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...
Text 10.156
यथा वा,
yathā vā,
This is another kind of paryāyokta,
vyaktaṃ cakreṇa yaś cakre rāhu-strīṇāṃ ratotsavam |
cumbanaikāśrayaṃ nityaṃ tam ananta-guṇaṃ numaḥ ||
vyaktam—clearly; cakreṇa—by the disc; yaḥ—who (Viṣṇu); cakre—made; rāhu—of Rāhu; strīṇām—of the women; rata—of lust; utsavam—the festival; cumbana—is kissing; eka—only; āśrayam—[the festival,] whose foundation; nityam—forever; tam—Him; ananta—are endless; guṇam—whose qualities; numaḥ—we praise.
Let us praise Him who has unlimited qualities and who, by means of the cakra, clearly and forever turned the love festival between Rāhu and his women into a mere session of kissing.
atra rāhuḥ śiro-mātro vyadhāyīti vyaṅgyam api bhaṅgyābhidhīyavat prakāśyate.
This meaning, though implied, “Rāhu only became a head,” is manifested by a turn of expression, as if it were literally stated.
Commentary:
Here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa incorporates the methodology of Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha Kavirāja, for whom paryāyokta is simply the fact that a cause is implied by the mention of its effect.
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s above example is an adaptation of this verse:
cakrābhighāta-prasabhājñayaiva cakāra yo rāhu-vadhū-janasya |
āliṅganoddāma-vilāsa-vandhyaṃ ratotsavaṃ cumbana-mātra-śeṣam ||[1]“… who, simply by the strike of the cakra, turned the love festival between Rāhu and his women into a mere session of kissing, devoid of an embrace and of the unrestrained fun of lovemaking.” (Dhvanyāloka 2.19)
Ānandavardhana cites the verse as an instance of paryāyokta. Here the cause (Rāhu became only a head) is implied from the stated effect. The propounders of this type of paryāyokta reason that both the cause and its effect are contextual. Ruyyaka’s axiom of paryāyokta is simply that the effect is contextual because it ought to be described.[2] Viśvanātha Kavirāja made the rule that the stated effect automatically becomes contextual if it brings about the perception of the supereminence of the power of the entity which is the subject of description.[3] Thus the effect of Rāhu’s decapitation is contextual since it brings about the perception of Viṣṇu’s supereminence. The truth of the matter is that this kind of paryāyokta is the variety of aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is understood from its effect (10.75). Viśvanātha Kavirāja’s rule is confusing, especially since Mammaṭa applies that rule in aprastuta-praśaṃsā.[4] Therefore Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s example only illustrates aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is understood from its effect. Hence this variety of paryāyokta should be rejected from poetical theory. Kavikarṇapūra does not acknowledge this kind of paryāyokta. After all, here Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa is propounding Ruyyaka’s criticism of Mammaṭa’s interpretation of aprastuta-praśaṃsā. Viśvanātha Kavirāja’s example of that variety of aprastuta-praśaṃsā does not establish a difference between the two ornaments:
indur lipta ivāñjanena jaḍitā dṛṣṭir mṛgīṇām iva
pramlānāruṇimeva vidruma-ruciḥ śyāmeva hema-prabhā |
kārkaśyaṃ kalayāmi kokila-vadhū-kaṇṭheṣv iva prastutaṃ
sundaryāḥ purataś ca hanta śikhināṃ barhāḥ sa-garhā iva ||“Alas, in the presence of beautiful Sītā, the moon appears as if smeared with eyeliner, the does’ eyes are as if inert, the redness of coral seems faint, and the luster of gold is as if gloomy. I think harshness has manifest, as it were, in the throats of female cuckoos, and the peacocks’ tail feathers are as if contemptible” (Bāla-rāmāyaṇa 1.42).
Viśvanātha Kavirāja explains: atra sambhāvyamānebhya indv-ādi-gatāñjana-liptatvādibhyaḥ kāryebhyo vadanādi-gata-saundarya-viśeṣa-rūpaṃ prastutaṃ kāraṇaṃ pratīyate, “In this verse, the cause, the excellent beauty of her face and so on, the subject matter (prastuta), is understood from the fancied effects, such as the moon being smeared with eyeliner” (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.59). The verse also features the utprekṣā ornament (fanciful assumption) and a vyatireka-dhvani (implied contrast).
Udbhaṭa’s example of paryāyokta consists of a cause implied by the stated effect:
yena lambālakaḥ sāsraḥ kara-ghātāruṇa-stanaḥ |
akāri bhagna-valayo gajāsura-vadhū-janaḥ ||“We offer our respects to him by whom Gajāsura’s women loosened their long hair, became tearful, inflicted marks on their breasts, and broke their bangles” (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sāra-saṅgraha, illustration 4.6).
The verse is aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is understood from its effect: That variety does not exist in Udbhaṭa’s methodology.[5] Here the implied cause is that Gajāsura was killed (by Śiva). Even
Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha is confused. After giving the following verse as an example of aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is understood from its effect, he says the verse can be taken as this type of paryāyokta if both the cause and the effect are taken to be contextual:
kiṃ brūmas tava vīryatāṃ vayam amī yasmin dharā-khaṇḍala
krīḍā-kuṇḍalita-bhru śoṇa-nayane dor-maṇḍalaṃ paśyati |
nānā-bhūṣaṇa-ratna-jāla-jaṭilās tat-kālam evābhavan
vindhya-kṣmādhara-gandha-mādana-guhā-sambandhino bhūruhāḥ ||“O king, what can we say about your valor? When you of red eyes looked at your arms while playfully frowning, right then the trees near the caves in the Vindhya Hills and on Gandhamādana Mountain became crested by various ornaments and jewels” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).
Jagannātha elaborates:
atra vindhyāraṇya-taru-bhūṣaṇenāripalāyanaṃ gamyate. yadi tu vakṣyamāṇa-rītyā paryāyoktālaṅkārasyāyaṃ viṣaya ity ucyate, tadedaṃ viviktam udāharaṇam,
“Here the cause “The enemies fled” is understood by this effect: There are ornaments on trees in the Vindhya Hills. However, if the verse is considered to be in the scope of paryāyokta, then this other verse is shown…” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 405).
The verse also features the asaṅgati ornament because a cause (the king frowned) and its effect (the enemies fled) simultaneously occurred in different places (10.196).
Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha says paryāyokta has three varieties: (1) An effect is implied by the stated cause, (2) A cause is implied by the stated effect, and (3) One thing is understood by means of another without a causal relation.[6] The last one is Mammaṭa’s paryāyokta. Examples of the last two categories were shown.
This is Jagannātha’s illustration of an effect implied by the stated cause:
upakurvadbhir aniśaṃ dhṛtarāṣṭra tavātmajaiḥ |
upyante mṛtyu-bījāni pāṇḍu-putreṣu niścitam ||“Obviously, O King Dhṛtarāṣṭra, the seeds of death have been sown by your children who are constantly offending Pāṇḍu’s sons” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).
Jagannātha elaborates:
atra bīja-vāpena kāraṇena kula-kṣayaḥ kārya-rūpo gamyate,
“Here the destruction of the dynasty is the effect understood by means of the cause which is the sowing of seeds” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 415).
Rather, this is the variety of aprastuta-praśaṃsā where the effect, the subject matter (prastuta), is implied from the stated cause (10.74). Or else, if the literal statement is deemed contextual, then the implied sense is only classed as a second-rate implied sense, and not as an ornament.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
gamyasyāpi bhaṅgy-antareṇābhidhānaṃ paryāyoktam || yad eva gamyatvaṃ tasyaivābhidhāne paryāyoktam. […] ataḥ kārya-mukha-dvāreṇābhidhānam, kāryāder api tatra prastutatvena varṇanārhatvāt (Alaṅkāra-sarvasva, KM p. 111).
[3]:
[4]:
“rājan rāja-sutā na pāṭhayati…” (see Commentary 10.75). atra prasthānodyataṃ bhavantaṃ śrutvā sahasaivārayaḥ palāyitā iti kāraṇaṃ prastutam. “kāryam api varṇanārhatvena prastutam” iti kecit (Ruyyaka). anye tu “rāja-śuka-vṛttāntena ko’pi prastuta-prabhāvo bodhyata ity aprastutapraśaṃsaiva” ity āhuḥ (Mammaṭa). (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.60). Thus Ruyyaka says Mammaṭa’s example of aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is understood from its effect is actually this type of paryāyokta for that reason (the stated effect automatically becomes contextual if it brings about the perception of the supereminence of the power of the entity which is the subject of description).