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. Though we come across verses from the Kundamālā in Bhāva-prakāśana, Sāhitya-darpaṇa, and Hanūmannāṭaka, it does not mention the author of the work anywhere. A sentence in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa, however, notes the name of the author and the work together; it reads – vīra-nāga-nibaddhāyāṃ kundamālāyāṃ sītāyāstad-apatyayośca pālana-saṃyojanābhyāṃ sva-phala-nirapekṣasya vālmīkeḥ (page 48, GOS). From this, it becomes clear that Vīra-nāga is the author of Kundamālā. The name Vīra-nāga is not that well known in the world of Sanskrit literature; it must, therefore, have been misread as Diṅnāga. In fact, a famous Buddhist tārkika was called Diṅnāga. We don’t have evidence to say if he was also a playwright. We come across five verses in the Subhāṣitāvalī attributed to one Vīra-nāga. We, however, do not see any of these verses in the text of Kundamālā available to us. Other than the mention of the name Vīra-nāga, we hear of no other literary work composed by him. Because of the upādhi Bhadanta that occurs before his name, it is quite possible that he was a bauddha. The Kundamālā, however, does not appear to be a Buddhist composition, for stutis dedicated to the divinities Gaṇeśa and Śiva occur at the beginning of the work. There is nothing in the play to suggest that it was composed by a bauddha; we only find Vedic atmosphere throughout the play. It is also quite common for the compilers of subhāṣitas to make mistakes, but the scholars who pen lakṣaṇa-granthas are less likely to make mistakes. Therefore, for our current purposes, we may assume that the Kundamālā was authored by Vīra-nāga as propounded in the Nāṭya-darpaṇa.
From the sthāpanā at the beginning of the play, we learn that he belonged to Arārālapura. It is hard to say which place this refers to in our country today; it is equally difficult to estimate the period in which he lived. Most scholars agree that the author of Kundamālā has been greatly influenced by the works of Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, and must have lived after their times; it is likely that he lived before the times of Bhavabhūti, for his work abounds in the profound simplicity of the earlier poets like Bhāsa and Kālidāsa, and does not show off scholarship through pedantic language like in the works of Bhavabhūti. Therefore, he must have lived in the sixth or the seventh centuries of the common era.
As we cannot be certain about the period in which he existed, it is difficult to say much about the author merely based on the subject of his play. Many scholars have agreed that the author of Kundamālā derives a lot of inspiration from the Abhijñāna-śākuntala. Whether Bhavabhūti bore any influence on him is highly debatable (and as mentioned earlier, he is likely to have lived before Bhavabhūti). Just as Kālidāsa’s popularity sent Bhāsa’s plays to oblivion to some extent, Bhavabhūti’s compelling fame must have eclipsed the author of Kundamālā.
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).
Lava and Kuśa are born; they are the favourites of all the residents of the āśrama; they narrate the Rāmāyaṇa and sing to the accompaniment of the vīṇā; Rāma readies himself for the aśvamedha in the Naimiṣāraṇya, in a place not far away from Vālmīkis āśrama. (Act 2)
As Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa head towards the place where the yajña is to take place, they spot a garland of jasmine flowers floating upon the river Gaṅgā. Rāma immediately recognises that the garland was strung by Sītā. The brothers proceed further and rest near an overgrowth of plants and shrubs. As they sat conversing there, Sītā happens to come there to pluck flowers. She overhears their conversation and is touched by Rāma’s pathos. (Act 3).
As Rāma is walking around the tapovana, his eyes are affected by the smoke from the fire of the yajña; he goes to a pond nearby to wash his eyes. He spots the reflection of Sītā, who was roaming around in the vicinity. But, he is not able to see her person, for she was invisible due to the magical blessings of Sage Vālmīki. Rāma faints in his attempts to catch her, and Sītā brings him back to consciousness by embracing him. In the process, Sītā’s uttarīya lands in Rāma’s hands. It was gifted to her by a vana-devatā called Māyāvatī in the past. He recognises the garment and dons it for a moment. Fearing that he would be spotted, he spontaneously casts it away; Sītā immediately picks it up. As Rāma wonders if Sītā has acquired the superhuman ability to be invisible due to her presence in the siddāśrama, vidūṣaka appears there and declares that it is all an illusion created by Urvaśī. (Act 4)
To be continued ...
The current series of articles is an enlarged adaption of Prof. A. R. Krishnasastri's Kannada treatise Saṃskṛta-nāṭaka. They are presented along with additional information and footnotes by Arjun Bharadwaj.
