Text 10.90

उदाहरणम्,
हरि-भक्ति-रसाभिज्ञो न मोक्षम् अभिकाङ्क्षति ।
प्रसूनम् अपरं भृङ्गो नेच्छत्य् अम्बुज-लम्पटः ॥|

udāharaṇam,
hari-bhakti-rasābhijño na mokṣam abhikāṅkṣati |
prasūnam aparaṃ bhṛṅgo necchaty ambuja-lampaṭaḥ ||

hari-bhakti—in devotional service to Hari; rasa—the aesthetic bliss; abhijñaḥ—one who is conversant; na—not; mokṣam—liberation; abhikāṅkṣati—desires; prasūnam—flower; aparam—another; bhṛṅgaḥ—a bee; na—not; icchati—desires; ambuja—for a lotus; lampaṭaḥ—which is greedy.

One who is familiar with the relishment in devotional service to Hari does not long for liberation from material existence. A bee greedy for a lotus does not want another kind of flower.

atrobhayatrāpi vākye spṛhā-rūpa eko dharmaḥ śabda-bhedenopāttaḥ.

In this verse, the same attribute, in the form of having a desire, is in both sentences and is obtained with a difference in the wording.

Commentary:

Here the first sentence is the upameya sentence and the second one is the upamāna sentence. In prativastūpamā and dṛṣṭānta (exemplification) (10.92), a word of comparison, such as iva (like), is never used, thus the comparison is implied.

This is Mammaṭa’s example:

devī-bhāvaṃ gamitā parivāra-padaṃ kathaṃ bhajaty eṣā |
na khalu paribhoga-yogyaṃ daivata-rūpāṅkitaṃ ratnam ||

“[An advisor speaks to the king:] Having occupied the role of a queen, how can she assume the position of an ordinary wife? Truly, a jewel marked with the emblem of a demigod should not be worn as a mere decoration” (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 453).

Here the attribute in common, “impropriety”, is mentioned in each sentence, yet with a difference in the wording. There is no mirror effect of any other aspect. In Mammaṭa’s methodology, prativastūpamā amounts to a deficient dṛṣṭānta.