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 7.130
क्वचिन� � दोषो � गुणः. यथ�,
kvacin na doṣo na guṇa�. yathā,
Sometimes ԲūԲ-pada (missing word) is neither a fault nor a quality:
ܱ辱 kvacid پ ī� mayi na kupyati |
-Ծⲹ mad-eka-ṛd kva ||
ܱ辱�angry; kvacit—sdzɳ; پ—sԱ; ī—for a long time; mayi—at me; na£dz; kupyati—aԲ; —she went; —or else; -Ծⲹ—[after aiming] for her place; mat-eka-ṛd—she whose heart is only for me; kva—w? —s.
Is she burning with anger somewhere? [No, because] she does not stay angry at me for long. Or maybe she went to her place. [No, because] her heart is only for me: Where can she go?
atrādya-tṛtīya-pādānte naitad yata iti padāni nyūnāni tathāpy etad-kya-vyaṅgyasya vitarkasyotkarṣākaraṇān na guṇa�, etaj-jātāyā dhiyo dvitīya-caturtha-pāda-jātayā tayā sphuṭa� bādhān na doṣaś ca.
At the end of the third line here, these words are missing: “No, because.�[1] Still, the omission is not a quality because it does not make the eminence of a supposition which would be an implied sense of the text. It is not a fault either, because the thought in the second sentence annuls the thought in the first, and the thought in the fourth annuls the thought in the third.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Those words are also missing between the first and second lines. A footnote in the 屹ⲹ- edition of ٲⲹ-첹ܻܳī (p. 98) explains the syntactical connection of the verse by supplying the missing words: kvacit ܱ辱 پ, iti naitad yuktam, yata� mayi ī� na kupyati. sva-gṛhāya , ity etad api na yuktam, yata� mad-eka-ṛd kva gantu� śaknotīti ṛṣṇa-ٲ첹�.