Text 4.67

(5) [This exemplifies a kavi-prauḍhokti-siddha vastu-dhvani (implied idea effected from a bold assertion made by the poet) which occasions another vastu-dhvani,]

स्पन्दते यदि पदादि तदासां स्यन्दते मधुरिमामृत-धारा |
सङ्गतः पवन-जाद् व्रततीनाम् अङ्गतो मधु-कणा इव भूमौ ||

spandate yadi padādi tadāsāṃ syandate madhurimāmṛta-dhārā |
saṅgataḥ pavana-jād vratatīnām aṅgato madhu-kaṇā iva bhūmau ||

spandate—moves; yadi—if; pada-ādi—[a limb] such as a foot; tadā—then; āsām—of these ones (the gopīs); syandate—flows; madhurimā—of sweetness; amṛta-dhārā—a flow of nectar; saṅgataḥ—from the contact; pavana-jāt—which occurs because of the wind; vratatīnām—of vines; aṅgataḥ—from a limb; madhu-kaṇāḥ—drops of nectar; iva—like; bhūmau—on the ground.

When the gopīs move their feet, a gush of ambrosia in the form of sweetness rains, like drops of nectar from creepers fall on the ground because of the contact occasioned by the wind. (Alaṅkārakaustubha 3.21)

atra yāsāṃ padādi-spandana-mātrād evaṃ mādhurya-rasa-vṛṣṭir aho lokottaratvaṃ tāsām iti vastunā rāsa-lāsya-vidhau vā kīdṛśī tad-vṛṣṭir iti vastu.

The first implied idea is: “Such a rain of mādhurya-rasa occurs merely by these girls’ moving their feet and other limbs! How amazing, these girls are out of this world!” The idea implied by that is: “What is that rain like during the Rāsa dance?”

Commentary:

The first implied idea (these girls are out of this world) is effected from the bold assertion of the poet (kavi-prauḍhokti-siddha). Viśvanātha Cakravartī says it is not automatically possible (svataḥ-sambhavī), because in day-to-day life there is no such thing as a gush of nectar in the form of sweetness.^[1] Another explanation of the verse is that the first vastu-dhvani (these girls are out of this world) can be taken as an implied atiśayokti ornament (statement of supereminence) of the second variety (having a distinct nature) (10.85), and the second vastu-dhvani (What is that rain like during the Rāsa dance?) can be analyzed as an implied arthāpatti ornament (presumption) (11.35).

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s elaboration is a paraphrase of Kavikarṇapūra’s explanation. The latter elucidates the second half as follows: uttarārdhe vratatīnāṃ pavana-jāt saṅgāt madhu-kaṇā iveti tāsām api vratatibhir upamety upamālaṅkāreṇa svabhāvokty-alaṅkāro dhvanita iti dvedhā, “In the second half, the gopīs are compared to creepers. This is the upamā ornament (simile). And that simile suggests the svabhāvokti ornament (the nature) (the gopīs are like creepers by nature because their limbs become entwined around Kṛṣṇa). In this way two kinds of kavi-prauḍhokti-siddha are exemplified in the verse” (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 3.21).

By looking at the examples of Mammaṭa, of Kavikarṇapūra, of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and of Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha, the difference between an implied sense based on atyanta-tiraskṛta-vācya (lakṣaṇā-mūla) and an implied sense in the categories of kavi-prauḍhokti-siddha and of kavi-kalpita-vaktṛ-prauḍhokti-siddha (abhidhā-mūla) is that in the former only viparīta-lakṣaṇā (irony) is used.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

mādhuryasyāmṛtatvāt tasya dhārā-patanāsambhavena loka-vyavahāre’samucitatvān na svataḥ sambhavīty arthaḥ (Subodhinī 3.21).