poetics, Vol. II, p. 13)
samādhi contemplation on another quality of the

meaning iii
mādhurya sweetness: even if a sentence is repeatedly
heard it is not annoying iv
ojas grandeur: force which consists in the use of
varied and exalted compounded words along
with anusvāras (ṁ) v
saukumārya smoothness: a smooth meaning is realised
by means of agreeably employed words and
nice phonetic combinations
artha-vyakti explicitness, which describes the nature of
things as they appear in the world, by means
of well-known adjectives (the prototype of
the modern svabhāvokti ornament) vi
iii Daṇḍin equates Bharata Muni’s samādhi-guṇa with figurative usage, which
in his mind includes an implied sense. Contrasted with prasāda, samādhi refers
to a deeper implied meaning. The first definition of samādhi-guṇa is: abhiyuk-
tair viśeṣas tu yo ’rthasyehopalakṣyate, tena cārthena sampannaḥ samādhiḥ
parikīrtyate, “When the composition is endowed with a meaning which is a dis-
tinct particularity of a meaning and when that particularity is perceived by those
well-versed in the art, that is samādhi” (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.103). The second defi-
nition is similar: upamāsv iha dṛṣṭānām arthānāṁ yatnatas tathā | prāptānāṁ
cātisaṅkṣepāt samādhir nirṇayo yataḥ || (16.104)
iv bahuśo yac chrutaṁ vākyam uktaṁ vāpi punaḥ punaḥ | nodvejayati yasmād
dhi tan mādhuryam iti smṛtam || (16.105)
v samāsavadbhir vividhair vicitraiś ca padair yutam | sānusvārair udāraiś ca
tad ojaḥ parikīrtyate || (16.106). Sushil Kumar De says Abhinavagupta reads ba-
hubhir instead of vividhair and sānurāgair instead of sānusvārair (HSP, Vol. II,
p. 14, footnote). Dr. Ghosh points out that Hemacandra used the following sec-
ond definition of ojas in the thirty-seven chapter recension: avagīto ’pi hīno ’pi
syād udāttāvabhāsakaḥ, yatra śabdārtha-sampattis tad ojaḥ parikīrtitam, “When
the composition manifests pomp, though it might be reproachable or vile, by the
excellence of sound and meaning, that is ojas” (16.107) (Ghosh (1951) Vol. I, p.
319). This definition is the prototype of the modern ojas-guṇa (vigor).
vi Dr. Ghosh adds that there is a second definition, which he translates as fol-
lows: yasyārthānupraveśena manasā parikalpyate, anantaraṁ prayogas tu
sārtha-vyaktir udāhṛtā, “When the meaning of a composition can be grasped by
the penetrating mind just after its recital (lit. use) it is [an instance of] Directness
of Expression (artha-vyakti)” (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.110) (Ghosh (1951) Vol. I, p. 319).
The words in parentheses and in brackets are his. This definition of artha-vyakti is
the prototype of the modern prasāda (clarity of meaning).
Bharata Muni 103
udāra exaltedness: it has śṛṅgāra and adbhuta,

the bhāva is effulgent, and there are many
bhāvas vii
kānti loveliness: that which delights the ears
and the heart like the moon does, or which
is realised by the meaning conveyed by
graceful gestures (līlādi) viii
Dr. Sushil Kumar De comments: “It will be noticed from this

enumeration that in some cases it is difficult to see what Bharata
means exactly by a particular Guṇa, and that the classification is by
no means exhaustive nor free from overlapping.”174
Bhāmaha only acknowledged three literary qualities: mādhurya

(sweetness, melting), ojas (vigor), and prasāda (clarity of the
meaning). Ānandavardhana, Mammaṭa and their followers, who
rejected Vāmana’s guṇas, which are based on Bharata Muni’s,
accepted Bhāmaha’s approach and specified that the term guṇa
(quality) should denote a quality (sweetness or vigor) of a specific
rasa and is brought to light by certain favorable letters.175
vii Bharata’s definition of udāra-guṇa is: divya-bhāva-parītaṁ yac chṛṅgārād-

bhuta-yojitam | aneka-bhāva-saṁyuktam udāratvaṁ prakīrtitam || (16.111)
viii “līlādi = līlādi-ceṣṭā. Abhinavagupta. This would be comprehended by the
dīpta-rasatvam of Vāmaṇa’s artha-guṇa kānti.” (De, S.K. (1988) Vol. II, p. 15).
In this context, līlā is the elegance of śṛṅgāra-rasa: līlā keli-vilāsayoḥ, śṛṅgāra-
bhāva-ceṣṭāyām (Medinī-kośa). Līlā is a woman’s imitating the attire or the ways
of her sweetheart: līlādiṣu priya-jana-ceṣṭānukṛtiḥ (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa,
illustration 5.151); tatra līlā—priyānukaraṇaṁ līlā ramyair veśa-kriyādibhiḥ
(Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 11.28).
175 In that regard, Viśvanātha wrote: tathā kāvye ’ṅgitvam āptasya rasasya
dharmāḥ svarūpa-viśeṣā mādhuryādayo ’pi sva-samarpaka-pada-sandarbhasya
kāvya-vyapadeśasyaupayikānuguṇya-bhāja ity arthaḥ (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 8.1).
Thirty-six Kāvya-lakṣaṇas
In chapter 16, Bharata Muni propounds thirty-six literary devices
(lit. characteristics of poetry). Some of them are the prototypes of
modern ornaments, though they relate to dramaturgy. Viśvanātha
Kavirāja (chapter on drama in Sāhitya-darpaṇa) and Rūpa Gosvāmī
(Nāṭaka-candrikā) changed several definitions. Moreover, Bharata
Muni extols his kāvya-lakṣaṇas:
etāni kāvyasya ca lakṣaṇāni

ṣaṭ-triṁśad uddeśa-nidarśanāni |
prabandha-śobhā-karaṇāni taj-jñaiḥ
samyak prayojyāni rasāyanāni ||
“These thirty-six characteristics of poetry indicate the purpose:

They convey rasa. They make the resplendence of a composition
and ought to be used by those who know the art.” (Nāṭya-śāstra
16.172)
To view the complete version of this book, click

here.

Versified History of Sanskrit Poetics TH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Versified History of Sanskrit Poetics TH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles A. Filion, M.A.

The Soul is Rasa

Gaurapada Dāsa, M.A.

Copyright © Reserved 2017

Art on the cover by Puskara das

Layout by Gaurapada Dāsa

The highest aesthetic experience is a type of self-realization:

Sanskrit poets wrote for scholars. Dr. Keith notes:

The neglect of Sanskrit Kāvya is doubtless natural. The great

This Latin maxim by Lucretius (c. 99 – c. 55 BCE) means: “They

1 Keith, A.B. (1956) History of Sanskrit Literature, Preface p. 7.

Some Sanskrit rhetoricians promulgated secular poetry; others,

tais tair apy upayācitair upanatas tanvyāḥ sthito ’py antike

Abhinavagupta explains: jñātasyāpi viśeṣato nirūpaṇam

2 vedā brahmātma-viṣayās tri-kāṇḍa-viṣayā ime, parokṣa-vādā ṛṣayaḥ

ity etāvan-mātram, “Pratyabhijñā is not simply the ordinary

Like the Sanskrit language itself, Sanskrit poetics is very systematic.

Figurative usage is a main feature of poetics. This book is called

4 so ’rthas tad-vyakti-sāmarthya-yogī śabdaś ca kaścana | yatnataḥ

The term Alaṅkāra-śāstra means poetics, and so the poetical rhet-

The word kāvya is derived as kavi-karma (the work of a poet).6

Poetry is one of the sixty-four arts. It is included in the 55th art,

guṇa-doṣān aśāstra-jñaḥ kathaṁ vibhajate naraḥ |

How can an uneducated person make a distinction between

Here Daṇḍin uses the term kriyā-vidhi (the procedure of the

6 yat kāvyaṁ lokottara-varṇanā-nipuṇa-kavi-karma (Kāvya-prakāśa 1.2).

kalpa and not kāvya-kriyā-kalpa.”8 However, Dr. Kāṇe rejects Dr.

The progress of Sanskrit poetical rhetoric can be divided in three

Sanskrit is the language of a culture that teaches how to be Rasika.

Gaurapada Dāsa, M.A.

About The Author

Gaurapada began studying Sanskrit grammar in a traditional

8 Kane, P.V. (1998) History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 343. Nonetheless, in the

bhāgavata-vidyā-pīṭham, in Govardhana (U.P. India): He learned

In addition to his master’s degree in Sanskrit (Tirupati, India),

In the field of Sanskrit poetics, he translated:

THE BEST THEORIES AND EXAMPLES

Differences between nāṭya-rasa and kāvya-rasa 114

Bhartṛhari’s theory of Sphoṭa 298

27. Vāg-bhaṭa II (Kāvyānuśāsana) 504

41. Krishna Kavi (Mandāra-maranda-campū) 661

SANSKRIT PRONUNCIATION GUIDE 777

M Bhāgavata Purāṇa states that Brahmā is ādi-kavi (the

The Poetical Derivation

1 Mani, Vettam (1975) Puranic Encyclopedia, p. 640 (under “Rāmāyaṇa”).

vicacāra ha paśyaṁs tat sarvato vipulaṁ vanam ||

One day, Vālmīki, wandering in a forest, saw a pair of curlews

mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvam

mā—not; niṣāda—O hunter; pratiṣṭhām—peace of mind (or

tasyaivaṁ bruvataś cintā babhūva hṛdi vīkṣataḥ |

Vālmīki, a great seer, became introspective: “How is it that I,

Vālmīki returned to his hermitage. Then Brahmā came. Vālmīki

6 śiṣyas tu tasya bruvato muner vākyam anuttamam | pratijagrāha saṁhṛṣṭas

All his disciples, utterly amazed, repeatedly spoke this verse:

samākṣaraiś caturbhir yaḥ pādair gīto maharṣiṇā |

In establishing the Dhvani theory, Ānandavardhana referred to the

This first-rate implied sense is a semblance of pathos (śoka-

sahasotthāya vāg yataḥ | prāñjaliḥ prayato bhūtvā tasthau paramavismitaḥ ||

Then this idea dawned on Vālmīki: kṛtsnaṁ rāmāyaṇaṁ kāvyam

Moreover, Vālmīki’s masterpiece is centered on an exemplary hero:

Vālmīki taught Rāmāyaṇa to Lava and Kuśa. Eventually, both of

Later, Vyāsa composed Mahābhārata. Those two masterpieces,

7 rāmāyaṇe hi karuṇo rasaḥ svayam ādi-kavinā sūtritaḥ “śokaḥ ślokatvam