Vakrokti Jivitam

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Vakrokti Jivitam" by Radhyshyam Mishr, based on the provided pages:

Book Title: Vakrokti Jivitam Author: Radhyshyam Mishr Publisher: Chaukhamba Vidyabhavan Key Focus: The provided text is a commentary (Satippani 'Prakash' Hindi Vyakhya) on the "Vakrokti Jivita" by Raja-nak Kuntaka, with the commentary penned by Radhyshyam Mishr. The text delves into the philosophical underpinnings of Kuntaka's work, particularly his concept of Vakrokti (indirectness or tortuousness in expression) as the life of poetry.

Summary of Content:

The provided text primarily comprises the Introduction (Bhumika) and the beginning of the First Unmesh (Chapter) of Radhyshyam Mishr's commentary on Kuntaka's "Vakrokti Jivita."

I. Introduction (Bhumika):

The introduction meticulously discusses the chronological placement of Acharya Kuntaka.

• Kuntaka's Era:

  • The author notes that "Vakrokti Jivita" is Kuntaka's only available work, and it's incomplete and fragmented. This makes it difficult to determine the precise time of its completion.
  • The author emphasizes that Kuntaka's period is determined by analyzing the poets and acharyas quoted in his work (establishing a lower boundary) and by mentions of Kuntaka in later works (establishing an upper boundary).

• Lower Boundary (Kuntaka's Predecessors):

  • Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka: Kuntaka quotes extensively from both the karikas (verses) and the vritti (commentary) of Dhvanyaloka, including specific verses related to Pratiyaman Vastu (implied meaning) and the refutation of Rasavadalankara. This clearly places Kuntaka after Anandavardhana.
  • Rajasekhara: Kuntaka cites examples from Rajasekhara's "Bal Ramayana" and mentions him as a poet following a "Vichitra Marga" (unique style) alongside Bhatta Bana. Kuntaka also quotes Anandavardhana's name, stating, "Pratibha-vyutpattyoh pratima shreyasyityanandah" (Ananda states that intuition is superior to scholarship). The author concludes that Kuntaka must have lived after Rajasekhara.

• Rajasekhara's Era:

  • Rajasekhara mentions himself as the guru of Mahendrapala in his works like "Viddhashalabhanjika," "Karpuramanjari," and "Balabharata." He also refers to himself as the guru of "Nirbhayraja" in "Balabharata" and "Karpuramanjari."
  • Pischel equates Nirbhayraja with Mahendrapala. Mahendrapala's son was Mahipala, the emperor of Aryavarta, mentioned in Rajasekhara's "Balabharata."
  • Fleet identifies Mahipala with the king Mahipala of the "Bhasni Inscription," dated Vikrama Samvat 974 (917 CE). Pischel and Fleet also point out that Rajasekhara's play "Balabharata" was composed in "Mahodaya," identified with Kannauj, where Mahendrapala and Mahipala ruled. The "Siyadono Inscription" dates Mahendrapala from 903-907 CE and Mahipala from 917 CE.
  • Based on this, Rajasekhara's period is placed between 860 CE and 930 CE. Consequently, Kuntaka's period is determined to be after 920-925 CE.

• Upper Boundary (Kuntaka's Successors):

  • Kuntaka is explicitly named in Mahimabhatta's "Vyakti Viveka," Vidyadhara's "Ekavali," Narendraprabhusuri's "Alankara Mahodadhi," and Someshvara's "Kavyaprakasha" commentary.
  • The author identifies Mahimabhatta as the earliest among these scholars and states that Kuntaka preceded Mahimabhatta.
  • Kuntaka and Abhinavagupta: A significant portion of the introduction is dedicated to the debate on whether Kuntaka preceded Abhinavagupta or vice versa.
    • Dr. Mukerji and Dr. Lahiri argue that Abhinavagupta was familiar with Kuntaka's "Vakrokti Jivita" and consciously equated Bharata's Lakshana (description) with Kuntaka's Vakrokti.
    • The author supports this view, stating that Abhinavagupta attempted to incorporate Kuntaka's theory of Vakrokti into Bharata's Lakshana as Kuntaka's theory was difficult to refute.
    • Further points suggesting Abhinavagupta's post-Kuntaka status are:
      • Abhinavagupta's commentary on a verse from Dhvanyaloka (quoted by Kuntaka) seems to hint at Kuntaka's opinion.
      • Abhinavagupta's explanation of a verse regarding the word "tati" in the context of Linga-vaichitrya-vakraata appears to be a mere translation of Kuntaka's karika and vritti.
      • Abhinavagupta's "Abhinava Bharati" explicitly refers to Kuntaka's vakraatas when discussing variations in nouns, verbs, prefixes, etc., and case variations. The phrase "anyairapi subaadivakrata" (by others also subadi-vakrata) clearly points to Kuntaka.
    • However, scholars like Dr. Shankaran, Dr. Dey, Dr. Raghavan, and Dr. Kane disagree with Kuntaka preceding Abhinavagupta. Dr. Shankaran's argument that "anyairapi" in Abhinavagupta's text might not refer to Kuntaka is addressed by the author, explaining that Abhinavagupta was referring to the concept of subaadivakrata rather than a specific karika.
  • Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta: Ruchyaka mentions the "Vakrokti Jivita" author before Bhatta Nayaka and then the "Vyakti Viveka" author. Jayaratha, in his commentary, states that the "Vyakti Viveka" author followed the "Dhvanikara" (Anandavardhana), and both "Vakrokti Jivita" and "Hridayadarpana" authors followed the Dhvanikara. Ruchyaka and Jayaratha mentioning the "Vakrokti Jivita" author before Mahimabhatta further supports Kuntaka's precedence over Abhinavagupta.

• Chronological Placement of Abhinavagupta and Kuntaka:

  • Dr. Kanti Chandra Pandey places Abhinavagupta's literary career between 990-91 CE and 1014-15 CE, with his birth around 950-960 CE.
  • Assuming Kuntaka was 25-30 years younger, his birth could be around 925 CE. This aligns with Rajasekhara's period.
  • The chronological order of Rajasekhara's works, as determined by Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Mirashi, suggests "Bal Ramayana" around 910 CE, followed by "Balabharata," "Karpuramanjari," "Viddhasalabhanjika," and "Kavyamimamsa" around 920 CE.
  • Considering Kuntaka's work emerged after Rajasekhara, placing Kuntaka's literary activity in the latter half of the 10th century, which synchronizes with Abhinavagupta's period, is reasonable. "Vakrokti Jivita" could have become famous within 25-30 years.

• Subject Matter of the Work (Grana ka Pratipadhya):

  • The available "Vakrokti Jivita" has four Unmesh. The fourth Unmesh is incomplete. However, the author estimates that the work is either complete or has only two or three more karikas left.
  • Dr. Dey's reference to a five-chapter "Vakrokti Jivita" mentioned by Pt. Ramakrishna Kavi is considered far from the truth.
  • The available "Vakrokti Jivita" has three parts: 1. Karika Bhag (verses), 2. Vritti Bhag (commentary), 3. Udaharana Bhag (examples). Kuntaka likely wrote the karikas first, then the commentary, and finally the examples.

• Kuntaka as a Follower of Pratyabhijna Darshan:

  • The commentary begins with Kuntaka's Vandana (salutation) to Shiva, who is described as having His power (Shakti) as His only instrument. This reflects the Pratyabhijna philosophy, where Shiva is the supreme reality, and His Shakti is sufficient for creation. Kuntaka himself states, "Shakti-shaktimator-abhedat" (There is no difference between Shakti and the Shaktimaan). This indicates Kuntaka's adherence to Pratyabhijna philosophy.

• Abhidhana (Title), Abhidheya (Subject), and Prayojana (Purpose) of the Work:

  • Title: Kuntaka's first karika after the Vandana states, "Lokottara-chamatkara-karivaichitrya-siddhaye, Kavyasyayamalankarah ko'pyapoorvo vidhiyate" (For the attainment of wondrous variety that produces extraordinary charm, an unprecedented poetic ornament is being composed). This, along with the vritti, led scholars like Dr. Kane to conclude that Kuntaka named the karika section "Kavyalankara" and the vritti section "Vakrokti Jivita."
  • However, the author of the commentary argues against this, providing several points:
    1. If the karikas were named "Kavyalankara," Kuntaka would have likely written something like "Kavyalankara ityeyam..." similar to Bhamaha and Rudrata.
    2. The vritti's explanation of "alankarah vidhiyate" (ornament is composed) rather than "Kavyalankara ity granthaḥ kriyate" (the work called Kavyalankara is made) suggests otherwise.
    3. The statement "Granthasyasya alankara ityabhidhanam" (The title of this work is Alankara) would have been "Kavyalankara ityabhidhanam" if that were the case.
    4. Kuntaka's questioning "Nanu cha santi chirantanastadalankarah" (But there are ancient ornaments, so why this?) would not fit if he had only limited himself to "Kavyalankaras" by Bhamaha and Rudrata. Kuntaka criticizes both Dandin and Anandavardhana.
    5. If "Kavyalankara" and "Vakrokti Jivita" were separate titles, the conclusion of each Unmesh would likely mention "Kavyalankara." However, only "Vakrokti Jivita" is mentioned.
    6. Later scholars remember Kuntaka solely as the "Vakrokti Jivita author," not the "Kavyalankara author."
  • Therefore, the author concludes that the name of Kuntaka's work is "Vakrokti Jivita" (for both karikas and vritti).
  • Abhidheya (Subject): The subject is the Upamadi Prameya Varga (collection of knowable entities like Upama). Kuntaka states this generally applies to ornaments, as his sole Alankara is Vakrata.
  • Prayojana (Purpose): The purpose is the "siddhaye uttaravaichitrya" (establishment of extraordinary variety) and "asamaanya ahladavidhayi-vichitra-bhava-samapttaye" (for the achievement of extraordinary and unparalleled charm). He claims no other ancient work achieved this specific variety.

II. First Unmesh (Preamble and First Karika):

• Mangalacharan (Initial Invocation): Kuntaka begins with a Vandana to Shiva, identifying Him as the Supreme Element (Param Tattva), existing beyond attributes, whose Shakti alone causes vibration and movement. This aligns with the Pratyabhijna school of Kashmir Shaivism. The invocation praises Shiva as the painter of the cosmic drama, whose Shakti's vibration is His only instrument.

• Karika 1: This karika directly praises Shiva as the creator of the three worlds' varied imagery, whose Shakti's vibration is His sole instrument. The commentary explains the philosophical significance of these terms within the Shaiva Advaita (Pratyabhijna) system, emphasizing the oneness of Shiva and His Shakti, and relating "Spanda" (vibration) to the dynamic nature of the universe.

• Karika 2 & 3: Kuntaka's work aims to establish Vakrokti as the unique "Alankara" of poetry, capable of creating extraordinary charm and variety. He argues against mere literal description (svabhāvokti) and emphasizes the poet's power to transform reality through his unique expression. He critiques both a purely mimetic approach to poetry and an unrestrained fantastical imagination, advocating for a balance that produces both beauty and adherence to established literary principles.

• Karika 4 & 5: Kuntaka criticizes the idea of "Asat Tark Sandarbha" (false reasoning) and "svatantra" (unfettered freedom in expression) when it deviates from reality or lacks substance. He intends to reveal the "Sara" (essence) of the "Amrita Sagar" of poetic meaning, which will bring "Adbhuta Anand" (wonderful joy) and "Chamatkara" (astonishment) to the learned.

III. Key Concepts Introduced:

• Vakrokti: This is the central concept, referring to an indirect or circuitous mode of expression that creates charm and delight. It is presented as the unique Alankara of poetry.
• Svabhāvokti vs. Vakrokti: Kuntaka argues that Svabhāvokti (literal description of natural qualities) is merely the body of poetry and cannot be an Alankara itself, as it fails to create the necessary extraordinary charm.
• The Poet as Creator: Kuntaka views the poet as a divine craftsman, capable of transforming reality through his art.
• Pratyabhijna Philosophy: Kuntaka's philosophical grounding in Kashmir Shaivism is evident in his invocation and terminology, emphasizing the ultimate reality of Shiva and the inherent dynamism of His Shakti.
• Literary Chronology: The introduction provides a detailed discussion on establishing the historical period of Kuntaka and related literary figures like Rajasekhara and Abhinavagupta.

The summary provided covers the foundational aspects of Kuntaka's theory as presented in the introduction and the initial verses of the commentary. The detailed analysis of Kuntaka's arguments regarding his predecessors and successors, particularly in relation to Abhinavagupta, highlights the scholarly effort to place Kuntaka's significant contribution within the history of Indian poetics.