(Pradiptamiva udaiksata) Hanuman saw Asoka garden illuminated all over. The figure of speech here is ‘utpreksa’.
5.15.41
(Vaidehyah abharanani anvakirtayat) The commentator discusses the appropriateness of the two readings ‘gatra sobhini’, which is followed by Kataka, whereas Tirtha adopts the reading ‘sakha sobhini’.
Now, the ornaments Rama referred to were shining in their respective places on Sita’s body as noticed by Hanuman and this enables Hanuman to recognize her, if we take ‘gatra sobhini’.
If Sakha sobhini is taken, the implication, according to Tirtha, is ‘Sita must have thought ‘wearing the ornaments at the time of separation from Rama inappropriate. Therefore she had removed the ornaments from her body and kept them on a branch of the tree above’. But this interpretation does not seem to be correct because there is a reference in the next stanza, saying that the ornaments looked as if soiled on account of wearing for long’. Moreover, the absence of ornaments referred to by Rama also may lead to the conclusion that she is not real Sita. The words ‘Abharanani avahinani’, refer to ‘the ornaments that fell in Rsyamuka etc’.
5.15.47
The word ‘yathetarat’ means ‘this cloth on her body is shining like the sheet of cloth seen on the tree at Rsyamuka.
5.15.6
(Pradiptamiva udaiksata) Hanuman saw Asoka garden illuminated all over. The figure of speech here is ‘utpreksa’.
5.15.41
(Vaidehyah abharanani anvakirtayat) The commentator discusses the appropriateness of the two readings ‘gatra sobhini’, which is followed by Kataka, whereas Tirtha adopts the reading ‘sakha sobhini’.
Now, the ornaments Rama referred to were shining in their respective places on Sita’s body as noticed by Hanuman and this enables Hanuman to recognize her, if we take ‘gatra sobhini’.
If Sakha sobhini is taken, the implication, according to Tirtha, is ‘Sita must have thought ‘wearing the ornaments at the time of separation from Rama inappropriate. Therefore she had removed the ornaments from her body and kept them on a branch of the tree above’. But this interpretation does not seem to be correct because there is a reference in the next stanza, saying that the ornaments looked as if soiled on account of wearing for long’. Moreover, the absence of ornaments referred to by Rama also may lead to the conclusion that she is not real Sita. The words ‘Abharanani avahinani’, refer to ‘the ornaments that fell in Rsyamuka etc’.
5.15.47
The word ‘yathetarat’ means ‘this cloth on her body is shining like the sheet of cloth seen on the tree at Rsyamuka.