Text 7.17

अविमृष्टः प्राधान्येनानिर्दिष्टो विधेयांशो यत्र तत्. तत्र विधेयांशस्य प्राधान्येनानिर्देशः समासेन गुणी-भावाद् विधेयोत्तरम् उद्देश्योक्तेश् च. यथा,

avimṛṣṭaḥ prādhānyenānirdiṣṭo vidheyāṃśo yatra tat. tatra vidheyāṃśasya prādhānyenānirdeśaḥ samāsena guṇī-bhāvād vidheyottaram uddeśyokteś ca. yathā,

(15) The etymology of the fault called avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa (not giving proper eminence to an important aspect of the predicate) is as follows: “An aspect of the predicate is not stated as predominant.” In that regard, not stating an aspect of the predicate as predominant occurs either because it has become secondary in a compound or because the substantive is mentioned after the predicate (the latter is expounded in 7.38). For example:

tava tanvi kaṭākṣo’yaṃ ṣaṣṭha-bāṇo manobhuvaḥ |
praviśya hṛdaye kṛṣṇaṃ vṛthā-darpaṃ cakāra yat ||

tava—your; tanvi—O slender woman; kaṭa-akṣaḥ—sidelong glance; ayam—this; ṣaṣṭha-bāṇaḥ—the sixth arrow; manaḥ-bhuvaḥ—of Cupid (“born in the heart”); praviśya—after entering; hṛdaye—in the heart; kṛṣṇam—Kṛṣṇa; vṛthā—useless; darpam—pride; cakāra—made; yat—because.

Slender girl, this crooked glance of yours is Cupid’s sixth arrow because after it enters Kṛṣṇa’s heart it makes His pride useless.

atra ṣaṣṭhatvaṃ bāṇasya vidheyam, darpasya vṛthātvaṃ ca, tad-ubhayaṃ tathā na pratīyate, samāsena guṇī-bhāvāt kintv anuvādya-vat pratibhāsate.

In this verse, the arrow’s being a sixth (the word ṣaṣṭha in ṣaṣṭha-bāṇa) is the predicate, and so is the uselessness of pride (vṛthā in vṛthā-darpam). Each one appears to be a mere predicate, due to being secondary in a compound.

Commentary:

For lack of a better word, in this context the term “substantive” is used in the sense of a word which has a modifier. This means the substantive is the subject of the predicate. In Sanskrit, the subject of a predicate is not always the subject of the verb (Commentary 7.108). In this verse, the substantive is “glance” and the predicate is: “is Cupid’s sixth arrow.” Here the word “sixth” modifies “arrow”, but more importantly, “arrow” modifies “the glance.” This means the word “sixth” is an aspect of the predicate of the glance. The word “sixth” should be given prominence here because it is the focal point of the description. By being part of a karma-dhāraya compound, however, it has unduly lost its eminence because in such a compound the first word has a secondary status and the last word is predominant (Commentary 4.90). Therefore the word ṣaṣṭha (sixth) should not be compounded. The fault of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa does not occur if the predicate adjective is in a dvandva compound or if the adjective is the last word in a tatpuruṣa compound.

The same applies to the word vṛthā (useless) in the compound vṛthā-darpam. However, that is not a good example because those words do not have to be taken as a compound. They can be separated as vṛthā darpam.

In a compound, this literary fault is very often seen in usage, therefore the negative particle in adoṣau (faultless) in Mammaṭa’s definition of poetry (1.6) should be interpreted to mean “even if slightly faulty” (Commentary 1.6).

Viśvanātha Kavirāja gives this example: rakṣyāṃsy api puraḥ sthātum alaṃ rāmānujasya me, atra rāmasyeti vācyam, “[Lakṣmaṇa speaks:] “Even the demons are unable to stand before Me, the younger brother of Rāma.” Here it should be said rāmasya (of Rāma) (the word rāma in the compound rāmānujasya should be stated separately)” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.4).

Śeṣarāja Śarmā expounds:

rāma-sambandhitvāl lakṣmaṇasya darpaḥ, na khalu kevalasya lakṣmaṇasya mukhyatā kintu rāma-sambandhina iti bhāvaḥ. samāsena ayam artho na saṅgacchate’to rāmasyeti vācyam,

“Lakṣmaṇa’s pride is due to having a connection with Rāma. The gist is this: By himself Lakṣmaṇa is not foremost, rather he is foremost because of a relationship with Rāma. This meaning does not come out by compounding, therefore it should be said: rāmasya” (Candrakalā 7.4).