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 10.155
उदाहरणम्,
जह� श्री-कृष्णम� आलोक्य स्थिति� स्वाभाविकीम् अप� �
दर्प� कन्दर्�-हृदय� मानो मानवती-हृदि �
ܻṇa,
jahau śī-ṛṣṇa ǰⲹ sthiti� 屹ī api |
岹貹� kandarpa-ṛd māno Բī-ṛd ||
jahauԱܾ; śī-ṛṣṇa—Śrī ṛṣṇa; ǰⲹ—after seeing; sthitim—cDzԻ徱پDz; 屹ī�natural; api—a; 岹貹��pride; kandarpa—of Cupid; ṛd—in the heart; Բ�—pܱ; Բī—of the sulky women; ṛd—in the heart.
Upon seeing ṛṣṇa, the pride in Cupid’s heart gave up its natural state, and so did the pique in the hearts of the sulky girls. (ṅk-첹ܲٳܲ 8.203)
atra kandarpo nir岹貹�. māninyo nirmānā iti ⲹṅgⲹm api bhaṅgyā śabdenābhidhīyate.
Here the implied sense, expressed with words by a roundabout mode of expression, is: Cupid became prideless and the sulky girls ceased being sulky.
Commentary:
Kavikarṇapūra says there is no implied sense at all in his verse nor in any other instance of 貹ǰٲ. According to him, the meaning “Cupid became prideless and the sulky girls ceased being sulky� is literally expressed (峦ⲹ).[1] In this way he seemingly contradicts his own definition.[2] The reconciliation is that sometimes the purport is classed as 峦ⲹ (literal).[3]
This is Mammaṭa’s example:
ⲹ�[4] prekṣya cira-rūḍhāpi nivāsa-prītir ujjhitā |
maden屹ṇa-mukhe mānena ṛd hare� ||“Upong seeing 屹ṇa, the pleasure of having a place to stay was given up, even though the pleasure was longstanding, by the rut fluid on Airāvaṭa’s face and by the arrogant pride in Indra’s heart.�
Mammaṭa elaborates:
atra, 屹ṇa-ś mada-Բ-muktau jātāv iti ⲹṅgⲹm api śabdenocyate tena yad evocyate tad eva ⲹṅgⲹm. yathā tu vyaṅgⲹ� na tathocyate,
“Although implied, the idea “Airāvaṭa became free of rut fluid and Indra became bereft of arrogant pride� is literally expressed with the words. Therefore the implied sense is the same as what is literally expressed, yet the manner in which the implied sense occurs is not the same as the manner in which the same idea is literally expressed with words� (屹ⲹ-ś, verse 504 ṛtپ).
Commenting on the verse, ʲṇḍٲ-Ჹ Բٳ points out that it makes no sense to say that the implied sense is the same as the literal meaning. He tries to reconcile the matter as follows: ʲǰٲ occurs here because the intended idea is as if said by means of stating its effect, thus the cause is implied by the effect.[5] In this way Բٳ equates Mammaṭa’s 貹ǰٲ with Ruyyaka’s 貹ǰٲ, defined next (10.156).
Arguably, Mammaṭa is not the author of the above elaboration. This is explained below. Mammaṭa’s 貹ǰٲ is exactly the same as his ٱ貹ⲹ-ṛtپ (the Purport), which is a峦ⲹ (not exactly the literal sense). Mammaṭa’s definition of 貹ǰٲ is taken from Udbhaṭa.[6] The old-school poetical rhetoricians created the 貹ǰٲ ornament to include any notion of implied sense (vastu-dhvani). Udbhaṭa’s example of 貹ǰٲ, shown in Commentary 10.156, is the same as Mammaṭa’s variety of ٳܳٲ-śṃs where a cause is implied from its effect. Further, when Mammaṭa’s Purport gives rise to an implied sense, that is the suggestive factor called ⲹ-śṣṭⲹ (the specialty of the real statement) (3.2).
This is Mammaṭa’s example (cited in text 3.3):
tadā mama gaṇḍa-sthala-nimagnā� dṛṣṭi� na nayasy anyatra |
idānī� saivāha� tau ca kapolau na sā dṛṣṭi� || (Sanskrit rendering)“At that time you did not cast your eyes, which were glued to my cheeks, anywhere else. Now, even though I am the same and I have the same cheeks that I had, Your glance is not like that anymore.�
Mammaṭa elaborates:
atra mat-ī� kapola-pratibimbitā� paśyatas te dṛṣṭir anyaivābhūt calitāyā� tu tasyām anyaiva jātety aho pracchanna-kāmukatva� te iti vyajyate,
“She means to say, “At that time You were looking at my friend’s reflection on my cheeks. Your glance is not like that now that she is gone.� The implied sense is: “Aha, You are a stealthily lusty man!”� (屹ⲹ-ś, verse 16 ṛtپ).
Here, 貹ǰٲ gives rise to an implied sense. The verse is the literal statement (峦ⲹ), whereas the rewording in the elaboration is the Purport (a峦ⲹ). Naturally, the suggestion is implied (ⲹṅgⲹ). Had Mammaṭa thought that the implied sense is directly derived from the wording of the verse, he would have classed the verse as an example of an implied sense derived from the literal meaning (峦ⲹ-śṣṭⲹ), and had he thought that his rewording is an implied sense, he would have classed this verse as an example of an implied sense derived from another implied sense (his rewording) (ⲹṅgⲹ-śṣṭⲹ).
It should be kept in mind that Mammaṭa passed away before completing 屹ⲹ-ś. Another Kashmiri, named Alaka (also called Alaṭa and Allaṭa), brought 屹ⲹ-ś to completion. According to tradition, Mammaṭa passed away while writing the tenth chapter. Բ첹 ĀԲԻ岹 (c. 1665 CE),[7] a late commentator on 屹ⲹ-ś, says Mammaṭa wrote the book up to the parikara ornament (10.176).[8] He does not state the reason for his speculation. Perhaps Mammaṭa composed all the and inserted illustrative examples, and later Alaka completed the remaining portions of the ṛtپ. At any rate, when the present writer uses the name Mammaṭa in reference to an elaboration in this chapter, it is most likely a pen name for Alaka.
This is ʲṇḍٲ-Ჹ Բٳ’s example of 貹ǰٲ,
sūryācandramasau yasya vāso rañjayata� karai� |
aṅga岵� sṛjaty agnis ta� vande parameśvaram ||“I praise that ʲś whose garment the sun and the moon color with rays and whose bodily powder Agni creates� (Rasa-ṅg).
In other words “I praise Ś, who is naked and has ashes on his body.�[9]
This verse by Բٳ is another example:
ālīsu kelī-rabhasena bālā muhur mamālāpam upālapantī |
ārād upākarṇya gira� madīyā� saudāminīyā� suṣamām ayāsīt ||“In the course of having fun with her friends, the young woman repeatedly imitated the way I talk, yet she assumed the resplendence of lightning upon hearing my voice far away� (Rasa-ṅg).
Բٳ cites the above to illustrate the ⲹ-屹 called ٰ (sudden fear). The woman is ʲṇḍٲ-Ჹ Բٳ’s wife.[10] The verse also features 貹ǰٲ because the meaning “She assumed the resplendence of lightning� is only a poetical way of saying “She ran away� and adds nothing from a semantic perspective insofar as there is no intent to signify a similarity of color, and so on, between lightning and the woman. Therefore it is not the Ծ岹ś ornament (Commentary 10.68).
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
atra kandarpo nir岹貹�, Բvatyo’pi Բ-rahitā iti yadyapi vastu śabdenaiva pratīyate, tathāpi na 峦첹-mukhena, na ca 峦ⲹ-mukhena. 峦첹-mukhena ced abhaviṣyat tadā tasyānyārtho’bhaviṣyat. atra vācakā eva śabdā�, na tūktārtha-vyañjakā�. eva� 峦ⲹ-mukhena ced abhaviṣyat tadā anyo’py artho’bhaviṣyat. aⲹ� tu 峦ⲹ evārtha�, na tu ⲹṅgⲹ�, tarhi sa-bādham idam ity api na vaktavyam. tathā hi, gavi śukle calati dṛṣṭe gau� śuklaś cala iti tritaya-vikalpo yad eva ṛṣṭa� tad eva vikalpayati. tac cābhinnāsaṃsṛṣṭatvena 岹śԲ� bheda-saṃsargābhyā� vikalpayati. (ṅk-kaustubha 8.203)
[3]:
ĀԲԻ岹vardhana paraphrases īṃs첹: tasmāt ٱ貹ⲹ-viṣayo yo’rtha� sa tāvan-mukhyatayā 峦ⲹ�, “Therefore, the meaning that is the object of the ٱ貹ⲹ is 峦ⲹ, due to being primary to that extent� (ٳԲǰ첹 3.33). For the details, consult the appendix in chapter three.
[4]:
Narahari ī īٳ and Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa say the pronoun yam refers to 屹ṇa: ⲹ� rāvaṇam (-ٳԳܰñᾱī) (Uddyota).This shows that the verse is a citation.
[5]:
evam, “ⲹṃ prekṣya cira-rūḍhāpi nivāsa-prītir ujjhitā, maden屹ṇa-mukhe mānena ṛd hareḥ� iti prācīna-padye’pi śakr屹ṇau mana-mada-muktau jātāv iti ⲹṅgⲹm api Բ-mada-moka-mātrasya ⲹṅgⲹtve paryavasyati, dharmy-aṃśasyābhidhā-gocaratvāt. eva� ca yo vyaṅgyāṃśa� sa na kadāpi rūpāntara-puraskāreṇābhidhīyate, yaś cābhidhīyate ī sa tu tadānīm abhidhāśrayatvād ⲹñᲹԲ-vyāpārānāśraya eveti ⲹṅgⲹsya prakārāntareṇābhidhānam asaṅgatam eva. tasmāt kāryādi-mukhenoktam iva 貹ǰٲm. tenākṣiptam ity evārtha� (Rasa-ṅg, KM pp. 410-411).
[8]:
kṛta� śrī-mammaṭācārya-varyai� parikarāvadhi� |
grantha� sampūrita� śeṣa� vidhāyāllaṭasūriṇ� || (屹ⲹ-ś-Ծ岹śԲ) (Kane, P.V. (1998), History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 271)
[9]: