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 10.180
यथ�,
अह� शैत्यस्य महिम� हिमानि� तवेदृश� |
शक्यते � � निह्नोतु� कृतो येनाधर-व्रण� ||
ⲹٳ,
aho śٲⲹⲹ himānila tavedṛśa� |
śⲹٱ na ca nihnotu�[1] kṛto yenādhara-ṇa� ||
aho—what a wonder (or alas); śٲⲹⲹ—of coldness; —the greatness; hima-anila—O cold wind; tavaЯdzܰ; īṛśa�—like this; śⲹٱ—c; na£dz; nihnotum—be hidden; ṛt�—is done; yena—because of which; adhara—on the lips; ṇa�—a wound.
O frosty wind, how amazing is the greatness of your coldness! This kind of cold cannot be averted. It is because of your coldness that the lips are chapped. (ṅk-첹ܲٳܲ 8.230)
atra kānta-saṅgama-hetuko’dhara-ṇa� śaitya-hetukatva-cchadmanā gopyate. na ceyam apahnuti�, prakṛtāprakṛta-sādṛśyāsambhavāt.
In this verse, the cuts on the lips which were caused by meeting her lover is concealed by means of deceit which is the idea that the cuts were caused by cold weather. This is not apahnuti because in ǰپ a similarity between the contextual thing (cuts on the lips) and the noncontextual thing (chapped lips) is not possible (is not meant to be expressed).
Commentary:
The main difference between ǰپ and apahnuti (poetic denial) is that in ǰپ there is no denial nor any other kind of expressed negation.[2] According to Nāgeśa ṭṭ, this is the real purport of Mammaṭa’s elaboration reiterated above by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.[3]
Kavikarṇapūra’s example is the form of a first-rate implied sense. Similarly, Pīyūṣa-ṣa Jayadeva gives an example of vyajokti which is a first-rate implied sense: sakhi paśya gṛhārāma-parāgair asmi dhūsarā, “[A young woman speaks to another:] Look, girlfriend, I am covered with dust because of the pollen from the courtyard of the house� (䲹Իǰ첹 5.110). With such a pretext, the speaker conceals that she is covered with dust as a result of going in the woods for a tryst. According to Nāgeśa ṭṭ, however, ǰپ occurs only when it involves a second-rate implied sense.[4] Nonetheless, Mammaṭa says the ūṣm ornament is characterized by a first-rate implied sense.[5]
This is Mammaṭa’s example of ǰپ,
śԻ-پⲹԲ--ٴDZ貹ūḍhDZ-
romāñcādi-visaṃṣṭhulākhila-vidhi-vyāsaṅga-bhaṅgākula� |
hā śaitya� tuhinācalasya karayor ity ūcivān sa-smita�
śailānta�-pura-māt�-maṇḍala-gaṇair dṛṣṭo’vatād va� śiva� ||“When the king of mountains joined ī’s hand and Ś’s hand in matrimony, Ś became perturbed by the appearance of tremor and horripilation due to ī’s thrilling touch, became concerned that he would interrupt the ceremonial, and exclaimed: “How cold are the two hands of the Mountain of Snow!� May He, who was seen by the Mothers within the mountain while he smilingly said this, protect you all.�
Mammaṭa explains:
atra pulaka-貹ٳū ٳٱ첹-rūpatayā prasṛtau śaitya-kāraṇatayā prakāśitatvād apalapita-svarūpau ǰپ� Ჹⲹٲ�,
“Here the horripilation and the tremor are really two ٳٱ첹-bhāvas of love for ī, yet their natures are explained away as being manifested due to the cold temperature. That pretense constitutes ǰپ� (屹ⲹ-ś, verse 520 ṛtپ).
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
[3]:
prakṛtāprakṛtayor iti. idam upalakṣaṇam. tatropameya-Ծṣe-pūrvakam upamānavyavasthāpanam. atra tu kiñcid aniṣidhyaiva nimittāntara-prayuktatva-jñāpanam ity api bodhyam (Uddyota 10.118). Nāgeśa ṭṭ is referring to this: na caiṣāpahnuti� prakṛtāprakṛtobhayaniṣṭhasya sāmyasyehāsambhavāt (屹ⲹ-ś 10.118 ṛtپ).