The Parijataharanam and The Kavyalaksanam (Kavyadarsa)

Summary

This article analyses the Sanskrit drama Parijata‑harana, which dramatizes a popular myth from the Vishnu Purana, Harivamsha and Bhagavata Purana. The central episode concerns the celestial parijata tree, a fragrant wish‑granting plant guarded by Indra in his heavenly garden. The plot revolves around the jealousy between Krishna’s two principal wives, Rukmini and Satyabhama. The sage Narada gifts Krishna a parijata flower, which Krishna presents to Rukmini. When Narada informs Satyabhama, she becomes angry and demands the entire tree. To pacify her, Krishna promises to bring the tree from heaven; Indra refuses, leading to a battle in which Krishna defeats him, uproots the parijata tree and gifts it to Satyabhama. The article describes how the playwright weaves this myth with the story of Narakasura, a demon who steals the earrings of Aditi and kidnaps celestial maidens. Krishna defeats Narakasura and rescues the maidens. The drama portrays Narada as a mischievous mediator who provokes Satyabhama’s jealousy and sets events in motion. The contrasting characters of Krishna’s wives provide dramatic tension: Rukmini is noble and dignified, while Satyabhama is portrayed as proud and quick‑tempered. Their quarrels and insults create comedic moments, yet the play also celebrates Krishna’s heroism and the triumph of devotion over pride. The article notes that, despite some coarse language in the dialogues, the drama reflects the cultural milieu of medieval Assam and reveals the playwright’s command of Sanskrit narrative and characterisation. This article reviews Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa, also known as Kāvyalakṣaṇa, which is one of the earliest systematic treatises on Sanskrit poetics. Composed in the 7th–8th century, the text comprises three chapters and approximately 660 verses. It analyses the aesthetic qualities (guṇas) and defects (doṣas) of poetry and provides a taxonomy of rhetorical figures. Daṇḍin argues that a poem’s beauty derives from the use of rhetorical devices and identifies thirty‑six such devices, including simile, metaphor, punning and hyperbole. He advocates the guṇa‑based approach, asserting that poetry must possess qualities such as sweetness, clarity, vigor and evenness. The text also outlines ten fundamental defects that poets should avoid. The article explains how Kāvyādarśa was foundational for later Indian literary criticism. Its systematic treatment influenced both southern and northern traditions. The treatise was translated into Kannada, Pali, Tamil, Sinhala and Tibetan, and it was extensively quoted by later scholars such as Appayya Dīkṣita and king Bhoja. The article notes that Daṇḍin’s emphasis on rhetorical devices contrasts with the rasadhvani theory developed by Ānandavardhana, which stresses suggestion and aesthetic relish (rasa). Kāvyādarśa thus represents an earlier stage of Sanskrit poetics focused on linguistic ornamentation rather than emotional aesthetics. The article also discusses various editions and translations of the text and highlights the importance of commentaries in transmitting Daṇḍin’s ideas. It concludes that understanding Kāvyādarśa is essential for students of classical Indian literature and poetics.