11. CHAPTER N THE THREE ALLEGORIES AND

CHAPTER N THE THREE ALLEGORIES AND

THEIR REFUTATION

This great story of the Kalapürnodayam, manifesting world after world to our unfailng amazement, has set the critics a- thinking. As a matter of fact, the title of the poem itself at first sight is suggestive of a vast world because the compound word of Kaläpurna may mean the moon, or that which is complete with parts, or that which is full of art, or the phenomena or the em- bodied soul. The various characters in the poem such as Satvadātman, Manıstambha, Sumukhāsattı, Svabhāva, Madasaya, Rupanubhutı, Madhuralalasa, Alaghuvrata and Abhmavakaumudı, places and countnes like the temple of

62 Mrgendravahana, Kasarapura, Angadesa and Kramukakanthottarapura, the episodes like that of Sarasvati and Caturmukha, the pursuit of Salyasura after Abhınavakaumudr are also very alluring. Tempted by these words, one critic advanced the theory that the kalapurnodayam contains not one but three separate allegones., According to him this poem of Surana contains the philosophical, the erotic and the historcal allegenes. To sub- stantiate the first, this critic draws attention to three separate passages in the Prasnopanisad with Sankara's commentary thereon. The first passage which forms the first Mantra of the Sıxth Question, when freely translated reads :- " Next, Sukeśa of the clan of Bharadvāja asked hım: ' Venerable Sır, Hiranyanābha the prince of Kosala, came to me and asked me this question, " Well, Bharadvaja, do you know the purusa who is of sixteen kalas (parts) ?" I replied to the pnnce, ' I do not know him, if I do, why stould I not tell it to thee ? He who tells a lie, perishes root and all;so it behoves me not to tell a lie.' He

Stues in Kalapurnodayam

got silently into his chanot and went away. So I ask thee where is that purusa ?" (What is that purusa, according to Sankara.) Here södasakalah purusa or purusa having sıxteen parts means, according to Sankara, the purusa on whom the sixteen parts or kalas are supermposed by Avidya.69 This term is ex- plained by Ramanuja, the founder of Visıstadvata, in another way. (This is not referred to by this learned critic). According to this interpretation it means Jiva or embodied soul coming into possession of sixteen kalas or parts beginning with prana and ending with name or naman Whatever may be the interpretation, ın his opinion Kalāpūrna means Jîvātman. So this poem Kalāpūrņodayam contains, this critic argves, a philosophical al- legory. As further evidence, he refers to phalasruti in this poem playing an improtant role. It says that those who tell the tales of Kalapurna and those who hear them alike would be born as mortals on the earth and live for a long time, enjoying a long 63 succession of children, grand-children, great grand-children and so on, and also wealth and happiness of all kinds.7° This is sim- ply echoing the eleventh Mantra of the Third Question in the Prasnopanisad which says :- " The progeny of the wise man who knows the prana as such never perishes, he becomes immor- tal."71 Sankara commenting en this says :-

கs மாரனய மப ென்ருகளுக ண

Therefore, the cirtic maintains, the poem must necessarily have an allegory. Before proceeding to elucidate it, he explains what these sixteen kalas are. They are, he says, Vision, Hearing, Smell, Taste, Touch, Speech, Handling, Sex impulse, Excretion, Walking, Mınd, Buddhi (intelligence), Ahamkāra (individualıty ?), Chittam (consciousness), Tejas (understandıng) and prana73 But G. V. Knsnna Rao

the Mantra which he quotes, includes the five elements also 74 One is at a loss to understand why he omitted the five elements. If he includes them, the number becomes twenty-one and not sixteen. In that case he should have relied upon the fourth Mantra of the Sixth Question which exactly gives the names of these sıxteen kalas as präna, Faith, Ether, Air, Fire, Water, Earth, the Senses, the Mind, Food, Vigour, Penance, the Vedas, the Yajnas, the worlds and Name or Naman.75 On the contrary he says that there is a slight difference between lists provided by the eighth Mantra of the Fourth Question and the fourth Mantra of the Sixth Question. The contents of the first list are nothing but an elabo- rate description of the contents of the second. This much can be understood even by the laity. In that case, one has to explain why the critic has deviated from this obvious course. If he ad- mits that Prana etc. are the sixteen kalas, he will have not only to say that the Kalāpurnodayam contains an allegory dealing with 64 the complete emergence of the whole universe, but also to sub- stantiate his statement from the contents of the poem. To avoid such an apparently impossible task he seems to have taken the other course. Even granting that his own list of sıxteen kalas, 1.e., Vision etc. is vald, is he able to explain this philosophical allegory he reads into the poem ? It is interesting to see how he substantiates his theory. " Angadesa is the human body. In this Angadesa, the town of Kasarapuram is the metropolis. Kasarapuram stands for the heart which is the lake or source of supply for the whole body (Hrdaya Kasaram). In the town of Kasarapuram, Kıng Satwadätman was, after a penod of anarchy, the first ruling sov- ereign. That is to say, in the human heart, Intelligence or Buddhi, after a period of comparative ignorance, first reveals itself and assumes control of the human body. King Satwadatman, con- scious of the superior virtues of Kaläpurna, abdicated the throne in his favour and became his prime minister. In other workds, intelligence gradually gives place to the superior power of the soul (Jivătma). Kalāpūrna is thus the human soul (Jivātma or purușha)." Studies in Kalapurnodayam

" This Kaläpurna was the offspring of a Brahmana couple Manistambha and Sumukhasatti. Manisthambha and Sumukhäsatti are the Iswara and Maya, and Kalapumna or the human soul is the manifestation of this union. Manisthambha, the husband, assumed at the time of union the form of the wife Sumukhäsatti, and the wife that of the husband. This only sig- nifies Iswara, the Lord of the universe, pleases himself by coming under the influence of Maya or prakriti and yet retaining his own ndividuality. Sumukhäsatti was the daughter of Swabhava, or in other words, Mäya or prakrti is self-born. Swabhava gave Kalāpūrna a bow and arrows. The bow is the mind and the ar- rows are the senses and by means of the mind and the five senses, Kalapurna or Jivatma could bring into his possession, Madāśaya or the material universe, and Rupanubhūti its capacity to please. Madāsaya, the material universe and Rupānubhūti, its enjoy- ment were the parents of madhuralalasa or the desire for pleas- ure and King Kalapurna's marrage of Madhuralalasa means that 65 the Jivatma enjoys the pleasures of the senses. Before this mar- rıage, King Kalāpūrņa wedded the princess, Abhinavakaumudi, an apsarasa of the moon. Abhinavakaumudi means moonlight or Chitsaktı and just as moonlight is inseparable from the Moon, so also this chitsaktı is inseparable from Jīvātma. This double meaning was brought about by the Slesha in the word Kalapumņa meaning the Moon or the Soul. Abhinavakaumudi means fresh moonlight and is an inseparable power of the Moon. So also, Abhinavakaumudi as Chitsakti is an inseparable power of Jivatma. Kıng Kalāpurna begot on Abhinavakaumudi a son named Suprasada and on Madhuralalasa a son named Sarasa. In other words the human soul by Chitsaktı acquires prasannatvam (be- nignity) and by the desire for pleasure attains Rasikatwam (artis- tic culture). King Kalapurna waged war against King Madāsaya and in the end marned the latter's daughter Madhuralalasa. On the other hand, he rescued the princess Abhinavakaumudi from the fury of Salyasura and wedded her. This shows that the hu- man soul while fighting against the lower pleasures of the senses (Madāsaya and Rpanubhüti) keeps itself free to enjoy the higher G. V. Knshna Rao

pleasures of the world (Madhuralalasa) and at the same time over- comes obstacles to live in the pure enjoyment of the divine glory (Abhınavakaumudi)."76 If the foregoing explanation is really the thing which the poet intended to impart to his readers, probably one will have but uittle respect for the author as a poet and philosopher. What are the relations between the body, the intelligence (mind) and the soul ? All the six systems of Indian Philosophy maintan that the body comes into the world along with Jivatman, that it exists only for its sake, and that it decays with its departure. The Kalapurnodayam clearly makes its readers understand that Angadesa had existed even before Satvadatman became its king, and that it was older than Kalapurna. It futher informs us that Satvadätman makes love to Sumukhasatt who, according to this cnitic, is nothing but Maya or the cosmic illusion. Another thing to be noted in this connection is that the term Satvadātman liter- 66 ally means the good soul of yours. How do these facts fit into the allegory the critic reads into the poem ? If Maņıstambha and Sumukhāsatti are, as this crtic as- serts, Isvara and Maya, Isvara will not be the agent who begets this universe and the embodied souls through his union with Maya as Indian philosophy mamtains; but Mäya herself will be the agent. Otherwise, how is one to interpret the episode of Manstambha and his wife mutually exchanging their sexes ? Why has the poet mentioned this couple as the citizens of Kash- mir, depicted their love episodes and narrated Svabhava's strange history? What purpose does it serve when the poet makes the yogin abnegate his property, leave his wife and daughter behind and hide himself in the lake of the Satataladaghna in the name of penance? How does Svabhäva's bestowing a bow and nine ar- rows on Kalapurna symbolise the mind and the body (the city of nine gates)?77 The words nava-saramulu cannot indicate or sym- bolise the nine gates by any stretch of imagination. The critic maintaıns that Madāsaya stands for matenal universe, while, Rūpānubhūti signifies its capacity to please. Had the poet really this view in mind, he would have used the word Rupanubhavyata instead of Rūpānubhuti.

Stuches m Kalapurnodayam

Another incongruity that is to be reckoned with in this con- text is the nature of 'Chitsakti'. How can she become a victim to the fury of Asuras and be saved by Jivatman? Strange it may appear to be, but all the same it is the logical corollary of this allegory. Let the episode of Abhinavakaumudı speak for itself. She who stands for "Chitsakti" was loved and pursued by Salyasura and later on saved by Kalapurna. How is it possible for Salyasura to fall in love with "Chitsakti"? It must be that he was not an Asura, or she was not really "Chitsaktı." Besides the points mentioned above, he advances another theory. Hitherto it is taught by Indian philosophers that on reali- sation of "Chitsakti" one does not fall a prey to mundane pleas- ures. But the critic simply sublates this theory when he explains that Kalapuma, the Jivatman, marned Abhinavakaumudi, the "Chıtsakti" and Madhuralälasa, "the higher pleasure of the world" and that he lived with both of them and begot Suprasada, 'benig- nity', and Sarasa, 'the artistic culture.' 67 With the foregoing analysis in view, one has to come to one of the following conclusions - either that Surana had rehed upon Prasnopanisad as a source, that he could not understand what the sixteen kalas were even though he had the commentanes of Sankara and Ramänuja on hand, and that he made a mess of the elementary principles and utterly failed to depict the allegory, or, one has to understnad that Prasnopanisad was never the source of the Kalapumodayam and that the poet had never intended his poem to be an allegory. Any one who has read the poem will probably prefer the second to the first. This view will be strength- ened all the more on a closer examination of the love episode of Sarasvatı and Caturmukha. The same critic maintains that this episode also contains an erotic allegory; and as an explanation, he repeats Sarasvati's commentary on the story narrated by Brahma to the parrot.78 After going through this explanation the reader will be at a loss to know what the allegory is. Every reader knows before readıng Sarasvati's commentary thereon that the story is nothing but the sublimation of Brahma's love for her. Sarasvati's commentary G. v. Knsnna Rao

will only confirm the reader's anticipation and enhance hıs aesthetic pleasure. But where is the secondary meaning in the story? What is an allegory if it has not an independent secondary meaning throughout or at least in a part of the narration? It is well known that dhvani or suggestion is worlds apart from allegory. Because an allegorical poem contains more than one important and independent meaning, it appears for all practical purposes to be somewhat nearer to the sustained prakrtaprakrta slesa of the Indian Alamkarkas, but on no account can these two be considered as identical or parallel to each other. And dhvar or suggestion, as Anandavardhana defines79 it, is that in which either the word or the meaning or both subordinating themselves manifest the particular kind of poem. The word manifesting beauty which cannot be expressed in any other way and possessing suggestivity is dhvani. When the various kinds of beauties of the words and meanings, i.e., words, meanngs, figures of speech 68 and gunās have rasas, etc., as their sole aim, it is dhvant. The story narrated by Brahma ın the Kalāpūrnodayam expresses sım- ply his love for Sarasvat and nothing else. It does not propound allegorically any theory of love or philosophy oflove. The lake, the moonlight, the reflected face of Sarasvati in Manistambha, the actions and reactions and their feelings are vibhāvas, anubhvaas and vyabhicars. By their combination rati is being manifiested. Thus the story is only one of Snngara rasa dhvani and not an allegory. The most important thing to be noted in this connection is Sarasvati's commentary on the story narrated by Brahma, the Lord of Creation. The suggested meaning is explained clearly in the cut and dry way of the day to day life.80 According to this explanation the lake is spoken of as Kasarapura and the reflected face of Sarasvatı as the Kıng Kalapūrņa. Kalăpūrna conquering the other kings means that the reflected face of Sarasvati is far superior to all other faces in beauty. Kalapurna getting a bow. arrows and a jewel from Svabhava should be uderstood in the sense that the face was endowed with beautiful eye-brows, looks and lips by nature. While Madasaya stands for the wish of Brahma, Stuches in Kalapumoaayam

Rupanubhuti represents the enjoyment of formal beauty. The delicate smile of Sarasvatı is spoken of as Abhınavakaumudi whereas the beautiful proximity and the jewelled pillar are sym- bolised as Sumukhäsattı, the father and as Manistambha, the mother. Kramukakanthottarapura is nothing but the upper part of the body above the neck. Satvadatman, Prathamagama and others stand for Sarasvati and the four faces of Brahma. Brahma's desire to kiss the lips is signified by Madhuralãlasa. If the poet, as this critic explains, had intended both the allegones, why did he commit himself to one definite meaning in Sarasvati's commentary? Would it not have served him better if he had omitted it? He did not leave the matter there. On the other hand the poet suggests through the character of Sarasvati81 :- "Ah! serving you (the Lord of Creation) as I do, don't I know this much, my lord? These skilful words and these ideas are after all my arts, and I have bestowed them on you." This clearly means :- "After working so long in the field of literature, I know what is 69 what. I am the creator and bestow my words and ideas on you. Take them only in the sense I mean." The poet seems to be very particular on this point. As soon as Sarasvati's commentary is over, he again makes her get the approval of Brahma, the all- pervading soul of cosmos. He crisply says- "That is exactly so, and it cannot fail.""2 Not satisfied with this too, the poet censures cnitics reading their own thoughts into his poem by way of sug- gestion when he makes Sarasvatı say :-

x1

When the poet openly suggests time and again that what he says is true, what right has a sahrdaya to contradict him? The third is the historical allegory84 which this cnitic reads into the poem. He is not sure which historical person is meant by Kalāpurna and openly admits it when he savs :- "Who this per- G. V. Knshna Rao

sonage is cannot at present be exactly stated, first, because of the scanty material in the story, and secondly, because of the meagre knowledge we still possess of the history of the royal dy- nasties of South India and I have only striven hereunder to give the most approximate interpretation of the allegory which, I think, certainly exists in the poem."85 In spite of this uncertainty he deliberately continues his pursuit and tries to explain that Kasarapura stands for Vijayanagaram.86 But this analogy seems to be a mistake because Kasarapura did not get its name because of its proximity to the lake, but the lake itself was spoken of as a city. The poet through Sarasvati says :-

70

And again he describes the words of Sumukhasatti who was no other person than Manıstambha :-

சற்ிவிகன்வைகள

The word E means 'like' but not proximity. The critic, indulg- ing further his imagination, says that Kramukakanthottarapuram signifies Nagalapuram and gives this explanation :- Krshņadevaraya bult a town called Nagalāpuram and made it his capital to all intents and purposes. Thus he may be said to have shifted his capital from Kasarapuram (Vijayanagaram) to Kramukakanthottarapuram (Nagaläpuram) for just as in the former name the word 'puram' is after the word 'kantha' so, in the latter word, the word 'puram' is after the word 'gala' and both 'kantha' and 'gala' mean the same thing.89 This is purely a sole- cism, an ignoratio elenchi.

Stuches in Kalapurnodayam

Then coming to the historical facts, there is definite infor- mation that Krishna Raya had four wives and not two. Besides this, there is neither tradition nor historical evidence to the effect that he was born of Brahminee parents. Nor is it said that he had ever invaded North India. While Krishna Raya had eight great poets in his court, Kalapurna had only four. So there is appar- ently no comparison between the two except that both the em- perors were followers of Visistadvaita cult. It may be argued that one should not search for every minute detail in an allegory as he does in a straight narration. Even granting this, the question still remains unanswered :- Which characteristics or events of Kalāpūrņa make one think of Krishņadeva Rāya or Narasa Rāya? If one must take into consideration only the realistic human ele- ments by detaching them from the supernatural, how can it be sad that the poet only meant Krishna Raya or Narasa Raya? Hence one is forced to agree completely with the Maharaja Saheb of Pithapuram when he says: " ... .. I entirely differ from my 71 friend regarding his theones of allegones, philosophical and his- torcal, in "Kalapurodayam.'I am in very good company, as many eminent scholars of great erudition in Sanskrit and Telugu are in agreement wıth me." Kavısarvabhauma Sripāda Krişhņamūrti Sastri, the present poet laureate, also is of the same opinion.90 Before closing this question of allegories, one has to define what it is, and show how it is an altogether foreign concept to both Sanskrit and Telugu literatures. "An allegory is a trope in which a second meaning is to be read beneath and concurrent with the surface story. Distinguished from metaphor and par- able, it is an extended story that may hold interest for the surface tale as well as for the meaning borne along."91 Thus this second meaning is not subordinate to the surface story, but on the other hand it will be independent of the former. If one traces its origin and historical development, its nature will be all the clearer. To withstand the onslaughts of Rationalism, critics had to defend certain passages and episodes of the great poets and hence be- gan to read a second meaning into them to explain away immo- rality and apparent incongruity. With this activity there develops G. V. Knshna Rao

naturally a misconception that literature should be pleasing and at the same time be instructive. Because they were not able to reconcile these mutually opposite concepts,92 a new literary form came into vogue; and that is allegory. The surface story is meant for pleasure while the latent is intended for instruction. That is why the secondary meaning or story in an allegory will generally be one of ethics or philosophy. This does not mean that there were not historical allegories but they were perhaps of later or- gin. This mode of reading philosophical import into the works of great writers is not uncommon even with the Pauranikas when they explain rasa krida, Draupadı having five husbands and the like. This is quite unaesthetic and never conceded by the Ālamkārkās. Due to the admixture of two different concepts and their inadequate synchronsation, obscunty has become one of the characteristics of the allegory; and this surface meaning can- not be explained unless the second meaning is taken into consid- 72 eration. There can be no greater example of this than Spenser's Faerie Queene. But it is a different story with Sanskrt and Telugu litera- tures. There were days when the same concept of literature, i.e., that it should be at once pleasing and instructive prevailed in both the fields. Bhatti Kavya and the like in Sansknt and so many unpoetic passages in the Mahabharata, Basavapurana, Pandıtarädhys Caritra and the like in Telugu are concrete exam- ples of this notion. But the nature and genius of these languages and the profound philosophical ınsıght of the ālankarikas helped both these literatures to tread altogether a different path from that of the allegory. These two languages are so finely developed (or so primitive as the moderns like to put it), that even two or tree meanings can be clearly expressed by a single sentence. Ex- ploiting this tendency there came into these literatures slesa kāvyās, dvyarthi kāvyās and even tryarthi and caturarthi kāvyas There might have been even anuloma and viloma kavyas. Here the point is that, though they are grotesque, they are never ob- scure. Whatever may be the drawbacks of ancient Telugu poets, they can never be charged with obscurity like Spenser, Browning Studies in Kalapurnodayam

and others. Thus came into Sanskrt and Telugu literatures dvyarthi kāvyās etc. instead of allegorical poems. But this sort of development received a terrible check from one of the world's greatest aesthetician, Anandavardhana, and he forced them to flow into the profound channels of dhvant. In the ninth century itself he clearly defined the soul of poetry as dhvant or sugges- tion, and differentiating it definitely from figures of speech of which lēsa is one, determined the values of various forms of literary expression. Explaining Anandavardhana's view, Abhinavagupta, the eminent philosopher and perhaps the world's greatest liter- ary cntic, pronounced his judgment that rasa dhvan or aesthetic experience is the soul of poetry93 and the poet's primary aim is Ananda94, or that special pleasure peculiar to fine art. Thus into both Telugu and Sanskrit literatures there have come sleşa kāvyas, dvyarthı and tryarth kavyās, which are some- what similar to allegorical poems in English and other continen- tal literatures. The common features between the two forms are 73

that both have more than one meaning and these meanings are not only important but also independent. Both these forms have for their ultimate or immediate object expression rather than the aesthetic experience or Ananda. But at the same time, slēsa kavyas etc. are always plain and without confusion of imagery, while an allegorical poem generally is, though not always, ob- scure. An allegorical poem carries invanably an ethical or philo- sophical or historical significance, but the slesa and dvyarthi kavyās etc. do not have such a limitation. Now it may be examined how Dhavani differs from allegory. Dhvant should not necessanly have a double meaning whereas an allegory should have more than one. Even where dhvani has more than one significance, the expressed one should always be subordinate to, or even annihilate itself in the manifestation of, the suggested; and at the same time it should be beautiful or communicate aesthetic expenence. It is not so with allegory. The surface meaning as well as the under-current are important, and also independent. Instruction is not at all the important aim of G V. Knshna Rao

dhvani as it is with the latter. While obscurity is an arch enemy of dhvani, it is very often an intimate friend of allegory. Dhvani exists even in prefixes and suffixes, consonants, vowels and words, in sentences and in the whole work; but allegory cannot exist even in single sententeces. With these data in view, we may ask what is the place to be assigned to allegory by the alankarika school? Though it differs from slesa and its species, its connections are more with the lat- ter than with dhvani. Those who have direct acquaintance with the allegorical poems of Spenser cannot altogether place him in the calss of slesa kavis. Certain portions of the Faerie Queene come under dhvani, certain other passages come under slēsa and its species and the others are worthless. Now returning to the present topic, can it be maintained that there exists definitely in the Kalapurnodayam an allegory 74 which is different from slesa etc. and dhvani, and thus altogether foreign to both the tradition of Telugu and Sansknt? To summarıse (1) Prasnopanısad is never called Kalapurnopanıshad and the sixteen kalas or parts mentioned therein are not simply vision etc. but prana etc. (2) If this Upanısad was his source, the poet would have suggested through his poem the emergence of the material universe and the embodied soul. (3) The allegory the critic traces, is fraught with many shortcom- ings, and he attributes philosophical ignorance, creative impo- tence, expressional incompetence and gross self-contradiction to the poet. (4) Admission of the existence of allegory means denial of unity in the poem on which the poet set such a high value 95 (5) Above all these considerations, allegory, differing from dhvant, slesa and its species as poited above, is altogether a foreign concept. Therefore, it can be positively said that the Kalāpūrņodayam is not an allegorical poem.

Studies ın Kalapurnodayam