Text 10.18

यथा,
हरिणी-नयनावृत प्रभो करिणी-वल्लभ-केलि-विभ्रम ।
तुलसी-प्रिय दानवाङ्गनाकुल-सीमन्त-हर प्रसीद मे ॥

yathā,
hariṇī-nayanāvṛta prabho kariṇī-vallabha-keli-vibhrama |
tulasī-priya dānavāṅganākula-sīmanta-hara prasīda me ||

hariṇī-nayanā—by doe-[eyed] woman; āvṛta—surrounded; prabho—O Lord; kariṇī—of she-elephants; vallabha—as the lover; keli—in games; vibhrama—O You who are restless; tulasī-priya—O You who are dear to Tulasī; dānava—of the demons; aṅganā—of wives; kula—of a multitude; sīmanta—the line of separation in the hair; hara—O You who remove; prasīda—be pleased; me—with me.

O Lord surrounded by doe-eyed girls, O You who are restless in pastimes which resemble those of an elephant taking pleasure with she-elephants, O beloved of Tulasī, O You who make the asuras’ wives remove the line of separation in their hair, be pleased with me. (Govinda-virudāvalī 16)

atra hariṇīnāṃ nayanānīva manojñāni nayanāni yāsām iti vigrahaḥ. saptamy-upamāna-pūrva-padasya bahuvrīhir uttara-pada-lopaś ca iti samāsa-lopau.

Here the compound hariṇī-nayanā is analyzed as: hariṇīnāṃ nayanāni iva manojñāni nayanāni yāsām, “they whose eyes are charming like the eyes of does.” There are two deletions in the compound, by the rule: saptamy-upamāna-pūrva-padasya bahuvrīhir uttara-pada-lopaś ca, “A bahuvrīhi is formed between the first word, which is either a word in the locative case or a word expressive of an upamāna, [and another word,] and there is a deletion of the other word (or words)” (Vārttika 2.2.24).^[1]

Commentary:

In the compound hariṇī-nayanā, the word expressive of comparison (iva), the common attribute (manojña, being charming), and the upameya (eyes) were elided.

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa says that such a compound involves the deletion of the upameya whereas Mammaṭa says it involves the deletion of the upamāna.^[2] In this regard Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa agrees with the author of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-śeṣa.^[3] Everyone else follows Mammaṭa. Kātyāyana’s abovementioned sūtra clearly states the deletion of the second word (the upameya).

Moreover, Kātyāyana’s rule does not cover an ellipsis of the common attribute. The strict analysis of the compound hariṇī-nayanā is: hariṇīnāṃ nayanāni iva nayanāni yāsām, “they whose eyes are like the eyes of does,” therefore Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Mammaṭa say there are only two deletions in that compound. The deletion of the common attribute within the compound is not accounted for. This means a common attribute is not necessarily implied in such a compound. It cannot be mentioned outside the compound either, by the rule that a compound cannot be made when there is a dependence on a word outside the would-be compound: samarthaḥ pada-vidhiḥ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.1) (Siddhānta-kaumudī 647).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Patañjali comments: saptamī-pūrvasyopamāna-pūrvasya ca bahuvrīhir vaktavya uttara-padasya ca lopo vaktavyaḥ. kaṇṭhe sthaḥ kālo’sya kaṇṭhe-kālaḥ. uṣṭra-mukham iva mukham asyoṣṭra-mukhaḥ (Mahābhāṣya 2.2.24).

[2]:

trayāṇāṃ vādi-dharmopamānānām. […] atra saptamy-upamānety ādinā yadā samāsa-lopau bhavataḥ, tadedam udāharaṇam (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 409 vṛtti).

[3]:

iti samāse upamā tat-pratipādaka-sādhāraṇa-dharmopameyānāṃ lopaḥ (Bhakti-rasāmṛtaśeṣa 4.76); iti samāse upamā-pratipādaka-sādhāraṇa-dharmopamānānāṃ lopaḥ (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.22).