based on a mythological theme. It
begins by describing the ascendancy of
a demonnamed Taraka, who receives a
divine boon that he can only be killed by
a son of Shiva. The poem describes the
extended courtship of Shiva and
Parvati, their marriage, and ends with
an account of their lovemaking. The text
ends before the birth of the god Skanda,
who in other mythical accounts of this
tale kills Taraka. This abrupt ending has
led some interpreters to consider the
play unfinished. Others simply view
these later events as a foregone conclu-
sion, by which the poet does not waste
his hearers’ time.
Kumarila
In Indian philosophy, one of the two
great seventh-century commentators of
the Mimamsaphilosophy, one of the six
schoolsof Hindu philosophy; the other
great commentator was Prabhakara.
The Mimamsa school was most con-
cerned with the examination and pur-
suit of dharma(“righteous action”), for
which members believed all necessary
instructions were contained in the
Vedas, the oldest Hindu religious texts.
Consequently, much of Mimamsa
thought is concerned with principles
and methods of textual interpretation to
uncover and interpret the Vedic instruc-
tions. Although both Kumarila and
Prabhakara were committed to discov-
ering the boundaries of dharma by
interpreting the Vedas, there are signifi-
cant differences in their philosophical
positions, which show up most clearly in
their theories of error.
Prabhakara begins with the assump-
tion, similar to the Nyayaconcept of
inherence(samavaya), that there is a
relatively weak correspondence
between an object and its attributes. An
example of this would be the relation of
the color red to a particular ball, such
that the ball is said to be red. According
to Prabhakara, false beliefs result from
akhyati (“nondiscrimination”). This
occurs when a person observes two dif-
ferent things with the same attributes
and concludes that they are the same.
Kumarila is closer to the bhedabhada
(“identity and difference”) philosophical
position, which holds that all things
have both identity and difference with
all other things. Kumarila explains error
as viparitakhyati (“contrary percep-
tion”), in which one mistakenly pairs up
the similarities between two things,
rather than noting their differences. For
example, a person mistakenly believes
that a shell with a silvery color is actual-
ly a piece of silver because he or she
chooses to focus on the similarities
between the shell and silver rather than
the differences. People are impelled to
make these choices by karmic forma-
tions, such as greed for silver.Kumbhadas
(early 16th c.) One of the ashtachap, a
group of eight northern Indian bhakti
(devotional) poets. The compositions of
these poets were used for liturgical purpos-
es by the Pushti Marg, a religious commu-
nity whose members are devotees (bhakta)
of Krishna. In the Pushti Marg’s sectarian
literature, all eight poets are named as
members of the community and as associ-
ates of either the community’s founder,
Vallabhacharya, or his successor, Vitthal-
nath. Kumbhadas is traditionally associat-
ed with Vallabhacharya. Little is known
about Kumbhadas, although it is believed
that he was born in 1469. His poetry
describes the five modes of devotion
described by Rupa Goswami, particularly
the mode known as madhurya (“hon-
eyed”). Madhurya describes the relation-
ship between deityand devotee, using the
language of lover and beloved, in which
each has passionate love for the other.Kumbhakarna
(“Pitcher-eared”) In the Ramayana, the
earlier of the two great Indian epics,
Kumbhakarna is the brother ofRavana,
the demonruler of Lanka. As his name
indicates, his dominant facial feature
is his prominent ears. Kumbhakarna is
a reincarnation of Vijaya,Vishnu’sKumarila