Sahitya-kaumudi by Baladeva Vidyabhushana
by Gaurapada Dāsa | 2015 | 234,703 words
Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Sahitya-kaumudi covers all aspects of poetical theory except the topic of dramaturgy. All the definitions of poetical concepts are taken from Mammata’s Kavya-prakasha, the most authoritative work on Sanskrit poetical rhetoric. Baladeva Vidyabhushana added the eleventh chapter, where he expounds additional ornaments from Visv...
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Text 7.69
यत� तु,
yat tu,
This is a counterexample of abhavan-mata-yoga,
ԾԻ岹nena sādhūnā� ṛnԾ tava |
baddha-貹pi mad-ṇ� ṇīś� vilajjate ||
ԾԻ岹—which is criticizing; anena—by this [speech]; ū峾—of saintly persons; ṛnԾ—the multitudes; —by the speech; tava—of yours; baddha-貹—[my speech,] whose rivalry is engaged; api—aٳdzܲ; mat-ṇ�—my speech; ṇ�-īś—O master of speech; vilajjate—feels ashamed.
Great orator, my speech, engaged in rivalry with yours, feels ashamed of your words which criticize saintly persons.
ity atra ṇīśvarācārya-ԾԻyā� prayuktāyā� sādhu-ԾԻyā sahāsambandhād abhavan-mata-yogatety uktam, tan na, vaco-ԾԻ-mukhena tan-ԾԻyā vaidagdhyādhikya-vyañjitvāt.
Here it is wrong to conclude the following: “The fault of abhavanmata-yoga occurs in this verse because there can be no semantic connection with the orator’s words since speech cannot possibly feel ashamed.� There is no abhavan-mata-yoga here because by criticizing the words, the criticism is directed at the orator, and that is suggestive of a high degree of cleverness.
Commentary:
The poetic expression is valid by ܱ貹 (metaphorical usage). Here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa reiterates վśٳ Ჹ’s attack on Mammaṭa’s opinion on the topic.[1]
վśٳ Ჹ gives this example:
anena chindatā mātu� 첹ṇṭ� paraśunā tava |
baddha-spardha� kṛpāṇo’ya� lajjate mama ||[峾 speaks to ʲśܰ峾:] “Descendant of ṛg, My sword, engaged in competition, feels ashamed of your axe, which sliced your mother’s throat[2] � (Ѳ屹ī-caritam) (ٲⲹ-岹貹ṇa).
վśٳ Ჹ elaborates:
atra -ԾԻyā� prayuktasya �-첹ṇṭ-cchedana-kartṛtvasya paraśunā sambandho na yukta iti 峦�. paraśu-ԾԻ-mukhena -ԾԻdhikyam eva vaidagdhya� dyotayatīty ādhunikā�,
“In regard to this verse, the ancients hold this opinion: “A connection between the axe and the doership, referred to in criticizing ʲśܰ峾, of cutting the mother’s throat is wrong.� The moderns, however, say this: “The very excess in criticizing ʲśܰ峾 by criticizing the axe is suggestive of cleverness”� (ٲⲹ-岹貹ṇa 7.8).
The question regards the suitability of this virodha ornament (semblance of a contradiction) (10.127).
Footnotes and references:
[1]: