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 7.38
सौभाग्यम् एतद् एवास्य यत् कृता प्रणतिः सताम्। अत्र सौभाग्यं विधेयम्, तच् च पूर्व-निर्देशेनानुवाद्यम् इव जातम् इति विधेयांशाविमर्शः। यद् उक्तम्, अनुवादम् अनुक्त्वैव न विधेयम् उदीरयेत् इति। अनुवाद्य-विधेयौ हि सिद्ध-साध्य-भूतौ पूर्व-पश्चाद्-भावेन निर्दिश्येते। यथा, ब्राह्मणः पण्डितः स्नाति सौजन्यादि-गुणार्णवः। अत्र ब्राह्मणत्वं प्रसिद्धम्, पाण्डित्याद्य् अप्रसिद्धम्।
saubhāgyam etad evāsya yat kṛtā praṇatiḥ satām. atra saubhāgyaṃ vidheyam, tac ca pūrva-nirdeśenānuvādyam iva jātam iti vidheyāṃśāvimarśaḥ. yad uktam, anuvādam anuktvaiva na vidheyam udīrayet iti. anuvādya-vidheyau hi siddha-sādhya-bhūtau pūrva-paścād-bhāvena nirdiśyete. yathā, brāhmaṇaḥ paṇḍitaḥ snāti saujanyādi-guṇārṇavaḥ. atra brāhmaṇatvaṃ prasiddham, pāṇḍityādy aprasiddham.
[This illustrates another variety of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a sentence (an aspect of the predicate is wrongly positioned):] saubhāgyam etad evāsya yat kṛtā praṇatiḥ satām, “The good fortune of his is this, that a respectful salutation to sādhus was done.” Here saubhāgya (good fortune) is the predicate, yet it has as if become the substantive by being placed first.[1] In this way there is a lack of consideration of an aspect of the predicate (avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa = vidheyāṃśāvimarśa).[2]
The rule is: anuvādam[3] anuktvaiva na vidheyam udīrayet, “A predicate should not be mentioned without first stating the subject (the substantive).”[4] A subject and its predicate, which are siddha (what is proven) and sādhya (what might have to be proven) respectively, are mentioned one after the other, in that sequence. For instance: brāhmaṇaḥ paṇḍitaḥ snāti saujanyādi-guṇārṇavaḥ, “The Brāhmaṇa, a scholar, bathes. He is an ocean of qualities, such as congeniality.” In this example, being a Brāhmaṇa is well-known, and being a scholar is not well-known.
Commentary:
The above citation is neither in Kāvya-prakāśa nor in Sāhitya-darpaṇa. That rule only applies in the analysis of Vedic texts. In poetry, avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a sentence only occurs when the usage of either etad (this) or idam (this) is in the scope of that rule and the word yat (that) follows. For instance, the rule was stated by Caitanya Mahāprabhu in the context of His pointing out the fault of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a sentence along with four other faults in this verse by Keśava Kāśmīrī:
mahattvaṃ gaṅgāyāḥ satatam idam ābhāti nitarāṃ
yad eṣā śrī-viṣṇoś caraṇa-kamalotpatti-subhagā |
dvitīya-śrī-lakṣmīr iva sura-narair arcya-caraṇā
bhavānī-bhartur yā śirasi vibhavaty adbhuta-guṇā ||“The eternal glory of the Ganges which forever shines is this, that the Ganges had the good fortune of originating from Viṣṇu’s lotus feet. The Ganges is as if a second Lakṣmī, whose feet are adored by gods and men. The Ganges has amazing qualities and resplendently abides on the head of the husband of Śiva’s wife” (Caitanyacaritāmṛta 1.16.41).
Here the substantive idam (this) is placed after its predicate mahattvaṃ gaṅgāyāḥ (is the glory of the Ganges), and the word yat means ‘that’ in the sense of introducing another clause.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu also pointed a second instance of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa. It occurs in the compound dvitīya-śrī-lakṣmīḥ (a second Lakṣmī), where the adjective dvitīya (second) should not have been compounded because it is the focal point of the text.[5]
Mammaṭa gives this example: nyakkāro hy ayam eva me yad arayaḥ, “A humiliation is this, that I have enemies.” He comments: atra “ayam eva nyakkāraḥ” iti vācyam, “Here it should have been stated: ayam eva nyakkāraḥ (this is a humiliation)” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 183 vṛtti). The pronoun ayam is the masculine form of idam. Viśvanātha Kavirāja gives the same example. In Kavikarṇapūra’s example as well, the word yat is used, and it means “that” and not “because”.[6]
Viśvanātha Kavirāja says that the verse cited by Mammaṭa (from Dhvanyāloka 3.16) is first-rate poetry although it has a literary fault.[7] However, Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that even one fault spoils a whole verse.[8]
Moreover, in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha, Jīva Gosvāmī quotes “anuvādam anuktvaiva na vidheyam udīrayet” to substantiate that in “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” the word kṛṣṇa is the subject and bhagavān is the predicate.[9] On the other hand, elsewhere in Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha he says the rule does not always apply.[10] In poetry, that rule is often transgressed and there is no fault at all (when yat is not used). On the contrary, the poet intends a stylish effect in that way. Sometimes a poet places the substantive as the last word of a verse, and that adds literary charm because the educated reader wonders all along what the actual subject of description is, until the answer is found at the end. Good poets make their readers think.
Mammaṭa does not refer to any particular rule. In his example of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a compound, Mammaṭa does not point out that the pronoun eṣām (of these) is in the fourth line although its adjective is in the second line,[11] nor does he refer to that verse in his explanation of avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṃśa in a sentence. Similarly, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa properly writes: kaṭākṣo’yam, where ayam (this) is placed after kaṭākṣa (glance) (7.17). In usage, when a pronoun is juxtaposed after its antecedent, sometimes that pronoun has the sense of prasiddha (well-known). For example: rāmo’sau, “That well-known Rāma”[12] (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 109) (Commentary 4.95). Otherwise the sense of such a pronoun is dṛśyamāna (being perceived). Often the pronoun is placed afterward for metrical reasons.
The next category of literary faults in a sentence is viruddha-mati-kṛt, exemplified in text 7.46. From here onward, Baladeva Vidyā-bhūṣaṇa, following Mammaṭa, expounds the theory regarding the proper usage of pronouns and of correlative pronouns.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
The proper order of the words saubhāgyam etad evāsya is: etad evāsya saubhāgyam, “This is his good fortune.” This example is given only because the word yat (that) follows: yat kṛtā praṇatiḥ satām, “that a respectful salutationto sādhus was done.”
[2]:
The derivation is from Viśvanātha Kavirāja: vidheyāvimarśe yad evāvimṛṣṭaṃ tad eva duṣṭam (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 7.8). Thus avimṛṣṭa literally means “ill-considered”, from the verbal root mṛś, and not “impure”, as derived from the verbal root mṛj.
[3]:
Elsewhere, sometimes Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa uses the term anuvādya. Mammaṭa uses the term anuvādya instead of anuvāda. Another synonym is uddeśya (substantive). The citation is not in Kāvya-prakāśa.
[4]:
Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.16.58; Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha 28. Govinda Ṭhakkura cites the text with the reading anuvādyam (Kāvya-pradīpa on Kāvya-prakāśa verse 183).Narahari Sarasvatī Tīrtha quotes the whole verse (the Caitanya-caritāmṛta reads anuvādam instead of anuvādyam): anuvādyam anuktvaiva na vidheyam udīrayet | na hy alabdhāspadaṃ kiñcit kutracit pratitiṣṭhati || (Bāla-cittānurañjinī on Kāvya-prakāśa verse 183).
[5]:
[6]:
saubhāgyaṃ mama punar etad eva kṛṣṇa yat kāntā-gaṇa-gaṇane mamāpi lekhaḥ, “O Kṛṣṇa, this is my good fortune that I am counted among Your lovers.” (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.51); atra etad eveti vidheyaṃ na tv anuvādyaṃ tat tu paścān nirdeśenāpy anuvādyam eva jātam. tena “asmākaṃ punar idam eva saubhagaṃ yat kṛṣṇa tvaj-jana-gaṇane mamāpi lekhaḥ” iti pāṭhyam. (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.51)
[7]:
[8]:
daśa alaṅkāre yadi eka śloka haya | eka doṣe saba alaṅkāra haya kṣaya || (Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.16.69). For more details, consult Caitanya-caritāmṛta 1.16.71.
[9]:
[10]:
[11]: