Now [he reports] the view of the earlier teachers.

The earlier teachers, in a passage that opens 'sāmānyā means a shared woman,' declare the heroine to be of three kinds: svakīyā (one's own), parakīyā (another's), and sādhāraṇī (shared, i.e. the courtesan type).

Of these three, two are already covered: the parakīyās in Vraja and the svakīyās in the city [Dvārakā] have been shown earlier.

But the third kind is still open: does Kṛṣṇa have a sādhāraṇī [a shared, courtesan-type heroine] or not? To answer that question, Rūpa speaks the verse 'sāmānyāyāḥ.'

A sādhāraṇī's love is by definition spread over many lovers, so pairing her with Kṛṣṇa would produce rasābhāsa. Hence a sādhāraṇī simply cannot exist for Kṛṣṇa. The verse does not say this outright — it is drawn out by implication.

What signals that an unspoken conclusion is implied? The ablative 'because'-word rasābhāsa-prasaṅgāt. It gives a reason but has no stated result to attach to — and since it cannot be construed any other way, it forces us to supply the missing conclusion.

He gives a stock grammar example. Take 'praviśa piṇḍam' — literally 'enter the rice-ball,' which is nonsense. 'Enter' needs a place, so it pulls in the word 'house': 'enter the house.' 'Rice-ball' needs a fitting action, so it pulls in 'eat': 'eat the rice-ball.' Because neither word can be construed literally with the other, each supplies the other's missing word by ākṣepa (implication). In just the same way, here the 'because'-ablative rasābhāsa-prasaṅgāt, having nothing to attach to, forces in the implied conclusion — 'a sādhāraṇī is impossible for Kṛṣṇa.' The analogy proves only this filling-in-by-implication; it says nothing about the content of the two cases.

So 'tādṛk api' ('though such') means this: the maidservant Kubjā resembles a common woman, yet is not one — because she lacks the defining trait of a common woman, a heart fixed on many lovers.

And how far does the resemblance go? Only in one single respect: that there is no prospect of marriage with Kṛṣṇa. In that limited sense alone is she 'like' a common woman.

Here is Viśvanātha's key move, and it differs from Jīva's. He takes 'parakīyā eva' straight: she is TRULY a parakīyā — because Kṛṣṇa enjoyed her secretly, hiding it from people, exactly as one does with another man's woman.

And the secrecy went both ways. She too, devoted to him alone, held the thought: 'Kṛṣṇa alone is my secret lover.' So from her side as well the love was hidden and exclusive — the mark of a parakīyā.

Likewise, even though she had become supremely beautiful [once Kṛṣṇa straightened her], it was her very former hunchbacked condition that had kept other men away. Her deformity guarded her, so she remained for Kṛṣṇa alone.

For this reason the line is quoted: 'having called his beloved, with the bashfulness of a fresh union.' The point is that her union with Kṛṣṇa was ever-new — always carrying the shyness of a first meeting, the hallmark of secret, parakīyā-style love.