L1conclusion
gāndharva-rītyā svīkārāt svīyātvam iha vastutaḥ |
gāndharva-rītyābecause it was by the gāndharva manner of marriage instrumental of meansगान्धर्व-रीति (प्रेम-विवाह की विधि) से — इसी उपाय के द्वारा
svīkārātbecause Kṛṣṇa took them as his own ablative of causeस्वीकार (अपनी पत्नी रूप में ग्रहण) होने के कारण
svīyātvamtheir being his very own (svīyā), his real wivesस्वकीयत्व (अपनी पत्नी होना)
ihahere — in the case of these gopīsयहाँ (इस प्रसंग में)
vastutaḥin reality, at the level of factवस्तुतः (यथार्थ में)
gāndharva-rītyā svīkārāt — because he accepted them by the gāndharva rite; iha — here, in their case; vastutaḥ — in reality; svīyātvam — their being his own [holds true].
गान्धर्व-रीति से स्वीकार होने के कारण यहाँ वस्तुतः स्वकीयत्व ही है।
By the gāndharva form of marriage Kṛṣṇa accepted the gopīs. So in plain fact they are his own wives (svīyā). That much is real, not appearance.
गान्धर्व-विधि (प्रेम-विवाह) से जो स्वीकार हुआ, उसके कारण यहाँ वस्तुतः स्वकीयत्व (अपनी पत्नी होना) ही सिद्ध होता है।
gāndharva-vivāha: the marriage of mutual choice between the couple alone, without kin or fire. Rūpa's point: it is a genuine, recognized form of marriage, so it makes the gopīs truly svīyā.
L2other
avyaktatvād vivāhasya suṣṭhu pracchanna-kāmatā
avyaktatvātbecause it stayed unmanifest — was never made public ablative of causeअव्यक्त (प्रकट न) होने के कारण
vivāhasyaof the marriage genitiveविवाह का
suṣṭhuthoroughly, fullyभलीभाँति (पूर्णतः)
pracchanna-kāmatātheir passion appears concealed, as if forbiddenप्रच्छन्न-कामता (छिपी हुई कामना)
vivāhasya avyaktatvāt — because the marriage stayed hidden; suṣṭhu pracchanna-kāmatā — the passion is thoroughly concealed.
विवाह के अव्यक्त होने के कारण भलीभाँति प्रच्छन्न-कामता (बनी रहती है)।
But the marriage was never made public. Because it stayed hidden, their love shows up as a secret, forbidden passion — and thoroughly so, as if wholly illicit. The reality (wife) and the appearance (paramour) are two layers of one thing.
विवाह अव्यक्त (गुप्त) रहता है, इसीलिए कामना भलीभाँति प्रच्छन्न (छिपी हुई) रहती है।
Viśvanātha Cakravartī
s1gloss
pracchanna-kāmata ity upalakṣaṇaṁ, mitho-durlabhatva-bahu-vāraṇatvādīnām |
pracchanna-kāmatā itithe verse's phrase 'concealed passion' pratīka — the word lifted from the mūla"प्रच्छन्न-कामता" — यह पद (जो मूल से उठाया गया है)
upalakṣaṇamis only an indicative marker — it stands in for more than it namesउपलक्षण है (अपने से परे और बातों की ओर भी संकेत करता है)
mitho-durlabhatva-bahu-vāraṇatvādīnāmfor such things as their being hard for each other to reach (mitho-durlabhatva) and being forbidden at every turn (bahu-vāraṇatva), and the rest genitive — what the marker points toपरस्पर दुर्लभ होना, अनेक बाधाओं का होना आदि का — इन्हीं की ओर
pracchanna-kāmatā iti — the verse-word 'concealed passion'; upalakṣaṇam — is an indicative marker; mitho-durlabhatva-bahu-vāraṇatva-ādīnām — for [the whole set:] their being mutually hard to reach, forbidden at every turn, and so on.
"प्रच्छन्न-कामता" यह पद उपलक्षण है — परस्पर दुर्लभता, बहु-वारणता आदि का।
The verse names only 'concealed passion.' But that single phrase is an upalakṣaṇa — a pointer that flags a whole set, not just itself. It also carries their being hard for each other to reach, their love being forbidden at every turn, and other such features. Do not stop at the one word named.
"प्रच्छन्न-कामता" शब्द केवल अपना अर्थ ही नहीं कहता, अपितु उपलक्षण है। वह परस्पर दुर्लभ होने, अनेक बाधाओं के होने आदि की ओर भी संकेत करता है।
upalakṣaṇa vs viśeṣaṇa: a viśeṣaṇa is an essential qualifier that belongs to the thing — 'the blue lotus,' where blueness is part of the flower. An upalakṣaṇa only points and implies more — 'the house with the crow on it': the crow is no part of the house, it just helps you pick it out, and it hints at other marks too. Here 'concealed passion' is upalakṣaṇa — one visible mark that flags the rest (mutual rarity, constant prohibition, and so on).
s2avataranika
suṣṭhv iti |
suṣṭhu itihe now takes up the verse's word 'suṣṭhu' — 'thoroughly' pratīka — announcing the word about to be explained"सुष्ठु" — यह पद (जिसकी अब व्याख्या करते हैं)
suṣṭhu iti — [as for the word] 'thoroughly'.
"सुष्ठु" इस पद के विषय में —
Now he takes up the word 'thoroughly' (suṣṭhu) from the verse. Why is the passion concealed so thoroughly? The next sentence answers.
अब "सुष्ठु" शब्द का अभिप्राय कहते हैं।
A bare pratīka: the ācārya quotes the lemma and the explanation follows in s3.
s3gloss
pitṛ-mātrādi-bandhubhiḥ kanyātvenaiva pratītānāṁ tāsāṁ sva-puruṣasyāpi para-puruṣāyitatvād bhaya-lajjādhikyāt parakīyā-dharma eva spaṣṭaḥ |
pitṛ-mātrādi-bandhubhiḥby their kin — father, mother, and the rest instrumental agentपिता-माता आदि बन्धुओं के द्वारा
kanyātvenaivaas unmarried girls, nothing more (eva — precisely as maidens)कन्या रूप में ही (अविवाहिता ही)
pratītānāmwho are taken to be [so] genitive, agreeing with tāsāmजो (ऐसा) मानी जाती हैं — उनका
tāsāmof these women genitiveउन (गोपियों) का
sva-puruṣasyāpibecause even their own man — Kṛṣṇa, their husband (api — even he)अपना पति भी
para-puruṣāyitatvātbehaves toward them as another woman's man, a stranger ablative of causeपर-पुरुष के समान आचरण करने के कारण
bhaya-lajjādhikyātand because their fear and shame run so high ablative of causeभय और लज्जा की अधिकता के कारण
parakīyā-dharma evait is the parakīyā manner alone — the bearing of one who belongs to another (eva — only that)परकीया-धर्म ही
spaṣṭaḥthat stands out plainlyस्पष्ट है
pitṛ-mātrādi-bandhubhiḥ kanyātvena eva pratītānām tāsām — of these women, whom their kin take to be mere maidens; sva-puruṣasya api para-puruṣāyitatvāt — because even their own man plays the other-man; bhaya-lajjā-adhikyāt — because fear and shame are so great; parakīyā-dharma eva spaṣṭaḥ — the parakīyā character alone is manifest.
पिता-माता आदि बन्धुओं के द्वारा कन्या रूप में ही मानी जानेवाली उन (गोपियों) का — अपना पति भी पर-पुरुष के समान होने के कारण तथा भय-लज्जा की अधिकता के कारण — परकीया-धर्म ही स्पष्ट है।
To their families — father, mother, all their kin — the gopīs pass simply as unmarried girls. And even their own husband, Kṛṣṇa, behaves toward them as if he were a stranger, another woman's man. So their fear and shame run very high. What shows on the surface, then, is only the parakīyā manner — the bearing of women who belong to someone else. That is why the concealment is 'thorough.'
पिता, माता आदि सम्बन्धीजन उन्हें अविवाहिता कन्या ही मानते हैं। उनका अपना पति भी उनके लिए पर-पुरुष के समान बन जाता है। इससे भय और लज्जा और भी बढ़ जाती है। इसीलिए उनमें परकीया-धर्म ही स्पष्ट रूप से रहता है।
s4reply
na ca tāsāṁ bhāvasya samañjasatvam āśaṅkanīyam |
na caand one must notऔर न ही
tāsām bhāvasyaregarding their mood (bhāva) genitiveउन (गोपियों) के भाव का
samañjasatvamwhether it is proper, fittingसमञ्जसता (उचित एवं संगत होना)
āśaṅkanīyambe in any doubtआशंका करनी चाहिए
tāsām bhāvasya samañjasatvam — the propriety of their mood; na ca āśaṅkanīyam — is not to be doubted.
और उन (गोपियों) के भाव की समञ्जसता के विषय में आशंका नहीं करनी चाहिए।
And no one should worry whether their mood is proper. It is. The parakīyā appearance does not make their love improper — as the next sentences show.
यह भी आशंका न करें कि उनका भाव समञ्जस (उचित एवं संगत) है या नहीं।
The anticipated worry: loving one who looks like another woman's husband might seem adulterous. Viśvanātha heads it off before it is voiced.
s5reply
tal-lakṣaṇe patnī-bhāvābhimānātmā ity uktatvāt |
tal-lakṣaṇebecause in the definition of that very mood locative — 'in the definition'उसके (परकीया के) लक्षण में
patnī-bhāvābhimānātmā[the mood is called] one whose essence is the self-conception of being a wife (patnī-bhāva-abhimāna)"पत्नी-भाव के अभिमान से युक्त" (जिसका स्वरूप पत्नी-भाव का अभिमान है)
itiso [runs the wording]ऐसा
uktatvātit has already been stated ablative of causeकहा गया होने के कारण
tal-lakṣaṇe — in the definition of that mood; 'patnī-bhāva-abhimāna-ātmā' iti uktatvāt — because it was stated to be 'one whose essence is the self-conception of wifehood.'
क्योंकि उसके (परकीया के) लक्षण में "पत्नी-भाव-अभिमानात्मा" — ऐसा कहा गया है।
For in the very definition of this mood it was already said that its essence is the self-conception of being a wife (patnī-bhāva-abhimāna). At heart these women take themselves to be his wives. A mood resting on wife-conception cannot be called improper.
क्योंकि परकीया के लक्षण में ही उसे "पत्नी-भाव के अभिमान वाली" कहा गया है।
s6reply
patnī-bhāvasya viprāgni-sākṣika-vivāha-bhavatvāt |
patnī-bhāvasyabecause wife-hood, the state of being a patnī genitiveपत्नी-भाव का
viprāgni-sākṣika-vivāha-bhavatvātarises only from a marriage witnessed by brāhmaṇas (vipra) and the sacred fire (agni) ablative of causeब्राह्मण और अग्नि की साक्षी वाले विवाह से उत्पन्न होने के कारण
patnī-bhāvasya — of wife-hood; vipra-agni-sākṣika-vivāha-bhavatvāt — because it comes to be from a marriage witnessed by brāhmaṇas and fire.
क्योंकि पत्नी-भाव ब्राह्मण एवं अग्नि की साक्षी में सम्पन्न विवाह से ही उत्पन्न होता है।
And 'wife-hood' in the strict sense arises from a marriage witnessed by brāhmaṇas and the sacred fire — the full vaidika rite. That is what the word 'wife' (patnī) properly points to. So their inner self-conception as wives is no light thing; it reaches for the fullest sense of the word.
पत्नी-भाव तो ब्राह्मण और अग्नि की साक्षी में हुए विवाह से ही उत्पन्न होता है।
s7citation
patyur no yajña-saṁyoge iti pāṇini-smaraṇāt ||
patyur no yajña-saṁyoge'after pati, the augment n [with the feminine ending], when the sense is joining in sacrifice (yajña-saṁyoga)' — hence the form patnī"यज्ञ के संयोग में 'पति' शब्द का (विशेष विधान होता है)"
itiso [runs the rule]ऐसा
pāṇini-smaraṇātbecause Pāṇini's rule is recalled to settle the point ablative of causeपाणिनि के स्मरण (सूत्र-वचन) के कारण
'patyuḥ naḥ yajña-saṁyoge' iti pāṇini-smaraṇāt — because Pāṇini's rule 'after pati, n, in the sense of joint sacrifice' is recalled.
क्योंकि "पत्युर्नो यज्ञसंयोगे" — ऐसा पाणिनि का स्मरण (सूत्र) है।
Pāṇini seals it. His rule 'patyur no yajña-saṁyoge' says that the feminine of pati takes the n — giving the form patnī — only when the sense is a wife joined with her husband in sacrifice. So the very word 'wife' means the woman at the sacrificial fire. Wife-hood is thus tied to the fire-witnessed marriage.
पाणिनि का सूत्र है — "पति" शब्द का यथार्थ (विशेष) प्रयोग यज्ञ (विवाह-यज्ञ) के संयोग में ही होता है।
Why cited: Pāṇini's grammatical rule adduced to fix the meaning of 'patnī' — the word denotes specifically the wife joined with her husband in sacrifice — grounding the claim that true wife-hood rests on a fire-witnessed marriage.
क्यों उद्धृत: पाणिनि का सूत्र इसलिए स्मरण कराया गया है कि "पति/पत्नी" शब्द विवाह-यज्ञ के संयोग में ही यथार्थतः बनता है — अतः पत्नी-भाव विवाह से ही सिद्ध होता है।
Pāṇini, Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.1.33. From pati ('husband, lord') the feminine would be patī; with the augment n it becomes patnī, but only in the sense of yajña-saṁyoga — the wife as co-sacrificer. The grammar itself binds 'wife' to the rite.