Rūpa Gosvāmī's Dūta Kāvyas: (2) Dating Haṁsadūta and Uddhava-sandeśa
Dating Haṁsadūta and Uddhava-sandeśa[1]
Haṁsadūta and Uddhava-sandeśa
are likely to be Rūpa Goswami's earliest written works. According to Sushil
Kumar De, Rūpa wrote three works—Haṁsadūta, Uddhava-sandeśa, and
Dānakeli-kaumudī—before meeting Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu at Rāmakeli in
1515.[2]
His primary reason for making such a claim is that none of these have a dedication
to Śrī Caitanya at their beginning, as is found in the greater number of Rūpa's
writings.[3]
It should not be altogether surprising if this were the case, as Rūpa came
from a South Indian brāhmaṇa family with a long history of Kṛṣṇa worship
and Sanskrit scholarship. It also seems that the village of Rāmakeli, where he
and his brothers resided, and its surroundings were something of a hotbed of
literary Kṛṣṇaism. Two works written by contemporary residents of that district
that likely predate the advent or floruit of Śrī Caitanya are the Haricarita
of Caturbhuja, a Sanskrit text on the life of Kṛṣṇa, and the Gopāla-vijaya,
one of the earliest Bengali poems on the life of Kṛṣṇa.
It could be argued that the Uddhava-sandeśa naturally precedes the Haṁsadūta
for several reasons. The main reason for this is the primacy of the message
from Uddhava in the sequence of events in the Bhāgavata (10.46-47). The Haṁsadūta
speaks of Uddhava's visit to Vraja, while the opposite is not true, i.e., there
is no indication that the gopīs sent a message to Kṛṣṇa prior to his
commissioning of Uddhava as in the Uddhava-sandeśa. Furthermore, Rūpa's
somewhat closer adherence to the dūta-kāvya genre's conventions as set
by Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta in this work could be considered evidence for
the priority of its composition.
However, of the three above-mentioned works, it is my feeling that only Haṁsadūta
could possibly have been written prior to Rūpa's first encounter with Caitanya.
In that work (verse 141), Rūpa refers to his elder brother and guru Sanātana as
being known in the world as Sākara,”[4]
this is commonly understood to have been Sanătana's title when working at the
court of Shāh Hussain.[5]
Rūpa himself was known as Dabīr Khāṣ (dabīr means simply “writer,
secretary,” while khāṣ indicates “for the king's private use.”) In some
texts, this latter title is applied to both Rüpa and Sanātana.[6]
At any rate, the use of what is evidently a title from the Muslim court rather
than the name bestowed upon him by Mahāprabhu supports the contention that the Haṁsadūta
at least was likely composed prior to their encounter.
On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that Uddhava-sandeśa
was written when Rūpa and Sanātana were already living in Vraja, not long after
meeting Caitanya. First of all, Rūpa uses a prototype of the poetic strategy
found in his other works—the insertion of the name given to him by Caitanya
into a dedication (maṅgalācaraṇa), here found in the poem's penultimate
verse (130). In Uddhava-sandeśa, as elsewhere (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu,
Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, etc.), this verse to the guru can also be read as a
dedication to Kṛṣṇa, differing only in that there is no pun on the word rūpa
(as it is difficult to read rūpāśraya-pada-sarojanmanaḥ as anything
other than “whose lotus feet are the shelter of Rūpa”[7]), nor does it
include the name of Sanātana. On the other hand, Rūpa refers to his guru (svāminaḥ)
as kurvāṇasya prathita-mathurā-maṇḍale täṇḍavāni, “dancing madly in the
circle of Mathurā, which was the theme [of this poem].” This would seem to
indicate that Sanātana (and Rūpa) were living in the Vraja area at the time of
its composition.
A further, even more convincing argument for the later composition of Uddhava-sandeśa
is that it shows signs of a first-hand knowledge of the Vraja area, in
particular the area around Nanda Grām where Rūpa is known to have lived.
Knowledge of place names such as Rahelā, Saṭţīkara, etc., could not have been
derived from any Purāṇic source. This is not true of Haṁsadūta, in
which all site names can be traced directly to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and
which furthermore shows no knowledge of their relative placement.
[1] This article is based on the work I did for Mystic Poetry: Rūpa
Gosvāmin’s Uddhava-sandeśa and Haṁsadūta. San Francisco, Mandala Publishing
Group, 1999.
[2] Sushil Kumar De, Early History of the
Vaishnava Faith and Movement (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1961), 148.
[3] I find the arguments given by Dr. De to be
only partially persuasive in the case of DKK. The work is dated 1495 AD in the
colophon, but this unlikely date could be attributable to scribal error The
work is dedicated to "a friend living in Govardhana" which tradition
holds to be a reference to Raghunātha Dāsa, which indicates the likelihood that
Rūpa was in Vraja when he wrote it. It is also fairly mature, and it is
doubtful that a 17 or 18-year old Rūpa would have been able to write a work of
this caliber. Other authorities have also found this date problematic and offer
various other possible dates up to 1549. See Naresh Chandra Jana, Bṛndābanera
Chaya Gosvāmī (Calcuttaː Calcutta University, 1970) 117–120.
[4] De, however, holds (without giving any
particular reason) that this is an "ingenious substitution" for sat-kavi.
De, Early History 647 fn. Nowhere else does Rūpa praise Sanātana for his
particular qualities as a poet.
[5] Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.183: rūpa-sākara
mallika āilā tomā dekhibāre. This could mean Rūpa and Sākara Mallik;
indeed, the context seems to confirm this. 2.1.174 has Dabīr Khās with no
reference as to which of the brothers it means. Sākar cannot be found in the
Persian or Arabic. Delmonico says that it is a title that means “respected sir.”
Neal Delmonico, "Sacred Rapture: A Study of the Religious Aesthetic of Rūpa
Gosvāmin" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1990) 279.
[6] Caitanya-bhāgavata, 1.1.151-2,
1.9.192, 3.10.263. See Jānā, Vṛṇdāvanera, 37.
[7] Possibly rūpa meaning beauty. “whose lotus feet are the shelter of
beauty.”
Rūpa Gosvāmī’s Dūta-kāvyas:
(1) The sources of Rupa Goswami’s Authority
(2) Dating Haṁsadūta and Uddhava-sandeśa
(4) Separation in Rūpa Gosvāmī's writings
(5) Modern and Classical Literary Tastes
(6) Rasa: From aesthetic to sacred rapture
(7) Towards an Objective Assessment
Comments