Literature

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!

A poor man once found a bag of gold coins. While he could have gone elsewhere, he foolishly sat down at the same place and started counting the coins. In the meantime, the person who had lost the money came looking for it. He found this man and snatched his belonging back.

Thus, anything that a fool finds will come of no use to him.

~

A person wanted to show the full moon to a foolish guy. He stretched his hand out and pointed a finger at the moon. The fool kept staring at the tip of his finger and never saw the moon!

Aśvaghoṣa clearly states that his work is principally a scripture. It is structured as a poem, yes, but that is only a veneer, a convenient pretence. Nevertheless, his work is appealing because of two reasons: one, he was a gifted poet; two, he chose the lofty story of the Buddha’s life as his subject. From this we understand that at times even purpose-driven compositions get the glitter of pure poetry. We should be wary of the fact that not all purpose-driven compositions are good.

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॥

A fool went to a lake to drink water; he saw the reflection of a bird called svarṇa-cūḍa and thought that there was gold fallen in the waters. He jumped into the lake to fetch the gold. He, however, did not procure anything. His father saw him taking a dip in the water again and again, shooed away the bird and explained to him that it was not real gold. People like him are comical, cause humour, but are in pain within themselves.

~

Modern literary theory usually insists that a poet should not come in the way of the natural development of events and characters. If he gets personally involved, the work runs the risk of turning into a pamphlet meant only to air the author’s pet views. It would then become an artificial construct, straying away from its primary purpose of leading the readers to rasa.

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.

We move on to the next prahasana, Bhagavad-ajjukam.

               At the outset of the Mahābhārata Vyāsa outlines its literary qualities that befit an epic. At the end of the epic, he composes an epilogue of sorts titled Bhāratasāvitrī, where he solemnly records the poet’s helplessness:

ऊर्ध्वबाहुर्विरौम्येष न च कश्चिच्छृणोति मे।

धर्मादर्थश्च कामश्च स किमर्थं न सेव्यते॥ (१८.५.४९)