Text 7.20

यत्र विशेष-विधानं तत्र निषेधस्य गुणी-भावेऽपि न दोषः. यथा,

yatra viśeṣa-vidhānaṃ tatra niṣedhasya guṇī-bhāve'pi na doṣaḥ. yathā,

Although the negation has become secondary, it is not faulty when a particularity is made (because the negation is not the main thing). For instance:

apūtaḥ pūtatāṃ yāti yasmin manasi saṃsthite |
vapus tat pātu kaṃsārer amārjita-sucikkaṇam ||

apūtaḥ—what is not clear; pūtatām—clarity; yāti—attains; yasmin manasi—in which mind; saṃsthite—is established; vapuḥ—body; tat—that [mind]; pātu—may it protect; kaṃsa-areḥ—of Kṛṣṇa (“Kaṃsa’s enemy”); amārjita—without being rubbed; sucikkaṇam—very glossy.

May Kṛṣṇa’s body, which is very glossy even when it has not been massaged, protect a composed mind in which what is not clear becomes clear.

atrāpūtatvādikam anūdya pūtatvādikaṃ vidhīyate. dvitīyaṃ tv agre vakṣyate.

In this verse, the notion of becoming clear refers to the fact of not being clear, and so on. A second one is stated afterward (amārjita).

Commentary:

Viśvanātha Kavirāja gives this example:

jugopātmānam atrasto bheje dharmam anāturaḥ |
agṛdhnur ādade so’rthān asaktaḥ sukham anvabhūt ||

“He, who was fearless, protected himself. He, who had no affliction, practiced virtue. He, who was not greedy, collected taxes. He, who was detached, experienced sensory pleasures” (Raghu-vaṃśa).

In every instance, the negation is only part of a positive statement: Here the negation does not express a lack of something, therefore na[ñ] should be compounded. Viśvanātha explains: atrātrastatvādy anūdyātma-gopanādy eva vidheyam iti nañaḥ paryudāsatayā guṇī-bhāvo yuktaḥ, “In the first sentence, the predicate “protected himself” is mentioned by pointing out the fact of being fearless (this means atrasta, fearless, is the subject). Thus the secondariness of na[ñ] in atrasta is proper because na[ñ] is paryudāsa. The same applies to the other sentences” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.4).

The particle na[ñ] is called paryudāsa when the sentence is an affirmative statement and prasajya-pratiṣedha when the negation is foremost. Compounding must be done when na[ñ] is paryudāsa and must not be done when the negation is the focal point of the text.^[1] Similarly, in Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s verse, the word apūta (what is not clear) is the subject. Moreover, the usage of na[ñ] in amārjita (without being rubbed) within the karma-dhāraya compound amārjita-sucikkaṇam, “very glossy even without being rubbed [with a substance for a massage,]” is proper because the word amārjita is not expressive of a negation in the sense of pointing out a deficiency. Rather, it is meant as a compliment. Therefore only amārjita, and not “na mārjita,” is proper. As for a word like adoṣau (faultless) in Mammaṭa’s definition of poetry (1.6), na[ñ] is compounded because that negation is not the main aspect of the text.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

For the details, consult Vākya-padīya (2.84) and the Amṛta commentary on the sūtra: nañ (Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa 937).