The fault in poetry called avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa, literally meaning "ill-considered predicate" is discussed and used to conclude philosophical meanings many a times in the commentaries of our ācāryas. It occurs in 2nd and 16th chapters of CC Adi Lila, in commentaries on SB 1.3.28, in Jīva Gośvāmī's Krama Sandarbha commentary on SB 11.12.13 (as well in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha anuccheda 177), and so on. As these are very important instances of philosophical conclusions, we naturally have a desire to understand this in detail. Ideally having a little sanskrit background would help in understanding this more, but I'll try my best to explain this here for those who don't have any background in sanskrit as well.
In Sāhitya Kaumudī, 5 kinds of literary faults are described in the 7th chapter: pada-doṣa, pada-aṁśa-doṣa, vākya-doṣa, artha-doṣa, and rasa-doṣa. Again each of these have further divisions. Avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa belongs to pada-doṣa (faults in a word), pada-aṁśa-doṣa (fault in part of a word), and vākya-doṣa (fault in sentence). In summary, the fault called avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa can either occur in a word, or part of a word, or in a sentence. First, we'll focus here in how this fault can occur in a sentence. The second aspect of it which occurs in a compound (samāsa) will be discussed later.
In a Sanskrit sentence, there's uddeśya (also known as anuvāda) and vidheya. Uddeśya/anuvāda is the main subject, whereas vidheya is the qualifier or adjective. Gopāla-dāsa in his commentary called amṛta-āsvādinī on Jīva Gośvāmī's Harināmāmṛta-Vyākaraṇa writes:
yad uddiśya kriyā pravartate arthād yad vastu prāg-vijñātaṁ tad uddeśyam anuvādo vocyate yac ca vidhīyate tad vidheyam
Uddeśya is a word that is in direct relation with the verb in a sentence. This word is previously-known, and it's also called anuvāda. That which is made-known [newly] is vidheya. - Harināmāmṛta Vyākaraṇa (bṛhat), Amṛta, 305.
Take for example the phrase, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. Here the word kṛṣṇaḥ is uddeśya, and bhagavān svayam is vidheya. In the 3rd chapter of canto 1 of Srimad Bhagavatam, many avatāras are enumerated, and Kṛṣṇa is also enumerated as one of the avatāras. And then this verse appears:
All these [avatāras enumerated in previous verses] are aṁśas and kalās of the Puruṣa (i.e Mahā Viṣṇu). However Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān Svayam. These [avatāras] appear in every yuga to make the world, which is affected by enemies of Indra (i.e. asurās), happy. - SB 1.3.28
So the subject Kṛṣṇa is well established in a verse before this (verse SB 1.3.23). But what was not established is that Kṛṣṇa is also svayam bhagavān. And so the verse SB 1.3.28 is spoken. Considering this, we conclude that in the statement kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam, kṛṣṇa is uddeśya (or anuvāda) while bhagavan svayam is vidheya. Anuvāda literally means that which is repeated (what was previously said is repeated).
Let's look at another example: "The president is dead" said the president's bodyguard (in relation to John F. Kennedy's death). In this statement "the president" is well known while the bodyguard was speaking the statement and so it's the uddeśya, but "he is dead" is unknown to others at that point when John F. Kennedy was shot in the car. And so that would become the vidheya. (Sorry for the gory example). This vidheya is also an adjective (also called predicate) to uddeśya. Uddeśya is the main subject. Though I've given here an example in english, this fault of Avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa is mentioned in rules for Sanskrit. The same example in sanskrit would be "rāṣṭra-patir mṛtaḥ" (president is dead). Avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa fault occurs when either vidheya or part of vidheya is misplaced and due to which the meaning becomes difficult to comprehend. While a speaker uttering a sentence, the listener grasps the words as they're uttered. So if the word first uttered is suddenly something new which was not previously discussed, it would be confusing to the listener as in what's that. In the example "rāṣṭra-patir mṛtaḥ", if "mṛtaḥ" is first uttered, then there would be a confusion for the listener as in who is dead. Is that bodyguard, or president's wife or president or someone else? But when rāṣṭra-patir is placed first, there won't be a confusion, and there will be a clarity that the bodyguard is going to say something about "rāṣtra-patiḥ" (president). So attention span increases. So naturally rāṣtra-patiḥ which is the uddeśya has to be placed first, followed by vidheya "mṛtaḥ". Similarly in the verse kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam, "kṛṣṇaḥ" is the uddeśya as it's placed first and "bhagavān svayam" is vidheya as it's placed next. So in a sanskrit sentence, the known subject should be placed first, then should the unknown adjective about that person.
However there are exceptions to this rule. The rule of subject should come first before predicate is "not" fully applicable in poetry however. This rule should be followed in śāstric verses and statements wherein philosophy or important information is conveyed. It is not required in poetry where the poet intentionally leaves this fault for a purpose, such as, to let the listener wonder who is the subject that is being described in the verse, until the end of the verse. In the guruvāṣṭaka of Viśvanātha Cakravartī wherein the adjectives (vidheya) to "guru" is placed first in all the stanzas, and finally the word "guru" (uddeśya) is placed (as guroḥ - of the guru) in the last line of the verses. This is a beauty rather than a mistake. However the subject discussed in SB 1.3.28 is not written with that intention. Rather Śūta Gośvāmī described all the avatāras of the Lord and he also placed Kṛṣṇa as an avatāra in that list. Fearing that Kṛṣṇa would be mistaken as an avatāra rather than the avatārī, he spoke this verse 1.3.28, clarifying that Kṛṣṇa is not an avatāra but svayam bhagavān. As well, this rule of subject first and predicate second is also broken in other places mentioned by Jīva Gośvāmī in his Krama sandarbha commentary on SB 11.12.13.
Additionally, Gaurapada Dāsa mentions the following in his commentary on text 7.38 of Sāhitya Kaumudī regarding the application of the rule in poetry: "In poetry, avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa 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." This rule seems to be an observation by Gaurapada Dāsa prabhu by looking at various examples including the example mentioned in Caitanya Caritāmṛta, where Lord Caitanya points out the faults in the following verse composed by dig-vijayī paṇḍit:
This glory of Gaṅga eternally shines to a high degree, because she had attained the good fortune of being originated from the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu. Her lotus feet is worshipped by the devatās and men as if she is the second Lakṣmī. She abides on the head of husband of wife of Śiva, and [thus] she possesses a wonderful quality. CC Adi 16.41.
Here the gaṅgā's mahattva (glories), denoted by the words "mahattvaṁ gaṅgāyāḥ" is an adjective to the word "idam" meaning "this", in the first line of the verse. The first two lines would read as "The eternal glory of Gaṅga (mahattvaṁ gaṅgāyāḥ) is this (idam): that (yad) she had the good fortune of originating from Viṣṇu's lotus feet (caraṇa-kamalotpatti-subhagā)". Here the fault avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa is found. "idam" which is the subject should have been placed first. An example to elaborate this would be "This mayor is arrested, who is found a criminal", stated the policeman pointing his finger at the mayor standing there. In sanskrit it would be "ayaṁ nagara-adhyakṣo bandhito yat saḥ aparādhī". The point of interest here is "ayaṁ nagara-adhyakṣo bandhitaḥ" (note: sandhi is undone here). Here "ayam" (this person - pointed by the policeman) is the subject qualified by "nagara-adhyakṣaḥ" (mayor). The person is well known, but who is he is not known. So "ayam" should come first. Similarly in the verse, "idam" should come first before "mahattvaṁ gaṅgāyāḥ". So "idaṁ mahattvaṁ gaṅgāyāḥ" would mean "This glory of Gaṅga".
Now returning to the promise I made in the beginning about the second aspect of Avimṛṣṭa-vidheyāṁśa which occurs in a compound (samāsa), I'll soon write on that. If you're impatient, check the 7th chapter of Sāhitya Kaumudī by Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa translated by Gaurapada Dāsa (especially from verse 7.17 onwards).
NOTE: The word "yad" in CC Ādi 16.41 is taken differently by Gaurapada Dāsa mentioned in his commentary on Sāhitya Kaumudī 7.38. But I've taken the meaning as "yasmāt" (because) following Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī (and Śrīla Prabhupāda).
Comments
Post a Comment