Rasarnavasudhakara 2.450.p3

2.450.p3

atra kecid āhuḥ-karuṇo nāma vipralambha-śṛṅgāro nāsti | ubhayālambanasya tasya ekatraivāsambhavāt | yatra tv ekasyāpāye sati tad-itara-gatāḥ pralāpādayo bhavanti sa śokān na bhidyate iti | tad ayuktam | yatra punar-ujjīvanena sambhogo nāsti, tatra satyaṃ śoka eva | yatra so' sti tatra vipralambha eva | anyathā sambhoga-śiraske anyatarāpāya-lakṣaṇe vairūpya-śāpa-pravāse' pi śoka-rūpatvāpatteḥ |

On this point, some say: “There is no love-in-separation called ‘pathetic,’ because it has two supporting objects and cannot exist in only one. Where one has departed and laments and the like belong to the other, it does not differ from grief.” That is incorrect. Where there is no enjoyment through revival, there indeed is only grief. But where that [revival] exists, there is only love-in-separation. Otherwise, even in separation through travel by a curse of deformation, which culminates in enjoyment but is characterized by the disappearance of either partner, it would follow that it has the form of grief.