Text 1.7

यथा,

yathā,

This is an example of poetry where it is unclear whether there is an ornament:

priyaḥ so'yaṃ kṛṣṇaḥ saha-cari kurukṣetra-militas
  tathāhaṃ sā rādhā tad idam ubhayoḥ saṅgama-sukham |
tathāpy antaḥ-khelan madhura-muralī-pañcama-juṣe
  mano me kālindī-pulina-vipināya spṛhayati ||

priyaḥ—the dear one; saḥ—He; ayam—this one, present before the eyes (or the well-known); kṛṣṇaḥ—Kṛṣṇa; saha-cari—O confidante; kuru-kṣetra—at Kurukṣetra; militaḥ—who is met; tathā—and likewise; aham sā—that same I; rādhā—Rādhā; tad idam—this is the very; ubhayoḥ—of Our; saṅgama—meeting; sukham—happiness; tathā api—nonetheless; antaḥ-khelat—playing within; madhura—which is sweet; muralī—of the muralī flute; pañcama—the fifth [note]; juṣe—[the forest,] connected with; manaḥ—heart; me—My; kālindī—of the Yamunā; pulina—on the bank; vipināya—for the forest; spṛhayati—yearns.

O confidante, He is the same Kṛṣṇa, My sweetheart, whom I am meeting here at Kurukṣetra, and I am the same Rādhā. This is Our joyous get-together. Nonetheless, My heart yearns for the forest on the bank of the Kālindī where the sweet fifth note of the muralī flute is heard. (Rūpa Gosvāmī, Padyāvali 387) (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 3.1.79)

atra na kaścid alaṅkāraḥ sphuṭaḥ, rasas tu prādhānyād alaṅkārya iti vakṣyate. na cātra vibhāvanā viśeṣoktir vā sphuṭā, niṣedha-mukhenānupādānāt.

In this verse, no particular ornament is obvious. However, the rasa is being embellished (alaṅkārya), since it is prominent. This will be explained (4.6; 4.60 vṛtti). Neither the vibhāvanā ornament (an effect without a normal cause) nor the viśeṣokti ornament (no effect in spite of a cause) is obvious here, since neither fits, mostly because there is a prohibition.

Commentary:

The term alaṅkārya in contrasted with alaṅkāra. When a rasa, such as śṛṅgāra, generates more astonishment than the literal meaning of the text does, the rasa is called alaṅkārya, “what is being embellished [by the literal statement].” However, when the rasa does not generate much astonishment, the opposite happens: The rasa merely adorns the literal meanings. As such the rasa is second-rate and is simply considered an ornament (alaṅkāra), called rasavat (5.3-5).

The term alaṅkārya originates from Ānandavardhana: tasmād aṅgatvena ca rasādīnām alaṅkāratā, yaḥ punar aṅgī raso bhāvo vā sarvākāram alaṅkāryaḥ sa dhvaner ātmeti, “Therefore a rasa which is secondary is called an ornament. Moreover, a rasa which is predominant (it exceeds the literal sense in terms of astonishment) is called alaṅkārya and is the soul of dhvani-kāvya (first-rate poetry)” (Dhvanyāloka 2.5).

The verse, which has mādhurya-guṇa, is classed as poetry because although there is no ornament, it has a higher poetical element: a rasa-dhvani, specifically a first-rate śṛṅgāra-rasa (relishment of love).

The fundamentals of rasa are expounded in chapter four. In short, here the words “My heart yearns” is expressive of utkaṇṭhā (longing): It is an aspect of the vyabhicāri-bhāva called autsukya (eagerness) (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.4.195). The verse also features the vyabhicāri-bhāva called smṛti (remembrance) (4.40). The forest on the bank of the Kālindī as well as the fifth note of the muralī are uddīpanas (stimuli). As a whole, these poetical elements raise the sthāyi-bhāva to the level of rasa in the sense that the sthāyi-bhāva has become relishable (4.7-8).

In Kāvya-prakāśa, the verse cited by Mammaṭa is the famous verse that begins yaḥ kaumāra-haraḥ. Mammaṭa comments: atra sphuṭo na kaścid alaṅkāraḥ rasasya ca prādhānyān nālaṅkāratā, “There is no clear ornament here, nor is the rasa an ornament, because the rasa is predominant” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 1 vṛtti).

This is the verse:

yaḥ kaumāra-haraḥ sa eva hi varas tā eva caitra-kṣapās
  te conmīlita-mālatī-surabhayaḥ prauḍhāḥ kadambānilāḥ |
sā caivāsmi tathāpi tatra surata-vyāpāra-līlā-vidhau
  revā-rodhasi vetasī-taru-tale cetaḥ samutkaṇṭhate ||

“He is the same husband, the one who stole my virginity. These are the same nights of spring. These are the same impetuously enrapturing, jasmine-scented breezes from kadamba trees. And I am the same one. Still, as a proper setting for love games, my heart yearns to be at the base of a tree entwined by a vetasī creeper on the bank of the Narmadā River” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 1) (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 1.2) (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 2.1.58)

Viśvanātha Kavirāja disagrees with Mammaṭa. Viśvanātha cites the verse and comments: atra hi vibhāvanā-viśeṣokti-mūlasya sandeha-saṅkarālaṅkārasya sphuṭatvam, “Here a sandeha-saṅkara ornament (the poetical doubt: “Is this ornament occurring or is that ornament occurring?”) (10.252) is evident: The verse can be analyzed either as a vibhāvanā or as a viśeṣokti” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 1.2).

Viśvanātha follows Ruyyaka’s analysis of the verse. Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha say vibhāvanā (a result without a normal cause) occurs because there is an effect without a normal cause (her heart has a longing although the cause, the absence of the lover, is absent), and they say viśeṣokti (no effect in spite of a cause) occurs because although there is a cause (he is present and the time and the place are suitable), there is no effect (the woman still has a deep unsatisfied longing and does not want to enjoy with him there).

Govinda Ṭhakkura disagrees with them by saying that viśeṣokti and vibhāvanā are not evident in the verse.^[1] Mammaṭa holds the opinion that vibhāvanā only occurs when the usual cause is stated and denied, whereas Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha say vibhāvanā can also occur when the usual cause is not stated, as is the case here. P.V. Kāṇe sides with Govinda Ṭhakkura.^[2] The main difference between Mammaṭa’s verse and Rūpa Gosvāmī’s verse is the underlying themes: In Mammaṭa’s verse, the woman is talking about her husband.^[3] In Rūpa Gosvāmī’s verse, Viśvanātha’s explanation is ruled out because of a “prohibition”: A woman always longs to see her paramour, and Kurukṣetra was not a suitable place for a tryst.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

viśeṣokti-vibhāvane vidyamāne api na sphuṭe (Kāvya-pradīpa on Kāvya-prakāśa verse 1 vṛtti).

[2]:

Kane, P.V. (1995), The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, p. 21.

[3]:

Śeṣarāja Śarmā, a commentator on Sāhitya-darpaṇa, glosses varaḥ, in the yaḥ kaumāra verse, as: pariṇetā (husband) (Candrakalā 1.2).