Namaste
by Rajesh Krishnan
| 110 : காமத்துப்பால் : களவியல் : குறிப்பறிதல் | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | இருநோக் கிவளுண்க ணுள்ள தொருநோக்கு நோய்நோக்கொன் றந்நோய் மருந்து |
व्यादीर्घेण चलेन वक्रगतिना तेजस्विना भोगिना नीलाब्जद्युतिनाऽहिना वरमहं दष्टो, न तच्चक्षुषा | दष्टे सन्ति चिकित्सका दिशि-दिशि प्रायेण धर्मार्थिनो मुग्धाक्षीक्षणवीक्षितस्य न हि मे वैद्यो न चाप्यौषधम् || Bhartrihari Shringarashataka 6 |
| 2 | கண்களவு கொள்ளுஞ் சிறுநோக்கங் காமத்திற் செம்பாக மன்று பெரிது |
उज्झितसौभाग्यमदस्फुटयाच्ञानङ्गभीतयोर्यूनोः | अकलितमनसोरेका दृष्टिर्दूती निसृष्टार्था || Govardhanacharya Aryasaptashati 128 |
| 3 | நோக்கினா ணோக்கி யிறைஞ்சினா ளஃதவள் யாப்பினு ளட்டிய நீர் |
स्निह्यन्ती दृशम् अपरा निधाय पूर्णं मूर्तेन प्रणयरसेन वारिणेव | कन्दर्पप्रवणमानाः सखीसिसिक्षा- लक्ष्येण प्रतियुवम् अञ्जलिं चकार || Magha Sishupalavadha 8.35 |
| 4 | யானோக்குங் காலை நிலனோக்கு நோக்காக்காற் றானோக்கி மெல்ல நகும் |
अभिमुखे मयि संहृतमीक्षितम् हसितम् अन्यनिमित्तकथोदयम् | विनयवारितवृत्तिरतस्तया न विवृतो मदनो न च संवृतः || Kalidasa Abhijnana Shakuntalam 2.11 |
| 5 | குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை யல்லா லொருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல நகும் |
भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः स्निग्धा वाचो लज्जिताश्चैव हासाः | लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं चायुधं च || स्मितेन भावेन च लज्जया भिया पराङ्मुखैरर्धकटाक्षवीक्षणैः | वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन लीलया समस्तभावैः खलु बन्धनं स्त्रियः || Bhartrihari Shringarashataka 8,7 |
| 6 | உறாஅ தவர்போற் சொலினுஞ் செறாஅர்சொ லொல்லை யுணரப் படும் |
भ्रूभङ्गे रचितेऽपि दृष्टिरधिकं सोत्कण्ठमुद्वीक्षतेकार्कश्यं गमितेऽपि चेतसि तनूरोमाञ्चमालम्बते | रुद्धायामपि वाचि सस्मितमिदं दग्धाननं जायतेदृष्टे निर्वहणं भविष्यति कथं मानस्य तस्मिञ्जने || Amarushatakam 24 |
| 7 | செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லுஞ் செற்றார்போ னோக்கு முறாஅர்போன் றுற்றார் குறிப்பு |
भ्रूभेदो रचितः चिरं नयनयोरभ्यस्तमामीलनं रोद्धुं शिक्षितमादरेण हसितं मौनेऽभियोगः कृतः | धैर्यं कर्तुमपि स्थिरीकृतमिदं चेतः कथंचिन्मया बद्धो मानपरिग्रहे परिकरः सिद्धिस्तु दैवस्थिता || Amarushatakam 92 |
| 8 | அசையியற் குண்டாண்டோ ரேஎர்யா னோக்கப் பசையினள் பைய நகும் |
भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः स्निग्धा वाचो लज्जिताश्चैव हासाः | लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं चायुधं च || Bhartrihari Shringarashataka 8 |
| 9 | ஏதிலார் போலப் பொதுநோக்கு நோக்குதல் காதலார் கண்ணே யுள |
स्निग्धं वीक्षितमन्यतोऽपि नयने यत्प्रेषयन्त्या तया यातं यच्च नितम्बयोर्गुरुतया मन्दं विलासादिव | मा गा इत्युपरुद्धया यदपि सा सासूयमुक्ता सखी सर्वं तत्किल मत्परायणमहो कामी स्वतां पश्यति || Kalidasa Abhijnana Shakuntalam 2.2 |
| 10 | கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் வாய்ச்சொற்க ளென்ன பயனு மில |
अलसवलितैः प्रेमार्द्रार्द्रैर्मुहुर्मुकुलीकृतैः क्षणमभिमुखैर्लज्जालोलैर्निमेषपराङ्मुखैः | हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः कथय सुकृती कोऽयं मुग्धे त्वयाद्य विलोक्यते || Amarushatakam 4 |
The correspondence between the kural and Bhartrihari’s Shringarashataka 6 is especially close in its construction of the woman’s நோக்கு as the cause of an explicitly medicalized affliction. In the concluding pada, मुग्धाक्षीक्षणवीक्षितस्य न हि मे वैद्यो न चाप्यौषधम्, the one who has been subjected to the ईक्षण of the charming-eyed woman has neither वैद्य nor औषध. This finds a particularly compact counterpart in Valluvar’s ஒருநோக்கு நோய்நோக்கு, where one நோக்கு is identified as producing நோய். While Bhartrihari leaves the affliction without either वैद्य or औषध, Valluvar supplies the otherwise absent resolution: the second நோக்கு becomes the மருந்து for the நோய் produced by the first. On the other hand, Bhartrihari’s poetic ingenuity lies in the elaborate feint of the first three padas: he accumulates every conventional attribute of a serpent (व्यादीर्घ, चल, वक्रगत, तेजस्विन्, भोगिन्, अहि), only to overturn the entire image with न तच्चक्षुषा, revealing that the true bite was inflicted not by the serpent but by the woman’s eyes, and thereby allowing the medical vocabulary of दष्ट, चिकित्सक, वैद्य, औषध to carry the metaphor to its full force.
Perhaps Valluvar is setting up the conclusion that கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் is the successful cure from applying the மருந்து.
The Mahasubhashitasamgraha verse 5979 provides an erotic resolution of the same pathology: इन्दीवराक्षि तव तीव्रकटाक्षबाणपातव्रणे द्वितयमौषधमेव मन्ये | एकं तवाधरसुधारसपानमन्यदुत्तुङ्गपीनकुचकुङ्कुमपङ्कलेपः ||. Here the तीव्रकटाक्षबाण produces a व्रण, for which the poet identifies two remedies: अधर-सुधारसपान and कुचकुङ्कुमपङ्कलेप. In the context of a work whose காமத்துப்பால் is nevertheless framed within the larger ethical architecture of the Thirukkural, Valluvar’s formulation is more restrained: rather than resolving the affliction through physical means, he makes the remedy another glance, allowing the entire movement from affliction to relief to remain within the refined economy of the lovers’ gaze.
Govardhanacharya’s Aryasaptashati 128 provides a striking parallel for the kural, especially when read with Ananta Pandita’s commentary below.
कयोश्चित्कटाक्षमात्रेणैव योगः संवृत्त इति काचिद्वक्ति । यद्वा न दूत्यादेरुपयोगः,
किं तु कटाक्षमात्रेणैव कार्यं कर्तुं शक्यमिति काचित्कांचिद्वक्ति--
उज्झित सौभाग्यमदस्फुटयाच्ञानङ्गभीतयोर्यूनोः ।
अकलितमनसोरेका दृष्टिर्दूती निसृष्टार्था ॥ १२८ ॥
उज्झितेति । उज्झितस्त्याजितः सौभाग्यस्य मदो ययैतादृशी या प्रकटयाच्ञा, अ-
नङ्गश्च । एतद्भीतयोः । स्फुटप्रार्थनायां सौभाग्यमदभङ्गः, अप्रार्थनायां मदनबाधेत्युभ-
यत्रापि भीतिरिति भावः । 'भङ्ग' इति पाठे सौभाग्यमदभङ्गं सोढ्वापि याच्ञायां कृतायां
तत्फलाभावे भीतिरित्यर्थः । अकलितं मनो याभ्यां तयोः । अविज्ञातपरस्पराभिप्राय-
योरित्यर्थः । यूनोरेका दृष्टि: परस्परावलोकनं निसृष्टार्था दूती । 'उभयोर्भावमुन्नीय
स्वयं वदति चोत्तरम् । सूत्कृष्टं कुरुते कार्यं निसृष्टार्था तु सा स्मृता ॥' एवं च कटाक्ष-
मात्रेणैव संयोगः संवृत्तः कर्तुं शक्य इति ध्वन्यते ॥
The correspondence can be stated quite tightly. The decisive verbal parallel is contained in एका दृष्टिर्दूती निसृष्टार्था: the single दृष्टि itself becomes a दूती and accomplishes the purpose. This corresponds directly to the கண்களவு கொள்ளுஞ் சிறுநோக்கம் and the accomplished purpose (निसृष्टार्था:) of the दूती corresponds to the erotic purpose represented by காமம். The remainder of Govardhana’s verse supplies an unusually close contextual setting: उज्झितसौभाग्यमद…अनङ्गभीतयोः places the यूनोः in a situation where explicit solicitation is avoided; अकलितमनसोः leaves their mutual intentions yet unascertained; and एका दृष्टिः then provides the reciprocal visual communication. This corresponds to the fourth stage in the sequence implicit in Maṇakkudavar’s ordering of the relevant erotic signs: after ஒருநோக்கு has produced the man’s நோய், after attraction has arisen in the woman, and after her covert glances and withdrawal when observed, the remaining erotic function of the glance is precisely the confirmation of mutual attraction expressed in கண்களவு கொள்ளுஞ் சிறுநோக்கம்.
The correspondence becomes particularly clear when read alongside the commentaries of the kural and the shloka. Manakkudavar explains களவுகொள்ளுஞ் சிறுநோக்கம் as the little glance made furtively when the man’s eyes are diverted: என்கண்களைச் சோர்வுபார்த்துக் களவினால் நோக்குகின்ற சிறிய நோக்கம். Parimelazhagar makes its significance more explicit, saying that it occurs உளப்பாடுள்வழி and therefore prevents the prospective புணர்தல் from being ஒருதலை: the glance discloses the woman’s inward disposition and thereby establishes reciprocity. Govardhana’s अकलितमनसोः glossed by Ananta Paṇḍita as अविज्ञातपरस्पराभिप्राययोः, presents essentially the same uncertainty, while एका दृष्टिर्दूती निसृष्टार्था gives the glance the decisive communicative role. Ananta Pandita’s commentary clarifies that someone says that union has come about merely through a sidelong glance (कयोश्चित्कटाक्षमात्रेणैव योगः संवृत्त); or, rather, no messenger and the like is required, since the purpose can be accomplished merely by a sidelong glance. The correspondence to the crux of the kural is unmistakable. The semantic gap is one of poetic expression: Govardhana represents the single look as sufficient to perform the work of a messenger and accomplish the erotic purpose; Valluvar instead calls it a stolen little glance and expresses its value hyperbolically as காமத்திற் செம்பாகம் அன்று பெரிது (not just half of the union, but greater than half).
Kalidasa’s Abhijnana Shakuntalam verse 2.1: कामं प्रिया न सुलभा मनस्तु तद्भावदर्शनाश्वासि | अकृतार्थेऽपि मनसिजे रतिमुभयप्रार्थना कुरुते || provides another parallel. Guruprasad Shastri’s commentary explicitly interprets रतिमुभयप्रार्थना through reciprocal signs of love: उभयप्रार्थना = परस्परमिङ्गितचेष्टितकटाक्षपातादिव्यतिकरणस्वानुरागसूचनमेव (“mutual indication of one’s own love through the exchange of gestures, actions, sidelong glances, and the like”). Thus कटाक्षपात is not merely an ornamental glance; it is a means by which each lover communicates his or her own स्वानुराग. This brings Kalidasa remarkably close to the crux of the kural: the importance of the சிறுநோக்கம் lies in its disclosure of the other’s உளப்பாடு (per Parimelazhakar’s gloss). This parallel is interesting since the next two kurals (or previous two in Manakkudavar order) also find parallels in adjacent verses (2.2 and 2.11) of the Abhijnana Shakuntalam.
The correspondence to the kural read together with Manakkudavar’s commentary is most economically established through Magha’s Sishupalavadham 8.35, read together with Mallinatha. நோக்கினாள் நோக்கி(னபின்பு) is compactly represented by दृशं निधाय, where दृशं supplies the gaze, while the gerund निधाय, having directed/placed (it), presents that act as completed and prior to what follows. Thus the construction simultaneously accommodates நோக்கினாள் and the connective force of நோக்கி(னபின்பு), rather than merely providing a lexical equivalent for look. For இறைஞ்சினாள், however, the correspondence is interpretive rather than lexical. Manakkudavar’s understanding of இறைஞ்சினாள் through bashfulness/modesty supplies the Tamil-side emotional bridge: the bodily response is a குறிப்பு from which the concealed erotic feeling is inferred. This is precisely the Shringara convention independently made explicit in Amarushatakam verse 4: लज्जालोलैः … निमेषपराङ्मुखैः, where bashfulness causes the woman to turn away, and in Kālidāsa’s Abhijnana Shakuntalam verse 3.10: संहृतमीक्षितम् … विनयवारितवृत्तिः, where the withdrawn gaze and modest restraint signal concealed love. In Magha, the corresponding emotional state is expressed through स्निह्यन्ती, which Mallinātha explains as दृष्टिविशेषेण स्नेहं प्रकाशयन्ती, manifesting affection through a particular kind of gaze; प्रणयरसेन makes the Shringara implication still more explicit.
The final image, யாப்பினுள் அட்டிய நீர், has an unusually economical commentarially supported counterpart in पूर्णं वारिणा अञ्जलिम्, further clarified by Mallinātha as बद्धाञ्जलिरेव तिष्ठन्ती, she merely remains with her hands joined/bound. Here யாப்பு, which Valluvar himself uses elsewhere simply in the sense of a binding or fastening (Kural 777), need not be given a specialized agricultural sense. The physical image is simply water contained within the hands. Magha then superimposes the erotic metaphor through मूर्तेन प्रणयरसेन … इव; the water is imagined as embodied love-rasa. Thus the correspondence யாப்பினுள் அட்டிய நீர் → पूर्णं वारिणा अञ्जलिम्, with बद्धाञ्जलि supplying the notion of joining/binding, is considerably more economical than the alternative partial parallels.
स्निह्यन्तीति ॥ कंदर्पप्रवणमनाः स्मरपरवशचित्ता अत एव दृशं निधाय पुंस्येव दृष्टिं कृत्वा स्निह्यन्ती । दृष्टिविशेषेण स्नेहं प्रकाशयन्तीत्यर्थः ।
अपरा स्त्री सख्याः सिसिक्षा सेक्तुमिच्छा तस्या लक्ष्येण व्याजेन बद्धाञ्जलिरेव तिष्ठन्ती न तु सिञ्चन्तीति द्योतनाय सिसिक्षेतीच्छायां सनः प्रयोगः ।
प्रतियुवं युवानं प्रति । 'अनश्च' (५।४।१०८) इत्यव्ययीभावे समासान्तः । मूतेन मूर्तिमता प्रणयरसेनेवेत्युत्प्रेक्षा ।
पाठादर्थस्य बलीयस्त्वादिवशब्दस्य व्यवहितेनान्वयः । वारिणा पूर्णमञ्जलिं चकार । प्रार्थयामासेत्यर्थः ॥ ३५ ॥
நோக்கினா னோக்கி யிறைஞ்சினா ளஃதேவள்
யாப்பினு எட்டிய நீர். (இ - ள்.) முற்பட நோக்கினாள், நோக்கின் பின்பு நாணினாள்,
அஃது அவள் நட்புப் பயிர்வரர அதன்கண் வார்த்த நீர், (எ - று).
தலைமகள் நாண் போகாமைக்குக் காரணங் கூறியவாறாம்.
Amaru supplies the explicit śṛṅgāra convention of a woman alternating between facing the beloved and turning away through lajja: अलसवलितैः प्रेमार्द्रार्द्रैर्मुहुर्मुकुलीकृतैः क्षणमभिमुखैर्लज्जालोलैर्निमेषपराङ्मुखैः | हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः कथय सुकृती कोऽयं मुग्धे त्वयाद्य विलोक्यते ||. This closely parallels Valluvar’s நோக்கினா னோக்கி யிறைஞ்சினாள், additionally providing the Shringara aspect of लज्जालोलैः, which corresponds to Manakkudavar’s interpretation நோக்கின் பின்பு நாணினாள்.
Kalidasa likewise combines a withdrawn gaze, modesty, and a smile/sign through which love remains neither wholly concealed nor wholly revealed: पृष्टा जनेन समदुःखसुखेन बाला नेयं न वक्ष्यति मनोगतमाधिहेतुम् | दृष्टो विवृत्य बहुशोऽप्यनया सतृष्णम् अत्रान्तरे श्रवणकातरतां गतोऽस्मि ||. This closely paallels Valluvar’s நோக்கினா னோக்கி யிறைஞ்சினாள் and supplies the Shringara aspect सतृष्णम्.
Kalidasa’s verse. with Parvati adhomukhi and occupied with counting lotus leaves, gives yet another culturally recognizable association between bashful lowering of the face and the watery/lotus setting: एवंवादिनि देवर्षौ पार्श्वे पितुरधोमुखी | लीलाकमलपत्राणि गणयामास पार्वती ||.
Valluvar uses the word யாப்பு in the sense of binding, specifically a band tied to the legs of warriors: சுழலும் இசைவேண்டி வேண்டா உயிரார் / கழல்யாப்புக் காரிகை நீர்த்து.
Bharavi, although in a non-Shringara context, supplies the broader Sanskrit agricultural metaphor in which watering is understood as preserving/nourishing: अभिवर्षति योऽनुपालयन्वि धिबीजानि विवेकवारिणा | स सदा फलशालिनीं क्रियां शरदं लोक इवाधितिष्ठति ||. Mallinatha’s commentary, अत्र फलशब्देन सस्यहेतुकृतयोरर्थयोरभेदाध्यवसायाच्छ्लेषमूलातिशयोक्तिस्तदनुगृहीता चोपमेत्यनुसंधेयम्, is making an analysis of Bharavi’s verse; he sees fruit (फल) simultaneously as agricultural produce and as the result of an action, and says the two meanings are deliberately fused. The agricultural reading is particularly an interpretive overlay of Manakkudavar and other commentators rather than something that needs to be imported into Valluvar’s யாப்பு. Our interpretation does not require this.
The Jain/Nrityadhyaya provides another Sanskrit expression of the familiar love-creeper / watering metaphor, अङ्कुरितां मम हृदये प्रेमलता रमणजलधरो | सिञ्चति जीवनस्वनैरिह वचनैरुन्नतिं नेतुम् ||. The image is explicit: the creeper of love (प्रेमलता), having sprouted in my heart, is watered by the beloved, imagined as a rain-cloud (जलधर), through the life-giving streams of his words, so that it may grow upward.
An excellent parallel is seen in Kalidasa’s Abhijnana Shakuntalam verse 2.11: अभिमुखे मयि संहृतमीक्षितम् हसितमन्यनिमित्तकथोदयम् | विनयवारितवृत्तिरतस्तया न विवृतो मदनो न च संवृतः ||. The correspondence rests essentially on when I face her, she withdraws her gaze (अभिमुखे मयि संहृतमीक्षितम्) together with a smile (हसितम्). This closely matches Valluvar’s யானோக்குங் காலை நிலனோக்கு, where the woman looks down when he looks at her, while நோக்காக்காற் றானோக்கி makes the converse explicit: when he does not look, she looks at him. Kalidasa leaves this reciprocal reversal implicit in the situation, whereas Valluvar states both directions of the glance explicitly; the gentle smile (மெல்ல நகும்) then supplies the same restrained manifestation of love as Kālidāsa’s हसितम्. The correspondence becomes especially close when the Sanskrit verse is read in its dramatic context, as the answer to अथ भवन्तमन्तरेण कीदृशस्तस्या दृष्टिरागः. Both passages instantiate a comparable literary conception of love being discerned through the involuntary signs of the beloved’s glance and smile rather than through direct speech (Valluvar’s குறிப்பறிதல்).
Kamasutra 3.3.26-27 parallels the visual etiquette underlying the Kural and its interpretation by மணக்குடவர்: सन्मुखं तं तु न वीक्षते | वीक्षिताव्रीडां दर्शयति | रुच्यमात्मनोऽङ्गमपदेशेन प्रकाशयति | प्रमत्तं प्रच्छन्नं नायकमतिक्रान्तं च वीक्षते || पृष्टा च किंचित् सस्मितम् अव्यक्ताक्षरमनवसितार्थं च मन्दं मन्दमधोमुखी कथयति। तत्समीपे चिरं स्थानमभिनन्दति | दूरे स्थिता पश्यतु मामिति मन्यमाना परिजनं सवदनविकारमाभाषते। तं देशं न मुञ्चति ||. யானோக்குங் காலை நிலனோக்கு corresponds closely to संमुखं तं तु न वीक्षते । वीक्षिता व्रीडां दर्शयति: when he is directly before her, she does not look at him, but manifests व्रीडा, for which நிலனோக்கு is a particularly apt behavioral realization. நோக்காக்கால் றானோக்கி then corresponds to प्रमत्तं प्रच्छन्नं नायकम् अतिक्रान्तं च वीक्षते: she looks at the hero when he is प्रमत्त (inattentive), प्रच्छन्न (out of sight), or अतिक्रान्त (having gone past). The kural compresses the three different circumstances into the single elegant condition நோக்காக்கால். The किंचित् सस्मितम् of 3.3.27 further supplies the kural’s மெல்ல நகும், completing the sequence of bashful aversion, opportunistic gaze, and subdued smile.
Kalidasa’s Kumara Sambhava verse 8.3 provides an excellent literary parallel that captures most of the same choreography: कैतवेन शयिते कुतूहलात् पार्वती प्रतिमुखं निपातितम् | चक्षुरुन्मिषति सस्मितं प्रिये विद्युदाहतमिव न्यमीलयत् ||. Parvati directs her gaze toward the apparently unobservant beloved, and when he opens his eyes with a smile, she immediately averts her gaze as if struck by lightning. It therefore closely reproduces the kural’s movement from looking when unobserved to averting when observed. The differences are that Kalidasa introduces the playful circumstance of Shiva’s feigned sleep, and that smile belongs to Shiva when his eye opens, whereas the kural’s மெல்ல நகும் applies to the woman.
Verse 4 of the Amarushataka, अलसवलितैः प्रेमार्द्रार्द्रैर्मुहुर्मुकुलीकृतैः क्षणमभिमुखैर्लज्जालोलैर्निमेषपराङ्मुखैः | हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः कथय सुकृती कोऽयं मुग्धे त्वयाद्य विलोक्यते ||, also corroborates the emotion of averting the gaze quickly, but does not include the smile element and also does not specify the man’s visual state.
Bhartrihari Shringara Shatakam verse 7 also attests the स्मितेन and पराङ्मुखैः, but the correspondence of this verse extends into the next three kurals.
Bhartrihari’s Shringaradhataka verse 8: भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः स्निग्धा वाचो लज्जिताश्चैव हासाः | लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं चायुधं च ||. A parsimonious and compact mapping of குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை யல்லா லொருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல நகும் is भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः … हासाः. Valluvar’s குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை யல்லால் can be interpreted as “not (quite) avoiding a direct gaze”, which suggests the exact connotation of कटाक्षाः, a sidelong gaze. And ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் can be interpreted as “with her eyes compressed and brows slanted to one side”, or भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः. While நகும் directly corresponds to हासाः. The போல adds an “as if” to the cause of the smile, which is corroborated by लज्जिताश्चैव. I interpret the entire verse as “she smiles as if her sidelong gaze with her eyes compressed and brows slanted to one side is not (quite) avoiding a direct gaze”. The signaling is more overt, but still retains an element of bashfulness. In the Manakkudavar sequence this kural is placed right before the அசையியற் குண்டாண்டோ ரேஎர் kural, which suggests that the eye gestures, smile, and body language are becoming more overt. The correspondence of the shloka extending to both kurals. Also, the kurals and the shlokas align with the Shringara rasa and the Lalita Drishti in Bharata’s Natyashastra, which is explored further in the chapter summary.
Another literary parallel to the kural in Bhartrihari Shringarashatakam verse 7: स्मितेन भावेन च लज्जया भिया पराङ्मुखैरर्धकटाक्षवीक्षणैः | वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन लीलया समस्तभावैः खलु बन्धनं स्त्रियः ||. In this reading, पराङ्मुखैः corresponds to குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை, अर्धकटाक्षवीक्षणैः to ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல. This suggests a more covert signaling with a thrown glance rather than an overt sidelong glance than the primary parallel. The correspondence of this shloka extends to the next two kurals (or previous two in the Manakkudavar order). Bhartrihari’s वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन maps well to Valluvar’s உறாஅ தவர்போற் சொலினுஞ் and செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லும் in those kurals.
Vatsyayana in Kamasutra verse 3.3.27, पृष्टा च किंचित् सस्मितम् अव्यक्ताक्षरमनवसितार्थं च मन्दं मन्दमधोमुखी कथयति, has a partial correspondence. Vatsyayana’s formulation is mirrored closely in the definition of अधोमुखी in Bharata’s Natyashastra verse 22.167: प्रहसन्तीव नेत्राभ्यां प्रततं च निरीक्षते | स्मयते सा निगूढं च वाचं चाधोमुखी वदेत् ||. While अधोमुखी and सस्मितम् / स्मयते naturally correspond to குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை and நகும், the additional mechanism employed is verbal with slow indistinct speech with unclear meaning in Vatsyayana (Bharata uses निगूढं च वाचं). In contrast, Valluvar’s ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல is an eye gesture with semantic ambiguity; the போல signals the ambiguity. There is a connection between the smile and the eye gesture in all three cases: Vatsyayana’s अधोमुखी with किंचित् सस्मितम्, Bharata’s अधोमुखी with प्रहसन्तीव नेत्राभ्य, and Valluvar’s குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காைமை with ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல நகும், however, there is inversion between Bharata’s eyes that look like laughing (प्रहसन्तीव नेत्राभ्यां) and Valluvar’s laughter that looks like an eye gesture (ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல நகும்).
Amarushtakam verse 4 provides a parallel to the kural. रुद्धायामपि वाचि corresponds to உறாஅ தவர்போற் சொலினுஞ். From the सस्मितमिदं दग्धाननं we can tell the dissemblance, and therefore, செறாஅர்சொ லொல்லை யுணரப் படும் follows; the रुद्धायामपि वाचि is feigned. The thematic correspondence continues into the next kural, and we explore it further there.
Bhartrihari’s Shringara Shataka verse 7 (presented earlier) also corroborates the kural’s உறாஅ தவர்போற் சொலினுஞ் with वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन.
The correspondence between the kural and Amarushataka verse 92 is remarkably close: भ्रूभेदो चिरं + नयनयोर् आमीलनम् + रोद्धुं हसितम् corresponds to செற்றார்போல் நோக்கும், the hostile-looking frown, eyes, and suppressed smile producing the appearance of one who is estranged; मौने corresponds to செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லும், since silence and curt words are two sides of the same coin of verbal expression–the former passive, the latter actively withholding or hostile. The sequence रचितः + अभ्यस्तम् + शिक्षितम् + अभियोगः कृतः corresponds as a whole to உறாஅர்போன்று உற்றார், for these deliberate acts of construction, practice, training, and undertaking constitute the lover’s conscious dissembling as one who is not attached. Finally, कथञ्चिन्मया … सिद्धिस्तु दैवस्थिता leaves open whether this carefully constructed appearance will actually succeed, thereby leaving the குறிப்பு—-the sign by which the underlying attachment is apprehended—-to be caught by the observer rather than explicitly stated. While the poetic expression varies between the two works, the crux of the kural is closely matched by the shloka.
Amarushatakam verse 24 (presented earlier), expresses a similar idea, but the poetic expression is different: “Though she knits her brows in anger, her eyes gaze at him all the more longingly; though she hardens her heart, her body breaks into gooseflesh; though she restrains her speech, her burning face betrays a smile. When she sees that man, how can she possibly maintain her feigned displeasure toward him?” While the mechanics of dissemblance such as भ्रूभङ्गे रचिते are similar to verse 92, the குறிப்பு is not subtle at all; rather it is completely obvious, as she is not able to maintain her feigned displeasure. The main reason to include this additional parallel is that it supplies रुद्धायामपि वाचि which closely corresponds to செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லும்.
Bhartrihari’s Shringara Shataka verse 7 (presented earlier) corroborates the kural’s செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லும் by likewise presenting speech colored by jealousy and quarrelsomeness as an erotic mode of feigned hostility (वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन लीलया).
Bhartrihari’s Shringarashataka verse 8 offers a good semantic parallel to the Kural. लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं corresponds well with அசையியற் குண்டாண்டோ ரேஎர். In addition to capturing the slow, playful, steady, and graceful movements, स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं further confirms that these graceful manifestations constitute the woman’s ஏர் (which denotes அழகு), rather than being merely incidental gestures. The कटाक्षाः and हासाः respectively correspond to யான் நோக்க and பைய நகும்; मन्दं may be understood as qualifying not only the playful movements but also the manner of the smile.
While स्निग्धा: gives a direct correspondence to பசையினள், the corroboration is deeper. Bhartrihari’s भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः and लज्जिताः place the glance and expression within the शृङ्गार and ललिता दृष्टिः repertoire described by the Natyashastra. सभ्रूक्षेपकटाक्षा and कान्तात्यर्थं are associated with शृङ्गार, while ललिता दृष्टिः is characterized by कुञ्चितान्ता, सभ्रूक्षेपा, and सस्मिता, and is specifically associated with लज्जा. The woman thus exhibits the recognizable ललिता mode of feminine शृङ्गार, and is thereby कान्ता, another aspect of பசையினள். The Natyashastra references and correspondence are explored further in the chapter summary.
An excellent parallel for the kural is provided by Kalidasa’s Abhijnana Shakuntalam 2.2. Here वीक्षितम् अन्यतः अपि corresponds to ஏதிலார் போலப் பொதுநோக்கு: the glance appears to be directed elsewhere, while नयने प्रेषयन्त्या supplies நோக்குதல், the directing of the eyes. The concluding कामी स्वतां पश्यति corresponds with காதலார் கண்ணே யுள: what is outwardly अन्यतः, the lover कामी uniquely perceives as स्वताम्. The Tamil கண் is especially economical, simultaneously denoting the lover’s eye/sight and the locus of perception (locative case), while கண்ணே marks that perception as belonging to the lover.
Vatsyayana provides a technical catalogue of such covert signals in Kamasutra verse 5.2.7: दर्शने चास्याः सततं साकारं प्रेक्षणं केशसंयमनं नखाच्छुरणमाभरणप्रह्लादनमधरोष्ठविमर्दनं तास्ताश्च लीला वयस्यैः सह प्रेक्षमाणायास्तत्सम्बद्धाः परापदेशिन्यश्च कथास्त्यागोपभोगप्रकाशनं सख्युरुत्सङ्गनिषण्णस्य साङ्गभङ्गं जृम्भणमेकभ्रूक्षेपणं मन्दवाच्यता तद्वाक्यश्रवणं तामुद्दिश्य बालेनान्यजनेन वा सहान्योपदिष्टा द्व्यर्था कथा तस्यां स्वयं मनोरथावेदनमन्यापदेशेन तामेवोद्दिश्य बालचुम्बनमालिङ्गनं च जिह्वया चास्य ताम्बूलदानं प्रदेशिन्या हनुदेशघट्टनं तत्तद्यथायोगं यथावकाशं च प्रयोक्तव्यम् ||. The passage need not be restricted to the lovers’ gaze. The kural’s ஏதிலார் போலப் பொதுநோக்கு நோக்குதல் may be understood more broadly as “regarding one another with the common, ordinary, or indifferent regard appropriate to strangers who have nothing to do with each other.” On this reading, பொதுநோக்கு describes the lovers’ outwardly conventional manner of regarding one another, while காதலார் கண்ணே யுள marks the private significance intelligible only to the lovers. Vatsyayana’s catalogue likewise extends beyond साकारं प्रेक्षणम्, encompassing gestures and forms of speech through which an outwardly innocuous expression conveys a meaning intended for the beloved. In particular, परापदेशिन्यः कथाः describes stories ostensibly referring to another, while स्वयं मनोरथावेदनम् अन्यापदेशेन explicitly describes communicating one’s own desire by means of another pretext. The correspondence is therefore not confined to the lovers’ exchanging looks, but lies more broadly in the use of outwardly conventional conduct to conceal a private communication understood by the lovers.
Socially appropriate conduct between two lovers in a public setting – such as in the presence of a Guru (गुरुसन्निधौ), or when the occasion is inappropriate (न कालोचितः) – is discussed in Amarushatakam verse 79 through negative examples: लोलद्भ्रूलतया विपक्षदिगुपन्यासेऽवधूतं शिरस्तद्वृत्तान्तनिरीक्षणे कृतनमस्कारो विलक्षः स्थितः \। कोपात्ताम्रकपोलभित्तिनि मुखे दृष्ट्या गतः पादयोर्उत्सृष्टो गुरुसन्निधावपि विधिर्द्वाभ्यां न कालोचितः ||. This is the converse of the kural’s proposition.
The correspondence between the kural and the Amarushataka verse 4 lies in their conception of the eyes as a direct medium of inner communication. Valluvar says கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் / வாய்ச்சொற்கள் என்ன பயனும் இல”: when the two eyes meet in reciprocal accord, spoken words have no further purpose. Amaru elaborates this through a sequence of eye-gestures, अभिमुखैः … लज्जालोलैः … निमेषपराङ्मुखैः, through which the emotional intention hidden in the heart (हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं), is poured forth through the eyes (वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः). The verse itself depicts communication without speech: what is inwardly held as भावाकूत is conveyed through ईक्षण. Thus Valluvar’s “when the eyes speak, what need is there for words?” is implicitly realized in Amaru’s wholly non-verbal, eye-gestural communication of what’s in the heart.
Kamban makes the correspondence still more exact by supplying the reciprocity implicit in Amaru and explicit in Valluvar in இராமாயணம், பாலகாண்டம், மிதிலைக் காட்சிப் படலம் 1.10.35:
எண் அரும் நலத்தினாள் இனையள் நின்றுழி,
கண் ஒடு கண் இணை கவ்வி, ஒன்றை ஒன்று
உண்ணவும், நிலை பெறாது உணர்வும் ஒன்றிட,
அண்ணலும் நோக்கினான்! அவளும் நோக்கினாள்.
Kambar’s கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை கவ்வி and உணர்வும் ஒன்றிட match Valluvar’s கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் closely. Likewise Kambar’s கண் ஒடு கண் இணை கவ்வி … நிலை பெறாது உணர்வும் ஒன்றிட provides the conceptual bridge to Amaru’s हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः. While Valluvar is explicitly about the futility of spoken words (வாய்ச்சொற்கள் என்ன பயனும் இல), Kamban and Amaru express the same implicitly. The verses of Valluvar, Kamban, and Amaru can be read as three poetic expressions of the same phenomenon: the eye communicates what the heart contains, and reciprocal vision makes speech unnecessary.
A striking Sanskrit conceptual parallel occurs within a spiritual context in the Mahabharata Shanti Parva verses 12.308.17-18:
नेत्राभ्यां नेत्रयोरस्य रश्मीन्संयोज्य रश्मिभिः ।
सा स्म संचोदयिष्यन्तं योगबन्धैर्बबन्ध ह ॥
जनकोऽप्युत्स्मयन्राजा भावमस्या विशेषयन् ।
प्रतिजग्राह भावेन भावमस्या नृपोत्तमः ॥
The first verse describes Janaka and Sulabha being joined—the rays of one pair of eyes meeting those of the other (नेत्राभ्यां नेत्रयोरस्य रश्मीन्संयोज्य रश्मिभिः). Beyond the physical parallel to the கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின், they are also bound in a deep yogic bond (योगबन्धैर्बबन्ध). The next says that Janaka apprehending her भाव (भावमस्या विशेषयन्), received her भाव through his own भाव (प्रतिजग्राह भावेन भावमस्या). The नेत्र → नेत्र → भाव → भाव sequence is therefore a striking Sanskrit formulation of the same non-verbal communicative principle, albeit, with a more elevated spiritual purpose.
The ten Kurals describe a grammar of romantic signaling through the eyes, and Sanskrit Shringara poetry has a technical vocabulary that matches well. Valluvar, in this chapter, is largely consistent with the established Indic literary tradition, while injecting unique culturally appropriate poetic excpressions.
Manakkudavar’s ordering provides a more logical sequence of the signals indicating progression of the relationship than the modern kural verse ordering. Our full complement of additional Sanskrit passages presented above supply specific semantic nuances, metaphors, and alankara/dramatic realizations that the parsimonious maps using either BhSh 6-7 or AmSh 4,24 (discussed later) leave implicit. Bhartrihari Shringarshataka (BhSh) 6 captures the initial step in which the man is smitten by the woman’s glance. Magha Sishupalavadham 8.35 captures the furtive glance and bashful indicating growth of attraction in the woman. Kalidasa Abhijnana Shakuntalam (KAbSh) 2.11, 2.2 and Govardhanacharya Aryasaptashati (GoAr 128) capture the beauty of the progression in the covert flirting. Then BhSh 7-8 capture the overt signalling. Amarushataka (AmSh) 92 and 24 capture the feigned estrangement and hostility in words and demeanor. AmSh 4 captures the culmination of complete understanding through mutual gazing.
| No. | Manakkudavar number and Stage | Kural fragment | Shringara match | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 : initial glance in which the man is smitten | ஒருநோக்கு நோய் … மருந்து | मुग्धाक्षीक्षणवीक्षितस्यो … न औषधम् | BhSh 6 |
| 3 | 2 : furtive glance and bashful withdrawal, growth of attraction in the woman | நோக்கினா ணோக்கி யிறைஞ்சினா ளஃதவள் யாப்பினு ளட்டிய நீர் | दृशं निधाय (स्निह्यन्ती) + पूर्णं वारिणा अञ्जलिम् (मूर्तेन प्रणयरसेन इव) | MShV 8.35 |
| 4 | 3 : covert flirting glances while the man is not looking, else quick withdrawal | யானோக்குங் காலை நிலனோக்கு … நகும் | अभिमुखे मयि संहृतमीक्षितम् … हसितम् | KAbSh 2.11 |
| 2 | 4 : covert stealing of glances confirming mutual erotic attraction | கண்களவு கொள்ளுஞ் சிறுநோக்கங் காமத்திற் செம்பாக மன்று பெரிது | दृष्टिर्दूती निसृष्टार्था | GoAr 128 |
| 9 | 5 : covert signalling with dissimulation to conceal the relationship in public | ஏதிலார் போலப் பொதுநோக்கு நோக்குதல் … காதலார் கண்ணே யுள | वीक्षितमन्यतोऽपि नयने यत्प्रेषयन्त्या … कामी स्वतां पश्यति | KAbSh 2.2 |
| 5 | 6 : overt signalling through eye gestures | குறிக்கொண்டு நோக்காமை … ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல நகும் | भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः … हासाः | BhSh 8 |
| 8 | 7 : overt signalling through direct body language and smile | அசையியற் குண்டாண்டோ ரேஎர்யா னோக்கப் பசையினள் பைய நகும் | कटाक्षाः स्निग्धा हासाः लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं | BhSh 8 |
| 6 | 8 : feigned estrangement in words | உறாஅ தவர்போற் சொலினுஞ் செறாஅர்சொல் | रुद्धायामपि वाचि सस्मितमिदं दग्धाननं | AmSh 24 |
| 7 | 9 : feigned hostility in demeanor and in words | செறாஅச் சிறுசொல்லுஞ் செற்றார்போ னோக்கு முறாஅர்போன் றுற்றார் | रुद्धायामपि वाचि + भ्रूभेदो रचितः चिरं नयनयोरभ्यस्तमामीलनं रोद्धुं शिक्षितमादरेण हसितं मौनेऽभियोगः कृतः | AmSh 24,92 |
| 10 | 10 : mutual gazing communicating complete understanding, transcending verbal feint, overt signaling, and stealth | கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் | हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणै | AmSh 4 |
A second, more parsimonious way of viewing the Sanskrit evidence is through just two verses by Bhartrihari (BhSh 6–7). First, BhSh 6 मुग्धाक्षीक्षणवीक्षितस्यो … न औषधम् establishes the woman’s eyes as the source of an explicitly erotic affliction. It can also be read as setting up the cure as the culmination in the complete understanding through mutual gazing without any of the machinery from BhSh 7. This is consistent with Valluvar’s setting up நோக்கொன் றந்நோய் மருந்து which anticipates the conclusion that கண்ணொடு கண்ணிணை நோக்கொக்கின் is the successful cure from applying the மருந்து. BhSh 7 captures the core emotional and gestural architecture of the rest of the chapter, and supplies the vocabulary and mechanisms for the entire choreography with just स्मितेन भावेन लज्जया भिया पराङ्मुखैः अर्धकटाक्षवीक्षणैः वचोभिरीर्ष्याकलहेन लीलया. The overwhelming emphasis is on communication through the eyes, कटाक्षवीक्षणैः, with judicious combinations of other elements producing the range of signalling mechanisms in the chapter.
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| वीक्षण | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| पराङ्मुख | · | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
| स्मित | · | · | ✓ | · | · | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | · |
| वचस्/ईर्ष्या-कलह | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | ✓ | ✓ | · |
| भिया | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · | · | |
| भाव | · | · | · | · | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| लीला | · | · | · | · | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | · |
| लज्जा | · | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | · | · |
| अर्ध-कटाक्ष | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | · | · | · | · | · | · | |
| कटाक्ष | · | · | · | . | ✓ | ✓ | . | . | . | · |
The matrix above has kurals in Manikkudavar order as columns. The rows are attributes from BhSh 7. The matrix treats वीक्षण as the constant underlying element: at the beginning, the glance itself produces erotic affliction, while at the end वीक्षण + भाव remains, expressing the inward state without need of speech; the latter assignment is supported by the Sulabha-janaka verse. The explicitly specified elements are पराङ्मुख, स्मित, and वचस्/ईर्ष्या-कलह, each corresponding to features directly present in the relevant Kurals. The remaining elements are interpretive: when लज्जा and भिया operate together, expression is inhibited and the glance becomes a fleeting or stolen अर्ध-कटाक्ष; when भिया falls away but लज्जा remains, the glance can become the more deliberate कटाक्ष. पराङ्मुख implies लज्जा, as turning away is an expression of bashfulness, but लज्जा does not necessarily entail पराङ्मुख. With the disappearance of भिया, the signalling shifts from inhibited expression toward combinations of भाव and लीला, whose precise configuration varies with the stage. Thus the kurals can be represented not by a succession of unrelated Sanskrit parallels, but by progressively different combinations of a compact Bhartrihari vocabulary of visual and emotional signalling.
Another parsimonious thematic coverage of this chapter is possible using just two verses of the Amarushataka (AmSh). AmSh 4, अलसवलितैः प्रेमार्द्रार्द्रैर्मुहुर्मुकुलीकृतैः क्षणमभिमुखैर्लज्जालोलैर्निमेषपराङ्मुखैः | हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः कथय सुकृती कोऽयं मुग्धे त्वयाद्य विलोक्यते || presents a complementary catalog: eyes are languidly moving, moist with love, repeatedly closing, for a moment turned toward him, trembling with bashfulness, then turned away at the moment of blinking, and the eyes communicate (without words) the feeling hidden in the heart. While it leaves the first kural implicit, it covers the last one explicitly with हृदयनिहितं भावाकूतं वमद्भिरिवेक्षणैः. AmSh 24, भ्रूभङ्गे रचितेऽपि दृष्टिरधिकं सोत्कण्ठमुद्वीक्षतेकार्कश्यं गमितेऽपि चेतसि तनूरोमाञ्चमालम्बते | रुद्धायामपि वाचि सस्मितमिदं दग्धाननं जायतेदृष्टे निर्वहणं भविष्यति कथं मानस्य तस्मिञ्जने || develops the mechanics of feigned hostility in words and demeanor with भ्रूभङ्गे रचितेऽपि दृष्टिरधिकं … रुद्धायामपि वाचि सस्मितमिदं दग्धाननं. The remaining verses can be seen as largely variations on the combination of क्षणमभिमुखैर्लज्जालोलैर्निमेषपराङ्मुखैः and सस्मितमिदं.
Chapter 8 of Bharata’s Natyashastra is interesting in this context. Verse 46, हर्षप्रसादजनिता कान्तात्यर्थं समन्यथा | सभ्रूक्षेपकटाक्षा च शृङ्गारे दृष्टिरिक्ष्यते ||, associates the sidelong glance with raised/thrown eyebrows (सभ्रूक्षेपकटाक्षा) with the Shringara rasa. Then verse 76, मधुराकुञ्चितान्ता च सभ्रूक्षेपा च सस्मिता | सममन्यविकारा च दृष्टिः सा ललिता स्मृता || describes the Lalita Dhristi is remembered as the glance that has gently contracted ends, is accompanied by an eyebrow movement, bears a smile, and has an even/undisturbed expression of anger. The सभ्रूक्षेपा connects this with the Shringara rasa. Then verse 90 establishes the rule that the Lalita Dhristi to be employed with perspiration and bashfulness: श्रान्ता श्रमार्ते स्वेदे च लजायां ललिता तथा | अपस्मारे तथा व्याधौ ग्लान्यां ग्लाना विधीयते ||. The face turned away is introduced in verse 33: परावृत्तानुकरणात् परावृत्तमिहोच्यते | तत् स्यान्मुखापहरणे पृष्ठतः प्रेक्षणादिषु ||, and then the averted look is introduced in verse 160, विवृत्तं चापि विज्ञेयं हास्यशोकभयादिषु | स्त्रीणामुद्वाहि लीलायां गर्वे गच्छत्यनादरे ||, connecting the Vivritta look in women with playfulness, pride, and indifference. Later, in Chapter 22, Bharata defines अधोमुखी in verse 167, प्रहसन्तीव नेत्राभ्यां प्रततं च निरीक्षते | स्मयते सा निगूढं च वाचं चाधोमुखी वदेत् ||.
Bhartrihari’s Shringara Shataka verse 8 is: भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः स्निग्धा वाचो लज्जिताश्चैव हासाः | लीलामन्दं प्रस्थितं च स्थितं च स्त्रीणामेतद् भूषणं चायुधं च ||. We find the following correspondences with the Natyashastra: (1) लज्जिताश्चैव with लजायां ललिता; (2) हासाः with हर्षप्रसादजनिता and सस्मिता; (3) भ्रूचातुर्याकुञ्चिताक्षाः कटाक्षाः with कुञ्चितान्ता च सभ्रूक्षेपा and सभ्रूक्षेपकटाक्षा; (4) पराङ्मुखैः (verse 7) … लीलामन्दं … स्त्रीणाम् with परावृत्त … विवृत्तं … स्त्रीणामुद्वाहि लीलायां गर्वे गच्छत्यनादरे. Similar correspondences exist with the Amarushataka and the works of Kalidasa that we employ here. The mutual corroboration between the Shringara literature and the Kamasutra (e.g., in the characterization of अधोमुखी) shows conceptual consistency across theory and practice.
In addition to providing a contextual understanding of the entire kural chapter, this correspondence was helpful in interpreting two of Valluvar’s unique expressions: ஒருகண் சிறக்கணித்தாள் போல and அசையியற் குண்டாண்டோ ரேஎர். The connecttion to Shringara literature was helpful in identifying verse matches, including, in particular, a close match to the rather obscure metaphor யாப்பினு ளட்டிய நீர்.
tags: kuralmatch