Text 7.68

यथा वा,

yathā vā,

This is another example of abhavan-mata-yoga (the intended syntactical connection is inexistent):

muñcati tvayi dṛśoḥ padavīṃ me yena yena śṛṇu yad yad avāptam |
jīvanena kaṭutā maraṇena prārthyatā priyatayā parivādaḥ ||

muñcati tvayi—when You left; dṛśoḥ—of My eyes; padavīm—the path; me—My; yena yena—because of which various [factors]; śṛṇu—listen [to what those various conditions were]; yat yat—whatever various [mental states]; avāptam—were attained; jīvanena—by living; kaṭutā—pungency [was attained]; maraṇena—by dying; prārthyatā—the state of praying [was attained]; priyatayā—by loving; parivādaḥ—condemnation [was attained].

[Kṛṣṇa addressed Rādhā: “Beloved, how did You feel after I left You in the Rāsa dance and hid from You?” She replied:]

Hear about My states of mind that occurred after You left the path of My eyes: Living became caustic. I yearned to die. On account of love, I condemned Myself (fie on the love of a woman who keeps living when she cannot see her lover^[1] ). (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 10.89)

atra śṛṇv iti kriyāyāḥ karmāpekṣatve jīvanāder dvitīyāntatvaṃ matam. vākyārthasya karmatve tu prathamāntatvam. tad-ubhayābhāvād abhavan-mata-yogaḥ.

The verb śṛṇu (hear) is transitive: It requires an object. Therefore, either the words jīvanena, maraṇena, and priyatayā should have been in the accusative case (such as: kaṭutām avāptaṃ jīvanaṃ śṛṇu, “Hear about My life’s becoming caustic”) or the meaning of the sentence itself should have been the object of the verb (by adding the word iti between the verb and those clauses. For example: kaṭutām avāptaṃ jīvanam iti yat, tat śṛṇu, “Living reached the state of being caustic. Hear about it.”). Since not one of those options is taking place, this is the fault called abhavan-matayoga (the intended syntactical connection is inexistent).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments: priyatayā premṇā parivādaḥ prāptaḥ. kāntasyādarśane’pi yā jīvati tasyāḥ premāṇaṃ dhig iti parivādaṃ premā prāpety arthaḥ (Subodhinī).