I remember the first time I truly “read” Stéphane Mallarmé. It was post-2002, sometime in the early monsoon, in the dim blue light of a college library where the smell of damp paper clung to my consciousness like the perfume of forgotten meaning. I had read him before, or so I thought—skimmed him in translation, glossed over his obliquities, flinched at his hermeticism. But something had changed in me. Or perhaps something had finally quietened. I had begun reading Sanskrit poetics more seriously by then—Kalidasa, Bhartrihari, and the Kashmiri Shaivites. That is when Mallarmé stopped being an enigma and started to sound like an echo. A whisper in an ancient tongue.
Mallarmé is not a poet you read for clarity. He believed “to name an object is to suppress three-quarters of the enjoyment...to suggest, therein lies the dream.” This was not a coy literary gimmick but a spiritual imperative. His poetry—famously dense, elliptical, and strangely sensual—feels like it hovers just outside the threshold of comprehension. And that’s the point. His fragments don't yield; they glimmer, they retreat, they seduce.
For a long time, this made Mallarmé feel foreign—too French, too Decadent, too opaline. But once I began viewing his symbolic mysticism through the lens of Indian rasa theory and dhvani, he suddenly felt like a kindred soul to Kalidasa or Bhartrihari. Take Un Coup de Dés Jamais N'Abolira Le Hasard—a poem that isn’t so much read as inhabited. Its visual structure, typographical play, and semantic dispersal made it seem like a philosophical yantra, a meditation device, not unlike the suggestive poetics of Meghadūta, where clouds carry not just messages but moods, absences, and deferred desires.
The parallels between Mallarmé and Sanskrit poetics are uncanny and profound.
Kalidasa, the poet of shadows and monsoon silences, taught us that what is unsaid—vyangya—is often more powerful than the overt. When the yaksha in Meghadūta longs for his beloved, the landscape becomes the language, the silence becomes the speaker. Mallarmé, too, was a poet of ellipsis. His lines often feel like they’re hiding something deliberately, inviting you to taste absence, not fill it.
In Bhartrihari, especially in the Vākyapadīya, language is not merely a vehicle for meaning—it is a living, self-referential paradox. It both constructs and undermines reality. When Mallarmé obsesses over “pure poetry” and the autonomous power of the word—he is touching that same ontological fire. His verse operates like śabda, with its power not rooted in syntax but in resonance. Both poets recognize language as sacred yet flawed, capable of invocation but not of control.
Abhinavagupta, the great Kashmiri aesthete, spoke of rasāsvāda—the aesthetic experience not as understanding but as immersion. He argued that the pleasure of poetry is in the evocation (dhvani), the mood, the savoring of suggestion. Mallarmé believed likewise. In his universe, meaning is not transmitted but teased, not revealed but experienced through nuance. His ideal was to “paint not the thing itself but the effect it produces.” You might say: rasa before artha.
Even Amaru, whose erotic verse (in Amaruśataka) is layered with philosophical undertones, shares Mallarmé’s talent for cloaking the carnal in the cosmic. Desire, in both their works, is not just physical—it is linguistic, metaphysical, unresolvable. There is always a gap between what is wanted and what is spoken.
Reading Mallarmé through Sanskrit lenses didn’t just enhance my understanding—it rehabilitated my reading habits. I stopped looking for “closure” or “explanation.” I began listening for dhvani, for aftersounds, for the spiritual shimmer behind the verbal veil. Mallarmé taught me that poetry is not just articulation—it is invocation.
One night during the Covid lockdown in 2021, I re-read Mallarmé's Brise marine. The world outside was chaos—ambulances, isolation, death—but Mallarmé's lines offered an eerie kind of consolation. “La chair est triste, hélas! et j’ai lu tous les livres.” ("The flesh is sad, alas! and I have read all the books.") It felt like the anthem of that year. His yearning to escape the heaviness of being through the weightlessness of meaning reminded me again: poetry is not escape, but elevation.
Much like Bhartrihari’s melancholy detachment, or Kalidasa’s exilic longing, Mallarmé’s despair is beautiful because it is deliberate. It is sculpted. And that, perhaps, is the deepest dhvani of all.
In an age of tweets and summaries, Mallarmé remains an act of resistance. He slows you down. He asks for attention, contemplation, surrender. He doesn’t teach you about anything. He teaches you how to read again—with your whole being. And for that, I owe him a lifetime’s gratitude.