विदग्धानां मिथो लीलाविलासेन यथा सुखम् ।
न तथा सम्प्रयोगेण स्यादेवं रसिका विदुः ॥
यथा—
बलेन परिरम्भणे नखशिखाभिरुल्लेखनं
हठादधरखण्डने भुजयुगेन बन्धक्रियाम् ।
दुकूलदलने हतिम्कुवलयेन कुर्वाणया
रतादपि सुखं हरेरधिकमादधे राधया ॥
यथा वा—
नर्मोत्सेककला दृगञ्चलचमत्कारी भ्रुवोर्विभ्रमः
संव्यानस्य विकर्षणे चटुलतां कर्णोत्पलेनाहतिः ।
क्रीडेयं व्रजनागरीरतिगुरोर्गान्धर्विकायास्तथा
भूयिष्ठं सुरतोत्सवादपि नवास्वादं वितेने सुखम् ॥
अत एव श्रीगीतगोविन्दे—
प्रत्यूहः पुलकाङ्कुरेण निविडश्लेषे निमेषेण च
क्रीडाकूतविलोकितेऽधरसुधापाने कथानर्मभिः ।
आनन्दाभिगमेन मन्मथकलायुद्धेऽपि यस्मिन्नभुद्
उद्भूतः स तयोर्बभूव सुरतारम्भः प्रियंभावुकः ॥
vidagdhānāṁ mitho līlā-vilāsena yathā sukham |
na tathā samprayogeṇa syād evaṁ rasikā viduḥ ||
yathā—
balena parirambhaṇe nakha-śikhābhir ullekhanaṁ
haṭhād adhara-khaṇḍane bhuja-yugena bandha-kriyām |
dukūla-dalane hatim kuvalayena kurvāṇayā
ratād api sukhaṁ harer adhikam ādadhe rādhayā ||
yathā vā—
narmotseka-kalā dṛg-añcala-camatkārī bhruvor vibhramaḥ
saṁvyānasya vikarṣaṇe caṭulatāṁ karṇotpalenāhatiḥ |
krīḍeyaṁ vraja-nāgarī-rati-guror gāndharvikāyās tathā
bhūyiṣṭhaṁ suratotsavād api navāsvādaṁ vitene sukham ||
ata eva śrī-gīta-govinde—
pratyūhaḥ pulakāṅkureṇa niviḍa-śleṣe nimeṣeṇa ca
krīḍā-kūta-vilokite’dhara-sudhā-pāne kathā-narmabhiḥ |
ānandābhigamena manmatha-kalā-yuddhe’pi yasminn abhud
udbhūtaḥ sa tayor babhūva suratārambhaḥ priyaṁbhāvukaḥ ||
(Ujjvala-nīlāmaṇi: 15.253–256)
“For the cultured, pleasure shall not arise from full union (samprayoga) as it shall from sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa) with one another. This rasikas know.
As [is described in the following verse]:
‘By scratching [him on the chest] with the tips of her nails
When he embraces [her] by force,
By blocking [him] with her arms
When he forcibly bites her lip,
And by striking [him] with a water lily
When he pulls her raiment,
Pleasure for Hari
Greater than even [that of] union [i.e., samprayoga]
Was created by Rādhā.’
Or as [is described in the following verse]:
‘The art of pouring forth jokes [exhibited by Kṛṣṇa],
And the waggling of the eyebrows
[That was] Astonishing with sidelong glances [exhibited by Rādhā in return],
The vivacity in pulling upon the upper garment [of Rādhā exhibited by Kṛṣṇa],
And the blow with a lotus from her ear [dealt to Kṛṣṇa by Rādhā in return]—
This play
Between the ladies of Vraja’s Love-teacher (Rati-guru) and Gāndharvikā
Manifested pleasure abundant and freshly relishable
Even more so than the delight of full union (samprayoga).’
Therefore, in Śrī Gīta-govinda (12.10) [the following is found], ‘Wherein obstruction arose
To their tight embraces
By their horripilation,
To their observation of the plentitude of their play
By the blinking of their eyes,
To their drinking the nectar of one another’s lips
By their talks and jokes,
And to their battle in the arts of the Mind-churner [i.e., Kāma]
By the arrival of bliss—
That [wonderful] beginning of their amorous union,
Being [most] pleasing [to them both],
Became perceptible.’”
Commentary
The import of UN 15.253 is that in the perception of rasikas, that is, those cognizant of rasa, cultured lovers feel greater pleasure in varieties of sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa) that precede the act of sexual union than they do in the act of sexual union itself. Śrī Jīvapāda doesn’t comment on these verses, but the commentaries of Śrī Cakravartīpāda and Śrī Viṣṇu Dāsa Gosvāmīpāda are as follows.
rahasi strī-sambhogo hi dvividhaḥ samprayogo mitho līlā-vilāsaś ca | tatrādya uktaḥ | dvitīyasyotkarṣam āha—vidagdhānām iti ||253||
jāla-randhrākṣa-nihitākṣyaḥ sakhyo dvayor līlā-vilāsaṁ parasparam āsvādayanti—baleneti dvayam ||254|| līlā-vilāsasya uttara-bhāgaṁ darśayitvā tato’pi surasaṁ tasya prathamaṁ bhāgam udāhartum āha—yathā veti | vraja-nāgarī-rati-guroḥ śrī-kṛṣṇasya prathamaṁ narmotseka-kalā tadā gāndharvikāyāḥ śrī-rādhāyā dṛg-añcala-camatkārī bhruvor vibhramaḥ | tataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇasya saṁvyāna-vikarṣaṇe caṭulatā | tadā śrī-rādhāyāḥ karṇotpalenāhatiḥ | atra prathamaṁ līlā-vilāsasya pūrva-bhāga-vyañjī narmotseketi ślokaḥ, tatas tad-uttara-bhāga-vyañjī balena parirambheṇa iti, tataś ca samprayoga-vyañjī drāg dor-maṇḍaleti līlā-kramaḥ, pūrva-pūrvotkarṣaḥ śrīmad-grantha-kṛtāṁ mate, anyeṣāṁ tūttarotkarṣaḥ ||255|| rasika-mahānubhāvāgragaṇya-śrī-jayadeva-padyenaiva grantham upasañjihīrṣus tan-matenaiva sva-mataṁ draḍhayati—pratyūha iti | sa tayo rasika-sakhī-janānubhavaika-vedyaḥ suratārambhaḥ udbhūtaḥ āvirbhūto babhūva | yatra niviḍāśleṣe tābhyām iṣyamāṇe pulakāṅkureṇaiva pratyūho vighno’bhūt | evaṁ krīḍā-kūta-vilokite nimeṣeṇety ādi | evaṁ cāśleṣāvalokanādhara-sudhā-pāna-kāma-saṅgrāmāṇāṁ paramābhīṣṭānāṁ sāmastyenālābhena tṛṣṇāyāḥ śānty-abhāvāt sāvaśeṣo hi rasaḥ suraso bhavatīti nyāyena rasotkarṣa eva sthāpitaḥ | ata eva priyaṁbhāvuka iti viśeṣaṇaṁ sārthakam eva ||256||
(Ānanda-candrikā-tīkā)
“Enjoyment together (sambhoga) with a woman in seclusion is indeed of two types: (1) full union [i.e., sexual union] (samprayoga), and (2) sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa). In this regard, the first was stated [in the previous verse, UN 15.252]. The author [now] describes the excellence of the second [type, viz., ]: vidagdhānām … [i.e., he states UN 15.253]. ||253||
“Enjoyment together (sambhoga) with a woman in seclusion is indeed of two types: (1) full union [i.e., sexual union] (samprayoga), and (2) sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa). In this regard, the first was stated [in the previous verse, UN 15.252]. The author [now] describes the excellence of the second [type, viz., ]: vidagdhānām … [i.e., he states UN 15.253]. ||253||
“Sakhīs with their eyes fixed in the eyelets in the lattice [of the arbor where Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are situated] cause relish one another to relish the sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa) of the Two: the two [verses] balena … [i.e., UN 15.254–255, are stated by sakhīs to one another]. ||254||
“Having shown the latter part of sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa) [in the previous verse, UN 15.254], the author speaks to illustrate the first part of it, which is highly relishable (surasam) even more so than that [i.e., than the aforementioned latter part]: yathā vā … [i.e., he states UN 15.255]. First, there is the art of pouring forth jokes on the part of the ladies of Vraja’s Love-teacher (Rati-guru), that is, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Then, there is the waggling of the eyebrows [that is] astonishing with sidelong glances on the part of Gāndharvikā, that is, Śrī Rādhā [in response to Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s jokes]. Then, there is Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s vivacity in pulling the upper garment [of Śrī Rādhā], and then Śrī Rādhā’s blow [dealt to Śrī Kṛṣṇa in response] with the lotus from her ear [i.e., that she was wearing on her ear]. In this regard, the sequence of the līlā is that firstly there is the verse narmotseka … [i.e., UN 15.255] indicative of the first part of sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa). Then, there is [the verse] balena parirambheṇa … [i.e., UN 15.254] indicative of the latter part of that [i.e., of līlā-vilāsa], and then there is drāg-dor-maṇḍala … [i.e., UN 15.252] indicative of full union (samprayoga). There is excellence of the prior and the prior [thereof] in the view of the blessed author [i.e., in the view of the author, Śrī Rūpapāda, the first part of līlā-vilāsa is the most excellent, meaning, is the cause of the greatest pleasure for Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa, the second, latter part of līlā-vilāsa is less excellent than the first part, meaning, it causes lesser pleasure for Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa than the first part, and thirdly samprayoga is the least excellent of these three aspects of sambhoga, meaning, it causes least degree of pleasure for Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa among the varieties of sambhoga]. For others, however, there is excellence of the latter [i.e., in the view of some persons other than the author, samprayoga is the most excellent, meaning, is the cause of the greatest pleasure for lovers, more so than the two types of līlā-vilāsa, and the author, Śrī Rūpapāda, explains in UN 15.253 that this other view is not accepted by those who are conversant in rasa (rasikas), meaning, the view of those in the know is that the first part of līlā-vilāsa is the most pleasing to Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa and thus most excellent and the latter part of līlā-vilāsa and then samprayoga are sequentially of comparatively less excellence, meaning, are comparatively lesser causes of pleasure for them]. ||255||
“Desirous of concluding the text specifically with a verse of Śrī Jayadeva, the foremost of rasikas possessed of deep perception, the author affirms his own view specifically with his [i.e., Śrī Jayadeva’s, meaning, with a statement expressive of Śrī Jayadeva’s] view: pratyūta … [i.e., he cites Śrī Gīta-govinda 12.10 here in UN 15.256]. That beginning of their [viz., Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s] amorous union, which is understandable only through the perception of rasika sakhīs, became perceptible (udbhūtaḥ), that is, manifest, wherein an obstruction (pratyūhaḥ) arose to their [viz., Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa’s] desired tight embraces just by horripilation, and similarly to their observation of the plentitude of their play by the blinking of their eyes, and so on. In this way, furthermore, because of the absence of satiation of their thirst on account of the non-attainment in totality of the embraces, observations, drinking of the nectar of one another’s lips, and battles of amor that are supremely desired [by them], rasa that indeed retains a remainder [i.e., is not yet tasted in full] becomes most relishable (surasa). As per such reasoning, the veritable excellence of rasa [in līlā-vilāsa more so than in samprayoga] is established. Thus, the adjective ‘being pleasing’ (priyaṁbhāvukaḥ) is veritably significant [i.e., it indicates that līlā-vilāsa is more pleasing to Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa than samprayoga]. ||256||”
asya samprayogākhyasya krīḍā-viśeṣasya narmālāpa-nakha-rada-kṣata-cumbanādi-līlāto gauṇatvaṁ vidvad-anubhavato nijānubhavataś cāpādayann āha—vidagdhānām iti | mithaḥ anyonyaṁ, līlā-vilāsena samprayogaṁ vinā sarveṇaiva krīḍā-kadambena | nanv atra kiṁ pramāṇaṁ? tatrāha—evaṁ rasiko rasa-vettāra eva viduḥ, na tv anye | ‘tad adhīte tad veda’ iti ṭhak | teṣām anubhava evātra pramāṇam ity arthaḥ ||253||
tad eva darśayati—baleneti | pūrva-rāgānantaraṁ saṅgatayoḥ rādhā-kṛṣṇayor nibhṛta-keli-mādhurīṁ bahiḥ-kuñjato vṛndā sollāsaṁ varṇayati | … ||254|| pūrva-padye saty api dvayor evādhika-sukhe spaṣṭaṁ harer eva sukhātiśayo darśitaḥ | samprati tu tat-sukhaṁ dvayor evāviśeṣeṇāha—yathā veti | narmotseketi pūrvavat tayoḥ rahaḥ-krīḍā-vinodaṁ bahiḥ-kuñjataḥ vṛndā dṛṣṭvā paurṇamāsī-samīpe sānandam āvedayati | … ||255|| svānubhavatas tāvan narma-saṁlāpa-sparśa-cumbanādibhyaḥ samprayogasya gauṇatvaṁ padyābhyām upapādya arvācīna-bhakteṣu śrī-kṛṣṇa-premaika-pātratvenādvitīyānāṁ śrīmad-bhāgavatādya-rasa-mādhurī-sāraika-prathamāsvādakānāṁ sadā sarvatra sarvair api paramādaraṇīya-sac-caritānāṁ śrī-gīta-govindākhya-mahākāvya-kartṝṇāṁ śrī-jayadeva-caraṇānāṁ varṇitam udāharadbhiḥ śrī-kavi-caraṇais tad eva sva-mataṁ dṛḍhīkaroti—ata eveti | pratyūha iti śrī-rādhāyā māna-dhvaṁsānantaraṁ śrī-kṛṣṇena saha saṅgama-kutūhalaṁ śrī-jayadeva-caraṇair nirūpyate | … ||256||
(Excerpts from the Svātma-pramodinī-ṭīkā)
“Establishing on the strength of the perception of the wise (vidvad-anubhava) and his own perception the secondariness of this particular form of play known as full union (samprayoga) in comparison to līlā in the form of joking, conversing, scratching with the fingernails, kissing, and so on, the author says vidagdhānām … [i.e., he states UN 15.253]. ‘With one another’ (mithaḥ) means with each other, and ‘sportive coquetry’ (līlā-vilāsa) refers to indeed the entire medley of play apart from full union (samprayoga).
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, what is the evidence (pramāṇa) in this regard?’ To that, the author says, ‘This only rasikas, that is, those conversant in rasa, know, and not, rather, others.’ [The sense of the affix] Ṭhak [in the word rasika] is as per [Pāniṇi-sūtra 4.2.59], ‘One studies, one knows’ (tad adhīte tad veda). ‘Their [i.e., rasikas’, meaning, those who know rasa’s] perception alone is the evidence in this regard’ is the meaning. ||253||
“The author shows this [i.e., that cultured lovers find greater pleasure in sportive coquetry (līlā-vilāsa) than in the act of sexual union (samprayoga)] specifically: balena … [i.e., he states this verse]. From outside the arbor, Vṛndā describes with delight the sweetness of the play in seclusion of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa when they are united after prior attachment (pūrva-rāga). … ||254||
“Although greater pleasure for the Two [viz., Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa] is present [i.e., described] in the previous verse [i.e., UN 15.254], an abundance of Hari’s pleasure in particular was clearly shown [in that verse]. Now [i.e., in UN 15.255], on the contrary, the author describes such pleasure on the part of the Two specifically without distinction [i.e., without any distinction between either Rādhā or Kṛṣṇa experiencing more pleasure than the other of the Two of them]: yathā vā … [i.e., he states UN 15.255]. As with the previous [verse] narmotseka … [i.e., UN 15.254], Vṛndā observes from outside the arbor the delight in the play of the Two in seclusion and blissfully recounts this in the presence of Paurṇamāsī. … ||255||
“Having on the strength of his own perception mentioned with [the last] two verses the secondariness of full union (samprayoga) in comparison to joking, conversation, touch, kissing, and so on [i.e., in comparison to līlā-vilāsa], the author affirms this specific view of his own [i.e., this view that the pleasure of līlā-vilāsa is greater than that of samprayoga for cultured lovers], which is [also] described by he who by virtue of being a most worthy vessel of blessed prema for Kṛṣṇa is second to none among modern bhaktas, who is the pre-eminent first relisher of the essence of the sweetness of the original (ādya) rasa [viz., madhura-rasa, described] in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, who is endowed with virtuous conduct that is highly honorable indeed by all always and in all respects, and who is the author of the mahākāvya entitled Śrī Gīta-govinda—Śrī Jayadevacaraṇa—with an illustrious illustration by this blessed and honored poet: ata eva … [i.e., he states UN 15.256]. In pratyūhaḥ … [i.e., in this verse from Gītā-govinda cited in UN 15.256], the delight of meeting [i.e., of līlā-vilāsa preceding samprayoga] with Śrī Kṛṣṇa after the break down of Śrī Rādhā’s māna is described by Śrī Jayadevacaraṇa. ||256||”