History of Debate

[nanda chandran]

>Regarding the identity of Kalidasa with Isvarakrisna, I recall that a
>few years back I came across a solitary reference in an old text that
>Isvarakrsna was 'An ascetic who resided at the banks of a lake in a
>hut." Unfortunately, I cannot remember this reference, probably it
>was in the "History and Development of the Samkhya Philosophy' of
>Pulinbehari Chakraborty. Anyway, if I find it, I will
>post it. The reference clearly disproves the theory that Kalidasa and
>Isvarakrsna were one and the same person.

So? He could have well been KAlidhAsa as a grihasta and Ishvara
Krishna during his VAnaprasta and samnyAsin stages.

>Why I feel that kAlidAsa cannot be the author of the sAMkhya-kArikA
>is the enormous difference in style. Though IzvarakRSNa is no mean
>poet himself, but he is plain and straightforward; for instance he
>avoids complicated or lengthy compounds and he uses a single metre
>(AryA) throughout. So even if kAlidAsa would turn out to be a staunch
>follower of sAMkhya I would not believe in their identity.

Probably he got tired of all the flowery verbal patterns and
linguistic gymnastics, as he got more serious :-)

Humour apart, it is a thing to be considered. The purpose of poetry is
different from philosophy. With the latter, the stress is not on
language, grammar or artistic expression. The subject being serious
and already complicated, the author might have restricted himself to
simpler forms of expression to make his theories clear.





_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com