Abstract
Vedāntadeśika (c. 14th c.) is one of many Sanskrit intellectuals who wrote prolifically in both poetic and philosophical genres. This essay considers how his poetry is related to his philosophical concerns. Scholars have understood the relationship between his poetry and philosophy in a number of ways, some arguing that his poetry permitted a freer exploration of his philosophical ideas, others wishing to discuss his poems independently of his philosophy. My paper will propose a distinct way of understanding this relationship by focusing specifically on a strain of Vedāntadeśika’s poetry inspired by Kālidāsa (4th c.). Examining selections from his poetry alongside his theological writing on the nature of devotional attention, I will argue that the poetic practice Vedāntadeśika learns by reading Kālidāsa activates the same mental faculty involved in bhakti-yoga, or the devotional contemplation of god. This strain of Vedāntadeśika’s poetry thus amounts to a performance of the devotional practice he describes in his philosophical writings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
cetovṛttiṃ śamayati bahiḥ sārvabhaume nirodhe
mayy ekasmin praṇihitadhiyaṃ mānmathenāgamena |
abhyasyantīm anitarajuṣo bhāvanāyāḥ prakarṣāt
svāntenāntarvilayamṛdunā nirvikalpaṃ samādhim || Haṃsasandeśa 2.22; henceforth H ||.
The account continues that Vedāntadeśika didn’t succeed, since Kālidāsa’s single word śyāmā had four different meanings.
Appayya Dikshita, Nilakantha Dikshita, and Vedanta Deshika, “Self-Surrender,” “Peace,” “Compassion,” & “Mission of the Goose”: Poems and Prayers from South India, trans. Yigal Bronner and David Shulman (New York: NYU Press, 2009), xxvi.
mando’py amandatām eti saṃsargeṇa vipaścitaḥ |
paṅkacchidaḥ phalasyeva nikaṣeṇāvilaṃ payaḥ || Mālavikāgnimitra 2.7; henceforth MA ||
eṉkiṟa paṭiye pariśuddhajñānaṉāy…|.
Gautama’s comment ends up being a joke, so that Agnimitra’s artistic sensibility doesn’t seem to have rubbed off on him (Kālidāsa 1960).
purāṇam ity eva na sādhu sarvaṃ na cāpi kāvyaṃ navam ity avadyam |
santaḥ parīkṣyānyatarad bhajante mūḍhaḥ parapratyayaneyabuddhiḥ || MA 1.2 ||.
tadātve nūtanaṃ sarvam āyatyāṃ ca purātanam |
na doṣāyaitad ubhayaṃ na guṇāya ca kalpate || Yādavābhyudaya 1.6 (Vedāntadeśika 1969); henceforth Y ||.
kāntodantaḥ suhṛdupanataḥ saṅgamāt kiñcidūnaḥ || Meghadūta 2.40; henceforth MD ||.
kiṃ na strīṇāṃ janayati mudaṃ kāntavārtāgamo’pi || H 2.30 ||.
kāntāśleṣād adhikasubhagaḥ kāmināṃ dūtalābhaḥ || H 1.4 ||.
kāmārtā hi prakṛtikṛpaṇāś cetanācetaneṣu || MD 1.5 ||.
viśleṣeṇa kṣubhitamanasāṃ meghaśailadrumādau
yācñādainyaṃ bhavati kimuta kvāpi saṃvedanārhe || H 1.5 ||.
Kālidāsa: “vṛttānupūrve ca na cātidīrghe jaṅghe” (Kumārasaṃbhava 1.35 (Kālidāsa 1981); henceforth K); Vedāntadeśika: “citrākārām kaṭakarucibhiś cāruvṛttānupūrvām…jaṅghām” (Bhagavaddhyānasopāna 3). All verses from Vedāntadeśika’s stotras are referenced in this essay by title and verse number (Vedāntadeśika 1973b).
Another instance is “thighs beautiful as banana stalks”; Kālidāsa: “ekāntaśaityāt kadalīviśeṣāḥ…jātās tadūrvor upamānabāhyāḥ” (K 1.35); Vedāntadeśika: kāmārāmasthirakadalikāstambhasaṃbhāvanīyam…ūruyugmam (Bhagavaddhyānasopāna 4).
nirvyājamandasmitadarśanīyaṃ nīrājitaṃ kuṇḍalaratnabhāsā |
nandas tadānīṃ na jagāma tṛptiṃ mugdhākṣaraṃ prekṣya mukhaṃ tadīyam || Y 4.15 ||.
“Though the mountain-king already had a son, his seeing couldn’t get enough of his daughter—like a line of bees, so fond of the mango tree when spring’s flowers are unending.”
mahībhṛtaḥ putravato ’pi dṛṣṭis tasminn apatye na jagāma tṛptim | anantapuṣpasya madhor hi cūte dvirephamālā saviśeṣasaṅgā || K 1.27 ||
A variant of this phrase, na tṛptim āyayau, also appears in Raghuvaṃśa 3.3 (Kālidāsa n.d.) (henceforth R), where Kālidāsa describes Dilīpa’s anticipation of his first child.
ālakṣyadantamukulān animittahāsair avyaktavarṇaramaṇīyavacaḥpravṛttīn |
aṅkāśrayapraṇayinas tanayān vahanto dhanyās tadaṅgarajasā malinībhavanti || Abhijñānaśākuntala 7.17; henceforth A ||
Narasimhan’s comment appears in Vedāntadeśika (1976), p. xvi.
kathaṃ vrajec charkarilān pradeśān padbhyām asau pallavakomalābhyām |
iti snutastanyarasā yaśodā cintārṇave na plavam anvavindat || Y 4.67 ||.
manīṣitāḥ santi gṛheṣu devatās tapaḥ kva vatse kva ca tāvakaṃ vapuḥ |
padaṃ saheta bhramarasya pelavaṃ śirīṣapuṣpaṃ na punaḥ patatriṇaḥ || K 5.4 ||.
iyaṃ te jananī prāptā tvadālokanatatparā |
snehaprasravanirbhinnam udvahantī stanāṃśukam || Vikramōrvaśīya 5.12 ||.
nāgeśayaḥ sutanu pakṣirathaḥ kathaṃ te jātaḥ svayaṃvarapatiḥ puruṣaḥ purāṇaḥ |
evaṃvidhāḥ samucitaṃ praṇayaṃ bhavatyāḥ saṃdarśayanti parihāsagiraḥ sakhīnām || Godāstuti 13 ||.
alakṣyajanmatā (K 5.72); vṛddhokṣa (K 5.70); vapur virūpākṣam (K 5.72).
mahājanaḥ smeramukho bhaviṣyati || K 5.70 ||.
mandaḥ kaviyaśaḥprārthī gamiṣyāmy upahāsyatām |
prāṃśulabhye phale lobhād udbāhuriva vāmanaḥ || R 1.3 ||.
udbāhubhāvam apahāya yathaiva kharvaḥ prāṃśuṃ phalārtham abhiyācati yogicintya |
evaṃ suduṣkaram upāyagaṇaṃ vihāya sthāne niveśayati tasya vicakṣaṇas tvām || Śaraṇāgatidīpikā 25 ||.
hartuṃ kuṃbhe vinihitakaraḥ svādu haiyaṅgavīnaṃ dṛṣṭvā dāmagrahaṇacaṭulāṃ mātaraṃ jātaroṣām |
pāyād īṣatpracalitapado nāpagacchan na tiṣṭhan mithyāgopaḥ sapadi nayane mīlayan viśvagoptā || Gopālaviṃśati 5 ||.
taṃ vīkṣya vepathumatī sarasāṅgayaṣṭir nikṣepaṇāya padam uddhṛtam udvahantī |
mārgācalavyatikarākuliteva sindhuḥ śailādhirājatanayā na yayau na tasthau || K 5.85 ||
This connection was first pointed out to me by Dr. S. Padmanabhan of The University of Madras.
anibhṛtaparirambhair āhitām indirāyāḥ kanakavalayamudrāṃ kaṇṭhadeśe dadhānaḥ |
phaṇipatiśayanīyād utthitas tvaṃ prabhāte [varada satatam antarmānasaṃ saṃnidheyāḥ] || Varadarājapañcāśat 47 ||
Vedāntadeśika here recalls Kālidāsa’s description of Kama, whose “throat bears the mark of Rati’s bangle” <rativalayapadāṅke…kaṇṭhe || K 2.64 ||>.
bhaktiśabdaś ca prītiviśeṣe vartate | prītiś ca jñānaviśeṣa eva |…sukhaṃ ca jñānaviśeṣasādhyaṃ padārthāntaram iti hi laukikāḥ |.
[etad uktaṃ bhavati] – viṣayajñānāni sukhaduḥkhamadhyasthasādhāraṇāni … | yena ca viṣayaviśeṣeṇa viśeṣitaṃ jñānaṃ sukhasya janakam ity abhimataṃ tadviṣayaṃ jñānam eva sukhaṃ, tadatireki padārthāntaraṃ nopalabhyate | tenaiva sukhitvavyavahāropapatteś ca |.
“The one who has brahman as the content of cognition is joyful” <brahma yasya jñānaviṣayo bhavati sa sukhī bhavati> (Rāmānuja 1956, p. 171).
bhaktiyogamāvatu [ananyaniṣṭhaṉāy ananyādhīnaṉāy ananyaśeṣabhūtaṉāna] pakavāṉuṭaiya svarūpādikaḷai viṣayamākavuṭaittāy niratiśayaprītirūpamāṉa dhyānaviśeṣam. atu tāṉ tailadhāraiyaip pōle nirantaramāṉa smṛtirūpamāy sākṣātkāratulyamāna vaiśadyattaiyuṭaittāy [paramapatattukku prayāṇam paṇṇum divasam uṟutiyāka nāḷtōṟum anuṣṭikka vaḷarntu varuvatāy] antimapratyayāvadhiyāna jñānasantativiśeṣam |.
The illuminating counter-image of water being poured was given to me by Dr. S. Padmanabhan of The University of Madras. Note the resemblance of this image with “imagination with the consistency of a stream of flowing nectar”
[prasṛmarasudhādhārākārā…bhāvanā] of Dayāśataka 80.
For an illuminating exploration of Rāmānuja’s answer to this question, see Schmücker (2006).
dhyānaṃ ca tailadhārāvadavicchinnasmṛtisantānarūpam dhrūvā smṛtiḥ smṛtilambhe sarvagranthīnāṃ vipramokṣaḥ iti dhruvāyāḥ smṛter apavargopāyatvaśravaṇāt | sā ca smṛtir darśanasamānākārā | …bhavati ca smṛter bhāvanāprakarṣāt darśanarūpatā |.
bhāvanā anubhavajanyaḥ saṃskāraḥ |.
For Barbara Stoler Miller’s discussion of the idea of latent memory in Kālidāsa’s play, see Kālidāsa (1984), p. 40.
saṃskāraḥ—ahaṃ khalv anubhavāmuṣyāyaṇaḥ saṃskāranāmā devasya vivekasya śikṣitasarvavidyākalāpaḥ śilpī devaśilpinaṃ viśvakarmāṇam asuraśilpinaṃ mayaṃ ca vijitya viśramābhilāṣī ciram asvāpsam | tāvac cedam antaram āsādya mahāmohaprayuktābhyāṃ madhukaiṭabhābhyāmiva mahābalābhyāṃ madhyamacaramaguṇābhyāṃ sattvamitram asāv iti jighāṃsītāḥ | nūnam aprabuddhataiva puruṣeṣu pratipakṣajanasya hastāvalambaḥ | tataś cāhaṃ prabodhitaḥ sahasaiva paramapuruṣadayācoditayā devyā sumatyā sahadṛṣṭisadṛśadṛṣṭisaṃjñābhyāṃ dāsībhyāṃ niravakāśatayā tatas tataḥ palāyite pratipakṣe kenāpi hetunā viśvacitraṃ didṛkṣyamāṇasya devasya mahārājavivekasya senāpatinā vyavasāyena svāmisaṃmatam ādiṣṭo’smi | yathādiṣṭaṃ ca tadāhitadṛṣṭir anvatiṣṭham | avasarānukūlavṛttīnāṃ khalv adhikāriṇām ādhipatyaṃ pratitiṣṭhati | tataś ca
viduṣaś cintanāṃ śaktyā citrabhittiṃ vitanvatā |
śuddhāśuddhavibhāgārhaṃ viśvaṃ vilikhitaṃ mayā || Saṅkalpasūryodaya 7.1; henceforth S ||.
bhītakāmukādipratibhāś ca atra nidarśitavyāḥ |.
vṛkṣe vṛkṣe ca paśyāmi ityādiṣu bhrāntimiśratvaṃ doṣāyattam | iha tu yathāśrutacintanān na doṣabādhāv [iti bhāvaḥ] |.
parair apy ucyate—“dṛṣṭaṃ parokṣam api dhyāyamānaṃ sākṣādbhāvam āpannaṃ kāmādyupaplave” iti |. I thank Anand Venkatkrishnan for recognizing these words from Padmapāda’s Pañcapādikā.
pratyabhijñānaratnaṃ ca rāmāyādarśayat kṛtī |
hṛdayaṃ svayam āyātaṃ vaidehyā iva mūrtimat ||
sa prāpa hṛdayanyastamaṇisparśanimīlitaḥ |
apayodharasaṃsargāṃ priyāliṅgananirvṛtim || R 12.64-5 ||.
dvitīyaḥ—lakṣmībhūmikāyāṃ vartamānorvaśī vāruṇībhūmikāyāṃ vartamānayā menakayā pṛṣṭā | sakhi samāgatā ete trailokyasupuruṣāḥ sakeśavāś ca lokapālāḥ | katamasmiṃs te bhāvābhiniveśa iti |
prathamaḥ—tatas tataḥ |
dvitīyaḥ—tatas tayā puruṣottama iti bhaṇitavye purūravasīti nirgatā vāṇī |.
sūtradhāraḥ: adya khalu kālidāsagrathitavastunā navenābhijñānaśākuntalākhyena nāṭakenopasthātavyam asmābhiḥ | tat pratipātram ādhīyatāṃ yatnaḥ |.
sūtradhāraḥ: ārye sādhu gītam | aho rāgabaddhacittavṛttir ālikhita iva sarvato raṅgaḥ | tad idānīṃ katamat prakaraṇam āśrityainam ārādhayāmaḥ |
naṭī: nanv āryamiśraiḥ prathamam evājñaptam abhijñānaśākuntalaṃ nāmāpūrvaṃ nāṭakaṃ prayogeṇādhikriyatām iti |
sūtradhāraḥ: ārye samyag anubodhito’smi | asmin kṣaṇe vismṛtaṃ khalu mayā | kutaḥ |
tavāsmi gītarageṇa hāriṇā prasabhaṃ hṛtaḥ |
eṣa rājeva duṣyantaḥ sāraṅgeṇātiraṃhasā || A 1.5 ||.
vāmahastopahitavadanālikhiteva sakhī bhartṛgatayā cintayātmānam api naiṣā vibhāvayati kiṃ punar āgantukam |.
vicintayantī yam ananyamānasā taponidhiṃ vetsi na mām upasthitam … || A 4.1 ||.
sādhu vayasya | madhurāvasthānadarśanīyo bhāvānupraveśaḥ | skhalatīva me dṛṣṭir nimnonnatapradeśeṣu |.
aho eṣā rājarṣer nipuṇatā | jāne sakhy agrato me vartata iti |.
api bhūtāni bhāvīni bhavantīva bhavanti naḥ || S 7.5 ||.
mādhavya: (prahasya | ātmagatam) eṣa tavad unmattaḥ | aham apy etasya saṅgenedṛśavarṇa iva saṃvṛttaḥ | bhoḥ citraṃ khalv etat |
rājā: kathaṃ citram |
…
rājā: vayasya kim idam anuṣṭhitaṃ paurobhāgyam |
darśanasukham anubhavataḥ sākṣādiva tanmayena hṛdayena |
smṛtikāriṇā tvayā me punar api citrīkṛtā kāntā || A 6.21 ||
(iti bāṣpaṃ virahati).
śyāmāsv aṅgaṃ cakitahariṇotprekṣaṇe dṛṣṭipātaṃ
vaktracchāyāṃ śaśini śikhināṃ barhabhāreṣu keśān |
utpaśyāmi pratanuṣu nadīvīciṣu bhrūvilāsān
hantaikasmin kvacidapi na te caṇḍi sādṛśyam asti || MD 2.44 ||.
The centrality of this presumption moves Shulman to characterize the whole poem as “one long utprekṣā”—a figure of speech in which the implied speaker’s way of imagining the something (e.g., “The cloud is a messenger”) threatens to override her awareness of its reality (e.g., “The cloud is a jumble of vapor, light, water, and wind”) (Shulman 2012, 55).
dhūmajyotiḥsalilamarutāṃ saṃnipātaḥ kva meghaḥ
saṃdeśārthāḥ kva paṭukaraṇaiḥ prāṇibhiḥ prāpaṇīyāḥ |
ity autsukyād aparigaṇayan guhyakas taṃ yayāce
kāmārtā hi prakṛtikṛpaṇāś cetanācetaneṣu || MD 1.5 ||.
In a similar vein, Sudipta Kaviraj has remarked that “the reality of the journey transcends the unlikelihood of its beginning” (Kaviraj 1976, p. 39).
aṅgenāṅgaṃ pratanu tanunā gāḍhataptena taptaṃ
sāsreṇāśrudrutam aviratotkaṇṭham utkaṇṭhitena |
uṣṇocchvāsaṃ samadhikatarocchvāsinā dūravartī
saṅkalpais tair viśati vidhinā vairiṇā ruddhamārgaḥ || MD 2.42 ||.
dehasparśam malayapavane drṣṭisaṃbhedam indau
dhāmaikatvam jagati bhuvi cābhinnaparyaṅkayogam |
tārācitre viyati vitatiṃ śrīvitānasya paśyan
dūribhūtām sutanu vidhinā tvām aham nirviśāmi || H 2.40 ||.
I am inspired by Yigal Bronner and David Shulman’s thought to read these verses together; however, my account of their differences slightly diverges from theirs (Bronner and Shulman 2006, pp. 26–27).
śabdākhyeyaṃ yad api kila te yaḥ sakhīnāṃ purastāt
karṇe lolaḥ kathayitum abhūd ānanasparśalobhāt |
so’tikrāntaḥ śravaṇaviṣayaṃ locanābhyām adṛśyas
tvām utkaṇṭhāviracitapadaṃ manmukhenedam āha || M 2.43 ||.
yasyā yasmin vyavadhir abhavad bhūṣaṇālepanādiḥ
nītām enāṃ niyativibhavād antarīpaṃ davīyaḥ |
pratyāsīdanniva nayanayor vartmani sthāpayitvā
sa tvām evaṃ vadati kuśalī devi sakhyā mukhena || H 2.32 ||.
Sharon Cameron puts the point this way: “It is a commonplace, albeit a sophisticated one, that speech in poems exist across time and space, that a poem never happened or that it happens every time it is read” (Cameron 1979, p. 88).
tanvī śyāmā śikharidaśanā pakvabimbādharoṣṭhī
madhye kṣāmā cakitahariṇīprekṣaṇā nimnanābhiḥ |
śroṇībhārād alasagamanā stokanamrā stanābhyāṃ
yā tatra syād yuvativiṣaye sṛṣṭir ādyeva dhātuḥ || M 2.22 ||.
sā me dṛṣṭiḥ śapharanayanā sannatabhrūḥ sukeśī
tanvī tuṅgastanabharanatā taptajāmbūnadābhā |
bālā yuṣmatpratimagamanā vedimadhyā varāṅgī
śrṅgārākhyaṃ nidhim adhigatā śreyasī devateva || H 2.10 ||
The idea here is that, since Sītā is so beautiful, she seems a more suitable divinity of love than Kama himself.
bhūyo bhūyaḥ karasarasije nyasya romāñcitāṅgīṃ
maulau cūḍāmaṇivirahite nirviśantīṃ nidhāya
antastāpād adhigatarujor ādarād arpayantīṃ
paryāyeṇa stanakalaśayor aṅgulīyam madīyam || H 2.16 || (to be taken with manye from H 2.13).
śeṣān māsān virahadivasasthāpitasyāvadher vā
vinyasyantī bhuvi gaṇanayā dehalīdattapuṣpaiḥ |
saṃbhogaṃ vā hṛdayanihitārambham āsvādayantī
prāyeṇaite ramaṇaviraheṣv aṅganānāṃ vinodāḥ || MD 2.27 ||.
cetovṛttiṃ śamayati bahiḥ sārvabhaume nirodhe
mayy ekasmin praṇihitadhiyaṃ mānmathenāgamena |
abhyasyantīm anitarajuṣo bhāvanāyāḥ prakarṣāt
svāntenāntarvilayamṛdunā nirvikalpaṃ samādhim || H 2.22 ||.
For a relevant and illuminating discussion of Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s treatment of the imagination in relation to those of Kālidāsa and Vedāntadeśika, see Bronner 2013, pp. 516–518.
This is in fact how one dominant tradition of reading Kālidāsa understood the yakṣa’s curse. For a survey of some of the ways the narrative situation of Meghadūta had traditionally been understood, see Kālidāsa 1987, pp. 10–14.
vidyāśilpapraguṇamatinā veṅkaṭeśena klṛptaṃ
cintāśāṇollikhitam asakṛc chreyasāṃ prāptihetum |
sītārāmavyatikarasakhaṃ haṃsasaṃdeśaratnaṃ
paśyantv antaḥ śravaṇam anaghaṃ cakṣur ujjīvya santaḥ || H 2.50 ||.
Here is how Kuntaka, a tenth-century Sanskrit rhetorician from Kashmir, describes the poetic process: “An idea first flashes before the poetic faculty like a jewel which is no better than a chunk taken from raw stone. When this idea meets the indirect speech of a skilled poet, it becomes a poem that delights sensitive readers, being as attractive as the jewel when it is polished on a grindstone.” <prathamaṃ ca pratibhāpratibhāsamānam aghaṭitapāṣāṇaśakalakalpamaṇiprakhyam eva vastu vidagdhakaviviracitavakravākyoparūḍhaṃ śāṇollīḍhamaṇimanoharatayā tadvidāhlādakārikāvyatvam adhirohati |> (Kuntaka 1977), Vakroktijīvita, 8–9, commentary on 1.7.)
Vedāntadeśika’s account appears in a verse addressed to the deity at Tirukkōyilūr: “You are sweet as the sugarcane on the Panna’s banks; your nectar came out by the squeezing of those first poets with Poykai at their head.” <kāsārapūrvakavimukhyavimardajanmā … paṇṇātateḳṣusubhagasya raso bahus te |> (Dehalīśastuti 7).
While this interpretation may at first seem strained, its strength lies in making full sense of both sides of the metaphor. The plausibility of this reading is also acknowledged by U. Viraraghavacharya, in his commentary on the poem: “It is a friend to Rāma and Sītā’s union; that is, it is an aid to an embrace of Sītā and Rāma by readers, in the mind” <sītārāmayoḥ adhyetṝṇāṃ manasi vyatikarasya taiḥ saṃśliṣya vartanasya sahāyabhūtam> (Vedāntadeśika 1973a, p. 128).
nirmagnaśrutijālamārgaṇadaśādattakṣaṇair vīkṣaṇair
antas tanvadivāravindagahanāny audanvatīnām apām |
niṣpratyūhataraṅgariṅgaṇamithaḥpratyūḍhapāthaśchaṭā-
ḍolārohasadohalaṃ bhagavato mātsyaṃ vapuḥ pātu naḥ || Daśāvatārastotra 2 ||.
tāvad imam avalokayatu devo devī ca | idaṃ hi |
nirmagnaśrutijālamārgaṇadaśādattakṣaṇair vīkṣaṇair
antastanvadivāravindagahanānyaudanvatīnām apām |
niṣpratyūhataraṅgariṅgaṇamithaḥpratyūḍhapāthaśchaṭā-
ḍolārohasadohalaṃ bhagavato mātsyaṃ vapur dṛśyate || S 7.17 ||.
Other examples include Daśāvatārastotra 4, reproduced in S 7.31; Śrīstuti 20, reproduced in S 7.25; and Bhūstuti 10, reproduced in S 7.33.
References
Appayya Dikshita, Nilakantha Dikshita, and Vedanta Deshika (2009). “Self-Surrender,” “Peace,” “Compassion,” & “Mission of the Goose”: Poems and Prayers from South India. Translated by Yigal Bronner and David Shulman. New York: NYU Press.
Bronner, Yigal. (2007). Singing to God, Educating the People: Appayya Dīkṣita and the Function of Stotras. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 127(2), 113–130.
Bronner, Yigal. (2013). Birds of a Feather: Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa’s Haṃsasandeśa and Its Intertexts. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 133(3), 516–518.
Bronner, Yigal, & Shulman, David. (2006). ‘A Cloud Turned Goose’: Sanskrit in the Vernacular Millennium. The Indian Economic & Social History Review, 43(1), 1–30.
Cameron, Sharon. (1979). Lyric Time: Dickinson and the Limits of Genre. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hardy, Friedhelm. (1979). The Philosopher as Poet: A Study of Vedāntadeśika’s ‘Dehalīśastuti’. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 7(3), 277–325.
Hopkins, Steven (2002). Singing the Body of God. Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, Steven (2016). The Flight of Love: A Messenger Poem of Medieval South India by Venkatanatha. Oxford University Press.
Kālidāsa, (1960). Mālavikāgnimitra (Kālidāsa’s Mālavikāgnimitra). Bombay: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kālidāsa (1967). Vikramorvaśīya (The Vikramorvaśīyam of Kālidāsa). Edited by M. R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kālidāsa (1969). Abhijñānaśākuntala (The Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa). Edited by M. R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kālidāsa (1981). Kumārasaṃbhava (Kumārasaṃbhava of Kālidāsa). Edited by M. R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kālidāsa (1984). Theater of Memory: The Plays of Kalidasa. Edited by Barbara Stoler Miller. Columbia University of Press.
Kālidāsa (1987). Meghadūta (Meghasandeśa of Kālidāsa with the Commentaries Pradīpa of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, Vidyullatā of Purṇasarasvati, Sumanoramaṇī of Parameśvara). Edited by N. P. Unni. Trivandrum: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Kālidāsa (n.d.). Raghuvaṃśa (Raghuvaṃśam of Kālidāsa, Sanjivini Commentary of Mallinatha and Chandrakala Hindi Commentary). Edited by Shrikrishnamani Tripathi. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Surbharti Prakashan.
Kaviraj, Sudipta. (1976). The Theory in the Poem: Alienation Themes in Meghadūta”. Journal of the School of Languages, 4(1), 28–43.
Kuntaka (1977). Vakroktijīvita. Edited by K. Krishnamoorthy. Dharwad: Karnatak University.
Macé, Marielle (2013). “Ways of Reading, Modes of Being.” Translated by Marlon Jones. New Literary History 44 (2): 213–29.
Rāmānuja (1956). Vedārthasaṅgraha (Rāmānuja’s Vedārthasaṃgraha). Edited by J. A. B. van Buitenen. Pune: Deccan Collage Postgraduate and Research Institute.
Schmücker, Marcus. (2006). On Rāmānuja’s Identification of ‘Steady Remembrance’ (Dhruvānusmṛti) with ‘Direct Seeing’ (Darśana). In Marzenna Czerniak-Droźdżowicz (Ed.), Cracow Indological Studies (Vol. 8, pp. 201–217). Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka.
Shakespeare, William (2008). Macbeth. Edited by Nicholas Brooke. OUP Oxford.
Shulman, David (2012). More than Real: A History of the Imagination in South India. Harvard University Press.
Stainton, Hamsa (2019). Poetry as Prayer in the Sanskrit Hymns of Kashmir. AAR Religion in Translation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Vālmīki (2006). Rāmāyaṇa (Ramayana III: The Forest). Translated by Sheldon Pollock. New York: NYU Press and the JCC Foundation.
Vedāntadeśika, (1938). Tattvaṭīkā. Madras: Kabeer Printing Works.
Vedāntadeśika (1948). Saṅkalpasūryodaya (Samkalpasuryodaya of Śrī Veṅkaṭanātha with the Commentaries of Prabhāvilāsa of Ahobala and Prabhāvalī of Nṛsiṁharāja). Edited by V. Krishnamacharya. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Adyar, Madras: Vasanta Press.
Vedāntadeśika (1969). Yādavābhyudaya (Srimad Vedanta Desika’s Yadavabhyudaya). Edited by Uttamur T. Viraraghavacharya. Madras: Ubhaya Vedanta Grantha Mala. 1969.
Vedāntadeśika, (1973a). Haṃsasandeśa (Hamsa Sandesa, One of Sri Vedanta Desika’s Kavyas with Commentary “Sanjeevana” in Sanskrit & Tamil). In T. Uttamur (Ed.), Viraraghavacharya. Ubhaya Vedanta Grantha Mala: Madras.
Vedāntadeśika, (1973b). Stotras of Sri Vedanta Desika. Bombay: Sri Vedanta Desika Sampradaya Sabha.
Vedāntadeśika, (1976). Yādavābhyudayam, A Kavya on the Life of Lord Krishna. In K. S. Krishna (Ed.), Thathachariar. Madras: Vedanta Desika Research Society.
Vedāntadeśika, (1980). Rahasyatrayasāra (Srimad Vedanta Desika’s Srimad Rahasya Trayasara with Sara Vistara (Commentary) by Sri Uttamur T. Viraraghavacharya): Ubhaya Vedanta Grantha Mala.
Funding
The research was funded by a Fulbright-Hays Dissertation Fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Subramaniam, S. How a Philosopher Reads Kālidāsa: Vedāntadeśika’s Art of Devotion. J Indian Philos 49, 45–80 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09459-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09459-0