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...

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्,

krameṇodāharaṇam,

Examples are shown in order. (1) [Here an effect is understood from its cause:]

priyāṃ sadābhām abhidhāya vācaṃ nipāya mad-vaktra-sudhām udāraḥ |
vihāya māṃ sundari nanda-sūnuḥ sa cañcalaḥ kutra gato na jāne ||

priyāmpleasing; sadā-ābhām—which always has resplendence; abhidhāya—after saying; vācamspeech (words); nipāya—after drinking; mat-vaktra—of my face; sudhām—the nectar; udāraḥ—exalted; vihāya—after abandoning; mām—me; sundari—O pretty woman; nanda-sūnuḥKṛṣṇa (“Nanda’s son”); saḥ—He (the well-known one); cañcalaḥ—restless; kutra—where?; gataḥ—He went; na jāne—I do not know.

[A woman speaks to her confidante:] Nanda’s exalted son pleasantly spoke to me, imbibed the nectar of my face and abandoned me. O pretty girl, He is fickle. I do not know where He went.

atra kim iti duḥkhitā tvam upalakṣyase iti kārye prastute tat-kāraṇaṃ priya-vicchedo’bhihitaḥ.

Here the effect, the contextual meaning, is that a confidante asked her friend: “Why do you seem unhappy?”, yet only the cause, separation from the beloved, is stated.

Commentary:

This is Mammaṭa’s example:

yātā kiṃ na milanti sundari punaś cintā tvayā mat-kṛte
  no kāryā nitarāṃ kṛśāsi kathayaty evaṃ sa-bāṣpe mayi
|
lajjā-manthara-tārakeṇa nipatad-dhārāśruṇā cakṣuṣā
  dṛṣṭvā māṃ hasitena bhāvi-maraṇotsāhas tayā sūcitaḥ
||

““Beautiful girl, isn’t it true that lovers go in separate ways and meet again? Don’t worry about me. You have become too thin to travel.” Just as I was tearfully saying this, she stared at me with her eyes: Her pupils were moving slowly due to bashfulness and tears were falling. By smiling at me, she hinted at her enthusiasm for her upcoming death.”

Mammaṭa elaborates:

atra prasthānāt kim iti nivṛtto’sīti kārye pṛṣṭe kāraṇam abhihitam,

“Someone asked the speaker: “Why did you desist from going?” This was the contextual topic in the form of an effect, whereas the cause of that effect (he desisted from going) is told by the speaker” (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 439 vṛtti).

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: