Text 7.39

यथा वा, तवानन्द-करो यो'सौ कृष्णः सखि समागतः। अत्र सखि स दृश्यताम् इति वाच्यम्। यत्-तदोर् नित्य-सम्बन्ध इति न्यायात्। प्रक्रान्त-यच्-छब्द-नैराकाङ्क्ष्याय तच्-छब्दस्यावश्योपादेयत्वाच् च। नन्व् अदः-शब्देनैव नैराकाङ्क्ष्यम्, इदम्-एतद्-अदः-शब्दानां तच्-छब्दसमानार्थकत्वात्। मैवम्, यच्-छब्द-सन्निहितानां तेषाम् अनुवाद्यत्व-प्रतीति-कृत्त्वात्। व्यवहितैस् तु तैर् नैराकाङ्क्ष्यं स्याद् एव। यथा, तवानन्द-करः कृष्णो योऽधुनासौ समागतः।

तच्-छब्द-सन्निधाव् इदम्-आदयः प्रसिद्धिं परामृषन्ति, यच्-छब्द-सन्निधौ तच्-छब्दश् च। क्रमेणोदाहरणे, “यस् त्वद्-आनन्दनः कृष्णः सोऽयं सखि समागतः, यत् तत् कृष्णस्य माहात्म्यं वक्तुं तत् केन पार्यते।” यत्र तु यत्-तदोर् एकतरस्यार्थत्वं सम्भवेत् तत्रैकतरोपादानेऽपि नैराकाङ्क्ष्यं स्यात्। तथा हि, उत्तर-वाक्य-स्थो यच्-छब्दः सामर्थ्यात् पूर्व-वाक्ये तच्-छब्दं नाकाङ्क्षति। यथा, जयति श्री-पतिर् यस्य किङ्करा द्रुहिणादयः। पूर्व-वाक्य-स्थस् तु परत्र तम् आकाङ्क्षत्य् असामर्थ्यात्। यथा, वाञ्छितं निज-भक्तेभ्यो यो दत्ते सेव्यतां हरिः। अत्र स सेव्यताम् इत्य् उक्तौ नैराकाङ्क्ष्यम्। प्रक्रान्त-प्रसिद्धानुभूतार्थ-विषयस् तच्-छब्दो यच्-छब्दं नाकाङ्क्षति। क्रमेणोदाहरणानि।

yathā vā, tavānanda-karo yo'sau kṛṣṇaḥ sakhi samāgataḥ. atra sakhi sa dṛśyatām iti vācyam. yat-tador nitya-sambandha iti nyāyāt. prakrānta-yac-chabda-nairākāṅkṣyāya tac-chabdasyāvaśyopādeyatvāc ca. nanv adaḥ-śabdenaiva nairākāṅkṣyam, idam-etad-adaḥ-śabdānāṃ tac-chabdasamānārthakatvāt. maivam, yac-chabda-sannihitānāṃ teṣām anuvādyatva-pratīti-kṛttvāt. vyavahitais tu tair nairākāṅkṣyaṃ syād eva. yathā, tavānanda-karaḥ kṛṣṇo yo'dhunāsau samāgataḥ.

tac-chabda-sannidhāv idam-ādayaḥ prasiddhiṃ parāmṛṣanti, yac-chabda-sannidhau tac-chabdaś ca. krameṇodāharaṇe, “yas tvad-ānandanaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ so'yaṃ sakhi samāgataḥ, yat tat kṛṣṇasya māhātmyaṃ vaktuṃ tat kena pāryate.” yatra tu yat-tador ekatarasyārthatvaṃ sambhavet tatraikataropādāne'pi nairākāṅkṣyaṃ syāt. tathā hi, uttara-vākya-stho yac-chabdaḥ sāmarthyāt pūrva-vākye tac-chabdaṃ nākāṅkṣati. yathā, jayati śrī-patir yasya kiṅkarā druhiṇādayaḥ. pūrva-vākya-sthas tu paratra tam ākāṅkṣaty asāmarthyāt. yathā, vāñchitaṃ nija-bhaktebhyo yo datte sevyatāṃ hariḥ. atra sa sevyatām ity uktau nairākāṅkṣyam. prakrānta-prasiddhānubhūtārtha-viṣayas tac-chabdo yac-chabdaṃ nākāṅkṣati. krameṇodāharaṇāni.

This is yet another illustration of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a sentence: tavānanda-karo yo'sau kṛṣṇaḥ sakhi samāgataḥ, “Sakhī, Kṛṣṇa, who makes your bliss, has arrived.” Here it should have been stated: tavānanda-karo yaḥ sakhi sa dṛśyatām, “Sakhī, Kṛṣṇa, who makes your bliss, can be seen.”^[1] This is because of the axiom: yat-tador nitya-sambandhaḥ, “Yat and tat have an eternal connection,” and because the word tat must be used for the sake of completing the sense of the word yat which has the sense of prakrānta (introducing).

Someone might think: “The correlativeness is fulfilled by the word asau (he), since the words idam (he/ she/ this) etat (he/ she/ this), and adas (he/ she/ that) have the same sense as the word tat (he/ she/ that).” That is not true because when those words are juxtaposed to the word yat (who, which), they look like a substantive.^[2] A complete sense (a proper correlativeness) with them takes place only when they are separated from yat. For instance: tavānanda-karaḥ kṛṣṇo yo'dhunāsau samāgataḥ, “Sakhī, now Kṛṣṇa, who makes your bliss, has arrived.”

When idam is juxtaposed to tat, idam has the sense of ‘well-known’. The same is true when either etad or adas is juxtaposed to tat. Moreover, the word tat has the sense of ‘well-known’ when it is juxtaposed to yat. These two sentences are respective examples: (1) yas tvad-ānandanaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ so'yaṃ sakhi samāgataḥ, “Sakhī, well-known Kṛṣṇa, who makes your bliss, has arrived.” and (2) yat tat kṛṣṇasya māhātmyaṃ vaktuṃ tat kena pāryate, “Who is able to describe that well-known glory of Kṛṣṇa’s?”^[3]

However, when out of yat and tat one is meaningful, the sense is complete even without supplying the other pronoun. The explanation is as follows: (1) The word yat in the second clause does not require tat in the first, on account of suitability. For instance: jayati śrī-patir yasya kiṅkarā druhiṇādayaḥ, “All glories to Lakṣmī’s Lord, whose servants are Brahmā and others” (here yasya, “whose”, does not require a correlative form of tat because yasya, a form of yat, is in the second clause). Nonetheless, yat in the first clause requires tat in the second, otherwise there is no suitability. For instance: vāñchitaṃ nija-bhaktebhyo yo datte sevyatāṃ hariḥ, “Hari, who fulfills His devotees’ desires, should be served.” Here, the complete sense (the correlativeness) would take place by adding a form of the correlative tat as follows: sa sevyatām, “He should be served,” and (2) The word tat which has the sense of either prakrānta (introducing), prasiddha (well-known), or anubhūtārtha (something experienced before) does not require the word yat. Examples of those three are shown in order.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The point here is that the correlative saḥ (he) is added as the correlative of yaḥ (who),since asau (he),beingjuxtaposed to yaḥ, is not a proper correlative of yaḥ. Moreover, in the adjusted sentence, the verb dṛśyatām is used instead of samāgataḥ only because of the meter.

[2]:

This means the correlative pronoun seems to be part of the clause of the substantive. Of the two correlatives, yat makes the substantive clause and its correlative makes the predicate clause: yo’sāv ity etayoḥ padayoḥ pūrvam anuvādyaṃ dvitīyaṃ tu vidheyam, sannikṛṣṭatamatvena dvitīyam evānuvādya-vat pratibhāsate (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.52).

[3]:

In the second example, the correlative of yat is tat in “tat kena,” whereas the tat in “yat tat” has the sense of ‘well-known’. However, sometimes the formula yat tat is used and there is no other tat in the sentence: In those instances, tat is the correlative of yat. Although tat is juxtaposed to yat, it does not have the sense of ‘well-known’.