tathā ca prāñcaḥ (śṛṅgāra-tilake 1.62,64)—
sāmānyā vanitā veśyā sā dravyaṁ param icchatā |
guṇa-hīne ca na dveṣo nānurāgo guṇiny api |
śṛṅgārābhāsa etāsu na śṛṅgāraḥ kadācanaquoted · ca prāñcaḥ
The verse — decoded
L1definition
sāmānyā vanitā veśyā sā dravyaṁ param icchatā |
sāmānyācommon to all, shared by any man — the woman available to whoever pays nominative; the type being definedसामान्या (नामक नायिका) — जिसका यहाँ लक्षण किया जा रहा है
vanitāa woman in apposition — the same womanवनिता (स्त्री) — वही (समानाधिकरण में, अर्थात् यही स्त्री)
veśyāa courtesan, a woman for hire — the same type again, named plainly in appositionअर्थात् वेश्या (गणिका) है
sāshe — that woman nominative subjectवह (स्त्री)
dravyaṁwealth, money — the one thing she is after accusative objectधन को
paramonly, nothing but adverbialअत्यन्त (रूप से) ही
icchatāshe wants, she desires reads for the finite icchati (she desires); the -ā form here is irregularचाहती है ('इच्छति' के अर्थ में)
sāmānyā vanitā veśyā — the common woman, the courtesan; sā — she; dravyaṁ param — only money; icchatā — desires.
जो (नायिका) सामान्या (कही जाती) है, वही वनिता, वही वेश्या है; वह धन को ही अत्यन्त चाहती है।
The "common woman" — call her the vanitā, call her the veśyā, the courtesan — is the woman shared by any man. And what does she want? Only money. Nothing else.
सामान्या वह स्त्री है जो वेश्या (गणिका) है। वह केवल धन ही अत्यन्त रूप से चाहती है।
sāmānyā, vanitā and veśyā are stacked in apposition — three names for one type. The finite verb is expected as icchati ("she desires"); the source's icchatā is an irregular form, but the sense is plain: she desires only wealth.
'इच्छता' रूप छन्द के अनुरोध से आया अनियमित प्रयोग है; इसका अर्थ 'इच्छति' (वह चाहती है) ही लिया जाता है।
L2definition
guṇa-hīne ca na dveṣo nānurāgo guṇiny api |
guṇa-hīnetoward a man with no good qualities, a worthless man locative; the person she facesजो पुरुष गुणहीन हो उसके प्रति
caandऔर
na dveṣaḥno aversion — she does not dislike him(उसे) द्वेष नहीं (होता)
na anurāgaḥno real love, no genuine attachmentअनुराग (भी) नहीं (होता)
guṇinitoward a man full of good qualities locativeजो पुरुष गुणवान् हो उसमें
apieven — even for a man like thatभी
guṇa-hīne ca — and toward a worthless man; na dveṣaḥ — no aversion; guṇini api — even toward a man of every virtue; na anurāgaḥ — no love.
और गुणहीन (पुरुष) के प्रति द्वेष नहीं, गुणवान् (पुरुष) के प्रति भी अनुराग नहीं (होता)।
Put a worthless man in front of her — she feels no dislike. Put a man of every virtue in front of her — even then, no real love. The man makes no difference to her; the money decides, not the person.
गुणहीन पुरुष के प्रति उसे द्वेष नहीं होता, और गुणवान् पुरुष के प्रति भी अनुराग नहीं होता।
The two locatives set up a deliberate contrast — the bad man draws no hatred, the good man draws no love. Her feeling does not track the man's worth at all.
L3conclusion
śṛṅgārābhāsa etāsu na śṛṅgāraḥ kadācana
śṛṅgāra-ābhāsaḥonly a semblance of śṛṅgāra — the look of romantic love, not the thing itself nominative; ābhāsa = mere appearance / reflection(इनमें) शृंगार का आभासमात्र (होता है) — आभास अर्थात् केवल प्रतिबिम्ब/दिखावा
etāsuin women like these locative pluralइन (सामान्या आदि) स्त्रियों में
na śṛṅgāraḥnot real śṛṅgāra — not the true erotic rasa(वास्तविक) शृंगार नहीं (होता)
kadācanaever, at any time — not onceकभी (नहीं)
etāsu — in women like these; śṛṅgāra-ābhāsaḥ — only a semblance of śṛṅgāra; na śṛṅgāraḥ kadācana — never the real thing.
इन (स्त्रियों) में शृंगाराभास (होता है); शृंगार कभी नहीं।
So in women like this there is only śṛṅgārābhāsa — a semblance of romantic love. Real śṛṅgāra, the true erotic rasa? Never. Not once. That is the verdict the verse is driving at.
इन स्त्रियों में शृंगार का आभासमात्र होता है; इनमें वास्तविक शृंगार कभी नहीं होता।
śṛṅgārābhāsa is a species of rasābhāsa — a reflected, defective love that wears the appearance of śṛṅgāra without its substance. This last line is why the ancients' verse is quoted: it fixes the common woman as a case of ābhāsa, not real rasa.
Commentary — decoded
Jīva Gosvāmī
s1avataranika
tatra sāmānyāyā rasābhāsa-bhāktvaṁ pramāṇayati—tathā ca prāñca iti |
tatrathere, on this point — the common woman just being classedइस विषय में / वहाँ (इस श्लोक के प्रसंग में)
sāmānyāyāḥof the common woman — whose standing is at issue genitiveसामान्या का
rasābhāsa-bhāktvaṁthat she has only a semblance of rasa — that she belongs to rasābhāsa, not to real rasa accusative; -bhāktva = the fact of partaking ofरसाभास का भागी होना (रसाभासभाक्त्व) को — भाक्त्व अर्थात् भागी/अंशी होने का भाव
pramāṇayatihe backs up with a proof-text, he establishes it by authority(ग्रन्थकार) प्रमाण देकर सिद्ध करते हैं
tathā ca prāñca itiwith the words "tathā ca prāñcaḥ" — "and so the ancients [say]" pratīka, the catchword naming the quoted lead-in'तथा च प्राञ्च' — इस उद्धृत वचन का प्रतीक (कैचवर्ड)
tatra — on this point; sāmānyāyāḥ rasābhāsa-bhāktvaṁ — that the common woman has only a semblance of rasa; pramāṇayati — he proves by citation; tathā ca prāñcaḥ iti — with the words "tathā ca prāñcaḥ."
इस विषय में सामान्या के रसाभासभाक्त्व को 'तथा च प्राञ्च' (इत्यादि वचन) से प्रमाणित करते हैं।
Jīva: On this point — that the common woman's "love" is only rasābhāsa, a semblance of rasa and not the real thing — Rūpa brings a proof-text. That is why the passage runs "tathā ca prāñcaḥ," "and so the ancients say," quoting the Śṛṅgāra-tilaka.
यहाँ (टीकाकार) यह सिद्ध करते हैं कि सामान्या रसाभास की भागी है। इसके लिए 'तथा च प्राञ्च' इत्यादि वचन प्रमाण रूप में उद्धृत किया जाता है।
Jīva reads the quotation as a pramāṇa establishing the sāmānyā's rasābhāsa-bhāktva — her partaking of a mere semblance of rasa. Note the framing: for Jīva the verse simply proves what class she falls into.
s2gloss
veśyety upalakṣaṇaṁ sairandhryādīnām api ||
veśyā itithe word "veśyā," "courtesan" pratīka — the word being glossed'वेश्या' — यह जो शब्द (श्लोक में) कहा गया, उसकी व्याख्या
upalakṣaṇaṁis an upalakṣaṇa — a stand-in mark, not a restriction; it points beyond itself to a whole class predicateउपलक्षणमात्र है (एक को कहकर वैसी ही अन्यों का भी ग्रहण करना)
sairandhrī-ādīnāmof the sairandhrī (a maidservant-attendant) and the rest of that kind genitiveसैरन्ध्री आदि (स्त्रियों) का
apias well, too — they are covered under itभी (ग्रहण होता है)
veśyā iti — the word "veśyā"; upalakṣaṇaṁ — is a pointer-term; sairandhrī-ādīnām api — standing for the maidservant and the rest too.
'वेश्या' (यह शब्द) सैरन्ध्री आदि का भी उपलक्षण है।
Jīva: Don't read "veśyā," "courtesan," as the only case meant. It is upalakṣaṇa — a word that merely points to the type. It covers the sairandhrī, the maidservant, and others of that kind as well. So the verse's verdict falls on all such women, not just the literal courtesan.
'वेश्या' यह शब्द केवल वेश्या तक सीमित नहीं है; यह उपलक्षणमात्र है, अतः इससे सैरन्ध्री आदि (वैसी ही अन्य) स्त्रियों का भी ग्रहण हो जाता है।
Technical distinction — upalakṣaṇa vs viśeṣaṇa. A viśeṣaṇa is a describing word that is part of what the thing is: "a blue lotus," where blueness genuinely narrows which lotus you mean. An upalakṣaṇa is a mark that only helps you spot the thing and then drops away, standing in for a wider set: "the house with the crow on it" — the crow is no part of the house, it just locates it, and points past itself. Here "veśyā" works the second way: it does not restrict the verse to courtesans; it flags the whole class of women-for-hire, so sairandhrīs and their like fall under it too. (sairandhrī: a female personal attendant / maidservant — e.g. Draupadī's disguise in Virāṭa's court.)
Viśvanātha Cakravartī
s1avataranika
sāmānyāṁ pratyudāhartuṁ tasyāṁ rasābhāsavattvaṁ pramāṇayati—tathā ceti ||
sāmānyāṁthe common woman — the case being brought forward accusative object of the infinitiveसामान्या को (क्रिया का कर्म)
pratyudāhartuṁin order to bring her forward as a counter-example, a case set against the real heroines infinitive of purpose; pratyudāharaṇa = counter-instanceप्रत्युदाहरण (विरुद्ध उदाहरण) के रूप में दिखाने के लिए
tasyāṁin her locativeउस (सामान्या) में
rasābhāsavattvaṁthat she possesses only rasābhāsa — that what she has is a semblance of rasa accusative; -vattva = the fact of possessingरसाभास का होना (रसाभासवत्त्व) को — वत्त्व अर्थात् उस (गुण) से युक्त होने का भाव
pramāṇayatihe establishes it by a proof-text(ग्रन्थकार) प्रमाण देकर सिद्ध करते हैं
tathā ca itiwith the words "tathā ca" pratīka'तथा च' — इस उद्धृत वचन का प्रतीक
sāmānyāṁ pratyudāhartuṁ — in order to cite the common woman as a counter-example; tasyāṁ rasābhāsavattvaṁ — that in her there is only a semblance of rasa; pramāṇayati — he proves by citation; tathā ca iti — with "tathā ca."
सामान्या को प्रत्युदाहरण (रूप में) दिखाने के लिए उसमें रसाभासवत्त्व को 'तथा च' (इत्यादि वचन) से प्रमाणित करते हैं।
Viśvanātha: Rūpa brings the common woman in as a counter-example — a foil set against the genuine heroines. To show that what lives in her is only rasābhāsa, a semblance of rasa, he cites the proof-text: "tathā ca."
सामान्या को (शृंगार का) विरुद्ध उदाहरण बनाने के लिए (टीकाकार) यह सिद्ध करते हैं कि उसमें रसाभास है। इसके लिए 'तथा च' इत्यादि वचन उद्धृत किया जाता है।
Hold Viśvanātha apart from Jīva; do not merge them. Jīva said "tatra" — on this point he proves the sāmānyā's rasābhāsa-status, and it is Jīva alone who adds the upalakṣaṇa gloss on "veśyā." Viśvanātha adds one word Jīva does not: pratyudāhartuṁ, "to give as a counter-example (pratyudāharaṇa)." For him the common woman is deliberately introduced as a foil — a case of what real śṛṅgāra is not. Same verdict, different framing.