jayadeva, the poet and his times -...

12

Odisha Review May - 2013

While introducing the immortal work, theGitagovinda, Jayadeva invokes the attention ofthe lovers of poetry in the following verses :

“Yadi Harismarane sarasam mano yadivilasakalasu kutuhalam

Madhura komalakantapadavali srnu tadaJayadeva Sarasvatim.”

(Gitagovinda , Chapter-I, canto-3)

“If your heart fills with sublime joy at theutterance of Lord Hari’s name, if you take delightin poetry and artistic creations, endowed with soft,sweet, delicate and musical expressions of highpoetical excellence, you are cordially invited togo through the verses of Jayadeva, which may beconsidered to have come out from the lips ofSarasvati, the goddess of music and learning.”

In the following verses the poetcomments upon Umapatidhara, Sarana,Govardhana Acharya and Kaviraja Dhoyi and thepoetic value of their works.

“Vachah pallavayatyumapatidharahsandarvasuddhim giram

Janite Jayadeva eva Saranah slaghyoduruhadruteh

Srngarottarasa prameyarachanairacharyaGovardhanam

Spardhi koapi na visrtah srtidharo, DhoyiKaviksmapatih.”

(Gitagovinda, Chapter I, canto-4)

Jayadeva, the Poet and his Times

Prafulla Chandra Tripathy

“Umapatidhara’s poetry lackedspontaneity, word choice and poetic diction andtherefore did not appeal to lovers of poetry. Thewritings of Saran were clumsy and prosaic andfar from entertaining. Though unrivalled in writingpoetry on passionate love, Goverdhana lackedthe talent to write on other topics of poetic beauty.The title of Acharya before his name was only amockery. Srtidhara Dhoyi, though a scholar, didnot possess the poetic skill in rhythmic expressionand word choice and the title of Kaviraja beforehis name was nothing but the outcome of this ownvanity. This observation has been recorded inthe commentary Rasa Manjari byMahamahopadhyaya Sankar Misra.

In the Gitagovinda there is no mentionof these poets being under any royal patronage.We give below brief descriptions of the lives andachievements of these poets.

UMAPATIDHARA

Umapatidhara was a minister in the courtof the Sen dynasty, who had composed theDeopara Prasasti of Vijaya Sen (Inscription ofBengal, Vol. III, p. 49) and Umapatidharareferred to in the Gitagovinda may be one andthe same person. This eulogy records the warbetween Vijaya Sen and Raghav Deva (A.D.1156-1170), the Ganga emperor of Kalinga and

13

Odisha ReviewMay - 2013

contains at the end the name of Umapatidhara. Itis quite probable that this eulogy might have beencomposed between A.D. 1156-1158. The 7th,23rd, 24th and 30th slokas of this eulogy havebeen mentioned in the Sadukti Karnamrtam asmentioned in the History of Bengal published byDacca University. Another sloka ofUmapatidhara resembling the 4th sloka of thecopper plate inscription of Madhainagar has beenquoted here. It can be said that Umapatidharawas in the court of Sen kings. It has beendescribed in the 5th chapter of the PrabandhaChintamani composed in A.D. 1304 thatUmapatidhara, the minister of the Gauda kingLaksmana Sen was very wise and intelligent.While going to explain the sloka, “ Vachahpallavayati ………” in his Rasa Manjari, acommentary on the Gitagovinda,Mahamahopadhyaya Sankar Misra writes :“Umapatidhara namna Laksmanasenamatyovachah pallavayati vistarayati” etc.

SARANA

There is only one sloka found in theSadukti Karnamrta in praise of Sarana. No otherwriting on this poet has yet been discovered. Thereis also no authentic record on the native place ofthe poet and his date of birth. There is no evidenceof Sarana being in the court of Laksmana Sen.

GOVARDHANA

In his Aryasaptasati, (Published inChaukhamba Sanskrit Series) GovardhanaAcharya speaks very highly of the poetic talentof Sen king Pravara Sen of Vakataka clan, thefamous writer of the Setubandha or RavanaBaho. This dynasty ruled in the 2nd and 3rd centuryA.D. Acharya Dandi, in his famous treatise onpoetics known as Kavyadarsa and his fictionAvanti Sundari Katha speaks very highly of thepoetic beauty of the Setubandha of Pravara Sen.Pandit Ananta of Maharastra, the famous

commentator of the Arya Saptasati supportsthis view in the Byangartha Dipika. Thedescription “Senakulatilaka” also appeared inthe original book by Halo, from which AryaSaptasati was translated and hence it could nothave referred to Laksmana Sen at all.

“Kumudavanavandhoschandrasyachasodasakalahkalayitum vaktum, kartum vapakse darsayitum senakulatilaka bhupatihsetukarta Pravarasenanamaraja,paurnamasipradosa ekah prabhuhsamarthah, nanya ityarthah.”

The Malava king Arjunavarma Deva(A.D. 1211-1215) has quoted only one slokafrom the Arya Saptasati in his Amarusatakamcommentary. But Sridhara Das, the court poet ofLaksmana Sen, has not quoted even a single slokafrom the Arya Saptasati in his SaduktiKarnamrtam composed in A.D. 1205. Theremight be a simple mention of the name ofGovardhana. It is indeed strange that SridharaDas was ignorant of such a renowned scholar andhad simply heard his name from the people.

In his Arya Saptasati Govardhana hasexpressed his gratitude to his two youngerbrothers Udayana and Balabhadra. UdayanaAcharya was a great scholar of the then Kalinga.He had composed the eulogy inscribed on theSobhanesvara temple, located at Niali andMeghesvara temple of Bhubaneswar. He was thecourt poet of Brahmin feudatory ChiefVaidyanatha of Bhujangam Puri and latter gracedthe court of Svapnesvara Deva, the FeudatoryChief of Bhubaneswar and brother-in-law of theGanga emperor Raja Raja Deva (A.D. 1170-1190). In the stone inscription of Meghesvaratemple at Bhubaneswar he has described in 11slokas the glorious achievement of ChodagangaDeva, Raja Raja Deva and Aniyanka Bhima Devaof Ganga dynasty. In the History of Bengal

14


published by the Dacca University it has beenaccepted that Govardhana, the writer of the AryaSaptasati and Udayana are two brothers andUdayana was the first commentator of theGitagovinda entitled Bhava vibhavani. Dr.F.Keilhorn came across this commentary in apeasant’s home in Madhya Pradesh in A.D. 1874and carried on research on it. Kaviraja Udayanahad made a commentary on the NaisadhiyaCharita of Sriharsa and named it Udayakari.Govardhana Acharya stayed at Puri and hascomposed the Govardhana Sataka in praise ofLord Jagannatha. Unfortunately there is no traceof this book now.

KAVIRAJA DHOYI

Kaviraja Dhoyi had composedPavanadutam in Sanskrit in initiation of thefamous Meghadutam by Kalidas. By the time ofLaksmana Sen, the capital of Kalinga was shiftedto Yajatinagar on the bank of river Mahanadi.Chodagangadeva had shifted his capital fromKalinganagar on the river Vansadhara toYajatinagar or Nagari Kataka in the seconddecade of 12th century A.D. and had started livingwith his family there after 1126 A.D. Dhoyi’sPavanadutam refers to Kalinganagar as the capitalof Kalinga. This means that Dhoyi must havewritten Pavanadutam before 1126 A.D., whichmakes him a contemporary of Vijaya Sena andnot Laksmana Sen who ruled from A.D. 1176 toA.D. 1205. He would not have confused thename of a neighbouring State like this.

Assuming but not admitting that all thesefour poets belonged to the court of LaksmanaSen, had Jayadeva been one of the court poetsof Laksmana Sen he would never have lookedlow upon the poetic ability of the above mentionedpoets nor would he have condemned the writingsof his own colleagues. Criticism on the court poetswould mean insubordination to the king and was

to be considered a challenge to the king’sauthority as a result of which one could not expectto remain in his kingdom. So it is far from truththat Jayadeva was a poet in the court ofLaksmana Sen. The poetic genius that Jayadevawas, he did not have to make efforts like this inhis book to establish his relative superiority overthese much less known poets.

Again this sloka of Jayadeva is a startdeviation from the established poetic tradition ofthat age. The great poets of India followed theprinciple enumerated in Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa:“Athava krtavagdvarevanseasminpurvasuribhih. They sang the praise of the poeticcreations of their predecessors while going tohighlight the poetics of their own writings. Butcondemning the contemporary poets wasunknown to Indian literature of that age. Havingsaid, “Srunu yada Jayadeva Sarasvatim” inpraise of his own poetic skill in this sloka, he goesto decry in the next sloka the five poets said tobe belonging to Laksmana Sen’s court. If at allthey adorned the court of Laksmana Sen how isit that Jayadeva did not even mention the name ofking Laksmana Sen once in the Gitagovinda ?The above five poets referred to in this slokaspecialized in five different themes. As theGitagovinda of Jayadeva deals with love episodeof Radha and Krsna, how could Jayadeva admithis own inferiority in composing poetry onSringara, if he said that Govardhana Acharya wasunrivalled in writing on sex or Sringara.

In the second sloka that isVachapallavayati …………… Jayadeva claimsto have knowledge of Sandharvasuddhi whichmeans clarity in composition. In Sanskrit, scholarshave explained the word Sandharva as SandortaGrantha. This word has been derived fromSanskrit root drutah which means weaving. SoVak Sandarva means the skill of sewing or

15


weaving words in a proper rhythm and sequence.A sentence has two aspects – one is the wordcontained and the other is the depth of feelingsexpressed. So if Sandarva is taken to be a literarypiece of musical verses, the sweetness andappropriateness of words used, the feelings theystand for, the intensity of thought, the style ofexpression, the manner and sequence of the ideasdealt with accompanied with rhyme and poeticdiction come under its purview. Considering fromthis viewpoint let us now see how far this slokaitself maintains Sandarva Suddhi.

As discussed earlier, this sloka does notmaintain the poetic tradition of paying regards tothe earlier poets. On the other hand this slokacondemns the contemporary poets. Let us takeinto consideration the expression.“Saranaslaghyo duruhadrute” in this sloka.The commentators have almost explained this asDuruhasya duruha kavyasya drute drutarachane. In a sasthi tatpurusa compound it wasnot the practice to use adjectives which are notas extraordinary as the first and second word oftatpurusa compound. It was not in use inlanguage like Odia, Bengali and Hindi derivedfrom Sanskrit, not to speak of Sanskrit grammar.So Sandarva Suddhi has not been maintainedin these verses either in proper use of words ortheir underlying meaning. So it is difficult to sayhow this sloka found place in the originalGitagovinda.

The commentators of latter times have ofcourse explained these verses. But these appearto be interpolations. The Saduktikarnamrtamis only a collection of extracts from the works ofpoets very familiar among the then people. Thecourt poet Sridhara Das of Laksmana Sen wasthe publisher of this literary collection. It is learntfrom the Dan Sagara composed by Balala Sen,father of Laksmana Sen, that in the Saka era A.D.

1091 or A.D. 1169 the editing ofSaduktikarnamrtam was started and completedin the 17th regnal year of Laksmana Sen. BalalaSen had taken up composing a scripture entitledAdbhuta Sagara in Saka era 1090 or A.D. 1168which was completed after Laksmana Sen hasascended the throne.

There is historical controversy in regardto the date of his coronation to the throne. In theopinion of the compiler of Visvakosa he hadascended the throne in A.D. 1199 and havingbeen vanquished by the Muslim invaders fledaway. Some other say that he had ascended thethrone in the Saka era 1090 or A.D. 1169. Againthere is another opinion that having ascended thethrone during A.D. 1178-84 he ruled till A.D.1204-05. Whatever it might be, the compilationof the Saduktikarnamrtam had begun in thereign of the king Balala Sen. This collection hasbeen divided into 5 pravahas (streams). Theseare Deva Pravaha, Srngar Pravaha, ChatuPravaha, Apadesa Pravaha and UchaPravaha. From among them in the 59th Vichi(wave) of the Deva Pravaha the 4th slokareproduces the 78th sloka of the Gitagovindareading ‘Jayasri Vinyastairmahita ivamandarakusumaih’ etc. which is the concludingstanza of the 11th canto. In the Srngar Pravaha80th sloka of the 12th canto of the Gitagovindaconstitutes the 4th stanza of the 132th Vichi(wave) which begins with, ‘Pratyuhahpulakankurena nividaslese nimisena cha’. The43rd concluding sloka of the 6th canto of theGitagovinda . “Angesvabharanam, karotivahusah patreapi sancharini” etc. constitutesthe 4th stanza of 37th Vichi. Again the 81st of theGitagovinda beginning with “Maranke ratikelisankularanarambhe taya sahasa” etc.constitutes the 4th stanza of 37th Vichi. The 83rd

sloka of the Gitagovinda “Tasyah patalapanijankitamure nidrakasaye drsau “ isreproduced as the 5th stanza of 137th Vichi.

16


From the above it is learnt that in the veryfirst stream of the Saduktikarnamrtam the lastsloka of the 11th canto of the Gitagovindacontaining 12 cantos has been quoted. So it issure that this has been produced in the compilationof the Saduktikarnamrtam which was startedin the reign of Balala Sen. It is therefore clear thatthe Gitagovinda had already gained popularityand admiration before the reign of Balala Sen.And its composition had also been completed bythat time. That Jayadeva had composed theGitagovinda during the reign of Laksmana Senis not based on truth.

There are 72 slokas in all in theGitagovinda. The verses “JayasriVinyastairmahita iva mandarakusumaih” etc.quoted in the Saduktikarnamrtam as slokasfrom the Gitagovinda are considered to beinterpolations. Many commentators have notaccepted the sloka as it is none of the 72 slokasin the original text of the Gitagovinda. It has beendiscussed elsewhere how the interpolated versesmingled with the royal edition of the Gitagovindahave found a place in the original text. It has to beascertained first when these interpolated slokaswere composed and how these found a place inthe Gitagovinda. The interpolated slokas withthe four original slokas of the Gitagovinda wereincluded in the Saduktikarnamrtam much later.Had Jayadeva been the court poet of LaksmanaSen and a contemporary of Sridhar Das, thecompiler of the Saduktikarnamrtam, the aboveslokas would never have been condemned bythe commentators of later times.

The question that comes up next forconsideration is that in the sameSaduktikarnamrtam some slokas said to becomposed by Jayadeva in praise of a king havebeen included. Among them the oft-quoted slokais :

“Laksmikeli bhujanga jangamaharesankalpa kalpadrma

Sreyah sadhkasanga sangarakalagangeyavamsapriya (vangapriya),

Gaudendra pratiraja rajakasabhalankarakarnarpita

Pratyatha ksitipala palakasatamdrstoasi tusta vayah”

This means :

‘O thou movable deity of Hari, Laksmi’sConsort, O thou wish-fulfilling tree of thesupplicants, O symbol of bliss and happiness, Othe dear one of the king of Gana dynasty. O mightyone, O king of the kingdom of Gauda, O jewel inthe crown feudatory princes, O the slayer of theenemies and the patron of the saints, Obenevolent lord, we are blessed indeed at the sightof your ‘Majesty’.

Instead of singing in praise of any royalpower, Jayadeva devoted his life to sing the gloryof Lord Jagannath, the Lord of the universe. It isquite impossible that such a dauntless poet and astaunch devotee of Lord Jagannatha like Jayadevacould stoop so low as to compose the abovesloka glorifying an earthly king.

Hundreds of poets and scholars visitedthe royal courts with eulogical slokas in honourof the kings with a view to obtaining gifts andrewards. In the above sloka it has not beenmentioned as to which of the Gouda kings hasbeen honoured and glorified. So it is notunderstood as to how Jayadeva was identified asthe court poet of Laksmana Sen who wrote this.

If at all this sloka was composed in the12th century A.D. it might very well have been aeulogy glorifying a Ganga king. It was originallyGangeya “vansapriya” meaning dear one of Ganga(dynasty) Vansa. Instead of Vansapriya it has beenwritten by some as “Rangapriya” for some sloka

17


meaning thereby a King of Ganga dynasty fondof art and music. Some others replaced ‘msa’ with“nga” meaning Vangapriya meaning dear toBengal. If ‘r’ is substituted in place of ‘v’ in‘Vangapriya’ the word will be ‘Rangapriya’.The word ‘Gangeya’ might have been derivedfrom the Ganga dynasty and refers to Gangaemperors. It is widely known that the Gangaemperors of Kalinga bore the title ‘Gaudesvara’before their names. Sen kings were not Gangayaor belonging to Ganga dynasty. Rangapriyastands for lover of art, music and entertainment.Even now the Gajapati kings of Odisha bear thisdignifying title. This title along with others are ‘ViraSri Gajapati Gaudesvara NavakotiKarnatotkala Kalavargesvara ViradhiViravara’ etc. This title along with the name ofparticular Gajapati king and his regnal year areincorporated in the horoscope of every Odia.There is another interpretation. ‘Vamsapriya’ wasthe original word used meaning thereby that theking of Bengal was dear to the kings of Gangadynasty of Kalinga after their treaty to fight thePalo dynasty together. There was no princely statecalled “Banga” during 12th century. Thereforeinstead of “Bangapriya” it could well be“Rangapriya” or Vamsapriya.

In hundreds of eulogies singing the praiseof kings nowhere else has it been found that aking has accepted such titles as ‘Kalingapriya’,‘Karnatapriya’ ,‘Vangapriya’ etc. It can befirmly established that Jayadeva the poet of theGitagovinda was not the writer of this eulogy.According to Dr. Satyanarayan Rajguru, thewords Gangeya Vamsapriya have been wronglyinterpreted by some as dear to the dynasty ofBhisma, who was addressed as Gangeya (son ofGanga)in the Mahabharat. This sloka has beentaken out of some eulogy to a Ganga king andreported as having been composed by Jayadeva.It is more interesting to note that Dr. Prasanta

Kumar Dasgupta changed the words “GangeyaVamsapriya” to Gangeya Bangapriya in his bookJayadeva And Some of His Contemporaries(pages 15-16).

According to Kedarnath Mohapatra, itis more likely that some court poet might havecomposed this eulogy and presented it toChodaganga Deva who had assumed the titleGaudendra, ruler of Gauda after he had defeatedthe Palos at Mandargada. The word Bangapriyais an impossibility because such words nowhereelse appear in any other eulogical sloka. No kingever liked to be addressed as loving only his ownsubjects or own state or even a conquered state.Chodangadeva, himself belonging to GangaVamsa could not be described as Ganga VansaPriya, or “dear to Ganga dynasty”.

The Ganga kings claimed their descentfrom the Pandavas who belonged to the family ofBhisma, the son of Ganga and called Gangeya inthe Mahabharat. Vijaya Sen had made friendshipwith Chodaganga Deva and in all likelihood hecould have been addressed as ‘GangeyaVamsapriya’ or dear to the Ganga Vamsi kings. ASena king could not have been described in anyeulogical verse as being Gaudendra andBangapriya at the same time. Therefore in eithercase the word is not Bangapriya . It is‘Vamsapriya’ or ‘Rangapriya’ and most likelyaddressed to King Vijayasen.

Chand Baradai (Chandrakavi) in his workthe Prthviraj Raso written in old Rajasthanilanguage has followed the footprints of eight poetsof whom Jayadeva has been accepted as the 8th

poet.

“Kavi kitti kirtti bhakati sudikkhiNinaiki uchasthi kavichandra bhakkhi

Jayadeva athatham kavi kabirayamJinaim kevalam kitti Govinda gayam”

18


Chand Baradai was the contemporary ofthe last independent Hindu king Prthviraj A.D.1169-1192 of Chauhan dynasty. Many importantand interesting events of the reign of Prthviraj havebeen recorded in his Raso. Here salutations havebeen paid to the ten incarnations of the Lord inimitation of the Gitagovinda. Chand Baradai wascontemporary of Laksmana Sen, the king ofGauda and Sridhara Das, complier of theSaduktikarnamrtam. So it goes without sayingthat in the distant Rajasthan region theGitagovinda had already earned popularity andadmiration before Chand Baradai offered hissalutations to Jayadeva. Much before thecomposition of Prthviraj Raso, the Gitagovindawas familiar among the people and it is sure thatit must have been completed before the Raso.

The main reason of the quick popularityof the Gitagovinda in the distant Rajasthanaregions centers around Puri, the abode of LordJagannath. It may be that the pilgrims coming toPuri for a visit of Lord Jagannath must have beenfascinated by the charming melody of theGitagovinda, sung before the Lord in the templeas an indispensable item of daily worship andmight have carried in memory as well as in palmleaf its enchanting eloquence to the distant cornersof Rajasthan. This is certain that after theintroduction of the singing of the Gitagovinda inthe ritual services of Lord Jagannath, it spreadlike wild fire to every nook and corner of India.

It has been described in Prthviraj Rasothat Sri Vijaya Palo king of Kanyakubja duringhis campaign to the Deccan had arrived at Odishaand received the hospitality of Mukunda Deva,the emperor of Soma (Kesari) dynasty anddevotee of Lord Jagannath. There is also mentionof the marriage of the eldest son of Vijaya Pala’sdaughter with the daughter of Mukunda Deva.

In the middle of the 12th century A.D. ananthology compiled by Vidyakhara Pandit namedSubhasita Ratnakosa includes in it two slokaswritten by one Jayadeva by name, the 1567t h

sloka of this anthology has been repeated in theSaduktikarnamrtam as its 1538th sloka.Jayadeva the poet of the Gitagovinda andJayadeva of Subhasita Ratnakosa are not oneand the same person. (Sri Jayadeva O SriGitagovinda , p. 235)

In the preface of the text Saktimuktavalicomposed by Jahlan in A.D. 1275, it has beenmentioned that the dramatist of the PrasannaRaghava had composed the sloka LaksmikeliBhujanga etc. in praise of a Sena king of Bengal.

SEKASUBHODAYA :

Sekasubhodaya written by oneHalayudha Misra describes the holy coming ofthe Seikh to Bengal. The Seikh belonged to thekingdom of Attava. While proceeding to the easton his mission to preach Islam he entered into thekingdom of Bengal. At that time Laksmana Senwas the king of Bengal.

The Seikh possessed many supernaturalpowers. He could go wherever he liked puttingon the enchanted sandals. He built his asramaclose to the palace of Laksmana Sen. Knowingthe motive of the Seikh and apprehending dangerUmapatidhara, the minister of Laksmana Sen triedto poison him to death. But Seikh could savehimself by reading Namaj in a thundering voice.It was reported that the Seikh has saved the lifeof a washerman from the attack of three tigers.He could also save through his magic powers threeships of a merchant named Prabhakar at the pointof sinking in the sea.

Once Kumardutta, brother-in-law of theking, having entered into a rich merchant’s housemolested his young wife Madhavi. The merchant

19


and his wife complained before the king. But thequeen advocated her brother’s cause and beatMadhavi clutching her by lock of her hair. ButJagatguru Govardhanacharya who happened tobe present there scolded the king and threatenedto curse him. Out of anger he was about to leavethe place with his staff and kamandalu(water potof an ascetic), but the king lay prostrate at hisfeet and pacified him. The Seikh had brought in acompromise.

At the machinations of Umapatidharafour persons went in disguise to the Seikh forcausing him an injury. But they had to lose theireye sight. After a lot of entreates the Seikh hadwithdrawn the curse and they got back theireyesight.

Another episode goes like this :-

Once a musician named Budhan Misrahad come to the royal court of Laksmana Sen.As he was an adept in the art of music,Kapilesvara Deva, the Gajapati emperor ofOdisha had granted him the title of SadachandraGaja Jayapatra. When he sang in the PattaManjari tune all the leaves of the Pipal tree closeby fell down. All present praised Budhan Misravery highly. Padmavati, Jayadeva’s wife, whilecoming after a bath in the Ganga heard the praisesand applause. Laksmana Sen announced toreward Budhan Misra with a letter ofcommendation. Appearing at the royal court shedemanded before the king that no commendationshould be given to anybody unless he excels herand her husband in music.

The Seikh who was present thererequested Padmavati to sing. On his requestPadmavati sang Gandhara tune so sweetly thatall the boats sailing in the Ganges came ashore.All were amazed to see the boats moving likeanimate creatures. The Seikh asked BudhanMisra to face a competition with Padmavati. But

as he did not agree for a competition with awoman the Seikh proposed to summon Jayadevato the royal court. On his arrival Jayadeva askedBudhan Misra to make new leaves sprout up onthe Pipal tree by his musical talent. But as BudhanMisra declined, Jayadeva sang in Vasanta Ragaand new leaves sprouted forth. At the advice ofthe Seikh, Budhan Misra was given only someminor presents but no letter of commendation.The stories reveal many extraordinary tricks ofthe Seikh, his mission to construct mosques andpreach Islam and his mediatorship in settling updifference in royal courts.

If we examine the truth in the above story,it will appear to be a fabricated one for thefollowing reasons :-

A. Kapilesvara Deva, more popularlyknown as Kapilendra Deva, the Gajapati Emperorof the then Orissa, ruled from A.D. 1435-1467that is after more than 250 years of the reign ofLaksmana Sen. So the question arises as to howGajapati Kapilesvara Deva granted the testimonial‘Sadhachandra Gaja’ to a musician of the 12th

century A.D.

B. Laksmana Sen was an orthodox Hinduking who was opposed to Muslim rule and hadto flee away in A.D. 1205 after he was defeated.It is not understood how he was believed to be apatron of Islam. There was a gap of only 13 yearsfrom the fall of Prithwiraj Chauhan of Delhi in 1192and the fall of Laxman Sen of Bengal in 1205.There is no record of any Islamic dictating termsin the Court of a Hindu King. Unless he wasalready a vassal prince under an Islam Emperor,Laxman Sen could never give a prominent placeto a preacher of Islam in his kingdom and Durbar.Historically this possibility is far from the truth.

C. Nowhere it has been mentioned even inthis book that Jayadeva had adorned the court ofLaksmana Sen. Had the superiority of Padmavati

20


and her husband in music known to the king orthe Seikh, there was hardly any necessity forPadmavati to prove her proficiency in the royalcourt. Again it is absurd to believe that Padmavati,a devoted lady of high culture and musicalproficiency intruded upon the royal court in achallenging manner on her way from the riverGanges after a bath. Moreover, how couldLaksmana Sen hold his court below a Pipal treefrom where river Ganga was visible is not known.

D. Then another character GovardhanaAcharya appears in the story as a travellingmendicant. Govardhan Acharya belonged to Nialiin Cuttack district and was a poet scholar.

It can be emphatically said that thescripture Sekasubhodaya is not based on anytruth. Dr. Sukumar Sen, while commenting on thisstory has said: “It indicates that Jayadeva did notoriginally belong to the court of Laksmana Senand that he had first come there as an outsider.”(Sekasubhodaya of Halayudha Misra – Editedby Dr. Sukumar Sen and published by AsiaticSociety, Introduction p. vii)

The stone inscription :

In the Birbhum Vivarana by HarekrsnaMukhopadhaya reference has been made to astone inscription supporting the fact that Jayadevawas the court poet of Laksmana Sen as reportedto have been seen by Sri Rupa and Sri SanatanaGosvamis of Sridhama Nadia. The sloka readsas follows :

“Govardhanascha Sarano Jayadeva UmapatihKavirajascha ratnani panchaite Laksmanasya cha”

This means – Govardhana, Sarana,Jayadeva, Umapati and Kaviraja were the fivegems in the court of Laksmana Sen.

Nowhere in their writings Sri Rupa andSri Sanatan had mentioned about this stoneinscription. Again Rupa and Sanatan lived after

more than 320 years of the reign of LaksmanaSen. After the conquest of the kingdom ofLaksmana Sen by the Muslim CommanderMuhammed-i-Bakhtyar, the city of Nadia wascompletely desolated. In the book Tabaqat-i-Nasiri there is mention of this in A.D. 1260.

“After Muhummad-i-Bakhtyarpossessed himself of that territory (RaeLaksmania’s) he left the city of Nudiah indesolation” ! On the foot notes of the page thishas been mentioned “Muhammed-i-Bakhtyardestroyed Nudiah and leaving it in desolationpassed onwards.” (Tabakqat-I-Nasiri, translatedby Raverty, p. 550)”

In such circumstances it is beyond one’scomprehension as to how Rupa and Sanatanacould come across the above stone inscription atthe entrance of the royal palace of Laksmana Sen.None of the old scriptures mention about it.Moreover, history has nowhere recorded Nadiato be the capital of Laksmana Sen.

The court of king of Odisha and Jayadeva :

In A.D. 1563 Kesav Misra, the courtpoet of king Manik Chandra of the kingdom ofKotkangra, has quoted a sloka of Govardhanain his ‘Alankara Sekhara’. From this it is learntthat Jayadeva was a crown of all other poets andscholars adorning the court of the king of Utkala.The sloka reads as follows :

“Prak-pratyak prthivibhrtoh parisadiprakhyata sankhyavata

Mahnaayadbhatatarka- karkasatayavichhidya vidyamadam

Ye keapyutkalabhupate! tavasabha sambhavitah panditahPatram Sri Jayadev panditkavih stanmuddhi vinyasyati”

It means – “O king of Utkala, of all thescholars of your court who command greatrespect and admiration by crushing the pride ofall other scholars in the courts of the kings of theeast and the west who indulge in putting forth dry

21


and argumentative discourses, Jayadeva puts onthe terminal of victory over them as the greatestpoet.”

Besides the above sloka, Kesava Misrain his Alankar Sekhara has quoted fromGovardhana one sloka from each of theSabdalankara (word-ornament) andArthalankara (meaning ornament) sections andeight slokas describing the beauty of women,Govardhana, the writer in the Alankara Sekharaand Govardhana, the writer of the Aryasaptasatiare one and the same person.

Poet Madhava Patnaik a contemporaryof Sri Chaitanya and author of Chaitanya Vitasain his Vaisnava Lilamrta written in the 48th regnalyear of Gajapati emperor Prataprudra Deva,corresponding to A.D. 1535, has mentionedabout the birth place of Jayadeva, his stay at Puriand the composition of the Gitagovinda whichis reproduced below :Vipra se Jayadeva nama ksetrabaraku agamanaKenduli sasana ta grama prachi nadira tate punaNiali Madhava samipe bhagati kala nanarupeSastra purane vichaksana kavitva marge tara manaGita se rachivi voila ksetravasaku mana delaSrijaganathara samipe suddha sattvika matibhaveRachila srigitagovinda labhila parama ananda

X X X X

Gitagovinda nata seva mandire pratyaha hoilaRaja se seva bhiaila kenduli sadhi yogailaSrigitagovinda rasa e sri jagannathara priya eBoli kalaka e bhiana bhagate hele tosamana

(Chapter – II pp, 8-10)

The above verses mean : Jayadeva, aresident of Kenduli Sasana on the bank of theriver Prachi, not very far from Niali and Madhava,had come to Puri, the abode of Lord Jagannatha.He was a great scholar conversant with all otherSastras and Puranas and was poetically minded.His Gitagovinda was read and enlisted asNataseva in the temple of Lord Jagannatha. Theking had ordered for the Gitagovinda Natasevaand also arranged for Kenduli Sadhi to be usedin the service of the Lord.

Prafulla Chandra Tripathy, Plot No.1181, DevarajVidyapitha Road, Govinda Prasad (Bomikhal),Po- Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar.

jayadeva, the poet and his times -...

Documents