Text 7.146

यत् तूत्तम-देवतानां जगत्-पितृत्वात् तत्-तत्-सम्भोग-वर्णनं दोषावहम् इत्य् उक्तम्, तत् किल शिवादीनाम् एव। श्री-केशवयोस् तु प्राग्-उक्त-हेतोर् विधि-वीक्षणाच् च यथा-विधि कार्यम् एव तत्।

yat tūttama-devatānāṃ jagat-pitṛtvāt tat-tat-sambhoga-varṇanaṃ doṣāvaham ity uktam, tat kila śivādīnām eva. śrī-keśavayos tu prāg-ukta-hetor vidhi-vīkṣaṇāc ca yathā-vidhi kāryam eva tat.

When it is said (in Kāvya-prakāśa) that a description of the sexual acts between the topmost devatās amounts to being faulty since the devatās are like our parents, that only applies to Śiva and Pārvatī, and so on. In the case of Śrī and Keśava, however, such a narration can certainly be done in accordance with the precepts, because of an aforesaid reason and because of taking note of a precept.

Commentary:

The aforesaid reason is that such a narration is in conformity with the way They are, so that the fault of prakṛti-viparyaya (discrepancy in the description of the nature) does not occur. The precept is in the Bhāgavatam verse cited below.

In this matter, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha criticized Jayadeva: jayadevādibhis tu gīta-govindādi-prabandheṣu sakala-sahṛdaya-sammato’yaṃ samayo madonmatta-mataṅgajair iva bhinna iti na tan-nidarśanenedānīṃtanena tathā varṇayituṃ sāmpratam, “The etiquette agreed upon by all the connoisseurs (the unspoken agreement that poets should not describe the intimate rapport between Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa nor those between Pārvati and Śiva, who are everyone’s parents so to speak^[1]) was broken in compositions such as Gīta-govinda by authors such as Jayadeva, who are like elephants maddened by rut. It is improper for modern poets to compose in that way by following their example” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 52).

Viśvanātha Kavirāja stated that the explicit description of personal pastimes between Śiva and Pārvatī in Kalidāsa’s Kumāra-sambhava is an instance of prakṛti-viparyaya.^[2] Kavikarṇapūra agreed with Viśvanātha Kavirāja in principle. However, Kavikarṇapūra disagree with those who say that the same applies to Lakṣmī and Nārāyaṇa; he cites a verse by Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 138, quoted in Commentary 3.3) to prove that an authority holds the opposite opinion regarding the latter two, since they are not demigods.

In addition, Kavikarṇapūra emphasized that, so long as appropriateness is maintained, the intimate pastimes of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa should be depicted in view of this precept (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.136):

vikrīḍitaṃ vraja-vadhūbhir idaṃ ca viṣṇoḥ śraddhānvito’nuśṛṇuyād atha varṇayed yaḥ |
bhaktiṃ parāṃ bhagavati pratilabhya kāmaṃ hṛd-rogam āśv apahinoty acireṇa dhīraḥ ||

“An intelligent person who has faith and who hears and then describes this romance between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs will achieve the topmost devotion unto the Lord and quickly, without delay, deliver himself from lust, the disease of the heart” (Bhāgavatam 10.33.39).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

That was hinted at by Jagannātha in his previous words: yatra sahṛdayānāṃ rasodbodhaḥ pramāṇa-siddhas tatraiva sādhāraṇīkaraṇasya kalpanā, anyathā sva-mātṛ-viṣayaka-sva-pitṛ-rativarṇane’pi sahṛdayasya rasodbodhāpatteḥ. (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, Kāvya-mālā edition p. 52)

[2]:

yathā vā, kumāra-sambhave pārvatī-maheśvarayoḥ sambhoga-śṛṅgāra-varṇanam. idaṃ hi pitroḥ sambhoga-varṇanam ivātyantam anucitam ity āhuḥ (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.15).