Somadeva authored the Yaśastilaka in the form of campū (mixture of prose and verse) in what is now Dharwar in Karnataka in 959 CE. This monumental composition narrates the tale of Prince Yaśodhara and his mother Candramati, who fall victim to poisoning orchestrated by Yaśodhara’s wife, Aṃrtamati. The Yaśastilaka incorporates extensive discussions on Jain dharma and serves as a rich repository of knowledge about the social, political, religious, and artistic aspects of medieval life, particularly within the court. Additionally, it stands as a comprehensive encyclopedia of language, aspiring to revive "words swallowed by the crooked beast of time” and features a vast collection of literary devices and tropes, alongside influences from Prakrit and the south Indian linguistic traditions. Because this text has been largely overlooked in scholarly discussions, this panel aims to initiate a conversation about it, focusing on its philosophical dialogues, poetic language, linguistic characteristics, and ethical considerations.
This paper examines two literary ornaments from Somadevasūri’s Yaśastilaka–the śleṣopamā or punned simile and the virodhābhāsa or seeming contradiction–to explore the capacity of the poem to produce an ethical subjectivity, cultivated as much through comprehension as through its productive absence. The devices present similar hermeneutic challenges; they frustrate readerly expectations in yielding multiple layers of disjunctive meaning that are juxtaposed without resolution. Thus, the devices force the cultivation of an ethical orientation that defers complete understanding, either provisionally or indefinitely, while at the same time entertaining multiple simultaneous orders of existence. These devices give proof of the astonishing heterogeneity of phenomenal existence and provide a means of coping with it, without diminishing the surfeit of sense that the phenomenal world presents. Thus, each act of understanding, as evinced by these passages, consists of apprehending the sense of an utterance and holding the residue of meaning that resists apprehension.
This paper builds upon the previous presentation and further explores the intricacies of poetic language in Somadeva’s Yaśastilaka, specifically examining how Somadeva employs the figures of virodhābhāsa (apparent contradiction) and śleṣopamā(punned simile) as methods of exposition in the text. They contextualize the Yaśastilaka within the broader landscape of earlier Sanskrit and Prakrit works composed in ornate prose and, specifically, explore the parallels in poetic language between the Yaśastilaka and two notable works—Bāṇa’s Kādambarī (seventh century) and Śīlāṅka’s Caupaṇṇamahāpurisacariyaṃ (ninth century). This analysis demonstrates that by introducing a level of perplexity and disorientation through literary paradox and punning, Jain authors such as Somadeva and Śīlāṅka create the poiesis of the inexpressible.
This paper looks at the encyclopedism of Sōmadēva’s novel, which he is supposed to have written because he was burnt out from too much philosophy, and needed to exercise his creative muscles. However, old habits die hard. In keeping with his literary predecessors in Sanskrit and Prakrit, the Sanskrit poets Bāṇa and Subandhu and the Prakrit novelists Uddyōtana and Haribhadra, Sōmadēva produced a scholarly novel where the abundant excurses and arcana almost seem to obscure the plotline. His poem is a cabinet of curiosities, rich in material from the “worldly sciences” (laukikaśāstra-s) such as Erotics, Equestry and Economics. This paper will reflect on the particular nature of the author’s polymathy, using his accounts of elephants and feasts; with occasional comparisons to his colleague, the Kannada poet Pampa.
This paper focuses on the philosophical controversy between the Jain monk Sudatta and the Lōkāyata philosopher Caṇḍakarman. Although Caṇḍakarman, who also just so happens to be a Cāṇḍāla, is guaranteed to lose the debate, Sōmadēva presents the Lōkāyata position — which denies karmic retribution, rebirth, and a soul that survives after physical death — in some detail. Sōmadēva’s representation, doctrinally speaking, presents little that we don’t know from other sources, but the literary setting of the debate differs in several respects from similar “literary doxographies” that include Lōkāyata, including Sōmadēva’s model, Haribhadra’s Samarāiccakahā, as well as the Maṇimēkalai and the Upamitibhavaprapañcakathā.