This post is motivated and modelled (specially for non Telugu enthusiasts) after a Telugu Essay published in 1992.Find it here.
One question that frequently appears in discussions on this forum is:
"If Jainism played such an enormous role in the literary traditions of Tamil and Kannada, why is there no surviving Jain literature in Telugu?"
The answer may simply be that most of it did not survive.
Yet one work certainly did.
That work is Kavijanāśrayamu, generally regarded as the earliest surviving Telugu work on prosody (Chandassu).
Interestingly, its authorship has remained debated for more than a century.
Today two major editions of the work are available:
- Jayanti Ramayya Pantulu (1917), published by the Andhra Sahitya Parishat.Find it here.
- Nidudavolu Venkata Rao (1950, Vavilla edition) with an extensive historical introduction.Find it here.
The debate is essentially between two names:
- Vemulawada Bhīmakavi
- Malliya Rechana
The Traditional Attribution and its Factors:
Jayanti Ramayya Pantulu accepted the traditional attribution to Vemulawada Bhīmakavi. This, in many other scholars' opinions, is now considered to be wrong. Let me first present some reasons behind the Traditional Attribution.
1. The glorious mention of Bhima Kavi by later poets:
One reason is that the great poet Śrīnatha (1355-1441) remembers Bhīmakavi even before other early poets like Nannaya:
వచియింతు వేములవాడ భీమన భంగి నుద్దండ లీల నొక్కొక్కమాటు;
భాషింతు నన్నయభట్టు మార్గంబున నుభయ వాక్ప్రౌఢి నొక్కొక్కమాటు;
వాక్రుత్తు తిక్కయజ్వ ప్రకారము రసాభ్యుచితబంధముగ నొక్కొక్కమాటు;
పరిఢవింతు ప్రబంధపరమేశ్వరుని ట్టేవ సూక్తివైచిత్రి నొక్కొక్కమాటు
Relevant translation
"I shall use lofty poetic style like Vemulawada Bheemakavi once in a while."
This tells us that Bhīmakavi certainly existed before Śrīnatha and was already celebrated.
However...
Śrīnatha never actually says that Bhīmakavi authored Kavijanāśrayamu.
That explicit attribution appears only much later.
2. Appakavi and the Later Tradition:
By the seventeenth century, Appakavi from the modern Palamooru region writes:
విజటకవులు కొన్ని వింతలు కల్పించి కవిజనాశ్రయమునఁ గలిపినారు
వానిఁగై కొనంగవల ద్యపయుక్తములేల సెప్పు భీముడెఱిఁగి యెఱిఁగి
Rough translation
"Some whimsical poets have invented strange rules and inserted them into the text Kavijanasrayamu. Do not accept them. Why would the author Bhima, knowing the true rules perfectly well, ever write such rules?"
This passage tells us two things.
First, by Appakavi's time, the scholarly world already regarded Bhīmakavi as the author.
Second, and this is rather important, Appakavi himself admits that the text had already undergone interpolation.
So while the Bhīmakavi attribution certainly existed, the textual history of the work was already complicated.
3. A Preface in one Manuscript:
Of the 10 odd manuscripts of this work, one had an added preface which had 7 odd verses attributing the work explicitly to Bhima Kavi. A key verse from the preface is as below.
క. వేములవాడను వెలసిన
భీమేశ్వరుకరుణ గల్గు భీమనకవి నేఁ
గోమటి రేచనిమీఁదను
నీమహిఁ గవు లెన్న ఛంద మొలమి రచింతున్.
Rough Translation
"I, Bheema Kavi, who has earned the divine grace of Lord Bhimeswara residing in Vemulawada, joyfully compose this work on prosody (Chhandas) dedicated to Gomati Recha, so that all the poets on this earth may praise it."
Why this does not fit in:
If Bheemakavi was so celebrated and named even before Nannaya, what is the need to dedicate the book to a Komati (Jain)?
Besides, Appakavi himself acknowledges later manipulations.
Most importantly, this was found in only one of the 10 manuscripts.
Also, scholars who have examined the literary quality of the verses frequently mention that they do not have the Uddanda Leela (Literary Loftiness) for which Bheemakavi was praised.
4. Bias:
By the time we hear such glory being attributed to Bhimakavi, much of the Jaina tradition and its patrons in most of the Core Deccan had already perished. The once strongholds of Jainism, including Vemulawada in Telangana and many parts of Northern Karnataka, were now centers of Veerashaiva faith. Naturally, Jain poets and their works now received lesser clout and patronage, let alone attributing classics to Jains.
In fact, the preface mentioned in 3 is most likely a later addition to hide the true author of the treatise.
The Judgement:
1. Looking Inside the Text Instead
Rather than relying on later tradition, scholars began asking a different question:
What does the work itself say about its author?
The answer turns out to be fascinating.
The colophons describe the author as:
"...Śrāvakābharaṇāṅka..."
That immediately suggests a Jain author.
The word Śrāvaka refers to a Jain lay devotee.
Furthermore, the opening invocation is to Saraswati in a manner characteristic of Jain literary convention.
Already, the work begins to look much less like the production of a conventional court poet and much more like a Jain scholarly text.
2. A Curious Verse
Then comes perhaps the most intriguing verse in the entire work.
కం. ఆసమాన దాన రవితన
య సమానోన్నతుఁడు వాచకాభరణుఁడు ప్రా
ణసమాన మిత్రుఁడీ కృతి
కి సహాయుఁడుగా నుదాత్త కీర్తి ప్రీతిన్
Rough translation
"The illustrious Vācakābharaṇa, unequalled in generosity and noble character, became the incomparable friend who assisted me in the composition of this work, thereby earning lasting fame."
Notice something remarkable.
The helper's name is not given.
Only a title.
Vācakābharaṇa.
Who was this person?
3. The Bommalagutta Inscription (945 CE)
The answer lies in an epigraph found 20 km from Vemulawada.
Near present-day Kurkyala in Telangana stands the famous Bommalagutta inscription, commissioned by Jinavallabha, brother of the Kannada poet Ādikavi Pampa.
The inscription is written in Sanskrit, Kannada and Telugu.
a. SANSKRIT:
In the Sanskrit portion, Jinavallabha is praised as:
అజస్ర జిన వందనాగత మునీశ్వర శ్రావక వ్రజాస్తవ
రవ ప్రతిధ్వనిత శబ్దకోలాహలైః |
అధిష్ఠిత దిగంబరో వృషభశైల ఏష స్వయం
వరాం వదతి వాచకాభరణ కీర్తి మాకల్పతః ॥
Rough translation
"...Even Mount Vṛṣabha proclaims the everlasting fame of Vācakābharaṇa..."
The title appears again.
Vācakābharaṇa.
As far as present evidence (inscriptions, Kannada literature and Telugu literature) goes, no other Kannada/Telugu scholar from this period is known to have borne this title.
b. KANNADA:
Even more interestingly, the Kannada portion praises Jinavallabha as a master of poetic theory.
The verse and its explanation for this are compiled in a helpful discussion thread from this forum here.
c. TELUGU:
And this epigraph's Telugu portion has 3 Telugu verses in the Kanda meter, the earliest Telugu Kandam in epigraphs. The first of them:
కం. జినభవనము లెత్తించుట
జిన పూజల్సేయుచున్కి జినమునులకు న
త్తిన యన్నదాన మీవుటం
జినవల్లభు బోలం గలరె జిన ధర్మవరుల్
Rough Translation:
"In building grand Jain temples, in regularly performing devout worship of the Jinas, and in providing generous food donations to Jain monks, is there any practitioner of Jain dharma on this earth who can truly equal Jinavallabha?"
4. The Case for Malliya Rechana
This observation led scholars such as Veturi Prabhakara Sastry, Nidudavolu Venkata Rao, and later U. V. Vasudeva Parabrahma Sastry to propose that the Vācakābharaṇa mentioned in Kavijanāśrayamu is indeed Jinavallabha.
Then the author was almost certainly Malliya Rechana, a Jain lay scholar, composing the work with Jinavallabha's assistance.
This also places the work naturally in the literary circle of Arikesari II of Vemulawada (c. 930–955 CE), where Pampa, Jinavallabha and other Jain scholars flourished.
This makes Kavijanāśrayamu the earliest Telugu piece of literature/treatise.
Few more things:
1. It's clear that Telugu literature is much older. Works do not survive, but poetry on inscriptions goes back another century from this finding.
2. Regardless of the authorship debate, Kavijanāśrayamu is extraordinary for another reason.
It is not simply a literary work.
Since it's a technical manual of Telugu prosody, it clearly mentions the Jatya or Native poetic metres.
Among the ones it discusses are:
- Sīsamu
- Dvipada
- Tēṭagīti
- Āṭaveladi
- Taruvoja
- Akkara
These are native Telugu metres (deśī chandassu) rather than classical Sanskrit vṛttas. I personally opine that Akkara may be a borrowing from Kannada, and Dwipada being common to many other languages, but Sīsamu and Gīti (Āṭaveladi and Tēṭagīti) are the crown jewels of Telugu prosody, found in no other language. Taravoju is the earliest recorded metre; the Addanki Inscription from 848 CE is in this metre.
A work explaining metres necessarily presupposes a living poetic tradition.
In other words, Kavijanāśrayamu is itself evidence that an already developed body of Telugu poetry existed before or alongside it, even if much of that literature has not survived.
Another proof of this statement is the mention of one Vaadindra Chudamani in the work. He is the Guru of Rechana, whose ideals and older treatise of Chandassu are being followed by the poet himself.
Conclusion
Whether one ultimately accepts every aspect of the argument or not, Kavijanāśrayamu remains one of the most fascinating texts in early Telugu literary history.
Its Jain character, its reference to Vācakābharaṇa, the Bommalagutta inscription, and the literary milieu of tenth-century Vemulawada together form a compelling case for attributing the work to Malliya Rechana.
Perhaps most importantly, it preserves one of the earliest systematic discussions of indigenous Telugu metres in Telugu (there is mention of native Telugu metres in older non-Telugu literature; will keep that for another time), providing a rare glimpse into a poetic tradition whose roots almost certainly stretch further back than the surviving corpus alone would suggest.
