Source: Prexa site. Replicated here for easy search and reference.
Introduction
Prahasana as a genre has a unique place not just in Sanskrit drama but even in all of classical Sanskrit literature. Prahasana is one among the ten types of rūpakas (plays) and it mainly deals with satirical humour, which not only entertains the rasikas but also gives a light-hearted perspective of the society and practices prevalent in the era when they were composed. In the guise of humour, they offer serious criticism of social happenings.(5) A superficial reading of a prahasana might not reveal this illuminating dimension, for the critiques are suggestive.
Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam and Bhagavad-ajjukam are two of the finest prahasanas. Both have seen multiple editions (some critically edited considering multiple available manuscripts), have been staged, and have been critically analyzed. The focus of the present essay is a critical appreciation of these two plays from the perspective of the rasika or the sahṛdaya.
Dr. S. Ramaratnam’s thesis “Prahasana in Sanskrit Literature” covers many aspects about prahasanas in a comprehensive manner.(5) Our focus being the rasika, details about the characteristics of prahasanas, their origin, and many other technical details that may be important for thoroughness are beyond the scope of this essay and have already been elaborated by Dr. Ramaratnam.
Dramas
Poetry is divided into śravya (that which is heard/read) and dṛśya (that which is seen). Drama comes under drśya-kāvya and is often hailed as the highest form of poetry. Statements—such as “nāṭakāntaṃ hi sāhityam” and “kāvyeṣu nāṭakaṃ ramyam”— sprinkled across Sanskrit treatises bear testimony to this fact. Kālidāsa in his Mālavikāgnimitram says that it is a yajña for the/through the eyes, which alludes to the very basic tenet of a yajña which is unifying and sharing. The statement “prayogatvam anāpanne kāvye nāsvāda-sambhavaḥ” goes even further stating that poetry that can’t be performed cannot be savoured at all.(4) To borrow a modern analogy, a movie based on a novel has a greater audience than the novel itself. While great poets like Kālidāsa have composed extraordinary poems, they have earned the highest appreciation due to the dramas they have composed. It is owing to the dramas he wrote that Bhavabhūti is spoken with the same reverence as that of Kālidāsa. Kālidāsa wonders whether people will accept his new play Mālavikāgnimitram since there have already been great dramas of yore from Bhāsa, Saumilla etc. However, he hardly has similar misgivngs about whether his poetry will be accepted despite the existence of past-masters such as Vyāsa, Vālmīki, Aśvagoṣa etc. (He does confess his inability describing the illustrious kings of the raghu-vaṃśa but he doesn’t compare himself with other poets before him.)
With such importance given to the genre of drama, one will naturally wonder what its purpose might be. Is it to educate people? Make them familiar with stories of the past? Bring change in the society? A revolution perhaps? While these things might happen inadvertently, the main purpose of drama or any literature for that matter is to evoke rasa in the connoisseurs. As the saying goes, “nahi rasādrte kaścid arthaḥ pravartate”. There is no higher purpose than rasa.(5)
Rasa being the foremost objective, the next question is – What is meant by rasa and how many are there? There are traditionally eight rasas. Śṛṅgāra, Hāsya, Raudra, Karuṇa, Bībhatsa, Bhayānaka, Vīra, and Adbhuta (some sources give Śānta as the ninth rasa). For a comprehensive treatment of these concepts one can refer to Bharatiya Kavyamimamse by Ti Nam Srikantaiah in Kannada, V Raghavan’s illuminating exposition “The Number of Rasas” also gives a detailed analysis.(4) Out of these, the prahasana mainly deals with Hāsya. Some related details can also be found in Ramaratnam’s thesis.
Hāsya in Sanskrit literature
Hāsya[1] which can be found right from the vedic passages - lampooning the chanting of the vedas themselves which is being compared to the croaking of frogs - has been constantly present in even the most profound and serious literature in Sanskrit. Since then Sanskrit poets have employed Hāsya in their works. While some examples can be found in Ramaratnam’s thesis, some more interesting episodes which have been left out are mentioned here.
Rāmayaṇa
Rāmayaṇa has its own share of Hāsya, and that appears in and around many grave and poignant situations, Rāma who had just lost his kingdom and is about to go to the forest, gives away his belongings to the poor and needy. A poor brāhmaṇa called Trijaṭa asks him for cows, Rāma in such grave situation jovially asks him to throw his staff and collect all the cows in that range where the staff falls. Trijaṭa fastens up his garments and prepares himself like a javelin thrower and throws his staff with all his might which falls on the banks of Sarayu, Rāma happily gives him all the cows as promised. Even in such a dire situation this episode lightens the gravity and also gives us a peek into Rāma’s equanimity (Vālmīki Rāmayana, Ayodhya kāṇḍa 2.32.29-2.32.43). Later the people of Ayodhya who are treated with festivities in the āśrama of Bharadvāja declare
नैवायोध्यां गमिष्यामो
गमिष्यामो न दण्डकान्। कुशलं भरतस्यास्तु
रामस्यास्तु तथा सुखम्।।2.91.60।।
that they’d stay there itself, they’d neither go to Ayodhya nor Daṇḍaka and wish both Rāma and Bharata prosperity and happiness. Around 20-25 verses which follow are also a treat! The context here is graver, Daśaratha is no more, Bharata wants to bring back Rāma to Ayodhya. Next we again see Hāsya’s appearance in the sargas 61-62 of the Sundara kāṇḍa during the destruction of the Madhuvana by the monkeys elated after finding Sītā, just few verses from there is enough to substantiate the claim!
उन्मत्तभूताः प्लवगा
मधुमत्ताश्च हृष्टवत्।
क्षिपन्ति च तथान्योन्यं
स्खलन्ति च तथाऽपरे।।5.62.12।।
केचित् क्ष्वेलां प्रकुर्वन्ति
केचित् कूजन्ति हृष्टवत्।
हरयो मधुना मत्ताः
केचित् सुप्ता महीतले।।5.62.13।।
कृत्वा केचिद्-धसन्त्यन्ये
केचित् कुर्वन्ति चेतरत्।
कृत्वा केचिद् वदन्त्य् अन्ये
केचिद् बुध्यन्ति चेतरत्।।5.62.14।।
जानुभिस् तु प्रकृष्टाश् च
देवमार्गं प्रदर्शिताः। अब्रुवन् परमोद्विग्ना
गत्वा दधिमुखं वचः।।5.62.16।।
These verses have been specifically quoted as this involves drunken antics of the monkeys, which is apt since we are about to discuss Matta-vilāsa!
Mahābhārata
The Mahābhārata is no different though the episodes related to Hāsya are few and far. Bhima’s childhood antics are sure to invoke some laughs, so does Uttarakumāra’s boasting in Virāṭa Parva followed by Bṛhannalā’s antics (Mahābhārata Virāṭa Parva Critical Text BORI, sargas 34-36) which has been utilized well by the later poets like Kumāravyāsa, who wrote in Kannada.
Kālidāsa
Kālidāsa also masterfully inserts Hāsya in all his dramas through the behavior of the vidūṣaka in Mālavikāgnimitram, Vikramorvaśīyam, Abhijñānaśākuntalam. The episode of the fisherman and how he is treated before and after his meeting of Duṣyanta by the royal guards in Abhijñānaśākuntalam is also noteworthy.(4)
The overall attitude of our poets regarding Hāsya can be well-summarised by quoting a famous verse from one of the four bhāṇas, Pādatāḍitakam by Śyāmilaka in the Caturbhāṇī.
न प्राप्नुवन्ति यतयो रुदितेन मोक्षं
स्वर्गायतिं न परिहासकथा रुणद्धि।
तस्मात् प्रतीत-मनसा हसितव्यम् एव
वृत्तिम् बुधेन खलु कौरुकुचीं विहाय॥ (5)[The sages don’t attain the mukti by lamenting continuously, nor do the gates of svarga stop someone who indulges in laughter and mirth. Therefore the wise should always leave inhibitions and happily laugh with clear minds and lighten themselves.]
Pādatāḍitakam verse 5
The nature of prahasanas
While prahasanas in general and Matta-vilāsa in particular lacks the sublimity or profundity of ārśa-kāvyas like the Rāmayana and the Mahābhārata, the poetry and dramas of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti, Śūdraka, Viśākhadatta, it still stands the test of time precisely because it deals with the society and human psyche, the more it changes the more it remains the same.
While Mṛcchakaṭika, a prakaraṇa, deals with contemporary theme and thus remains relevant to us, so do these prahasanas albeit for a different reason. In Mṛcchakaṭika the focus is on the individual characters but many events happening in the society are placed in the backdrop and they are suggested instead of having them in the forefront.(5) A similar thing can be observed here where the degeneration of society is hinted at in a suggestive manner but not directly brought to the forefront. This follows the tried and tested way of treating the audience as not just people but as connoisseurs who would pick such suggestions with ease.
While the other play in discussion - Bhagavad-ajjukam - has a supernatural thread intertwined, Matta-vilāsa happens entirely in the realm of reality and so it instantly connects to connoisseurs of any era, with minimum modifications if necessary. At the same time, just because it deals with the society it doesn’t become a documentary which is so bound to reality that it fails to produce rasa in a connoisseur.
Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam
Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam is one among the first available prahasanas and also one of the best of its kind. While the plot seems trivial and none of the characters seems to have anything worthy to root for, it stands testimony to the fact that observing mundane things in a different perspective is what is required to generate humour. Unimportant things which won’t even be noticed during the normal course of life, and even when noticed doesn’t amount to anything profound, form the basis of the plot.(4) The humor being situational also helps it.
A drunk kāpālika who wanders along with his partner in search of liquor, loses his begging bowl, a search operation leads to an encounter with a Buddhist monk who is accused of stealing it, a pāśupata seizes this opportunity to settle some scores with the kāpālika by acting as an arbitrator, meanwhile a lunatic who had found the bowl enters to resolve the conundrum. Thus a begging bowl lost and found leads to a comedy of errors, set in the backdrop of the city of Kāñcī gives insights to the life and society of 7th century CE.
The work in modern parlance can be called as an “equal opportunity offender” which minces no words when it comes to ridiculing practices of each of the prevalent matas including variations of the one followed by the author himself. While one can accuse Mahendravarman for not ridiculing any vaiṣṇava matas he still emerges without any blemish since he hasn’t spared his own.(4) Even while doing so, a sense of propriety is maintained which makes this work a śuddha-prahasana in every sense (By definition a śuddha-prahasana does not involve lowly characters like eunuchs etc. Here śuddha is not just limited by that definition, the broad meaning of śuddha is taken). Such sense of propriety is rarely seen in the later prahasanas which resort to cheap vulgarity.(4)
Earlier studies
While the prahasana has been well-studied - critical edition has been brought out by Dr N P Unni, analysed by Dr. S. Ramaratnam as a part of his thesis “Prahasanas in Sanskrit literature”, a translation along with critical notes published by Michael Lockwood and Vishnu Bhat - analysing such a work again is all the more relevant in our times because of two primary reasons.
- The first reason is, everyone is participating in an oppression olympics where everyone gets offended at the drop of a hat. Even the alleged champions of freedom of expression dare not ridicule specific groups fearing retribution and political correctness rules supreme. In such an environment, a work of this nature should be revisited to introspect and decide where we stand.
- The second reason is that there are some crucial things which are missing in these editions, some of them can be attributed to the limited scope in which they were prepared, but some others seem to come from entirely different and non-academic reasons.
The critical edition by Dr. N P Unni (first published in 1974) forms the basis of this analysis. The text contains details of various manuscripts available along with details of the poet, his various achievements and titles, and how the prahasana was staged mainly in accordance with the theatrical traditions in Kerala. Some of the content from Dr. S Ramaratnam’s thesis and the edition prepared by Lockwood and Bhat has been discussed wherever it is relevant. All the three editions also have a discussion about the societal conditions during the era in which the play is placed. Since it already covers most of the important points, that is also left out.
The author
Unlike many other Sanskrit works which either keeps us in the dark about the authorship or it’s time period, these pesky questions about Matta-vilāsa are settled beyond doubt. The author being Pallava Mahendravarman and the time period being the early 7th century CE. Mahendravarman was one of the greatest kings hailing from the Pallava dynasty which at its peak had a vast empire in Southern India spanning Tamil Nadu, Kerala, parts of Karnataka and Andhra. Being a king, a warrior and prevailing in the times when there were a lot of conflicts to establish supremacy over Southern India, Mahendravarman seems to have the tenacity and time to put his poetic skills to use in a delightful prahasana. Mahendravarman even though a śaiva was a patron of all the other matas prevalent, like any other king adherent to the sanātana-dharma this plurality was the rule rather than the exception. Such plurality is what has led to this work and it’s subsequent preservation for fourteen centuries and counting. Imagine a work ridiculing an ideology which would enjoy the support of both the ruling class and the citizens at various time periods being preserved for posterity and celebrated in any other culture.
Further details about him can be found in both the critical edition by Dr. N P Unni.
Dramatis Personae
Sūtradhāra (Stage manager) : Introduces the play, the author and sets the stage for the performance. Eager to stage the play to earn back his senior wife’s favour.
Naṭī (Stage manager’s wife) : Supports the Sūtradhāra in conducting the initial proceedings. When the proceedings start she is angry with the Sūtradhāra due to his dalliance with a younger co-wife.
Satyasoma (kāpālika) : The main character, a kāpālika - a follower of śaiva sect, indulges in wine and women abusing the tenets, stays in the Ekāmranātha temple. Loss of his begging bowl sets up the whole drama.
Devasomā (his partner) : Partner of Satyasoma, she has recently joined him, previously the partner of Babhrukalpa, has shown a tendency to switch loyalties in a bid to indulge in easy life.(4)
Nāgasena (bauddha-bhikṣu) : Buddhist monk who in spite of having an easy life wonders why other indulgences like wine and women are forbidden.(4)
Babhrukalpa (pāśupata) : follower of another śaiva sect, initially tries to avenge his loss by arbitrating, but finally decides to refer the matter to the court.
Unmattaka (madman) : A lunatic who has the bowl, appears to resolve the plot.
The summary of the plot
The prahasana starts with a prologue where the stage manager (Sūtradhāra) tries to convince his senior wife (Naṭī) and involve her in presenting the play. She is angry that he has taken a new wife who is young and chides him for acting in this juvenile fashion. Only when he says that the august gathering present wants to see the play and will bless them, she is convinced and asks him what is the name and who is the author. Once that is introduced, the main plot starts with the kāpālika Satyasoma and his partner Devasomā, both intoxicated, unsteady and in need of support, wandering in the streets of Kāñcī.
He has either due to being intoxicated or devoid of any reason, forgotten his begging bowl somewhere. Conversation starts with his comment complimenting Devasomā that she has grown beautiful in no time due to her diligence in following the vrata (which includes consuming liquor). She says the whole world is revolving and she needs support, while supporting her he commits gotraskhalana incurring her wrath. He blames the liquor and vows to abstain from it. Devasomā is aghast that she is the cause of abstinence which is against the vrata and pleads not to violate it. He is happy and bestows his benediction upon Śiva who was the first to show that path. When she says Buddhists say otherwise he criticizes it’s tenets and again goes for a drink to “purify” his tongue which was sullied due to discussion about Buddhism.
Once they reach another tavern, he compares it with various facets of yajña, which Devasomā completes by saying that they are indeed worthy of the rudrabhāga[1]. Only when the liquor is offered do they notice that the bowl is missing. Since an offering is not to be refused, they use the horn which they have for such contingencies to accept the liquor and set out to search the bowl.
Satyasoma guesses that either a dog or a Buddhist monk would have taken it since it contained roasted meat. A Buddhist monk Nāgasena is noticed by Devasomā. He is returning to his vihāra after a sumptuous meal offered by one of the merchants, praising Buddha for allowing such indulgences like good food and luxurious places to stay, he wonders why the omniscient one has forbidden wine and women. He comes to the conclusion that it is perhaps the scheming senior monks who have come up with such ridiculous rules and he vows to find the original untainted teachings of Buddha and restore his mata to its former glory and free the monks from such tyranny.
Called by Satyasoma he feels that it is better to escape than being the target of the drunken antics and tries to run away, which adds fuel to the suspicion of Satyasoma who gets hold of him. Satyasoma is curious to know what is hidden inside the robes and demands for it to be revealed. A fight happens and the monk, being stronger and not intoxicated, kicks him. Devasomā joins the fight to be beaten. Already having noticed how beautiful she is, he helps her get up. Satyasoma accuses him of snatching his partner away while Nāgasena says he did it out of compassion which his faith professes.
Babhrukalpa, a pāśupata enters and sees Devasomā who was his former partner being taken away from him by Satyasoma, wants to avenge it and plans to do it by being a neutral judge, but secretly supports the other party. During his arbitration, the monk is convinced to show his bowl which is of a different colour and shape, and is accused of changing it since Buddhists are known to do such things easily. Finally it is decided that the matter is to be settled in the court.
Devasomā is convinced that they’ll lose since the monk has a lot of money which can be used to bribe the judges. Satyasoma decides being on the side of truth there is no need to be afraid, and agrees. By then a madman arrives with the bowl which he snatched from a dog, and offers it to the pāśupata who directs him to offer it to a worthy recipient. He offers it to the kāpālika and immediately changes his mind and tries to run away. He is stopped and he agrees to give it if they show him a ‘madman’. Satyasoma convinces him that there is one hiding behind the wall and tricks him into giving the bowl. Thus the bowl returns to its rightful owner and both Satyasoma and Nagasena part on amicable terms followed by the bharatavākya.
Languages and meters
While nothing of value is added by mentioning what has been discussed by both Dr N P Unni and Dr S Ramaratnam, just for the sake of completion, here is the list of meters and languages used. Even in a small work the author has shown versatility in usage of languages and meters which can be gathered by a cursory glance of the lists below.
Metres: Anuṣṭup, Āryā, Indravajra, Rucirā, Mālinī, Vaṃśasthā, Vasantatilakā, Śārdūlavikrīḍitā, Sragdharā.
Languages: Sanskrit, Prakrits - Śaurasenī, Māgadhī.
Critical appreciation
sthāpana
Mahendravarman starts with a brilliant invocatory verse
भाषा-वेश-वपुः-क्रिया-गुण-कृतान् आश्रित्य भेदान् गतं
भावावेश-वशाद् अनेक-रसतां त्रैलोक्य-यात्रामयम् ।
नृत्तं निष्प्रतिबद्ध-बोध-महिमा यः प्रेक्षकश् च स्वयं
स व्याप्तावनि-भाजनं दिशतु वो दिव्यः कपाली यशः॥१॥[May that divine skull-bearer (Śiva)
Of unfettered omniscience,
Himself a spectator and performer
Seized of emotions and portraying sentiments
Comprising the course of the three worlds
By speech and dress by actions and feelings
Grant thee glory that fills the bowl of the universe]Translation by NP Unni (modifications emphasized)
The verse can be easily used in plays which have more serious and sublime themes without batting an eyelid. The Mahānaṭa aspect of Śiva is alluded to in the verse along with the fact that he encompasses the whole universe thus being both the performer and the spectator. One can’t help but be reminded of the invocatory verses from Mālavikāgnimitram, Vikramorvaśīyam, Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Mṛcchakaṭika and Mudrārākṣasa all of which incidentally invokes the same deity Śiva. While not as profound in content compared to the above mentioned verses, this verse is still a profound one by any standards, much better than many other invocatory verses employed by other poets.
Contrast it to the invocatory verse of Svapnavāsavadattā where in a bid to bring the names of the characters using sabhanga-abhanga-śleṣa such a delicate themed play invokes Balarāma who is neither known for profundity nor such delicate emotions. Or Mālatīmādhava which invokes Gaṇapati, sneezing, and being tormented by the snake in a humorous way. One can also notice that the main character is alluded to in the invocation address to Śiva which contains one of the names of Śiva - Kapālin.
Lockwood and Bhat in their introduction (page 112) alludes to four levels of interpretation for this verse, two of which also considers Kapālin to be suggesting “king” and “playwright”. While some of the explanations are nice, getting out four interpretations seems to be a stretch and gives an impression that too much is being made out of this verse and the authors seem to walk on thin ice.(4)
In the same section and in the other sections too the authors seem to be enamoured by Tantra - the stage manager’s having a second wife for example, which wasn’t uncommon in those times is somehow construed to allude to Tantra - and find many suggestions which don’t seem to add a lot in terms of rasa.(4)
Next we also notice that the faux pas committed by Satyasoma which casts doubt in the mind of his partner about his fidelity is hinted by the fact that the Sūtradhāra has married a younger woman which has angered the senior wife. She in fact chides him for such juvenile antics, in the process cleverly mentions the name of the play through pun (यौवन-गुण-भर-मत्त-विलास-प्रहसनं दर्शयितुम् आगतोऽसि?).
The junior wife is only referred in third person compounding to the confusion and results in adding fuel to her anger which is allayed only after telling that it is the pariṣad (gathering of the connoisseurs) - a feminine word - waiting to see it being staged.(4)
Mahendravarman, introduced as Śatruṣadvarganigraha, has many precedents, typically for any individual, let alone a king, the aspiration is to conquer all the six enemies - the ariṣadvarga. Even arthaśāstra which primarily deals with the material world, declares it’s aim to be indriyajaya i.e. conquest of senses.
He is also described as Kubera in munificence, which is interesting, such comparison with Kubera comes even in the Rāmayana (धनदेन समस् त्यागे) when describing the qualities of Rāma even though there are no famous episodes where Kubera acts as munificent as alluded. Somehow that image has stuck with Kubera for so many centuries. A comparison with Raghu or Śibi would have made it more appropriate. Along with the invocatary verse, the verse which further describes his qualities helps us gauge the prowess of the author in handling the majestic śārdūlavikrīḍita metre. The last verse in the sthāpana is intercepted by the dialogue of a character like it is usual in bhāsa and followed later.(4)
Plot begins
The main plot starts with the entry of Satyasoma along with Devasomā, their drunken antics are described immediately to convince the audience that they are extremely intoxicated. Satyasoma appreciates Devasomā that she has gained so much beauty and grace in so few days of the vrata alludes to her joining him recently, this is later confirmed when Babhrukalpa enters. Satyasoma, trying to support her, commits faux pas (gotra-skhalana), calling her by another name Somadevā, which results in anger. To convince her he vows never to drink again which makes her fall at his feet to apologise. This results in one of the best verses of the prahasana.
पेया सुरा प्रियतमा-मुखम् ईक्षितव्यं
ग्राह्यः स्वभाव-ललितो विकृतश् च वेषः।
येनेदम् ईदृशम् अदृश्यत मोक्ष-वर्त्म
दीर्घायुर् अस्तु भगवान् स पिनाकपाणिः॥७॥[Take to wine and gaze at beloved’s face Don the natural, yet loathsome, dress Long lived be the Lord of pinaka bow Who thus proclaimed the way to Liberation]
Translation by NP Unni
It is a practice in our tradition for elders to bless younger people to enjoy a long fruitful life. But here, Śiva is the highest deity for kāpālikas, not just that he is the ideal whom they try to reach, he is also the lord of time, Mahākāla, who has the ultimate control over time. He is the one who has neither birth nor death. He is the oldest and still beyond aging. In spite of all these things Satyasoma, a mere mortal, blesses that Śiva a long life! If not for anything, we should salute the sheer audacity of the character and the author who speaks through such a character. It also reflects the universal outlook and inclusiveness of Sanātana dharma. We have instances of devotees blessing the Lord in all seriousness. Eg.: Periyalvar blessing Viṣṇu.
When Devasomā interrupts to say this isn’t the way of buddhists or jains (अर्हन्त can apply to both), Satyasoma scolds them saying that they are fools who contradict their own stand by saying pain leads to pleasure while thinking that the nature of the effect is the same as that of the cause. During this and even later, it is evident that Satyasoma even though drunk and unsteady still has a sharp intellect which hasn’t been affected by the drinking, even while drunk his logic is incisive. Dejected by even uttering the ways of the buddhists he wants to purify his mouth by drinking! The audience by now would have no doubt about how convenient the tenets are which he follows!
Kāñcī
This is followed by a description of Kāñcī. There are many more descriptions of cities in Sanskrit literature which are better, but this short description does give an idea about how prosperous it was during those times, full of festivities. By bringing in the sound of clouds the Rainy season is hinted at, by the flowers the Spring also seems to be in mind, followed by a reference to Manmatha. The verse which follows though has something intriguing to say.
अनतिशयम् अनन्तं सौख्यम् अप्रत्यनीकं
समधिगत-सतत्त्वा(=??) मेनिरे यन् मुनीन्द्राः।
तद् इह निरवशेषं दृष्टम् एतत् तु चित्रं
यद् उत करण-भोग्यं काम-भोगात्मकं च॥९॥
[What those venerable sages conceive-
They who know the truth behind-
As bliss, unsurpassed, endless, unique.
Here it is found all complete
But strange it is sensual, indeed!
To be enjoyed through the senses.]
Translation by NP Unni
Contrast this with the profound verse in the seventh act of Abhijñānaśākuntalam
प्राणानाम् अनिलेन वृत्तिर् उचिता सत्-कल्पवृक्षे वने
तोये काञ्चन-पद्म-रेणु-कपिशे धर्माभिषेक-क्रिया ।
ध्यानं रत्न-शिला-तलेषु विबुध-स्त्री-संनिधौ संयमो
यत् काङ्क्षन्ति तपोभिर् अन्य-मुनयस् तस्मिंस् तपस्यन्त्य् अमी ॥७.१२॥(5)[In the vicinity of the wish fulfilling trees, the sages control their breaths, they perform abhiṣeka in the waters brimming with the pollen from the golden lotuses, they sit on gem studded surfaces, and exercise control over their senses in the presence of the divine beauties. Where others desire to go to enjoy the fruits of their tapas, these sages perform tapas there.]
where the sages are doing tapas in heaven, the place of enjoyment (bhoga), to attain it everyone else undergoes rigorous tapas. Here the premise is flipped on its head, by saying what the sages seek, the everlasting bliss, actually is present here itself in Kāñcī and not just that, it can and should be mandatorily enjoyed only through senses!
Tavern
Next we see the description of the tavern where they arrive to have another drink. The description, though in prose, gives comparison of the tavern to a yajñabhūmi.
एष सुरापणो यज्ञवाट-विभूतिम् अनुकरोति।
अत्र हि ध्वजस्तम्भो यूपः। सुरा सोमः। शौण्डा ऋत्विजः। चषकाश् चमसाः। शूल्य-मांस-प्रभृतय उप-दंशा हविर्-विशेषाः।
मत्तवचनानि यजूंषि। गीतानि सामानि।
उदङ्काः स्रुवाः। तर्पोऽग्निः। सुरापणाधिपतिर् यजमानः।[The tavern is the yajñabhūmi. The signpost is the yūpa (sacrificial post). The liquor itself is soma. The drunk people are the purohitas. The drinking goblets are the camasas (bowls). The roasted meat serves as the side dish for the havis.(←दोषः) The slurred speech is the yajus (prose) utterances. The songs are the sāman. The bags containing the liquor are the ladles. The thirst is the sacred Agni. and the owner of the tavern is the yajamāna.](5)
Contrast this with the verse from the first act of the Veṇisamhāram by Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa where a similar comparison occurs.
चत्वारो वयम् ऋत्विजः स भगवान्कर्मोपदेष्टा हरिः
संग्रामाध्वर-दीक्षितो नर-पतिः पत्नी गृहीत-व्रता ।
कौरव्याः पशवः प्रिया-परिभव-क्लेशोपशान्तिः फलं
राजन्योपनिमन्त्रणाय रसति स्फीतं यशोदुन्दुभिः ॥ १.२५ ॥[The four Pāṇḍava brothers are the purohitas, Hari himself is the one who conducts it and instructs them. The king Yudhiṣṭhira is the yajamāna who has taken the vow of undertaking the yajña which the war, the queen, Draupadī is the one who has taken the vow to conduct it, the kauravas are the sacrificial animals, the alleviation of the dishonour and the sorrows faced by our beloved is the result. The war instruments are played to call other kings for this ceremony.]
One can observe that the situation in Veṇisamhāram is a grim and decisive one which would result in the destruction of innumerable people and the gravity of such situation is enhanced by such a verse, the character there is the mighty Bhīma who is itching to destroy his cousins the kauravas. But while the comparison is similar, the situation here is so trivial that it makes a mockery of the seriousness of a yajña.
Thus we see two examples where subverting either the idea by flipping it on its head or subverting the situation to bring it down to a trivial level is employed effectively to generate humour.
The description of the drunken antics in the tavern doesn’t add much. But the description of the liquor itself leads to a nice verse.
मिथ्या त्रिलोचन-विलोचन-पावकेन
भस्मीकृतां मदन-मूर्तिम् उदाहरन्ति ।
स्नेहात्मिका तद्-अभिताप-वशाद्-विलीना
सेयं प्रिये मदयति प्रसभं मनांसि ॥१०॥
[Incorrect indeed what they say
That fire from Śiva’s third eye
Burnt to ashes the form of Kāma
But, liquified into oil by heat
Oh dear! It inflames the mind perforce] (4)Translation by NP Unni
A nice kāvya-liṅgālaṅkāra (poetic reason) is employed to say Manmatha became madya. Sneha means oil and also friendship. Solids converting into liquids due to heat and both Manmatha and liquor being intoxicating has been effectively used in this verse. Devasomā says that Śiva who always thinks about the welfare of the world would never do something which would destroy the world. Such a positive, assuring thought which would have been befitting in some profound situation, is used here in a trivial sense restricted to the only thing they currently hold dear! Liquor!.
Regarding the reference to the yajñabhūmi which appears when describing the tavern, there is another verse from Kumāravyāsa Bhārata which was missed. For the sake of analysis and to drive home the point that such verses generally occur in serious situations and using such comparisons in a trivial manner evokes hāsya, it is added here.
The verse is question occurs during the attempt to burn the Pāṇḍava brothers along with their mother Kuntī in the house of lac, in Vāraṇāvata where they have been sent in the pretext of being the representative of the king Dhṛtarāṣṭra and attend the celebrations! Once they find their predicament, Yuddhiṣṭhira says the following,
ಸಮಿಧೆಗಳು ನಾವ್ ನಾಲ್ವರ್, ಅಯ್ಯನ
ರಮಣಿಯ್ ಆಹುತಿ, ಭೀಮನೇ ಪಶು,
ಕುಮತಿ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸಿದ್ ಅರಗಿನ್(=lac) ಅರಮನೆಯ್ ಅಗ್ನಿ ಕುಂಡವಿದು
ಎಮಗೆ ಸಂಶಯವಿಲ್ಲ ರಾಜೋ-
ತ್ತಮನೊ ದುರ್ಯೋಧನನೊ ದೀಕ್ಷಾ-
ಕ್ರಮವ ಧರಿಸಿದನಾವನ್ ಎಂದನು ನಗುತ ಯಮ-ಸೂನು ||8.85||Karṇāṭa-bhārata-kathā-mañjari, Ādi-parva
“The four of us are the samits (logs of wood used as fuel), our mother Kuntī is the āhuti (offering), Bhīma is the paśu (the sacrificial animal), the house of lac built by the treacherous king is the agnikuṇḍa (fire-pit). One thing not clear though is whether the Yajamāna (who has taken the vow of yajña) is the king Dhṛtarāṣṭra himself or Duryodhana!”, said Yuddhiṣṭhira.
Again the reader can see how grim the situation is here. It is also pertinent to observe that the concept of yajña is such a motif which is firmly established in the minds of the people that poets time and again use it in their works.
Lost kapāla
Only when the liquor is offered does Satyasoma observe that he does not possess his kapāla. Devasomā suggests by Āpaddharma they can have it served in the horn. Āpaddharma or the dharma which can be followed in exceptional cases has been treated in detail in many of the dharmaśāstras and smṛtis. By this we also learn that Devasomā also seems to have some knowledge in the dharmaśāstras and smṛtis. While the pair doesn’t seem to be worried about the other dharmas to be followed, they conveniently remember the Āpaddharma portions.(5) Again such behaviour has been used by the author to highlight the degeneracy of the era in an ironical manner. This is extended further when Satyasoma takes the title ‘kapālin’ literally and thinks that just because he has lost his kapāla he ceases to be ‘kapālin’. Though he realizes his folly in the very next instance.
Suspicion
After gaining some composure he decides that bowl should have been taken by either a dog or a buddhist monk. While the comparison of a buddhist monk to a dog might seem preposterous, Satyasoma has his reasons which is the presence of roasted meat! This passage already hints at the kind of degeneracy which had crept in which is confirmed by the entry of Nāgasena which happens immediately as if by cue. Also note that later there is also the mention of the dog along with Unmattaka. While this doesn’t fit into the exact definition of a patākāsthāna, it does however indicate the events which happen later. Nāgasena a buddhist monk who is returning to the vihāra after partaking of a sumptuous meal generously hosted by some rich merchant, thanks the omniscient Tathāgata for allowing or prescribing good food, place to stay, soft garments etc., but also wonders why such an all-knowing one somehow hasn’t understood the needs of living beings when it comes to wine and women. He surmises that the older monks have been hiding it and decides to find the “real” teachings and help the generations to come.(5) The next logical step would have been creating a new text and claiming it to be the lost teachings! By that time Buddhism was already divided into various branches and there were serious debates regarding the original teachings of Buddha. The author here hints at this fact.
Such dreamy thoughts are checked by reality when he sees that Satyasoma is calling him. By the time this happens, it seems like Nāgasena is well-acquainted with Satyasoma and his ways that he proceeds with caution and tries to escape, this makes his situation worse since such an attempt adds fuel to suspicion. Satyasoma is sure that Nāgasena is the thief, it fits his theory too. Nāgasena meanwhile betrays his thoughts straightaway by observing how beautiful Devasomā is.
Satyasoma’s tirade
“Things to be concealed”, leads to an argument about how Tathāgata has ordered clothes, compared to kāpālikas who were typically digambaras. This also helps Satyasoma take the moral high ground, showing he has nothing to hide. Such minute things being adeptly used to bring humour helps us gauge the erudition of the author too. It also shows how the arguments aren’t about the most profound philosophical questions but rather about trivial things.
Next we see Satyasoma abusing Buddha and calling him Kharapaṭa who is supposed to be the author of a treatise on thievery! Not just that he goes beyond saying that he is worse as everything is copied from others.
In page 111 of Lockwood and Bhat’s thesis dealing with the introduction to the play we find the following paragraph. (reproduced below verbatim, except for the changes in diacritics)
“In line 82, the Kapālī accuses the Buddha of stealing his doctrinal ideas from the Mahābhārata and Vedānta. This remark has a bearing on the controversy over the age of the Mahābhārata battle and the epic story of it. We are removed from the time of the Buddha by some 25 centuries. Mahendra, by only 12 centuries. Obviously, in his time, he believed the Mahābhārata epic and the Vedānta existed prior to the Buddha’s time.”
In page 110 where Ramaratnam deals with the character of Satyasoma too, a similar if not the same stance is taken. (reproduced below verbatim)
“.. According to him the Buddhists culled out portions from the Mahābhārata and Upaniṣads and compiled their own texts.”
Ramaratnam’s conclusion is still OK since none can accuse Buddha to be a thief who has just copied things, but it should be noted that he is also a product of his times and certainly would have got inspiration from Upaniṣads which were prior to his time. While Mahābhārata as we know it has come to its present form during the time of the Guptas, there is no doubt that it existed in some form much before.(5) Even the vedas also have references to Kṛṣṇa, Purūrava who appear in the Mahābhārata.
But Lockwood and Bhat speak as though both Mahābhārata and Upaniṣads are definitely post Buddha and Mahendravarman somehow believed not to be so and hence he has written like that. Just because Mahendravarman was closer to Buddha in time than we are, how can we say he didn’t know better or we know the correct information? Again Lockwood and Bhat seem to arrive at such conclusions based on thin evidence. Buddha has himself declared that he has recycled the ageless thoughts of seers who existed before him. Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya, the oldest among the Upaniṣads, have a well-structured philosophy. This is much prior to Buddhism.
Wine offer
Devasomā meanwhile realizes that it would take longer to get the bowl and makes Satyasoma drink more to “gain strength”. We also see a somewhat magnanimous side of this pair when they concur that even though Nāgasena is on the opposite side their own philosophy is of sharing everything and offers him wine. This can also be thought to be a calculated move since they are convinced he wouldn’t take it in public. This is confirmed by Nāgasena behaviour who curses himself for the predicament thinking that had it been offered in private he could have had it!
Only during this phase Satyasoma seems to talk incoherently saying if he has pity he can’t be free from passion. He also declares he would be free from anger once he has got his bowl back.(5) He again proceeds to ridicule that the follower of the māyāvāda who conceals even oceans mountains, what difficulty in concealing a bowl. Again Satyasoma’s sharpness returns. It seems as though his intellect is sharp when he is drunk and dull when he isn’t, which is the opposite of how it works for the majority of people in reality.
Fight
But the same can’t be said of his body since the stronger and steadier Nāgasena kicks him to the ground. Devasomā also seems to be oblivious of the monk’s strength, tries to grab him and fails since he has shaved off his hair, resulting in an unintentional fall. Nāgasena’s respect towards Buddha grows further as he has foreseen such a situation and has mandated the monks to shave their head! This again implicitly suggests that such an all-knowing one who could foresee Devasomā’s attack should have been good enough to foresee the changing needs of the monks and remove restrictions on wine and women!
While ‘kapālin’ is taken in literal sense before the word Pāṇigrahaṇa which literally just means holding hands is turned to the other meaning, taking one’s hand in marriage derived by lakṣaṇa is utilised while Satyasoma accuses Nāgasena in public when he first helps Devasomā to get up. There is also a suggestion that Satyasoma still couldn’t trust Devasomā completely since she has already betrayed Babhrukalpa before. Also notice that Nāgasena is being tested in the two things which are forbidden for him and he betrays his failure in both those things.
Arbitration
The entry of Babhrukalpa makes things more complicated since Devasomā was previously his partner and he is at once thinking of revenge. He also expresses his disapproval by calling her kṣaurikadāsī (lit. barber’s slave, fig. can be a derogatory word.) who was lured by a few shells but the comparison he gives for her, ‘like a cow led by grass’ also means he is not so angry about her, but rather thinks she might be innocent. Seeing the ongoing fight he quotes the famous verse from the Mahābhārata.
अन्यथा वर्तमानानाम्
अर्थो जातोऽयमन्यथा ।
अस्माभिर् यद् अनुष्ठेयं
गन्धर्वैस् तदनुष्ठितम् ॥ ३.२३१.१५ ॥(5)Mahābhārata Vanaparva
When Duryodhana has been captured by the gandharvas, his minister comes to Dharmarāja and begs him to rescue his master. Bhīma hearing this tells, “Whatever we were supposed to do, the gandharvas have done that instead!” Let’s not spoil it in any manner.
To be noted here is the note (Translational notes - 26, reproduced below verbatim, except for the changes in diacritics) given by Lockwood and Bhat, not only do they miss the reference to Mahābhārata they go off tangentially about Gandharvas, the details being totally irrelevant to the discussion.(4)
“26. Gandharvas are anthropomorphic heavenly beings. They are often thought to be the cause of mischievous situations. At one level, Babhrukalpa’s remark indicates that the Gandharvas have played a trick on Satyasoma and spirited away his skull-bowl. Babhrukalpa is delighted to find Satyasöma in difficulty. He wants revenge on Satyasoma for having lured Devasomā away from him in the past. By now encouraging Nāgasena’s side in the dispute, he hopes to humiliate Satyasoma. At a second level, Babhrukalpa’s remark is a jibe at the unchaste character of Devasomā. Gandharvas were notoriously fond of mortal women.”
Even N P Unni missed this reference to Mahābhārata but says that the phrase, अस्माभिर्यदनुष्ठेयं गन्धर्वैस्तदनुष्ठितम्, would have been quite famous during the times of Mahendravarman. Ramaratnam also doesn’t mention the source of this phrase.
Babhrukalpa wants to follow Bhīma’s counsel and fan the flames more while posing as a neutral arbitrator.
While both parties claim that they are truthful, Nāgasena goes one up by quoting five out of ten of the tenets showing he remembers them offhand and so adheres to them too.
अदत्तादानाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not taking what isn’t readily given, is what is ordered]मृषावादाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not speaking lies, is what is ordered]अब्रह्मचार्याद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[following brahmacarya, is what is ordered]प्राणातिपाताद् विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not killing any living being, is what is ordered]अकालभोजनाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not eating at inappropriate times, is what is ordered]
One should note that one of these अब्रह्मचार्याद्विरमणं is something he wants to change by finding the “true” teachings of Tathāgata.(4)
Meanwhile he is forced to show the bowl, Satyasoma claims it to be as black as a crow, thus being of a different color. Nāgasena is accused of changing the color, just like his robes which were initially white and now have become ochre.(4) The author also hints at the fact that Buddhism taught the same ideas as enshrined in the Upanishads, only in a different colour. Devasomā meanwhile remembers the previous state of the bowl which was like the skull of Brahmā himself, colored similar to a lotus stalk, having the fragrance of the drink now being soiled due to the robes of Nāgasena.
Satyasoma alludes to two of the famous beheadings one of Brahmā by Śiva and the other of Triśiras by Indra, both lead to brahmahatyādoṣa which was overcome by prāyaścitta and so says this minor thing can be easily fixed.
Both Satyasoma and Nāgasena aren’t ignorant of their scriptures, but they have used their intelligence to twist them as per their convenience instead. Many times, people who are innocent and ignorant will follow whatever is told to them and so in general they don’t fall to such degeneracy. It is the intelligent ones who do so.
Next we see the shape of the bowl is different, again Satyasoma has a retort, of course Nāgasena is a follower of māya’s son, so it would be easy for him to change the shape. Buddhism advocates Nihilism, taking the world to be false. This was a point of dispute among the various schools of Indian philosophy. This favourite jibe against Buddhism is hinted at here.
If one thinks shifting goal posts, ad hominem attacks are a recent phenomenon fuelled by the advent of the internet one needs to think again!
While Babhrukalpa enjoys the fight he finally decides that he can’t be the arbitrator. Was it a genuine realization? Or he wanted to enjoy more drama in the court? Looks like the latter. Devasomā is immediately worried that they’ll lose since they aren’t as affluent as the buddhists who can bribe officials. The phrase used to indicate bribing , मुखानि पूरयितुं, is quite idiomatic to say the least,(5) This stands testimony to the fact that the mata based on austerities and self-negation has become materially affluent artha portion hasn’t been tempered by dharma, the other mata which has nothing forbidden actually in terms of kāma has become destitute. This also indicates the generosity of Hindu kings who munificently donated to Buddhist monasteries. The royal families of the Śungas, Sātavāhanas and Guptas, who were adherents of Sanātana dharma, were considerate to Buddhism and other atheistic systems of philosophy.
Unmattaka enters
Finally the resolution of the plot happens when Unmattaka enters. Having snatched the bowl from the dog he comes to Babhrukalpa whom he calls as his “preceptor”, Śūranandin. Unmattaka’s dialogues seem to have been inspired by Śūdraka’s Śakāra. Mixing up the relationships, Bhīma and Ghaṭotkaca and so on. Śakāra wasn’t actually mad but had a villainous humor, while here Unmattaka is really a mad person and so, his utterances can’t be associated with such villainy.
Unmattaka is redirected to give the bowl to someone worthy. While this brings in the lofty principle of charity which says to give anything only to a worthy person, from the perspective of Unmattaka what would be worthiness? Unmattaka then immediately decides that Satyasoma is the one worthy, but also calls Satyasoma as mahābrāhmaṇa which idiomatically means a vile fallen brāhmaṇa!(5) Satyasoma again seeing the bowl literally thinks that the epithet ‘kapālin’ has come back and he is indeed worthy of that. There is however one last twist when Unmattaka suddenly refuses to give the bowl saying it is made of gold. Begging bowl, a symbol of non-avarice and austerities, had by that time become a goldmine. The poet here perhaps hints at the profits that a recluse would make in those times.
The bowl (rather two bowls) variously has/have changed it/their color, size etc based on the perspective of the people. Unmattaka being called as ‘Unmattaka’ says he hears that word a lot but hasn’t seen anyone like that and asks Satyasoma to show him. This seems to be the prime source for the oft repeated joke where a madman would always disagree when he is referred to as mad.
Game vs serious
In the end, after getting the bowl everyone parted on amicable terms. One would wonder what to make of arguments ridiculing one another and each others’ mata too. This suggests that nothing should be taken too seriously and it would be extremely beneficial for the society if after such a long quarrel, if people can still understand there was nothing personal. The blessing of pāśupata alluding to Kirāta and Arjuna is also an apt one.(4) From the perspective of Kirāta i.e. Śiva, there is pure humour here, because he knows everything, the whole episode is a līlā, he is not attached to anything. His detachment is the product of wisdom, which he represents. However, from the perspective of Arjuna, it is a serious matter, in spite of his penance, he is still ignorant. His penance was only aimed at becoming victorious in war; it was not at securing enlightenment. Again for a prahasana such a good and apt blessing shows that just because it is a prahasana it need not be devoid of good poetry. Same can be said about the bharatavākya.
Conclusion
To conclude, Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam is one of the finest examples in the genre of prahasanas. Except for a few others like - Bhagavad-ajjukam, and Hasya-chudamani of Vatsaraja - it’s a travesty to see that the later poets deviated from such a path resorting to cheap and vulgar tricks to infuse Hāsya in their prahasanas. The hope, which inspired this analysis is that such prahasanas find more appreciation and audience. In addition to that, some of the places where there are differences in this analysis from the previous ones, might also lead to further discussions and clarity in understanding and enjoying this work.
With this the analysis can move on to the other prahasanas, of which we will see Bhagavadajjukam in subsequent parts.
References
Dr. S. Ramaratnam, “Prahasana in Sanskrit Literature”, Kavyalaya publishers, Mysore, 1987. Dr. N P Unni, “Mattavilasa Prahasana of Mahendravikramavarman”, College Book House, Trivandrum, 1974. Michael Lockwood and A. Vishnu Bhat, “Two Farcical Plays by King Mahëndravikramavarman”, 3rd revision, 1994.
Bhagavad-ajjukam
We move on to the next prahasana, Bhagavad-ajjukam.
Intro
Bhagavad-ajjukam as mentioned before is a śuddha-prahasana, like Mattavilāsa is one among the best. While the construction of the title is simple - formed by considering the two main characters of the play, Bhagavān, the yogin and Ajjukā the courtesan - that in no way undermines the poet’s capability of constructing a funny comedy of errors nor has it affected its popularity. The earliest reference of this drama is found in the Mamandur inscription (7th century CE) as mentioned by Dr S Ramaratnam. This reference places it chronologically either before or together with Mattavilāsa but not after it.(4)
Like Mattavilāsa, the plot at first seems trivial - just a walk along the park - involving two characters, where the characters arrive leading to the events in the play. Again the author’s perspective helps in generating humour from such a threadbare plot.
A preceptor and his disciple arrive at a grove, the preceptor tries to put some sense in the foolish disciple who has taken this route to fill his stomach, but it is futile. The disciple is enamoured by the music he hears and follows it only to see the courtesan who was singing it die, bitten by a serpent. The preceptor uses this opportunity to teach him a real lesson, using his supernatural skills, entering into her body. Finally the error is rectified and the two are swapped. Both in Mattavilāsa and Bhagavad-ajjukam the authors are well aware that the simpler the plot is, the easier to generate humour and entertain the rasikas.(4) A complicated and convoluted plot would make the rasikas think too much about the plot failing to evoke rasa.
Like Mattavilāsa, Bhagavad-ajjukam has been a favourite in the theatrical tradition and has been staged multiple times even in the recent past. The drama has also seen multiple editions, one can see Dr S Ramarathnam’s thesis for such details. For the current analysis, we follow the text edited by Veturi Prabhakara Shastri, we also consult the edition compiled by Lockwood and Bhat and try to complement Dr S Ramaratnam’s thesis.
The poet
Unlike Mattavilāsa, the authorship of Bhagavad-ajjukam is not conclusively established. Some scholars opine that it is Mahendravikramavarman, while others think that the play is authored by another poet named Bodhāyana. Again as the primary aim of the article is to enjoy the work rather than debate about the authorship, the readers can refer to Dr S Ramaratnam’s thesis where he provides more details and argues in favour of Bodhāyana.
Dramatis Personae
Sūtradhāra (Stage manager) : Introduces the play, sets the stage for the performance. Wants to gain the favour of the king by staging the same play later. Seems to be confident enough to instruct the other character about what hāsya is and how prahasanas are staged etc.
Vidūṣaka (Stage manager’s companion) : Supports the Sūtradhāra in conducting the initial proceedings. Even though a comic character, he seems to be unaware of prahasanas. Both have very few lines.
Parivrājaka (The preceptor) : A yogin, adept in various śāstras. Has supernatural powers which he uses to great effect. Addressed as Bhagavān.
Śāṇḍilya (The disciple) : Has recently joined the Parivrājaka, has no real interest other than finding easy ways to lead life. Wants to misuse the respect people have towards parivrājakas and sādhus.
Vasantasenā (gaṇikā) : The courtesan, who comes to the park to meet her lover, to be bitten by the snake. Well-versed in arts. Addressed as Ajjukā.
Madhukarikā and Parabhṛtikā: Attendants of Vasantasenā.
Yamapuruṣa: The attendant of Yama, mistakes Vasantasenā as another person of the same name and takes her to Yamapuri, only to realise his folly later. His mistake is the crux of the plot.
Mātā (Mother of Vasantasenā) : Comes to see her daughter after she is bitten by the snake only to be surprised by her weird behaviour.
Rāmilaka: Vasantasenā’s lover.
Vaidya (Doctor):Whose skills are insufficient, he brings in the snake doctor.
Sarpavaidya (Snake Doctor): Even he cannot handle the case properly and hastily retreats.
The summary of the plot
The prahasana starts with invocation followed by the entry of Sūtradhāra and his companion Vidūṣaka, the Sūtradhāra shares his desire of presenting a play in the royal court and earn the appreciation of the king and shares his belief that a prahasana would be the best thing to present. Vidūṣaka says that he is ignorant of the genre which leads to the start of the proper play.
The Parivrājaka enters searching for his disciple Śāṇḍilya who being lazy is lagging behind, Parivrājaka sympathetically puts his laggard behaviour to be the result of the all pervading ignorance. Meanwhile Śāṇḍilya straight away betrays his emotions by giving an introduction about his lineage and concludes that his bid to fill his stomach made him follow the Parivrājaka but it has not been useful. They both find each other. Śāṇḍilya questions the ways of Parivrājaka which seems to be otherworldly and has no immediate benefits, all attempts by the Parivrājaka to drill some sense in his mind goes futile. The conversation is followed by their arrival at the pleasure garden.
Parivrājaka asks Śāṇḍilya to enter inside but Śāṇḍilya is afraid that the tiger which lives in the garden as per the stories he had heard might kill him. So he implores Parivrājaka to enter first. He follows him and immediately thinks he has been caught by the tiger and is about to die. When the Parivrājaka corrects him that it is a peacock, Śāṇḍilya accuses the tiger to have transformed into a peacock and is now fleeing, frightened by him! They sit after choosing a spot. Again there is a long discussion about the purpose of learning, validity of scriptures and so on. Here Śāṇḍilya again gives his opinion about food and other material enjoyments.
Meanwhile the courtesan Vasantasenā in a bid to meet her lover Rāmilaka enters the garden which is the designated place, along with her two attendants Madhukarikā and Parabhṛtikā. Madhukarikā is sent to bring Rāmilaka, Vasantasenā and Parabhṛtikā stay back and settle in the garden. Vasantasenā sings in a sweet voice which attracts the attention of Śāṇḍilya. He is instantly smitten, but realises he needs to be rich once he comes to know that she is a courtesan!
Though instantly smitten, Śāṇḍilya realises he needs to be rich once he comes to know that she is a courtesan! Meanwhile the Yamapuruṣa, invisible to everyone, arrives and waits for the right time to do his master’s bidding. When Vasantasenā wants to pluck some of the shoots of the Aśoka tree, the Yamapuruṣa disguises himself as a snake and bites her. She loses consciousness.
Parabhṛtikā laments her loss and is about to venture out to bring Vasantasenā’s mother. Meanwhile Śāṇḍilya too is sad and implores Parivrājaka to share his sorrow. When he says that life is transient, he scolds him as stone hearted and goes to the courtesan. Parabhṛtikā convinced that Śāṇḍilya would not desert Vasantasenā, goes to bring Vasantasenā’s mother. Parivrājaka tries to convince him of the futility of life and fails. Finally he decides to take a different route, he enters samādhi, does parakāyapraveśa, and transfers himself to Vasantasenā’s body. Śāṇḍilya is delighted to see Vasantasenā alive but is aghast when ‘she’ scolds him to be impure and also asks him to study. He turns to Parivrājaka only to see him dead.
Meanwhile Parabhṛtikā enters with Mātā, mother of the courtesan. Vasantasenā scolds her mother too, saying not to touch and defile her! They both think that it is the effect of the venom. Madhukarikā also returns with Rāmilaka, he is also scolded and learns that her behaviour has been incoherent since she has been bitten by the snake.
Parabhṛtikā runs and fetches the doctor. The doctor also isn’t spared! He goes back to bring the specialist who is a snake doctor! Yamapuruṣa meanwhile returns after being scolded by Yama for his mistake and sees that Vasantasenā is reanimated! Understanding the situation, he places the ātma of Vasantasenā in the body of the Parivrājaka and exits. Parivrājaka gets up calling for Parabhṛtikā and Rāmilaka. Parivrājaka wants to embrace Rāmilaka and also pines for a drink, much to the anguish of Śāṇḍilya who is surprised and disgusted seeing his preceptor’s behaviour. Exasperated, he exclaims that this is neither the Bhagavān, nor the Ajjukā, it is indeed some dreadful combination of both, i.e. Bhagavad-ajjukam.
When Mātā calls out for Vasantasenā, Parivrājaka answers. While all are perplexed, the snake doctor arrives armed with his book of cures. Vasantasenā debates with him on the types of poisons, corrects his grammar, instructs him on the effects of poisoning and sends him packing!
Finally Yamapuruṣa following the orders of his master comes back and requests Parivrājaka to come out, exchanges both the ātmas, and exits. Vasantasenā exits with her mother, lover and attendants. When the mesmerised Śāṇḍilya asks Parivrājaka what all this means, he says that it is a long story which he would explain later. The play ends not with the bharatavākya as it usually happens but with a description of the sunset. One version has a bharatavākya which seems like a later addition.
Languages and Meters
Again for the sake of completion, here is the list of languages and meters used which is already given by Ramarathnam.
Metres: Anuṣṭup, Āryā, Indravajra, Upendravajra, Praharṣiṇī, Vaṃśasthā, Vasantatilakā, Mālinī, Śārdūlavikrīḍitā, Sragdharā.
Languages: Sanskrit, Prakrits - śaurasenī,
Critical appreciation
[The edition by Lockwood and Bhat is perhaps the only edition with a simple English translation which is available over the internet, and hence wherever there are some discrepancies we comment on it since some of them are way off the mark.(4) Wherever we have such comments we quote from them verbatim except for changing diacritical marks. Another translation by J. A. B. van Buitenen uses archaic language and has too many literal translations, even the character names translated likewise, Parabhṛtikā → little cuckoo, etc.]
Benediction
Unlike Matta-vilāsa which has a grand invocatory verse in Śārdūlavikrīḍitā, Bhagavad-ajjukam starts with a relatively tame looking verse in Āryā
त्वां पातु लक्षणाढ्यः
सुर-वर-मकुटेन्द्र-चारु-मणि-घृष्टः।
रावण-नमिताङ्गुष्ठो
रुद्रस्य सद्-अर्चितः पादः ॥१॥[May Rudra’s foot protect you! It is endowed with great qualities, is rubbed by the sapphires adorning the diadem of the best of the deities (when they prostrate before him), which possesses the toe which subdued Rāvaṇa, the king of asuras and is worshipped by the good people]
A seemingly benign verse, but there is a suggestion that the pāda of Rudra has the respect of both the devas and the asuras. It also suggests that while the devas bow down to him of their own accord, Rāvaṇa due to his arrogance was subdued and had his pride crushed before realising his strength.
Lockwood and Bhat in their introduction (page 7) provide an alternative explanation based on the premise that the invocatory verse should hint at the characters and the proceedings of the play. The explanation seems as bit stretched, resting upon the other meaning of Rāvaṇa i.e. lament, equating Śāṇḍilya to Rāvaṇa, Parivrājaka to Rudra.
Sūtradhāra
Then the Sūtradhāra appears but with Vidūṣaka (a comedian) instead of Naṭī, which is interesting since Vidūṣaka is the comic character who we always see in full length dramas like the prakaraṇa. The Sūtradhāra asks him to check and confirm that there is none to overhear what he is about to say and expresses his happiness that an astrologer has prophesied that he would present the play in front of an august audience consisting of the king and earn a lot of fame and money. He then enumerates the types of plays and chooses prahasana as a sure shot way to name and fame since it is based on hāsya.
Vidūṣaka ironically seems to be ignorant of it and asks him to mentor him. Ramaratnam opines that the allusion to the astrologer hints at the supernatural element of the play and the mentoring alludes to the preceptor-disciple element.(4) We note that, here Vidūṣaka seems to be genuinely interested in learning but in the play Śāṇḍilya isn’t. Also Sūtradhāra here seems to rely on the astrologer’s words more than his own expertise. This sets the stage for the appearance of the Parivrājaka who is searching for his lazy disciple, Śāṇḍilya.
Parivrājaka and Śāṇḍilya
While Parivrājaka seems to be miffed, he is also compassionate enough to reconcile that Śāṇḍilya being in this ephemeral world is bound to be behave that way! The verse which describes his rationale while not being as brilliant as Bhartṛhari can well be a part of an extrapolated vairagya collection.
देहो रोगनिधिर्जरावशगतो लीनान्तकाधिष्ठितो
यो नित्यप्रतिघातरुद्धविषयस्तीरे यथा पादपः।
तं लब्ध्वा सुकृतैरनेकगुणितैर्देहात्मना विस्मितो
मत्तो यो बलरूपयौवनगुणैर्देीषान्न तान् पश्यति ॥३॥[The body is indeed the treasure of maladies, slave to the old age, on the brink of death which lies hidden.
It is battered continuously like the tree which stands on the river bank about to be uprooted.
Even though it is earned by great amount of good deeds, mesmerised and
intoxicated by strength, looks and youth, one doesn’t realise it’s flaws]
A very good phrase लीनान्तक is used, which says that death is hidden inside us. This is immediately followed by the introduction of the disciple Śāṇḍilya. His introduction is at its idiomatic best and any translation would pale in comparison.
प्रथमम् एवाहं करटक-शेष-समिद्धे निर्-अक्षर-प्रक्षिप्त-जिह्वे कण्ठ-प्रसक्त-यज्ञोपवीते ब्राह्मण्य-मात्र-परितुष्टे कुले प्रसूतः ।(5)
ततो द्वितीयम् अस्माकं गृहे ऽशन-नाशेन बुभुक्षितः प्रातर्-अशन-लोभेन शाक्य-श्रमणकं प्रवजितो ऽस्मि ।
ततस् तत्र दास्याःपुत्राणां एक-काल-भक्तत्वेन बुभुक्षितः तम् अपि विसृज्य चीवरं छित्वा पात्रं प्रतोल्य छत्र-मात्रं गृहीत्वा निर्गतोऽस्मि ।
ततस् तृतीयम् अस्य दुष्टाचार्यस्य भाण्ड-भार-गर्दभस् संवृत्तः । कुत्र खलु कुतः खलु गतो भगवान् । एष दुष्टलिङ्गी प्रातर् अशन-लोभेन एकाकी भिक्षाम् आहिण्डितुं गत इति तर्कयामि ।[Firstly I was born in the lineage which sustained (lit. fuelled by) itself by leftovers of the crows in death ceremonies, having tongues which have never uttered (lit. thrown out) a single meaningful syllable, whose brāhmaṇya is limited to and sufficed by the yajñopavīta (sacred thread) which adheres to their necks. Secondly due to paucity of food, greed for breakfast made me take the vows of buddhism and become a mendicant. But due to those bastards’ one meal per day rule, I deserted it, I tore my robes, threw away my begging bowl and ran away only with the umbrella. Thirdly I ended up being the donkey bearing the burden of this vile preceptor. Where has he disappeared? This imposter of a preceptor, greedy to partake of breakfast alone has left me and has gone begging I presume!]
In this passage the phrases करटकशेषसमिद्धे, निरक्षरप्रक्षिप्तजिह्वे, कण्ठप्रसक्तयज्ञोपवीते, ब्राह्मण्य-मात्रपरितुष्टे, एक-काल-भक्तत्वेन, भाण्ड-भार-गर्दभः are very good constructions which were and still are used to great effect in Sanskrit. The fact that they sustained their living by attending death ceremonies alludes to the fact that one need not be a learned person for that, which continues to be so till this day.
Also contrast Śāṇḍilya’s claims with the Nāgasena from Matta-vilāsa, where he being a bauddha bhikṣu is extremely satisfied with the sumptuous food he gets from the merchants but has complaints about other tenets, one can claim that buddhism during the time of this prahasana was far more genuine compared to the setting of Matta-vilāsa.
Regarding निरक्षरप्रक्षिप्तजिह्वे Lockwood and Bhat has the following note (numbered 14 in their edition)
“14. In some communities there is, at the beginning of a child’s education, a ceremony in which a letter or letters are gently traced on the child’s tongue with a gold object (a ring or some such thing). Śāṇḍilya’s remark indicates that his family never observed this ceremony, and thus implies that they were illiterates.”
While there is a custom in which the child is made to trace letters (particularly starting with ॐ) either on cloth or rice we are not aware of any such tradition where letters are traced on the child’s tongue.(5)
Again we see that Parivrājaka seems to genuinely care about his disciple and assures him not to be afraid even though he has failed to keep up. In many places he refers to him as tapasvī, which means a pitiable soul. He also seems to be extremely patient which we see time and again throughout this play. Most of the verses uttered by him have parallels in philosophical texts like the bhagavadgītā, Ramaratnam in his thesis provides the verses in the bhagavadgītā and other texts which serves as the inspiration of the verses uttered by Parivrājaka, one can refer to that to see the parallels, here instead we shall try to highlight other aspects.
Śāṇḍilya comes straight to the point by asking about what is his way of arranging for food in the world full of festivities and fanfare. This starts an interesting conversation which goes on for a long time till it is somewhat interrupted by the appearance of Vasantasenā later. Parivrājaka replies to this query saying that he partakes food only from what good people give him, not caring about bouquets or brickbats, crossing the worldly lake unperturbed by the crocodile-like vices. Ramaratnam opines that this metaphor involving the crossing of the worldly lake might have been inspired by the lines ‘मारुतिस् सागरं तीर्णः संसार इव निर्ममः’ (Raghuvaṃśa 12.60), while it may be so, but it still comes as a distant second! With this verse and the previous quoted verse, we the readers are assured that Parivrājaka seems to be a genuine yogin and not a charlatan. We also see that there are very few lines of svagata or soliloquy for the Parivrājaka showing that he is transparent. Śāṇḍilya also has very few svagata lines showing he also has no problems stating his opinions however wrong they may be!
Śāṇḍilya on the other hand declares that he is orphaned and he has become his disciple just to fill his stomach and he is not at all interested in knowledge! When Parivrājaka asks why he says so, he turns his instructor’s words on its head saying dishonesty leads to bondage, so he is stating the truth! Śāṇḍilya is no dullard but definitely streetsmart when it comes to his interests! When Parivrājaka says that the fruits are obtained if we do karma without desires and selfish motives, Śāṇḍilya is irritated with all the nonsense about this ‘non- attachment’ He is also not convinced that anyone can attain such a thing. When Parivrājaka says it is attainable he again retorts back asking then why is Parivrājaka angry about his behaviour time and again. Parivrājaka replies that the cause for his anger is Śāṇḍilya not willing to learn. Śāṇḍilya pulls out the trump card saying that how can a ‘liberated’ person be bothered whether he learns or not. Parivrājaka says that since it is beneficial to the disciple he beats him without being angry!
Lockwood and Bhat in their introduction (page 10) use this conversation where Parivrājaka punishes Śāṇḍilya as an example to prove that Parivrājaka himself isn’t on par with the standards he had set earlier. And this alone would prove that Parivrājaka isn’t a true ascetic. They also say that by such an assumption, the play becomes more entertaining since everything Parivrājaka utters would be hypocritical. While there seems to be a contradiction in the behaviour of the Parivrājaka here, this alone isn’t sufficient to say that he is a quack! Many of the great ṛṣis too would sometime become angry, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t true ascetics. Even bhagavān Śri-kṛṣṇa acts inappropriately and expresses his happiness in an untimely manner when Ghaṭotkaca is killed, but that doesn’t make the bhagavadgītā null and void! He is still considered Yogeśvara. Moreover in the present context the Parivrājaka is able to do parakāyapraveśa later in this story which would establish that the Parivrājaka is not a quack like other mendicants who appear in prahasanas of the later period who are neither seekers nor do they possess any such skills, but instead try to fool people with extraordinary claims and fail miserably (one example being ‘Jñānarāśī’ from the prahasana Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi which we shall analyse next.). In those prahasanas their incompetence actually contribute to the humour, but in case of this prahasana the claims made by Lockwood and Bhat hold no water. Here it is the contrasting behaviour of the preceptor and the disciple that generates humour.
Śāṇḍilya doesn’t buy his preceptor’s thoughts about punishment, instead he again reminds that it’s time for food, Parivrājaka corrects him saying that it isn’t noon yet, the way Parivrājaka describes the right time for bhikṣā is very interesting, he says
न्यस्तमुसले व्यङ्गारे सर्वभुक्तजने काल इत्युपदेशः
[the pounding staff is at rest, the embers calmed, everyone has finished their meals, then one should go for bhikṣā]
He says that they can rest for sometime in the nearby garden. Again Śāṇḍilya asks how a ‘liberated’ person can be tired, the preceptor patiently corrects him saying that the body still needs rest. The discussion veers to the concept of the deha, the ātman, their differences and so on. Time and again Śāṇḍilya seem to take things literally instead of grasping the underlying spirit. Still he seems to know the nature of ātman which he states without mistakes! When he asks ‘Who are you?’ Parivrājaka answers as follows.
खपवनसलिलानां तेजसश्चैकदेशा-
दुपचितचलमूर्तिः पार्थिवद्रव्यराशिः ।
श्रवणनयनजिह्वानासिकास्पर्शवेदी
नर इति कृतसंज्ञः कोऽप्यहं प्राणिधर्मा ॥९॥[Comprising of five primordial elements, sky, air, water, fire and earth is this dynamic but mortal body, perceiving the world through the five senses I’m some animate object called as man]
Compare this with the verse from Nirvāṇaṣaṭkam of Ādiśaṅkara,
मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कारचित्तानि नाहं
न च श्रोत्रजिह्वे न च घ्राणनेत्रे ।
न च व्योमभूमिर्न तेजो न वायु-
श्चिदानन्दरूपश्शिवोऽहं शिवोऽहम् ॥१॥
[ I’m neither the mind nor the intellect nor the ego nor thought
Nor am I the ears, the tongue, the nose, eyes
Nor am I the space, the earth, the fire, the air
I’m indeed that Ānandasvarūpa, Śiva ]
Or in terms of construction it has some similarities with the famous verse from Meghadūta of Kālidāsa.
धूमज्योतिस्सलिलमरुतां संनिपातः क्व मेघः
सन्देशार्थाः क्व पटुकरणैः प्राणिभिः प्रापणीयाः ।
इत्यौत्सुक्यादपरिगणयन् गुह्यकस्तं ययाचे
कामार्ता हि प्रकृतिकृपणाश्चेतनाचेतनेषु ॥ १.५ ॥
They arrive at the garden, Śāṇḍilya insists that the Parivrājaka should enter first since there is a tiger hiding somewhere inside ready to pounce upon him! Parivrājaka agrees and he is followed by Śāṇḍilya who starts screaming that he has been caught by the tiger! When Parivrājaka corrects him and says that it is a peacock, Śāṇḍilya calls it a coward tiger which, after seeing him transformed itself into the peacock and is retreating! Here we see a streak of Śakāra from the famous Mṛcchakaṭika, it is interesting to note that parts of both the prahasanas i.e. Matta-vilāsa and Bhagavad-ajjukam have some elements inspired by Mṛcchakaṭika. If not for its appearance in a prahasana one would be tempted to bring in comparisons of the sarpa-rajju-nyāya when Śāṇḍilya sees a tiger where there is a peacock!
Śāṇḍilya follows that with the description of the garden, which is done well with good diction and style, but it ends up as an enumeration since it betrays the lacks knowledge of the flowering seasons and lowers the propriety! Since it is Śāṇḍilya who describes it, it isn’t totally inappropriate.
Parivrājaka meanwhile takes this opportunity to correct his disciple and tries to make him understand the transient nature of life. This leads to a couple of good verses.
अभ्यागतः किसलयाभरणो वसन्तः
प्राप्ता शरत्कुमुदषण्डविभूषणेति ।
बालो नवेष्वृतुषु रज्यति नाम लोके
यज्जीवितं हरति तत्किल रम्यमस्य ॥१०॥
[Here comes the spring adorned with the shoots,
Here comes the autumn adorned with the lilies
Thus the naive are entertained with such thoughts
While that thing of beauty steals one’s very own life]
अनागतं प्रार्थयतामतिक्रान्तं च शोचताम् ।
वर्तमानैरतुष्टानां निर्वाणं नोपपद्यते ॥११॥
[Those who yearn for things beyond their reach (future),
Who worry about the things which are lost (past)
Who are forever sorrow about their present
Such people never attain nirvāṇa]
The second verse sounds like an all time truth masquerading as a maxim. One can find similar verses in bhagavadgītā and the below verse uttered by Kṛṣṇa elsewhere. (Two verses which are variations of the same idea.)
गतार्थान्नानुशोचन्ति नार्थयन्ते मनोरथान् ।
वर्तमानेन वर्तन्ते तेन मे पाण्डवाः प्रियाः॥ गते शोकं न कुर्वन्ति भवितव्ये न कातराः।
वर्तमानेन वर्तन्ते तस्मान्मे पाण्डवाः प्रियाः॥
[They don’t lament about the past nor they are anxious about the future
They always stay in the present, so the pandavas are dear to me]
Finally when it comes to finding a place to sit Śāṇḍilya is bothered by cleanliness while the Parivrājaka isn’t.
Lockwood and Bhat again have few notes regarding the small conversation below where nothing seems to be special.
शाण्डिल्य: – आयतमानः पन्थाः । ननुं कुत्रेदानीमुपविशामः ।
“71 Disciple: A tedious path! Where can we rest? 20” (20. A double entendre, the other meaning being that Śāṇḍilya considers his guru’s lecture tiring and wants a rest from it.)परिव्राजकः – इहैव वसिष्यावहे ।
“72 Mendicant: We’ll sit down here. 21” (21. A double entendre, the other meaning being that the Mendicant is suggesting that they can rest in the position (philosophical) put forward by him.)शाण्डिल्य: – अपोक्षमपोक्षम् !
“73 Disciple: Filth! Filth! 22” (22. A double entendre, the other meaning being an expression of what Śāṇḍilya thinks of his guru’s philosophy. ‘Crap’ is a term which more exactly translates the implied meaning, here.”)
Again it seems stretched to gather such meanings from this casual conversation.
A discussion about scriptural authority follows. Finally the fundamental question of the utility of learning itself comes up. Parivrājaka patiently explains everything with verses which are alluded to before already. He also says that sometimes just to know the utility of learning one needs to learn first!
During these discussions, one might wonder what value it brings into a prahasana which should evoke mirth. Firstly, it establishes the nature of the characters firmly, secondly, this build up finds its fruition in the next part where the exchange of ātmās happen! Still it could have been trimmed a bit. Especially since the introduction of Śāṇḍilya which happens in the very beginning, almost half the play consists of just such deliberations.
At this juncture we see some humour again when Śāṇḍilya asks if the Parivrājaka can use all his learning and enter someone’s house unseen, so that his skills can aid in thievery! But Śāṇḍilya’s interest in thievery too is limited to finding food.
Here Lockwood and Bhat again find some suggestions which seem stretched.
“23. The word, here, for ‘house’ (gehāni) also has the meaning of ‘body’. There is thus the irony of the question whether the Mendicant can enter other people’s bodies – the foreshadowing of something which the Mendicant, in fact, does later in the play.”
While the body is figuratively compared to house or city (pura) in many places there is no literal meaning for a house which would mean to be the body.
Then the discussion veers towards Yoga and its definition. Śāṇḍilya rebels saying that let the Parivrājaka worry about Yoga while he worries about the next meal! He finally snaps and says that he is grateful to Buddha who has said that neglecting food amounts to neglecting everything! When Parivrājaka is curious he says as a matter of fact the preceptor already knows that he was following buddhism and when asked about his learning he quotes Sāṅkhyā maxims saying, that is what ‘Jina’ has said in the piṭakas, oblivious to the fact that piṭakas are related to Buddhism, ‘Jina’ though can mean any jīvanmukta it is mostly used to denote Mahāvīra, and the content is also not from piṭakas. He blames his preceptor saying without food his mind is confused now and the preceptor is the reason for that! As if to prove that he has indeed learnt something he also quotes the same five tenets like Nāgasena in Matta-vilāsa
अदत्तादानाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not taking what isn’t readily given, is what is ordered] मृषावादाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not speaking lies, is what is ordered]
अब्रह्मचार्याद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[following brahmacarya, is what is ordered]
प्राणातिपाताद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not killing any living being, is what is ordered] अकालभोजनाद्विरमणं शिक्षापदम् ।
[Not eating at inappropriate times, is what is ordered]
While there Nāgasena is well fed and he wants to violate अब्रह्मचार्याद्विरमणं here Śāṇḍilya has left Buddhism not being able to adhere to अकालभोजनाद्विरमणं as he always thinks about the next meal! In the subsequent events we also see that it would have been difficult for him to adhere to अब्रह्मचार्याद्विरमणं too!
Vasantasenā
Here we finally come out of philosophical discussions to the crux of the play. Vasantasenā enters with the two attendants Madhukarikā and Parabhṛtikā. Here like the Vasantasenā of Mṛcchakaṭika she seems to have fallen in love even though she is a courtesan. So the name perhaps is befitting to her character! The relationship has become so certain that Madhukarikā calls Rāmilaka as brother-in-law! (आवुत्तः) Madhukarikā is sent to fetch Rāmilaka who is her lover. Meanwhile she sings in a sweet voice which attracts Śāṇḍilya’s attention. The verse she sings is also appropriate considering its meaning.
परभृतमधुकरनादज्याघोषः काम एष उद्याने ।
तिष्ठति सहकारशरो मुह्यति नूनं मनोऽपि मुनेः ॥१८॥
[With his bow string sounding like the buzzing of bees and the singing of the cuckoos,
Manmatha is here in this garden,
His arrows are the shoots of mango,
He distracts even the minds of the munis]
As if by cue Śāṇḍilya is instantly distracted hearing it! He describes her singing to be the pāyasam in which extra ghee has been added to elevate its taste!.
Here too, Lockwood and Bhat, goes on a tangent and describes a story which has nothing to do with the plot.
“29. Pāyasam is a sweet pudding. The playwright, here, is satirizing fallen Buddhism. This mention of pāyasam would bring to mind an important episode in the life of the Buddha, an event which followed the momentous decision of the fasting Gautama (the Buddha-to-be) to give up his severe austerities. On the morning of that day, when he became determined to achieve enlightenment or never again to rise from his seat under the pïpal tree, he was offered päyasam by a village girl named Sujātā – and he then accepted this päyasam, ending his near-death fasting. Against this well-known background (well-known, surely, to those who lived in South India in the seventh century), King Mahendra juxtaposes his gluttonous character, a fallen-away Buddhist monk, Śāṇḍilya, who compares the melodious singing of a courtesan to sweet pāyasam (Pāli: madhura pāyasa).”
Pāyasam would have been a well-known sweet and Śāṇḍilya would have used this simile as though making a routine statement. Too much suggestion shouldn’t be extracted from such statements!
As soon as he recognises that she is the courtesan Vasantasenā, he immediately exclaims that the rich are indeed fortunate! Śāṇḍilya also asks his preceptor to listen and again taunts him that he would have enjoyed her company only if he had money. Even here Parivrājaka seems quite patient.
Yamapuruṣa meanwhile enters the scene and declares his intent to us, the audience. He describes her beauty, which is interesting since he out of all people should know how transient it is!
We quote the translation of the verse uttered by Yamapuruṣa as rendered by Lockwood and Bhat to further the discussion.
श्यामां प्रसन्नवदनां मधुरप्रलापां
मत्तां विशालजघनां वरचन्दनार्द्राम् ।
रक्तोत्पलाभनयनां नयनाभिरामां
क्षिप्रं नयानि यमसादनमेव बालाम् ॥२३॥“Dusky young woman with sweet speech and lovely face,
Broad hips, body painted with excellent sandal paste,38
Passionate, bright pink lotus eyes, most pleasing grace,
I’ll carry her soul to Yama’s place. (23)
- In early times, Indian women often went undraped above the waist. Designs in sandal paste decorated their breasts. See also line 172.”
The note number 38 by Lockwood and Bhat is not the whole truth, while women would be undraped in privacy, in public this wasn’t the case. They repeat this further in note 49 too, which we quote.
“49. In the seventh century, A.D., when this play was first staged, Ajjukä was obviously undraped above the waist, and her breasts would have been decorated with designs in sandal paste. This was a common practice in those days.”
Just because a character in the play describes sandal paste designs on a woman’s breast doesn’t mean she roams around half-naked. Such designs have been described by a lot of poets in their works. Such blanket statements have caused a lot of misconceptions especially when it is evident that such practice is totally against modern sensibilities. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which the authors fail to provide. They take sculptures to be an evidence for their claim, but sculptures are creative representations and are not always realistic, also sometimes it is done to highlight bodily features. It can’t be extended universally. We shall provide just one literary evidence contrary to their claim from Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa (Act I), when Śakuntalā feels that her upper garment is too tight (अतिपिनद्धेन वल्कलेन नियंत्रितास्मि) she blames priyamvadā who replies to her saying its not her fault but its the fault of Śakuntalā’s youth (अत्र पयोधरविस्तारयितुर् आत्मानो यौवनं उपालम्भस्व)!(5)
Coming back to the present discussion, when Vasantasenā is about to pluck some shoots of aśoka, Yamapuruṣa assumes the form of a snake and bites her. By the time they realise, Vasantasenā collapses. Śāṇḍilya relays the news to his preceptor who seems cold hearted and says that her time has come and so she has departed. Vasantasenā asks Parabhṛtikā to convey her last respects to her mother and also embrace Rāmilaka on her behalf!
Yamapuruṣa describes the path to his destination which is towards the southern direction which is the direction of Yama and he reaches Citragupta who sits under a banyan tree.
Śāṇḍilya is at once filled with sorrow and laments that the courtesan has left her body. Parivrājaka corrects him and drives home the all time truth saying that, everyone is fond of their life and hence none wants to give it up, rather it is the life itself which discards the body. Śāṇḍilya scolds him with words which again showcases some of the routine rebukes present in the language. Few are of particular interest, कूरशकट - a cart filled with vegetables, someone who is just there to eat but not react like normal human beings, an animal, मुधामुण्ड - one with his head shaven in vain, i.e. even though a sannyāsin he seems to be not having compassion. Not satisfied by calling him names he also says that he’ll call hundred and eight names which is an idiom still used even today when one wants to scold someone. When Parivrājaka seems to be indifferent, he starts crying that she is his relative (स्वजन), the preceptor seems surprised, so he continues to explain saying that she also is like a sannyāsin who isn’t attached with anyone! Such statements from Śāṇḍilya conveys the reader that he isn’t as foolish as it seems, rather he is cunning but lazy! It is interesting to note that he doesn’t have the same attitude even towards his preceptor whom he is trying to follow! We don’t see him calling the Parivrājaka as स्वजन later.
Despite his preceptor’s reservations, he goes near Vasantasenā and laments calling her a sweet singer, Parabhṛtikā is initially surprised, she asks what he is doing! He replies that he has been just overcome by compassion! She gathers that he being a sannyāsin is compassionate to one and all! He holds her feet and when asked why, he replies that he is so sad that he can’t differentiate between her head or her feet and describes her beauty saying that he is indeed unlucky to not have enjoyed it when she was alive.
Parabhṛtikā thinks that he will not desert Vasantasenā and request to look after her while she goes to fetch Mātā. Śāṇḍilya says that he indeed is like a mother to everyone who is orphaned! While this emotion, if true, is really profound and is supposed to be how a sannyāsin should be, here we know that it is just hyperbole!
Parakāyapraveśa
Parivrājaka still seems to worry about his disciple’s learning and asks him to study! He instead asks if there is any solution for Vasantasenā’s situation. Parivrājaka offers a course on medicine! Śāṇḍilya snaps back saying all his learning is just sinful. This is when Parivrājaka decides to enter Vasantasenā’s body using his supernatural power of ‘parakāyapraveśa’ the reason he gives is also worth listening, he says even though one should remain unattached, here for the sake of the welfare of the disciple whatever he wants to undertake is harmless and hence has the approval of the great masters of yoga. With this reasoning he enters Vasantasenā’s body.
As soon as Vasantasenā gets up she calls Śāṇḍilya, who however doesn’t think for a moment how she knows his name and instead is happy that she is calling him! Immediately she withdraws herself scolding him not to touch her with unwashed hands. He expresses his surprise saying, ‘Oh she is so pure!’ She then tells him to come and resume his studies which enrages him. He thinks, ‘She too talks about studies!’ let me go back to the Parivrājaka only to see him lying motionless.
Śāṇḍilya who had cried hoarse seeing Vasantasenā body isn’t so sad seeing his preceptor dead, he calls him vācāla - which positively means a great orator but also has a negative connotation signifying that he blabbers a lot! Calls him yogavit - knower of yoga but finally ends his words by stating “even scholars would finally die!” as a matter of fact!
Meanwhile we see Mātā who is disturbed by the news, comes along with Parabhṛtikā to see her daughter, is surprised and happy to see her daughter alive. All the happiness vanishes when her daughter addresses her as vṛśalavṛddhe i.e. old woman of a lowly birth and orders her not to touch her! Parabhṛtikā guesses that it should be the poison which has made her behave like that and runs to get the doctor.
Twice we see that Vasantasenā (i.e. Parivrājaka) withdraws and orders both Śāṇḍilya and Mātā not to touch her as they are unclean, contrast this to his own behaviour where he isn’t bothered about the cleanliness when Śāṇḍilya asks him where to sit! So is he really bothered by that? It is unlikely, here he is rather putting up an act which he feels is the most appropriate!
Rāmilaka arrives and he is also likewise shunned, after being called by names like fool etc. After getting to know the full story he can’t believe that the mere snake-bite to be the cause, and instead guesses that some malevolent being has possessed her!
The doctor arrives. It is interesting to note that he speaks Prakrit. He creates a maṇḍala and tries to call the snake which has bitten her. Vasantasenā ridicules him saying that his efforts are futile, he says that she also has pittha and overpromises saying he will not only get rid of pittha but he will remove vāta and śleṣma too. Rāmilaka asks him to continue his efforts and says “we are not an ungrateful crowd!” which means he would be handsomely rewarded. The doctor excuses himself saying that he’ll bring the snake doctor as this case seems beyond his expertise!
Meanwhile Yamapuruṣa is taken to task by his master for bringing the wrong Vasantasenā, he comes back to correct his mistake only to see that the Parivrājaka has entered Vasantasenā’s body! He is extremely busy since he has to bring more dead people, appreciating Parivrājaka’s prowess, without much of a choice, he places Vasantasenā in his body and disappears!
Parivrājaka wakes up calling Parabhṛtikā, causing anguish in Śāṇḍilya, who instead of being happy concludes that miserable people never die early! ‘Great scholar’ when he died, but a ‘miserable fellow’ if he is alive!
Further Parivrājaka calls Rāmilaka and asks him to embrace him! Śāṇḍilya is stunned, and curses his preceptor asking him to embrace his staff made of kimśuka instead! Parivrājaka says that he is intoxicated for which Śāṇḍilya replies that he has gone mad! Even Rāmilaka says that the behaviour isn’t befitting of his stature but Parivrājaka ignores him and asks for a strong drink. Śāṇḍilya is enraged and tells him to drink poison instead! Readers should note that the mad person says the same thing to Satyasoma in the Matta-vilāsa. Śāṇḍilya also expresses his confusion saying that it has gone beyond all limits and it is neither the Bhagavān nor Ajjukā but some farcical combination of both!
Here again in note 60, Lockwood and Bhat think that this is somehow a parody of the concept of Ardhanārīśvara!
नैव भगवान् । नैव अज्जुका । अथवा भगवदज्जुकं नामेदं संवृत्तम् ।
“This is neither the Bhagavan nor Ajjukā. Better call it ‘Bhagavadajjuka’! 60
- In these last three sentences, the actor is emphasizing his Buffoon role. This is a two-fold parody of the Ardhanārīśvara concept: first, ‘Bhagavad-Ajjuka’, and second, ‘Ajjuka-Bhagavan’ (implied).”
It looks like Lockwood and Bhat are unaware of the concept of Ardhanārīśvara which has nothing to do with exchange of atmas instead it is to do with the inseparable union.
Parivrājaka further asks Parabhṛtikā to embrace him! When Mātā calls out for Vasantasenā, Parivrājaka answers!
The snake doctor finally arrives with his curebook muttering that he has brought some medicine with eight ingredients and so on, just to show off his knowledge, and starts bossing around asking to bring water and acting busy, he is convinced now that Vasantasenā is being possessed, but he is subjected to a stern examination by her! She first asks him if there is a cure and asks him his sources, when he mutters trying to remember, Śāṇḍilya is impressed even by that, but he understands that they both are similar and he might have forgotten his learning or hadn’t even bothered to learn anything in the first place! He helps the doctor with the book and the doctor again makes an elementary mistake and caught by Vasantasenā who teaches him grammar saying that ‘sarpa’ being of masculine gender, one should say, ‘trayaḥ sarpāḥ’ not ‘trīṇi sarpāḥ’! The doctor interjects saying, ‘Indeed it’s the grammar-snake which has bitten her!’ He is further examined about the stages of deterioration caused by poisoning, he says there are hundred stages which is again corrected by Vasantasenā who says there are only seven stages - goose bumps, parched mouth, draining of colour, shivers, hiccups, gasping for breath and losing consciousness. Beyond this even the doctors of the devas, the aśvins can’t help!
The doctor is exposed as a quack while Parivrājaka seems to be an expert in everything! The doctor runs away humiliated!
Finally when there seems to be no resolution in sight, Yamapuruṣa comes back and requests Parivrājaka to come out of Vasantasenā’s body so that he can perform the swap and finish his work. Parivrājaka accepts and finally the bodies are swapped to the delight of everyone.
Ending
When Śāṇḍilya asks Parivrājaka about all the events, he says that its a huge story which he will expand upon later. The sun sets by then which is described in an elegant verse.
अस्तंगतो हि दिनकृद्गगनान्तलम्बी
मूषामुखस्थ इव तप्तसुवर्णराशिः ।
यस्य प्रभाभिर् अनुरञ्जित-मेघ-वृन्दम्
आलक्ष्यते दहन-गर्भम् इवान्तरिक्षम् ॥३६॥
[The setting sun hangs on at the edge of the sky He looks like the molten gold in the crucible The clouds which have been covered by his brilliance Looks like they are pregnant with fire in the sky!]
Veturi Prabhakara Sastri mentions that the bharatavākya is found only in one of the manuscripts All other editions say that there is no bharatavākya. The bharatavākya itself is quite ordinary when compared to the one in Matta-vilāsa and as well be a later addition.
Comparison with Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam
It is natural that Bhagavad-ajjukam draws comparisons with Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam. While both are entertaining in their own way, there are some important differences.
In Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam without exceptions, all characters are degenerate, who manipulate their original tenets. They violate not only the viśeṣa-dharmas like the āśrama-dharma but even the sāmānya-dharmas like asteya, indriya-nigraha etc. Bhagavad-ajjukam on the other hand has many characters which are worthy of emulation. Parivrājaka is definitely a worthy character. Vasantasenā isn’t just a borrowed name from Mṛcchakaṭika but she follows her namesake by genuinely loving Rāmilaka despite his faults. Only Śāṇḍilya and the doctors are the degenerate characters here. Even Śāṇḍilya seems to turn a new leaf by the end. No such fundamental and profound changes happen to any of the characters of Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam.
When it comes to the characters, Bhagavad-ajjukam has a lot of variety compared to Mattavilasa. The Parivrājaka and his disciple, the courtesan, her attendants and her mother, her lover, the two quack doctors, even the yamapuruṣa, each character stands apart. They are drawn from different social order, gender, etc. Mattavilasa has characters which are mostly of the same type, emerging from various ascetic orders.
Also the swapping of bodies of two people of different nature, Parivrājaka who primarily expounds vairagya and the courtesan for whom śṛṅgāra is the default emotion, following different āśrama-dharma generates humour of a different kind. Contrast this to Matta-vilāsa where not much would change if we swap the kāpālika with the pāśupata or the bauddha, fundamentally they are not too different. Here there is a fundamental difference in these two swapped characters, one related to the purushartha of mokṣa while other to kāma, which the author has used well to generate humour.
Even though Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam has many philosophical discussions, even a casual reader can enjoy it since he/she need not know the ‘true’ teachings of any of these ‘matas’, Bhagavad-ajjukam’s discussions are, relatively speaking, a bit heavy, some of the discussions are inspired by great texts like the upaniṣads and the bhagavadgītā.
Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam is humorous throughout while Bhagavad-ajjukam’s humour is more distributed. Most of the humour is in the second half after Vasantasenā’s entry.
Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam has no supernatural motifs, on the other hand it is a crucial component of Bhagavad-ajjukam. One may wonder if such themes would appeal to a rational reader infused with ‘scientific temper’? But that would mean that one has forgotten that a rasika should be willing to suspend his disbelief as long as it is within the realm of propriety, no motifs are forbidden! In fact in this case it is that supernatural motif which brings the humour, without which the story would have been impossible.
In general prahasanas lack kaiśikī which involves fine arts like dance, music etc. It is not at all present in Matta-vilāsa while in Bhagavad-ajjukam there is ample scope in it during Vasantasenā’s entry to the grove and her character being a courtesan mandates her to have exceptional knowledge of dance music and such fine arts. Thus when staged it can have a component of lāsya which isn’t possible in Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam
Conclusion
Bhagavad-ajjukam like Matta-vilāsa-prahasanam is a well-made prahasana with a highly entertaining plot. Some of the conversation between Parivrājaka and Śāṇḍilya in the first half might have been trimmed to make it even more crisp.
Bhagavad-ajjukam’s influence on later prahasanas is something which cannot be ignored. Using supernatural phenomena has become a staple troupe. So is the usage of preceptor pupil pairs where both are fake (like in Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi), where we find fake miracle men promising lot more than they can deliver and still survive and thrive.
In all the editions which we have studied, the main import of the prahasana seems to have been lost. While it is indeed a commentary on society, where people like Śāṇḍilya misuse or abuse the respect given to his ilk to lead a lazy life without purpose, there is a more important suggestion here. People are more enamoured by supernatural miracles than real knowledge which is the most sublime and profound thing which anyone can attain. Parivrājaka who seems to be a jīvanmukta is not at all heard when he tries to impart real knowledge to his disciple, he has to use the cheap trick (relatively speaking) of ‘parakāyapraveśa’ to gain the confidence of his disciple.(5) This is an eternal truth, the number of followers ‘miracle men’ gain even in this age of information and ’enlightenment’ is a testimony to the fact that real knowledge has very few takers! Such a profound suggestion dealing with the core human psyche is what makes it one of the best prahasanas ever.
With this the analysis can move on to the other prahasanas, of which we will see Hāsyacūḍāmaṇi in subsequent parts.