Rasarnavasudhakara 2.420.p3

2.420.p3

nanu aliapasuttety atra gaṇḍa-paricumbanasya niṣedho nāsti | evaṃ muñca kopam ity atra ca niṣedho na śrūyate | tat katham asya nirhetukasya (meti vā neti vā niṣedhābhāve' pi) mānatvam iti cet | meti neti vācika-niṣedhasya upalaksaṇatvāt (aliapasutteti) pūrvasminn udāharaṇe apratikriyayā cumbanānaṅgīkāra-lakṣaṇo niṣedho vidyata eva | aparatra (muñca kopam ity atra) punar anuttara-dānādinā anaṅgīkāra-lakṣaṇo niṣedho vaktavya eva |

Now, it might be objected: in the verse beginning 'aliapasutta', there is no prohibition against kissing the cheek. Likewise, in the verse beginning 'muñca kopam', no prohibition is heard. So how can this causeless state be pique, even in the absence of a prohibition such as 'don't' or 'no'? If this is asked, [the answer is:] because a verbal prohibition such as 'don't' or 'no' is an indirect indication; in the previous example beginning 'aliapasutta', a prohibition characterized by the non-acceptance of a kiss is indeed present through lack of reciprocation. In the other [example] beginning 'muñca kopam', on the other hand, a prohibition characterized by refusal is indeed to be stated through not giving a reply and the like.