A Closer Look at Mahakavya

In the readings this week we saw that smith extensively outlines the form of mahakavya and the critiques that it met with at the time. Much attention was paid to Ratnakara’s Haravijaya. Right at the outset, Smith acknowledges that his intention is solely to find out what certain poets had in their mind and not divulge into details of whether a latter poet plagiarized a former poet. However he does acknowledge that such occurrences of similarities were very common, but are to be adapted to the author’s intended system of meanings . He clearly outlines the intentions of his work by stating early on that he mentions very little about meter and style as well as many details within the poem itself such as the battles. He himself acknowledges what his work lacks which is very important. Does outlining what his work lacks actually undermine his work? or on the contrary does outlining what he misses, actually show his superiority of knowledge over the mahakavya, which he chooses not to discuss because it belongs to a whole other discussion?

The answer is found at the ending of the Introduction when he states, “…there is none more sage and fruitful than that which endeavors to find out what somebody had in his mind consciously or non-consciously when he wrote something” (13). To me his choice to keep things simple by relating to this mahakavya through ones own understanding and experience (contingent on what the author is getting at), is why he does not mention the technicality of devices. This makes mahakavya more accessible to a broader audience, as he takes the audiences experience or understanding as genuine.

I guess this is why in his second chapter he also chooses to focus on rasa and dhvani theory in its simplistic form. In this chapter, he outlines that the haravijaya is parallel to the newer form of rasa theory in which one rasa is relished in a mahakavya through ornamentals (descriptive scenery of mountains, rivers etc…) (lollata school) as opposed to the older interpretation that there are multiple bhavas in which true rasa is the result of many (Ananda school). He then goes on to argue that the poets felt they knew rasa but because of their “ornamental idiom” they were constantly creating their own wholes through the use of their own experience. Through stating this the author in a way downplays mahakavya. He openly criticizes those who took the view of the newer schoolfor not quite understanding the sound use of rasa. In the same breath moments earlier he equates Ratnakara with this school in the form of a question (he asks if Ratnakara sought to win the approval of the new school). Thus what one sees is a never ending debate on the true nature of rasa, or more particularly the true nature of mahakavya, since the main goal of any good poem is one that elicits rasa.

The very last thing I found very interesting in smith’s article is how the harda (the working members in society) produced some sort of poetry to praise the king, since their very survival was dependent upon him. Smith argues that these hardas were not from the priestly section of society that poets usually came from, but in fact from lower section of society. This not only preludes to the fact that poetry can be enjoyed by all members of society but that this enjoyment or experience originally came from the average. In fact, most mahakavyas that emphasize this idea of the union of Siva and Parvati, and how one should concentrate on worshipping this union forms the basis of the bhakti movement, which essentially makes the idea of moksa possible to all regardless of caste, sex or class. This connects mahakavya to wider audience.