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. It is because of viṣṇu-bhakti that all the obstacles are removed and the required sādhana-saṃpatti blossoms, which eventually leads to prabodha-candrodaya. It would not be out of place to surmise that the poet was a devotee of Viṣṇu. All other matas are of lesser importance; he has, in fact, criticised Jaina, Bauddha, and Kāpālika traditions in various ways. It is likely that these traditions were on their moral decline in his time. The play also hints that the vaidika tradition was also corrupt and was filled with dambha and ahaṅkāra – hypocrisy and ego; at places where these occur in the play, there is pungent humour. In fact, even those who have a preference for humour cannot criticise the play for the lack of vidūṣaka. The following are the words spoken by dambha –
सदनमुपगतोऽहं पूर्वमम्भोजयोनेः सपदि मुनिभिरुच्चैरासनेषूज्झितेषु ।
सशपथमनुनीय ब्रह्मणा गोमयाम्भ: परिमृजितनिजोरावाशु संवेशितोऽस्मि ॥
The dialogues of the other characters are also in alignment with their characteristic traits, as indicated by their names. Though these ‘characters’ are personifications of abstract ideas, when they come onto the stage, they bring philosophy into the tangible domain – they manifest in the form of embodied beings of flesh and blood; this feature makes it a dṛśya-kāvya. The storyline, thus, has action. However, in the current configuration of the play, only the second and the third acts are filled with action; in the rest of the acts, speech is in greater quantity than action; a person who does not follow the intricate philosophical argument may find the play boring. In sum, we should really admire the playwright’s calibre in bringing before our eyes the subtle aspects of vedānta, which he has thoroughly internalised; his calibre in depicting abstract concepts as concrete pictures is phenomenal and, in a sense, unparalleled. To appreciate his calibre better, we should compare his play with the later imitations of the genre – the contrast will then be clear. The later-day plays are devoid of the engaging element and are unnecessarily pedantic.
The prastāvana declares that śānta is the prime rasa in the play; of course, the very purpose of vedānta is to bring about peace. Nevertheless, the conversations between Kāma and Ratī and those between the Kāpālikas almost make viṭa-śṛṅgāra and vikaṭa-hāsya, i.e., vacuous romance and crass comedy to be the sthāyi-bhāvas; they appear to dominate over the śānta which is evoked in the later acts. If we are to agree that śānta is the primary rasa in Mahābhārata, we may agree that the current play also has the same as its undercurrent, in a similar fashion; the playwright appears to have had the Mahābhārata war and the daṇḍa-nīti of the epic in his mind when he composed the play. It is reflected in various episodes in the play – envy within the family; opposing factions with contrasting opinions; ministers, royal men, preparation for the war, imprisonment, attacking a kingdom; the enemy alone survives and hides in an untraceable location; sorrow, offering of ritual waters, the words of consolation, etc. In circumstances such as these, comparing such a play to a grand work like Mahābhārata would amount to using a mahopamāna to describe a hīnopameya; in fact, it may even appear ridiculous (See, for instance, 4.14). The poet might not have meant it this way, anyway.
It was previously believed that this was the first Sanskrit play to personify abstract principles within a spiritual framework. However, we learn that Aśvaghoṣa had authored such a play as well. It is hard to say if Kṛṣṇa-miśra was only the second person to write a play of the genre after Aśvaghoṣa, or if there was a tradition of writing such plays which have been lost in the womb of time.
