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...
Text 4.51
मन्द-स्मितं प्रकृति-सिद्धम् अपि व्युदस्तं सङ्गोपितश् च सहजो'पि दृशोस् तरङ्गः |
धूमायिते द्विज-वधू-मदनार्ति-वह्नाव् अह्नाय कापि गतिर् अङ्कुरिताम् अयासीत् ||
manda-smitaṃ prakṛti-siddham api vyudastaṃ saṅgopitaś ca sahajo'pi dṛśos taraṅgaḥ |
dhūmāyite dvija-vadhū-madanārti-vahnāv ahnāya kāpi gatir aṅkuritām ayāsīt ||
manda-smitam—mild smile; prakṛti-siddham api—though established in the nature; vyudastam—was cast away; saṅgopitaḥ—was concealed; ca—and; sahajaḥ api—although natural; dṛśoḥ—of both eyes; taraṅgaḥ—the wave; dhūmāyite—[the fire] was acting like smoke (the fire was obvious); dvija-vadhū—of the Brāhmaṇas’ wives; madana-ārti—in the form of the pain of Cupid; vahnau—in the fire; ahnāya—quickly; kā api—some particular (some indescribable); gatiḥ—condition (state of mind); aṅkuritām—the state of being a sprout; ayā—one that reaches; āsīt—became.
Although Kṛṣṇa ceased His mild smiling—even though His smile is spontaneous—and although He hid the natural waves of His eyes, some indescribable condition quickly sprouted in the fire of the torment of Cupid of the sacrificial Brāhmaṇas’ wives. That fire was acting like smoke. (Lalita-mādhava 9.37) (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 4.9.14)
atra dvija-strīṇām eva ratir na tu kṛṣṇasya. vaidagdhyojjvalya-taulyābhāvo vibhāva-vairūpyam. tac ca latā-paśu-viṣamavayaḥ-kulādiṣu bodhyam. samayātikrama-grāmya-dhārṣṭyādy anubhāva-vairūpyam. bhāvābhāsas tu śatru-kṛtā śatru-stutir vārāṅganādi-lajjā-bhuktā[1] strī-ratiś ceti. lakṣyāṇy ūhyāni.
In this verse, only the Brāhmaṇas’ wives have rati. Kṛṣṇa does not have that kind of affection for them. The absence of wittiness, resplendent beauty, and similitude is a distortion of the vibhāvas (a dissimilarity between the qualities of the viṣaya and the qualities of the āśraya). That too should be understood as regards creepers, animals, a difference in age, a difference in group, and so forth. A distortion of anubhāva consists in transgressing etiquette, being vulgar, being overly audacious, and so on.
Bhāvābhāsa (semblance of a bhāva) is the fact of praising the enemy, and a woman’s affection which is devoid of the bashfulness of a beautiful young woman. The secondary characteristics can be inferred.
Commentary:
The above verse is an example of one-sided affection. Rūpa Gosvāmī shows the verse as an instance of a semblance of a sthāyi-bhāva. Kṛṣṇa had no rati for the Brāhmaṇas’ wives mostly because the latter are in the category of guru-patnī (the wife of a superior),[2] not to mention that they were much older and they belonged to a different caste.
The notion that praising the enemy is bhāvābhāsa is sourced in Govinda Ṭhakkura’s commentary on Mammaṭa’s explanation of his own verse (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 119).[3] Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s corresponding example is in text 5.8.
Usually the category called bhāvābhāsa denotes a sthāyi-bhāvābhāsa (a semblance of a sthāyi-bhāva). However, a semblance of a vyabhicāri-bhāva is possible. Any vyabhicāri-bhāva attributed to a creeper or to an animal is a semblance (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.4.228).
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
Viśvanātha Cakravartī writes: vaidagdhyādi-viraha ity upalakṣaṇaṃ, gurutvādayo’pi grāhyāḥ. tena yajña-patny-ādiṣu vairūpyaṃ siddham (Bhakti-sāra-pradarśinī 4.9.18).