Chapter I: General

The Author and His Play

In the 19th century Kṛṣṇamiśra’s Prabodhacandrodaya was widely read by European Indologists and as a result the work was translated into several European languages^[1]. At least one scholar^[2] to my knowledge has written a study on it, investigating it as a drama. But the philosophical contents of this play have not yet been specially treated. I am undertaking this work with the hope that it may contribute to tracing the history of the development of Indian philosophy.

This play can be dated with some precision from the author’s references in the Prologue. It was produced at the instruction of one Gopāla in the presence of his friend Kīrtivarman, whom Gopāla had restored to his kingdom after defeating the Cedi king Karṇa^[3]. Now the Deogarh inscription of the same Kīrtivarman of Jejākabhukti is dated 1098 AD. According to the Mahoba inscription Kīrtivarman defeated Lakṣmīkarṇa, i.e, the Cedi king Karṇa of Tripurī, who is mentioned in an inscription, dated 1042 AD. In the Vikramāṅkadevacarita (18.93) Karṇa is called Kālaḥ Kālañjaragiripateḥ, “The Death of the (Candella) king of Kālañjara”, which corresponds to Kṛṣṇamiśra’s statement^[4]. Gopāla might have been an ally through whose valour Kīrtivarman defeated Karṇa, but the commentator Maheśvara says that he was the Commander-in-Chief (senāpati) of Kīrtivarman and was a Brāhmaṇa. Most probably the play was written between 1042 and 1098^[5], and it can be concluded that the author belonged to the second half of the 11th century, perhaps even the beginning of the 12th century. According to a tradition^[6], Kṛṣṇamiśra was an ascetic belonging to the Haṁsa order of the Advaita School and had many disciples. One of them was interested in kāvya but not in philosophy. Kṛṣṇamiśra is said to have written his drama in order to teach him the Advaita doctrine.

Prabodhacandrodaya is an allegorical drama. Kṛṣṇamiśra was not the first Indian poet to write an allegorical play, though not much is known about the earlier literature of this class. There are the fragments of a Buddhist allegory with Kīrti (Fame), Dhṛti (Firmness) and Buddhi (Wisdom) as characters, which was perhaps written by Aśvaghoṣa^[7]. Then, there is an allegorical play called Āgamadambara, still in manuscript, written by Jayanta, the author of the Nyāyamañjarī, who lived in the 9th century AD. After Kṛṣṇamiśra, however, quite a number of allegorical plays were composed^[8].

The name Prabodhacandrodaya has been translated variously by various scholars. J. Taylor translated it as “Rise of the Moon of Intellect”, Winternitz as “Erkenntnismondaufgang”^[9], Macdonell as “Rise of the Moon of Knowledge”^[10], S.K. De as “The Moonrise of True Knowledge”^[11], and Dr. Boissevain as “Maanopgang der Ontwaking”^[12]. The word prabodha requires some discussion. Taylor’s translation of it as intellect is not satisfactory. Winternitz’ and Macdonell’s translation as Erkenntnis and knowledge is certainly nearer to the correct meaning. However, if we accept it, we have to render vidyā by some other term, but vidyā is properly knowledge. Boissevain’s translation as “Ontwaking”, i.e. Awakening, which is literal, seems to be the best rendering of the Sanskrit word.

The awakening treated in the play is a sort of spiritual realization. Puruṣa (Man), who had forgotten his identity with the Supreme Being, Parameśvara, and had fallen as it were, into a deep slumber, is awakened by Vidyā or Knowledge to realize his identity.

As for the question how the compound prabodhacandrodaya has to be split, there are two possibilities:

1. Prabodha eva candraḥ prabodhacandraḥ, tasya udayaḥ. Or
2. Candrasya udayaḥ candrodayaḥ, prabodha eva candrodayaḥ, prabodhacandrodayaḥ.

In the first case, awakening is identified with the moon and in the second case with the moon-rise. Taylor and Macdonell follow the first, while De and Boissevain follow the second. Winternitz’ translation is quite as ambiguous as the original. It can mean either Erkenntnismond-Aufgang or Erkenntnis-Mondaufgang. What Kṛṣṇamiśra means, however, is clearly prabodhacandrasya udayaḥ, “the rise of the moon which is awakening”. This can be proved by a passage of the play itself. In the first act^[13] the compound prabodhacandra is used by Kāma: Prabodhacandreṇa bhrātrā… Therefore, I would translate Prabodhacandrodaya as “The Rise of the Moon of (Spiritual) Awakening”.

There are several editions of the play, which I have listed in the Bibliography. Though the text of the Nirnaya Sagar edition is not always the best, I have used this edition throughout and given references according to it. Where its readings seemed unacceptable, I have in a few places preferred those of the Trivandrum edition. The commentaries which accompany the text in the Nirnaya Sagar edition, Candrikā and Prakāśa, I found useful in several places. The commentary of the Trivandrum edition, Nāṭakābharaṇa, has also been consulted.

Before analyzing the philosophical contents of the drama, I will first give a brief survey of the plot. In the analysis of the philosophical contents, a compromise seemed advisable between a systematic arrangement, necessary for a clear presentation of the doctrine, and an arrangement following the succession of events, corresponding to the process of gradual enlightenment represented in the play. Such matter of philosophical interest as could not find place under the compromise adopted, will be treated in a concluding chapter, which is arranged according to some important characters.

Chapter IV: Non-Vedic Schools

The Cārvāka or Lokāyata

Kṛṣṇamiśra deals with this school at great length. Lokāyata is the system founded by Vācaspati, also known as Bṛhaspati, who handed it over to Cārvāka, who in turn spread it in the world through his disciples^[1]. The word lokāyata means “what prevails among men”. The Lokāyata or Cārvāka system is materialistic. It is the foremost enemy of all religious and philosophical schools based on the Vedas. According to Kṛṣṇamiśra, Buddhism, Jainism, and the Kāpālika sect are based on the Lokāyata system^[2]. Therefore, once this system is overthrown, the schools and sects derived from it are also ruined. All the Vedic schools in the play join together to defeat the Cārvāka system.

As to the question whether there is a soul separate from the body, we get the answer in the following verse, put in the mouth of Delusion who is depicted in the play as the great friend of Cārvāka:

“(The view) that there is a soul separate from the body, which on reaching the other world enjoys rewards, is (like) the hope to get tasty fruits from the big flower of a tree in the sky^[3].”

The opinion that after the death of the body no soul remains is expressed in the following:

“The many talkative believers (āstikās) who jabber in vain that the thing which does not exist, exists, condemn the truth-speaking non-believers (nāstikās)^[4]. Oh, look, has anyone in reality seen a soul separate from the body, which has formed the intelligence as transformation (of itself)^[5]?”

The materialist does not believe in the caste system (varṇabheda). He does not recognize moral precepts. He teaches:

“If the bodies are alike in their different parts, the mouth, etc., how can there be a hierarchy of castes? We do not accept any difference between a woman or wealth belonging (to us or) to somebody else. Only those who are devoid of manliness consider whether an act should be done or not, when it entails injury, approaching women at one’s pleasure and seizing the wealth of others^[6].”

According to the Cārvāka, the only means of knowledge is perception^[7]. The elements are earth, water, fire, and air. Wealth and pleasure^[8] are the sole aims of man. The elements move through original impulse. There is no other world. Emancipation is death. Knowledge consists only in statecraft. Vārtā or the science of agriculture and trade is included in this^[9]. The three Vedas are incoherent talk of cheats^[10]. If their teachings about sacrifice lead to heaven, the processes similar to sacrifices must lead to the same result:

“If sacrifices obtain heaven by the destruction of the sacrificial matter through the action of the officiating (priest), then the trees burnt by the forest fire will bear ample fruit^[11].”

The teachings of the Veda are nothing but nonsense:

“If it is assumed that an animal slain (in sacrifice) goes to heaven, why does not the sacrificer forthwith immolate his own father^[12]?”

“If śrāddha (offering of rice-balls to a dead person) produces gratification to beings who are dead, then oil may rear the flame of an extinguished light^[13].”

“It is the reasoning of fools that the pleasure which arises to men from contact with sensible objects is to be relinquished as accompanied by pain. What man seeking his true interest would fling away the berries of paddy, rich with the finest white grains, because they are covered with husks and dust^[14]?”

“Bṛhaspati says that the oblation in the fire, the three Vedas, the carrying of three sticks tied together, and smearing oneself with ashes are the means of livelihood of those who are devoid of intelligence and manliness^[15].”

The Cārvāka classifies the Vedāntins along with the Buddhists:

“If the Vedāntas (i.e. the Upaniṣads), which accept things contradictory to what is established through the means of knowledge, sense perception, etc., are authoritative scriptures (śāstra), then what wrong are the Buddhists doing^[16]?”

The Vedāntin says that the world which he knows through the means of knowledge is unreal. That implies a contradiction. The Buddhist, on the other hand, says that everything has only momentary existence, which is just as contradictory to experience as the Vedāntin’s view.