From the Uttara-kāṇḍa of Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa, we learn that Rāma had made up his mind to perform the aśvamedha accompanied by the golden image of Sītā. He does not expect Sītā to perform a śapatha, i.e., take an oath as per his whims. In fact, Vālmīki suggests the act. Bhū-devī does not come to take her away either, but instead, declares her pātivratya before the people gathered there.
The Kundamālā is a play in six acts based on the Uttara-rāmāyaṇa. The following is the summary –
Lakṣmaṇa, as per the command of Rāma, drops off a pregnant Sītā on the banks of the river Gaṅgā, and returns to his kingdom. That evening, Sage Vālmīki finds her there, identifies her, and escorts her to his āśrama. Sītā pledges before the Gaṅgā that she would worship every day using kunda-mālā, i.e., a garland of jasmine flowers, if her delivery is smooth (Act 1).
In 1923, Mānavalli Rāmakṛṇa-kavi and Rāmanātha-śāstrī compiled and published the play called Kundamālā authored by Diṅnāga. Later, they declared that the name is unlikely to be Diṅnāga and is Dhīranāga. In 1932, Jayacandra-śāstrī of Lahore published the play and noted the author’s name as Diṅnāga. He says that the author is certainly Diṅnāga as the second verse of the play Kundamālā is quoted in the Subhāṣitāvalī, and he is mentioned as its author. However, the edition of Subhāṣitāvalī published in 1886 in Bombay does not quote the verse at all.
By the beginning of the tenth Century CE and more so in the later years, Sanskrit literature had turned into a barren land. The history of Sanskrit drama that follows is the tale of its gradual decline. We saw in the previous section how it had started losing its lustre. Hereafter, it becomes even more evident. It appears that in these plays, the authors have been more eager to showcase their scholarly skills and have resorted to blind imitation; at times, drama has been merely employed as a medium for cheap gimmicks without profound content; in some cases, it is even distasteful.
In sum, the subject matter of the play is Advaita-vedānta; the play also has passing references to the other darśanas as well; avaidika matas such as Jaina and Bauddha are the kiñkaras of Mahāmoha; the vaidika matas such as Nyāya, Yoga, and Mīmāṃsā are Viveka’s friends; the poet has included the bhakti tradition with this as well. In another sense, viṣṇu-bhakti, i.e., devotion to Bhagavān Viṣṇu predominates; it appears as an undercurrent throughout the play.
The story of Hariścandra is quite old, and it dates back to the Vedic times; as it won the hearts of the people at large, it gathered more substance with time; a few recensions of the Mahābhārata also contain the tale, and are likely to be an interpolation; the tale, nevertheless, appears to have grown to large proportions. We cannot deny that the version of the story that occurs in such recensions of the epic is filled with exaggerations and elements that border on anaucitya. It is unlikely that Kṣemīśvara had that tale as the basis of his play.
Kṣemīśvara, also called Kṣemendra, is the author of a play called Caṇḍa-kauśika. The introductory segments of his play reveal to us his place and period to some extent. Kṣemīśvara was the great-grandson of Vijaya-prakoṣṭha; he penned the play upon the request of King Mahī-pāladeva. It is said that Mahī-pāladeva was Candra-gupta (Maurya) in his previous life and was responsible for the elimination of the Nanda dynasty. The Nandas of the past were now the kings of Karnataka, and it was important to eliminate them; Mahī-pāladeva was born for this purpose.
The king finally marries not one, but two women of his antaḥpura with the help of his queen. One of them, as narrated before, was in the disguise of a man and proves to be a minor obstacle to the smooth flow of events. The poet might have the impression of having spiced up his story by the inclusion of this element; however, these segments make the play less natural. It is hard to believe that the queen’s maternal uncle’s daughter, her cousin, grew up in the royal quarters disguised as a man, without causing any suspicion to anyone around and not even to the queen.
We have been able to lay our hands only on two acts of his other play called Bāla-bhārata or Pracaṇḍa-pāṇḍava; it is hard to say if the poet only wrote so much. Bāla-rāmāyaṇa, as explained earlier, captures the entire epic in the form of a play; similarly, it is quite possible that Rājaśekhara intended to condense the Mahābhārata in his Bāla-bhārata.