home
zoom_in zoom_out import_contacts invert_colors

197 संरम्भेणानुकार्येऽप्यावेश्यमानः स्वचेतःसंभेदेन904तथाविधानन्दसंविदुन्मीलनहेतुः संपद्यते । तस्मान्न तावद् भावानां सहानवस्थानम् ।

बाध्यबाधकभावो905हि भावान्तरैर्भावान्तरतिरस्कारः । स च व्यभिचारिणां स्थायिना न विरोधः906(संभवति) । व्यभिचारिभिः (च) स्थायिनो न विरुद्धाः907 । तेषामङ्गत्वात् । प्रधानविरुद्धस्य चाङ्गत्वायोगात् । आनन्तर्यविरोधोऽपि908 अनेनैव909 प्रकारेणापास्तः910 (सन्) न संभवति । तथा च मालतीमाधवे शृङ्गारानन्तरं बीभत्सोपनिबन्धेऽपि न किंचिद् वैरस्यम् ।

तदेवमवस्थिते911विरुद्धरसैकालम्बनत्वमेव विरोधहेतुः912 । स तु अविरुद्धरसान्तरव्यवधानेनोपनिबध्यमानो न विरोधी । यथा—

अण्णाउ ताउ महिला जह परिमलसुअंधु ।
मह कंतह अल्लीणउ वणवीसअगंधु913 ॥
इत्यत्र बीभत्सस्य914 वीरव्यवधानेन शृङ्गारे समावेशो न विरुद्धः प्रकारान्तरेणैकाश्रयविरोधः परिहर्तव्यः ।

विरुद्धैरविरुद्धैर्वेति । अस्यार्थः—विरुद्धैरविरुद्धैर्वा भावैः य आहितः संस्कारो न विच्छेदी भवति, प्रत्युत तान् सर्वानात्मभावं नयति, स स्थायी भावो लवणाकरः । लवणाकरवल्लवणाकरः । उक्तं हि—

‘यथा रुमायां लवणाकरेषु मेरौ यथा वोज्ज्वलरुक्मभूमौ ।
यज्जायते तन्मयमेव तत् स्याद्’ इति ।
915

916विरुद्धाविरुद्धाविच्छेदित्वमन्यदनुत्पाद्येतिवृत्तेषु, अन्यदुत्पाद्येतिवृत्तेषु च प्रबन्धेषु दृष्टमित्याह यथेत्यादिना । अविच्छेदं प्रतिज्ञातमुपपादयति तथा हीत्यादिना । कथमिति917 । अत्र स्थायिनः स्थाय्यन्तरेण विरोधस्तावत् तिष्ठतु । किं तु स्थायिनः परिपोषकतया निधीयमाना विभावादय

  1. A.T.A. reads svasaṃvedanena. But I have given the reading according to the pratīka cited by Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha.

    ↩

  2. N.S.P. has bādhyabādhakabhāvas tu, but what is given here is the pratīka in the commentary.

    ↩

  3. A.T.A. reads viruddhaḥ and without saṃbhavati. The reading given here is based on the interpretation and wording of Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha.

    ↩

  4. A.T.A. reads viddhāḥ which is obviously a mistake of the scribe.

    ↩

  5. A.T.A. reads -virodhitvam api. Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha gives the chosen reading.

    ↩

  6. A.T.A. reads anena prakāreṇa. Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha gives anenaiva prakāreṇa.

    ↩

  7. N.S.P. and A.T.A. have apāstaṃ bhavati.

    ↩

  8. Perhaps the reading was avasthito. Or else we may supplysthāyinaḥ sthāyyantareṇa virodha ity asmin viṣaye to be construed with the locative avasthite.

    ↩

  9. N.S.P. virodhe hetuḥ.

    ↩

  10. A.T.A. seems to give a different reading of the 2nd half of this verse, which is not clear. See the Introduction for a discussion on this verse. Hemacandra reproduces in his Kāvyānuśāsana (commentary) verbatim the lines and examples from the Avaloka from nanu yatraikatāparyeṇa up to na kvacid anekatātparyam, but leaves out any discussion on or citing of the difficult verse aṇṇāu tāu-, etc. Even in the portion that is reproduced, there are mistakes in the text as given in print. (See H.K.A., pp. 168–9.)

    ↩

  11. This is the clear reading in A.T.A., which is correct according to Bh.Nr.’s interpretation. N.S.P. reads in this place thus: ity atra bībhatsasyāṅgabhūtarasāntaravyavadhānena śṛṅgārasamāveśo na viruddhaḥ.

    ↩
  12. (तन्त्रवार्तिके—आनन्दाश्रममुद्रिते पृ॰ २०७)↩

  13. Gr.MS. reads viruddhāvicchedatvam anyad utpādyetivrateṣu utpādyetivṛtteṣu pṛṣṭam ity āha. T.MS. and M.G.T. give as viruddhāviruddhāviccheditvam anutpādyetivṛtteṣu. On I.15, and on III.23 of the DR Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha explainde the prakhyāta is of three types itihāsāt prasiddham, prakhyātakathātaḥ prasiddham, and lokataḥ prasiddham. And about utpādya he says yatra itivṛttaṃ kavibuddḥyaiva kalpyate tad utpādyam. From this it appears that any itivṛtta based on Bṛhatkathā (i.e. prakhyātakathā) is treated by him as prakhyātam (i.e. anutpādya) and the story of Mālatīmādhava will be utpādyam. As both are cited in the Avaloka for illustration, I think that the sentence intended here must have reference to both. Therefore I gave it as anyad anutpādyetivṛtteṣu anyad utpādyetivṛtteṣu ca prabandheṣu dṛṣṭam ity āha.

    ↩

  14. From the commentary it appears that there was perhaps the reading of katham before virodhaḥ in the Avaloka.

    ↩