1. Dhvanvayaloka with Locana - Chapter 1 - English Translation - K Krishnamoorthy (1988)

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S

DHVANYĀLOKA-LOCANA

with an anonymous Sanskrit Commentary

Chapter First

Critically edited with a complete English translation by

Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy

MEHARCHAND LACHHMANDAS PUBLICATIONS.

New Delhi 110 002 India

अभिनवगुप्तविरचितं ध्वन्यालोक-लोचनम् (प्रथमोद्द्योत:) अज्ञातकर्तृकप्राचीनव्याख्यांनेन आङ्ग्लानुवादेन च समन्वितम्। पाठसंशोधनविधानेन परिष्कृतम्।

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

FIRST EDITION: 1988 The Author

Published by Meharchand Lachhmandas Publications, 1 Ansari R.oad, Daryaganj, New Delhi Phototypeset by S.M.N. Phototypesetters, Lajpat Nagar, N. Delhi Printed at Oxford Printcraft India Pvt. Ltd., N. Delhi-2

PREFACE

It is with a sense of fulfilment of a long-cherished desire that I am bringing out this edition of Abhinavagupta's Locana on the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana with my English translation, encouraged by the warm response of scholars to my studies and edition of the latter with my translation published a dozen years ago. For the first time is being published a very concise and clear commentary in Sanskrit on the Locana by one who has left us no clue either about his place or region or time. But we have a hint from him that he commented only on the first chapter in his decla- ration after the invocation-"ekasya dingmātram abhivyanktum upakrame". I have been engaged for over three decades in the study of this text and the text presented here embodies the result of my ceaseless efforts to get at the most meaningful and authentic text in the light of not only Mss. but also citations - these are often quite extensive as in the anonymous Kalpalatāviveka (L.D. Institute publica- tion) -available up to date. My object in the translation has been to give the spirit of the original in a readable and reasonably acceptable English; and not to be too literal anid pedantic. Abhinavagupta is a great thinker; and he has practically given us in a nutshell the entire argument of all the four chapters of the Dhvanyāloka within the span of the first chapter itself, so that the reader is fuily acquainted with the core concept of dhvani in all its dimensions. Need I add that for a proper understanding of Anandavardhana in the right perspective, the study of the Locana is a must: not only because it explicates complex ideas, but aiso adds to them considerably by noting important objections and answering them pointedly. Thus it is both a summary and an enlargement of Anandavardhana's aesthetics. The prestigious publisher has left nothing to be desired in mak- ing the edition at once elegant and accu.ate. I thank him heartily for all his kindnesses. - K. Krishnamoorthy

CONTENTS

Preface iii

Introduction vii-xxvi

Sanskrit Text with Commentary 1-80

Dhvani-Kārikā Numbers:

I.I 1.2 18 1.3-4 19 1.5 38 1.6 41 1.7 4'2 1 .. 8-10 43 I.11-13 44 1.14 67 J.15-16 69 1.17 70 1.18-19 78

English Translation 81-167

1.1 83 1.2 98 1.3 99 1.4 100 1.5 120 1.6 123 1.7-8 124 1.9-10 125 1.11-12 126 1.13 127 1.14 153 I.15-16 156 1.17 157 1.18-19 165

Index 169-173

INTRODUCTION I

This edition is a landmark so to say in the history of text- critical editions and English translations of classics in Indian aesthetics and criticism.

Over these four decades, my involvement in Dhvani studies or Indian aesthetics as propounded by the classical masters, viz., Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, has made me realise that even for Sanskritists a good English translation is a felt necessity, not to speak of non-Sanskritists. This is so because the two classical authors mentioned were great thinkers in the traditional disciplinės (sāstras) of grammar, logic and Vedic hermeneutics, besides being creative poets of a high order and very sensitive or perceptive literary critics. Their expositions often bristle with technical terrns and turns of thought beyond the reach of a general Sanskritist today. And, more often than not, renderings of stray citations from them, torn out of their context, become more confusing than clarifying. Hence I have often felt the need of a heipfui and dependable translation of their entire work in readable English. And I am so happy to see that my translation of at least the most important first chapter of Abhinavagupta's celebrated Locana on the Dhvanyaloka is seeing the light of day now, on the eve of my retirement.

The task of an ideal translation of the Locana is virtually nullified by the corrupt nature of the text that has come down to us with all types of variants, good, bad and indifferent. Among the several editions of the Locana available now, the first issued by the Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay (Ist edn. 1891; 3rd revised edn. 1935) is so far from making sense that my esteemed mentor, M. Hiriyanna of Mysore did not allow his M.A. dissertation on the Dhvanyaloka to be published by the Madras University in the first decade of this century. It was much better presented in the Kashi Sanskrit Series edition accompanied by Bālapriya, a modern commentary in

viii Sanskrit by Pandit Rama Sharaka and issued in 1940. By far, the best edition is that of S. Kuppuswami Sastri with Kaumudi commentary by Uttungodaya, published from Madras in 1944. But it extends only up to the end of the first chapter and offers no help in English .* As far as I know, the very ambitious project by K. Rama Pisharoti to publish an English version of the entire Dhvanyāloka and Locana in the second decade of this century in the volumes of the now defunct journal from Allahabad, Indian Thought, could only cover an infinitely small portion and was never completed. My first task thus came to be the determination of a dependable and definitive text of the Locana before I could proceed to translate it into English. Towards this end, I procured from several Mss. Libraries, xeroxed copies or transcripts of Locana on the first Uddyota,+ and of Sanskrit commentaries available on the Locana, though in fragmentary form. It took me quite some time in the midst of my other academic duties to complete even the work on the selected first Uddyota portion of the Locana. Luckily, I could also complete the text-editing of one unpublished commetary on the above Locana text from a transcript of it I obtained by the courtesy of the authorities of the Govt. Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (numbered R 2680), about a dozen years ago. This commentary is published here for the first time along with the critically edited Locana text. The very first verse of the anonymous commentary contains a veiled hint that it was written only upon one chapter (viz., the first) : "tadapyekasya dinmātram abhivyanktumupakrame" In all humility, he says : "Who will ever understand the thought running through the entire text of the Locana ? My object is to offer broad guidelines for only the first chapter." Yet scholarly readers will see for themselves how, in spite of all his humility, his work is often brilliant, sometimes penetrating and mostly perceptive. It came to me as a godsend in fixing Locana

• These three printed editions have been respectively designated as 'Ni', 'Ka' and 'Ke' in the footnotes of our printed text. The first Uddyota portion of the Locana is indeed self-complete in a sense because it ably summarises all the arguments for establishing the thesis of dhvani and silencing plausible objections as developed by Ânandavardhana in the three later chapters also. Even the divisions, illustrations and demonstrations of the dhvani concept have been ably, though briefly, indicated. Thus this may be regarded as an able synopsis of dhvani aesthetics, complete in itself.

ix text-readings in some of the most difficult passages. Naturally, 1 have deemed it my duty to adopt his text as authentic in thi: edition. To give an example at random, words meaning the opposite of what is irtended in the text are often given as righ readings in the popular editions of the Locana :- p. 12, 1.7 -we read 'vīpsayā sambhramam sucayan ādarar darsayati' where we should have 'anadaram' ('shows regard' in place of the required 'shows disregard'). p. 34, 1.9 -we read 'tadangikāriņi' in place of 'tadanaňgīkā- riņi' (O lady, 'who accepted our helpful advice' in place of 'whc rejected our helpful advice*). p. 46, 1.1 -we read 'laksaņakāra-prasiddhatā, or 'popularity with theoreticians' when the sense required is its opposite, viz. 'a-prasiddhatā' or 'absence of familiarity'. For the purposes of this edition, I was also able to secure a copy of a palm-leaf Ms. of Locana in the Sarada script from the Rajasthan Research Institute, Jodhpur (acquired from Jaisalmer) and also a palm-leaf Ms. of Locana in the Kannada script from the Jaina. Danasala Math, Mudabidre (South Kanara District, Karnataka State). I have utilized them also while fixing the text along with noting down the variants given by all previous editors. To facilitate reference, I have retained the designations 'ka', 'kha', 'ga' described and used first by the Nirnayasagar Press editors and 'gha', 'na', 'ca' and 'ta' used by Kuppuswami Sastri in his 1944 edition from Madras; my only additional abbreviations are : 'Ni' for Nirnayasagar edn., 'Ka' for Kashi Sanskrit Series edition with Bālapriyā and 'Ke' for Kuppuswami Sastri's edition from Madras; 'Kau' is the aboreviation for Kaumudī, also included in the last edition. Hence 1 am not giving my duplicate description of these here. I might add that generally my Kannada Ms. agrees with 'ga' of Nirnayasagar and my Jodhpur Ms. with 'gha' of Kuppuswami Sastri's edition. But no pains have been spared to record all variants in the text of the Locana published here, so that scholars are left. free to draw their own conclusions .* So far as the English translation is concerned, it remains for me to state that I have struggled hard to present the spirit rather than the letter of Abhinavagupta's argument. I have aimed at readability, lucidity and elegance in my rendering; and I can only hope and trust

• 'Locana'in Sanskrit has the double meaning of 'sight'(or eye) as well as insight (or insightful discussion).

x that I have attained at least some measure of success. But it is of course for readers to judge. Originally, my intention was to give the Sanskrit matter and English matter on pages facing each other as in my Dharwad edition of the Dhvanyāloka. But the unequal length of the two led to insuperable difficulties in the press, and we had to content ourselves with a running English translation following the Sanskrit text. Perhaps this might be of some help to general readers. Originally, I had thought of printing extracts from other fragmentary commentaries on the Locana also which I have with me; but one of them, Añjana, by one Dasarathi, ostensibly a Nambudiri Brahmin from Kerala of the 16th century, is like a dissertation on the deep philosophy embedded in the first verse of the Locana, and it is very casual and scrappy in its notes on other portions (the fragment extends only up to I. 4 of the text). The second is also far too brief and covers only a very small portion. Hence I dropped that idea; and I am giving here, instead, some select extracts from them which might be of some help to readers in providing a right perspective to Abhinavagupta's aesthetics in the light of Indian traditional scholarship. Before proceeding to do so, it remains for me to add that the anonymous commentary now published contains little which helps us to fix his name, place or date. We find him citing well;known passages from the sāstras of tarka, vyākaraņa and mīmāmsā, besides celebrated classical poets. He has also referred to Bhoja's grammar (p. 13) and Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka (p. 45), and to an untraced work on Musicology (p. 42). All that we can say with certainty is that he was not earlier than 1200 A.D. He has not quoted any late author or work. All this leaves us in the dark about his life and times. But his work, as already indicated, is a very valuable, dependable and scholarly aid in removing many a difficulty in our attempt to understand Abhinavagupta's Locana in the Indian milieu.

II NEW LIGHT ON 'LOCANA' IN THE LIGHT OF SOME UNPUBLISHED COMMENTARIES

The text of Abhinavagupta's Locana is so condensed and crammed with significance that often we are likely to mis- understand it in the absence of traditional explanations as recorded

xi and banded down to us in commentaries. I have been able to secure some two of these from Madras and Tirupati Oriental Mss. Libraries and below are set out a few specimens of the new light thrown on the most fundamental ideas in the very invocatory verse of the Locana; viz, apūrvam yad vastu prathayati vinā kāranakalām jagad grāvaprakhyam nijarasabharāt sārayati cal kramat prakhyopākhyaprasara-subhagarh bhāsyati yat T sarasvatyastattvam kavisahrdayakhyam vijayatel I The principal subject in the sentence is of course "sarasvātyāh- tattvam" and the predicate is 'vijayate'. What exactly does tattvam mean ? We should know Bhartrhari's Kärika -- ātmā vastu svabhāvaśca śarīram tattvamityapil dravyamityasya paryāyah tacca nityamiti sthitaml (Vākyapadīya, III. ii.1) to understand its right implication as 'essential nature'. It is qualified by the adjective Kavisahrdayākhyam. It looks rather puzzling. How is the essential nature of sarasvati or Vāk or Logos itself be equated with either the poet or the critic who are, after all, persons who may serve as media for the production of effective Väk, but who cannot be identified with Väk itself by any stretch of :magination. The three, namely, Kavi, sahrdaya and sarasvati or Väk - should be deemed different from one another. Such is the prima facie view or pūrvapakșa :-- nanu kavi-sahrdayayoḥ sarasvatyāśca bhedaḥ sarvatra prasiddhaḥ : yaduktam : "brahmāņdaketakīsande sahakārayuvā kaviḥl tadupaghnā jayatyekā mādhavīva sarasvatī"! I "vande kavīndravaktrendu-läsya-mandira-nartakīml devirh saktiparispanda-sundarābhinayojjvalām"1 I (Vakroktijīvita, I, 1) amunaiva cat hihitamabhinavabhāratyām :- "kavirapi svahrdayäyatana-satatodita-pratibhā- bhidhāna-paravāgdevatānugrahotthita - vicitrā- pūrva-nirmāņa-śakti-sālinah ... " iti. Evam. ohede prasiddhe kathamiyamabhedoktih ? It deserves to be noted here that in the Abhinavabharati text now available to us in print, this citation is not traceable. Anyway, what is the way out ? The answer proposed by one of these commentators is -

xii

uktādeva sambandhādupacārāsrayeņa; upacāraprayojanam tu vivecakairūhanīyam. "Our answer is simple. It is a loose or secondary usage which justifies the three being identified as they share common qualities. The purpose served by such a secondary usage may be easily imagined by sensitive critics." From the point of view of grammatical explanation, however, the same commentator adds :- iha kavi-sahṛdayaabdayostu svarūpamevā- bhidheyam, nārtharūpamapi; yathā gavitya- yamāhetyatra gośabdasya. śabdasvarūpameva hi ākhyā; kavi-sahrdayau = kavi-sahṛdayaśabdau ityākhye = samjñe yasya iti bahuvrihiḥ. This is indeed clinching and decisive. Kavi-sahrdayākhyamis a possessive or bahuvrihi compound. The words Kavi and sahrdaya do not connote their meanings; but only describe their verbal form; just as when we say - "He is shouting "gauh", we only refer to the sound uttered by the man and not its sense. The two symbols 'Kavi' and 'Sahrdaya' are given to the single principle of 'Vāk'. This removes the difficulty noticed. At this stage, one mnight urge from the perspective of Pratya- bhijña philosophy that Abhinavagupta himself has proved in that context that the real knower (pramāta) is non-distinct from the Supreme God (Iśvara) because the ultimate truth happens to be one absolute knowledge, illumining itself as well as all else. Extending the same reasoning to poetry here, he might possibly hold that Vāk, the ultimate Absolute, is truly identical with the poet and the critic :- nanu yathā anenaiva prasangāntare- pramātaiva . .. svātantrya - prakāśātmatayā tāvat bhāsate; tathā bhāsamānascāsāvisvara eva; tasyāpi tatsvabhāvatvāditi pramātu- rīśvarasya cābhedaḥ sādhitaḥ. Tathā nirūp- yamāņe sati kavi-sahrdayayoh sarasvati- tattvasya cābhedo mukhya eva, kim upacāreņa aparijñātaprayojanena ? This is indeed a major consideration which deserves more than a passing notice. Several scholars of repute like K.C. Pandey and Dr. Suntharlingam would like us to understand the aesthetic thought of Abhinavagupta only in the light of his metaphysics.

. xiii Indeed, I have great regard for their insights and in-depth studies. But the seminal question is whether poetry should be interpreted through the channel of philosophy. Now our old commentator has no doubt that the two are distinct disciplines and should not be mixed up. Poetry, admittedly, is an empirical experience (Vyavaha- ra); it should be interpreted only in terms of laukika or worldly criteria and not in terms of paramartha or ontological reality. He observes as follows :- tādrsesu sāstrėsu tadvyākhyāneșu ca paramārtha-drstyavastambhena tathocyatām; kāvyādişu tu laukikapratîtyanusāreņaiva vaktavyam. This serves as a well-sounded caution to modern interpreters also. A. still further objection may be raised to the interpretation suggested above, viz, that the terms 'Kavi' and 'sahrdaya' denote only their sound-form and do not connote the meanings concerned. 'Akhyä'in its root-sense can mean also 'sphurana' or apprehension in general. Therefore, both the poet and the critic can equally share in such poetic 'apprehension'. Therefore, we may take the wórds t.o convey tneir usual meanings in the expression 'Kavi-sahr- dayäkhyam' :- nanu kavi-sahrdaya sabdāvarthaparau, na svarūpaparau; kavi-sahṛdayayorākhyā "ābhīksņyena hi sarvo vaktā kaviņ" ityādi-nyāyāt vaktṛsāmnānyavailakșaņyena khyānam = sphuranam yasyeti vyadhikaraņo bahuvrīhiḥ, iti bheda eva vāstavo yojanīyaḥ. Similar far-fetched interpretations are possible, but not accept- able for the simple reason that ākhya cannot be interpreted in the sense of prakhya which alone is sphurana or apprehension in a flash :- Etadayuktameva, Ākhyāsabdasya prakhyā- sabdavat sphuraņārthatvādikalpanāyām asamarthatvādi-doșa-prasangāt. What exactly is the connotation of sarasvati in this verse ? Is it the goddess of speech in her para form or in other forms like paśyami, madhyanıā and vaikharī ? Apparently, parā seems to be the main intended sense, because Mahima Bhatta and others have expressly said so. We might compare his statement here - "Praņamya Mahimā parām vācam" at the beginning of his work;

xiv

and Ruyyaka's invocation, viz., "namaskṛtya parām vācam devīm trvidhavigrahām" at the commencement of his Alankārasarvasva. The. commentator agrees that this is intended all right by Abhinavagupta too in reference to convention; but he gives it a new relevance by relating it to both 'kavi'and 'sahrdaya'. At this point it might be urged that while speech is related to the poet directly, it is not related to the critic directly and hence their mention together is pointless :- nanu evamvidhe vișaye sarasvatyāḥ kavi-sambandhitvam kvacitsäksāducyate, kvacidarthādāyāti, na sahrdaya-sam - bandhitvam; tat kuto'tra sahrdaya-grahaņam ? The only justification one can offer is that without the critic's word of generous appreciation and explication, the word of the poet would remain ineffective and obscure. Further, the critic is no less a scholar than the poet himself. The poet's word will be like an old lack-lustre painting; it is the critic's word which makes it shine in newer colours by the touch of his artistic brush. It is because of the generous praise of critics that the poets attain popularity. Hence, both are equally important and relevant : "kaverapi vidagdho'sau sūktimudrā - vicārakaḥ" iti nayena, sahṛdaya - sarasvatī - krtopaskārā satī tūlikonmilita - citrakāyavat susampūrņaśobhā sampadyate. . . . kim ca kavi-sarasvatyāḥ khalu samvartitasya arthasya tadabhiprāyānurodhinā sahṛdayena vyākhyāne prasāraņāya vivartanā kriyate. This is the explanation offered when the terms 'kavi' and 'sahrdaya' are taken in their general sense. But the commentator suggests an alternative explanation too which is immediate and specific :- athavā kavisabdena tāvat sāmānyena kavaya uktāḥ. sahrdayasabdena tu sāmānyavācināpi sahrdayaviseșaḥ Ānandavardhanācāryo'tra vivakșitaḥ . .. kavisarasvati kāvyarūpā vyavadhānena prakrtatvāt samucitā. Ānandavardhanācārya- sarasvatī tu laksaņagrantharūpā sākșāt. While we may understand 'kavisarasvati' to mean the poetic speech of all poets in a general way, 'sahrdaya-sarasvati may be

XV taken in the restricted sense of Anandavardhana's sarasvati or the treatise Dhvanyaloka itself; since Abhinavagupta has left us in no doubt that he regarded Anandavardhana himself as a 'sahrdaya' par excellence (cf. sahrdayacakravarti khalvayam granthakāraḥ - Locana, p. 17). Even Anandavardhana has hinted at it (IV Uddyota, 17) in the remark - "sarasvatyaivaișā ghatayati yathestam bhagavatī". The very sirst phrase in the verse under discussion happens to be : "apūrvam vastu", One would usually take it to mean a fresh or novel subject chosen for treatment. But it is again a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premises we actually find in the text to follow. Vastu is not any restricted subject or theme, not just a padärtha, but it has a very comprehensive scope including the entire väkyärtha or purport of a whole sentence or work. The adjective apūrva ('unknown before') indeed is used to cover all creative products of a poet's genius, technically classed as kavipraudhokti- siddha. It does not exclude either subjects technically classed as 'naturally possible' (svataḥ-sambhavi) because the very nature of imagination is such that it endows a touch of novelty even to familiar things :-- vastuabdena padartha iva vākyārtho'pi vācyaḥ, yatha prativastūpamā ityādau. kim bahunā - praudhoktimātra - nișpanna - sarirah sarvo'pyarthah iha udāharaņī - karaņīyaḥ. kim ca utpādyam vastu svatahsambhavi-rūpamapi bhavati; yaduktam :" prasiddhyupajīvanī hi kalpanā vastusambhavānubhavamūlatvāt tasyāḥ". This reminds us of Aristotle's remark that the poet deals with probable im.possibilities rather than improbable possibilities. This is indeed a metalogic which explains best the magic of poetry, though paradoxical at first sight. The correlative terms prakhyā and upākhyä again require a clear exegesis. The word nirupäkhya is well known in Indian philosophy as a term for what is totally indescribable because it is utterly non-existent. Upākhya, its opposite should mean what is describable by words. The faminine form upākhyā can thus mean the process of description by means of words. Prakhyā also is a philosophical term found in yoga philosophy for an inner experience or consciousness. These are best explained in the commei.tary as self-illumination (prakhya) and 'illumination of

XV1 others' minds (upākhya) to suit the context of the world of poetry on the basis of Abhinavagupta's own usage elsewhere :- uktam hyamunaivānyatra-“tathāvidham rūpam prakhyopākhyākrameņa = svātma- parāvabhāsa- visayabhāva-jigamișayā viseşotkarşābhidhāyi jayatyādisabdānu- vedhena parāmarsanīyam" iti In fact, the word upākhyā here stands for the creative speech itself of the poet i.e. kavi-sarasvati as such. This is indeed a very subtle point which we are likely to miss ordinarily. In the poetic process, Upākhyā is not something external; since the act of poetic creation is itself upākhya, involving aesthetic word-usage. Abhinava himself makes this clear later on, while commenting on the definition of dhvani : sabdanam sabdaḥ = śabdavyāpāraḥ. Na cāsau abhidhādirūpaḥ, api tu ātmabhūtaḥ. In the light of this one should not mistake Upākhyā to be a function like connotation of the poet's language. On the other hand, it is poetic language itself which spontaneously accompanies his prakhyā or illumining experience of beauty :- atra ca upākhyā-padena kavi-sarasvatyāḥ svātmā grhyate, svayam sabda-rūpāyāstasyaḥ sabdāntara- vacanāsambhavāt. Yathāyameva vakșyati. The second commentator, however, offers an entirely different explication. He takes prakhyā as referring to the poet's cognition of beauty and upākhya as the perceptive comment thereon by the critic :- prakhyā = jñānam kaveḥ; upākhyā = sabdaḥ, sahrdayasya. Kaverhi apūrvārthadarsanar kavitvam; sahrdayasya catura-madhura - pravaktrtvam sahrdayatvam. However close this might be to the Western idea of the activities of the poet and the critic, it is not as revealing and profound as the first already noticed. I Kārikā : 'Kāvyasyātmā ... 1) ātmā means only the incontrovertible essential nature synonymous with its tattva or essential being; and not exactl: 'soul' : ātmā hyabādhitam svarūpam. Ataścātmasabdasya tattvaśabdenābādhitasvarūpavācinārthavivaraņam krtam.

xvii

2. The negativists (abhavavadins) denied only 'dhvani' and not the atman or essential core of poetry itself. Hence Kāvyasyātmā is to be taken as a two-word sentence. complete in sense : atra ca vakyam kāvyasyātmeti padadvayasvarüpameva; dhvanilaksaņo 'arthaḥ' ityasya tu na vākyāntarbhūtatvam, api tu tadbahirbhūtatvameva. Yo hi dhvanilaksano'rthaļ budhaih samāmnātapurvah iti sambandhaḥ. The term 'dhvani' here also relates only to the technical name, not its content : sabdasvarūpameva dhvanipadārthaņ, na tu pratipādyarūpo- 'rthopi. So alo is the term Bhäkta which apparently signifies secondary sense : "bhakterāgarc gauņo lākșaņikaśceti." Śabda iti seșaḥ. Yattu kenacidartha iti vvākhyānam krtam tadayuktameva. Kärikā I.6 :... pratibhāvišeșam. Locana : pratibhā = apūrvavastunirmāņakșamā prajñā. This is quite clear. But the next sentence is not. It reads : tasyā visesaḥ : rasāvesavaisadya-saundaryakāvyanirmāņakșamatvam. For 'vaisadya' we have also a variant 'vaisaradya'. Still, the clumsy syntax is not avoided in this most crucial definition of the poetic vision and its function. New light comes here only from the old Ms. of Locana preserved in Jodhpur Research Institute which reads vaivaśya in place of vaisadya. But the Locana-commentary seen in I. (5) above seems to add hrdya in between saundarya and kāvya which would completely remove the clumsiness : rasāvesa-vaivasya-saundarya-hrdyakāvyanirmāņaksamatvami. Someśvara's sanketa on Kāvyaprakäśa preserves the still better original reading, viz., rasāvesa - vaivaśya - sundara-kāvya-nirmāņaksamatvam (Ed. R.C. Parikh, Jodhpur, 1959, P. 4). (Tr .: The specific creat ve aspect we are concerned with is the ability of creating poetry which is beautiful because of the poet's complete self-surrender to the pressure of rasa).

III ABHINAVAGUPTA'S INTEGRAL VIEW OF AESTHETIC CONCEPTS It is well known that virtually all aesthetic concepts - Rasa,

xviii Guņa, Alankāra, Bandha and Vrtti - were familiar to all literary theorists from Bharata down to Jagannatha. Yet every writer has his own way of defining, classifying and illustrating them that leads to lopsided emphasis on one of them at the cost of the others. This was sought to be remedied by Anandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka. Yet how exactly it could integrate every concept into a unified whole philosophy of beauty in literature and art was left to be explained in the two major works of Abhinavagupta - the Locana and the Abhinavabhärati. Unfortunately, the misreadings in both these important contexts have impeded even our best scholars from getting at the crucial thought of Abhinavagupta. This study fixes correct readings in a few specimen passages of Abhinavagupta on the basis of unpublished manuscripts' testimonia and highlight how Abhinavagupta was a thinker who went beyond even Anandavardhana and Bhatta Nayaka in his aestheics and how he explained, for the first time, the precise part played by each of the aesthetic concepts in a given poem or play. Usually, we take for granted the meanings of key terms śabda, artha, bhāva, rasa, bandha, guņa, lakșaņa and alankāra without any serious thought about their deep implications or relative status. A close study of Abhinavagupta alone can bring clarity into our confused theorisings. Let us start with sabda. It is not mere sound; not even mere units of spoken language such as syllable, base, affix, word, phrase and sentence. It is these and something infinitely more in poetry. It is the whole poem which is heard by our outer ear in recitation or inner ear in silent reading. The poem is an essentially organised or patterned linguistic sound-symbol, vācya-vācaka-sammiśraḥ śabdā- tmā kāvyamiti vyapadeśyah .. dhvanirityuktaḥ as Ānandavardhana

Anandavardhana talks of all poetic language as Dhvani in his all would say .! If Bhartrhari can speak of sabda-brahman,

comprehensive aesthetics. In this sense only can poetic language be differentiated from other uses of language-the empirical and the scientif .: Ohvani thus is primarily kāvya-viseșa or śabda. Its differ- entia or étran is pradhāna-vyangyārtha. Let us now turn to artha. It is not dictionary meanings of particular words or even direct import of individual sentences or paragraphs or even whole works. The word artha does not mean

1. Dhvanyaioka, K5RI Edn., Madras, p. 244.

xix

'sente' or meaning as usually misunderstood. It means aesthetic value only as Ahhinavagupta rightly points out :-- koh kavatervā kavanīyam kāvyari; tatra ca padārtha-vākyārthav rase- şveva paryavasyatah ityasādhāraņyät pradhanyācca kāvyasyārthāh rasāh. arthyante prädhänyenetyarthah. na tvarthasabdo'ohidheyavācī, kim tu prayojanavācī.2 (Earlier editions read 'sa' instead of 'na'). This is also echoed by the Locana often. For example, while commenting on kavyirtha (Dhvanyāloka, 1. 7) Abhinavagupta states-kāvyasya tattvabhu- to yo'rti ah' and the Kaumudi clarifies it further as- iha sarvatra arthesabdo nābhidheyavacanah, svasabdabhidheyatvasya nirastatvāt; kim tu arthyate prad hanyena ityarthah, vācyasvarthasya tam prati sarvathā paryavasānāt.4 In this integral view, only rasa is kāvyārtha and kāvya is sabda intended by the poet to result in rasa. Such a creative use of śabda or dhvanana-vyápara indicates the genius of the poet (kavipratibha) on the one hand and the sensitive imagination of the reader (pratipattrpratibha) on the other, which can go beyond the reieren- tial meanings of a pcem :-- tacchaktitraya (= abhıidhā-laksaņā-tātparya-śakti- tiava) -- upajanita -- arthāvagamamūla - tatpratibhā- pavitrita -- pratipattrpratibhāsahaya -- arthadyotana- saktib čhvananavyāpārah.4 Thus understood, the evocative power of a poem itself becomes Dhvanana os Dhvani, a pewer sui generis to poetic langnage as such. The form of a poem is termed its sarira or body: and the unique value-content, viz. rasa its soul or ätman.

It is this focal point of rasa towards which all elements of formal heauy. viz. alantāra and guna converge. All aspects of poetic content like vastu also get their entry into the portals of poetry only to the extent they serve the end of rasa, first visualised

2. Abhinavabharati, G.O.S. Edn., Vol. I (2nd edn.) p. 343. 3. Locana and Kaumudi, KSRI., Edn., p. 172. 4. Ibid., p. 117.

xX by the poet at one end and intended to be actualised by the sah- rdaya at the other end. Rasa is aesthetic experience in leading to which the story, the characters, and style of a poem-all contribute in their own way. Therefore poetic content or artha, even when considered objectively, can only be enviaged in relation to rasa. Hence Abhinavagupta rightly regards all objective content of poe- try as coming under the category of vibhāvādi. Any object in the world of nature or in the world of a poet's imagination (even if it be non-existent in the hard world of reality), is grist to the miil of the poet if it partakes of the power to induce rasa in the reader by becoming vibhāva or stimulant, anubhāva or ensuant and vyabhicā- ribhāva or accessory of an emotional nucleus, which alone has the capacity to be transmuted into rasa. The poet's art of plot- construction and characterisation, as well as diction and style are determined thus by the singular norm of rasaucitya which is exclu- sively aesthetic and a-moral. Thus the scope of the term rasa, consi- dered cbjectively, is extended to include its semblances (ābhāsas) and variations in intensity (udaya, sānti) and adrnixtures (śabalatā) with other emotional shades as well. Emotions described may be either permanent ones (sthayi) or transitory (vyabhicāri). Both are bhavas because they are mental states described in poetry. The former alone are regarded as rasas proper, viz. śrigāra, the erotic, etc., while the latter are designated only as bhāvas. Though aes- thetic experience or rasa is such as an undifferentiated (akhaņda) experience of bliss within the heart of the reader, its visaya or referential counterpart in the poem, that is to say, the pivotal emo- tion around which all descriptions revolve as vibhāvādis, may include eight or nine distinguishable rasas and thirty-three distin- guishable bhāvas. In short, poetic content (kāvyārtha) is distin- guíshed from prosaic content (sāstrārtha) only by reason of its vibhā- vädi - artha converging to a rasa or bhāva which evokes aesthetic experience immediately in the sensitive reader. All this and much more is suggested by Abhinavagupta in the initial verse itself of his Locana .... apürvam yadvastu prathayati vinā kāraņakalām jagad grāvaprakhyam nijarasabharātsārayati ca kramůi prakhyopākhyāprasarasubhagam bhāsayati yat Sarasvatyāstattvam kavi-sahrdayākhyam vijayate. We are able to envisage the comprehensive significance of key- terms like śabda. artha, laksaņa, guņa, alankāra, dhvani, rasa, bhā- va, vastu and aucitya only because of Abhinavagupta's integral

xxi

approach to poetic theory as a systematic philosopher. Explaining Kāvya-bandha,5 he states that just as an engineer interested in build- ing a palace, starts by levelling the ground, designing the lay-out and goes on to raise walls, with room for windows etc., so too a poet's starting point in his work is selection of proper words and verse-forms, laksanas or interesting aspects of plot constitute the walls, gunas and alankāras serve as paintings decorating the wall, and literary genres are like lovely windows ete.6 He clearly mentions later on that the poetic process itself is variously termed by different theorists and bandha, gumpha, bhaniti, vakrokti, kavivyāpāra are all synonyms.7 We can easily see how riti is synonymous with bandha and dhvani with kavi-vyapara. Thus the seeming diversity of opinion among literary theorists is dispelled in Abhinavagupta's integral approach. His philosophy is spelt out by Abhinavagupta as follows :- yathā paramātmā svacaitanyaprakāsamatyajannapi dehakañcu- kocita-cittavrttirūpitamiva svarūpamādarsayati, . . preksaka- pakse na națābhimānaḥ, tatra ramabhimānaņ iti darsayati. tathā nato'pi. etadāsayenaiva asmābhih tatra vatra pratītireva vyākhyā- tā rasādhyāyadau.8 "Just as even God might choose to play the role of man, condi- tioned by mental states limited by the human body, without lesing his illumined self-awareness, so too an actor plays the role of char- acters without shedding his individuality. Thererore, throughout our exposition, we have interpreted rasa only as a pratiti or expe- rience of something as it appears : Art is an appearance or illusion which can lead to real bliss : that is the magic of rasa. Acting (abhinaya) in drama and description (varnana) in poetry are illu- sions devised skilfully to evoke self-experience of joy : abhinayanah hi cittavrttisādhāranatāpatti-prāna-sākșāt-kara- kalpa-achyavasāya-sampādanam.9 The secret of the alcherny of art-experience is unerringly high- lighted as sādhāranatāpatti. This is very often wrongly understood as generalisation or universalization by scholars. It is explained

5. Nātya-sāstra, XV. 227. 6. Abhinavabharati, G.O.S. Edn., Vol. II, p. 292. 7. Ibid., p. 322. 8. Abhinavabhārati, G.O.S. Edn. Vol. III, p. 124. 9. Ibid .. p. 150.

xxii pointedly as sādhāraņānyonyanupraveśa under XXXII.299 of Bha- rata's text which is indeed famous : pitā-putra-snușā-śvaśrū-drśyam yasmāttu nātakam; tasmādetāni sarvāņi varjanīyāni yatnataḥ. Kissing, embracing, sleeping, loosening of garments etc. are dis- allowed on the stage by Bharata because a play is an entertainment to be seen by a whole family including one's father, son, daughter- in-law, mother-in-law, etc. A spectacle whose rasa can be shared by one with every member of his family without embarrassment, is spoken of as having sādhāraņa-anyonyānupravesa or commonly shared entertainment. If in a scene, the elderly members or ladies cannot participate freely, one should take it as an instance of rasabhaga. tataśca raso bhajyeta.sa hi sādhāraņa-anyonyānupravesa-praņaḥ iti pratipadam vadāmah.10 It is indeed a mistake to think that either poets or critics are having identical tastes. The adage 'loko bhinnarucih' is true in the world of literature also. To satisfy equally the readers with diverse tastes, poets embody diverse rasas and bhāvas. As Bharata says-"na hye- karasajam kāvyam kimcidasti prayogataḥ, bhāvo vāpi raso vā- pi ... "." But the resultant joy or delight in the readers is common, though the factors that lead up to it might be different from reader to reader. It is this aspect of rasa as a common communal or social entertainment that is emphasized by the term sādhāraņīkaraņa. The stimulii of vibhāvādis in plays and poems are common to all spectators and readers. And hence the rasa arising from their contemplation also is felt as freed from personal feelings arising from locating it either as one's own, or another's, as a friend's or a foe's or a neutral person's, in any given time or place. The fear which is felt as rasa on listening to the verse grivābhangābhirā- mam ... in Sākuntala is fear, pure and simple, freed from all limita- tions of time, place, subject and object- asyām ca yo mrgapotakādirbhāti, tasya višeșarūpatvābhāvād ... bhayameva param deśakālādyanālingitam, tata eva bhito'ham bhīto'yam satrurvayasya madhyastho vā ityādipratyayebhyo duḥkha-sukhādi-krtahānādibuddhyantarodaya-niyamavattayā vighnabahulebhyo vilakșaņam .. 12 10. Ibid., p. 225. 11. Natyasastra, VII, 119. G.O.S. Edn., Vol. I, p. 379. 12. Abhinavabhārati. G.O.S. Edn., Vol. I, p. 279.

xxiii

The young deer is not a particular dee". It is a symbol of fear universal, irrespective of time, place, and circumstance, ma.i. bird and beast. This is another kind of sädharanikarana which is neither idealization nor generalisation in a reasoned manner. The emotion aesthetically contemplated and enjoyed as rasa is neither objective nor subjective but symbolic of the emosion of oneself as well as of all otbers seeing the same vibhāvādis. (svasambandhitvena anyasam- bandhitvena ca sādhāraņyāt pratītair abhivyaktībhūto väsanā- tmatayā sthitaņ sthāyi pānaka-rasa-nyāyena carvyamāņo .. rasarū- patāmapnoti .. 3 If it is not acceptable to a wide public, bu: appealing only to a microscopic minority at any given period, the poem or play may be deemed to be a failure. The secret of classical literary works is that they can appeal to large sections of cultivated readers, transcendirg the boundaries of time and place. The con- cept of anaucitya or rasadoșa is clearly pinpointed here. It follows as a corollary from the above that erhically offensive features and evil are to be located only in villains whose ultimate annihilation at the hands of heroes representing good, can be widely appreciated. This is one of the reasons for the absence of tragedy in Indian literature. Heroes may be of several kinds, udātta, uddhata, lalita, santa etc; but they all share the common quality of dhiratva or nobility. As Abhinava says :-- sarveşveva nāyakab hedesu dhīratvameva viseşaņatayoktam.14 He also gives for the first time the rationale behind the dictum that the ruling rasa in a major work must either be śrngāra or vira. He says- striņāmuttamatvam śrngārarasaparyantameva : purusāņāni to virarasaviśrāntam.15 The best in women is represented in love, while the best in men in their heroic exploits for achieving goals of national or universal importance. Hrdaya-samvāda or empathy is the term popularised by Abhinavagupta to explain aesthetic psychology, though it was already found in Bharata's text : yo'rtho hrdayasamvādi tasya bhāvo rasodbhavaḥ;

13. Cr. Rasārņavasudhākara, Ed., T. Venkatucarya, Acya:, Madras, 1979, p. 252. 14. Abhi: avabnarati, G.O.S. Edn. Vol. IlI, p. 153 15. Op. cit .. p. 153.

xxiv

sariram vyāpyate tena suşkam kāsthamivāgninā.16 Abhinava's commentary on this portion is lost : it is quoted by him in the Locana without any explanation. Fortunately, an unpub- lished commentary on the Locana cites here the explanation of Abhinavagupta presumably from his lost Abhinavabhārati. Many other citations herein expressly state the name of this source : though here it is just implicit : arthaḥ = vibhāvādirūpaņ. Hrdayasamvādi = hrdayatanmayi- bhavanasilaḥ ityarthaḥ. tasya bhāvaḥ = udayaņ, athavā bhāvo camatkāra rasodbhavaḥ = rasotpattisthāna - bhūtaḥ. Tena sarī- ram - arthāt srotuḥ vyāpyate, śroturhrdaya-vyāpti-pūrvakar śariramapi vyāpyate. Eka eva hi sarire pulakādyudayaḥ.17 The published commentary, Kaumudi also is similar : yo vibhāvādi - rupaḥ satkavi-varņanādhi - rūdho'rthaḥ. Hrdayasamvādi = hṛdaya - samvāda - vişayibhavana -- silaḥ. Tasya arthasya bhāvaḥ = nirmalahrdayamaņimukurasīmni samu- nmesaḥ : rasodbhavaḥ = rasotpattiheturbhavati. Tena ca tathā bhūtena arthena na kevalam hrdayameva vyāpyate : tadvyāpti- pūrvakam sariram vyāpnoti. Tatra kārtsnyena jhațityeva tadaikarūpyeņa ca vyāptau drstāntaḥ-"sușkam kāthamivāgninā" iti. Kāsțhameva ca vyāpyate, na silādikam : tena ca dārsțāntike ratyādivāsanāvirahitahrdayasya śrotriyādeņ sahrdayatvābhāvaḥ. suşkamiti kāvyānu-silanakrta-mano-vaisadya-sālitvam sūcitar. Agnineti guņālankārasambandha-saundarya-nibandhanam vibhāvat- vam darsitar.18 I have given this long extract because its exact meaning has been missed by modern translators of Bharata like the late Dr. Manmohan Ghose. His translation is- The psychological state proceeding from the thing which is con- genial to the heart, is the source of the sentiment and it pervades the body just as fire spreads over dry wood.19 It should have been The presence or contemplation of a vibhāva, capable of finding a

16. Nāțyasāstra, Vol. I, G.O.S. Edn., VII. 7. 17. Adyar Library Ms. No. 7471, Madras, p. 181. The author says he hails from Dasa- rathi-kula. 18. Dhvanyāloka, KSRI Edn., Madras, p. 78. 19. Natyasastra, Manisha Publications, II Edn., Calcutta. 1967.

XXV

ready echo in the responsive heart of a connoisseur, becomes an immediate stimulant of rasa or aesthetic experience. One's whole frame becornes suffused with it even like dry wood that has caught fire.

And it also shows how in Abhinavagupta's integral aesthetics, hrdayasamvāda or tanmayibhavana is an essential constituent of rasāsvāda. Incidentally, it dovetails deftly into this scheme the con- cepts of guna and alankära also, Those who think that Abhinava- gupta underrated traditionally recognised beauties of guna and alankāra are misinterpreting Abhinava. The term vibhava is semanti- cally related to the evoking of rasa; yet its occurrence in poetry is only by way of the language mediuni which is made poetic only by a proper use of gunas and alankaras. This patterned structure or poetry is called sanghatanā or racanā or bandha; and figurative turns that adorn vācaka-sabdas and vacyārthas are alankāras. That is why the vibhavas etc. are all regarded as alaukika or super- normal, in their structure as well as ènd-value of rasa. If the expe- rience (sarivedana) of rasa is not immediate, then they cease to be vibha- vādis. That is why rasādi is described as asamlaksyakrama-vyangya- ahvani.

The same anonymous commentator on the Locana gives another iong extract from Abhinavabharati on the arya describing virarasa in the Nātyasāstra, viz., utsāhadhyavasāyādavișāditvādavismayāmohāt *: vividhādarthaviseșādvira-raso nāma samohavati (VI. 67)

This portion is not traceable in the present printed edition : tatrāmunākrtam vyākhyānam :- arthyate ityarthaḥ (karmaņi ghañ) = dharmādi caturvargaḥ. Karmaņyutpattyaiva hi dharmä- dayah. paruşārthaḥ ityucyante, puruseņārthanīyatvāt. Artha- viesasya vividhatvam dharmādi-bhedāt. Tadayam arthaḥ : Vividham = dharmādirūpam arthamabhisandhāya avişāditvāt avismayā-sammohasceti dvandve ekavadbhāvah. Avismayādasa- mmohācca hetoryc'dhyavasāyo niscayaḥ sa cotsāhayati iti ņijantāt pacādyajantatvena vyutpattyā utsāhahetuḥ. Etaduktarı bhavati. Apadi hrdayasya nimagnatvam tatparavasatvam vișä- · ditvam. Svalpe'pi samtoso vismayah. Mithyājnanam mohaḥ. Etattrayamapāsya yastattvaniścayarupò'dhyavasāyaḥ sa utsā- hahetuḥ. Evam ca vişāditvāditrayāpāsanapūrvakamudbhūtena adhyavasāyena hetunā ya utsāha utpadyate sa vīra-raso nāma

xxvi i.i.20

How Abhinavagupta clearly integrated the pursuit of recognised life-values or puruārthas under vira-rasa; and how great literature was thus set in clear relation to life as inculcating right attitudes-covertly though - is self-evident in this extract. There are a number of such extracts untraceable in the present text of the Abhinavabhärati which I might highlight on another occasion. We said that only great literature combined this didac- tic purpose, because Abhinava clearly states that there are minor literary forms like bhāna whose goal is just popular entertain- ment (rañjanā-phala, Ibid. p. 67). Now I should like to conclude that Abhinavagupta is the fore- most thinker who integrates for the first time virtually all the dis- parate concepts of Indian poetics into a well-organised aesthetic philosophy. This aspect of his contribution has not received suffi- cient attention in modern studies of his idea of rasa in general and of sāntarasa in particular. This anonymous commentator's mouth- ful praise is worth quotation :- Eșa hi vyākhyātā Nārāyaņa ivāparimeya- saktisāli, mūlagrantham kşīrasāgaramiva gambhiram nijamatibalena mandareņeva nirinathya tatra nigūdhamarthaviseșam piyūsarasamiva sphuțam prakāsamānatāmānīya vibudhai -- rāsvādyamānam vidadhāti.21

20. Loc. cit. pp. 95-96. 21. Loc. cit. p. 204.

SANSKRIT TEXT

AND

COMMENTARY

अभिनवगुप्ताचार्यविरचितं धवन्यालोक-लोचनम् अपूर्वं यद्वस्तु प्रथयति विना कारणकलां जगद्ग्रावप्रख्यं निजरसभरात्सारयति! च।

ध्वन्यालोकलोचनव्याख्या

कारुण्यस्फुरणं चन्द्रकलापुष्पजटावनम्। समग्रमृगशाबाक्ष्याः सर्वस्योपरि वर्तते॥ को नामात्र परिच्छिन्द्याल्लोचनप्रसराशयम्। तदप्येकस्य दिङ्मात्रमभिव्यङ्क्तुमुपक्रमे।। अथामी श्रीमदभिनवगुप्ताचार्यपादा: ध्वनिग्रन्थव्याख्यानारम्भे मङ्गलमाचरन्ति॥ अपूर्व यद्धस्त्यित्यादिना। अत्र द्वितीये वाक्ये तृतीये च यहृत्तमनुषञ्जनीयं चशब्दस्तृतीये निवेशनीयः॥ "एको द्योतको बहुषु द्योत्येष्वन्त्ये" इति न्यायात् अन्त्यनिविष्टोञ्यमर्थात् पूर्वत्र संबध्यते यथा- "एकातपत्रं जगतः प्रभुत्वं नवं वयःकान्तमिदं वपुश्च।" इति॥ सरस्वत्यास्तत्कविसहृदयाख्यं तत्त्वं स्वरूपं विजयते; विजयतामिति वा पाठः। सरस्वतीतत्त्वं सर्वोत्कर्षेण वर्तत इति यावत्। जयतिरत्रोत्कर्षवचनः। अत एवाकर्मकत्वम्। स्तौति चाभिहितोत्कर्षोपपादनमुखेन। यत्कारणकलामु- पादानादिकारणकणिकामपि विना। अपूर्वं विधातृविहितनियमराहित्येनाभिनवमाश्चर्यभूतं वा। वस्तु प्रथयति, सृष्ट्वा विस्तारयति। 'कमलमनम्भसी' त्यादौ खल्वदृष्टपूर्व कमलादिपदार्थप्रथनम्। अयं प्रकारः कवे: प्रधानतया। सहृदयस्य त्वप्रधानतया। सहृदयोऽपि काव्यं भावयन्युक्तिबलात् कविनाप्य- दृष्टपूर्वानर्थान् प्रथयति"। यदुक्तम्- विरोधिवचसो म्कान् वागीशानपि कुर्वते। जडानप्यनुलोमार्थान् प्रवाचः कृतिनां गिरः॥ इति। अनेन कारणनियमसव्यपेक्षं जगत् सृजन्तं ब्रह्माणमपेक्ष्य सरस्वतीतत्त्वसृष्टेरुत्कर्षः प्रकाश्यते। यच्च निजरसभरात् निजमन:कुहरप्रदेशभरितरससरस्वद्वीचीसंप्लवाप्लावनेन ग्रायप्रख्यं नीरसतया प्रस्तर- प्रस्तारदेशीयं जगत्सारयतिं सारं करोति, सरसयतीति यावत्। 'अङ्गुलीभिरिव केशसञ्चयमि'त्यादौ निशाप्रारम्भादिकं शृंगारानुकूलतया सरसीकृतं भवति। एतदुभयो: समानम्। सहृदयोऽपि काव्यार्थाभिधाने पदार्थान् सरसीकरोति। अनेन च विरसजगद्विधायि- विध्यपेक्षया सरस्वतीतत्त्वस्य जगत्सारस्य विधायिनोऽतिशयः प्रद्योतितः।

1घ. सावयति.

3 क्रमात्प्रख्योपाख्याप्रसरसुभगं भासयति त- त्सरस्वत्यास्तत्त्वं कविसहृदयार्त्रं विजयते।।I

भट्टेन्दुराजचरणाब्जकृताधिवास हृद्यश्रुतो Sभिनवगुप्तपदाभिधोऽहम् 1 यत्किञ्चिदप्य नुरणन्स्फुटयामि काव्यालोकं रवलांचननियोजनया जनस्य ॥।

व्याख्यातृश्रोत्णा- मविघ्नेनाभीष्टव्याख्याश्रवणलक्षणफलसम्पत्तये समुचिताशी :प्रकटनद्वारेण5 एरमेश्वरसांभुख्यं करोति वृत्तिकार: स्वेच्छेति6॥ नधुरिपोर्नखा वो7 युष्मान् व्या- ख्यात श्रोत्न्६ त्रयन्ताम्। तेषामेव9 सम्बोधनयोग्यत्वात्। सम्बोधनसारो हि पुष्मदर्थः। त्राणं चाभीष्टलाभं प्रति 1साहायकाचरणम्; नच्च तत्प्रतिद्वन्द्विविघ्नापसरणादिना

करमादिति = यच्च पख्या ज्ञानं कवे: उपाख्या 'शब्दः सहृदयादुपाख्ये'त तस्य। कनेर्हि अपूर्वार्थदर्शन कवित्वम्, रुहृदयरच चतुरं मधुरं प्रवक्तृत्वं सहृदयत्वम्। अश्वः द्योरप्येते। प्रथमं प्रख्या, पश्चादुपाख्येति तयो- प्रसरेण सुभगं हृद्यमास्वाद्यं यथा भवति तथा प्रकाशयति। तदुक्तम्- स्वभावश्चाय र्थानां यत्न साक्षादमी तथा। स्वदन्ते सत्कविगिरां गता गोचरता यथा। (व्यक्तिविवेक:, 1.44) इति। अनेनापि स्वग्रहणव चनस्पृष्टस्य सौभाग्यविधानाकुशलो व्रस्मेति प्रकृततत्त्वस्य प्रकर्ष एवोक्तः। तत्र न केवलं सुभगत्वस्यैत्र प्रख्योपाख्याप्रसरोऽदेक्षितः। अपि तु प्रथनप्रसारणयोरपीत्यवसेयम्।। अत्र प्रथमेन वाक्येन यद्ृतं स्वलक्षणेनापूर्वनिर्माणं, द्वितीयेन पूर्वं सतः सरसत्वापादनं तृर्तीयेनोभयस्यापि हृद्यतया प्रकाशनमुक्तम्।। अथ चिकीर्षित प्रतिजानीते- भट्टेन्दुराजेति। अभिनवगुप्तपदाभिधोऽहं जनस्य श्रोतृजनस्य काव्यालोकं काव्यालोकनामानं ध्वनिलक्षणग्रन्थं स्फुटयामि अभिव्यक्ततवा विवृणोभि। यत्किज्चिद- नुरणन्नपि स्तोकं वदन्नपि। स्वलोचननियोजनया स्वबांधसमर्पणेन नेत्रनियोजनया। यथा प्रकाशं स्फुटयतीत्यप स्फुरति। भट्टेन्दुराजस्य परमगुरोश्चरणाब्जे कृते। योऽधियासः सुरभीकरणं तेन हृद्ं श्रुतं यस्य से तथा। "स्वयमव्युच्छिन्नपरमेश्वरेत्यादि-वृत्तिकार" इत्यनेन "स्वेच्छाकेसरी" इति पद्यं न सूत्रमिति दर्शयति। तथा वक्ष्यति- आदिमव/क्यमाहेति। कथमिव? मधुरिगेः नखा इत्यादि। कथं व इत्यनेन व्याख्यातृ श्रोतार: परामृश्येरन्नित्यत्र हेतुमाह-तेष्र- मेवेति। तेषां व्याख्यानृश्रोतृणां कथमत्र संबोधनप्रसङ् -; इत्याशङ्-क्याह-शम्बोधनसार इति। संबोधनसार: संबोधनाविनाभूतः। अथ यद्यपि त्राणमापदो विनिर्वतनं प्रसिद्धं तथापि प्रस्तावौचित्वेन

क.ल.ग.(नि) टिजयतात्. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) अविच्छिन्न. 3क.ग.'अपि' नारित. 4. श्रोतृणामपि अवि०. 5(कौ) द्वारा. 6(को) स्वेचछे ्याटिना. 7 ग.घ.ङ. (नि) 'वः इति नास्ति. 8(कौ) श्रोतृव्याख्गातृन्. १(कौ) अत्र. 10(को) फललाभं. 11क5.ख.(नि) साहाय्यकाचरणं.

4 भवतीति इयदत्र त्राणं विवक्षितम्। नित्ोद्योगिनश्च भगदतः 'असंमोहाध्यवसाय? योगित्वेनोत्साहप्रतीतेर्वीररसो ध्वन्यते। नखानां प्रहरणत्वे, प्रहरणेन च रक्षणे कर्तव्ये नखानामव्यतिरिक्तत्वेन करणत्वात्, सातिशयशक्तिता कर्तृत्वेन सूचिता। ध्वनितश्च परमेश्वरस्व व्यतिरिक्तकरणापेक्षाविरह:। मधुरिपोरित्यनेन तस्य सदैद जगत्त्रासापसारणोद्यम उक्तः। कीदृशस्य मधुरिपोः? स्वेच्छया केसरिण; न तु कर्मपारतन्त्र्येण, नाप्यन्यदीयेच्छया; अपितु विशिष्टदानवहननांचिततथाविधेच्छा- परिग्रहौचित्यादेव स्वीकृतसिंहरूपस्येत्यर्थः। कीदृशा नखाः? प्रपन्नानामाति ये छिन्दन्ति। नखानां हि छेदकत्वमुचितम्; आर्तेः पुनश्छेद्यत्वं नखान्प्रत्यसंभावनीयमपि तदीयानां नखाना स्वेच्छानिर्माणौचित्यात्संभाव्यत एवेति यावत्। अथवा त्रिजगत्तष्टको हिरण्य- कशिपुर्विश्वस्य क्लेशकार3 इति स एव वस्तुतः प्रपन्नानां भगवदेकशरणस्थितीनां जनानामार्तिकारित्वान्मूर्तैवार्तिः; तं विनाशयाद्भिरार्तिरेवोच्छिन्ना भवतीति परमेश्वरस्य तस्यामप्यवस्थायां परमकारुणिकत्वमुक्तम्। किं च ते नखाः किं 4गुणाः? स्वच्छेन स्वच्छतागुणेन नैर्मल्येन; स्वच्छमृदुप्रभृतयो हि मुख्यतया भाववृत्तय एव; स्वच्छायया च वक्रहृद्यरूपया आकृत्या आयासितः खेदित इन्दुयै:। अत्रार्थशक्तिमूलेन ध्वनिना

विवक्षितं त्राणं व्याचष्टे-त्राणं चेति। नित्योद्योगिन इति।असंमोहाध्यवसायादेरुत्साहस्संपद्यते। स प्रकृष्टो वीररस:। यदुक्तम्-

उत्साहभूरिति॥ (दशरूपकम्, IV. 73) ध्वन्यते अभिव्यज्यते। नखारां प्रहरणत्वेनेति। नखाः प्रहरणानि भवन्ति।। यदाह- अय:कुशीभि: कवयो न शस्त्रिणस्तलाश्च दन्ताश्च नखाश्च सन्ति नः॥ इति। ग्रहरणेन च रक्षणे कर्तव्ये इति। प्रहरणं खलु स्वस्य वा अन्यस्य वा रक्षणं कर्तुमुपारीयते। नखाः प्रहरणं भवति। प्रहरणेन च रक्षा कर्तव्या यतः तत इत्यर्थ:। अव्यतिरिक्तत्येन अबाह्यत्वेन आभ्यन्तरत्वेनेति यादत्। द्विविधं हि करणमाभ्यन्तरं बाह्यं च। बाह्यं प्रदीपादि। अन्यच्चक्षुरादि। कर्तृत्वेनेति। नखा इति करणे कर्तृत्वोपचाराद्। ध्वनितश्चेति। व्यतिरिक्तकरणं बाह्यकरणं खड्गादिकम्। मधुरिपोरिति। मधुरिपुशब्दस्तावत् संज्ञिनं धर्मिणमभिदधाति। व्यनक्ति च सदातनं जगत्त्रासापंसारणोद्यमम्। विशिष्टेति। अतिवेलं जगदुपद्रवकारित्वात् सद्योतिदारुणं निहन्तव्यत्वविशिष्टम्। आतें: पुनरित्यादि स्वेच्छानिर्माणौचित्यात् स्वेच्छया निर्माणे आर्तिच्छेदकशक्तिनिर्माणे योग्यत्वात् सामर्थ्यात्। अथवेत्यादि। तस्यामप्यवस्थायां नखविदारणेन हननावस्थाय।मपि कारुणिकत आर्तिमेव छिन्दन्ति न तु कश्चित् प्राणिनमिति। किं चेत्यादि भाववृत्तयः धर्मप्रधानाः आक्षपात्तु द्रव्ये

1(नि) संमोह. 2(नि) प्रति. 3(कौ) क्लेशकारक. 4(कौ) किंगुणाः.

5 बालचन्दत्वं धन्यते। आयासनेन तत्सन्निधौ चन्द्रस्य विच्छायत्वप्रतीतिरहृद्यत्वप्रतीतिश्च छन्यते; 'आयासकारित्वं य नखानां सुप्रसिद्धम्; नरहरिनखानां तच्च लोकोत्तरेण रूपेण प्रतिपाटेलम्। कि च तदीयां स्वच्छतां कुटिलिमानं चादलोकय बालचन्द्रः स्वात्माने खेदमनुभवाते-तुत्येपि स्वच्छकुटिलाकारयोगे अमी प्रपन्नार्तिनिवारणकुशला: न त्वहम्-इति व तिरेकालङ्कारो ध्वनितः2। किं चाहं पूर्वमेक एवासाधारणवैशद्यह्धाकार- योगात्समस्तजनाभि उघणीयताभाजनमभूकम्, अद्य पुनरेवंविधा नखा दश बालचन्दराकाराः संतापार्तिच्छेदकुशताश्चेति तानेव3 लोको बालेन्दुबहुमानेन पश्यति, न तु भामित्याकल यन्बालन्दुरविरतमायासमनुभवतीवेत्युत्प्रेक्षापह्नुतिध्वनिरपि। एवं वत्स्वलंकार- रसभेदेन त्रिधा ध्वनिरत्र श्लोके अस्मद्गुरुभिर्व्याख्यातः।। अथ प्राधान्येनाभिधेयस्वरूपमभिदधत्, अप्रधानतया प्रयोजनप्रयोजनम्, 1.1 तत्तम्बद्धं4 पयोजनं च सामर्थ्यात् प्रकटयन् आदिवाक्यमाह काव्यस्थात्मेति। काव्य, मशब्दसनि धानाद्बुधशब्दोऽत्र कात्यात्मावबोधनिमित्तक इत्यनिप्रायण विवृणोति काव्यतत्यविद्भिरिति। आत्मशव्दम्य तत्त्वशब्देनार्थं विवृण्वानः सारत्वमपरशब्द- वैलक्षण्यकारित्वं च दर्शयति। इतिशब्द: स्वरूपपरत्वं ध्वनिशब्दस्याचष्टे। तदर्थस्य विवादास्पशेभूततया-निश्चय भावेनार्थत्वायोगात्। एर्ताद्विवृणोति-संज्ञित इति।।

वर्तन्ते शुक्ल दिवत्। बालचन्द्रचं नखानामित्थर्थात् प्रकरणद्वा। आयासकारितयं चेत्यादि। लोकोत्तरण रूपेण निर्मलवद हृद्यकित्या। तुल्येऽपीत्यादि। नैर्मल्यादिगुणराधर्म्येऽपि नखानामुपमेयानामुपमानत् बालचन्द्रात् Vपन्नार्तिच्छित्त्वमाधिक्यमस्तीति व्यतिरेकालद्कारः। वहं पूर्वकित्यादि। उत्प्रेक्षापट्नुतिरिति। उत्प्रेक्षाया अपह्नुतिः उत्प्रेक्षार्था वा अपह्नुतिर्शि: याव्रत्। बालेन्दुरवि तमायासमनुभवतीदेत्युत्प्रेक्षा या विशिष्टाकलनं कारणम्। तच्च तानेव लोको बालेन्दु- बहुमनेन पयति न भामित्यंवं रूपम्। तत्र हि स्पष्टा अपहनुतिः। लोकदृष्ट्या नायं बालेन्दुः, नखा एव बालेन्दव इति प्रतिभासात्, न नखा एते, किं तर्हि बालेन्दद इति वा प्रतीतिः। सवंथा सापह्नुतिरुत्प्रेक्षा समुत्थापनीया। अयेत्यादि। ध्वनिस्वरूपं प्रधानतया अभिघेयम्। रूहृदयभन: प्रीतिरूपं प्रयोज नप्रयोजनमप्रधानम, तत्संबद्धं प्रयोजनं प्रयोज नसंबद्धं प्रयोजनम्। मुख्यप्रयोजनम् ध्वनिस्वरूपज्ञानात्मकं, पयोजनप्रयोजनस्य प्रयोजनपूर्वकत्वाट्। सहृदयभनःप्रीलय इति शाब्दत्वात प्योजनप्रयोजनस्याश्धान्यभुच्यतेः आर्थत्वात् प्रयोजनस्याप्राधान्यम्॥। वस्तुतः्तु ध्वनिस्वरूपकटनस्य ध्वनिस्वरूपपरिज्ञानं मुख्यं प्रयोजनम्। तस्य प्रीजनं मन :- ममाहलाद:॥ अथ संग्रहविदरणयोरुभयोरपि यथायोंगं युग1देव व्याख्यानं चिकीर्षन्नाह-कामाल् शब्दसन्निधानादित्यादिना। अप रशब्दवेलक्षण्यकारित्वं जीवितादिशब्दमेदकारित्वं, जीवतादिशब्दादात्मशब्द एवास्य वाचक

1(को) आयासन. 2क.ख.घ.ङ.त.(नि) ध्वनिः, 3ग.(नि) एवं. 4(कौ) तत्सम्बन्धं च. 5(को) निमित्त.

6 वस्तुतस्तु न तत्संज्ञामात्रेणोक्तम्। अपि त्वस्त्येव ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यं प्रत्युत समस्तसारभूतम्। न ह्यन्यथा बुधास्तादृशमामनेयुरित्यभिप्रायेण विवृणोति-तस्य सहृदयेत्यादिना। एवं तु युक्ततरम्- इतिशब्दो भिन्नक्रमो वाक्यार्थपरामर्शकः; ध्वनिलक्षणोऽर्थः काव्यस्यात्मेति यः समाम्नात इति। शब्दपदार्थकत्वे हि ध्वनिसंज्ञितोऽर्थ इति का सङ्गतिः? एवं हि ध्वनिशब्द: काव्यस्यात्मेत्युक्तं भवेत्, 'गवित्ययमाह' इति यथा। न च विप्रतिपत्तिस्थानम- सदेव, प्रत्युत सत्येव धर्मिणि धर्ममात्रकृता विप्रतिपत्तिः- इत्यलम्1 अप्रस्तुतेन भूयसा सहृदयजनोद्वेजनेन। बुधस्यैकस्य प्रामादिकमपि तथाभिधानं स्यात्, न तु भूयसां तद्युक्तम्। तेन बुधैरिति बहुवचनम्। 2तदेव व्याचष्टे-परम्परयेति॥ अविच्छिन्नेन प्रवाहेण तैरेतदुक्तम्, विनापि विशिष्टपुस्तक3 निवेशनादित्यभिप्रायः। न च बुधा भूयांसोSनादरणीयं वस्त्वादरेणोपदिशेयुः। एतच्चादरेणोपदिष्टम्। तदाह-सम्यगाम्नातपूर्व इति॥ पूर्वग्रहणेनेदं- प्रथमता नात्र सम्भाव्यत इत्याह। व्याचष्टे च सम्यक् आ समन्ताद्म्नातः4 प्रकटित इत्यनेन ॥ तस्ेति॥ यस्याधिगमाय प्रत्युत यतनीयं का 5तत्राभावसम्भावना? अतः किं कुर्मः? अपारं मौर्ख्यमभाववादिनामिति भाव:। न चास्माभिरभाववादिनां विकल्पाः श्रुता :; किं तु सम्भाव्य दूष्यन्ते; अतः परोक्षत्वम्। न च भविष्यद्वस्तु दूषयितुं युक्तम्6। अनुपपन्नत्वादेव। तदपि बुद्ध्यारोपितं दूषयिष्यत7 इति चेत्, बुद्ध्यारोपितत्वादेव भविष्यत्त्वहानि:। अतो भूतकालोन्मेषा8त्पारोक्ष्याद्विशिष्टाद्यतनत्वप्रतिभानाच्च लिट्१- प्रयोग: कृतः-जगदुरिति॥ तद्व्याख्यानायैव सम्भाव्यदूषणं प्रकटयिष्यति। सम्भावनापि

उत्कृष्टतया युक्त इति। इति शब्द इत्यादि यथा दिलीप इतीत्यत्र। एवं तु युक्ततरमिति। एवं ध्वनिशब्दस्यार्थपरत्वं स्वस्वरूपपरत्वाद्युक्ततरमित्यर्थः॥ एतदेव स्फृटयति-इतिशब्दो। भिन्नक्रम इत्यादिना। एवं पुनरत्र इतिशब्दस्य स्वरूपपरत्वाभिसन्धिना ध्वनिसंज्ञित इति विवरणं कृतमिति परिकल्पन न युक्तमित्याह- शब्दपदार्थकत्ये हीत्यादि। तेन बुधैरिति बहुवचनमिति सूत्रगतबुधशब्दार्थनिरूपणं तत्स्थिरीकरणार्थम्। तदेव व्याचष्टे परम्परयेति विवरणप्रदर्शनम्। एतच्चादरेणोपदिष्टमित्यत्र संवादतया सम्यगाम्नातपूर्व इति संग्रहग्रहणम्। तत्र दर्शितपूर्वग्रहणाभिप्रायप्रसाधनार्थं विवरणं प्रदर्शयति-व्याचष्टे चेत्यादिना- तत्रैव तस्य सम्यगाम्नातः प्रकटित इति व्याख्यानं कृतम्। संभाव्य दूष्यन्त इति। एवं ब्रूयुरिति संभाव्य दूष्यन्ते। यदप्युक्तमित्यादिना अनुभाष्य तदप्ययुक्तमित्यादियुक्तिबलेन खण्ड्यन्ते, अतः परोक्षतेति। अतः संभावनया बुद्ध्यारोपितत्यादेव भविष्यत्वहानिरिति। बुद्ध्यारोपितमिति खलु ब्रूषे, न तु बुद्धावारोपयिष्यमाणमिति आरोप्यमाणमिति वा, अतो निष्ठाप्रत्ययवशात् भूतत्वमेवेत्यर्थः। विशिष्टाद्यतनत्वं बहिः सत्ताविशिष्टाद्यतनत्वम्। तत््याख्यानायैव संभाव्य दूषणं

1(को) अतिविस्तरेण. 2क.ख. एतदेव. 3 क.ख. (का) पुस्तकेषु विनिवेश०. 4क.र. समाख्यातः सम्यगासमन्तात् ख्यातः. 5क.ख. तत्रासम्भावना. 6क.ख.ग. शक्यम्. 7क.ख. दूष्णते. 8क.ख.ग. परोक्ष. 9क.ख.ग. लिटा प्रयोगः.

7 नेयमसम्भवतो पुक्ता, अपि तु सम्भवत एव। अन्यथा सम्भावनानामपर्यवसान स्यात्, 'तदूषणा नां च। अतः सम्भावनामभि2धायिष्यमाणां समर्थयितुं पूर्वं 3सम्भवन्ती- त्याह। सम्भाव्यन्त इति तूच्यमानं पुनरुक्तार्थभेव स्यात्। न च सम्भवस्या सम्भावना4, अपि तु सा वतमानतैव स्फुटेति वर्तमानेनैव निर्देशः। 'ननु सम्भवद्वस्तुभूलया सम्भावनया यत्सम्भावितं तद्दृ षयितुमशक्यमित्याशङ्कयाह-विकल्पा इति॥ न तु वस्तु सम्भवति तादृक् यत इयं सम्भावना।अपितु विकल्पा एव। ते च तत्त्वावबोधवन्ध्यतया स्फुंरयुरपि। अत एव 'आचक्षीरन्' इत्यादयोऽत्र सम्भावनाविषया लिङ्त्रयोगा अतीतपरमार्थत्व एव पर्यवस्यन्ति। यथा --

'यदि नामास्य कायस्ट यदन्तस्तद्बहिर्भवेत् दण्डमादाय लोकोडयं शुन : काकांश्च वारवेत् ।।'

इत्यत्रार्थाद्यधेवं का यत्य दुष्टता स्यात्तदैवमवलोक्येतेत भूतप्राणतैव। यदि नस्यात्ततः किं स्यादित्यत्रापि किं वृत्तम्, यदि 7पूर्ववत्र भवनस्य सम्भावनेत्ययमेवार्थः; इत्यलम- प्रकृतेन बहुना।। तत्र समयापेक्षणेन शब्दोर्ऽर्थप्रतिपादक इति कृत्वा वाच्यव्यतिरिक्तं नास्ति व्यङ्ग्यम्। सदपि वा तदभिधावृत्त्याक्षिप्तं8 शब्दावगतार्थबलाकृष्टत्वाद्भाक्तम्। तदनाक्षिप्तमपि दा न वक्तुं शक्यम्, कुमारीष्विव भर्तृसुखमतद्वित्सु इति त्रय एवैते प्रकटयिष्यतीति। तद्व्याख्यानायैत् जगदुरिति सूत्रपदव्याख्यानायैव दूषणम्। तत्र कोचिदाचक्षीरनिनित्णा.दि परमतं प्रकटायेष्यतीति। वृत्तिकृदिति शेषः। अतः संभातन/मित्यादि। आचक्षीरन् ब्रूयुः, कथयेयुरिति संभाव नैवाभिधास्यते। समर्थयितुमिति। यत्संभवति तत्संभाव्यत इति व्याप्त्या समर्थनम्। संभाव्यन्त इति तूच्यमानमिति। संभावनास्संभाव्यन्त इति हि पुनरुक्तम्। न च संभवस्यासंभावनेति। केवलं संभवस्यासंभावना। नेत्येवेत्यर्थः। अपि त्वित्यादि। वर्तमानतैवापीत्यर्थः। ननु संभवदित्यादि। संभावितं सांभवद्वस्त्वेवेत्यर्थः। विकल्पाः वस्तुशून्यःप्रत्ययाः न तु भेदाः। न तु वस्त्यित्यादिना विकल्पशब्दार्थं विवृणोति। "शब्दानुपाती वस्तुसून्य:प्रत्ययो विकल्पः" एतदुक्तं भवति -- अत्र विकल्पा एव संभाव्यन्ते, न ग्रहणं स्मरणं वा। एते वस्तुस्पर्शिनी भवतः। विकलास्तु वरतुरहिता एव स्युः। तेषां संभावनायां कथं तद्विषयो वस्तु संभवतीति। तर्हि कथं संभावनाथास्संभवद्वस्त्वमूलत्वभुक्तमिति चेत्, विकल्पाः स्वयं संभवलीति कृत्वोक्तम्। तेषां विष्रयभूतं वस्तु नास्तीत्येवोच्यते॥ यदि नामेत्यादि। अथ सामान्येनाभाववादस्य भाक्तवादस्यानिर्वचनीयवादस्य च स्वरूपं प्रकाशयति-तत्र समयापेक्षणेने यादिना।।

1क.ख.ग. 'तत्' गास्ति. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) सम्भावनानांमभिधायिष्यमाणानाम्. 3ग.घ.(नि) सम्भवति. 4(नि) सम्भवस्थ, घ.च. सम्भवस्यासम्मावना. 5क.ख.(नि) नन्वसम्भव. (नि) काव्यस्. 7क.ख.(नि) यदि न पूर्व भवनस्य. 8 अभिधा्िणम्.

8 प्रधानविप्रतिपत्तिप्रकाराः। तत्राभावविकल्पस्य त्रयः प्रकाराः। शब्दार्थगुणालङ्काराणामेव शब्दार्थशोभाकारित्वाल्लोकशास्त्रातिरिक्तसुन्दरशब्दार्थमयस्य काव्यस्य न शोभाहेतुः कश्चिदन्योऽस्ति योऽस्माभिर्न गणित इत्येक: प्रकारः। यो वा न1गणितः स शोभाकार्येव न1 भवतीति द्वितीयः प्रकारः। अथ शोभाकारी भवति तर्हि अस्मदुक्त एव गुणे वा अलङ्कारे वा अन्तर्भवति; नामान्तरकरणे तु किर्यादेदं पाण्डित्यम् ; अथापि गुणेष्वलङ्कारेषु वा 2नान्तर्भाव:, कि्चिद्विशेषलेशमाश्रित्य नामान्तरकरणम्, उपमा- विच्छित्तिप्रकाराणामसंख्यत्वात्; तथापि गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्तत्वाभाव एव; तावन्मात्रेण च किं कृतम्3, अन्यस्यापि वैचित्र्यस्य शक्योत्प्रेक्षत्वात्। चिरन्तनैर्हि भरत- मुनिप्रभृतिभिर्यमकोपमे शब्दार्थालंकारत्वेनेष्टे तत्प्रपञ्चदिक्प्रदर्शनं त्वन्यैरलंकारकारैः कृतम्; तत्र यथा 'कर्मण्यण्' इत्यत्र कुम्भकाराद्युदाहरणं श्रुत्वा स्वयं नगरकारादिशब्दा उत्प्रेक्ष्यन्ते; तावता क आत्मनि बहुमानः? एवं प्रकृतेऽपीति तृतीयः प्रकारः। एवमेकस्त्रिधा विकल्पः अन्यौ च द्वौ इति पञ्च विकल्पा इति तात्पर्यार्थः। तानेव क्रमेणाह-शब्दार्थशरीरं तावदित्यादिना।। तावद्ग्रहणे कस्याप्यत्र न विप्रतिपत्तिरिति दर्शयति॥ तत्र शब्दार्थौ4 तावन्न ध्वनिः। संज्ञामात्रे हि को गुणः। अथ शब्दार्थयोर्यतश्चारुत्वं स ध्वनिः, तथापि द्विविधं चारुत्वम्-स्वरूपमात्रकृतं चारुत्वं शब्दालंकारेभ्यः, संघटनाश्रितं तु शब्दगुणेभ्य; एवमर्थानां चारुत्वं स्वरूपमात्रनिष्ठमुपमादिभ्यः संघटनापर्यवसितं त्वर्थगुणेभ्य इति न गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्तो ध्वनिः कश्चित्। संघटनाधर्मा इति। शब्दर्थयोरिति शेषः। यद्गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्तं तच्चारुत्वकारि न भवति, नित्यानित्यदोषा असाधुदुःश्रवादय इव। चारुत्वहेतुश्च ध्वनिः। तन्न तद्व्यतिरिक्त इति व्यतिरेकी हेतुः। ननु वृत्तयो रीतयश्च यथा गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्ताश्चारुत्वहेतवश्च तथा ध्वनिरपि तद्व्यतिरिक्तश्च चारुत्वहेतुश्च भविष्यतीत्यसिद्धो व्यतिरेक इत्यनेनाभिप्रायेणाह- तदनतिरिक्तवृत्तय

अथाभावविकल्पस्य त्रिप्रकारत्वं तत्तात्पर्यं च पर्यालोचयति- तत्राभावविकल्पस्येत्यादिना। अथवा ध्वनिगादिनोऽपि नात्र विमतिरित्याशयेनेदमुच्यते इत्यभिप्रायेण प्रतीकमुपादत्ते- शब्दार्थशरीरं तावदित्यादिनेति। इह विधेयमेव वक्तव्यं न व्यावर्त्यं, अनाशङ्कनीयत्वादित्याशयेनेदं पदमुक्तमित्यभिप्तन्धिनाह- तत्रेति- शब्दगुणा माधुर्यादयः अर्थगुणाश्च त एवोभयेऽपि वामनोक्ता अत्र गृह्यन्ते। अभिहितेऽर्थे सौगतनीत्या व्यतिरेक्यनुमानमाह-यद्गुणालङ्कारेत्यादि। अथ विवरणकाराभिप्रायेणोक्तानुमानस्या-

1'यो वा न गणितः' इत्यञ्जनानुसारीपाठः. 2(नि) वान्तर्भावः. 3क.ख.ङ. (नि) कृत्यम्. 4क.ख.ग.ङ .. च.(नि) शब्दार्थो. 5 क.ग.घ.(नि) 'यत' नास्ति.

9 इति।। नैव वृतिरीतीनां तद्वयतिरिक्तत्वमसिद्धम। तथा हि- अनुप्रासानामेव दीप्तमसृणमध्यमवर्णनीयोपयोगितया परुषत्चललितत्वमध्यमत्वस्वरूपविवेचनाय वर्ग- त्रयसम्पादनार्थं तिस्रोऽनुप्रारुजातयो वृत्तय इत्युत्ता:, 'वर्तन्ते अनुप्रासभेदा आसु' इति। यदाह- "सरूपव्यञ्जनन्यासं तिसृष्वेतासु वृत्तिषु। पृथक् पृथगनुप्रासमुशन्ति कवयस्तथा॥" इति। पृथक् पृथगिति। परुषानुप्रासा 'नागरिका; मसृणा2नुप्रासा उपनागरिका, ललित- नागरिकया विदधया उपमितेति कृत्वा; मध्यमं अकोमलम् अपरुषमित्यर्थः। अत एव वैदग्ध्यविहीनस्वभावसु कुमारापरुषग्राम्यवनितासादृश्यादियं वृत्तिर्ग्राम्येति। तत्र तृतीयः कोमलानुपरास :- इति वृत्तयोऽनुप्रासजातय एव। न चेह वैशेषिकवद्वृत्तिर्विवाक्षिता, येन जातौ जातिमतो वर्तनं न स्यात्; तदनुग्रह एव हि तत्र, वर्तमानत्वम्। यदा3ह कश्चित्- "लोकोत्तर हि गाम्भीर्ये वर्तन्ते पृथिवीभुजः" इति। तस्माहृत्तयोऽनुप्रासेभ्यो4 ज्नतिरिक्तवृत्तय: अत एव व्यापारभेदाभावान पृथगनुमेय5 स्वरूपा अपीति वृत्तिशब्दस्य व्यापारवाचिनोSभिप्रायः।

सिद्धत्वमाशंक्य परिहर्तुमाह- नैवेत्यादित्व्यतिरिक्तत्वमसिद्धमिति गुणालङ्कारख्यतिरिक्तत्वं, गुणा माधुयांदय:, अलङ्कारा अनुप्रासादयः इत्युक्तम्। प्रतिज्ञातमुफ्पादयति- तथा हीत्यादिना। अनुप्रासानामेय दीप्तम सृणमध्यमवर्णनीयोपयोगिलया परुषललितमध्यमभेदेन त्रयोऽनुप्रासाः। तत्र दीप्तैर्वणैरारः परुषानुप्रासः, मसृणैर्ललितः, मध्यमैर्मध्यमः, इत्यस्ति प्रदर्शनीयो नियमः। तादृश- नियमार्थतया तेषां स्वरूपविभागप्रदर्शनाय यद्वर्मत्रयरांपादनं वर्गत्रयसंपादनं वा। पातभेदेन, तदर्थगनुप्रासजातयः अनुपासभेदाः वृत्तित्वेनोक्ता इत्यर्थः॥ सरपेत्थादि। सरूपभूतो व्यञ्जनन्यासो यत्र तं एतासु नागरिकोपनागरिकाग्राम्यासु। परुषानुप्रासे नागरिका तृत्तिः। मसृणानुप्रासे उपनागरिका। मध्यमानुप्रासे ग्राम्या। तत्र प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमाह- नागरिकयेति, मध्यममकोनलमपरुगमिति। ये दीप्ताश्च मसृणाश्च न भवन्ति तैरारब्धो नध्यमानुप्रास इत्यर्थ:। निगमयति-वृत्तयोSनुप्रासःतय एवेति॥ ननु अनुप्रासजातय एव वृत्तयः। तास्व्नुप्रासा वर्तन्ते। तज्जातौ जातिमद्वर्तत इति स्यात्। नैतद्युक्त वैपरीत्यस्योपपत्तेः। एतदेवोपपदार्थविदामभिमतमित्यत्राह- न चेहेत्यादि। वैशेषिकैस्तावज्जातिमति जातेर्वृत्तिरुच्यते। सा तु नात्र दिवक्षिता। तदा खलु वृत्तिषु अनुप्रास्तानां वृत्तिर्न जाधटीतीति। किं तर्हि अनुग्रइरूपेयं विर्वा्षितेत्यर्थः। वृत्तिरनुग्राहिका। तस्माहवत्तय इत्यादि। वृत्तीनां न पृथगव्यागारः स्वयमेव वृत्तयो व्यापारा इत्यर्थ:।

1ग.(नि) परुंषानुप्राग :. 2ग.(नि) मसृणानुप्राराः. 3क.ख.ग.घ.(नि) गथाह. 4क.ख.घ.च.(का) अनुप्रासादिभ्यः. 5(कौ)म. :गभिधेय०.

10 अनतिरिक्तत्वादेव वृत्तिव्यवहारो भामहादिभिर्न कृतः। उद्भटादिभिः प्रयुक्त्ेऽपि तस्मिन्नार्थ: कश्चिदधिको हृदयपथमवतीर्ण इत्यभिप्रायेणाह- गताः श्रवणगोचरमिति। रीतयश्चेति। तदनतिरिक्तवृत्तयोऽपि गताः श्रवणगोचरमिति सम्बन्धः। तच्छब्देनात्र माधुर्यादयो गुणाः। तेषां च 1 समुचितवृत्त्यर्पणे यदन्योन्यमेलनक्षमत्वेन पानक इव गुडमरिचादिरसानां संघातरूपतागमनं दीप्तललितमध्यमवर्णनीयविषयं नौडवैदर्भ- पाञ्चालदेशहेवाकप्राचुर्यदृशा तदेव त्रिविधं रीतिरित्युक्तम्। जातिर्जातिमतो नान्या समुदायश्च समुदायिनो नान्य इति वृत्तिरोतयो न गुणालंकारव्यतिरेक्ता इति स्थित एवासौ व्यतिरेकी हेतुः। तदाह- कोऽ्यं ध्वनिरिति॥ नैष चारुत्वस्थानम्, शब्दार्थरूपत्वाभावात् ; नापि चारुत्वहेतुः, गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्तत्वात्। तेनाखण्डबुद्धिसमास्वाद्यमपि काव्यमपोद्धारबुद्ध्या यदि विभज्यते तथाप्यत्र ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यो न कश्चिदतिरिक्तोऽर्थो लभ्यत इति नामशब्देनाह॥ ननु मा भूदसौ शब्दार्थस्वभाव:, मा च भूत्तच्चारुत्वहेतुः; तेन गुणालंकारव्यति- रिक्तोऽसौ स्यादित्याशङ्कय द्वितीयमभाववादप्रकारमाह-अन्य इति॥ भवत्वेवम्, तथापि नास्त्येव ध्वनिर्यादृशस्तव लिलक्षयि2षितः। काव्यस्य हयसौ कश्चिद्वक्तव्यः; न चासौ गीतनृत्तवाद्यादिस्थानीय: काव्यस्य कश्चित्। कवनीयं काव्यम्, तस्य भाव: काव्यत्वम्। न च नृत्तगीतादि कवनीयमित्युच्यते॥ प्रसिद्धेति॥ प्रसिद्धं प्रस्थानं शब्दार्थौ तद्गुणालङ्काराश्चेति। प्रतिष्ठन्ते परम्परया वि3 हरन्ति येन मार्गेण तत्प्रस्थानम्। उक्तार्थे प्रमाणं दर्शयति। अनतिरिक्तत्वादेवेत्यादि। ता अपि गताः श्रवणगोचरमिति। अनुप्रासव्यतिरिक्तत्वेन हृदयपथमवतीर्णा इत्याशयः॥ वैदर्भी गौडीया पाञ्चालीति रीतयोऽपि माधुर्या- दिगुणाविनाभावादनुप्रासाव्यतिरिक्ता एवेत्याह-रीतयश्च वैदर्भीप्रभृतय इति॥ तत्रानुषङ्-गाद्वाक्यपूरणं प्रकाशयति-तदनतिरिक्तवृत्तयो गताः श्रवणगोचरमिति संबन्धः इति। अत्रानुषङ्गसिद्धस्य तच्छब्दस्य परामृश्य भेदं दर्शयति। तच्छब्देनात्र माधुर्यादयो गुणा इति। माधुर्यादीनां रीत्यात्मकत्वं प्रकटयति-तेषां चेत्यादि। वर्णनीयशब्देन वर्ण उच्यते। पानक इवेति। गुडमरिचशुण्ठ्यादिकृतो दाहतृष्णानिवारक: पेयविशेष: पानकम्। वैदर्भ्यादिशब्दानां प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमाह गौडवैदर्भेत्यादि- हेवाकः स्वाच्छन्द्यम्. वृत्तेरलङ्कारस्य चानुप्रासरूपस्य जातिजातिमद्भावः। रीतिगुणयो समुदायसमुदायिभावः। एवं प्रकृतं व्यतिरेकिणं स्थापयति- स्थित एवेत्यादि। ध्वनिर्नामेत्यत्र नामशब्देन सूचितमर्थं विवृणोति-नैव चारुत्यस्थानमित्यादि। अथ द्वितीयस्या- भाववादप्रकारस्योत्थापनं करोति- ननु मा भूदित्ादिना। भवत्वेवमिति। एवं गुणालङ्कार- व्यतिरिक्तस्वभाव इत्यर्थः। न चासावित्यादि। अकवनीयत्वात् नृत्तादिसदृशो भवन्नसौ ध्वनिरूपः प्रकारो न काव्यस्य युक्त इत्यर्थः॥ तत्र हेतुमाह-कवनीयमित्यादीति। प्रसिद्धेत्यादीति॥ प्रसिद्धप्रस्थान- व्यतिरेकिण इत्यस्य पदस्य प्रसिद्धशब्दार्थतद्गुणालङ्कारव्यतिरेकिण इत्यर्थ इति भवः। मार्गस्य

1क.ख.(नि) समुचितचित्तवृत्त्यर्पणे. 2क.ख.(नि) लिलक्षयिषतः. 3म. व्यवहरन्ति.

11 काव्यप्रकारस्टोति॥ काव्यप्रकारत्वेन हि तव स मार्गाडभिप्रेतः, 'काव्यस्यात्मा' इत्युक्तत्वात्। ननु कस्मात्तत्काव्यं न भवतीत्याह-सहृदयेति॥ मार्गस्येति॥ नृत- गीताक्षिनिकोचादिप्रायस्येत्यर्थः। र्तादेति॥ सहृदयेत्यादिकाव्यलक्षणमित्यर्थः। ननु ये ताटृशमपूर्वं काव्यरूपतया जानन्ति त एव सहृदयाः। तदभिमतत्वं च नाम काव्य- लक्षणमुक्तप्रस्थानातिरेकिण एव भविष्यतीत्याशङ्क्याह-न चेति।। यथा हि खड्गलक्षणं करोमीत्युक्त्वा आतानवितानात्मा प्राव्रियमाणस्वरूपः सकलदेहाच्छादकः सुकुमार- श्चित्रतन्तुदिरवितः संवर्तनविदर्तनसहिष्णुरच्छेदक: सुच्छेद उत्कृष्ट: खड्ग इति ब्रुवाणः, परैः पटः खल्वेवंविधो भवति न खड्ग इत्युक्ततया पर्यनुयुज्यमान एवं ब्रूयात्-ईदृश एव खद्गो ममाभिमत इति, तादृगेवैतत्। प्रसिद्धं हि लक्ष्यं भवति न कल्पितमिति भावः। तदाह-सकलविद्वदिति॥ विद्वांसोऽपि तत्समयज्ञा एव भविष्यन्तीते आशङ्का सकलशब्देन निराकरोति। एवं हि कृतेऽपि न किंचित्कृतं स्यात् ; तस्मादुन्मत्तता परं प्कटितेति भाव: ॥l रस्त्वत्राभिप्रायं व्याचष्टे-जीवितभूतो ध्वनिस्तावत्तवाभिमतः; जीवितं च नाम प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिरिक्त्तम्, अलंकारकारैरनुक्तत्वात्; तच्च न काव्यमति लोके प्रसिद्ध- मिति-तस्येदं सर्वं स्ववचनविरुद्धम्! यदि हि तत्काव्यस्यानुप्राणकं तेनाङ्-गीकृतं पूर्वपक्षवादिन, तच्चिरंतनैरनुक्तमिति प्रत्युत लक्षणार्हमेव भवति। तस्मात्प्राक्त्तन एवा- त्राभिप्रायः।। ननु भवत्वपौ चारुत्व्हेतु: शब्दार्थगुणालंकारान्तर्भूतश्च, तथापि ध्वनिरित्यमुया भाषया जीवितनित्यसौ न केनचिदुक्त इत्यभिप्रायमाशङ्क्य तृतीय मभाववादप्रकारमुपन्य- स्यति- पुनरपर इति॥ कामनीयकमिति कमनीयस्य कर्म, चारुत्वधी1हेतुतेति यावत्। ननु विचित्तीनामसंख्येयत्वात् काचितादृशी विच्छित्तिः स्माभिर्दृष्टा या नानुप्रासादौ नापि

तत्संभवतीत्यत्र तच्छब्देन समनन्तरोक्तं काव्यलक्षणं परामृश्यत इति दर्शयति- तदित्यादिना। तत्समयान्तःपातिनः ध्वनिदर्शनान्तःपातिन इत्यादिकं व्याखातूमाह-ननु ये तादृशमपूर्वीभेत्यादि। खड्गलक्षणं करोमि। खड्गतक्षणमुपदिशामि। अत्र नतान्तरमुपन्टस्य दूषयति-यस्त्यत्राभिप्रायमित्यादि। तच्चिरन्त नैरित्यादि। ध्वनिर्न र्लक्षणार्ह इति खल्वभावव/दिनोऽिप्रायाः॥ त तु विपरीतः कृतः लक्षणार्ह: इत्यभिप्रायापादनात्। जीवितभूतं सच्विरन्तनैर्नोक्तं, तस्मादवश्यं वक्तव्यं तदित्युक्तेरिति। अथ तृतीयाभाववादोपन्यासस्य पीठिकां रचयति। ननु भवत्यसावित्यादिना।। 'चारुत्वहेतुर्हि' इत्युक्तेशचारुत्वहेतुरेव कमनीयशब्देनाभिप्रेत इत्याह- चारुत्वधीहेतुतेति।

1क .. ग.घ.च.(नि) चारुत्वहेतु.

12 माधुर्यादावुक्तलक्षणेऽन्तर्भवेदित्याशङ्-कयाभ्युपगमपूर्वकं परिहरति-वाग्विकल्पा- नामिति॥ वक्तीति वाक् शब्द:, उच्यत इति वागर्थः; उच्यतेऽनयेति वागभिधाव्यापारः; तत्र शब्दार्थवैचित्र्यप्रकारोऽनन्तः; अभिधावैचित्र्य प्रकारोऽप्यसंख्येयः॥ प्रकारलेश इति॥ स हि चारुत्वहेतुर्गुणो वालङ्कारो वा। स च सामान्यलक्षणेन संगृहीत एव। यदाह- 'काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुणाः, तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलङ्काराः' इति। तथा "वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलङ्कृतिः" इति। ध्वनिर्ध्वनिरिति वीप्सया1 संभ्रमं सूचयन्न2नादरं दर्शयति॥ नृत्यत इति॥ तल्लक्षणकृद्भिस्तद्युक्तकाव्यविधातृभिस्4तच्छू- वणोद्भूतचमत्कारैश्च तत्प्रतिपत्तृभिरिति शेष:। ध्वनिशब्दे कोऽत्यादर इति भाव:॥ एषा दशेति॥ स्वयं दर्पः परैश्च स्तूयमानतेत्यर्थः। वाग्विकल्पा वाक्प्रवृत्तिहेतु- प्रतिभाव्यापारप्रकारा इति वा। तस्मात्प्रवादमात्रमिति सर्वेषामभाववादिनां साधारण उपसंहार:। यतः शोभाहेतुत्वे गुणालङ्कारेभ्यो न व्यतिरिक्तः, यतश्च व्यतिरिक्तत्वे न शोभाहेतुः, यतश्च शोभाहेतुत्वेऽपि नादरास्पदं तस्मादित्यर्थः। न चेयमभावसंभावना निर्मूलैव दूषितेत्याह-तधा चान्येनेति॥ ग्रन्थकत्समानकालभाविनैव मनोरथनाम्ना कविना। यतो न सालंकृति अतो न मनःप्रह्लादि। अनेनार्थालङ् काराणामभाव उक्तः। व्युत्पन्नै रचितं च यन्न वचनैरिति शब्दालङ् काराणाम्। वक्रोक्तिरुत्कृष्टा संघटना, तच्छून्यमिति शब्दार्थगुणानाम्। वक्रोक्तिशून्यशब्देन सामान्यलक्षणाभावेन सर्वा लंकाराभाव उक्त इति केचित्। तैः पुनरुक्तं न परिहृतमेवेत्यलम्॥ प्रीत्येति॥ गतानुगतिकानुरागेणेत्यर्थ: ।।सुमतिनेति॥ जडेन तु पृष्टो भूभङ्गकटाक्षैरेवोत्तरं ददत्तत्स्वरूपं काममाचक्षीतेति भाव:॥ 6एते चाभावविकल्पाः शृङ्खलाक्रमेणागताः, न त्वन्योन्यमसंबद्धा एव। तथा हि तृतीयाभावप्रकारनिरूपणोपक्रमे पुनःशब्दस्यायमेवाभिप्रायः, उपसंहारक्यं च रुङ्गच्छते।

'वाक्' शब्देन शब्दश्चार्थश्चाभिधा च कथ्यत इति प्रदर्शयितुं निरुक्तिमाह। गुणानामलंकाराणां च चारुत्वहेतुत्वं सामान्येनोक्तमित्यत्र संवादमाह- 'काव्यशोभायाः' इत्यादि। वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिति वक्रोक्तिरित्यर्थ:॥ मुकुलितलोचनैरित्यस्य विशेष्यं सामर्थ्यसिद्धमिति दर्शयति-तल्लक्षणकृद्भिरित्यादि।। एषा दशेत्यस्य विकल्पेनार्थान्तरमाह-वाग्विकल्पा इत्यादि। उपसंहारसाधारण्यं स्पष्टयति- यतः शोभाहेतुत्वे इत्यादि। समानकालभाविना-समान कालभवेन। यस्मिन्नस्तीत्यादि। अत्र वक्रोक्तिशब्देन शब्दार्थगुणालङ्काराणां त्रयाणामप्यवरोथे पौनरुक्त्यमिति पक्षान्तरो- पन्यासपुर:सरमाह-वक्रोक्तिशून्यशब्देनेत्यादि।। एषां अभावविकल्पानां यः परस्परं संबन्ध उद्घाटितः। तत्र प्रमाणमाह- तथाहि तृतीयेत्यादि।।

1क.ख.ग.(नि) वीप्सायाम्. 2क.ख.ग.ङ.च.(नि) (का) आदरम्. 3अतद्युक्त. 4(का) विधायिभिः। अतच्छ्रवण-इति कौमुद्यनुसारी पाठ :. 5ग. शब्दालंकार०. 6क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. च.(नि) (का) एवमेते.

13 अभातवादस्य संभादनाप्राणत्वेन भूतत्वमुक्तम्। भाक्तवादस्त्वविच्छिन्नः पुस्तकेष्वित्यभि- प्रायेण, भाक्तमाहुरिति नित्यप्रवृत्तवर्तमानापेक्षयाभिधानम्। भज्यते सेव्यते पदार्थेन प्रसिद्धतयोत्प्रेक्ष्यत इति भक्तिर्धर्मः, अभिधेयेन सामीप्यादिः; तत आगतो भाक्तः लाक्षणिकोर्थः। रादाह- "अभिधेयेन सामीप्यात्सारूप्या त्समवावतः । वैरीत्यात्क्रियायोगाल्लक्षणा पञ्चधा मता॥" इति। गुणरामुदायवृत्तेश्च शब्दस्यार्थभागस्तैक्ष्ण्याददिर्भक्तिः; तत आगतो गौणोऽर्थो भाक्तः। भक्तिः त्रतिपाद्ये सामीप्यतैक्ष्यादौ अ्रद्धातिशयः; तां प्रयोजनत्वेनोद्दिश्य तत आगतो भाक्त इति गौणो लाक्षणिकश्च; मुख्यस्य चार्थस्य भङ्गो भक्ति: -इति; एवं मुख्यार्थबाधा निगित्तं प्रयोजनमिति त्रयसद्भाव उपचारवीजमित्युक्तं भवति॥ काव्यात्मानं गुणवृत्तिमिति॥ सामानाधिकरण्यस्यायं भावः -यद्यप्यविवक्षितवाच्ये ध्वनिभेदे "निःश्वासान्ध इवादशः" इत्यादावुपचारोऽस्ति, तथापि न तदात्मैव ध्वनिः, तक्व्य- तिरेकेणापि भावात् विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य प्रभेदादौ; अविवक्षितवाच्येऽप्युपचार एवं न ध्वनिरिति वंक्ष्यामः। तथा च वक्ष्यति- "भकत्या बिभर्ति नैकत्वं रूपभेदादयं ध्वनिः। अतिव्य,प्तेरथाव्याप्तेर्न चासी लक्ष्यते तय ।।" "कस्यचिद्ध्वांनेभेदस्य सा तु स्यादुपलक्षणम्" इति च। गुणा: साम्प्यादयः, धर्मास्तैक्ष्ण्यादयश्च; तैरुपायैर्वृत्तिरर्थान्तरे यस्य, तैरुपार्यैर्वृत्तिर्वा, शब्दस्य यात्र स गुणवृत्तिः शब्दोऽर्थो टा; गुणद्वारेण वा वर्तनं गुणवृत्तिरमुख्योऽभिधा- नन्वयमभाववादो नास्त्येव परैः कृतः। कथं पुनस्तस्व प्कारोपन्यासः क्रियते इत्पत्राह- अभाववादेत्याति। भूतत्व वस्तुवृत्तत्वं। अथ भाक्ततावादः पुनरयं न संभावनामात्रशरण इत्याह- भाक्ततेत्यादि। नित्वप्रवृत्तवर्तमानेति। "तिष्ठन्ति पर्वताः, स्यन्दन्ते नहाः" इत्यत्र यथा लट् तथाञ्तरापि इति भाव:। नित्यप्रवृत्त इति भोजसूत्रम्। भाक्तशब्दस्य निरुक्तिमाह- भज्यत इत्यादि। अयमर्थः। भक्तिश्ब्दश्च चतुर्धा- सेवनभङ्गश्रद्धातिशायभागार्थवृत्तिभेदेन। तत्र भङ्गार्थो भजिप्रकृतिः। अन्ये भजिप्रकृतयः। 'गङ्गायां घोष' इत्यादौ लाक्षणिके अर्थे सामीप्यादिधर्मे भक्तिरुच्यते। 'सिंहो देवदत्त' इत्यादौ गौणे शौर्यात्मकतैक्ष््या.देर्भक्तिः॥ एतौ संबन्धात्मकौ। उभयत्र प्रयोजनमपि भक्तिः। मुख्यार्थबाधोर्प भक्तिः। तत आगतो भाक्तः औपचारिक इति। काव्यात्मा न गुणवृत्तिरित्यादि। उपचार एव न धनिरिति॥ उपचारो गुणवृत्ति। ध्वनिरर्थ: प्रयोजनरूपः। अत उपचारस्य ध्वनेश्च परस्परं भेदः, न त्वैकात्न्यम्। तत उपचारो ध्वनेरुपलक्षणमेव भवतीति भावः। वक्ष्याम इति। रामादिशब्दार्थभेटन्रूपणे इति शेषः॥ नुणा इत्यादि गुणवृत्तिशशब्दश्चार्थशच भवति। तत्र वृत्तिश्शब्दस्यैव नार्थस्येत्युक्तं भवति। व्यापारोऽपि गुणवृत्तिर्भवतीति दर्शयति-गुणद्वारेण वेत्यादि।। त 1कु.ख. सारुप्यात् सादृश्य.त्, घ.ङ .. व. सामी यात् सारूप्यात्.

14 व्यापार:। एतदुक्तं भवति-ध्वनतीति वा, ध्वन्यते इति वा, ध्वननमिति वा र्यादि ध्वनिस्तथाप्युपचरितशब्दार्थव्यापारातिरिक्तो नासौ कश्चित्। मुख्येऽर्थे ह्यभिधैवेति पारिशेष्यादमुख्य एव ध्वनिः, तृतीयराश्यभावात्। ननु केनैतदुक्तम् 'ध्वनिर्गुणवृत्तिः' इत्याशङ्-कयाह-यद्यपि चेति॥ अन्यो वेति॥ गुणालंकारप्रकार इति यावत् ॥दर्शयतेति॥ भट्टोद्भटवामनादिना। भामहोक्तम् "शब्दःछन्दोऽभिधानार्थाः" इत्यभिधानशब्दस्य शब्दाद्भेदं व्याख्यातुं भट्टोद्भटो बभाषे- "शब्दानामभिधानमभिधाव्यापारो मुख्यो गुणवृत्तिश्च" इति। वामनोऽपि "सादृश्याल्लक्षणा वक्रोक्तिः" इति॥ मनाक्स्पृष्ट इति॥ तैस्तावद्ध्वनिदिगुन्मीलिता। यथालिखितपाठकैस्तु स्वरूपविवेकं कर्तुमशक्नुवद्भिस्तत्स्वरूपविवेको न कृ प्रत्युतोपालभ्यते, अभग्ननारिकेलकल्पः यथाश्रुततद्ग्रन्थोद्ग्रहणमात्रेणेति। अत एवाह-परिकल्प्यैव- मुक्तमिति॥ यद्येवं न योज्यते तदा ध्वनिमार्ग: स्पृष्ट इति पूर्वपक्षविधानं विरुध्यते॥ शालीनबुद्धय इति॥ अप्रगल्भमतय इत्यर्थ:। एते च त्रय उत्तरोत्तरं भव्यबुद्धयः। प्राच्या हि

ध्व-तीति गुणवृत्तेः शब्दत्वमवलम्ब्योच्यते। ध्वन्यत इत्यर्थत्वं ध्वननमिति व्यापारत्वम्। तथापीत्यादि -- य उपचरित: शब्द: अर्थश्च यः व्यापारश्च यः तेभ्योऽ्न्यो नासौ कश्चिद्गुणवृतिरूपोऽर्थ इत्यर्थः। तत्र हेतुमाह-मुख्ये ह्यभिधैवेति। फलितमर्थमाह-पारिशेष्यादिति॥ मुख्यामुख्यव्यतिरिक्तस्तृतीयराशिः॥ अथोक्तस्य निर्विषयमाशङ् काकलुगीक्रियमाणं परिहर्तुमाह-नन्वित्यादि॥। "शब्द: छन्दोऽभिधानार्था"- इति। "शब्दछन्दोभिधानार्था इतिहासाश्रयाः कथाः। लोको युक्तिः कलाश्चेति मन्तव्याः काव्यहेतवः" इति। ननु केन प्रकारेणात्र गुणवृत्त्या काव्यव्यवहारो दर्शितो भामहेन? अभिधानशब्देनेति चेत्। अभिधानशब्देन नामशासनमुच्यते न गुणवृत्तिरित्याशङ्क्य, मैवम् अभिधानशब्देनात्र गुणवृत्ति- रप्युक्तेत्येतत् विवरणच्छलेन संवादान्तरमाह- अभिधानशब्दस्येत्यादि - यथा लिखितपाठकै: अविशेषज्ञैः॥ अभग्नेत्यादि- अभग्ननालिकेरकल्पः निगूढान्तःसारः यथाश्रुतं श्रवणानुसारेण तद्ग्रन्थः ध्वनियुक्तपदबन्धः उद्ग्रहणं ग्रहणम्। उक्तं समर्थयति। अत एवाहेति। यद्ेवं न योज्यत इति॥ एवमिति। तै्ध्र्वनिदिगुन्मीलितति च ध्वनिस्वरूपविवेको न कृत इति च प्रत्युत उपालभ्यत इति चेत्यर्थः। तदा ध्वनिमार्गेत्यादि। ध्वनिमार्ग: म्पृष्ट इत्यनेन खलु पूर्वपक्षो विधीयते। भक्तिपरिग्रहेण ध्वनिमार्ग: स्पृष्टः लक्षणाकरणेन पृथङ्नोक्तः॥ अतो भक्तिरेव ध्वनिः न त्वन्यः कश्चिदिति बलादुक्तमेव भवति

15 विपर्यस्ता एव सर्वथा; मध्यमस्तु तद्ूपं जानाना अपि संदेहेन निह्नुवते; अन्त्यास्तु अनिह्नुवाना अपि लक्षयितुं न जानत इति क्रमेण विपर्यय सन्देहाज्ञानप्राधान्यगेषाम्2॥ तेनेति।। एकैकोऽप्ययं विप्रतिपत्तिरूपो वाक्यार्थो निरूपणे हेतुत्वं प्रतिपद्यत इत्येकवचनम्। एवंविधासु विमतिष्विति निर्धारणे सप्तमी। आसु मध्ये एकोऽपि यो विमतिप्रकारस्तेनैव हेतुना तत्स्वरूपं ब्रूम इति ध्वनिस्वरूपमभिधेयम्। अभिधानाभिधेयलक्षणयोर्ध्वनिशास्त्रयो- र्वत्तृश्रोत्रोर्व्युत्पाद्यव्युत्पादकभावः संबन्धः। विमतिनिवृत्वा तत्स्वरूपज्ञानं प्रयोजनम्, शास्त्रप्रयोजनयोः साध्यसाधन भाव: संबन्ध इत्युक्तम्। अथ श्रोतृगतप्रयोजन3 पतिपादकं4 'सहृदयमन:प्रीतये' इति भागं व्याख्यातुगाह- तर्य हीति॥ विमतिपदपतितस्येत्यर्थः। ध्वने: स्वरूंं लक्षयतां संबन्धिनि मनसि हृदये आनन्दो निर्वृत्यात्मा चमत्कारापरपर्यायः प्रतिष्ठां परैर्विपर्यासद्युपहतैरनुन्मील्यमानत्वेन स्थेमानं लभतामिति प्रयोजनं संपादयितुं तत्स्वरूपं प्रकाश्यत इति संगतिः। प्रयोजनं व नाम तत्संपादकवस्तुप्रयोक्तृताप्राणतयैव तथा भवतीत्याशयेन प्रीतये तत्स्वरूपम्5 इत्येकवाक्यतया व्याख्येयम्। तत्स्वरूपशब्दं व्याचक्षाण: संक्षेपेण तावत्पूर्वोदीरितविकल्पपञ्चकोद्धरणं प्रथयति- सकलेत्यादिना।। सकलशब्देन सत्कविशब्देन च प्रकारलेशे कस्मिश्चिदिति निराकरोति। अतिरमणीयमिति

इति। एवं पूर्वपक्षाविधाने भाक्तवादप्रतिक्षेपो निर्विषयः स्यात्। भट्टोद्भटादिभिः स्वग्रन्थेषु ध्वनिप्रसंगो न कृत:, केवलभभि प्रागुणवृत्तिव्यवहार एव कृत इति। अथ ततवरूपं स्रूम इत्यनेन विषयश्च संबन्धश्च प्रयोजनं च मुख्यं ादर्शिषतेत्याह-तत्स्वरूपं य्रूम इत्प्यादि। अभिधानाधिधेय इत्यत्र व्युत्क्रमो द्रष्टव्यः। सहृदयमनःप्रीतये इत्येतत्तु प्रयोजनप्रयोजन- प्रतिपादकमित्याह -- अथ प्रोतृगतेत्यादि। पदार्थरुङ्गतिभाह- ध्वने: स्वरूपमित्यादिना। ननु कारिकायां चतुर्थ: पाद: एकवाक्यतया प्रतीयते। न तु 'सहृदरामनःप्रीतय' इत्येतत् प्रयोजनप्रयोजनप्रतिपादकतया पृथग्वाक्यत्वेन प्रतीयते। ध्वनिस्वरूपवचनेन विशिष्टप्रीतेः प्रयोक्तृतया संबन्धात् स्वसंवादकस्य वरतुनः प्रयोक्तुः खतु प्रयोजन भवाे। तदिह प्रीतिरेव। तत्कथ ताक्यभेद इत्याशंक्य, सत्यं कारिकायामेवं योजना कार्येत्याह- प्रयोजं व नामेत्यादि। इत्याशयेन इत्यभिप्रायेण। प्रीतेः प्रयोजनमिति रूपेणेत्यर्थः। एकवाक्यतया व्याोयमिति कारिकायामिति शेष:॥ विवरणकारस्तु प्रयोजनप्रयोजनं प्रयोजनात् पृथगेवेति मन्यमानो वाक्यभेदं कृतवानिति तात्पर्यम्। अथोक्तां विकल्पपञ्चकोद्धरणसूचनां उपपादयति सकलशब्देन इत्यादिना। प्रकारलेशे कस्मिंश्चिदिति। तृतीयाभावतादे हि संभवत्यपि करिमंश्चित् काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभि:

ग.(का) तत्स्वरूपं बूम :. 1क.ख.ग.घ.(नि)(का) विपर्यास०. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) एतेषाम्. 3(को) प्रयोजनप्रयोजन. 4(कौ) प्रतिपादनम्. 5क.ख.

16 भाक्ताद्व्यतिरेकमाह।। न.हि 'सिंहो वटुः,' 'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यत्र रम्यता काचित्। उपनिषद्भूतशब्देन तु अपूर्वसमाख्यामात्रकरण इत्यादि निराकृतम्। अणीयसीभिरित्यादिना गुणालंकारानन्तर्भूतत्वं सूचयति। अथ चेत्यादिना तत्समयान्तःपातिन इत्यादि यत्सामयिकत्वं शङ्कितं तन्निरवकाशीकरोति। रामायणमहाभारतशब्देनादिकवेः प्रभृति सर्वैरेव सूरिभिरस्यादर: कृत इति दर्शयति। लक्षयतामित्यनेन वाचां स्थितमविषय इति परास्यति। लक्ष्यतेऽनेनेति लक्षो2 लक्षणम्। 3लक्षेण निरूपयन्ति लक्षयन्ति तेषाम्, लक्षणद्वारेण निरूपयतामित्यर्थः॥ सहृदयानामिति॥ येषां काव्यानुशीलनाभ्यासवशा- द्विशदीभूते मनोमुकुरे वर्णनीयतन्मयीभवनयोग्यता ते स्वहृदयसंवादभाजः सहृदयाः। यथोक्तम्- "योऽर्थो हृदयसंवादी तस्य भावो रसोद्भवः। शरीरं व्याप्यते तेन शुष्कं काष्ठमिवाग्निना।।" इति। आनन्द इति॥ रसस्य चर्वणात्मनः प्राधान्यं दर्शयन् रसध्वनेरेव सर्वत्र मुख्यभूतमात्मत्वं4 दर्शयति। तेन यदुक्तम्- "ध्वनिर्नामापरो योसौ व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मकः। तस्य सिद्धेऽपि भेदे स्यात् काव्येऽश्त्वं न रूपता॥।" इति। तदपहस्तितं भवति। तथा हि अभिधाभाचनारसचर्वणात्मकेSापे त्र्यंशे काव्ये रसचर्वणा तावज्जीवितभूतेति भवतोऽप्यविवादः। यथोक्तं त्वयैव- "काव्ये रसयिता सर्वो न बोद्धा न नियोगभाक्" इति। तद्वस्त्वलंकारध्वन्यभिप्रायेणांशमात्रत्वमिति सिद्धसाधनम्। रसध्वन्यभिप्रायेण तु

प्रसिद्धैः प्रदर्शितेत्युक्तम्। अपूर्वसमाख्यामात्रकरणे तृतीयाभाययादे हि तेषागन्यतमस्यैव वा समाख्या- मात्रकरणे यत्कि्वन कथितं स्यादित्युक्तम्।। वाग्विषयस्थितिप्रतिपादकस्य लक्षयतां-पदस्य निरुक्तिपूर्वकं व्याख्यानं करोति-लक्ष्यतेऽनेनेति। सहृदयशब्दं व्याचष्टे। येषामित्यादि-"योऽर्थ" इत्यादि। सः हृवयसंवादी हृदये तन्मयीभवनशीलः। ध्वनिर्नामेत्यादि। व्यापार: रसचर्वणात्मा। भेदे भोगात्मनो व्यापारादित्यर्थात् काव्ये अंशत्वं, न रूपतेति नाऽशित्वमित्यर्थः॥। तदिति। तद्धवनेः रसचर्वणात्मनः काव्यात्मतया अंशित्वेन स्थितस्य कथितमंशत्वं विरुद्धं स्यादित्यर्थः। तद्वस्त्वलङ् कारेत्यादि। तदंशत्वं वस्तुध्वनेरलङ्कारध्वनेश्च कथ्यमानं सिद्धसाधनं रसध्वनेरुच्यमानं स्वमतविरुद्धमित्यर्थः।

1क.ख.ड.च.(नि) व्यतिरिक्त. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) लक्ष्यो. ३क.ख.ग.(नि) लक्ष्येण. 4क.ख.ग.ड .. (नि) (का) आत्मत्वमिति.

' 17 स्वाभ्युपगमप्रसिद्धिसंवेदनविरुद्धमिति॥ तत्र कवेस्तावत्कीर्त्यापि प्रीतिरेव सम्पाद्या। यदाह-"कीर्तिं स्वर्गफलामाहुः" -इत्णदि। श्रोतृणां च व्युत्पत्तिप्रीती यद्यणि स्तः, यथोक्तम्- "धर्मार्थकाममोक्षेप्ु वैचक्षण्यं कलासु च। करोति कीर्तिं प्रीतिं च साधुकाव्यनिषेवण,म्।।" इति। तथापि तत्र प्रोतिरेव प्रधानम्। अन्यथा प्रभुसंमितेभ्यो वेदादिभ्यो मित्रसंगितेभ्यश्चेतिहामा- दिभ्ो व्युत्पत्तिहेतुभ्यः कोऽस्य काव्यरूपस्य व्युत्पत्तिहेतोर्जायासंमितत्वलक्षणो विशेष ईते प्राधान्येनानन्द्र एदोक्तः। चतुर्वर्गव्युत्पतेरपि चानन्द एव पार्यन्तिकं मुख्यं फलम्। आनन्द इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम। तेन स आनन्दवर्धनाचार्यः एतच्छास्त्रद्वारेण सहृदयहृदयेषु प्रतिष्ठां देवतायतनादिव्दनश्वरीं स्थितिं लभताम् गच्छत्विति भावः। यथोक्तम्- "उपेयुषार्मापे दिवं सन्निबन्धविधायिनाम् । आस्त एव निरातङ् कं कान्तं काव्यमयं वपुः॥।" इति। तथा-मनसि प्रतिष्ठामिति। एवंविधमस्य मनः। सहृदयचक्रवर्ती खत्वयं ग्रन्थकृदिति यावत्। यथा- "युद्धे प्रतिष्ठा परमार्जुनस्य" इति।

र्वाभ्युपगमप्रससिद्धसंवेदनविरुद्धमिति। तथा च भट्टनायकमतभ्। काव्ये दोषाभावगुणालङ्का !- मयत्चलक्षणेन नाट्ये चतुर्िशाणिनयरूपेण निबिडनिजमोहसङ् कटतानिवारणकारिणा विभावादिसाधारणी- करणात्मनाभिधातो द्वितीयेनांशेन भावकत्वव्यापारेण भाव्यमानो रसोऽनुभवस्मृत्यादिविलक्षणेन रजस्तमोऽ्नुवेधवैचित्राबलात् द्वुतिविस्तारविकासलक्षणेन सत्वोद्रेकप्रकाशानन्दमयनिजसंविद्िश्रान्ति- लक्षणेन परब्रह्मास्वादसविधेन भोगेन भुज्यत इति परतह्मास्वादकल्पतया परिपूर्णस्य रसास्वादस्य कथमंशत्वमिति विरोपः। तत्र कवेस्तायदित्यादि कीर्ता सत्यां कवेस्तावदानन्दफलम्, श्रोतुश्च व्युत्पत्तौ सत्यामन्ततो गत्वा आनन्द एव फलमित्यर्थः॥ आनन्द इति ग्रन्थकृतो नामेति॥ एकदेशलक्षणयोते शेषः॥ अनश्नरी स्थिति गच्छत्विति भाव इति। गच्छत्विति प्रार्थनायां लोट्। स्थिति बहुमानात्मिकायू। प्रार्थिता स्थितिरवश्यंभाविनीति अभिप्रायेणाह- यथा मनसीति। यथा सहृदयमनसि प्रतिष्ठा स्थिरस्थितिर्भवेद, तथाविधमस्याचार्यस्य मनः वैदुष्यातिशयः इत्यर्थः। दैदुष्ामेव प्रकटयति -- सहृदयेत्यादि। संवादयति -- युद्ध हति॥ प्रतिष्ठा बहुमानमयी स्थितिः

18 स्वनामप्रकटीकरणं श्रोत्णां प्रवृत्त्यङ्गमेव सम्भावनाप्रत्ययोत्पादनमुखेनेति ग्रन्थान्ते वक्ष्यामः। एवं ग्रन्थकृतः कवे: श्रोतुश्च मुख्यं प्रयोजनमुक्तम्।। तत्रेति॥ एवंभूतेऽभिधेये प्रयोजने च स्थिते इत्यर्थः। ननु 'ध्वनिस्वरूपं ब्रूमः' इति प्रतिज्ञाय वाच्यप्रतीयमानाख्यौ द्ौ भेदावर्थस्येति व्याख्याभिधाने का संगतिः कारिकाया इत्याशङ्कय संगतिं कर्तुमवतरणिकां करोति- ध्वनेरेवेत्यादिना।। भूमिरिव1 भूमिका। यथा अपूर्वनिर्माणे चिकीर्षिते पूर्वं भूमिरेव विरच्यते तथा ध्वनिस्वरूपे प्रतीयमानाख्ये निरूरपायेतव्ये निर्विवादसिद्धवाच्याभिधानं भूमि:, तत्पृष्ठोऽत्थितप्रतीयमानांशोल्लिङ्-गनात्। वाच्येन समशीर्षिकागणनं तस्याप्यनपह्नवनीयत्वं प्रतिपादयितुम्। स्मृतावित्यनेन 'यः समाम्नातपूर्वः, इति द्रढयति। 'शब्दार्थशरीरं काव्यम्' इति यदुक्तं तत्र शरीरग्रहणादेव केनचिदात्मना तदनुप्राणकेन भाव्यमेव। तत्र शब्दस्तावच्छरीरभाग एव संनिविशते, सर्वजनसंवेद्यधर्मत्वात् स्थूलकृशादिवत् । अर्थः पुनः सकलजनसंवेद्यो न भवति। न ह्यर्थमात्रेण काव्यव्यपदेश:, लौकिकवैदिकवाक्येषु तदभावात्। I.2 तदाह- सहृदयश्लाघ्य इति॥ स एक एवार्थो द्विशाखतया विवेकिभिर्विभागबुद्ध्या विभज्यते। तथा हि- तुल्येऽर्थरूपत्वे किमिति कस्मैचित् सहृदयाः श्लाघन्ते। तद्भवितव्यं तत्र केनचिद्विशेषेण। यो विशेषः स प्रतीयमानभागो विवेकिभिर्विशेषहेतुत्वादात्मेति व्यवस्थाप्यते। वाच्यसंवलनाविमोहितहृदयैस्तु तत्पृथग्भावे विप्रतिपद्यते चार्वाकैरिवात्म- पृथग्भावे। अत एवार्थ इत्येकतयोपक्रम्य सहृदयश्लाघ्य इति विशेषणद्वारा हेतुमभिधायापोद्धारदृशा तस्य द्वौ भेदावंशावित्युक्तम्, न तु द्वावप्यात्मानौ काव्यस्येति। कारिकागतं काव्यशब्दं व्याकर्तुमाह- काव्यस्य हीति॥ ललितशब्देन गुणालङ्कारानु- ग्रहमाह। उचितशब्देन रसविषयमेवौचित्यं भवतीति दर्शयन् रसध्वनेः जीवितत्वं सूचयति। तदभावे हि किमपेक्षयेदमौचित्यं नाम सर्वत्रोद्धोष्यत इति भाव:। योऽर्थ इति यदा अनुवदन्

ग्रन्थकृतः लक्षणग्रन्थकृतः, अवतरणिकां पीठिकां भूमिकामित्यर्थः। भूमिरिव भूमिकेति इवार्थे कः। निर्विवादसिद्धवाच्याभिधानं भूमिरिति। अत्र हेतुमाह- तत्पृष्ठोत्थितप्रतीयमानांशोल्लिङ्गनादिति। किञ्च वाच्यप्रतीयमानाख्याविति समतया परिगणने प्रयोजनान्तरमप्यस्तीत्याह-वाच्पेनेत्यादि।। शब्दार्थशरीरं काव्यमिति यदुक्तमिति। अभाववादिनेत्यर्थात् सिद्ध्यति। अर्थः पुनरिति। सहृदयव्यतिरेकेण व्युत्पन्नमात्रनिखिलजनसंवेद्यः सामान्यरूपो नाऽर्थः काव्ये इत्र्थः। तत्र व्यतिरेकिणं हेतुमाह-न ह्यर्थेत्यादि। वाच्यसंवलनेति। वाच्ये नित्यसाह चर्यं विशेषणद्वारा हेतुमिति सहृदयश्लाघ्यत्वं काव्यार्थस्यार्थमिति स्वरूपसाधको हेतु:। अपोद्धारदृशा विभागदृशा, यदा

1क.ख.घ.ङ .. (नि) एव.

19 परेणाप्येतत्तावदुपगतमिति दर्शयति। तस्येत्यादिना तदभ्युपगम एव द्व्यंशत्वे सत्युपपद्यत. इति दर्शयति। तेन यदुत्तम्-'चारुत्वहेतुत्वात् गुणालङ्कारव्यतिरिक्तो न ध्वनिः' इति, तन्न ध्वनेरात्मरूपत्वाद्धेतुरसिद्ध इति दर्शितम्। न ह्यात्भा चारुत्वहेतुः देहस्येति भवति। अथाप्येवं स्यात्, तथापि व च्येनानैकान्तिको हेतु: न ह्यलङ्कार्य एवालङ्कार:, गुणी वा गुण· एतदर्थमपि वाच्यांशोपक्षेपः। अत एवं वक्ष्यति "वाच्यः प्रसिद्धः" इति॥ I.3 तत्रेति। त्य्यंशकत्वे1 सत्यपीत्यर्थः॥ प्रसिद्ध इति॥ वनितावदनोद्यानेन्दूदय :- दिवल्लौकिक एवेत्यर्थः। उपमादिभिः प्रकारैः स व्याकृतो बहुधा इति सङ्गति: अन्यैरिति कारिकाभागं कात्येत्यादिना व्याचष्टे। "ततो नेह प्रतन्यते" इति विशेषप्रतिष्धेन शेषाभ्यनुज्ञा इति दर्शयति- केवलभित्यादिना।। I.4 पुनःशब्दो वाच्यांशाद्विशेषद्योतकः॥ अन्यदेव वसत्विति॥ तद्यतिरिक्तं सारभूतं चेत्यर्थः। महाकदीनामिति बहुवचनमशेषविषयव्यापकत्वमाह। एतदभिधास्यमान- प्रती पमानानुप्राणितकावनिर्माणनिपुणप्रतिभाभाजनत्वेनैव महाकविव्यपदेशो भवतीति भाव:। यदेवंविधमस्ति तद्भाति; न ह्यत्यन्तासतो भानमुपपत्रम्; रजताद्यपि नात्यन्तमसद्भाति; अनेन सत्त्वप्रयुक्तं तावद्भानमिति भानात् सत्त्वमवगम्यते; तेन यद्भाति तदस्ति तधेत्युक्तं भवति।. तेनायं प्रयोगार्थ:2- प्रसिद्धं वाच्यं धर्मि प्रतोयमानेन व्यतिरिक्त्ेन तद्गत्, तथा भासमानत्वात्, लावण्योपेतांङ्गनाङ्गवत्। प्रसिद्धशब्दरय सर्द- प्रतीतत्वभलङ् कृतत्वं चार्थ:। यत्तदिति सर्वनामसमुदाय: चमत्कारसारताप्रकटीकरणार्थ- भव्यपदेश्यताम् अन्योन्यसंवलनाकृतं चाव्यतिरेकभ्रमं दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोर्दर्शयति। एतच्च किमपीत्यनेन व्याचष्टे। लावण्यं हि नामावयवसंस्थानाभिव्यङ्ग्यमवयवव्यतिरिक्तं धर्मान्तरमेव; न चाव्यवानाभेव निर्दोषता वा भूषणयोगो वा लावण्यम्। पृथक्पृथङ्निर्वण्य-

थच्छज्देनानुवाद इति यावत्। तदभ्युपगम एवेति तस्यार्थश्लाध्यत्वस्याभ्युपगमः। द्व्यंशत्वे सतीति॥ सहृदयश्लाघ्योऽर्य इत्युक्ते- 'संभवे व्यभिचारे च स्याद्विशेषणभर्थवत्' इति न्यायेन सहृद यश्लाध्योऽपि कश्विदर्थोऽस्ति इति द्व्यंशत्वमर्थस्य सिद्धमित्यर्थः। तेन यदुक्तभित्यादि। ध्वनिर्न गुणालङ्कारव्यतिरिक्तः। चारुत्वहेतुत्वात्, उपमावदित्यनै कन्तिकः। एतदर्यर्मापे वाच्यांशोपक्षेप इति। न केवलं ध्वनेर्भूमिकार्थमेव वाच्यांशोपक्षेपः। किं तर्हि, ध्वन्या:मनः शरीरभूतशव्दार्थचारुत्वहेतुभ्यो गुणालङ्कारेभ्यो व्यतिरेकं द्योतयितुभपीत्यर्थः। अथ 'प्रतीयमानमि'त्यादिकां टीकां व्याचष्टे-पुनः शब्देनेत्यादि-एतदभिधास्येत्यादि। एतेन वक्ष्य माणप्रतीयमानन अनुप्राणितं प्रोज्जीवितमिति यावत्. प्रयोगार्थ इति। अनुमानमिति यावत्। प्रसिद्धभित्यादि। प्रसिद्धं वाच्यं व्यतिरिक्तप्रतीय-

1 व.ख. ग.ङच. (ननि) (क.) द्व्यंशत्वे. 2(कौ) प्रयोग: क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) व्यपदेश्यत्वम्.

20 मानकाणादिदोषशून्यशरीरावयवयोगिन्यामलङ्कृतायामपि 'लावण्यशून्येयम्' इति, अतथाभूतायामपि कस्यांचित् 'लावण्यामृतचन्द्रिकेयम्' इति च सहृदयानां व्यवहारात्। ननु लावण्यं तावत् व्यतिरिक्तं प्रथितम्; प्रतीयमानं किं तदित्येव न जानीमः। दूरे व्यतिरेकप्रथेति तथा भासमानत्वमसिद्धो हेतु: इत्याशङ्क्य "स ह्यर्थः" इत्यादिना स्वरूपं तस्याभिधत्ते। सर्वेष्वेवेत्यादिना च व्यतिरेकप्रथां साधयति। तत्र प्रतीयमानस्य तावत् द्वौ भेदौ, लौकिक: काव्यव्यापारगोचरश्च। लौकिको यः स्वशब्दवाच्यतां कदाचिदध्यशेत, स च विधिनिषेधाद्यनेकप्रकारो वस्तुशब्देनोच्यते। सोि ्विविध; यःपूर्वं क्वापि वाक्यार्थेऽलङ् कारभावमुपमादिरूपतयान्वभूत्, इदानीं तु अनलङ्काररूप एवान्यत्र गुणीभावाच्चाभावात्, स पूर्वप्रत्यभिज्ञानबलात् अलङ्कारध्वनिरिति व्यपदिश्यते ब्राह्मण- श्रमणन्यायेन; द्वितीयस्तु तद्रूपताभावेन तूपलक्षितं वस्तुमात्रमुच्यते;मात्रग्रहणेन हि रूपान्तरं निराकृतम्। यस्तु स्वप्नेऽपि न स्वशब्दवाच्यो न लौकिकव्यवहारणतितः किन्तु

सुकुमारस्वंसंविदानन्दचर्वणाव्यापाररसनीयरूपो रसः, स काव्यव्यापारैकगोचरो रसध्वनिरिति; स च ध्वनिरेवेति, स एव मुख्यतयात्मेति।। यदूचे1 भट्टनायकेन- "अंशत्वं न रूपता" इति तत् वस्त्वलङ्कारध्वन्योरेव यदि नामोपालम्भ:, रसध्वनिस्तु तेनैवात्मतयाङ्गीकृतः, रसचर्वणात्मनः तृतीयस्यांशस्याभिधा- भावनांशद्वयोत्तीर्णत्वेन निर्णयात्। वस्त्वलंकारध्वन्योः रसध्वनिपर्यन्तत्वमेवेति वयमेव

मानयुक्तं, तथा भासमानत्वादिति यावत्। लावण्यस्यावयवव्यतिरिक्तत्वे अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ प्रदर्शयति-न चेत्यादिना। अतथाभूतायामपि अनलङ् कृतायामपि। अथ दृष्टान्तवैषम्येन हेतंरसिद्धताशङ्कामवतारयि- तुमाह- ननु चेत्यादि-I। व्यतिरेकप्रथां व्यतिरेकप्रतीति अध्यशेतेति भूतप्रत्ययनिर्देशः। पूर्वं लोक एव दृष्टोज्यमर्थ इति लौकिकत्वं प्रकटयितुं, अन्यत्र गुणीभावाच्चाभावादिति। अन्यमर्थं वाच्यं प्रति- अप्रधानत्वाभावादित्यर्थ:।। अतद्रूपताभावेनानलङ् कारतया शब्दसमर्प्यमाणेत्यादिना वाच्यत्वमलौकिकत्वं च रसस्य समर्थयति। यदूचे इत्यादि।। भट्टनायको हि 'तस्य सिद्धेऽपि भेदे स्यात्काव्येंशत्वं न रूपते'त्यवोचत्। तद्वरत्वलङ्कारध्वनि- विषयमेवावतिष्ठते, न रसध्वनिविषयमित्यर्थः। यदि नामोपालम्भ इति। यदि नाम तादृशांशनिरूपणेन ध्वन्युपालम्भोSभिमतः तर्हीत्यर्थः। अन्यथा स्वसिद्धान्तविरोध एवेत्याह-रसध्वनिस्त्वत्यादि।

1 (कौ) यच्चोच्यते, घ. यत्तूचे.

21 वक्ष्यामस्तत्र तत्र इत्यास्तां ताव्त् । 'वाच्यसामर्थ्याक्षिप्तम्' इति भेदत्रयव्यापकं सामान्यलक्षणम्। यद्यपि हि ध्वननं शब्दस्यैव व्यापारः, तथाप्र्यसामर्थ्यस्य सहकारिणः

प्रतीयम नावगतिः, शब्दशक्तिः केवलमवान्तरसहकारिणीति वक्यामः॥ दूरं विभेदयानिति॥ विधिनिषेधौ विरुद्दाविति न कस्यापि1 विमतिः। एतदर्थं प्रथमं तावेवोदाहरति- भम धम्मिअ इति।। "भ्रम धार्मिक विस्रब्धः स शुनकोऽद्य2 मारितिरतेन। गांदावरीनदी कूललतागहनवासिना दृप्तसिंहेन = कस्याश्चित् राङ्केतस्थानं जीवितसर्वस्वायमानं धार्मिकसंचरणान्तरायदोषात्तदवलुप्यमान- पल्तवकुसुम/दििच्छायीकरणाच्च परित्रातुमियमुक्तिः। तत्र स्वतस्सिद्धमपि भ्मणं श्वभरोनापोदितमिति प्रतिप्रसवात्मको निषेधाभावरूपः न तु नियोगः प्रैषादिरूपः अत्र विधि :: अतिसर्गप्राप्तकालयोर्हिं अयं लोट्; तत्र भावतदभावयोर्विरोधात् द्वयोस्तावन्न युगपद्राव्यता ; न क्रमेण, विरम्यव्यापारांभावात्, "विशेष्यं, नाभिधा गच्छेत्" इत्यादिना भधाव्यापारस्य विरम्यासंभवाभिधानात्। ननु तात्पर्यशक्तिरपर्यवसिता विवक्षया

थद्पीत्यादि। शब्दस्य व्यञ्जकत्वेऽप्यर्थसामर्थ्यं सहकारि भवति। ततोर्ऽर्थसमर्थ्याक्षिप्तं प्रतीयमार्नामेति वक्तुं शक्यत इति भावः। अत्र वाच्याद्भेद: ध्वनित्रयस्य साध्यः। तत्र वस्तुध्वने: वाच्यात् भेदमुदाहरणैरेव दर्शयति-तत्र स्वतःसिद्धमपी त्याटि। अपोददितं प्रतिषिद्धं, प्रतिप्रसवात्म को निषेधाभावरूपोऽत्र विधिरिति संबन्धः। न तु नियोग: प्रैषादिरूप इति व्यावर्त्यम्। तत्र हेतु :- अतिसर्गप्राप्तकालयोहर्ययं लोडिति। अयमर्थ :- स्वतःसिद्धं भ्रमणम्, पूर्वः श्वभीतिनिषेध इति यः, इदानीं तु प्रतिषिद्धस्य भ्रमणस्य प्रतिषेधकोSभाव: कथ्यते सोऽयं प्रतिप्रसवः। प्रतिषेधनिवर्तनं हि सः। प्राप्ते तु प्रतिषेधेशत्र प्रति प्रसवयोगिते त्युक्तेः। अतो भ्रमणस्येदानीं न कश्चित् प्रतिबन्ध इति निषेधाभावरूपोऽत्र विधिः न तु नियोग। न खल्वेषा स्वैरिणी राजवत् भ्रमणविधिं करोति। श्वभयमिव निषेधं वा, किं तर्हि, ध्रमणप्रतिषेधकाभावकशनं करोति। ततो बलात् भ्रमणं विधीयमानताकोटिं निविशते। अतोऽयं लोडतिसर्गे प्राप्तकाले वा। भवति चैष नियोगप्राय इति। अथ उदाहरणार्थनिरूपणद्वारा काव्ये वाक्यार्थपर्यालोचना स्थानं प्रकाशयति- तत्र भावतदभावयोरित्यादिग्रन्थेन। तत्र प्रथममभिमतभर्थं प्रस्तौति। द्वयोस्तावन्न युगपद्वाच्यतेति। द्वयोर्विधिनिषेधयो: प्रकृते ह्युदाहरणे भ्रमणविधिश्च शमण- निषेधश्च द्वावप्यर्थो प्रतिभासेते। तयोर्युगपद्वाच्यता न घटते। एकत्वेन विरुद्धाकारद्वयाभावप्रसंगात्। न च क्रमेणाभिधेगता। अ,भधाया विरम्य पुनः संभ्वाभावात् इति। अत्र अभिधान्वयं वादपूर्वपक्षतया परिमृशति-गनु तात्पयेति। तात्पर्यशक्तिर्वाक्यार्थीभूतनिषेधप्रतीति करोतीति संबन्धः। अपर्यवसिता विधौ पर्यव प्ानमनाप्तुवती। विवक्षया निषेधस्यैव विवक्षितत्वात् समर्थ प्रतिपादयितुं वाक्यं

क.ख.ङ च (न) (का) कस्यचिदपि. 2क.ख.घ.ङ.च. शवाद्य.

22 दृप्तधार्मिकतदादिपदार्थानन्वयरूपमुख्यार्थबाधकबलेन विरोधनिमित्तया विपरीतलक्षणया च वाक्यार्थीभूतनिषेधप्रतीतिमभिहितान्वयदृशा करोतीति शब्दशक्तिमूल एव सोऽर्थः, एवमनेनोक्तमिति हि व्यवहारः; तन्न वाच्यातिरिक्तोऽन्योऽर्थ इति॥ नैतत् ;- त्रयो हयत्र व्यापाराः संवेद्यन्ते-पदार्थेषु सामान्यात्मस्वभिधाव्यापारः, समया- पेक्षयार्था1वगमनशक्तिहर्यभिधा। समयश्च2 तावत्येव, न विशेषांश, आनन्त्याद्व्यभि- चाराच्चैकस्य। ततो विशेषरूपे वाक्यार्थे तात्पर्यशक्ति: परस्परान्विते, 'सामान्यान्यन्यथा- सिद्धेर्विशेषं गमयन्ति हि' इति न्यायात्। तत्र च द्वितीयकक्ष्यायां भ्रमेति विध्यतिरिक्तं न किञ्चित्प्रतीयते, अन्वयमात्रत्यैव प्रतिपन्नत्वात्। न हि 'गङ्गायां घोषः' 'सिंहो वटुः' इत्यत्र यथान्वय एव बुभूषन् प्रतिहन्यते, योग्यताविरहात्, तथा तव भ्रमणनिषेद्धा स श्वा सिंहेन हतः। तदिदानी भ्रमणनिषेधकारणवैकल्याद्भ्रमणं तवोचितमित्यन्वयस्य 3काचित्क्षतिः। अत एव मुख्यार्थबाधा नात्र शङ्क्येति न विपरीतलक्षणाया अवसरः।

उपादीयते। तस्मिन् कथमविवक्षा। न स्यादिति भाव:। दृप्तधार्मिकेत्यादि। मा भ्रमेति वक्तव्ये भ्रमेत्युक्तं विरुद्धलक्षणयेत्यप्रतिपन्नम्। तत्र श्रुतानां पदार्थानां नान्वयः, विरोधात्।. ततोऽनन्वयरूपो मुख्यार्थबाधः। तद्बलेनोत्थापितविरुद्धलक्षणया तात्पर्यशक्तिर्निषेधप्रतीति करोतीति। अतः शब्दशक्तिमूलत्वात् वाच्य एव निषेधार्थ इति। अभिहितान्वयद्ृशा अभिहितान्वयवादिमतेन। अभिहितान्वयवादी हयेवं ब्रूयात्- व्यञ्जनव्यापारविमुखा तात्पर्यशक्तिरेवात्र लक्षणास्पर्शन निषेधं प्रतिपादयति इति। तदेतत् प्रत्याचष्टे। नैतदित्यादि। त्रय इति॥ अभिधा तात्पर्यं लक्षणा चेति। आनन्त्यादिति।-विशेषसमयश्चेत् विशेषाणामनन्त्यत्वात् समयानन्त्येन न व्युत्पत्तिसंभवः इति व्यभि- चाराच्चैकस्येति- एकस्य विशेषस्येत्यर्थः विशेषान्ताभिधाने पूर्वविशेषस्य अभिधानात् व्यभिचारात् स्वार्थविच्छित्तिप्रसंगश्चेत्यर्थः। विशेषरूपो वाक्यार्थ इत्यत्र हेतुमाह- परस्परेत्यादि। अन्यथा विशेषानवगमने असिद्धे स्वकीयान्वयो न सिद्ध्यतीति। द्वितीयकक्ष्यायामिति॥ अभिधात्वविषयसामान्यभूतपदार्थपुञ्जभाग: प्रथमकक्ष्या। तात्पर्यव्यापारविषयविशेषभूतैकात्म- कवाक्यार्थभागो द्वितीयकक्ष्या। विध्यतिरिक्तं न किञ्चिदिति विधिरेव प्रतीयते, न तु तदतिरिक्तस्तद्बाध इत्यर्थः। तत्र हेतु :- अन्वयमात्रस्यैय प्रतिपन्नत्यादिति। आकांक्षासन्निधियोग्यतावशात् पदार्थानामन्योन्यं संगर्ग एव प्रतीयत इति यदि विरोधस्तर्हि अन्वयो न भवतीति वैधर्म्योदाहरणं दर्शयति-न हि गङ्गायामित्यादि। बुभूषन्-भवितुमुद्यतः। तवेति

1क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. च.(नि) समयापेक्षार्था. 2(कौ) संकेतश्च. 3क.ख.ग.ङ.च.(नि) न काचित्.

23 भवलु वासौ! तथापि द्वितीयस्थानसंक्रान्ता तावदसौ न भवति। तथा हि -- मुख्यार्थबाधायां लक्षणायाः ऋवलृप्तिः। बाधा च विरोधप्रतीतिरेव। न चात्र पदार्थानां स्वात्मनि विरोध। परस्परं विरोध इति चेत्- सोऽ्यं तर्ह्र्यन्वये विरोधः प्रत्येयः। न चाप्रतिपन्नेन्वये विरोधप्रतोतिः, प्रतिपत्तिश्चान्वयस्य नाभिधाशक्त्या, तस्याः पदार्थ- प्रतिपत्त्युपक्षीणाया विरभ्याव्यापारात् इति तात्पर्यशक्तचैवान्वयप्रतिपत्तिः। नन्वेवं 'अङ्-गुल्य ग्रे करिवरशतम्' इत्यत्राप्यन्वयप्रतीतिः स्यात्। कि न भवत्यन्वयप्रतीति: दशदाडिमादिवाक्यवत्? किन्तु प्रमाणान्तरेण सोडन्वयः प्रत्यक्षादिना बाधितः प्रतिपन्नोर्ऽपि शुक्तिकायां रजतमिवेति तदवगमकारिणो वाक्यस्याप्राभाण्यम्। 'सिंहो माणवकः' इत्यत्र

शक्तिद्वयातिरिक्ता तावत् तृतीयाशक्ति: तद्बाधकविधुरीकरणनिपुणा लक्ष्णाभधाना समुल्लसति। नन्वेवं 'सिंहो वटुः' इत्यत्रापि काव्यरूपता स्यात्, धननलक्षणस्यात्मनोSत्रानि समनन्तरमेव वक्ष्यमाणतया भावात्। ननु घटेऽपि जीवव्यवहार: स्यात्, आत्मनो विभुत्वेन

धार्मिकापेक्ष्या अभ्युपगम्यापि ब्रूतो। भवतु वाऽसाविति। असौ विपरीतलक्षणा। तथापीत्यादि- तात्पर्यव्यापारविषयो द्वितीयकक्ष्या। यत्र द्वितीयस्थानम् तत्र न लक्षणायाः संक्रमणम्। एतदेव समर्थयति- तथा हात्गादि- स्वात्मनीति। न खलु धार्मिकार्थस्य स्वेन विरोधः। न च दृप्तस्य स्वेनेत्यादि। परस्परमिति पररपरमन्वय इत्यर्थः। अत एवाह सोऽयं तहर्गन्वये विरोधः प्रत्येय इति। न चेत्यादि। अप्रतिपन्ने अगृहीते। तस्मात् गिरोधप्रतीत्युपगमात् अन्वयप्रतिपत्तिरङ्-गीकृतैव तावनित्यर्थः। सा चान्वयप्रततिपत्तिः केन व्यापरेणेति चिन्त्यम्। न तावदभिधयेत्याह-प्रतिपत्तिश्चेत्यादि। तात्पर्यशक्तौयेति- लक्षणयेति त्, नाऽशङ्कनीयमेव। तस्या निषेधप्रतिपादकत्वाभिगानादित्यर्थः। अथाऽशङ्कते -- नन्वेवमिति। एवं विरोधात् प्रागेवान्वयप्रतिपतिश्चेत् इति यात्रत्! परिहरति॥ किं नेत्यादि॥ अत्रेत्यर्थात् सिद्धं भवत्येवान्नयप्रतीतिः। यथा दश दाडिमादावित्यर्थः। विशेषमाह -- किन्तित्यादि -- प्रतिपन्नोऽपि सोऽन्वयः ब्राधित इति संबन्धः। दृष्टान्तमाह-शुक्तिकायां रजतमिवेति। फलितार्थगाह-तदवगमेति। एवं प्रकृते वाक्ये द्वितीयकक्ष्यायां न लक्षणा। तृतीयकक्ष्यायामेव स्यात्, यत्टि स्यादिति स्थितम्। एवमेव गौणलक्षणायामिति दर्शयति- सिंह इत्यादि॥। तद्बाधकविधुरीकरणनिपुणेति। तद्बाधकस्य अन्वयबाधकस्य विधुरीकरणे बाधने शक्ता इत्यर्थः। लक्षणाि तात्पर्यसमर्पिता तस्यान्वयस्य यो बाधको विरोधात्मकस्तं पराणुद्य प्रकारान्तरेणान्व- यमापादयति। अत्र किन्लिति प्रसङ्गमाशङ्कते। ननु सिंह इत्यादि- समनन्तरमेव वक्ष्यमाणतयेति। समनन्तरमेव तरितयसनन्निधौ लक्षणेत्यादिना पवित्रत्वादिकं पराक्रमातिशयादिकं च लक्षणायाः

24 तत्रापि भावात् । शरीरस्य खलु विशिष्टाधिष्ठानयुक्तस्य सत्यात्मनि जीवव्यवहारः, नेतरत्र-इति चेत्, तर्हि गुणालङ् कारौचित्यसुन्दरशब्दार्थशरीरस्य सति ध्वननाख्यात्मनि काव्यरूपताव्यवहारः, न चात्मनोऽसारता काचिदिति समानम्। न चैवं भक्तिरेव ध्वनिः। भक्तिर्हि लक्षणाव्यापार: तृतीयकक्ष्यानिवेशी, चतुर्थ्यां तु कक्ष्यायां ध्वननव्यापारः। तथा हि-त्रयसन्निधौ लक्षणा प्रवर्तत इति तावत् भवतां2 मतम्। तत्र मुख्यार्थबाधा तावत् प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणान्तरमूला। निमित्तं च यदभिधीयते सामीप्यादि, तदपि प्रमाणान्तरावगम्यमेव। यत्तु इदं घोषस्य अतिपवित्रत्वशीतल- त्वसेव्यत्वादिकं प्रयोजनमशब्दवाच्यं प्रमाणान्तराप्रतिपत्नं वटौ वा पराक्रमातिशयशालित्वं तत्र शब्दस्य न तावन्न व्यापारः। तथा हि- तत्सामीप्यात् तद्धर्मत्वानुमानमनैकान्तिकम्, सिंहशब्दवाच्यत्वं च वटो: असिद्धम्। अथ यत्र थत्र एवंशब्दप्रयोगः तत्र तत्र तद्धर्मयोगः इत्यनुमानम्, तस्यापि व्याप्तिग्रहणकाले मौलिकं प्रमाणान्तरं वाच्यम्; न चास्ति;न च स्मृतिरियम्, अननुभूते4 तदयोगात्, नियमाप्रतिपत्तेः वक्तुरेतदेव विवक्षित-

प्रयोजनत्वेनोच्यते। तत्र व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मक इति च। ततो हेतोः ध्वननसद्भावादित्यर्थः। एतत् प्रतिबन्द्या परिहरति-घटेSपीत्यादि। पराभिप्रेतं हेतुमाशङ्कते शरीरस्येति। तर्हि सम: समाधिरित्याह- तर्हि गुणालङ्कारेत्यादि।। असाधारणताविशेष इत्यर्थः। तस्मात् तृतीयकक्ष्यापातिन्येव लक्षणेति स्थितम्। ननु एवमस्तु लक्षणा। तदिह निषेधो लक्ष्योऽस्तु, मा भूदभिधेयः; मा च भूद््यङ्-ग्यध्वननं च। लक्षणैवास्तु। प्रयोजनप्रयोजनाव्यभिचाराल्लक्षणायाः प्रयोजनं, न ध्वननात्मक- त्वादित्याशंकाSवष्टंभेनाह- न चैवमित्यादि। कक्ष्याभेदाल्लक्षणाध्वननयोर्भेद इत्यर्थः। उक्तं समर्थयति। तथा हीत्यादि। भवतां, प्रयोजनं पुनः शब्दप्रमाणगम्यमित्यर्थः। अनुमानगम्यत्वाशङ्कायां परिहारमाह- तत्सामीप्यादिति॥ घोषोऽतिपवित्र:, गङ्गासमीपत्वात्, तटस्थितमण्डूकशाबवदिति। विपक्षेऽपि वृत्तेरनैकान्तिकत्वम्। वटुः शूरः सिंहशब्दवाच्यत्वादिति अनुमानमपि न भवति। हेतोरसिद्धत्वादिति। अथेत्यादि। एवं शब्दप्रयोग: गङ्गायां घोष: सिंहो वटुरित्येवंप्रकार इत्यर्थः। तत्र प्रतियोगिन्यथे घोषमाणवकादौ तद्धर्मः पवित्रत्वादि:, शौर्यातिशयादिश्चास्तीत्यर्थः। तस्यापीत्यादि- यत्र यत्र धूमस्तत्र तत्राग्निरिति व्याप्तिग्रहणं प्रत्यक्षमूलमुच्यते। न चैवमत्र व्याप्तिग्रहणे किंचित् प्रमाणं मूलभूतं वक्तुं लक्ष्यते इत्यर्थः। न चास्ति तदिति शेषः। तर्हि स्मरणगम्यगस्तु। प्रयोजनमत्राह-न चेत्यादि।। हेतुमाह-अननुभूत इति॥ हेत्वन्तरमप्याह-नियमाप्रतिपतेरित्यादि-कस्यचित् स्मरणं चेत्

क.ख.ग.(का) त्रितय. 2क.ख.(का) भवन्त एव वदन्ति. 3च. ०रादव०. 4क.ख.ग. ०तेः

25 मित्यध्यवसायाभाट प्रसङ्गाच्च इत्यस्ति तावदत्र शब्दस्य व्यापारः । व्यापारश्च नाभिधात्मा1, समयाभावात्; न तात्पर्यात्मा, तस्थान्वयप्रतीतावेव परिक्षयात्; न लक्षणात्मा, रक्तादेव हेतोः स्खलद्गतित्वाभावात्। तत्रापि हि2 स्खलद्गतित्वे पुनर्रख्यार्थबाधा निमितं प्रयोजनमित्यनवस्था स्यात् । अत एव यत् केनचित् लक्षितलक्षणेति नाम कृतं तव्दसनमात्रभ। तस्मात् अभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणाउव्यतिरिक्तः चतुर्धोऽसौ व्यापारो ध्वननद्योतनव्यञ्जनप्रत्यायनावगमनादिसोदरव्यपदेशनिरूपितोऽभ्युप- गन्तव्यः। यद्वक्ष्यति -- "मुख्यां वृत्तिं परित्यज्य गुणवृत्त्यार्थंदर्शनम् । यदुदिश्य फलं तत्र शब्दो नैव स्खलद्गतिः!" इति। तेन समयापेक्षा 4वाच्यार्थाटगमनशक्तिः अभिधाशक्तिः, तदन्यथानुपपत्तिसहायार्थाव- बोधनशक्तिः तात्पर्यशक्तिः; मुख्यार्थबाधादि रहकार्यपेक्षार्थप्रतिभासनशक्तिः लक्षणार्शाकतिः तच्छक्तित्रयोपजनितार्थावगममूल जाततत्प्रतिभासपवित्रितप्रतिपत्तृ

नियम भावेनैतदव वक्त्रा विवक्षितमिति निर्धारयितुं न पार्यते। सोऽप्यत्र हेतुरित्यर्थः। तस्भात् शब्दत एव प्रयोजनं प्रतिपद्यते, यत्रास्य वेनचिद्व्यापारण भवितव्यमित्याह- अस्ति तावदिति- स च व्यापार अभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणाभ्यो अन्य एवेति समर्थयितुमाह-व्यापारश्चेत्यादि। उक्तादेव हेतोरिति। मुख्यार्थबाधे प्रत्यक्षादिमूलत्वमुक्तो हेतुः। स्खलद्गतित्वाभावादिति नुख्यार्थबाधाभावादित्यर्थः। तटे हि लक्ष्ये गङ्गाशब्दः स्वार्थे सबाधः। नैवं पवित्रत्वे लक्ष्ये विपक्षे बाधमाह-तत्रापि हीति। अनवस्थेति -- मूलक्षतिकरीति शेषः। अनेनैव न्यायेन मतान्तर परास्यति। अत एवेत्यादि। लक्षितलक्षणति। लक्षिते लक्षणा लक्षितलक्षणा। तटे इव गङ्गाशब्दस्य प्रयोजनेऽपि लक्षणाSस्तीत्यर्थः। नाग कृतं ध्वननव्य:पारस्थेति शेषः। तद्व्यसनमात्रमिति। अनर्थमात्रं न कश्चिदर्थ- लेशोऽपि अनवस्थ,पातादिति भावः। निगमयति तस्मादिति। तत्र प्रमाणं दर्शयति- यद्वक्ष्यतीति। व्यापारचतुष्टयस्य स्वरूपं विशदयति- तेनेत्यादि। वाच्यार्थावगमनशक्तिरिति पदार्थावगमशक्तिरिति यावत्। तदन्यथानुपपत्तिसहायार्थावबोधनशक्तिरिति। तस्य विशेषरूपस्यान्वि तार्थस्य अन्यथा तात्पर्याभावे अभिधाया एव भावे योऽनुपपत्तिः तत्सहायो योरषर्थः रंसृष्टस्तदवबोधनशक्तिरित्यर्थः। तच्छक्तित्रयेत्यादि। अभिधयोपज़नितोऽर्थः पदार्ध। तात्पर्योपजनितो वाक्यार्थो विशेषरूपः। लक्षणयोपजनितो लक्ष्यः। एतदर्थत्रयावगमरूपं यन्मूलं तस्माज्जातेति यावत्। तथा तत्प्रतिभासेन अर्थत्रयप्रतिभासजेन पवित्रितो

घ.ङ.च. नाणिशानात्मा. 2क.ख.ग.घ. 'हि' नास्ति. 3क.ख.ग. लक्षणव्य०. 4क.ख.ग.ङ.च.(का) वाव्यावगम०.

26 प्रतिभा सहायार्थद्योतनशक्ति: ध्वननव्यापारः । स च प्राग्वृत्तं व्यापारत्रयं न्यक्कुर्वन् प्रधानभूतः काव्यात्मा इत्याशयेन निषेधप्रमुखतया च, प्रयोजनविषयोऽपि निषेधविषय इत्युक्तः। अभ्युपगममात्रेण चेदमुक्तम् । न त्वत्र लक्षणा, अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतत्वान्य- संक्रमणयोरभावात्। न 1चार्थशक्तिमूलेऽस्या व्यापारः। सहकारिभेदाच्च शक्तिभेद: स्पष्ट एव; यथा2 तस्यैव शब्दस्य व्याप्तिस्मृत्यादिसहकृतस्य विवक्षावगतावनुमापकत्वव्यापारः, अक्षादिसहकृतस्य वा विकल्पकत्वव्यापारः। एवमभिहितान्वयवादिना तावदियदनपह्नवनीयम्।। योऽप्यन्विताभिधानवादी "यत्परः शब्दः स शब्दार्थः" इति हृदये गृहीत्वा शरवदभिधाव्यापारमेव दीर्घदीर्घमिच्छति तस्य यदि दीर्घदीर्घो व्यापारः, तदेकोऽसाविति परिशोधितो योऽ्यं प्रतिपत्ता तस्य या प्रतिभा तया सहिता अर्थस्य प्रयोजनादिरूपस्य द्योतन- शक्तिरित्यर्थः। स चेत्यादि- व्यापारत्रयन्यक्कारात् प्रधानभूतत्वं ध्वननस्य, प्रधानत्वादेव काव्यात्मत्वं तदभिप्रायेण च। निषेधप्रमुखतया च निषेधाभिमुखतया न। निषेधविषय इत्युक्त इति भूतकालत्वं न विवक्षितम्। उच्यत इति यावत्। स हि वाच्ये विधिरूपे कदाचित् प्रतिषेधरूपो यथेति प्रतीयमानार्थ उक्तः। न खलु व्यञ्जनाव्यापारेणैवावगम्यत इति व्यञ्जनाव्यापारनिषेधविषय इत्युक्त इत्यर्थ:॥ यद्यप्येवमुक्तं तथापि अत्र वस्तुतो लक्षणायाः कथैव नास्तीत्याह- अभ्युपगमेत्यादि। लक्षणाभावे हेतुमाह- अत्यन्तेत्यादि। लक्षणाया हि वाच्यस्यात्यन्ततिरस्कृतत्वं वा अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितत्वं वा नियतम्। न चैतत् किञ्चिदत्र। तस्मान्न लक्षणेति यावत्। ननु अर्थशक्तिमूलोऽयं ध्वनिः तत्र किं लक्षणा न स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह- न हयर्थशक्तिमूले अस्या व्यापार इति अस्या लक्षणाया अन्यथा लक्षणामूलध्वनिरिति व्यपदेश: स्यात्, नार्थशक्तिमूल इति भाव:। कि अर्थशक्तिमूलध्वननव्यापारस्य वक्तृबोद्धव्यकाक्वादिवैशिष्ट्यं सहकारि लक्षणायास्तु मुख्यार्थबाधादित्यतोऽप्यनयोर्भेदः सिद्ध इत्याह- सहकारिभेदाच्च शक्निभेद: स्पष्ट एवेति। तदपि विशदयति यथा तस्येत्यादि। शब्दोऽनुमानमिति दर्शने यो यत्र दृश्यते शब्दः स तस्यार्थस्य वाचकः। यस्मिन् न दृश्यते वासौ न तस्यार्थस्य वाचकः, इति व्याप्ति- स्मरणम्। आदिशब्देन पक्षधर्मत्वं शब्दोर्ऽर्थवानित्येवंरूपम्। एतत्सहकृतस्य शब्दस्य यथा विवक्षावगमे अनुमापकत्वशक्तिरित्यर्थ:। अस्य वक्तुरनेन शब्देनायमर्थो वक्तुमिष्ट इत्यवगमे खलु शब्दोऽनुमानं भवतीति दृष्टान्तान्तरं दर्शयति। अक्षादीत्यादि- अक्षमिन्द्रियं श्रोत्रम्, आदिशब्दाददृष्टादि। तत्सहकृतस्य शब्दस्य। विकल्पकत्वं बोधकत्वं, अर्थप्रतिपादकत्वं वाचकत्वमित्यर्थः। उपसंहरति- एवमभिहितेत्यादि। इयदिति। अभिधादिव्यापारत्रयोत्तीर्णध्वननव्यापार- तद्विषयवैभवमित्यर्थः। अथान्विताभिधानवादिमतेनापि न प्रतिहन्यतेऽयं ध्वनिरित्याह-योअयन्विता- भिध्रानेत्यादि॥ शरवदिति- यथा शरो हस्तवता मुक्तः शत्रोरुरच्छदमुरश्च भित्त्वा प्राणानपहृत्य निर्गच्छति इंति दीर्घस्तद्व्यापारः, तथा शब्दोऽप्यनेकपर्थ सकृत् प्रयुक्तोऽभिधत्ते इति दीर्घोऽस्याभिधा- व्यापारः। अतो अभिधाव्यतिरेकेण न कश्चन ध्वगनव्यापारो युक्तः शब्दस्य अस्त्यपूर्वः। अर्थोऽपि 1क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. च.(नि) (का) न हि. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) तथा.

27 कुतः? भिन्न विषयत्वात्। अथानेकोऽसौ, तद्विषयसहकारिभेदात् असजातोय एव युक्तः। सजातीये च कार्ये विरम्य व्यापारः शब्दकर्मबुद्धयादीनां पदार्थविद्भिः निषिद्धः। असजातीये चास्मन्नय एव। अथ योऽसौ चतुर्थकक्ष्ानिविष्टोऽर्थः स एव इटिति वाक्येनाभिधीयते इत्येवंविधं दीर्घदीर्घत्वं विवक्षितम्, नर्हि तत्र संकेताकरणात् कथ साक्षात् प्रतिर्पातिः? निमित्तेषु संकेतः नैगित्तिकस्त्वसावर्थ इति संकेतानपेक्ष एवेति चेत्, पश्य श्रोत्रियस्योक्ति'कौशलम्! यो हयसौ पर्यन्तकक्ष्याभाग्वर्थः प्रथमं प्रतीतिपथमवतीर्गः तस्य पश्चात्तना: पदार्थावगमा निमित्तभावं गच्छन्तीति नूनं मीमांसकस्य प्रभौत्रं प्रति नैमित्तिकत्वमभिमतम्। अधोच्येत-पूर्वं तत्र संकेतग्रहणसंस्कृतस्य तथा प्रतिपत्तिर्भवतीति अमुया वस्तुस्थित्या निमित्तत्वं पदार्थानाम्, तर्हि तदनुसरणोपयोगि न किञ्चिदप्युक्तं

अभिधेय एव, न व्यङ्ग्य इति पूर्वपक्ष:। तं विघटयति-तस्य यदीत्यादि। योऽयं दीर्घदीर्धो व्यापारः स किमेको अनेको वा? न एक: विषयभेदेन भेदापातात्। न हयभिधेया अर्था अनेके, अभिधात्वेकैवेति भवति। अथानेकश्चेत् विषयभेदात् सहकारिभेद.च्य अनेकश्चासजातीयश्चैवासौ व्यापार: स्यात्। विषयो मुख्य लक्ष्यादिः। सहकारी सङ्केतः। मुख्यार्थबाधादि वक्तृबोद्धव्यादिवैशिष्ट्यं च। कि चानेकस्यास्य व्यापारस्य ये विषयाभिन्ना: ते कि सजातीया विजातीण वा इति विकल्पमभिसन्धाय, सजातीयपःष व्युदस्यति- सजार्ताये चेत्यादि। कार्ये विषये इत्टर्थः। व्यापार इति। अभिधात्मेत्यर्थः। द्वितीयं पक्षमनुमन्यते-असजातीये चेति। अस्मन्नय एवेति। अस्मत्पक्ष एव, का विमतिरित्यर्थः। आशङ्कते- अथ योऽसाविति॥ चतुर्थ कक्ष्शनिविष्ट इति लक्षणाभिमतपक्षे इति शेषः। अभिधामूलव्यञ्जनाभिमते अर्थ इति। व्यङ्ग्याभिमत इत्यर्थः। तृतीयकक्ष्याविनिविष्ट इति शेष:॥ वाक्येनाभिधायकपदसमुदायेन स ऐवेि-नान्योर्थः कश्चिदित्यर्थः। परिहरति-तर्हीत्य/दि। वाक्यं चतुर्थकक्ष्याविनिविष्टमर्थं साक्षात् नाभिदध्यात्। तत्र असङ्केतित्वात्। न खलु गङ् गा.शब्द: पवित्रतायां संकेतितः। न च 'भम धम्पिज' इत्यादिवाक्यं गोदावरीतीरे मा भ्रमेत्यर्थे संङ्केतितमित्यर्थः। आशङ्कते- निमित्तेष्यिति। निमित्तेषु पदार्धेषु चतुर्थकक्ष्यापातिनोSर्थस्य निमित्तभूताः पदार्थाः, तेष्वेवं सङ्केतः, असाविति चतुर्थ- कक्ष्याविनिविष :: संकेतानपेक्ष एवेति निमित्तबलादेव सिद्धत्वादिति भावः। सोपहासं परिहरति -- पश्येत्यादि। प्राग्भवस्य परचाद्भाविनिमित्तश्चेत् मीमांसकस्य तव भविष्यत्प्रपौत्रो निमित्तः स्यादित्यर्थः। आशङ्कते, अथोच्येत इत्यादि। तत्र पदार्थेषु सङ्केतग्रहणसंस्कृतस्य पुरुषस्य तथा प्रतिपत्तिः। वतुर्थकक्ष्याविनिविष्टार्य- प्रतिपत्तिभवतीत्यनया वस्तुस्थित्या पदार्था निमित्तं भवन्तीत्यर्थः॥ परिहरतितहींति। तदनुसरणोपयोगि चतुर्थकक्ष्यातिनिविष्टार्थावगमोपयोगि किञ्चिदपि नोक्त स्पदिति यावत्। गृहीतसंकेतस्य संकेतिता: पदार्थाः एव गम्येर न् नाऽगृहीतसङ् केतश्चतुर्थकक्ष्याविनिविष्टोऽर्थ इति भावः।

1क.ह.ग.(नि) श्रोत्रियस्यानुवाकहतबुद्धेरुक्ति०.

28 स्यात्। न चापि प्राक् पदार्थेषु संबन्धग्रहणं वृत्तम्, अन्वितानामेव सर्वदा प्रयोगात्। आवापोद्वापाभ्यां तथाभाव इति चेत्, संकेतः पदार्थमात्र एवेत्यभ्युपगमे पाश्चात्यैव विशेषप्रतीति:। अथोच्यते- 'दृष्टैव झटिति तात्पर्यप्रतिपत्तिः, किमत्र कुर्म' इति; तदिदं वयमपि न नाङ्गीकुर्मः, यद्वक्ष्यति- "तद्वत्सचेतसां सोऽर्थो वाच्यार्थविमुखात्मनाम्। बुद्धौ तत्वार्थदर्शिन्यां झटित्येवावभासते ।।" इति; किं तु सातिशयानुशीलनाभ्यासात्तत्र संभाव्यमानोऽपि क्रमः सजातीयतद्विकल्प- परम्परानुदयात् अभ्यस्तविषयव्याप्तिसमयस्मृतिक्रमवत् न संवेद्यते इति। निमित्त- नैमित्तिकभावश्चावश्याश्रयणीयः। अन्यथा गौणलाक्षणिकयोः मुख्याद्भेद:, श्रुतिलिङ्गा-

अगृहीतसङ्केते कथमभिधा व्याप्रियतामिति निष्कर्षः॥ एतदेव विशदीकर्तुं 'किं च भवन्मते सङ्केतग्रहणमपि न घटत' इत्याह- न चापीति। तत्र हेतुमाह- अन्वितानामेवेति। परस्परं व्यतिषक्ता एव पदार्थाः न तु विभक्ताः पृथक् पृथग्भूताः। तत्र कथमयमियान् भागोऽस्य पदस्यार्थ इति सङ्केतो गृह्यत इत्यर्थः। आशङ्कते- आवापेत्यादि- व्यवहारेषु वृद्धानां वाक्यश्रवणभाविषु - आवापोद्वापभेदेन पदानां शक्तिनिश्चयः। इति नयात्तथाभावः पृथक् पृथक् सङ्केतग्रहणमित्यर्थः। परिहरति- सङ्कंतः इति। आवापोद्वापाभ्यां पदशक्तिनिर्णये पदार्थसामान्य एव संकेत इति स्थितिः स्यात्, न च विशेष इति। तदा पश्चात् प्रतीयमाने विशेषरूपे अर्थे किं संकेतग्रहणमुपकरोतीत्यर्थ:।। आशङ्कते-अथोच्यत इति। तात्पर्यप्रतिपत्तिरिति। तात्पर्यस्य विशेषरूपस्य चतुथंकक्ष्याविनिविष्टस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपत्तिरिति यावत्। परिहरति-तदिदमिति। अङ्गीकारमेव प्रदर्शयति- यद्वक्ष्यतीति। तत्र विशेषमाह- किं त्वेत्यादि। झटिति प्रतीतावपि पदार्थवाक्यार्थयोर्निमित्तनैमितिकभावः क्रमात्मा अवश्यमस्तीत्यंगीकर्तव्य इति युक्त्या संभाव्यमानोऽपि क्रमो न संवेद्यत इत्येतावदेव। न तु तस्य नास्तित्वमिति। तस्माद्धेतोरित्यर्थः। असंवेदने कारणमाह-सजातीयतद्विकल्प - परम्परानुदयादिति। सजातीगानां शब्दाभिधेयत्वेन तुल्यानां तद्विकल्पानां तद्भेदानां अर्थानां परम्परया अनुदयात् प्रतीततयाऽभावादित्यर्थः। एतत् किंनिमित्तमित्याह- सातिशयानुशीलनाभ्यासादिति। सातिशयपरामर्शपौनःपुन्या- दित्यर्थः। तत्र दृष्टान्तमाह- अभ्यस्तविषयव्याप्तिसमयस्मृतिक्रमवदिति। एवं क्रमाङ्-गीकारेSभिधयैव नैमित्तिकार्थोSपि प्रतिपाद्य इति न भवतीति स्थितम्। अत एव च गौणादिपरिग्रहांऽ-्युपपद्यत इत्याह- अन्यथेत्यादि। श्रुतिलिङ् गादिप्रमाणषट्कस्य पारदौर्बल्यमिति। श्रुतिलिंगवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां

29 ेप्रमापषट्कस्य पारदौर्बल्यम् इत्याटिप्रकियाविघातः। निमित्ततावैचित्र्पेणैवास्याः समर्थितत्वात्, निमित्ततावैचित्र्ये चाभ्युपगते किमपरमस्मास्वसूयया। येSव्यविभक्तं स्फोटं वाक्यं तदर्थमाहुः तैरप्यविद्यापदपतितैः सर्वेयमनुसरणीया प्रक्रिया। तदुत्तीर्णत्वे तु सर्वं परमेश्वराद्रयं ब्रह्म इति अस्मच्छास्त्रकारेण न न विदितं तत्त्वालोक गन्थं विरचयता इत्यास्ताम्॥ यत्तु भट्टनायकेनोक्तम्- इह दृप्तसिंहादिपदप्रयोगे2 च भयानकरसावेशकृतैव निषेधावगतिः, तदीयभीरुत्व3धीरत्व4प्रकृतिनियमावगममन्तरेणैकान्ततो निषेधा- वगत्यभावादिति, तन्न केवलार्थसामर्थ्यं निषेधगतेर्निमित्तमिति। तत्रोच्यते-केनोत्तमेतत् वक्तृप्रतिपतृविशेषावगमविरहेण शब्दगतध्वननव्यापारविरहेण च निषेधावगतिः इति? प्रतिपत्तृप्रतिभासहकारित्चं हयस्माभिः ग्योतनस्य प्राणत्वेनोक्तम; भयानकरसावेशश्च न वार्यते, तस्य भयमात्रेणोत्पत्त्यभ्युपगमात्। प्रतिपत्तुश्च रसावेशो रसाभिव्यक्त्यैव; रसश्च

समवाये पारदौर्बल्यमर्थविप्रकर्षादिति प्रमाणान्यन्यानि षहुक्तानि। तेषां पारदौर्बल्यं लिङ्गाच्छीघग्राहिणी श्रुतिरित्यादि सोदाहरणं दर्शितम्। तदेतत्सर्वं दीर्घदीघ.भयाविलासे निरवकाशं स्यादित्यर्थः। प्रक्रियाविधाने हेतुमाह- निमित्ततेति। निमित्ततावैचित्रयं निमिसतायां नानाविधत्वं दीर्घत्वमित्यर्थ:। अस्या: अ.भेधायाः। इयमभिधैव दीर्घदीर्पलक्षणभावस्वधुरमुद्धोढुं समर्था, तत इत्यर्थः। अपि च अभिधाया यन्निमित्तत्वमर्थप्रतिपादने तस्य वैचित्र्यं नाना/विधत्वमङ्गीक्रियते चेत् अर्थंभेटोऽङ्गीकृतः स्यात्। ततो व्यापारभेदोऽभ्युपेत इति॥ किमस्गदुवते असमर्थ इत्याह- निमित्ततेति। एवमन्विताभिधा- नवादिना न पराकरणीयो ध्वनिरिति प्रसाध्य वैयाकरणदर्शनमपि नैनं विरोद्धुमलमिति आह- प्रेऽप्यविभक्तमित्यादि। ये तावन्निरवयवमेकं वाक्यं निरवयवस्य व.व्याथंस्य वाचकमिति वदन्ति, ते किं विद्ापदपतिता: एवं बुवते, उत अविद्यापदपतिताः? नाद्यः कल्पः। विद्यापदपाते तूष्णींभाव एव स्यादिति। द्वितीयप्क्षे इदं पदपदार्थविभागादिकं सर्वमङ्गीकरणीयम्। अन्यथा वचनस्यैवानुत्था- नप्रसङ्-गादिति। एवं शास्त्रकारान् प्रतिवाच्य काव्यविदः प्रत्याह-यत्तु भट्टनायकेत्यादि। भयानकरसा- वेशकृतैवेतति। न वाच्यसामर्थ्यकृतेत्यर्थः। परिहरति- तत्रोच्यत इत्यादि। प्रतिपत्ता बोधयितव्य। तस्य भयानकरसस्य भयमात्रेण भयेनैदांत्पत्तेरभ्युपगमात् प्रतिपुर्धार्मिकस्य रसावेशः भयानकरसावेशः रसाभिव्यक्त्यैव भवति नान्यथेत्यर्थः।

1क.ख.ग.ङ .. 4.(नि) तन्त्रालोक०. 2क.ख.ग.घ.ङ.च.(नि) 'अपि' अधिकः. 3क.ख.घ.ङ .. च.(का) भीरु. 4घ.ङ.च. ०वीरत्न०. 5 क.ख.गच.(नि) 'वक्तृ' इत्यधिकमादौ. 6क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. च. अस्य.

30 व्यङ्ग्य एव; तस्य च शब्दवाच्यत्वं तेनापि नोपगतमिति व्यङ्ग्यत्वमेव। प्रतिपत्तुश्च1 रसावेशो न नियतः ; न हयसौ नियमेन भीरुधार्मिकसब्रह्मचारी सहृदयः। अथ तद्विशेषोऽपि सहकारी कल्प्यते, तर्हि वत्तृप्रतिपत्तृप्रतिभाप्राणितो ध्वननव्यापारः किं न सह्यते? किं च वस्तुध्वनिं दूषयता रसध्वनिस्तदनुग्राहकः समर्थ्यत इति सुतरां2 ध्वनिध्वंसोषयम्। यदाह- "क्रोधोऽपि देवस्य वरेण तुल्यः"3॥ अथ रसस्यैवेयता प्राधान्यमुक्तं तत्को न सहते। अथ वस्तुमात्रध्वनेरेतदुदाहरणं न युक्तमित्युच्यते, तथापि काव्यो4दाहरणत्वात् द्वावप्यत्र ध्वनी स्ताम्5, को दोषः? यदि तु रसानुवेधेन विना न तुष्यते, तद्भयानकरसानुवेधोऽपि नात्र सहृदयहृदयदर्पणमध्यास्ते। अपि तूक्तनीत्या संभोगाभिलाषविभावभूतसंकेतस्थानोचितविशिष्टकाक्वाद्यनुभावसंवल- नोदित7 शृङ्-गाररसानुवेध:, रसस्यालौकिकत्वात्, तस्य तावन्मात्रादेव8 चानवगमात्। प्रथमं निर्विवादसिद्धवि विक्तविधिनिषेधप्रदर्शनाभिप्रायेण चैतद्वस्तुध्वनेरुदाहरणं दतम्। यस्तु ध्वनिव्याख्यानोद्यतस्तात्पर्यशक्तिमेव विवक्षासूचकत्वमेव वा ध्वननमवोचत्, स नास्माकं हृदयमावर्जयति। यदाहु :- "भिन्नरुचिर्हि लोकः" इति। तदेतदग्रे यथायथं प्रतनिष्याम

व्यङ्ग्य एव। न वाच्य इत्यर्थ:। सब्रह्मचारी सदृशः। आशङ्कते- अथेति। तद्विशेषोSपि सहृदयविशेषोऽपि। परिहरति-तहींति॥ उपहसति-किं चेति। क्रोधोऽ्पीति। कश्चित् केनचित्क्रोधवशात् कृतमभीप्सितार्थ- युक्तत्वात् अनुग्रहं मन्यमान आहैवम्। काव्योदाहरणत्यादिति। काव्योदाहरणेषु लिलक्षयि मेव भवेत्, नान्यत् किञ्चिदिति न नियम:, अन्येषामपि बहूनां प्रस्तावान्तरे प्रतिपाद्यानां संभवात्। कुत एतत्? काव्यत्वात्। काव्यं खलु विचित्रार्थं भवति। शास्त्रोदाहरणे लिलक्षवितमेव स्यादिति भावः। द्वावपीति। वस्तुध्वनिश्च रसध्वनिश्च स्तां भवेताम्। अथ यदि रसे निर्बन्धः, तर्हि शृङ्गार एव रसोऽस्तु न भयानक इत्याह। यदित्वित्यादि। संभोगेति। संभोगाभिलाषस्य विभावभूतमालम्बनभूतं यत् संकेतस्थानं तदुचितैः विशिष्टकाक्वादिभिः निर्णयकाकुनयनविकारादिभिरनुभावैः संवलनात् मिश्रणादुदित- शृंगाररसानुवेध इति थावत्। तर्हि किमेतत् रसध्वनेरुदाहरणत्वेन न कृतमित्यत्राह-तस्येति। तावन्मात्रादेव चानवगमादिति। तावन्मात्रात् स्वरूपव्यावर्तनविरहेण केवलमुदाहरणमात्रात् रसस्यानवगमादित्यर्थ:। व्याख्यानान्तरं प्रतिक्षिपति-यस्त्वित्यादि। तदेतत्तात्पर्यविवक्ष, सूचकत्वद्वय तिरिक्तध्वननस्वरूपमिति यावत्।

1क.प्र.ग.घ.ड .. च.(का) अपि. 2क.ख.ग.घ.च.(का) सुष्ठुतरां. 3(नि) (का) 'इति' इत्यधिकम्. 4क.ख.(नि) कार्यो. ' ग.(नि)(का) स्तः. 6क.ख.ग.(नि) 'यदि तु ...... अध्यास्ते' नास्ति. 7क.ख.(नि)(का) ०शबलनोचित०. 8(कौ) तावन्मात्रेण.

31 इत्यास्तां तावत् ॥। भ्रमेति॥ अतिसृष्टोऽसि, प्राप्तस्ते भ्रमणकालः॥ धार्मिकेति॥ कुसुमाद्युपयोगार्थं1 युक्तं ते भ्रमणम्॥ विश्रब्ध इति॥ शङ्काकारणवैकल्यात् ॥ स इति॥ यस्ते भयप्रकम्पामङ्-गलतिकामकृत ॥। अद्येति॥ दिष्ट्या वर्धसे इत्यर्थ:॥ मारित इति॥ पुनररयानुत्थानन् तेनेति॥ यः पूर्वमेव कर्णाकर्णिकया2 त्वयाप्याकर्णितो गोदावरीकछछगहने प्रतिवसतीति। पर्वमेव हि तद्रक्षायै एतत्तयोपश्रावितोऽसौ ; अधुना तु दृप्तत्वात् ततो गहनान्निस्सरतीति प्रसिद्धगोदाटरीपरिसरानुसरणमपि तावत् कथाशेषीभूतम्, का कथा तल्लतागृह3प्रवेशशङ्काया इति भाव:॥ श्वश्रूरत्र शेते (अशवा निमज्जति) अत्राहं दिवसकं प्रलोकय। मा पथिक रात्र्रन्ध शय्यायामावयोः शयिष्ठा:4 11 महँ इति निपातोडनेकार्थवृत्तिरत्र, आवयोरित्यर्थे न तु भमेति; एवं हि विशेषवचनमेव शङ्काकरि भवेदिति प्रच्छन्नाभ्युपगमो न स्यात्। काञ्चित्प्रोषितपतिकां तरुणीमवलोक्य प्रवृद्वमदनाङ्कुर:6 पान्थ: अनेन निषेधद्वारण तयाभ्युपगत इति निषेधाभावोडत्र विधिः,न तु निमन्त्रगरूपोSप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तनास्वभावः, सौभाग्याभिमानखण्डनाप्रवेशात्। अत एवं 'रात्र्यन्ध' इति समुचितसमयसंभाव्यमानविकाराकुलितत्वं ध्वनितम्। भावतदभावयोश्च साक्षाद्विरोधांत् वाच्याव्दड् ग्यस्य स्फुटमेवान्यत्वम्।। यच्चाह भट्टनायक :- "अहमित्यभिनयविशेषेणात्मदशावेदनात् शाब्दमेतदपि" इति, तत्र अहमिति तावत् शब्दस्य नायं साक्षादर्थः; काक्वादिसहायस्य च तावति ध्वननमेव व्यापार इति ध्वनेर्भूषणमेतत्।।

प्रकृतोदाहरणे यथाभिप्रांयं दर्शयति-भ्रमेति। आकर्र्ितपूर्वत्वं समर्थयति- पूर्वमेवेति। श्वश्रूरित्यादि अनेकार्थवृत्तिरिति बहुवचन इत्यर्थ:॥ विधेर्निमन्त्रणत्वे बाधमाह-सौभाग्येति। प्रवेशात्। प्रसङ्गादित्यर्थः। अत एवेति। सौभ ग्याभिगानादि यर्थ:। समुचितसमय: संभोगोचितरात्रिसमयः। अत्र भट्टनायकमतमनुवदति। यच्चाहेति एतदपीति। एतन्निषेधद्वारेण अभ्युपगमनम्, अपीत्यनेनोक्तचरं प्रकाशयति। परिहरति -- तत्रेति। साक्षादर्थ:। मुख्यार्थः। अभिधाव्यापारार्थ इत्यर्थः। काक्वोते, काक्टादि सहायस्याऽहंशब्दस्यायमर्थश्चेत् तत्रास्य ध्वननमेव व्यपारो नाभिधेत्यर्थः।

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) उपकरणांथं. 2क.ख.ग.घ.ड्.च.(नि)(का) कर्णोपकार्णिकया. 3क.ख.ग.(का) गहन. क.ख.(नि) माङूश्ी:। अत्र शयिषा वा. क.ख.(नि) कश्वित्. 6क.ख.(नि)(का) 'पंपन्नः' इत्यधिकः.

32 'अत्ता' इति प्रयत्नेनानिभृतसंभोगपरिहारः। अथ च यद्यपि भवान् मदनशरासारदार्यमाणहृदयः उपेक्षितुं न युक्त:, तथापि किं करोमि, पापो दिवसकांज्यम्। अनुचितत्वात् कुत्सितोऽयमित्यर्थः। प्राकृते पुंनपुंसकयोरनियमः। न च सर्वथा त्वामुपेक्षे; यतोSत्रैवाहं तत्प्रलोकय नान्यतोऽहं गच्छामि। तदन्योन्यवदनावलोकनविनोदेन दिनं तावदतिवाहयाव इत्यर्थः। प्रतिपन्नमात्रायां च रात्रावन्धीभूतो मदीयां2 शय्यां मा श्लिक्ष:, अपि तु निभृतनिभृतमेतदत्ताभिधाननिकटकण्टकनिद्रान्वेषण पूर्वकमितीयदत्र ध्वन्यते॥ व्रज ममैवैकस्या भवन्तु निःश्वासरोदितव्यानि । मा तवापि तथा विना दाक्षिण्यहतस्य जनिषत3॥ अत्र व्रजेति विधि:। न प्रमादादेव नायिकान्तरसङ्-गमनं तव, अपि तु गाढानुरागात्, येन अन्यादृङ्-मुख4वर्णः गोत्रस्खलितादि च। केवलं पूर्वकृतानुपालनात्मना दाक्षिण्येनैक- रूपताभिमानेन त्वमत्र स्थित:, तत्सर्वथा शठोऽसि इति गाढमन्युरूपोऽयं खण्डित- नायिकाभिप्रायः अत्र प्रतीयते। न चासौ 'ज्याभावरूपो निषेधः; नापि विध्यन्तरमेव अन्युनिषेधाभावः। दे6 इति निपातः प्रार्थनायाम्। आ इति तावच्छब्दार्थे। प्रार्थये, प्रसीद 7तावत्, निवर्तस्व मुखशशिज्योत्सनाविलुप्ततमोनिवहे। अभिसारिकाणां विघ्नं करोष्यन्यासामपि हताशे॥ अत्र व्यवसितात् गमनान्निवर्तस्व इति प्रतीतेः निषेधो वाच्यः। गृहागता नायिका

प्राकृतेषु पुंनपुंसकयोरनियम इत्येतच्चिन्त्यम्। दिवसशब्दो हि पुंनपुंसकलिड्ग। न च कुत्सा कप्रत्ययान्तः पुल्लिङ्ग एवेति नियम:। अन्धीभूतः मदनविजृम्भान्धीभूतः मा श्लिक्षः मा प्रापः। निभृतनिभृतप्राप्तेर्हेतुमाह- एतदिति। एतस्य श्वश्रूनाम्नः कण्टकस्यानर्थस्य निद्रान्चेषणपृर्वकमिति। व्रजेत्यादि। अन्र ब्रजेति विधिरिति विधिरूपवाच्यार्थानुवादः। प्रतीयमानस्यानुभवरूपत्वं प्रदर्शयितुं तत्स्वरूपं प्रतिपादयति। न प्रमादादेवेत्यादि। अतो विवक्षितमाह न चेति। असौ प्रतीयमानार्थः। अन्यनिषेधाभाव इति। व्रज्याया अन्यस्य निषेधाभावः इति यावत्। दे आ. इत्यादि। अत्र वाच्यस्य निषेधात्मकत्वं समर्थयति- अत्र व्यवसितादिति।

1क.ख.ग.ङ .. (नि)(का) 'च' नास्ति. 2ग.(नि)(का) मदीयायां शय्यायां. 3क.ख.जनिष्यते. 4क.ख.(का) राग; ग.घ. वर्णो इति. 5क.ख.(नि) विध्यभाव०. क.ख.ग.(नि) हे. 7क.ख.(नि)(का) तावत्प्रसीद.

33 गोत्रस्खलिताद्यपराधिनि नायके सति ततः प्रतिगन्तुं प्रवृत्ता नायकेन चाटूपक्रमपूर्वकं निव्त्यते-न केवलं स्वात्मनः मम च निवृत्या1 विघ्नं करोषि यावदन्यासामपि। ततस्तव न कदाचन सुखलवलाभोSा भविष्यति। अत एव हताशासि इति वल्लभाभिप्रायरूपः चाटुविशेषो व्यङ्ग्यः। यन्दे वा सख्योपदिश्टमानापि तदवधीरणया गच्छन्ती सख्या 2उच्यते-न केवलभात्मनो विघ्नं करोषि लाघवादबहुमानास्पदम् आत्मानं कुर्वती, अत एव हताशा, वावद्वदनचन्द्रिका प्रकाशितमार्गतया अन्यासामप्यभिसारिकाणां विघ्नं करोषि -- इति सख्यभिप्रायरूपश्चाटुविशेषो व्यङ्ग्यः। अत्र तु व्याख्यानद्वयेऽपि व्यवसितात् प्रतीपगमनात् प्रियतमगृहगमनाच्य निवर्तस्वेति पुनरपि वाच्य एव विश्रान्तेः गुणीभूतव्यट्-गभेदस्य प्रेयोप्लङ् कारम्य पारम्पर्येण रसवदलंकारस्य उदाहरणभिदं स्यात्, न ध्वनेः। तेन अयमत्र भाव :- काचित् रभसात् प्रियतममभिसरन्ती तद्गृहाभि- मुखमागच्छता तेनैव हृदयवल्लभेन एवमुपश्लोक्यते अप्रत्यभिज्ञानच्छलेन। अत एवात्मप्रत्यभिज्ञापनार्थमेव नर्मवचनम् 'हताशे' इति। अन्यासां5 च विघ्नं करोषि; तव चेप्सितलाभो भवि थ्यतीति का प्रत्याशा। अत एव मटीयं वा गृहमागच्छ,त्वदीयं वा गच्छाव इत्युभयत्राप्य6 तात्पर्यादनुभयरूपो वल्लभाभिप्रायश्चाट्टात्मा व्यङ्ग्य इत्येवाव तिष्ठते। अन्ये तु तटस्थानां सहृदयानामाभे सारिकां प्रतीयमुक्तिरित्याहुः । तत्र हताशे इत्यामन्त्रणादि8 युक्तमयुक्तं वेति सहृदया एव प्रमाणम्।।

उदाहरणवाक्यरयात्मलाभनिमित्तं पकरगमाह गृहमागतेति। प्रतीयमानं प्रकाशयति- न केवलमित्यादि। प्रकारान्तरमाह-यदि वेत्यादि। अत्र व्यङ्यं दर्शयति न केवलमिति। उभयथाप्यत्र मध्यगकाव्यत्वं प्रसज्यत इत्याह- अन्रत्वित्यादि: निवर्तस्वेति स्वरूपे वाच्ये अस्य प्रतीयमानस्य विश्रमाद्वाच्यस्यऽङ्गिच्चे सति योऽत्र प्रतीयते रतिभावः। शृंगारो वा, तस्याङ्गत्वादपराङ़-गव्यंग्यस्थ प्रेयसोऽ्लङ्कारस्य रसवत इटमुदाहरणं युक्तं, न ध्वनेः। ध्वनौ हि वाच्यप्य न प्राधान्यं अपे तर्हि व्यंग्यस्यंत्यर्थः। अत्र पुनर्व्यङ््यस्य चाटुरूपस्च न प्राधान्यं वाच्ये विश्रान्तत्वात्, भावरसवोरपि न प्राधान्यं, चमत्कारकृता वाच्येन न्यक्कृतत्वादिति भावः। उदाहरणवाक्यस्य वक्त्रन्तर- त्वमभिमतं केषांचिदित्याह- अथ धवन्युदाहरणानुकूलमर्थं वक्तुं प्रकरणमाह-तेनायमत्रेति। अत्र व्यङ्ग्यमाह-इति एवावतिष्ठत इति। अस्य व्यङ्ग्यस्य वाच्ये विश्रान्त्यभावात्। प्रधग्न चेन ध्वनयुदाहरणगिदं युवतमिति भावः। अन्ये त्विति। तदेतदयुक्तमित्यभिप्रायेणाह- तत्रेति।

1ग.घ.ङ्.च.(का) निवृति. :2क.ख.ग.(नि) उपदिश्यते. 3क.ख.ग.च.(नि) 'अपि' नास्ति. 4ग. व्यङ्ग्यस्य च. 5क.ख.(नि) अन्यासामपि. 5क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) ०त्रापि तात्पर्य०. 7क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) ०व यवतिष्ठते. 8ग.घ.ङ .. च. आमन्त्रणौचित्य.

34 एवं वाच्यव्यङ्ग्ययोः धार्मिकपथिक1प्रियतमाभिसारिकाविषयैक्येऽपि स्वरूपविरो2धात् भेद इति प्रतिपादितम्। अधुना तु विषयभेदादपि व्यङ्-ग्यस्य वाच्याद्भेद इत्याह- क्वचिद्वाच्यादिति॥ व्यवस्थापित इति॥ विषयभेदोऽपि विचित्ररूपो त्यवतिष्ठमान: सहृदयैः व्यवस्थापयितुं शक्यत इत्यर्थः। कस्य वा न भवति रोषो दृष्ट्वा प्रियायाः सव्रणमधरम्। सभ्रमरपद्माघ्राणशीले वारितवामे सहस्वेदानीग् 11 कस्स3 वेति॥ अनीर्ष्यालोरपि भवति रोषः। दृष्ट्वैव कृत्वापि। कुतश्चिदेवापूर्वतया प्रियाया: सव्रणमधरं विलोक्य। सभ्रमरपद्माघ्राणशीले। शीलं डि कथंचिदपि वारयितुं न शक्यम्। वारिते वारणायां वामे 4 तदनङ्गीकारिणि सहस्वेदानीम् उपालम्भपरम्परामित्यर्थः। अत्रायं भाव :- काचिदविनीता कुतश्चित् खण्डिताधरा, निश्विततत्सविधसन्निधाने तद्भर्तरि, तमनवलोकमानयेव कयाचिद्विदग्धसख्या तद्वाच्यतापरिहारायैवमुच्यते। सहस्वेदानीमिति तु वाच्यमविनयवतीविषयम्। भर्तृविषयम् अपराधो नास्तीत्यावेद्यमानं व्यङ्ग्यम्। सहस्वेत्यपि च तद्विषयं व्यङ्ग्यम्। तस्यां च प्रियतमेन गाढमुपालभ्यमानायां तद्व्यलीकशङ्कितप्रातिवेशिकलोकविषयं चाविनगप्रच्छादनेन प्रत्यायनं व्यङ्ग्यम्। 'तत्सपत्यां च "तदविनयप्रह्लादितायां7 सौभाग्यातिशयख्यापनम् 'प्रियायाः' इति शब्दबलादिति सपत्नीविषयं व्यङ्ग्यम्। सपत्नीमध्ये इयता खलीकतास्मीति लाघवमात्मनि ग्रहीतुं न युक्तम्, प्रत्युतायं बहुमानः। सहस्व शोभस्वेदानीम् इति सखीविषयं सौभाग्य ्ख्यापनं व्यङ्ग्यम्। अद्येयं तव प्रच्छन्नानुरागिणी हृदयवल्लभा इत्थं रक्षिता, पुनः

एवमिति। प्रथमोदाहरणे वाच्यव्यड्ग्ययोर्वयोरपि धार्मिक एव विषयः। द्वितीये पान्थः। तृतीये प्रियतमा। चतुर्थेऽभिसारिका। कस्यवेति। कृन्यापीति। स्वयं कृत्वापीत्यर्थः। कुतश्चिदेव येन केनापि निमित्तेन लक्षणविगलनादिना अपूर्वतया नवतयोदाहरणस्य प्रकरणं दर्शयति। काचिदित्यादि। कुतश्चित् केनचित् चौर्यकामुकेनेत्यर्थः। वाच्यता अपराधः। विषयभेदं दर्शयति- सहस्वेत्यादे। भर्तृविषयमन्यदपि व्यङ्ग्यमस्तीत्याह- सहस्वेत्यपि चेति। अस्यास्तपस्विन्या इदमेवंविधं अधरव्रणत्वं सहस्वेत्यर्थः। एवं भर्तृविषये व्यङ्ग्यद्वयमुक्तम्। अथ प्रातिवेशिकजनादिविषयान्तरविषयव्यङ्ग्यभेदप्रकाशनं करोति तस्यामित्यादिना। तद्व्यलीकशंकितेत्यादि तदप्रीतिशंकिन: भर्त्रेर्ष्याशङ्किन:॥ शङ्का अपि नत्वसंभावना। प्रत्यायनं विश्वासनम्। नास्या: कश्चिदपराध इति निश्चायगम्। तस्यां चेति सौभाग्यातिशयः। अविनयवतीसौभाग्यातिशयः। अविनयवतीविषयमपि व्यङ्ग्यमप्यस्तीत्याह- सपत्नीमध्ये इत्यादि।

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) पान्थ. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) भेदात्. 3क.ख.ग.घ.च.(नि)(का) कस्य वेति. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) तदङ्गीकारिणि. 5क.ख.ग.घ.च.(नि) तत्पतन्याम्. 6क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'तदुपालम्भन' इत्यधिकः. 7क.ख.(नि) (का) प्रहृष्टायाम्. 8क.ख.ग. (का)०प्रख्या०.

35 प्रकटाधररदनविधिरत्र न युक्तः इति तच्चौर्यकामुकविजयसम्बोधनं व्यङ्ग्यम्। इत्थं मयैतदपह्नुतमिति स्ववैदग्ध्यख्यापनं तटस्थविदग्धलोकविषयं व्यङ्ग्यमिति। तदेतदुक्तं व्यवस्थापितशब्देन॥ अग्र इति॥ द्वितीयोद्द्योते "असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यः क्रमेण1 द्योतितः परः" इति विवक्षितान्यपरवाध्यस्य द्वितीयप्रभेदवर्णनावसरे। यथा2 हि विधिनिषेध- तदनुभयात्मना रूपेण संकलय्य वस्तुध्वनिः संक्षेपेण सुवच:4 तथा नालङ्कारध्वनिः, अलङ् कार णां भूयस्त्वात् । तत एवोक्तम्- सप्रपञ्चनिति।। तृतीयस्त्विति।। तुशब्दो व्यतिरेके। वस्त्वलंकारावपि शब्दाभिधेयत्वमध्यासाते तावत् ; रसभावतदाभासतत्प्रशभा: पुनर्न कदाचिदभिधीयन्ते ;अथ चास्वाद्यमानताप्राणतया 'भान्ति। तत्र ध्वननव्यापारादृते नास्ति कल्पनान्तरम्, स्खतद्गतित्वाभावे मुख्यार्थबाधादेर्लक्षणानिबन्धनस्या- नाशङ्कनीयत्वात्। औचित्येन प्रवृत्तौ चित्तवृतेरास्वाद्यत्वे स्थायिन्या रसो व्यभिचारिण्या भाव:। अनौचित्थन तदाभासः, रावणस्येव सीतायां रतेः। यद्पि तत्र हास्यरसरूपतैव "ृङ्-गाराद्धि भवेद्धात्यः" इति वचनात्, तथापि पाश्चात्तेयं सामाजिकानां स्थितिः। तन्मयीभवनदशायां तु रतेरेवास्वाद्यतेति शृङ्गारतैव भाति पौर्वापर्यविवेकावधीर णेन, "दूराकर्षणमोहमनत्र इव मे तन्नाग्नि याते श्रुतिम्" इत्यादौ। तदसौ शृङ्गाराभास एवं; तदङ्-गं भावाभासः। चित्तवृत्तेः प्रशभ एव प्रक्रान्ताया हृदयपाह्लादयति यतो विशेषेण, तत एव तत्संगृहीतोऽपि पृथग्गणितोऽसौ। यथा-

रदनविधि:। दन्तखण्डनविधिः। संबोधनं प्रबोधनं उपदेश इति यावत्। अयं व्यङ्ग्यप्रपञ्वो ग्रन्थकारस्याभिमत इत्याह- तदेतदिति। द्वितीयप्रभेदः संलक्ष्यक्रगव्यङ्-यः सप्रपञ्चग्रहणस्योपपति दर्शर्याति। यथाहीति॥ व्यतिरेकं प्रकाशयति- दस्त्वलङ्काराविति । रसादिलक्षण इत्यत्रादि शब्दावरुद्धानाह- रसभाव -- तदाभासतत्प्रशमा इति। अथ चेति। तथापीति यावत्। कल्पनान्तराभावरय हेतुमाह- स्खलद्गतित्वाभाव इति। लक्षणानिबन्धनस्य लक्षणानिमित्तस्य रसादीनां विषयमह- औचित्येनेत्यादि। यदा चित्तवृत्तिरास्वाद्यत्वे स्थाचिनी भवति, तदा रसः। यदा व्यभिचारिणी तदा भावः, तदभासः रसभावाभामः। अत्र दृष्टान्तमग्ह- रावणस्येति। आशङ्कते- यद्यपीति। परिद्ररति-तथापीति। इयं हाम्यरसरूपताम्। एवं रसाभासं प्रदर्श्य भावाभासं दर्शयति॥ तदङ्गं भावाभारा इति। तदंगं साभासाङ्गम्। तदङ्गाभामः। अथ भावप्रशमं निरपयति। चित्तवृत्तेरिति तत्मंगृहीतोऽपि। भावसंगृहीतोऽप्यसा भावप्रशमः पृथग्गणितः। तत्र हेतुमाह- तत एवेति॥ कुत एवेत्याह- यतो विशेपणं न विशेपप्रक्रान्तायाश्वितवृनंः प्रशम एव हृदयमाह्लादयति, तत

1क.ख.ग.(नि) (क) ०क्रमेणो०. 2क.ख.ग. (नि) तथा हि. 3 क.ल.ग. (नि) तदुभय. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) सुवचमः, 5क.ख.ग.(नि) प्रतिभान्ति.

36 "एकस्मिन् शयने पराङ्मुखतया दीतोत्तरं ताम्यतो- रन्योन्यं हृदयस्थितेऽप्यनुनये संरक्षतोर्गौरवम्। दम्पत्योः शनकैरपाङ्गवलनामिश्रीभवच्चक्षुषो- र्भग्नो मानकलि: सहासरभसव्यावृत्तकण्ठग्रह:2 ॥।" इत्यत्रेर्ष्या3क्रोधात्मनो मानस्य प्रशमः। न चायं रसादिरर्थः 'पुत्रस्ते जातः' इत्यतो यथा हर्षो जायते तथा; नापि लक्षणया; अपितु सहृदयस्य हृदयसंवादबलाद्विभावानु- भावप्रतीतौ तन्मयीभवनेम्नास्वाद्यमान एव रस्यमानतैकप्राणः सिद्धस्वभावसुखादिविलक्षण: परिस्फुरति। तदाह- प्रकाशत5 इति॥ तेन तत्र शब्दस्य ध्वनंनमेव व्यापारोऽर्थ- सहकृतस्येति। विभावाद्यर्थोऽपि पुत्रजन्महर्षन्यायेन तां चित्तवृत्तिं जनयतीति जननातिरिक्तोऽर्थस्यापि व्यापारो ध्वननमेवोच्यते॥ स्वशब्देति॥ शृङ्गारादिना शब्देन अभिधाव्यापारवशादेव॥ निवेदितत्वेनेति॥ विभावादीति॥ तात्पर्यशक्त्येर्थः। तत्र स्वशब्दस्यान्वयन्यतिरेकौ रस्यमानतासारं रसं प्रति निराकुर्वन् ध्वननस्यैव ताविति दर्शयति-न च सर्वत्रेति॥ यथा भट्टेन्दुराजस्य- "यद्विश्रम्य विलोकितेषु बहुशो निःस्थेमनी लोचने यद्गात्राणि दरिद्रति प्रतिदिनं लूनाब्जिनीनालवत्। दूर्वाकाण्डविडम्बकश्च निबिडो यत्पाण्डिमा गण्डयो: कृष्णे यूनि सयौवनासु वनितास्वेषैव वेषस्थिति:॥।" इति॥ अत्रानुभावविभावावबोधानन्तरमेव तन्मयीभवनयुक्त्या तद्विभावानुभावोचितचित्तवृति- वासनानुरञ्जितस्वसंविदानन्दचर्वण गोचरोऽर्थात्मा7 स्फुरत्येवाभिलाषचिन्तौत्सुक्यनिद्रा- धृतिग्लान्यालस्यश्रमस्मृतिवितर्कादिशब्दाभावेऽपि। एवं व्यतिरेकाभावं प्रदर्श्यान्वयाभावं

एवेति यावत्। न चायमिति। नापि लक्षणयेति जायते इत्यनुषङ्गः। अभिधयेत्याशंकैव नेत्यपिशब्दाशयः। तर्हि कीदृशो रसादिरित्यत्राह- अपित्विति। सिद्धस्वभाव इति जनननिषेधः। अत एव सुखादिविलक्षण इति ध्वननमेवेति। नाभिधा न लक्षणेति व्यावर्त्यम्। ननु शब्दो रसादिकमजीजनत् अर्थस्तु गिभिावादीनजनयत्। यथा पुत्रजन्मार्थो हर्षमित्यत्राह- विभावाद्यर्थोSपीति। साक्षाच्छब्दस्य व्यापारविषय इति। अत्र साक्षाच्छज्दव्यापारोऽभिधा। स्वशब्दनिवेदित्वेनेति। एतद्व्याचष्टे- स्वशब्देतीत्यादि- विभावादिप्रतिपादकत्चेनैतद्विवृणोति- विभावादीतीत्यादि। प्रथम- कल्पपराकरणं प्रस्तौति- तत्रेति। एतौ अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ। यद्विश्रम्येति। विश्रम्यान्तर्निषद्य, अलसीभूयेति

1ग.घ.(नि) (का) अन्योन्यस्य हृदि स्थिते. 2ग.ङ.(का) ग्रहम्. 3क.ख.(नि) (का) रोषात्मनो. 4क.ख.ग.घ.ड.च.(नि)(का) भावेन. 5क.ख. प्रकाश्यत. 6क.ख. 'चर्वण' नास्ति। घ.ङ.(नि) (का) चर्वणा. 7क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) अर्थो रसात्मा.

37 दर्शयति- यत्रापीति॥ तदिति स्वशब्दावेदितत्वम्।। प्रतिपादनमुखेनेति॥ शब्दप्रयुक्तया विभावादिप्रतिपत्त्येत्वर्थः॥ सा केवलमिति। तथा हि- याते द्वारवतीं तदा मधुरिपौ तद्दत्तझम्पानतां2 कालिन्दीतट रूढवञ्जुललतामालिङ्ग्य सोत्कण्ठया। तद्गीतं गुरुवाष्पगद्गदगलत्तारस्वरं राधया येनान्तर्जलचारिरर्जलचरैरप्यु तकमुत्कूजितम्।। इति॥ अत्र विभादानुभावमम्लानतया प्रतीयते, 4 उत्कण्ठा चर्वणागोचरं प्रतिपद्यत एव। सोत्कण्ठाशब्दः केवलं सिद्धं साधयति। उत्कमित्यनेन तु उक्तानुभावानुकर्षणं कर्तुं सोत्कण्ठशब्द: प्रयुक्त इत्यनुवादोऽपि नानर्थकः। पुनरनुभावप्रतिपादने हि पुनरुक्तम्, अतन्मयीभावो वा॥ न तु तत्कृतेति॥ अत्र हेतुमाह- विषयान्तर इति॥ "यद्विश्रम्य" इत्यादौ। न हि यदभावेऽपि यद्भवति तत्कृतं तदिति भावः। अदर्शनमेव प्रथयति-न हीति। केवलशब्दार्थं स्फुटयति-विभावादीति ॥ काव्य इति॥ तव मते काव्यरूपतया प्रसज्यमान इत्यर्थः॥ मनागपीति॥ "शृङ्-गारहास्यकरुणरौदवीरभयानकाः 1 बीभत्साद्भुतसंज्ञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाट्ये रसाः स्मृताः॥" इत्यत्र। एवं रवशब्देन सह रसादेर्व्यतिरेकान्वयाभावमृपपत्त्या प्रदर्श्य तथैवोपसंहरति- यतश्चेत्यादिना कथंचिदित्यन्तेन॥ अभिधेयमेव सामर्थ्यं सहकारिशक्तिरूपं विभावादिकं

यावत। दरिद्वति-शुप्यन्ति कृशीभवान्त। याते इत्याटि। झम्पानतां-रह: केर्लीसाक्षिभावाटित्यर्थः: जलचरै: सारसादिभि:। विभावानुभावमिति एकवद्भावेन निर्देशः। विभाव :- शोरिविरहो विशिष्टस्थान च। अनुभावा गीतबाष्पादयः। सिद्धं साधयति - प्रतीतामुत्कण्ठामनुवदतीत्यर्थः। उत्कशब्देन पुनयोऽयमुत्कण्ठानुभावः कृतः स न व्यर्थः। उक्तानुभावानुकर्णणार्थत्वादित्याह-उत्कमित्यनेनेति। पुनरिति। पुनराकृष्टानुभावप्रदर्शने पुनरुक्सतन्मयीभावः पुनरुक्तोत्कण्ठा तन्मयीभावश्च न व्यर्थ इत्यर्थः। न तु तत्कृतेति। तेन स्वशब्देन कता रसादिप्रतीतिरित्यर्थः। स्वशब्दमात्रप्रयोगे रसाप्रतीते रुदाहरणं दर्शयति-शुङ्गारहास्य इति।अभिधेयसामर्थ्याक्षिप्तत्वपदं व्याचप्ट-अभिधेयमेव्रेति। अत्र च प्रथममभिधेय- सामर्थ्यगिति कर्मधारये षष्ठीतत्पुरुषश्च भवतीति कर्नधारयाअयेण शब्दध्वननपक्षं प्रदर्शयति। शब्दस्य

1क.ख. निवेद्यत्वं, ग.(नि) (का) निवेदितत्वम्. 2क.ख.ग.घ. कम्पानता, ङ .. संपन्नताम्, च. संपानताभ्. 3क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) भावौ म्लानतया प्रतीयेते. 4क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. च.(नि) (का) प्रतीयते, प्रतीयेते, (कौ) प्रतियतः. 5घ.ड.च. बीभत्वाद्भुतशान्ताश्च नव नाट्ये रसाः स्मृताः.

38 रसध्वनने शब्दस्य कर्तव्ये, अभिधेयस्य च पुत्रजन्महर्षभिन्नयोगक्षेमतया जननव्यतिरिक्ते दिवाभोजनाभावविशिष्टपीनत्वानुमितरात्रिभोजनविलक्षणतय। चानुमानव्यतिरिक्ते ध्वनने कर्तव्ये सामर्थ्यं शक्तिः विशिष्टसमुचितवाचकसाकल्यम्-इति द्वयोरपि शब्दार्थ- योर्ध्वननव्यापार:। एवं द्वौ पक्षावुपक्रम्याद्यो दूषितः। द्वितीयस्तु कथंचिद्दूषितः, कथंचिदङ्-गीकृत :- जननानुमानव्यापाराभिप्रायेण दूषितः, ध्वननाभिप्रायेणाङ्गीकृतः। यस्त्वत्रापि तात्पर्यशक्तिमेव ध्वननं मन्यते, स न वस्तुतत्त्ववेदी। विभावानुभावप्रतिपादिके हि वाक्ये तात्पर्यशक्तिभेदे, संसर्गे वा पर्यवस्येत्; न तु ।रस्यमानतासारे रसे- इत्यलं बहुना। इतिशब्दो हेत्वर्थ:2; इत्यतो3 हेतोस्तृतीयोऽपि प्रकारो वाच्याद्भिन्न एवेति संबन्ध:॥ 4सहेवेति॥ इवशब्देन विद्यमानोऽपि क्रमो न संलक्ष्यत इति' दर्शयति ॥ अग्र इति॥ द्वितीयोद्द्योते॥। एवं "प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव" इतीयता ध्वनिस्वरूपं व्याख्यातम्। अधुना 1.5 काव्यात्मत्वमितिहासव्याजे.6 दर्शयति॥ काव्यस्यात्मेति॥ स एवेति॥ प्रतीयमानमात्रेऽपि प्रक्रान्ते तृतीय एव रसध्वनिरिति मन्तव्यम्, इतिहासबलात् प्रक्रान्त वृत्तिग्रन्थार्थबलाच्च। तेन रस एव वस्तुत आत्मा वस्त्वलंकारध्वनी तु सर्वथा रसे8 पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्यादुत्कृष्टौ

रसध्वनने रसव्यञ्जने कर्तव्येऽभिधेयमेव सामर्थ्यमित्यन्वयः। अभिधेयसामर्थ्यस्वरूपं प्रदर्शयति-सहकारि- शक्तिरूपमिति। तदेव विस्पष्टयति- विभावादिरूपमिति।। तथा चोक्तम्- अर्थोऽपि व्यञ्जकस्तत्र सहकारितया मतः। इतिः। षष्ठीतत्पुरुषाश्रयेणार्थध्वननपक्षं परामृशति -अभिधेयस्य चेति। भिन्नयोगक्षेमतया भिन्नन्यायतया। पुत्रजन्म खलु हर्षं जनयांते, न तथा विभवाद्यर्थो रसं जनयतीति तद्विलक्षणत्वमर्थध्वननस्य। एवं जननपक्षः पराकृतः। अनुमानपक्षमपि पराकरोति-दिवाभोजनेति। विशिष्टं रात्रिभोजनं अविनाभावबललब्धं, न त्वेवं विभावादे: रसस्य चाविनाभाव इति वैलक्षण्यम्। विशिष्टेति। वाचकस्य विशिष्टत्वं गुणालङ्कारैरुचितत्वम्, सुकुमारमध्यभवर्णयोगः। आद्यो दूषितः शब्दध्वननपक्षो दूषितः। स्वशब्दनिवेदित्वनिराकरणेनेति शेष:। द्वितीयस्त्विति॥ द्वितीयः अर्थध्वननपक्षः। कथञ्चित् केनचित् प्रकारेण। कोऽयं प्रकार इत्यत्राह-जननेति। पक्षान्तरमनुभाव्य दूषयति। यस्त्यत्रेति। भेदे संसर्गे वेति। केषा्चित् गामानयेत्पादौ भेदो वाक्यार्थ:। भेदः कर्मान्तरेभ्यः क्रियान्तरेभ्यश्च व्यावृत्तिः। संसर्गरत्वार्थो न शाब्द इति। अन्येषां संसर्गो वाक्यार्थ:। कर्मविशेषस्य क्रियाविशेषणसंबन्धः, भेदस्त्वार्थ इति। उभयपक्षेऽपि तात्पर्य शक्तिर्वाच्य कक्ष्यान्न किञ्चिदप्यतिक्रामतीत्यर्थः। वृत्तिग्रन्थार्थबलादिति। वृत्तिग्रन्थो रसादिलक्षण इत्यादि। ननु यदि वस्त्वलंकारध्वन्योः रसे पर्यवसानं तर्हि काव्यात्मा रस इति वक्तव्यम्, न तु सामान्येन ध्वनिरित्यत्राह-

1क.ख. रयमानसारो रसः. 2कं. (का) ख.ग. (नि) अरथे. 3(नि) (का) इत्यपि, क.ख.ग. अतो. क.ख.ग.(नि) सहैवेति. 5ग.3 .. च. (नि) (का) इति तद्दरशयति. 6घ.च.(नि) (का) च. 7(के) प्रक्रान्तार्थ वृद्ति०. 8(के).क.ख. रसं प्रति पर्यवस्यत.

39 तावित्यभिप्रायेण ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मेति सामान्येनोक्तम्॥। शोक इति॥ क्रौञ्चस्व द्वन्द्ववियोगेन सहचरी हंननोद्भूतेन साहचर्यध्वंसेनोत्थितो यः शोकः स्थायिभावो निरगेक्षभावत्वाद्विप्रलम्भशृङ्-गारोचितरतिस्थायिभावादन्य एव। स एव तथाभूत- विभावतदुत्थाकरन्दाद्यनुभावचर्वणया हृदयसंवादतन्मयीभवनक्रमादास्वाद्यमानतां प्रतिपत्र: करुणरसरूपतां लौकिकशोकव्यतिरिक्तां स्वचित्तवृत्तिद्ुतिरुमास्वाद्यसारां प्रतिपत्रो

चितवृत्तिव्यञ्जकत्वादिति नयेन अकृतकतयैवावेशवशात् समुचितच्छन्दोवृत्तादि- नियन्त्रितश्लोकरूपतां प्राप्तः- "मा. निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः। यच्कौञ्चमिथुनादेकमवधी: काममोहितम् " इति। न तु पुनेः शोक इति मन्तव्यम्। एवं हि सति तद्दुःखेन सोऽपि दुःखित इति कृत्वा रसस्यात्मतेति निरवकाशं भवेन्। न च दुःखसंतप्तस्यैषा दशेति । एवं हि चर्वणोचित- शोकस्थागिभिावात्मक2करुणर ससमुच्चलनत्वभावत्वात् स एव काव्यस्यात्मा सारभूतो Sपरशाज्दवैलक्षण्यकारकः। एतदेवोक्तं हृदयदर्पणे- "यावत्पूर्णो न चैतेन तावत्रैय वमत्यमुम्" इति।'अगमः' इति छान्दसेनाडागमेन॥ स एवेति॥ एवकारेणेदमाह -- नान्य

वाच्यादिति। द्वन्द्वशब्दस्य साहचर्यार्श प्रदर्शयति -- क्रौञचस्येति। निरऐेक्षभावत्वा दिति॥ विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारे रते: सापेक्षभावतं करुणे तु निरणेक्षभावत्वभ्। तथाभूतविभावः सहवरीहननम्। तदुत्थः सहचरोहननोत्थः। समथानपेक्षत्वेSपीति। इह तावदविलापप्रशंसाभर्त्सनादयः सन्ति वचनप्रकारा। न च ते शोकबहुमानेर्ष्यादिभिरेप भवन्तीति नियन्तं शक्यते। निमित्तान्तरेणापे भावात्। तथावि विल्ापः शोकरूपां विनवृत्ति रयनक्ति। स्तुतिर्बडुनानरूपां, भर्त्सन पीर्ष्यारूपां प्रश्नः संशयरूपामित्यस्ति न्यायः, तस्मादित्यर्थः। अत्र मुनिर्दुःखित एवमवोचत् इति न प्रतिपत्तव्यमित्याह-न तु मुनेरिति। अत्र हेतु :! एवं हीति॥ न खलु शोकमात्रं रस इति भाव:। न चेति। एषा दशा श्लोकोवितरूपा दशा एव। शोकेति। इदं काव्यं करुणरसबलेन समुच्चलनस्वभावम्। अतो अस्य रस एवात्मेति यावत्। अपरशाब्दवैलाक्षण्यकारक इति। शब्दान्तराभिधेयार्थवैलक्षण्यकारक इति यावत्। हृददर्पणमिति कश्चित् काव्यलक्षणग्रन्थः। यावत् पूर्ण इति। यावत् कविरेतेन रसेन पूर्णो न भवति, तावद्गुं रसं इलोकमुखेन न वमतीत्यर्थः।

1क.ख. ग.घ.इ.च. पेक्षित्वे. 2क.ख. भाववच-नात्गक (की) भावचर्वणात्मक 3क.ख.(नि) (का) सारभूतस्वभावो.

40 आत्मेति। तेन यदाह भट्टनायक :- "शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य तत्र शास्त्रं पृथग्विदुः। अर्थे तत्त्वेन युक्ते2तु वदन्त्याख्यानमेतयोः॥ द्वयोर्गुणत्वे व्यापारप्राधान्ये काव्य गीर्भवेत् ।।" इति तदपास्तम्। व्यापारो हि यदि ध्वननात्मा रसनास्वभाव: तन्नापूर्वमुक्तम्। अथाभिधैव व्यापार: तथाप्यस्याः प्राधान्यं नेत्यावेदितं प्राक्।। श्लोकं व्याचष्टे- विविधेति॥ विविधं तत्तदभिव्यञ्जनीयरसानुगुण्येन विचित्रं कृत्वा वाच्ये वाचके रचनायां च 4प्रपञ्चेन यच्चारु शब्दार्थालङ्कारगुणयुक्तमित्यर्थः। तेन सर्वत्रापि ध्वननसद्भावेऽपि न तथा व्यवहारः। आत्मसद्भावेऽपि हि क्वचिदेव जीवव्यवहार इत्युक्तं प्राक्। तेनैतन्निरवकाशम्, यदुक्तं हृदयदर्पणे "सर्वत्र तर्हि काव्यव्यवहरः स्यात्" इति। निहतसहचरीति विभाव उक्तः। आक्रन्दितशब्देनानुभादः॥ जनित इति॥ चर्वणागोचरत्वेनेति शेष:। ननु शोकचर्वणातो यदि श्लोक उद्भूतः तत्प्रतीयमानं वस्तु काव्यस्यात्मेति कुत इत्याशङ्क्याह- शोको हीति॥ करुणस्य तच्चर्वणागोचरात्मनः शोक: स्थायिभाव:। शोके हि स्थायिभावे ये विभावानुभावाः तत्समुचिता चित्तवृत्तिः चर्व्यमाणात्मा रस इत्यौचित्यात् स्थायिनो रसतापत्तिरित्युच्यते ; प्राक्स्वसंविदितं परत्रानुमितं च चित्तवृत्तिजातं संस्कारक्रमेण हृदयसंवादमादधानं चर्वणायामुपयुज्यते यतः5। ननु प्रतीयामानरूपमात्मा, तच्च त्रिभेदं प्रतिपादितम्; न तु रसैकरूपम्। अनेन चेतिहासेन रसस्यैवात्मभूतत्वमुक्तं भवतीत्याशङ्क्य अभ्युपगमेनैवोत्तरमाह-प्रतीयमानस्य चेति॥ अन्यो भेदो वस्त्वलंकारात्मा। भावग्रहणेन6 व्यभिचारिणोऽपि चर्व्यमाणस्य तावन्मात्रविश्रान्तावपि स्थायिचर्वणापर्यवसानोचितरसप्रतिष्ठामनवाप्यापि प्राणत्वं7 भवतीत्युक्तम्॥। यथा-

अत्र भट्टनायकोक्तमनुभाषते-तेनेति। अयं व्यापारः किं ध्वननं, उताभिधेति विकल्पं हृदि निधाय परिहरति तदपास्तमिति। तेनेति। विविधवाच्यवाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणः शब्दस्य काव्यत्वेन सिंहो देवदत्त इत्यादाघपि ध्वननसद्भावेऽपि न काव्यव्यवहारः गुणालङ्कारादिसौन्दर्याभावादित्यर्थः। एतत् पूर्वमेव समर्थितमिति स्मृतिमादधाति-आत्मेति। ननु तु शोकेति। प्रतीयमानं वस्तु इति। रस इत्यर्थ:, इति भाव:॥ औचित्यादिति। निमित्तत्वरूपादौचित्यात् स्थायी रसः संपद्यत इयर्थः। तत्र हेतुमाह- प्रागिति। भावग्रहणेनेत्यादि। तावन्मात्रविश्रान्तावपीति। स्वचर्वणामात्रविश्रान्त्यापि भवतीत्युक्तमिति। अथ चास्वाद्यमानताप्राणतया भान्तीत्यादाविति शेषः। अत्रोदाहरणं दर्शयति- यथेति।

1क.ख.ङ .. च.(नि) (का) अर्थतत्वेन. 2क.ख.(नि) (का) युक्तम्. 3क.ख.(नि) (का) काव्यधी. 4क.ख. 'प्रपञ्चेन' नास्ति 5क.ख.ग.(नि) 'यतः'. नास्ति. 6क.ख.ग.घ.(नि) ग्रहणम्. 7(के). प्राणकत्वं.

41 "नं नखाग्रेण विघट्टयन्ती विवर्तयन्ती वलय विलोलम्। आमन्दमाशिञ्जितनूपुरेण पादेन मन्दं भुवमालिखन्ती ।।" इत्यत्र लज्जायाः। रसभावशब्देन1 तदाभासतत्प्रशमावपि संगृहीतावेव, अवान्तरवैचित्र्येऽपि तदेकरूपत्वात्॥ प्राधान्यादिति॥ रसपर्यवसानादित्यर्थः। तावन्मात्रविश्रान्तावपि चान्यशब्दवैलक्षण्यकारित्वेन वस्त्वलंकारध्वन्यो2रपि जीवितत्वमौचित्यादुक्तमिति भाव:॥ एवमिनिहासमुखेन प्रतीयमानस् काव्यात्मतां प्रदर्श्य स्वसंवित्सिद्धमप्येतदिति दर्शयति- 1.6 सरस्वतीति॥ वारुपा भगवतीत्यर्थः। वस्तुशब्देनार्थशब्दं तत्त्वशब्देन च वस्तुशब्दं व्याचष्टे -- निःष्यन्दमानेति॥ दिव्यमानन्टरसं स्वयमेव प्रस्नुवानेत्यर्थः। यदाह भट्टनायक :-- "वाग्धेनुर्दुग्ध एतं3 हि रसं यद्वाल4तृष्णया - तेन नास्य समः स स्याद्दुह्यते योगिभिर्हि यः॥।" तदावेशेन विनाप्याक्रान्त्या हि यो योगिभिर्दुह्यते। अत एव "य सर्वशैलाः परिकल्प्य वत्सं मेरौ स्थिते दोग्धरि दोहदक्षे। भारवन्ति रत्नाने महौषधीश्च पृथूपदिष्टा दुदुहुर्धरित्रीम् ।।" इत्यनेन साराग्रयवस्तुपात्रचं डिमवत उक्तम्। अभिव्यनक्ति परिस्फुरन्तमिति॥ प्रतिपत्तुन्

अत्र लज्जाया इति। अत्र श्लोके लज्जाया व्यभिचारिणः शृङ्गाररसप्रविचर्वणीयतया काव्यजीवित- त्वमित्यिर्थः। ननु यदि वस्त्वलङ्कारवन्योः रसे पर्यवसानं तर्हि रस एवात्मेति वक्तव्यमित्यत्राह- तावन्मात्रेति। रसमात्रविश्रान्तौ चान्यशब्दः शब्दप्रतिपादितोऽर्थः तद्वैलक्षण्यकारित्वेन हेतुनाऽनयो-

वाग्धेनुरिति। वाग्धेनुर्बाले श्रोतरि वत्से च वृष्णया कृपया स्नंहेन च एतं रसं दुग्धे यत्, तेन असन्द रसस्य स समो न स्यात्। यो रसो योगिभिर्दुह्यत इति यावत्। असमानत्दं प्रदर्शयितुं चतुर्थपादार्थमाह- तदावेशेनेति। रस्तावेशेन विनापि योगिनो बलात्कारेण परमानन्दं दुहते। वाग्धेनुस्तु रसावेशेनैव रसपूर्णत्वात स्वयमानन्द प्रस्नौति। अतो न समत्वमित्यर्थः। अत एवेति। यतो रसपरिपूर्णव धेनुरियं रसं प्रस्नौति, अत एव। पृथ्वी धेनुर्गर्भीकतसारवस्तु प्रस्नुतवत्ीति हिमवतः साराग्रयवस्तुपात्रत्व मुक्तमित्यर्थ:। एवं वाग्धेनोरनुग्रहात् सार भूतरसपात्रत्वं सहृद यानां भवतीति भादः। अभिव्यनक्तीति। सहृदयान्

1क.खर.(नि) (क) 'न' अधिकः. 2क.ख.ग.घ.च.(नि) (का) ध्वने .. १क.ब्र. एवं, (कौ) एक. 4क.ख.(नि) यल्लाभ.

42 प्रति सा प्रतिभा नानुमीयमाना, अपि तु तदावेशवशेन भासमानेत्यर्थः। यथो- क्तमस्मदुपाध्यायभट्टतौतेन-"नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोऽनुभवस्ततः" इति। प्रतिभा अपूर्ववस्तुनिर्माणक्षमा प्रज्ञा। तस्या विशेषो रसावेशवैवश्यसुन्दर1काव्यनिर्माणक्षमत्वम्। यदाह मुनिः- "कवेरन्तर्गतं भावम्" इति॥ येनेति॥ अभिव्यक्तेन स्फुरता प्रतिभाविशेषेण निमित्तेन महाकवित्वगणनेति यावत् ॥ इदं चेति॥ न केवलम् "प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव" इत्येतत्कारिकासूचितौ स्वरूपविषयभेदावेव, यावद्भिन्नसामग्रीवेद्यत्वमपि वाच्यातिरिक्तत्वे प्रमाणमिति यावत्। 1.7 वेद्यत इति॥ न तु न वेद्यते, येन न स्यादसाविति भाव:। काव्यस्य तत्त्वभूतो योऽर्थस्तस्य भावना वाच्यातिरेकेणानवरतं चर्वणा तत्र विमुखानाम्। स्वराः षड्जादयः सप्त। श्रुतिर्नाम शब्दस्य वैलक्षण्यकारि2 यद्रूपान्तरं तत्परिणामानां स्वरतदन्तरालोभयभेदकल्पिता द्वाविशतिविधा। 4आदिग्रहणेन जात्यंशकग्रामरागभाषाविभाषान्तरभाषादेशीमार्गा गृह्यन्ते। प्रकृष्टं गीतं येषां ते प्रगीता :; गातुं वा प्रारब्धा इत्यादिकर्मणि क्तः; प्रारम्भेण चात्र

प्रतीति शेष:। प्रतिपत्तुः सहृदयस्य। तदावेशवशेन रसावेशवशेन स्वरूपविषयभेदावेवेति। "प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेवेति"-कारिकया अन्यदेवेति प्रतीयमानस्य स्वरूपमुक्तम्। भातीत्यनेन विषयभेदश्चोक्तः। सहृदयस्य खलु भातीति सहृदयो विषयः। अथ च प्रत्युतेति यावत्। श्रुतिर्नामेत्यादि। वैलक्षण्यमात्रकारि भेदमात्रकारि रूपान्तरं रूपविशेषः। तत्परिमाणतावन्मात्र- कालस्वरतदन्तरालोभयभेदकत्पितरवरस्य षड्जादेस्तदन्तरालस्य स्वरान्तर्भागस्य चोभययोर्भेदस्तेन कल्पिता स्वरांशभूतेत्यर्थः॥ तदुक्तम्- सूचीमुखेनाष्टसरोजपात्रे संवेद्यकालस्त्रुटिसंज्ञकः स्यात्। तत्कालरुद्ध: श्रवणोपशल्यं स्वरांशमाद्यं श्रुतिमाहुरार्याः।। इति यथा पवनाघट्टनात्तनत्र्याः यः समुत्पद्यते ध्वनिः। श्रवणप्रीतिहेतुः सा श्रुतिरित्यभिधीयते॥ इति। द्वाविशतिविधेति॥ यथा- मन्दमध्यमताराख्यस्थानभेदेन सा श्रुतिः। स्यादे कैकस्वरस्थाने त्रिविधेत्येकविशतिः॥। कृत्रिमा सहजा 5प्येका द्वाविशतिरुदीरिता।। इति। आदिग्रहणेन जात्यंशकेत्यादि"नादश्रुतिस्वरग्राममूर्च्छनातानसङ् गमात्। अष्टादश समुद्भूता"

1(कौ) (नि) ०वैशद्य-(V.L.वैशारद्य)सौन्दर्यकाव्यनिर्माणक्षमत्वम्। अत्रत्यः शुद्धतर: पाठः जोधपुरपा डुलिप्यां, सोमेश्वरस्य काव्यप्रकाशसंकेते चोपलभ्यते. 2क.ख.ग.घ.ङ.च.(नि) (का) वैलक्षण्यमात्नकारि. 3(का) तत्परिमाणानाम्. 4क.ख.(नि) (का) आदिशब्देन.

43 फतपर्यन्तहा लक्ष्यते॥ एवमिति॥ स्वरूप1विषयभेदेन भिन्नसामग्रीजेयत्वेन चेत्यर्थः। प्रत्यभिज्ञेयावित्यर्हार्थे कृत्यः; सर्वो हि तथा यतते इतीयता प्राधान्येन2 लोकसिद्धत्वं 1.8 प्रमाणमुक्तम्। नियोगार्थेन च कृत्येन शिक्षाक्रम उक्तः। प्रत्यभिज्ञेयशब्देनैदमाह-"काव्यं तु जातु जायेत कस्यचित् प्रतिभावतः" इति नयेन यद्यपि स्वयमस्यैतत् परिस्फुरति तथांपीदमित्थमिति वेशेषतो निरूप्यमाणं सहस्रशाखीभवति। धथोक्तमस्मत्परमगुरुभिः श्रीमंदुत्पल3पादैः- "तैस्तैरप्युपयाचितैरुपनतस्तन्व्याः स्थितोऽप्यन्तिके कान्तो लोकसमान एवमपरिज्ञातो न रन्तुं यथा। लोकस्यैष तथानवेक्षितगुणस्यात्मापि4 विश्वेश्वरो नैवालं निजवैभवाय तदियं तत्प्रत्यभिज्ञोदिता ii" इति। तेन ज्ञातस्यपि विशेषतो निरूपणमनुसंधानात्मकमत्र प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् न तु सदेवेदमित्येतावन्मात्रम् ।। महाकवेरिति।। यो महाकविरहं भूयांसमित्याशास्ते। एवं व्यङ्-ग्यस्सार्थस्य व्यञ्जकस्य शब्दस्य च प्राधान्यं वदता व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकभावस्थापि पाधान्यमिति ध्वनत अन्यते ध्वननमिति त्रितयमप्यु पपन्नमित्युक्तम्।। ननु प्रथमोपादीयमानत्वाद्वाच्यवाचकतद्भ्गवस्पैव प्राधान्गमित्याशङ्क्य उपायानामेव प्रथममुपादानं भवतीत्यभिप्रायेण विरुद्धोऽयं प्राधान्ये साध्ये हेतुरिति I.9 दर्शयति-इदानीमित्यादिन॥॥ आलोकनमालोकः। वनितावदनारविन्दावलोकनमित्यर्थः। तत्र8 चोपायो दीपशिखा।। I.10 प्रतिपदिति भावे क्विप्॥ तस्य वस्तुन इति॥ व्यङ्ग्यरूपस्य सारस्येत्यर्थः। अनेन श्लोकेनांत्यन्तसहृदयो यो न भवति तस्यैव स्फुटसंवेद्य9 एष क्रमः यथा अत्यन्तशब्दवृत्तज्ञो यो न भवति तस्य पदार्थवाक्यार्थ।क्रम:11। काष्ठाप्राप्तसहृदयभावस्य तु वाक्यवृत्तकुशलस्येव सन्नपि क्रमोऽभ्स्तानुमानाविनाभावस्गत्यादिवदसंवेद्य इति दर्शितम्12॥।

इति। जातिस्वरूपं कथितम्। एवमंशकादिरूपं द्रष्टव्यम्। श्रीमदुत्पलदेवपादाः श्रीमदीश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञा- शाम्त्रकारा:। तैस्तैरित्यादि। विरुद्धोऽयमिति। इह वाच्यवाचकत्वभाव प्रधानः प्रथमोपादीयमानत्वादिति

1क.ख. स्वरूपभेदेन विषयभेदेन. 2क.ख .. (नि) (का) प्रधान्ये. 3(के) देव. 4क.ख.(का) गुणः स्वात्मापि. 5४.व. आशंसते. 6क.ख.(का) 'उक्तग्' अधिकः. क.ख. 'कि न' अधिक :. 8(के) अत्र. १क.ए. संवेधक्रम:, ग.घ.४.च.संनेद एव क्रम:, तं. 10क.ख.ग. ·वाक्यक्रमः. 11क.ख.ग. 'प्रतिपाधापि दर्शयितुगाह-इदानीमित्यादिन।।।' :अधिक: 12क.ख.ग.घ.च. 'इति दर्शितम्' नास्ति.

44 यथा न व्यालुप्यत इति। प्राधान्यादव हि तत्पर्यन्तानुसरणरणरणकत्वरिता मध्ये विश्रान्तिं न कुर्वत इति क्रमस्य सतोऽप्य1लक्षणं प्राधान्ये हेतुः॥ I.11 स्वसामर्थ्यम् आकाङ्क्षायोग्यतासंनिधयः॥ न विभाव्यत इति॥ विशब्देन विभक्ततोक्ता। विभक्ततया न भाव्यत इत्यर्थः। अनेन विद्यमान एव क्रमो न संवेद्यत इत्युक्तम्2। तेन यत् स्फोटाभिप्रायेणासन्नेव क्रम इति व्याचक्षते तत् प्रत्युत विरुद्धमेव। I.12 वाच्यार्थ विमुखात्मनाम्। वाच्येऽर्थे विमुखो विश्रान्तिनिबन्धनं परितोषमलभमान आत्मा हृदयं येषामित्यनेन सचेतसामि त्यस्यैवार्थोऽभिव्यक्त:3। सहृदयानामेव तहर्ययं महिमास्तु, न काव्यस्यासौ कश्चिदतिशय इत्यत्राह5 -अवभासत इति॥ तेनात्र विभक्तता न भासते। न तु वाच्यस्यैव सर्वथा नवभासः। अत एव तृतीयोद्द्योते घटप्रदीपदृष्टान्त- बलाद्व्यङ्-ग्यप्रतीतिकालेऽपि वाच्यप्रतीतिर्न विघटत इति यद्वक्ष्यते तेन सह अस्य ग्रन्थस्य न विरोध:॥ सद्भावमिति॥ सत्तां साधुभावं प्राधान्यं चेत्यर्थः। द्वयं हि प्रतिपिपादयिषितम्।7 प्रकृत इति॥ लक्षणे ॥उपयोजयन्निति॥ उपयोगं गमयन्। "तमर्थम्" इति चायमुपयोगः । स्वशब्द आत्मवाची। स्वं चार्थश्च स्वार्थौ। तौ8 गुणीकृतौ याभ्याम् यथासंख्येन तेनार्थो I.13 गुणीकृतात्मा, शब्दो गुणीकृताभिधेयः॥ तमर्थमिति॥।"सरस्वती स्वादु तदर्थवस्तु" इति यदुक्तम्। "व्यङ्क्तः9" इति द्विवचनेनेदमाह-यद्यप्यविवक्षितवाच्ये शब्द एव व्यञ्जकः,

हेतुरप्रयोजक इत्यर्थ:॥ तत्प्रतीते: व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतेः। इतिशब्दो लक्षणवचन इति दर्शयति-प्रकृत इति लक्षणे इति। अथ को Sयमुपयोग: यस्येदं गमनमित्याशङ् कायामाह-तमर्थमिति चायमिति गुणीकरणं तेन व्यङ् ग्येन हि वाच्यार्था गुणीकृतात्मा भवति। शब्दोपि गुणीकृताभिधेयो भवतीत्यर्थः। ननु यत्रार्थ इत्यत्र लक्षणे कथं व्यङ्क्त: इति द्विवचनं घटतां यः शब्दशक्तिमूलो Sर्थशक्तिमूलो उभयशक्तिमूलश्चेति। तत्रोभयशक्तिमूले शब्दार्थयोर्द्वयोरपि समं व्यञ्जकत्वमिति युक्तं तत्र द्विवचनम्। एकतरस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे ध्वनित्वं न स्यात्। तत्र द्वयोरपि व्यापाराभावदित्याशंक्य, आह- व्यङ्क्त इति।

1क.ख. सतोपलक्षणम्. 2क.ख. इत्यर्थ:, 3क.ख. विभक्त :. 4क.ख.ग. 'तु' अधिकः. 5क.ख. इत्याशंक्याह- 6घ.ङ.च. वाच्यस्य सर्वथैव. 7क.ख. (के) पूर्व प्रकृते. 8क.ख. 'तौ गुणीकृतौ' नास्ति. 9क.ख. 'व्यङ्क्त: द्योतयतः' अधिकः.

45 तथाप्यर्थस्यापि सहकारिता न त्रुट्यति; अन्यथा अ-ज्ञातार्थोपि शब्दरतद्व्यञ्जकः स्यात्। विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्टे च शब्दस्यापि सहकारित्व भवत्येव। विशिष्टशब्दाभिधेयतया विना तस्यार्थस्याव्यञ्जकत्वात्- इति सर्वत्र शब्दार्थयोरुभयोरपि ध्वननं व्यापारः। तेन यद् भट्टनायकेन द्विवचनं दूषितं तद्गजनिमीलिकयैव। "अर्थः शब्दो वा" इति तु विकल्पाभिधानं प्राधान्याभिप्रायेण। काव्यं च ताद्वेशेषश्चासौ, काव्यस्य वा विशेषः। काव्यग्रहणाद्गुणालङ्कारो पस्कृतशब्दार्थगृष्ठपाती ध्वनिलक्षण आत्मेत्युक्तम् । तेने-तत्निरवकाशम् -श्रुतार्थापत्तावपि ध्वनिव्यवहारः स्यादिति। यच्चोक्तम्- 'चारुत्व'- प्रतीतिस्ताहे काव्यस्यात्मा स्यात्' इति तदङ्गीकुर्म एट। उनाम्नि खल्दयं विवाद इति। दच्चोक्तकम्-'धारुण: वस्तुनः प्रतातिर्यदि काव्यात्मा प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणादपि सा भवन्ती तथा स्यात्' इति, तत्र शब्दार्थमय काव्यात्माभिधानप्रस्तावे क एष प्रसङ्ग इति न किंचिदेतत् ॥ स इति॥ अर्थो वा5, शब्दो वा व्यापारो वा; अर्थोऽपि वाच्यो वा ध्वनतीति; शब्दोऽप्येवम्; व्यङ्ग्यो वा ध्वन्यत इति; व्यापारो वा शब्दार्थयोर्ध्वननमिति। कारिकया तु प्राधान्येन तमुदाय एव काव्यरूपो मुख्यतया ध्वनिरिति प्रतिपादिंतम्7 ॥ विभक्तक इति॥ गुणालङ्-काराणां वाच्यवाचकभावप्राणत्वात् अस्य च तदन्यव्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकभाद- सारत्वान्नास्य तेष्वन्तर्भाव इति। 8अनन्यत्रभावो विषयार्थः। एवं 'तव्यतिरिक्तः

द्विवचनेनेदमाहेत्यादि। निष्कृष्टस्यार्थस्य फलमाह- तेन यदिति। गजनिमीलिकयैव अपर्या- लोचनयेत्यर्थ: ताहे कथमयं विकल्प इत्यत्राह-अर्थः शब्दो वेति। अत्राह स्म व्यक्तिविवेककार :- "अत्र केचिद्विद्वन्मानिनो द्विवचनसमर्थनमनोरथाक्षिप्त चित्ततया वाच्यवाचकयोर्विस्मृतसुप्रसिद्धप्रतीतिक्रम- भावा ... " इत्यादि, तद्भ्रान्तिमात्रमूलं न तत्त्वमित्यलमवस्तुनिर्बन्धेनेत्यन्तम्। तदसत्, उक्तनयेन द्विवचनोपपत्तेः! श्रुतार्थापत्तावपीति। पीनो देवदतो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते इति श्रुते, यद्रात्रिभोजनं प्रतीयते, न तस्य गुणालङ् कारवस्तुनः शब्दार्थपृष्ठपातित्वम्। तस्मान्न तत्र ध्वनिव्यवहार इत्यर्थ:॥ पक्षान्तरमप्यनुभाष्य दूषयति-यच्चोक्तमिति। चारुण: वस्तुनः सा भवन्ती चारुवस्तुप्रतीतिः। भवन्ती तथा स्यात्, काव्यार्थः स्यात्। परिहरति-तत्रेति। ए्करणबलादेव निरवकाशतया प्रतिहतो Sयं प्रसङ्ग इत्यर्थः। अर्थो वेति। शब्दवाच्यव्यंग्यव्यञ्जनानि चत्वार्यपि ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यानि। शब्दश्च वाच्यार्थश्च ध्यनतीति ध्वनीभवतः। व्यङ्ग्यो ध्वन्यत इति। व्यञ्जनं ध्वननमित्यर्थः॥। एतत्समुदायोऽपि ध्वनिरित्याह- कारिकया त्विति। एवमिति। एवं यत्रार्थो वाच्यविशेषो

1क.ख.ग. ज्ञातोऽपि. 2क.ख.तेन नैत०. 3क.ख.ग.'नाम्नि' नास्ति. क.ख.ग. यधोक्तम्. 5(के) शब्दो वा. 6क.खर.ग. वाच्यरूपमुखतया. 7ग.घ. प्रतिपादितः. ६क.ख.ग.च. अन्यत्र.

46 कोऽ्यं ध्वनिः' इति निराकृतम्॥ लक्षणकृतामेवेति॥ लक्षणकारा1प्रसिद्धता विरुद्धो हेतुः। तत एव हि यत्नेन लक्षणीयता। लक्ष्ये2 त्वप्रसिद्धत्वमसिद्धो हेतुः। यच्च3 नृत्तगीतहास्यादिकल्पं तत् काव्यस्य4 न किंचित्। चित्रमिति॥ विस्मयकृद्ृत्तादिवशात्, न तु सहृदयाभिलषणीयचमत्कारसाररसनिः- ष्यन्दमयमित्यर्थः। काव्यानुकारिप्त्वाद्वा चित्रम्, आलेख्यमात्रत्वांद्वा, कलामात्रत्वांद्वा। अग्र इति। "प्रधानगुणभावाभ्यां व्यङ्-गयस्यैवं व्यवस्थिते7। द्विधा काव्ये8 ततोऽन्यद्यत्तच्चित्रमभिधीयते ।।" इति तृतीयोद्द्योते वक्ष्यते। परिकरार्थं कारिकार्थस्याधिकावापं कर्तुं श्लोक: परिकरश्लोक:॥ यत्रेति॥ अलङ्कारे ॥ वैशद्येनेति॥ चारुतया स्फुटतया चेत्यर्थः॥ अभिहितमिति॥

वेत्यादिना कथितेन प्रकारेण प्रथमाभाववादे यत् तद्व्यतिरिक्तं को Sयं ध्वनिर्नामेत्युक्तं तन्निराकृतमिति यावत्। अथ विवरणकारो द्वितीयाभाववादभागमनुभाषते दूषयितुं, यदप्युक्तमिति। यत्र यद्ध्वने- रप्रसिद्धत्वमुक्तं तत्किं लक्षणकारविषयं वा लक्ष्यविषयं वेति विकल्पं हृदि निधायाद्यं कल्पं दूषयति- लक्षणकाराप्रसिद्धता विरुद्धो हेतुरिति। 'अयं ध्वनिर्न लक्षणीयः' लक्षणकाराप्रसिद्धत्वादिति हेतुर्विरुद्धः। विपक्षे Sपि वर्तमानत्वादित्यर्थः। तदेवाह- तत एवेति। लक्षणकाराणामप्रसिद्धत्वादेवास्माभिर्ध्वनिर्लक्ष्यत इत्यर्थः। द्वितीयं पक्षं दूषयति- लक्ष्ये त्विति। ध्वनिर्न लक्षणीयः। लक्ष्याप्रसिद्धत्वादिति हेतुः। घटो नित्यः अकृतकत्वादितिवत् असिंद्ध इति यावत्। ननु 'स्निग्धश्यामलकान्तिलिप्तवियंतः' इत्यादिलक्ष्ये श्रूयमाणे न तत्र किञ्चिन्नृत्तं गीतें वा उपलभ्यते, तस्य तु रङ्-गप्रयोगे तद्विरुद्ध्यते। एवं ध्वन्यर्थो Sपि लक्ष्ये नास्त्येव। त्वया तु सङ्घर्षे लक्ष्यते इत्याशंक्याह- यच्चेति। गीतादिर्लक्ष्ये Sप्रसिद्ध: नायं ध्वनिरित्यर्थः। स एवेति। स ध्वन्यर्थ एवानन्दकारि काव्यतत्वमिति यावत्। अनेन लक्ष्ये प्रसिद्धो Sयं ध्वनिरिति दर्शितम्। ततो Sन्यदिति। ध्वनेरन्यदित्यर्थः। चित्रशब्दप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तमाह-विस्मयकृदित्यादिना। अधिका- वापं कर्तुं परिपोषं कर्तुमित्यर्थः। ननु चित्रकाव्यान्न पृथक् ध्वनिकाव्यं स्यात्। चित्रस्वरूपैरलङ् कारैरेव ध्वनेराक्षिप्तत्वात्। यत्र क्वचिदस्य दुर्लक्ष्यतास्तु कामं तत्र, मा भूदेष दोषः। यत्र पुनः सुलक्षः तत्रालङ्कारे Sसावन्तर्भूतः स्यात्, इत्याशङ्कापरिहाराय कारिकायां उपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थाविति पदमित्याह वृत्तिकार:।।

1क.ख.ग. ०कारप्रसि०. 2क.ख.ग. लक्ष्यत्व. 3क.ख.ग.ड.च. 'नच.' 4क.ख.ग. 'वा क्वापि' अधिकः. क.ख.वृत्यादि. 6ग.ड.च. ०कारकारि०. 7 क.ख.ग.घ.उ .. च. व्यवस्थितम्. 8क.ख.घ.ङ .. च. काव्यं ततों.

47 भूतप्रयोगः आदौ "व्यड्क्तः" इत्यस्य व्याख्यातचात्॥ गुणीकृतात्मेति॥ आत्मेत्यनेन स्वशब्दस्यार्थो व्याख्यातः ॥ न चैतदिति॥ व्यङ्यस्य1 प्राधान्यम्। प्राधान्य च ज्ञप्तौ यद्यपि न चंकास्ति "बुद्धौ तत्वावभासिन्याम्" इति तु2नयेन अखण्डचर्वणा3विश्रान्तेः, तथापि विवेचकैर्जीदितान्वेषणे क्रियमाणे यदा व्यङ्ग्योर्ऽर्थः पुनरपि वाच्थमेव अनुप्राणयन्नास्ते तदा तदुपकरणत्वादेव तस्यालङ्कारता, यतो वाच्यादेव तदुपस्कृताच्चमत्कारलाभ इति। यद्यपि पर्यन्तें रसध्वनिरस्ति तथापि मध्यमकक्ष्यानिविष्टोs्सौ व्यड्ग्योऽर्थो न रसोन्मुखीभवति स्वातनत्र्येण, अपि तु वाच्यमेवार्थं संस्कर्तुं धावतीति गुणीभूतव्यङ्-गयतोक्ता।। रात्रोक्ते गम्यते्न्योऽर्थस्तत्समानैर्विशेषणैः। सा समासोक्तिरुदिता संक्षिप्तार्थतया यथा ।।" इति। अत्र समासोक्तेर्लक्षणं स्वरूपं6 हेतुर्नाम तन्निर्वचनमिति पादचतुष्टयेन क्रमादुक्तम्। उपोढो7 रागः सान्ध्योऽरुणिमा प्रेम च येन। विलोलास्तारका ज्योतींषि नेत्रात्रभागाश्च यत्र॥ तथेति॥ झटित्येव प्रेमरभसेन च गृहीतमाभासितं परिचुम्बितुमाक्रान्तं च। निशाया मुखं प्रारम्भो वदनकोकनदं च8। यथेति॥ झटिति ग्रहणेन प्रेमरभसेन च। तिमिर चांशुकाश्च सूक्ष्मा अंशवः तिमिरांशुकं रश्मिशबलीकतं तम:पटलम्, तिमिरांशुकं नीलजालिका नवोढाप्रौढवधूचिता। रागात् रक्तत्वात् सन्ध्याकृतादनन्तरम्, प्रेमरूपाच्च हेतोः। पुरोऽपे पूर्वस्यां दिशि अग्रे च। गलितं प्रशान्तं पतितं च। तया रात्र्या करणभूतया; समस्तं मिश्रितं उपलक्षणत्वेन वा न लक्षित रात्रिप्रारम्भोSसाविति न ज्ञातम्। तिमिरशबलितांशुदर्शने हि रात्रिमुखमिति लोकेन लक्ष्यते, न तु स्फुटे आलोके।

ननु यत्रेति। व्यङ्-यपाधान्यमिति। ननु व्यंग्यस्य प्राधान्यं प्रतीतावस्फुरत् कथं गृह्यत इत्याशङ् कते-प्राधान्यं चेति। तत्र हेतुमाह- बुद्धाविति। परिहरति-तथापीति विवेचकैः सहृदयैः। तदुपंस्कृतात्। व्यङ्ग्योपस्कृतात्। मध्यमकक्ष्येति। समासोक्त्यादौ प्रथमं वाच्यकक्ष्या। ततो वस्तुव्यङ्ग्यकक्ष्या। एनस्तृतीया रसध्वनिकक्ष्येत्यस्ति कक्ष्यात्रयविभागः; यत्रोक्त इति भामहलक्षणम्। तस्य पादचतुष्टयविधेयभेदं प्रदर्शयति-उपोढ इत्यादि। तिमिरांशुकमित्यत्र रूपकर्पारेग्रहे विशेषणातुल्यत्वात् समासोक्तिभंगप्रसंग इत्याशयेनाह- तिमिरश्चांशुकश्चेति। नीलजालिका नीलवसनम्। नवेति। नवोढ़ा च सा प्रौढा चेति कर्मधारयः। ["गववाचकैः सहृदरैः तनूपस्मृतव्यंग्यो वस्तुतात् मध्यमकक्ष्या। समासोक्त्यादौ प्रथमं वाच्यकक्ष्या ततो वस्तुव्यंग्यकक्ष्या पुनस्तृतींया सा ध्वनिकक्ष्येत्स्तु कक्ष्यात्रयविभागः" ]* रात्रिप्रारम्भाज्ञानं समर्थयति तिमिरेते। व्यवच्छेदमाह-न तुस्फुटे आलोके इति। पश्चाद्गतेन

13. व्यंग्यप्राधान्यम्. 2क.ख. 'तु' नास्ति. 3क.ख.ग. चर्वण 4क.ख.ग. 'पभासोक्ताविति' अधिक :. 'क.ख. यत्रोक्ती. 6क.ख.ग. स्वरूप, घ.ङ.च. स्वरूपे. 7(के) 'वृतो' अधिकः. 8क.ख.ग.(का) वेति.

48 नायिकापक्षे तु-तयेति कर्तृपदम्। रात्रिपक्षे तु अपिशब्द: लक्षितमित्यस्यानन्तरः। अत्र च नायकेन पश्चाद्गतेन चुम्बनोपक्रमे पुरो नीलाशुंकस्य गलनं पतनम्। यदि वा पुरोडग्रे नायकेन तथा गृहीतं मुखमिति संबन्धः। तेनात्र व्यङ्ग्ये प्रतीतेऽपि न प्राधान्यम्। तथा1हि-नायिकानायकव्यवहारो निशाशशिनावेव शृङ्-गारविभावरूपेण संस्कुर्वाणो- लङ्कारतां भजते, ततस्तु वाच्याद्विभावीभूताद्रसनिःष्यन्दः2॥। यस्तु व्याचष्टे- "तया निशयेति कर्तृपदम्। न चाचेतनायाः कर्तृत्वमुपपन्नमिति शब्देनैव नायकव्यवहार उन्नीतोऽभिधेय एव, न व्यङ्ग्य इति; अत एव समासेनोक्ति:4" इति सः प्रकृतमेव5 ग्रन्थार्थमत्यजत् "व्यङ्ग्येनानुगतम्" इति। एकदेशविवर्ति चेत्थं रूपकं स्यात्, "राजहंसैरवीज्यन्त शरदैव सरोनृपाः" इतिवत्; न तु समासोक्तिः, तुल्यविशेषणा भावात् 'गम्यते' इति चानेनाभिधाव्यापारनिरासात्-इत्यलमवान्तरेण बहुना। नायिकाया नायके यो व्यवहारः स निशायां समारोपितः, नायिकायां नायकस्य यो व्यवहारः स च शशिनि समारोपित इति व्याख्याने नैक शेषप्रसङ्गः॥ आक्षेप इति॥ "प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया । वक्ष्यमाणोक्तविषयः स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः॥"

पश्चाद्भागगतेन। तेनेति। यत एवं नायकव्यवहारस्य कथज्दिद्योजना, तेनेत्यर्थः॥ शृङ्गारविभावरूपेण शृङ्गारस्योद्दीपनविभावेन। रसनिष्यन्दः रसास्वादः। व्याख्यानान्तर- मनुभाषते-यस्त्विति। शब्देनैव। निशयेति शब्देनैव शशिशब्देनैव च नायकव्यवहारः नायकयोर्व्यवहार: उन्नीत: ऊहित:। अभिधेय एवेति। अन्यथा रागो रागस्तारकास्तारका: मुखं मुखं तिमिरमंशुकमित्यादि न घटते। अतो न व्यङ्ग्यो नायकव्यवहार इति यावत्। अत एवेयं समाख्यापि संगच्छत इत्याह। अत इति। समासेन संक्षेपेण। परिहरति सः प्रकृतगिति। प्रकृतार्थमुद्घाटयति- व्यङ्ग्येनानुगतमिति व्याख्येयप्रमुखपतितमिति शेष:। किञ्चैवमभिधेयतायां इयं समासोक्तिरेव न स्यादित्याह- एकदेशेति। तत्र उदाहरणं दर्शयति -राजहंसैरिति। लक्षणविरोधमपि प्रकटयति- गम्यत इति चेति। अथ नायिकानायकेत्यत्र कथमेकशेषाभावः इत्याशंकायामाह- नायिकाया इति। एवं समासोक्तौ वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यात् व्यङ्ग्यस्य तदनुगामितया ध्वनित्वाभावं प्रसाध्य क्रमप्राप्ते आक्षेपे Sप्ययमेव प्रकार इत्युपक्रमते वृत्तिकारः। आक्षेपेSपीति। व्यङ्ग्यविशेषक्षेपिणः व्यंग्य- विशेषाकार्षिणः प्राधान्येन वाक्यार्थत्वादित्यर्थः। अथ कथमयं वाच्य एवात्र वाक्यार्थ इति ज्ञायते? अत्राह- वाक्यार्थ इति। सामर्थ्यज्ञेयत्वमुपज्ञेयत्वमुपपादयति। तथा हीति। प्रतिषेधरूप इति। नाकर्षणरूप इति यादत्।

'(के) ततो. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) निःष्पन्दः. 3क.ख.ग.ङ .. (का) ०नैवात्र, (को) ०नात्र. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) समासोक्तिः 5क.ख.ग.(नि) प्रकृतार्थमेव. 6घ. (के) विशेषणत्वा०. 7क.ख.(नि) न कोऽपि दोष०.

49 तत्राद्यो यथा- "अहं त्वां यदि नेक्षेय क्षणमप्युत्सुका ततः। इयदेवास्त्वतोऽन्येन किमुक्ेनाप्रियेण ते ।।" इति वक्ष्यमाणमरणविषयो निषेधात्माक्षेपः। तत्र 'इयदस्तु' इत्येतदेव अत्र 'प्रिये' इत्याक्षिपत्1चारुत्वनिबन्धनमित्याक्षेप्येणाक्षेपकमलंकृतं सत् प्रधानम्। उक्तविषयस्तु यथा ममैव- "भो भोः कि किमकाण्ड एव पतितस्त्वं पान्थ कान्या गति- स्तत्तादृक्तृषितस्य मे खलमति सोञ्यं जलं गूहते । अस्थानोपनतामकालसुलभां तृष्णां प्रति क्रुध्य भो- स्त्रैलोक्यप्रथितप्रभावमहिमा भार्ग: पुनर्मारवः li" अत्र कश्चित् सेवकः प्राप्तः प्राप्तव्यमस्मात् किमिति न लभे इति पत्याशाविशस्यमानहृदयः केनचिदमुनाक्षेपेण2 प्रतिबोध्यते। तत्राक्षेपेण निषेधरूपेण वाच्स्यैवासत्पुरुषसेवातद्वैफल्यतत्कृतोद्वेगात्मनः शान्तरसस्थायिभूतनिर्वेदविभावा- नुभावरूपतया चमत्कृति दायित्वम्। वामनस्य तु "उपभानाक्षेपः" इत्याक्षेपलक्षणम्। उपमानस्य चन्द्रादेराक्षेप:। 'अस्मिन् सति किं त्वया कृत्यम्4' इति। यथा- "तस्यास्तन्मुखमस्ति सौम्यसुभगं कि पार्वणेनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पदं दृशौ यदि च ते किं नाम नीलोत्पलैः। किं वा कोमलकान्तिभिः किसलयैः सत्येव तत्राधरे ही धातु: पुनरुक्तवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्वपूर्वो ग्रहः॥।" अत्र व्यङ्ग्पोडप्युपमार्थो वाच्यस्यैवोपस्कुरुते। किं तेन कृत्यमिति त्वपहस्तनारूप

आक्षिपत् आकर्षत्। अथ व्याख्याकारः आक्षेपलक्षणमाह- प्रतिषेध इवेति। एतदपि भामहलक्षणम्। प्रिय इत्याक्षिपदिति। म्रिये इत्येवं रूपमर्थं आकर्षदिति यावत्। आक्षेप्येण म्रिय इत्यर्थेन व्यङ्ग्येनेत्यर्थः। आक्षेपकं वाच्यन्। इयदेवास्त्वित्येवंरूपम्। भो भो इति -पतितः व्यापारेण परिश्रान्तः। गूहते निहनुते। कुद्ध्य-क्रोथं कुरु: प्राप्तव्यं प्राप्तुं योग्यम्। अस्मात् सेव्यमानात वाच्यस्यैव प्रतिपाद्यरयैव। न त्वभिधोयमानस्य पान्यजलतृष्णामरुमागरूपस्येत्यर्थः। अन्यथा Sस्याप्रस्तुतप्रशंसात्वप्रसंगः, असंगतिश्च स्यात्। वामनेनाक्षेपस्यान्यथा लक्षणं कृतमित्याह- वामनस्त्रेति। आक्षेपः प्रतिषेधो वाच्चस्यैवो पस्कुरूते वाच्यमेवालङ्कुरुत इति यावत्।

1 घ.ड.च. इत्याशेपकं. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) विडम्बनक्षेपेण. 3क.च.ग.(नि) 'दायि' नास्ति. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) कृतम्. 5(कं) वाच्यमेव.

50 आक्षेपो वाच्य एव चमत्कारकारणम्। यदि वोपमानस्याक्षेपः सामर्थ्यादाकर्षणम्। यथा -- "ऐन्द्रं धनु: पाण्डुपयोधरेण शरद्दधानार्द्रनखक्षताभम् । प्रसादयन्ती सकलङ्कमिन्दुं तापं रवेरभ्यधिकं 'करोति॥।" 2 ईर्ष्याकलुषितनायकान्तरमुपमानमत्राक्षिप्तमपि वाच्यार्थमेव अलङ्करोतीति। एषा तु समासोक्तिरेव। तदाह-चारुत्वोत्कर्षेति॥ अत्रैव प्रसिद्धं दृष्टान्तमाह-अनुरागवतीति॥ तेनाक्षेपप्रमेयसमर्थनमेवापरिसमाप्तमिति मन्तव्यम्। तत्र तूदाहरणत्वेन समासोक्तिश्लोक: पठितः "अहो दैवगतिः 3कीदृक्" इति। गुरुपारतन्त्र्यादिनिमित्त कोऽसमागम इत्यर्थः॥ तस्यैवेति॥ वाच्यस्यैवेति यावत्। वामनाभिप्रायेणायमाक्षेपः, भामहाभिप्रायेण समासोक्ति- रित्यमुमाशयं हृदये गृहीत्वा समासोक्त्याक्षेपयोर्युक्त्येदमेकमेवोदाहरणं व्यतरद्ग्रन्थकृत्। 'एवं हि समासोक्तिर्वास्तु आक्षेपो वा; किमनेनास्माकम्6? समासोक्तयादिषु7 सर्वथालङ्कारेषु व्यङ्ग्यं वाच्ये गुणीभवतीति नः साध्यम्- इत्याशयोऽत्र ग्रन्थे गुरुभिर्निरूपित:। एवं प्राधान्यविवक्षायां दृष्टान्तमुक्त्वा व्यपदेशोऽपि प्राधान्यकृत एव भवतीत्यत्र दृष्टान्तं स्वपरप्रसिद्धमाह- यथा चेति॥ उपमाया इति॥ उपमानोपमेयभावस्येत्यर्थः॥ तयेति॥ उपमया। दीपके हि "आदिमध्यान्तविषयं त्रिधा दीपकमिष्यते" इति लक्षणम्। "मणिः शाणोल्लीढ: समरविजयी हेतिदलितः9। कलाशेषश्चन्द्रः सुरतमृदिता बालललना। मदक्षीणो नागः शरदि सरिदाश्यानपुलिना तनिम्ना शोभन्ते गलितविभवाश्चार्थिषु जना:10।" इत्यत्र दीपनकृतमेव चारुत्वम्।

अपहस्तना निरसनम्, प्रकृतस्य लक्षणस्यार्थान्तरं दर्शयति- यदि वेति। एषा त्विति। यदीदमुदाहरणं वामनमते आक्षेपत्वेनोक्तं, तदेतत् भामहमते समासोक्तिर्भवति। नायकार्थस्य गम्यमानत्वादिति। तदाहेति- तदेतद् व्यङ् ग्याक्षेपिणो वाच्यचमत्कृतिदायित्वात् प्राधान्यं तदिति यावत्। तेनेति दृष्टान्त- प्रदर्शनेन दाष्ट्रान्तिकसमर्थकेनेति यावत्। दार्ष्टान्तिकं चात्राक्षेपप्रमेयमित्यर्थः। उदाहरणत्वेन दृष्टान्तत्वेन। वामनाभिप्रायेणेति। उपमानप्रत्यायनपक्षरूपेण, भामहाभिप्रायेण। नायकप्रतीयमानताश्रयेण। गुरुभिर्निरूपित इति। प्रामाण्यमुक्तम्। दीपके तावदुपमाव्यपदेशस्योप- पत्तिमुपपादयति- तथा हीति। आदिमध्यान्तेत्येतदपि भामहलक्षणम्। दीफ्नकृतमेवेति नोपमानोपमेयभावकृतम्। अतो दीपकमिति

1क.ख.ग.ङ .. (नि)(का) चकार. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'इत्यत्र' अधिकः. 3घ.ङ.च.(का)(के) 'कीटृक्' नास्ति. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) निमित्तो. 5क.ख.(का) एषापि. 6(के) किमस्माकमनेन. 7क.ख.(का) 'समासोक्त्यादिषु नास्ति. १क.ख.(नि) अलंकारादिषु, ग. सिद्धालंकारेषु. 9(के) निहितः. निहतः (जोधपुर). 10ग.घ.ङ.थ. नराः.

51 "अपह्नुतिरभीष्टस्य किंचिदन्त 'र्गतोपमा" इति। तत्रापह्नवेनैव शोभा- "नेयं विरौति भृङ्गाली मदेन मुखरा मुहुः। अयमाकृ यमाणस्य कन्दर्पधनुषो ध्वनिः ॥।" इति। एवमाक्षेपं विचार्योद्देशक्रमेणैव प्रमेयान्तरमाह- अनुक्तनिमित्तायाम2पीति॥। "एकदेशस्य विगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्तुतिः। विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिरिति स्मृता ।।" यथा- "स एकस्त्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुधः। हरतापि तनुं यस्य शम्भुना न हृतं बलम् ।।" इयं चावित्यनिमित्तेति नास्यां व्यङ्ग्यस्य सद्भावः। उक्तनिमित्तायाभपि वरतु- स्वभावमात्रत्वे पर्यवसानमिति तत्रापि न व्यङ्ग्यसद्भावाशङ्का3। यथा- "कर्पूर इव दग्धोड़पि शक्तिमान् यो जने जने। नमोऽस्त्ववार्यवीर्याय तस्मै कुसुमधन्वने ।।" तेन प्रकारद्वयमवधीर्य4 तृतीय प्रकारमाशङ्कते- "अनुक्निमित्तायामपि" इति॥ व्यङ्ग्यस्येति॥ "शीतकृता खल्वार्तिरत्र निमित्तमु" इति भट्टोद्भटः;तदभिप्रायेणाह-न त्वत्र काचिच्चारुत्वनिष्पत्तिरिति॥ यत्तु रसिकैरपि निमित्तं परिकल्पितम्- "कान्तासमागमे गमनादपि लघुतरमुपायं7 स्वप्नं मन्यमानो निद्रागमनबुद्धया संकोच

व्यपदेशो नोपमेत्वथः।। अपस्नुतिरित्यपि। भामहीयम्। जेयमिति। अन्वाप्यपह्नवस्यैव चारुत्वं नोपमानोपमेयस्येति भाव:।। एकदेशस्येत्यपि भामहीयम्। विशेषोक्तिरित्रधा-अचिन्त्यनिमित्ता, उक्तनिमिता, अनुक्तनिमित्ता चेंति। तत्राद्यभेदयो. व्यंग्यं नास्त्येव। तृतीये त्वस्ति। तदतत् प्रकाशयति- यथेति। शीतकृर्तेति। अत्र "आहूतोSि' इत्युदाहर गोक्तसङ्कोचाशिथिलनेत्यर्थः। 'अपि त्विति अभिव्यज्यमान म्वप्नानायमननं न

1व ख. (नि) अभ्गतोपमा. 2क.ख.(का) 'अपि' नास्ति. क.ख.ग.(का) ०भावशंका. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) अवधार्य. 5व.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'परि' नास्ति. 6(के) स्वप्नोपनत. 7(के) तत्समागमे.

52 नात्यजत्' इति तदपि निमित्तं चारुत्वहेतुतया नालंकारविद्भि: 1 कल्पितम्; अपि तु विशेषोक्तिभाग एव न शिथिलयतीत्येवंभूतोऽभिव्यज्यमाननिमित्तोपस्कृतश्चारुत्वहेतुः। अन्यथा तु विशेषोक्तिरेवेयं न भवेत्। एवमभिप्रायद्वयमपि साधारणोक्त्या ग्रन्थकृत् न्यपयत्, न त्वौद्भटेनैवाभिप्रायेण ग्रन्थो व्यवस्थित इति मन्तव्यम्॥ पर्यायोक्तेपीति॥ "पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते। वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्यां शून्येनावगमात्मना।।" इति लक्षणम्। "शत्रुच्छेददृढेच्छस्य मुनेरुत्पथगामिनः। रामस्यानेन धनुषा देशिता धर्मदेशना।।" इत्यत्र भीष्मस्य भार्गवप्रभावाभिभावी प्रभाव इति यद्यपि प्रतीयते, तथापि तत्सहायेन "देशिता धर्मदेशना" इत्यभिधीयमानेनैव 2काव्यार्थोऽलंकृतः। अत एव पर्यायेण प्रकारान्तरेणावगमात्मना व्यङ्ग्येनोपलक्षितं सद्यदभिधीयते तदभिधीयमानम् उक्तमेव सत् पर्यायोक्तमिति-अभिधीयत इति लक्षणपदम्, पर्यायोक्तमिति लक्ष्यपदम्, अर्थालङ्कारत्वं सामान्यलक्षणमिति-सर्वं युज्यते। यदि तु 'अभिधीयते' इत्यस्य बलाद्व्याख्यानम्- अभिधीयते प्रतीयते प्रधानतयेति, उदाहरणं च "भम धम्मिअ" इत्यादि, तदालङ्कारत्वमेव दूरे संपन्नम्, आत्मतायां पर्यवसानात्। तदा चालङ्कारमध्ये गणना न कार्या, भेदान्तराणि चास्य वक्तव्यानि। तदाह-यदि प्राधान्येनेति॥ ध्वनाविति॥ आत्मन्यन्तर्भावादात्मैवासौ नालङ्कार: स्यादित्यर्थ:॥ तत्रेति॥ यादशोऽलङ्कारत्वेन विवक्षितस्तादृशे ध्वनिर्नान्तर्भवति। न तादृगस्माभिर्ध्वनिरुक्तः। ध्वनिर्हि3 सर्वत्रभादाद्व्यापकः समस्तप्रतिष्ठास्थानत्वाच्चाङ्-गी; न चालङ्कारो व्यापकोऽन्यालंकारवत्; न चाङ्गी अलंकार्यतन्त्रत्वात्। अथ व्यापकत्वाङ्गित्वे तस्योपगम्येते, त्यज्यते चालङ्कारता, त्ह्र्यस्मन्नय

शिथिलयतीति रूपो विशेषोक्तिभाग एवालङ्कारविद्भिश्वारुत्वे हेतु: कल्पित इति यावत्। निमित्तस्य चारुता चेत् कथं विशेषोक्तिः स्यादित्याह- अन्यथेति। पर्यायोक्तमिति। भट्टोद्भटस्य लक्षणमिदम्। पर्यायेण प्रकारान्तरेणोक्तं पर्यायोक्तम्। शत्रुच्छेदेति। अनेन कर्त्रा भीष्मेण धनुषा करणेन धर्मदेशना धर्मोपदेशः। अत्रापि वाच्यमेव प्रधानमिति दर्शयति-अ्रेति। उक्तादेव हेतोः लक्षणत्रयमप्युपपन्नमित्याह-अत एवेति। पक्षान्तरमाशंकते-यदिति। प्रकृतस्य लक्षणवाक्यस्य व्याख्यानविशेषेणार्थान्तरं परिकल्प्य उदाहरणान्तरमप्येवं कल्प्यते चेदित्यर्थः। तर्हि अमतं न सिद्धयेदिति तावदाह- तदिति। अनिष्टान्तरमपि दर्शयति-तदा चेति। अथेति। पर्यायोक्तमित्ययमलङ्कारः। व्यापकश्वाङ्गी

1क.ख.ग.(के) ०कृद्भिः, 2क.ख.(नि) वाक्यार्थो. 3क.ख.ग.(का) 'महाविषयः' अधिकः

53 एवायभवलम्ब्यते। केवलं मात्सर्यग्रहात् पर्यायोक्तवाचीतते1भावः। न चेयदपि प्राक्तनैर्दृष्टम्, अगि त्वस्माभिरेवोन्मीलितगिति दर्शयति-न पुनरिति॥ भामहस्य यादृक्तदीयं रूपमभिमतं तादृगुदाहरणेन दर्शितम्; 'तत्रापि नैव व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्राधान्यं चारुत्वाहेतुत्वात्; तेन तदनुसारितया तत्सदृशं यदुदाहरणान्तरमनि कल्प्धते तत्र नैव व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्राधान्यमिति सङ्गतिः। यदि तु तदुक्तमुदाहरणमनादृत्य "भम धम्भिअ" इत्याद्युदाहियते, तदस्मच्छिष्यतैव। केवलं तु 'नयम- वलम्व्याप श्रवणेनात्मसंस्कार इत्यनार्यचेष्टितम्। यदाहुरैतिहासिका :- "अवज्ञयाप्यवच्छाद्य शृण्वन्नरकमृच्छति4" इति। भामहेन हयुदाहृतम्- "गृहेष्वध्वसु वा नान्नं भुञ्ज्महे यदधीतिनः5। विप्रा न भुञ्जते .... ।।" इति। एतद्धि भगवद्वासुदेववचनं पर्यायेण रसदानं निषेधति। यत्स एवाह- .. "तच्च रतदाननिवृत्तये" इति। न चास्य ररुदाननिषेधस्य वाङ्ग्यस्य किंचिच्चारुत्वमस्ति येन प्राधान्यं शङ्क्येत। अपि तु तद्व्यङ्ग्योपोद्बलितं विप्रभोजनेन विना यन्न भोजनं तदेद उक्तप्रकारेण पर्यायोक्तं सत् प्राकरणिकं भोजनार्थमलंकुरुते; न ह्यस्य निर्विष भोजनं भवत्विति विवक्षितमिति पर्यायोक्तमलंकार एव6 चिरन्तनानामंभिमत इति तात्पर्यम्।। अपहनुतिदीपकयोरिति॥ एतत्पूर्वमेव निर्णातम्, अत एवाह- प्रसिद्धमिति॥ प्रतीतं प्रसाधितं प्रामाणिकं 7चेत्यर्थ:। पूर्वं चैतत् 'छउपमादिव्यपदेश 9भाजनमेव तद्यथा न भवति' इत्यमुया

चेत्यभ्युपगम्पत इति चेदित्यर्थः। इयदेव तावत् पर्यायोक्ते व्यंग्यप्राधान्यं गम्यत इत्यर्थः। ततस्तत्सदृशस्ोदाहरणान्तरस्य प्रकल्पने तथा न व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्राधान्धमिति यावत्-पक्षान्तरमाशंक्य परिहरति-शदि त्विति॥ किं तद्भामहोदाहृतमित्याह-भाम्हेन हीति। रसदानं निपेधतीति। विषदानं निषेधतीति यावत्, स एव भामह एव रसदाननिषेधस्य रसं न दद्यादिति रूपस्य, उपोद्धलितमुपस्कृतं। तदेवेति। वाच्यरूपमिति यावत्। न ह्यस्येति एवं भूतं वाच्यमेवात्र प्राधान्येन विवक्षितं, न तु व्यंग्यं विषं न देयमिति। यदि तु निर्विषं भोजनं भवत्विति विवक्षितं स्यात्, तर्हि व्यंग्यं प्रधानं स्यात्। न वैवम्। तस्माद्वाच्यमेवात्र प्रधानम् इत्यर्थः। प्रकृतमुपसहरति- पर्यायोक्समिति। अतः पर्यायोक्तमलङकार एव नालङ्कार्यमिति भामहादीनां चिरन्तनानां सिद्धान्त इत्यर्थः। अपहनुतीति अपह्नुतिदीपकयोर्व्यंग्यानुगतस्य वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यं पूर्वमेव यथा दीपकापह्नुत्यादातिति ग्रन्थव्याख्याने एव, निर्णीतमिति यावत्। ननु अत्रा पह्नुति-दीपकयोरित्यादिकमेतत किमर्थमुक्तम्? उक्तः खलु पूर्वमयमंवार्थो पथा दीपकापहनुत्यादिनेत्याशंकायां आह-पूर्वं चैतदिति।

क.ख.ग.(नि) ०भागिति. 2क.ख.(के) तत्रच. 3(के) 'नयगन' इत्येव पाठः. 4(के) मार्छ. 5क.ख.ग. cतिनौ. 6क.ख.ग.(का) एवेति. 7क.ख.(टे) 'प्रामाणिकं' नास्ति. 8घ.(के) उपमान०. 9क.ख.ग.(के) 'एव' नासत। 'भाजनमेतद्यथा' इत्येव पाठः.

54 छायया दृष्टान्ततयोक्तमपि, उद्देश कमपूरणाय ग्रन्थशय्यां योजयितुं पुनरप्युक्तम् 'व्यङ्ग्य-प्राधान्याभावान्न ध्वनिः इति छायान्तरेण। वस्तु पुनरेकमेव। उपमाया एव व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन ध्वनित्वाशङ्कनात्। यत्तु विवरणकृत् "दीपकस्य सर्वत्रोपमान्वयो उनास्ति" इति बहुनोदाहरण4प्रपञ्चेन विचारितवान्, तदनुपयोगि निस्सारं सप्रतिक्षेपं च।। "मदो जनयति प्रीति सानङ्गं मानभङ्-गुरम्5। स प्रियासङ्-गमोत्कण्ठां सासह्यां मनसः शुचम् !" इति। अत्राप्युत्तरोत्तरजन्यत्वेऽप्युपमानोपमेयभावस्य सुकल्पत्वात्। नहि क्रमिकाणां नोपमानो- पमेयभाव:। तथा हि- "राम इव दशरथोऽभूद्दशरथ इव रघुराजोऽपि रघुसदृशः। अज इव दिलीपवंशश्चित्रं रामस्य कीर्तिरियम् इति न6न भवति; तस्मात् क्रमिकत्वम्, समं वा प्राकरणिकत्वमुपमां 'रुणद्धीति कोऽ्यं त्रास इत्यलं गर्दभीदोहानुवर्तनेन।। सङ्करालङ् कारेऽपीति। "विरुद्धालंक्रियोल्लेखे समं तद्वत्त्यसम्भवे । एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावात्8 स संकर:।।" इति लक्षणादेक: प्रकारः। यथा ममैव-

छाया प्रकारः। वस्तु पुनरिति। छायाप्रयोजनयोरेव भेद्ः। अर्थस्य व्यंग्यत्वऽप्युपमाया अप्राधान्यान्न ध्वनित्वमित्येवमात्मा एक एवेत्यर्थ:। विवरणकृदिति-ध्वनिग्रन्थस्य विवरणं कृतवान्, कश्चित् विचारितवानिति। स्वविवरणग्रन्थे इतिः शेषः। तन्निराकरोति तदिति। उपमान्वयमुदाहरणेन समर्थयति मदो जनयतीति। क्रमिकाणां क्रमवतां समं वेति अक्रमिकत्वमित्यर्थः। यथा- 'मणिः शाणोल्लीढः' इत्यादौ॥ प्राकरणिकत्वं प्राकरणिकमिति यावत्। दोहानुवर्तनेन दोहनानुवर्तनन, निस्सारपरीक्षणेनेत्यर्थ;। अथ: संकरालङ्कारनिरूपणम्-संकरेति। अत्र संकरालङ्कारश्वतुर्धा- सन्नेहेन; एकवाक्यवर्तनेन, एकवाक्यांशप्रवेशेन; अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभावेन चेति। प्रकारश्चायं भट्टोद्भटमतेनाततिष्ठते। तत्रैषां क्रमेण लक्षणोदाहरणानि दर्शयति विरुद्धेति। यत्र विरुद्धयोरलङ्कारयोः संभवः युगपत्तयोर्वृत्यसंभवश्च एकपरिग्रहे

ग.(के) उद्देशानुक्रमं०. 2क.ख.ग. व्यंग्यम्. 3क.ख.ग.(के) 'न' नास्ति. 4च.(के) उदाहरणादिप्र०. 5घ.ङ.च.(का) o भञ्जनम्. 6क.ख.ग. नतु. 7क.ख.ग.(का) निरुणद्धि 8गं.घ.ङ.च. ०दोषाभावे च.

55 "राशिवदनासितसरसिजनयना सितकुन्ददशनपङ्क्तिरियम्। गगनजल स्थलसम्भवह्द्याकारा कृता विधिना ।।" इति। अत्र च' शशी वदनमस्याः, तद्वद्वा वदनमस्या इति। रूपकोपमोल्लेखात् युगपद्द्वयासम्भवा- देकतरपक्षत्याग2ग्रहं प्रमाणाभावात् संकर इति व्यङ्ग्यवाच्यताया एव अनिश्चयात् का ध्वनिसम्भावना? योऽपि द्वितीय: प्रकार :- 'शब्दार्थालकाराणामेकत्र भाव' इति तत्रापि प्रतीय्मानस्य का शङ्का? यथा- "स्मर स्मरमिव प्रियं स्म रमसे3 यदालिङ्गनात्" इति। 4तत्रैव यगकमुपमा घ। तृतीय: प्रकार :- यत्रैकत्र वाक्यांशेऽनेकोऽर्थालंकारः तत्रापि द्वयोः साभ्यात् कस्य व्यङ्ग्यता। यथा- "तुल्योदयावसानत्वाद्गतेऽसतं प्रति भास्वति । वासग्य वासर: क्लान्तो विशतीव तमोगुहाम् ।।" ईति। अत्र हि स्वामिविपत्तिसमुचितव्रतग्रहणहेवाकिकुलपुत्रकरूपण मेकदेशविवर्तिरूपकं दर्शयति। उत्प्रेक्षा चेवशब्देनोक्ता। तदिदं प्रकारद्वयमुक्तक्। "शब्दार्थ'वर्त्यलंकारा वाक्य एकत्र वर्तिनः6! संकरो वैकवाक्यांशप्रवेशाद्राभिधीयते

साधकस्य ब.धकस्य वाभावः स एक: सन्देहत्मकः संकर इति यावत। शशीति। तथा वक्त्रचन्द्र इत्यत्र 'वक्त्रं चन्द्र इवे'ति किमुपमा, उत 'वक्त्रमेव चद्र' इति रूपकमिति संशयः। उभयथावि समासस्य संभवात्। 'उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभि: सामान्याप्रयोगे' इति उपमासमास व्याघ्रादीनामाकृतिगणत् त्। मयूरव्यंसकादित्वात्तु, रूपकप्मास:

एवं 'शशिवदने' त्यत्र 'शशीव वदनमस्या' इति किमुपमा, उत 'शश्येव वदनमस्या' इति रूपकमिति संशय इत्यर्थ:। व्यंग्यवाच्ाताया एवानिश्चयादिति। उपमाया वाच्यत्वे रूपकं व्ङ्गयं स्थात्। अन्यथा चेदन्यथा स्यान्। तन द्वयोरेकस्य वाच्यत्चानिर्धारणात् कुत एव ध्वनित्वसंभावनेत्यर्थः। अथ द्वितीयं सङ्करभेदं लक्षयति-वापीति। तत्रैव चति। यमकमुपमा च द्वयमपि वाच्यमेव, न किञ्चित् व्यङ्ग्यमिति कृत एव ध्वनिप्रसङ्ग इत्यर्थः। अथ तृतीयं प्रकारं विवेचयति- तृतीय इति। अत्रोति। एकदेशविवर्तिरूपकं दर्शयति-कविरिति शेषः। रूपकोत्प्रेक्षयोर्द्वयोरपि वाच्यतया साम्यान्न कस्यचिदपि व्यङ्ग्यत्वमिति भाव:। उक्तस्यास्य भेदद्वयस्य लक्षणमाह- शब्दार्थेति॥

1क.ब्र.ग.(का) 'च' नास्ति. 2क.ख.(नि)(का) ०ग्रहणे. 3ग.(नि)(का) रमगसे. 4क.ख्.ग.(ननि)(का) अज्रैव. 'ग.प.च.(नि) वृत्त्पलं. 6क.ख्.(नि)(के) शविनः.

56 इति4। चतुर्थस्तु प्रकार: यत्रानुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभावोऽलंकाराणम्। यथा- "प्रवातनीलोत्पलनिर्विशेषमधीरविप्रेक्षितमायताक्ष्याः - तया गृहीतं नु मृगाङ्गनाभ्यस्ततो गृहीतं नु मृगाङ्गनाभि:।!" अत्र मृगाङ्-गनावलोकनेन तदवलोकनस्योपमा यद्यपि व्यङ्ग्या, तथापि वाच्यस्य 2ससंदेहालंकारस्याभ्युत्थानकारिणीत्वेन अनुग्राहकत्वाद्गुणीभूता। अनुग्राह्यत्वेन हि उससंदेहे पर्यवसानम्। यथोक्तम्- "परस्परोपकारेण यत्रालंकृतयः स्थिताः - स्वातन्त्र्येणात्मलाभं नो लभन्ते सोऽपि संकरः॥।" 4इति। तदाह- यदालंकार इत्यादि।। एवं चतुर्थेऽपि प्रकारे ध्वनिता निराकृता। मध्यमयोस्तु व्यङ्ग्यसंभावनैव नास्तीत्युक्तम्। आद्ये तु प्रकारे 'शशिवदना" इत्यादयुदाहृते कथंचिदस्ति संभावनेत्याशङ्क्य निराकरोति- अलंकारद्वयेति॥ समभिति॥ द्वयोरप्यान्दोल्यमानत्वादिति भाव:। ननु यत्र व्यङ्ग्यमेव प्राधान्येन भाति तत्र किं कर्तव्यम्? यथा "होइ ण गुणाणुराओ खलाणँ णवरं पसिद्धिसरणाणम्। किर पहणवइ ससिमणि चन्दे ण पिआमुहे दिट्ठे ।।" अत्रार्थान्तरन्यासस्तावद्वाच्यत्वेन 'भाति व्यतिरेकापह्नुती तु व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन प्रधानतयेत्यभि- प्रायेणाशङ्कते-अथेति॥ तत्रोत्तरम्-तदा सोऽपीति॥ सङ्करालङ्कार एवायं न भवति, अपि त्वलङ् कारध्वनिर्नामायं ध्वनेद्वितीयो भेदः। यच्च पर्यायोक्ते निरूपितं तत्सर्वमत्राप्यनु-

तुरीयं भेदं दर्शयति- चतुर्थस्त्विति। अनुग्राह्यत्वेनेति। उपमायाः ससन्देहे पर्यवसानमिति यावत्। अनुग्राह्यत्वेनेति। ससन्देहस्येति शेषः। व्यङ्ग्याऽप्युपमा अनुग्राहकत्वात् ससन्देहस्यानु ग्राह्यस्यानुगत्वरी । अतो वाच्यस्य ससन्देहस्यैव प्राधान्यमतो नात्र ध्वनित्वमित्यर्थः। अस्य भेदस्य लक्षणं प्रदर्शयति- यथोक्तमिति। तदाहेति। यदिदं. चतुर्थभेदे ध्वन्यभाव: प्रादर्शि तदित्यर्थः। चतुर्थे प्रकारे इति। अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभावसंकरे अयं भेदः प्रथमं वृत्तिकारेण प्रतिक्षिप्तः अथ द्वितीयतृतीययोर्भेदयोः व्यंग्यासंभवात् सन्देहसंकरभेदे प्रथमे पर्यालोचनां करोतीत्याह-मध्यमयोरिति। होइ इति। भवति न गुणानुरागः न परं प्रसिद्धिशरणानाम्। किल प्रस्नौति शशिमणिश्चन्द्रे न प्रियामुखे दृष्टे॥। व्यतिरेकापहनुतीति। 'चन्द्रे दृष्टे शशिमणिः प्रस्नौति, न तु प्रियामुख' इत्यनेनैतावानेव भेदोऽनयोः प्रियामुखचन्द्रयोर्नान्यः कश्चिदिति व्यतिरेको ध्वन्यते। 'चन्द्रो न चन्द्रः प्रियामुखमेव चन्द्रः' इति अपह्नुतिश्व इति यावत्। अलङ्कारध्यनिरिति। वस्त्वलङ्काररसास्त्रयो ध्वनयस्तत्र वस्तुध्वनेः प्रथमभूतस्य यो द्वितीयः अलङ्कारध्वनिः स एवायं न

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'च' अधिकः. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) सा. 3क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) संदेहे. 4क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'इति' नास्ति. 5 क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) आभाति. 6घ.द्.(के) अत्र.

57 सरणीयम्। अथ सर्वेषु संकरप्रभेदेषु व्यङ्ग्यसंभावनानिरासप्रकारं साधारणमाह-अपि चेति। 'क्वचिर्दापे संकरालंकारे च' इति संबन्धः। सर्वभेदभिन्न इत्यर्थः। संकीर्णता 1तु मिश्रत्वं लोलीभाव :; तत्र कथमेकस्य प्राधान्यं क्षीरजलवत्? "अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य या स्तुतिः। अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा सा त्रिविधा परिकीर्तिता अप्रस्तुतस्य2 वर्गनं प्रस्तुताक्षेपिण इत्यर्थः। स चाक्षेपस्त्रिभि:3 प्रकारैर्भवति-सामान्य- विशेषभावात्. ननिमित्तनिमित्तिभावात्, सारूप्याच्च। तत्र प्रथमे प्रकारद्वये प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतयोस्तुल्यमेव प्राधान्यमिति प्रतिज्ञां करोति- "अप्रस्तुत" इत्यादिना "प्राधान्यम्" इत्यन्तेन। तत्र सामान्यविशेषभावेपि द्रयी गतिः- सामान्यमप्राकरणिक शब्देनोच्यते, गम्यते तु प्राकरणिको विशेष:, स एक: प्रकारः। यथा- "अहो संसारनैर्घृण्यमहो दौरात्म्यमापदाम् - अहो निसर्गजिह्मस्य दुरन्ता गतयो विधेः ।।" अत्र डि दैवप्राधान्यं4 सर्वत्र सामान्यरूपमप्रस्तुतं वर्गितं सत् प्रकृते क्वापि वस्तुनि विनष्टे विशेषात्मनि पर्यवस्यति। तत्रापि च विशेषांशस्य साभान्येन व्याप्यत्वाद्व्यङ्ग्यविशेष- वद्वाच्ासामान्यस्थापि प्राधान्यम्। न हि सामान्यविशेषयोर्युगपत् प्राधान्यं विरुध्यते। यदा लु विशेषं.Sप्राकरणिकः प्राकरणिकं सानान्यमाक्षिपति तदा द्वितीयः प्रकारः। यथा- "एतत्तस्य मुखात् कियत्कमलिनीपत्रे कणं पायसो5 यन्मुक्तामणिरित्यमंस्त स जडः शृण्वन्यदस्मादपि०।।

संकरालड्कार: इत्यर्थ:। अत्र समर्थकभाह- यच्चेति। अपि चेत्यनयोरन्वयं दर्शयति। अथ समासोकत्या- क्षेपेयत्रादि शब्दावरुद्धां अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसां विचारयितुं तल्तक्षणभादतेअधिकारादिति। प्रथमे प्रकारदवये इति। सामार्न्याविशेष्यभावे निमित्निमित्तिभावे चेति यावत्। विशेषांशस्येति। विनष्टस्य कस्यचिद्वस्तुन इति यादत्। सामान्टेन। दैवप्राधान्येनेति यावत्। व्यङ्ग्यविशेषयत्-व्यङ्यभूतविशेषवत्, वाच्यसामान्यस्य-वाच्यभृत- सामान्यस्येति यावत्। ननु कथं सामान्यविशेषयोः युगपत् प्राधान्य स्ात्? यादे सामान्यं प्रधानं तर्हि विशेषोऽप्रधानमेव। यदि पुनर्विशेष: प्रधानं, तर्हि सामान्यमप्रधानं स्यात्। उभयोरपि भिन्नत्वात् प्राधान्यं न संभवतीत्याशंकायामाह- न हीति। रक्तं पटं वयेत्यादौ विशिष्टपटत्वरक्तत्वादीनां प्राधान्यं युगपदेव दृश्यते, अतो न विरोध इति भावः। एतदिति। तस्यैतन्मुखात्। प्रथमं कियदित्यल्पमेवोपरितनापेक्षयेत्यर्थः। कमलिनीत्यादि। यदेषः कमलिनीपत्रस्थितं

1घ. (का)(के) हि. 2क्त.ख.ग. 'च' अधिकः. 3क.ख.(नि)(का) त्रिविधो भवति. 4वा.(नि)(क) स्वातन््यं. '(क) वारिणो. 6 (नि)(का) शृण्वन्यदम्मादपि, (को) शृण्वन् यदस्मादपि.

58 अङ्-गुल्यग्रलघुक्रियाप्रविलयिन्यादीयमाने शनै- स्तत्रोड्डीय गतो 1ममेत्यनुदिनं निद्राति नान्तः शुचा॥।" 2इति। अत्र अस्थाने महत्त्वसम्भावना3 सामान्यं प्रस्तुतम्; अप्रस्तुतं तु जलबिन्दौ मणित्चसंभावनं विशेषरूपं वाच्यम्। तत्रापि सामान्यविशेषयोर्युगपत्प्राधान्ये न विरोध इत्युक्तम्। एवमेकप्रकारो द्विभेदोऽपि विचारितः "यदा तावत्" इत्यादिना "विशेषस्याषि प्राधान्यम्" इत्यन्तेन। 4एनमेव न्यायं निमित्तनैमित्तिकभावेSतिदिशंस्तस्यापि द्विप्रकारतां दर्शधति। कदाचिन्निमितमप्रस्तुतं सदभिधीयमानं नैमित्तिकं प्रस्तुतमाक्षिपति। यथा- "ये यान्त्यभ्युदये प्रीति नोज्झन्ति व्यसनेषु च। ते बान्धवास्ते सुहृदो लोकः स्वार्थपरोऽपर: ॥" अत्राप्रस्तुतं सुहद्बान्धवरूपत्वं निमित्तं सज्जनासक्त्या वर्णयति नैमित्तिकीं श्रद्धेयवचनतां प्रस्तुतामात्मनोऽभिव्यङ् क्तुम्। तत्र नैमित्तिकप्रतीतावपि निमित्तप्रतीतिरेव प्रधानीभवत्यनुप्राणकत्वेनेति व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकयो: प्राधान्यम्। कदाचित्तु नैमित्तिकमप्रस्तुतं दर्ण्यमानं सत् प्रस्तुतं निमित्तं व्यनक्ति यथा सेतौ- "सग्गं अपारिजाअं कोत्थुहलच्छिरहिअं महुमहस्स उरम् । सुमरामि महणपुरओ अमुद्धअन्दं च हरजडापब्भारम् अत्र जाम्बवान् कौस्तुभलक्ष्मीविरहितहरिवक्ष :स्मरणादिकमप्रस्तुतंनैमित्तिकं वर्णयति प्रस्तुतं वृद्धसेवाचिरजीवित्वव्यवहारकौशलादिनिमित्तभूतं मन्त्रितायामुपादेय/मभिव्यङ्क्तुम्। तत्र निमित्तप्रतीतावपि नैमित्तिकं वाच्यभूतम्। प्रत्युत तन्निमित्तानुप्राणितत्वेनोद्धुरकन्धरी- करोत्यात्मानमिति समप्रधानतैव वाच्यव्यङ्ग्ययोः। एवं द्वौ प्रकारौ प्रत्येकं द्विविधौ विचार्य तृतीय: प्रकार: परीक्ष्यते सारूप्यलक्षणः। तत्रापि द्वौ प्रकारौ-अप्रस्तुतात् कदाचिद्वाच्या- च्चमत्कार:, व्यङ्ग्यं तु तन्मुखप्रेक्षम्। यथास्मदुपाध्यायभट्टेन्दुराजस्य-

जलकणं मुक्ताफलं मन्यते तद्भवेदेव सादृश्यबलांत् तदत्यल्पमित्यर्थ :- शृण्वन्यदित्यादि। अस्मात् प्रसिद्धात्तदानीं तत्र स्थिताज्जनादिति यावत्। मम हस्तान्महारत्नमुड्डीय गतमित्येवमन्तः शुचा अनुदिनं निद्रादिकं न लभत इत्येतदति-महदित्यर्थः। अ्रेति। जडानामिति शेषः। एकप्रकार इति। सामान्यविशेषभावनिबन्धन इत्यर्थः। द्विभेद इति। सामान्यविशेषयोर्वाच्यत्वभेदभिन्न इत्यर्थः। ये यान्तीति। कस्यचित् सुहृदं प्रति किञ्चिद्विवक्षोर्वच्नमिदम्। सज्जनासक्त्या सज्वनाभिप्रायेण अनुप्राणकत्येनेति प्रतीयमानोज्वीवकत्वेनेत्यर्थः। उद्धुरकन्धरीकरोत्यात्मानं प्रधानीभवतीत्यर्थः। तन्मुखप्रेक्षमिति वाच्यमुखप्रेक्षं अप्रधानमित्यर्थः। प्राणा

1क.ख.(नि)(का) हहे. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'इति' नास्ति. 3क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) ०भावनं. 4क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) एतमेव. 5क.ख. (नि)(का) वाच्यव्यंग्ययोः. 6ग.(नि)(का) प्रस्तुतनैमित्तिकं. 7क.ख.(के) उपादेयभूतायां.

59 'प्राणा येन समर्पितास्तव बलादेन त्वमुत्थापितः स्कन्धे यस्य चिरं स्थितोऽसि विदधे यस्ते सपर्यामपि।। तस्यास्य स्मितमात्रकेण जनयञ्जीवापहारक्रियां भ्रातः प्रत्युपकारिणां धुरि परं वेताल लीलायसे = अत्र यद्यपि सारूप्यवशेन कृतघ्नः कश्चिदन्यः प्रस्तुत आक्षिप्यते, तथाप्यप्रस्तुतस्यैव वेतालद्जान्तस्य चमत्कारकारित्वग। न हयचेतनोपालम्भवदसंभाव्यमानोSयमर्थो न च न हृद्य इति वाच्यसयात्र प्रधानता। यदि पुनरचेतनादिनात्यन्तासंभाव्यमानतदर्थविशेषणेन अप्रस्तुतेन वर्णितेन प्रस्तुतमाश्षिप्यमाणं चमत्कारकारि तदा वस्तुध्वनिरसौ। यथा ममैव- "भ घव्रात हठाज्जनस्य हृदयान्याक्रम्य यन्नर्तयन् भङ्-गीभिर्वि विधाभिरात्महृदयं प्रच्छाद 2 संक्रीडसे। सं त्वामाह जड ततः सहृदयंगन्यत्वदुःशिक्षितो मन्येऽमुष्य जडात्मता स्तुतिपदं त्वत्साम्यसंभावनात्॥।" कश्चिन्महापुरुषः "वीतरागोऽपि सरागवत्" इति न्यायेन गाढविवेकालोकतिरस्कृत- तिमिरप्रतानोSपि लोकमध्ये स्वात्मानं प्रच्ादयन् लोकं च वाचालयन् आत्मन्यप्रतिभा- समेवाङ्गीकुर्वन् तेनैत लोकेन मूखोSयगिति यदावज्ञायते, तदा तदीयं लोकोत्तरं चरितं प्रस्तुतं व्यङ्ग्यतया प्राधन्येन प्रकाश्यते। जडोSयमिति उद्यानेन्दृदयादिर्भावो लोकेनावज्ञायते। स च प्रत्युत वस्यचिद्वि रहिग औत्सुक्यचिन्तादूयमानमानसतामन्यस्य प्रहर्षपरवशतां करोतीति हठादेव लोकं धथेष्टं विकारकारणाभिर्नर्तयति। न च तस्य हृदयं केनापि 3विज्ञायते कीदृगयमिति। प्रत्युत महागम्शीरेSतिविदग्ध: सुष्ठु गर्वहीनोऽतिशयेन क्रीडाचतुरः स यदि लोकेन जड इति तत एव कारणात् प्रत्युत वैदग्धातंभावनानिमित्तात् संभावितः; आत्मा च यत एव कारणात्

इति। धुरि अग्रे: आक्िप्यमां व्यज्यमानं। भार्वोत हे भावव्रात पदार्थवात, रधानादि पदार्थव्रातेति यावत। यदिति। वाक्यार्थनरामर्शी। सज्जनः सहदयंगन्यत्वदुःशिक्षित :-- सहृदयं-मन्यत्वदुर्विनीतः, सहृदयोऽहमित्यभिमानेन हतः दुर्ललित इति यादत्। अमुष्य जनस्य जडात्पता, जडोऽसीत्युच्यमानतत्यर्थः। त्वत्साम्यसंभावनात् स त्वया समत्वापातादित्यर्थ:। अत्र प्रस्तुतमर्यं दर्शयति- कश्चिदित्यादिना प्रकाश्यत इत्यन्ेन। अप्रस्तुतं वाच्यं विवेचर्याते। जडोऽयमित्यादिना। प्रत्युत स्तुतिरित्यन्तेन। स इन्दृदयादिपदार्थव्रात विकारकारणाभि: बिकाराविधापनागिः।स गटीति।स भावव्रातो वैदग्ध्यासंभावनानिमित्तादेवंविधक्रीडनात् यदि जडोSयमिति

घ.अ.(के) सप-गं पुरः. 2क.ख.ग.च.(नि) यत्कीडसे. 3क.ख.ग.घ.(नि)(का) ज्ञायते. 4(के) 'कारणात्' नास्ति.

60 प्रत्युत जाड्येन संभाव्यस्तत एव सहृदय: संभावितः; तदस्य लोकस्य जडो5सीति यद्युच्यते तदा जाड्यमेवंविधस्य भावव्रातस्यातिविदग्धस्य प्रसिद्धमिति सा प्रत्युत स्तुतिरिति जडादपि पापीयानयं लोक इति ध्वन्यते। तदाह- यदा त्वित्यादिना।I इतरथा त्विति॥ इतरथैव पुनरलंकारान्तरत्वमलंकारविशेषत्वम्, न 2व्यङ्ग्यप्राधान्येन कथंचिदपीति भावः। उद्देशे यदादिग्रहणं कृतम्। "समासोक्तिः" इत्यत्र द्वन्द्े तेन व्याजस्तुतिप्रभृतिरलंकारवर्गोऽपि संभाव्यमानव्यङ्ग्यानुप्रवेश: संभावितः। तत्र सर्वत्र साधारणमुत्तरं दातुमुपक्रमते-तदयमत्रेति। कियद्वा प्रतिपदं लिख्यतामिति भाव:। तत्र व्याजस्तुतिर्यथा- "किं वृत्तान्तैः परगृहगतैः किं तु नाहं समर्थ- स्तूष्णीं स्थातुं प्रकृतिमुखरो दाक्षिणात्यस्वभाव:। गेहे गेहे विपणिषु तथा चत्वरे पानगोष्ठ्या- मुन्मत्तेव भ्रमति भवतो वल्लभा हन्त कीर्तिः॥।" अत्र व्यङ्ग्यं 'यत् स्तुत्यात्मकं तेन5 वाच्यमेवोपस्क्रियते। यत्तूदाहृतं केनचित्- "आसीन्नाथ पितामही तव मही माता7 ततोऽनन्तरं जाता8 संप्रति साम्बुराशिरशना जाया कुलोद्भूतये। पूर्णे वर्षशते भविष्यति पुनः सैवानवद्या स्नुषा युक्तं नाम समग्रनीतिविदुषां किं भूपतीनां कुले ।।' इति। 9एतदस्माकं ग्राम्यं प्रतिभाति, अत्यन्तासभ्यस्मृतिहेतुत्वात्। का 10चानेन स्तुतिः कृता? 'त्वं वंशक्रमेण राजा' इति हि कियदिदमिति एवंप्राया व्याजस्तुतिः सहृदयगोष्ठीषु निन्दितेत्युपेक्ष्यैव।।

संभावितो भवति जनेन। यदि च जनेन आत्मा स्वयं जड इति संभाव्य:, प्रत्युत सहृदय इति संभावितस्तर्हि अमुं लोकं प्रति जडोऽसीति वचनमस्य स्तुतिरेव संपद्यते भावव्रातसाम्यापातात्। एवंविघस्य भावव्रातप्यातिविदग्धस्य जाड्यं प्रसिद्धमिति। तदाहेति। यदेतत् सारूप्ये प्रतीयमानस्य प्रधानतायां ध्वनित्वमुक्त तदाहेत्यर्थः। अलङ्कारविशेषत्वमिति । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसात्मकमिति भावः । न व्यङ्ग्येति। न व्यङ््यप्राधान्येन ध्वनित्वं कथज्चिदपीति भाव इत्यर्थः। व्याजस्तुतिप्रभृतिरलड्कारक्गोंSपीति। न केवलमप्रस्तुतप्रशंसैवेति यावत्। संभावितः

1क.ख.ग. इति. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) व्यंग्यस्य कथंचिदपि प्राधान्गमिति. 3क.ख.(ने)(का) व्यंग्यानुवेशः. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) 'यत्' नास्ति. 5क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) यत्तेन. 6क.ख.ग.(नि) आसीनाथ. 7क.ख.(का) जाता. 8क.ख.(का) माता. 9क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) तदस्माकं. 10क.ख.(नि) काचानेन.

61 "यस्य वेकारः प्रभवन्न प्रतिबद्धेन हेतुनः येन। गमगति तदभिप्रायं तत्प्रति2्बन्धं च भावोऽसौ।।" इत्यत्रापि वाच्यप्राधान्ये भावालंकारता। यस्य चित्तवृत्तिविशेषस्य संबन्धी वाग्व्यापारा- दिर्विकारोऽप्रतबद्धोऽनियतः प्रशवंस्तं चित्तवृत्तिविशेषरूपमभिप्रायं येन हेतुना गमयति स हेतुर्यथेष्टोपभोग्यत्व.दिलक्षणोऽर्थो भावालंकार: यथा- "एकाकिनी यदबता तरुणी तथाहमस्मिन् गृहे गृहपतिश्च गतो विदेशम्। कं यावसे तदि वासमियं वराकी श्वश्रूर्ममान्धबधिरा ननु मूढ पान्थ ।।" अत्र व्यड््यमेकैकत्र पदार्थ उपस्कारकारीति वाच्यं प्रधानम्। 'व्यङ्ग्यप्राधान्ये तु न कचिद लंकारतेति निरूपितं इत्यलं बहुना।। यत्रेति॥ काव्ये॥ अलंकृतय इति॥ अलंकृतित्वादेव च वाच्या्र्थोपस्कार कत्वम्।। प्रतिभामा: इति॥ यत्रोपमादौ 6म्लिष्टार्थप्रतीतिः॥ वाच्यार्थानुगम इति॥ वाच्येनार्थेनानुगमः समं प्राधान्यम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायानिवेत्यर्थः।7। स्फुटतया प्राधान्यं न चकास्ति, अपितु बलात् कल्यते, तथापि 8हृदये नानुप्रविशति। यथा- "दे आ पसिअ णिवतसु" इत्यत्रान्यकृतासु व्याख्यासु। तेन चतुर्ण प्रकारेषु न ध्वनिव्यवहार: सद्भावेऽपि 10व्यङ्ग्यस्ट-अप्राधान्ये, म्लिष्टप्तीतौ, वाच्येन समप्राधान्ये, अस्फुटे प्राधान्ये च11। वव तहर्यसावित्याह- तत्परावेवेति॥ संकरेणालंकारानुप्रवेशसंभावनया उद्धित इत्यर्थः। संकरालंकारेपति त्वसत्। अन्यालंकारोपलक्षणत्वे हि म्िष्टं स्यात्॥

्वीकृतः, वयाजस्तुतिप्रभृतिरित्यर्थः। तत्र अ्रभुतिशब्देनावरुन्द्रेषु अलड्कारेषु भावालड्कारं दर्शर्याते। पस्येति। लक्षणताक्यं व्याचष्टे-यस्येति। अथ संक्षेनार्थश्लोकेषु प्रथमं व्यात्तष्टे-यत्रेतीति। द्वितीयं व्यातष्टे-प्रतिभामात्र इतीति। म्लिष्टा अविस्पष्टा। व्यङ्यस्यास्फुटप्राधान्ये ध्वनिर्नास्तीति यदुक्तं, तत्रोदाहरणं दर्शयति-चथेति। दे आ पसिअ गिवत्तसु इत्यत्र ये अन्यकृता ्ाख्यानप्रकारा: गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यभेदसहृदयोवि रूपास्त्रयः ते प्रत्येकमप्राधान्येन व्यङ्ग्यवन्त इत्यर्थ:। संकरशब्दं ववेप्रतिपत्तिपराकरणार्थं व्याचष्टे-संकरेणेति। संकरशब्दस्य तंकरालङ्कारो नार्थ इत्यर्थः। अन्यथा अलङ्कारान्तगभ्यनुज्ञानात् ध्वनेरलंकार- व्यतिरिक्तो न विषरा इति म्लिष्ट्चं स्यादित्यर्थः।

1ग.(का) अप्रतिबन्धस्तु. 2(नि)(के) बनं. 3(का) अप्रतिबन्ध. 4क.ख.(नि) प्राधान्ये हि भग्वालंकारता 5क.ख.(नि)(का) च्योप०. 6क.स्र.(ने) श्लिष्टा प्रतीति :. 7(नि)(का)(के) 'न प्रतीयते इति' इति गतीकमधिकम्. 8क.ख. 'च' अधिकम्. 9क.ख.ग.(का) देल पसिअणिआतासु. 10क.ख .. ग.ए.(नि) 'प्राधान्यम्' अधिकः. 11व. (कं) 'च' नास्ति.

62

अ्यत्वात न तादात्यमलंकाराणां ध्वनेश्च, यावत् स्वामिभृत्यवदङ्गिरूपाङ्-गरूपयो- र्विरोधादित्यर्थः॥। अवयव इति॥ एकैक इत्यर्थ:। तदाह-पृथग्भूत इति। 1पृथग्भूतस्तथा मा भूत, समुदाय-मध्यपतितस्तहर्यस्तु तथेत्याशङ्क्याह-अपृथग्भावे त्विति॥ तदापि न स एक एव समुदाय:, अन्येषामपि समुदायिनां तत्र भावात्; तत्समुदायिमध्ये च प्रतीयमानमप्यस्ति;न च तदलंकार3स्वरूपम्, प्रधानत्वादेव; यत्त्वलंकाररूपं तदप्रधानत्वान्न ध्वनिः;तदाह-न तु तत्वमेवेति॥ नन्वलंकार एव कश्चित्त्वया प्रधानताभिषेकं दत्वा ध्वनिरित्यात्मेति चोक्त इत्याशङ्क्याह-यत्रापि वेति॥ न हि समासोक्त्यादीनाभन्यंतम एवासौ तथास्माभि: कृतः, तद्विविक्तत्वेऽपि तस्य भावात्। समासोक्त्याद्यलंकारस्वरूपस्य समस्तस्याभावेऽपि तस्य दर्शितत्वात् "अत्ता एत्थ" इति "कस्स वा ण" ति। तदाह-न तन्निष्ठत्वमेवेति॥। 5विद्वद्भ्य उपज्ञा प्रथमत उपक्रमो यस्या उक्तेरिति बहुब्रीहिः। तेन "उपज्ञोपक्रमम्" इति तत्पुरुषाश्रयं नपुंसकत्वं निरवकाशम्॥ श्रूयमाणेष्विति॥ श्रोत्रशष्कुलीं संतानेनागता अन्त्या: शब्दा: श्रूयन्त इति प्रक्रियायां शब्दजा:7शब्दा: श्रूयमाणा इत्युक्तम्। तेषां घण्टानुरणनरूपत्वं तावदस्ति, ते च ध्वनिशब्देनोक्ताः। यथाह तत्रभवान् भर्तृहरि :- "यः संयोगवियोगाभ्यां करणैरुपजन्यते - स स्फोट: ३शब्दजा: शब्दा ध्वनयोऽन्यैरुदाहताः।।"

अथात्र हेत्वन्तरं दर्शयितुमाह-इतश्व नान्लर्भाव इति। न चेति। अवयव एवावयवीति न भवतीत्यर्थः। अपृथगिति तस्थावयवस्य, अवयवाङ्गत्वमिति यावत्। न तु तत्वमेवेति। अवयवित्वमेवत्यर्थ यत्रापि या तत्त्वमिति। यत्र पर्यायोक्त्यादौ 'भम धग्पिअ' इत्यत्र पर्यायोक्तादिकल्पेन ध्वनित्वमुक्तम् 'हो इ ण गुणानुराओ' इति संकरालड्कारेऽपि ध्वनिरस्तीत्युक्तम्। 'भावव्राते'त्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि तथा तद्भाव उक्त इति। तत्त्वं। अवयवित्वं व्यङ्ग्यप्राधान्यमित्यर्थ:। तन्निष्ठत्वं तदवयवनिष्ठचं तदलङ्कारनिष्ठत्वमिति यावत्। श्रोत्रशष्कुलीमिति। संयोगविभागात् शब्दाव्च शब्दनिष्पत्तिरिति शब्दजाः शब्दाः अन्त्याः श्रूयन्ते इति वैशेषिकप्रक्रिया। तेषामिति शरूयमाणानामन्त्यानां शब्दजानां शब्दानामिति यावत्। घण्टेति। पूर्वशब्दजन्यत्वादिति शेषः। तेषां ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यत्वे प्रमाणमाह- ययेते। संयोगविभागाभ्यां तात्वादिस्थानसंयोगविभागाभ्याम्। करणैः जिह्वामूलभागादिभिः स स्फोट इति। प्रथमऐेद जायते स्फोट:, अभिव्यज्यते स्फोट:, पुनः शब्दजाः शब्दा ये श्रूयन्ते ते ध्वनयः इत्यर्थः।

1क.ख.घ.ङ.च.(नि)(का) 'अथ' अधिकः. 2ग.घ.(नि)(का)(के) मध्यनिपतितः. 3क.ख.ग.(का) रूपम्. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) (का) इत्यादि. 5क.ख.(नि) 'तस्मिन्निष्ठा यस्येति तन्न भवति। महाविषयत्वात् व्यापकत्वादित्यर्थः। घटो घट एव न भवति किं तु तत्कर्मपरोऽपि, तत्रापि न भवति कि तु घटेSपीत्यनेन व्यापकोऽयमित्युक्तं भवति महाविषयत्वात् विद्वदुपज्ञेति' अधिकः. 6ङ.व. (के) शब्दा: श्रूयन्ते अन्त्थाः. 7ग.(नि) 'शब्दजाः' नास्ति. 8क.ख.(नि) शब्दजः शब्दो ध्वनिरित्युच्यते बुधैः.

63 एवं घण्टा1निर्हादस्थानीयोञनुरणनात्मोपलक्षितो व्यङ्गय।Sप्यर्थो ध्वनिरिति व्यवहतः। तथा 2 श्रूचभाणा ये वर्णा नादशब्दवाच्या अन्त्यबुद्धिनि र्ग्राह्याः स्फोटाभिव्यञ्जकाः ते ध्वनिशब्देनोक्ताः। यथाह स4 एव तत्रभवान्- "प्रत्ययैरनुनाख्येयैर्ग्रहणानुग्रहैस्तधा । ध्वनिप्काशित शब्दे स्वरूपमवधार्यते॥" इति। तेन व्यञ्जकौ शब्दार्थावपीह ध्वनिशब्देनोक्तौ। किंच वर्णेषु सावन्मात्रपरिमाणेष्वपि सत्सु, वथोक्तम्- "अल्पी-सापि यत्नेन शब्दमुच्चारितं मतिः । यदि वा नैव गृह्णाति वर्णं वा सकलं फ्फुटम्।।" इति। तेषु तावत्स्वेद श्रूयामाणेषु वक्तुर्योऽन्यो द्रुतविलम्बितादिवृत्तिभेदात्मा प्रसिद्धा- दुच्चारणव्यापारादभ्यधिकः स 5व्यापारो ध्वनिरुक्तः। स एव ्यदाह- "शब्दस्योर्ध्वमभिव्यक्तेवृत्तिभेदं तु7 वैकृता:। ध्वनय: समुपोहन्ते स्फोटात्मा तैर्न भिद्यते॥!" इति। अस्माभिरगि प्रसिद्धेभ्यः शब्दव्यापारेभ्योऽभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणारूपेभ्योऽतिरिक्तो व्यापारो ध्वनिरुत्तः। एवं चतुष्कमपि ध्वनिः। तद्योगाच्त्र समस्तमपि काव्यं ध्वनिः। तेन

एवमिति। एवंप्रकारेणान्त्यों व्यङ्ग्यरूपो यः शब्द: पर्दशब्दव्यञ्जितः स धनिरिति वैयाकरणैंरवोक्त: इत्यर्थ:। एवं व्यङ्ग्यात्मकरपार्थस्य ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यत्वं प्रसाध्य वाच्यवाचकयोरपि तत्प्रसाधयितुभाह- अत्यबुद्धीति। अन्त्या या बुद्धि: उन्त्यध्वनिसहितबुद्धिः, तया ग्राह्यो घ. स्फोट:, तस्याभिव्यञ्जका इति यावत्। तदुक्तम्- नादैराहितबीजायामन्त्थेन ध्वनिना सह। आवृत्तपरिपाकायां बुद्धौ शब्दो विभाव्यते॥ इति। प्रत्ययैरिति। अथ व्यापारस्यापि व्यञ्जनात्मकस्त्र ध्वनिशब्दाभिधेयत्वं समर्थयति-किं देति।वर्णेष सावन्मात्रपरिमाणेष्वपि सत्स्वित्या्य वक्तुयोंभ्यो द्रुतेत्यादिना सम्बन्धः तत्र तदेकदेशमप्युक्तं संवादेन दळयितुनाह -- अल्पीयसापीति/ अल्पीयसा यत्नेनोच्चारितो वर्णः। किञ्विदपि न गृह्यते वा, स्फुटं सकलो गृह्यते वा, न तु किञ्जिद्गृल्यते वर्णस्य निरवयवत्चादित्यर्थः। वृत्ति भेदात्मा। व्यापाररिशेषात्मा। शब्दस्येति। शन्दस्याभिव्यक्तेरूर्ध्वं ये वैकृता द्रुतादयो वृत्तिभेदास्ते वय

क.ख््र.(नि) घा टादि. -क.ख.(नि) 'इत्येष प्रकारोऽव्यक्तशब्दानामेव वर्तते! व्यक्तशन्दानाम्' अधिकः. 3ङच. ग्राहयस्फोट, 4क.ख.(r)भगवान् एव 5क.ख.ग.(नि) 'व्यापारः' नास्ति. 6क.ख.ग.घ.(नि)(के) यदाह स एव (यथाह) इति. 7घ.ङ. व्यक्तिभंदास्तु, ग. वृन्िभेदास्तु,

64 व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकव्यपदेशोऽपि न न युक्तः ॥ वाच्यवाचकसंमिश्र इति॥ वाच्यवाचकसहितः संमिश्र इति मध्यमपदलोपी संमास:। "गामश्वं पुरुषं 1पशुभ्" इतिवत् समुच्चयोऽत्र चकारेण विनापि। तेन वाच्योऽपि ध्वनिः; वाचकोपि शब्दो: ध्वनिः; द्वयोरपि व्यञ्जकत्चम्, 2ध्वनतीति कृत्वा। 3संमिश्रयते विभावानुभावसंवलनयेति व्यङ्ग्योऽपि ध्वनि., ध्वन्यत इति कृत्वा। शब्दनं शब्दः शब्दव्यापारः। न चासावभिधादिरूपः, अपि त्वात्मभूतः; सोऽपि ध्ननं ध्वनिः। काव्यमिति व्यपदेश्यश्च योऽर्थः सोऽपि ध्वनिः, उक्तप्रकारध्वनिचतुष्टयत्वात्। अत एव साधारणं हेतुमाह- व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्यादिति॥ 5व्यञ्जकत्वं व्यङ्ग्य व्यञ्जकभावः सर्वेषु पक्षेषु सामान्यरूप: साधारण इत्यर्थः। यत् पुनरेतदुक्तम् "वाग्विकल्पानामानन्त्यात्" इत्यादि, तत् परिहरति- न चैवंविधस्येति॥ वक्ष्यमाण: प्रभेदो यथा- मुख्ये द्वे रूपे; तद्भेदा यथा- अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यः अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य इत्यविवक्षितवाच्यस्य, असंलक्ष्यक्रगव्यङ्ग्यः संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य इति विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यर ति; तत्राप्यवान्तरभेदाः॥ महाविषयस्येति॥ अशेषलक्ष्यव्यापिन इत्यर्थ:। विशेषग्रहणेनाव्यापकत्वमाह; मात्रशब्देना ङ्गित्वाभावम्। तत्र7 ध्वनिस्वरूपे भावितं प्रणिहितं चेतो येषाम्; तेन8वा चमत्कारस्वरूपेण भावित मधिवासितम्, अत एव मुकुलितलोचनत्वादिविकारकारणं चेतो ्येषाम्10। अभाववादिन इति॥ अवान्तरप्रकारत्रयभिन्ना अपीत्यर्थः। तेषां प्रत्युक्तौ फलमाह-अस्तीति॥ उदाहरणपृष्ठे भाक्तत्वं सुशङ्कं सुपरिहरं च भवतीत्यभिप्रायेणोदाहरणदानावकाशार्थं 1भाक्तत्वालक्षणीयत्वे प्रथमं परिहरणयोग्ये अप्यप्रतिसमाधाय भविष्यदुद्द्योत 12गतानुवादानु- सारेण वृत्तिकृदेव प्रभेदनिरूपणं करोति-स चेति॥ पञ्चधापि ध्वनिशब्दार्थे येन यत्र यतो यस्मै

इत्यर्थ:। व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकव्यपदेशः भेदाभेदव्यपदेशः 'काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनि'रिति व्यतिरेकव्यपदेशः। वाच्यवाचत संमिश्रः शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपदेश्य इति। अत्र त्रयोश्यर्थाः समुच्चेतव्याः। वाच्यवाचकसम्मिश्र इति द्वन्द्वः, मध्यमपदलोपी वा। सम्मिश्र. इति व्यङ्ग्योजर्य उच्यते रसादिरूपः। तेनेत्यादिना पञ्चानामपि ध्वनित्वं सोपपत्तिकं प्रदर्शयति। तत्र हेतुमाह- अत एवेति। साधारणं सर्वत्र तुल्यम्। एवं स्थिते तृतीयाभावप्रकारोक्तखण्डपराकरणस्य क्रियमाणस्योत्थापनं निबघ्नाति-उत्पुनरिति। अड्रिगत्वाभावमिति। अत्राहेत्यनुषज्यते- अस्तीति। ननु अभाववादं प्रतिक्षिप्य ध्वनिसद्भावे समर्थिते, क्रमप्राप्तं भाक्तपक्षं प्रविघटयितुं युक्तम्, अनिर्वचनीयपक्षं च। तत्र कथमन्तरा ध्वनिभेदस्तदुदाहरणं च समुद्भाव्यत इत्याशङ्कायामाह- उदाहरणेति। उदाहरणपृष्ठे उदाहरणानन्तरम्। वृत्तिकृदेवेति। नात्र सूत्रकारवचनं किज्विदिति यावत्। पञ्धापीति। र्ध्वानेः शब्द इति पक्षे अविवक्षितो वाच्यो येनेति बहुव्रीहिः। यत्रेति वा यत इति वा यस्मै इति यस्येति वा सर्वत्रान्यपदार्थ:

1ङ .. च.(के) 'पशुम्' नास्ति. 2(के) ध्वनिकृत्वात्. 3क.ख.ग. मिश्रिते. 4ग.ध्वननात्. 5ग. व्यंग्यस्य, ङ. व्यञ्जकत्वमिति. 6क.ख.(नि) व्यञ्जनभाव:, ग. व्यञ्जकभावः. 7क.ख.(नि) 'न चैवं भवतीत्यन्वयः' अधिकः.१क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) न, ग.(नि) अगे 'वा' नास्ति. 9क.ख.ग.(नि)(का)(के) रूपेण. 10क.ख.ग.(नि)(के) 'इति' अधिकः. 11क.ख.ग.(नि) भाक्तत्वाल्लक्षणीयत्वे. 12क.ख.(नि) ०उद्दयोतानु०, ग. उद्दोते गतानु.

65 यस्य चेति बहुव्रीह्यर्थाश्रयेण यथोचितं सामानाषटिकरण्यं सुयोजम्। वाच्येऽर्थे तु धवनौ वाच्यशब्देन स्दात्मा1तेनाविवक्षितोSप्रधानीकृतः2स्वात्मा येनेत्थविवक्षितवाच्यो व्यञ्जकोऽर्य। एवं विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्येऽपि। रदिवा कर्मधारयेणार्थपक्षे अविवक्षितश्चासौ वाच्यश्चेति। विवक्षितान्यपरश्चासौ वाच्यश्चेति! तत्रार्थ: कदाचिदनुपण्द्यमानत्वादिना निमित्तेनाविवक्षितो भवति। कदाचिदुपपद्यमान इति कृत्वा विवक्षित एव, व्यङ्ग्यपर्यन्तां तु प्रतीतिं स्वसौभाग्यमहिम्ना करोति। अत एवार्थाsत्र प्राधान्येन व्यञ्जकः, पूर्वत्र शब्दः। ननु व विवक्षा चान्यपरत्वं चेति विरुद्धम्, अन्यपर त्वनैव विवक्षणात्को विरोधः? सामान्येनेति॥ वस्त्वलंकाररसात्मना हि त्रिभेदोऽपि ध्वनि रुभाभ्नामेवाभ्यां संगृहीत इति भावः। ननु तन्नामपृष्ठे एतन्नामनिवेशनाय किं फलम्। उच्यते-अनेन हि नामद्वयेन ध्वननात्मनि व्यापारे पूर्वप्रसिद्धाभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणात्मक- व्यापारत्रितयावगतार्थप्रतीतेः प्रतिपततृगतायाः प्रयोक्तभिप्रायरूपायाश्च विवक्षायाः सह- कारित्वमुक्तमिति ध्वनिस्वरूपमेव नामभ्यामेव प्रोज्जीवितन्। सुवर्णपुष्पामिति॥ सुवर्णानि

शब्द: ध्वनिर्व्यङ्ग्य इति पस्षे 'अविवक्षितो वाच्यो येने'ति बहुवीहिः। यत्रेति वा यत इति वा यस्मै इति वा यस्येति वा सर्वत्र व्ङ्ग्य एवतयनदार्थः। ध्वनिर्व्यापार इति पक्षे अविवक्षितो वाच्यो येनेति अन्यार्थः। यत्रेत्यादिकर्भावे पूर्ववत्। ध्वनिः काव्यमिति पक्षे अविवक्षितो वाच्यो येनेत्यर्थः। अन्यत् पूर्ववत्। ध्वनिर्वाच्यार्थ इति पक्षे नैष न्यायः। कर्थात्याह- वाच्ये थे त्विति। अत्र उच्यत इत्यध्याहार्यम्। वाच्यशब्देन स्वत्मा उच्यते इत्यर्थः। यदि वेति। अथवा अर्थपक्षो कर्मधार याभिप्रायण योजनीयमिति यावत्। तदेव दर्शयति-अविवक्षित इति। ततोऽविवक्षितवाच्यो ध्वनिरिति सामानाधिकरण्यम्। वविक्षितान्यपरेति। अ्रोपपत्तिं दर्शयतितत्रार्थ इति।आदिशब्देनानुपयोगित्वं गृह्यते। अविवक्षितवाच्ये ध्वनौ वाच्यस्यानुपपद्यमानत्वं अनुपयोगित्वं वा। विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये उपपद्यमानत्वम्। अथाशङ्कते-ननु चेति। परिहरति- अन्येति। एतावन्मात्रणात्र वयक्तिविवेक्कारेणोक्तम् प्रतिहृतं वेदितव्यम्। आशङ्कते-नन्विति। तन्नामपृष्ते ध्वानेनामपृष्ठे एतन्नाभनिवेशनस्य अविवक्षितवाच्य विवक्षितान्य परवाच्येति नामद्वयनिदेशनस्य। परिहरति- उच्यत इति॥ अनेन नामद्येन व्यापारो ध्वनिरिति पक्षं प्रति अभिप्रादिव्यापारत्रयावगतार्थप्रतीतेर्वक्तृ- विवक्षाआाश्च सहकारित्वमुक्तम्। तेन नामभ्यां ध्वनिस्वरूपमेव प्रोज्जीवितमित्यर्थः।

Iर.(न) 'वक्ष्यते' अधिकः. 2क.ख. नि) भूतः, ग. कृतः .... णार्थपक्षे अविदक्षितश्चासावर्थश्चेति। विवक्षितान्यपरश्चासी वाच्श्चेति। तत्रार्थ :.

66 पुष्प्यतीति सुवर्णपुष्पा। एतच्च वाक्यमेवासंभवत्त्वार्थमिति कृत्वा15विवक्षितवाच्यम्। तत एव पदार्थमभिधायान्वयं च तात्पर्यशक्त्यावगमप्यैव बाधकवशेन तमपहस्त्य2 सादृश्यात् सुलभसमृद्धिसंभारभाजनतां लक्षयति। तल्लक्षणाप्रयोजनं3 शूरकृतविद्यसेवकानां प्राशस्त्यम- शब्दवाच्यत्वेन गोप्यमानं सन्नायिकाकुचकलशयुगलमिव महार्धतामुपयद्ध्वन्यत इति शब्दोऽत्र !धानतया व्यञ्जकः, अर्थस्तु तत्सहकारितयेति चत्वारो4Sन व्यायाराः॥! शिखरिणीति॥। न हि निर्विघ्नोत्तमसिद्धयोऽपि श्रीपर्वतप्रभृतय इमां सिद्धिं विदध्युः। दिव्यकल्पतहस्रादिश्चात्र परिमित: काल:61 न चैवंविधोत्तम फलत्वेन पञ्चाग्निप्रभृत्यपि तपः श्रुतम्। तवेति भिन्नं पदम्-समासेन विगलिततया सा न प्रतीयते8-तव दशतीत्यभिप्रायेण। तेन यदाहुः- 'वृत्तानुरोधात्त्वदधरपाटलमिति न कृतम्' इति, तदसदेव॥। दशतीति॥ आस्वादयति अविच्छिन्नप्रबन्धतया, न त्वौदरिकवत्परं10 भुंक्ते; अपि तु रसज्ञो्त्रेति तत्पाप्तिवदेव रसज्ञताप्यस्य तपःप्रभावादेवेति॥ शुकशाबक इति॥ तारुण्याद्युचितकाललाभोऽपि तपसैवेति11। अनुरागिणश्च प्रच्छन्नस्वाभिप्रायख्यापनवैदग्ध्य12चाटुविरचनात्मकविभावो- न्मीलनं13व्यङ्ग्यम्। अत्र च त्रय एव व्यापारा :- अभिधा तात्पर्यं ध्वननं चेति; मुख्यार्थबाधा!4दिविरहे मध्यमकक्ष्याया लक्षणायास्तृतीयस्या अभावात्। यदि वाकस्मिकविशिष्टप्रश्नार्थानुप- पत्तेर्मुख्यार्थबाधायां15सादृश्याल्लक्षणा भवतु मध्ये; तस्यास्तु तत् प्रयोजनं ध्वन्यमानभेव; 16सतुर्यकक्ष्यानिवेशि। केवलं पूर्वत्र लक्षणैव प्रधानं ध्वननव्यापारे सहकारि; इह

अर्थप्रतीतिः प्रतिपतृगता विवक्षा प्रयोक्तृगतेति च विभागः। चिन्यन्ति लभन्ते इत्यर्थः। अपहस्त्य परित्यज्य। सादृश्यात्-पुष्पोच्चयनरूपात्। चत्वारोSत्र व्यापारा इति। अभिधा तात्पर्यं लक्षणा व्यञ्जनमिति चत्वारः। शिखरिणीति। अत्र पदेषु ध्वनिं प्रकाशयति- न हीत्यादिना-तवेति। त्वदधरपाटलमिति समासे सति युष्मदर्थो विगलिततया अप्रधानतया प्रतीयेत। न च तथा प्रतीयताम्, अपि तर्हि प्राधान्येन प्रतीयतामित्यभिप्रायेण तवेति पदं भिन्नं कृतम्, न तु समस्तमित्यर्थः। अल एवाह-तेन यदाहुरिति।स्वाभिप्रायः। अधरास्वादनाभिलाषरूपः। वैदग्ध्येति। वैद ग्धयेनाग्राम्यतया। यच्चादुविरचनं तदात्मको यो विभावः प्रेमकारणं तरुणीरागकारणं तस्योद्दीपनं पोषणगित्यर्थः। यदि वेति' अथवा आकस्मिकः असंभावितः! विशिष्टः शुकवृत्तान्तरूपो योऽर्थः, तस्यानुपपत्तेः आकस्मिकत्वादेवानुपपत्तेः। निमित्तान्मुख्यार्थबाधायां सत्यां, सादृश्याद्विशिष्टशुकबिम्बफलास्वादनमिव तरुणविशेषस्य त्वदधरपल्लवामृतास्वादनं इत्येवंरूपाल्लक्षणा भवतीत्यर्थः। ध्वन्यमानमेवेति। प्रथम- पक्षोक्तमेवेति यावत्। तत्र विशेषमाह- तत्तुर्येति। लक्षणायां खलु प्रयोजनं व्यङ्ग्यरूपं

1(के) अविवक्षित. 2क.ख. वशेनोपहत्य, ग.घ.च.(नि)(का) तमपहत्य. 3क.ख.(नि) प्रयोजकं. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) 'अत्र' नास्ति. 5क.ख.(नि) पर्वतादयः. 6क.ख.ग.(नि) 'किमभिधानमिति' अधिकः. 7ग.(नि) फलजनकत्वंन. 8(को) प्रतीयताम्. 9क.ख.ग.(नि) अनवच्छिन्न. 10(के) ०परिभुङ्क्ते. 11क.ख.घ.च.(नि)(के) तपस एवेति. 12क.ख.ग.(नि) 'वैदग्ध्य' नास्ति. 13(कौ) उद्दीपनं. 14ग.(नि)(के) मुख्याद्बाधाविरहे. 15ग.च. मुख्यबाधायाम्, (के) मुख्यबाधया. 16क.ख.ग. 'तत्' नास्ति.

67 त्वभिधातात्पर्यशक्ती, वाक्यार्थसौन्दर्यादेव व्यङ्ायप्रतिपत्तेः; केवलं लेशेन लक्षणव्यापारोपयोगोऽप्यर्स्तीत्युक्तम्, असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यझचे तु लक्षणासमुन्मेषमात्रमवि नास्ति. असंलक्ष्यत्वादेव क्रमस्येति वक्ष्याम: तेन द्वितीयेऽपि भेदे चत्वार एव व्यापारा:। अत एवोभयोदाहरणपृष्ठ एव, "भाक्तमाहुः" इत्यनुभाष्य1 दुषयति। अयं भाव :- भक्तिर्ध्वनिश्चेंति किं पर्यायवत्ताद्रूप्यम। अथ पृथिवीत्वमिव पृथिव्या अन्यतो व्यावर्तक- धर्मरूपतया लक्षणम्? उत काक इव देवदत्तगृहस्य संभवमात्रादुप्लक्षणम्? तत्र प्रथमं पक्षं I.14 निराकरोति- भच्त््या बिभतीते॥ उत्तप्रकार इति एञ्चस्वर्थेषु योज्यभ्- शब्दे, अर्थे, व्यापारे, व्यङ्ग्ये, समुदाये, च। रूपभेदं दर्शयितुं ध्वनेस्तावद्रपमाह-वाच्येति॥ तात्पर्येण विश्रान्तिधामतया। प्रयोजनत्वेनेति यावत्। प्रकाशनं द्योतनामेत्यर्थः।। उपचारमात्रमिति॥ उपचारो गुणवृत्तिलक्षण उपचरणमतिशयितो व्यवहार इत्यर्थः। मात्रशब्देनेदमाह-यत्र लक्षणावापाराहृतीयादन्यश्चतुर्थः प्रयोजनद्योतनात्मा व्यापारो वस्तुस्थित्या संभव- न्नप्यनुपयुज्यमानत्वेनानाद्रियमाणत्वादसत्कल्पः "यमर्थमधिकृत्य" इति हि 2प्रयोजन-

चतुर्थकक्ष्यानिवेशीति इह त्यिति। शिखरिणीत्युदाहरणे लक्षणाश्रंये तत्र ये अभिथातात्पर्यशक्ती ते एव ध्वननव्यापारे सहकारिण्यौ भदत इति यावत्। तत्र हेतुमाह- वाक्यार्थेति। असंलक्ष्येति । अविवक्षितवाच्ये ध्वनौ लक्षणाऽत्येद। तिवन्नितान्यपरवाच्ये लक्षणा नास्ति। असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यंग्ये तु विकल्पः। शिखरिणीत्युदाहरणे :नक्षणा- श्रयणपक्षेण चत्वार एत व्यापार इत्यर्थः। अथ भाक्तवादं व्याकुलयितुमुपक्रमते-अत एवेति। भक्तिर्ध्वनिरित्युक्ते पक्षत्रयं भवर्तात्याह- अयं भाव इति। पय यिवदिति। इन्द्रः शक्र: इत्यनयोः पर्याययोः यथा एकरूपत्वं तथा किं भवतध्वन्योः पर्याय त्वेनैकरूप्टमित्येकों विकल्पः। पृथिधीत्वभियेति। पृथिदीत्वं पृथिव्या लक्षणमिति वैशेषिकाः। तत्र पृथिवीत्वं यथा पृथिव्या जलादिभ्यो व्यावर्तकतया लक्षणं, तथा मक्तित्वं ध्वनेः किं लक्षणमिति द्वितीयः। काकवदिति। काकवन्तः चैत्यगृहा इत्यत्र यथा काकश्चैत्रगृ हस्योपलक्षणं कादाचित्कतया भेदहेतु:, तथा किं भक्तिर्ध्वनेरुपलक्षणमिति तृतीयः। भक्येति। ध्वनिर्भक्त्या एकतां ऐक्यं न बिभर्तीनयन्वयः। अतिशयित इसि। 'गौर्देददत्त' इत्यादावमुख्ये मुख्यार्थारोपणमतिशयत्यवहारो भवतीति। वस्तुस्थत्येति। प्रयोजनाभावे मुख्यवृत्तिनारेन्यागो न युक्त इत्येवंरूपयेति यादत। अनुपयुज्यमानत्वेनानादियमाणत्वाल् असत्कल्प इति। यथा- 'कृशाङ्ग्याः सन्तापं वदति बिसिनीपत्रशयनम्' इत्यादौ। अत्र हि वदति ना पिशुनत्वं लक्ष्यते। तत्र यत्प्रयोजनं स्पष्टतया झटिति सन्तापग्रहणं, तन्नात्यादरास्पदं भवति। यमर्थमिति।

1ख. अनुभाव्य. क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) प्रवर्तते तद्धि.

68 लक्षणम्-तत्रापि लक्षणास्तीति कथ ध्वननं लक्षणं1 चेत्येकं तत्त्वं स्यात्? द्वितीयं पक्षं दूषयति- अतिव्याप्तेरिति2।। असाविति ध्वनिः। तयेति भक्तया। ननु ध्वननमवश्यंभावीति कथं तव्द्तिरिक्तोऽस्ति विषय इत्याह- महत् सौष्ठवभिति॥ अत एव प्रयोजनस्या- नादरणीयत्वाद्व्यञ्जकत्वे न3 किंचित् कृत्यमिति भाव:। महद्ग्रहणेन गुणमात्रं तद्भवति, यथोक्तम्-"समाधिरन्यधर्मस्य क्वाप्यारोपो विवक्षितः" इति दर्शयति। ननु प्रयोजनाभावे कथं तथा व्यवहार इत्याह-प्रसिद्ध्यनुरोधेति॥ परम्परया तथैव प्रयोगात्। वयं तु ब्रूमः- प्रसिद्धिर्या 4प्रयोजनस्या निगूढतेत्यर्थः। उत्तानेनापि रूपेण तत्प्रयोजनं चकासन्निगूढतां निधानवदपेक्षत इति भाव:। वदतीत्युपचारेण6 हि स्फुटीकरणप्रतिपत्तिः प्रयोजनं यद्यगूढं स्वशब्देनोच्यते किमचारुत्वं स्यात्? गूढतया वर्णने8 वा किं चारुत्वमधिक जातम्? अनेनैवाशयेन वक्ष्यति- "यतः- उक्तयन्तरेणाशक्यं यत्10" इति। 11अवरुन्धिज्जइ आलिङ्ग्यते। पुनरुक्तमित्यनुपादेयता लक्ष्यते, उक्तार्थस्यासंभवात्। "कुपिताः प्रसन्ना अवरुदितवदना विहसन्त्यः। यथा गृहीतास्तथा हृदयं हरन्ति स्वैरिण्यो महिला:॥" अत्र

यमर्थमधिकृत्य प्रवर्तते तत्प्रयोजनमिति न्यायसूत्रम्। ध्यननं-व्यञ्जनम्, लक्षणं लक्षणाव्यापारः। एकं तत्त्वं-एकमेव वस्तु। एवं ताद्रूप्यपक्षं विघटय्य, लक्षणपक्षं निराकर्तुमाह- द्वितोयमिति। नन्विति। लक्षणायां यदा ध्वननमवश्यंभावि लक्षणायाः प्रयोजनाविनाभावित्वात् तदा कथं ध्वनिव्यतिरिक्तो लक्षणाया विषयः स्यादित्याशंका। गुणमात्रमिति। बन्धगुण एव भवति, न ध्वनिरित्यर्थः। तथा व्यवहारः। उपचारव्यवहारः। अथ प्रसिद्धिशब्दस्य परम्परया तथैव प्रयोग इति योऽर्थ उक्तः, तत्रारुच्या स्वाभिमतमर्थं प्रदर्शयन्नाह- वयं त्विति। प्रसिद्धिः। प्रकर्षेण सिद्धिः प्राकट्यं प्रयोजनस्येत्यर्थः। उत्तानेन प्रकटनेन। निगूढतां नितरां गूढतां। ध्धनौ प्रयोजनं निगूढतामपेक्षत इत्यर्थः। ननु प्रयोजनस्याचारुत्वात्तत्र ध्वनित्वं न स्यात् निगूढत्वादिति शङ्कायामाह-वदतीति। तस्मात् प्रयोजनस्यानिगूढत्वमेव ध्वन्यभावकारणं नाचारुत्वमित्यर्थः। उक्तेऽर्थे ग्रन्थकारानुमति दर्शयति। अनेनैवेति॥ प्रयोजनस्य चारुतायाः उक्त्यन्तराशक्यत्वं निगूढताविनाभूतम्। परिम्लानमिति। सङ्गात्-मर्दनात्। उभयतः द्वयोर्भागयोः। तनोः कृशस्य। अन्तः मध्ये। परिमिलनं विमर्दनं। हरितं हरितवर्णमेव। अम्लानमित्यर्थः॥ व्यस्तन्यासं व्याकुलीकृत्य संनिवेशम्। बिसिनी नलिनी। अत्र शयनस्याचेतनत्वाद्वदनस्य मुख्यार्थस्यानुपपत्त्या बाधे ज्ञापकत्व लक्ष्यते। प्रयोजनं च स्फुटीकरणप्रतिपत्तिः। तस्याः पुनरनिगूढतया नादरास्पदत्वान्न ध्वननं दिशिष्टम्। चुम्बिज्जइ इति। अत्र पुनरुक्तशब्दस्य मुख्यार्थो न घटते। उक्तार्थस्यासंभवात्। अतोःनपादेयता लक्ष्यते। प्रयोजनाधिक्यरूपं नादरास्पदम्। कुविआ इति। अत्र गृहीतशब्दस्य मुख्यार्थ उपात्तरूपो नोपपद्यते। अतो

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) लक्षणा, ङ .. लक्षणाम्. 2क.ख.(नि) तत्रैतदिति. ३क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) न कृत्यं किञ्विदिति. 4(कौ) प्रनोजनo. 5क.ख.(नि) निगूढतेत्यर्थः 6क.(का)(के) उपचारे हि. 7ग. यघरूठम्, 8क.ख.ग. वर्णनेन. 9ङ. ज्ञातम्. 10क.ख.ग. 'किम्' अधिकम्. 11घ.ङ.च.(के) 'परिम्लानम्' इति श्लोक:, 'चुम्बिज्णइ' इति गाथा च समग्रा पठ्यते.

69 ग्रहणेनोप:देय्ता लक्ष्यते। हरणेन तत्परतन्त्रतापत्तिः॥ तथा 1अज्जेति॥ कनिष्ठभार्यायाः स्तनपृष्ते नवलतया कान्तेनोचितक्रीडायोगेन मृदुकोऽपि प्रडारो दत्तः सपत्नीनां सौभाग्य सूचक2तत्क्रीडासंविभागमप्रा तानां हृदये दुःसहो जात. मृदुकत्वादेव। अन्यस्य दत्तो मृदु: प्रहारोडन्यन्य च संपद्यते दुःसहश्च मृदुरपीति चित्रम्। दानेनात्र तत्फलव्चं लक्ष्यते॥ अरार्ध इति॥ यद्यपि प्रस्तुतमहापुरुषापेक्षया अनुभवतिशब्दो मुख्य एव, तथाण्यप्रस्तुते इक्षौ प्रशस्यमाने पीडाया अनुभवनेनासंभवता पोडावत्त्वं लक्ष्यते। तच्च 4णीड्यमानत्वे I.15 पर्यवस्यति। नन्वस्त्थत्र 'योजनम्। तत्किमिति न ध्वन्यत इत्याशङ्क्याह-न चैवंविध इति।। 'उक्त्यन्तरेणेति॥ ध्वन्यतिरिक्त्ेन7 स्फुटेन शब्दार्थध्व्यापारविशेषेणेत्यर्थः। शब्द इति पञ्चस्वर्थेषु योज्यम्। अन्युक्तेर्विषयीभवेदिति॥ ध्वनिशब्देनोच्यत इत्यर्थः॥ उदाहृत इति॥ वदतीत्यादी। एवं यत्र प्रयोजनं सदपि नादरास्पटं तत्र को ध्वननव्यापार इत्युक्त्चा यत्र भूलत एव प्रयोजनं नास्ति, भवति चोपचारस्तत्रापि को ध्वननव्यापार इत्याह- किं I.16 चेति॥ लावण्य.द्य। ये शब्दा: स्वविषयात् लवणरसयुक्तत्वादेः स्वार्थादन्यत्र हृद्यत्वादौ रूढा:, रूढत्वादेव व त्रितयसंनिध्यपेक्षणव्यवधानशून्याः, यदाह- "निरूढा लक्षणाः काश्चित् सामर्श्यादभधानवत्" इति, ते तस्मिन् स्वविषयादन्यत्र प्रयुक्ता अपि न ध्वने: पदं भवत्ति। न तत्र ध्वनिव्यवहारः। उपचरिता शब्दस्य वृत्तिर्गौणी लाक्षणिकी9 चेत्यर्थः। आदिग्रहणनानुलोम्यं प्रातिकूल्यं सब्रह्मचारीत्येवमादयः शब्दा लाक्षणिका गृह्यन्ते! लोम्नामनुगतमजुलोमं मर्दनम्; कूलस्य प्रतिपक्षतया स्थितं स्रोतः प्रतिकूलम्; तुल्यगुरुः सब्रह्मच्तारी-इति मुख्यो विषयः। अन्य: पुनरुपचरित एव। न चात्र प्रयोजनं किंचिदुद्दिंश्य

लक्ष्यते! आदेयत्वं प्रयोजनम् पुनः स्वाधीनत्वं न बहुमानपदम्। हरणशब्दस्यापि मुख्यार्थः तेन स्वीकारात्मा न घटते। तेन तत्परत त्रतापत्तिर्लक्ष्पते। प्रयोजनं तु स्वाधीनत्वं न श्लाघ्यम्। अज्जाए इति। मृदुकचं प्रेमातिरेकसूचकमिति सपत्नीनां प्रहारसंपत्तिः । अत्र 'दिण्णो' शब्दस्य मुख्यार्थ: पूजानुग्हकामनाविशिष्टस्व चपरित्यागरूपो न संभवति। ततो लक्ष्यते। तत्फलवत्त्वं र्कानेष्ठ- भार्यायाश्चरितार्थताम्। प्रचोजनं पुनः प्रहारस्य सुखोपभोग्यत्वं नात्यादरस्थानम्। परार्थ इति। अत्राप्रस्तुतेऽर्थे अनुभवतिशब्दस्य लाक्षणिकत्वं न प्रस्तुतमिति प्रतिपादयति- यद्यपीति। अनुभवनं ज्ञानभ् तदचेतनस्येक्षोर्न संभवतीति भुख्यार्थबाधे पीडावत्चं लक्ष्यते। पीड्य- मानत्वपर्यवसानं प्रयोजनं कष्टावस्थत्वान्नादरणीयम्। एवंविध इति। एतादृशमनादरपदं प्रयोजनमित्यर्थः।! पञ्वसार्थेष् वाच्चवाचकव्यङ्-ग्यत्वञ्जकका व्येषु। शब्दशब्देन हि पञ्चापि कथ्यन्ते। शब्द्ते प्रतिपाद्यते शब्दो अनेनेति च कृत्वा उपचरितशब्दवृत्तिः। शब्दं विवृणोति-उपचरितेति। अन्यः पुनरिति।

घ.ङ.च. 'अज्जाए' इति भाधा समग्रा पठ्यते. 2क.ख.घ. सूचक :. 3क.ख.ग.(का) 'तथा' अधिकम्, घ.ङ.च. परार्थ इत्यादि मरुभुव इत्यन्तं वृश्यते. 4क.ख.T. पीड्यमाने. 5(के) प्रयोजकम्. 6क.ख.ग.(का) 'यतः' अधिकम. 7क.ख.ग. 'उकत्यन्तरेण' अधिकम्. 8क.ख.ग. शब्दार्थोभयव्यापार. 9(के) लाक्षणिकरूपे.

70 लक्षणा प्रवृत्तेति न तद्विषयो ध्वननव्यापारः। ननु "दीवडि तेल्लु णाहि पतु द्रम्मि गमिट्ठा लावण्णज्जलंगु घरि ढोल्लु पइ्ट्ठा"* इत्यादौ लावण्यादिशब्दसंनिधानेऽस्ति प्रतीयमानाभिव्यक्तिः। सत्यम्; सा तु न लावण्यशब्दात्, अपि तु समग्रवाक्यार्थ- प्रतीत्यनन्तरं ध्वननव्यापारादेव। अत्र हि 2प्रियतममुखस्यैव समस्ताशाप्रकाशकत्टं ध्वन्यत इत्यलं बहुना। तदाह- प्रकारान्तरेणेति॥ व्यञ्जकत्वेनैव, न तूपचरित- लावण्यादि3शब्दप्रयोगादित्यर्थः। एवं यत्र यत्र भक्तिस्तत्र तत्र ध्वनिरिति तावन्नास्ति। तेन ध्वने: यदि भक्तिर्लक्षणं तदा भक्तिसंनिधौ सर्वत्र ध्वनिव्यवहारः स्यादित्यति ध्याप्तिः। अभ्युगम्यापि ब्रूम :- भवतु यत्र यत्र भक्तिरतत्र तत्र ध्वनिः; तथापि यद्विषयो लक्षणाव्यापारो न तद्विषयो ध्वननव्यापारः। न च भिन्नविषययोः धर्मधर्मिभावः। धर्म एव च5 तक्षणमित्युच्यते। तत्र लक्षणा तावदमुख्यार्थविषयो व्यापारः। ध्वननं च प्रयोजन- विषयम्। न च तद्विषयोऽपि द्वितीयो लक्षणाव्यापारो युक्तः, लक्षणापसामग्रयभावात् I.17 इत्यभिप्रायेणाह- अपि चेत्यादि।। मुख्यां वृत्तिमभिधाव्यापारम्; परित्यज्य परिसमाप्य; गुणवृत्त्या लक्षणारूपया अर्थस्यामुख्यस्य 7तावत् दर्शनं प्रत्यायना; सा यत्फलं कर्मभूतं प्रयोजन 8मुद्दिश्य क्रियते तत्र प्रयोजने तावद्द्वितीयो व्यापारः। न चासी लक्षणैव; यतः स्खलन्ती बाधकव्यापारेण विधुरीक्रियमाणा गतिरदबोधनशक्तिर्यस्य शब्दस्य तदीयो

अविरुद्धादिधर्म एव लक्षणमिति। लक्ष्यवाच्यसाधारणो धर्मो लक्षणमिति लाक्षणिकाः। ननु यदि लक्षणाया अमुख्यार्थ एव विषयः न प्रयोजनम्, तद्द्वितीया काचिल्लक्षणा भवतु। तस्या विषयोऽस्तु प्रयोजनमित्याशंकायामाह-न चेति। लक्षणासामग्रयभावादिति। मुख्यार्थसंभवः, तद्बाधः, मुख्येन लक्ष्यस्य संबन्ध:, प्रयोजनं, शब्दस्य स्खलद्गतिश्चेति गञ्चतयी सामग्री। त्रेति। पयोजने तावत् द्वितीयो लक्षणाया अनन्तरं कश्चिद्व्यापारोस्त्येवेति यावत्। न चेति। चस्त्वर्थे। स्खलन्तीति। शब्द: खलु स्वार्थे व्याहन्यमानाभिधाशक्तिः सन्नर्थान्तरं लक्षयति, नान्यथा। गङ्गाशब्दो हि स्रोतसि बापितवृत्तिस्तटे लक्षणामादत्ते। सिंहशब्दश्चतुष्पात्त्वादौ स्खलितगतिः सद्ृशं प्रतिपदयति। न चैवं तटगतपावनत्वादौ लक्षणीयोऽ्यं शब्दो बाधितावगमनशक्तिर्भवति। अस्य स्वार्थसमवेतत्वात्। स्वार्थसम्रवेतो हि धर्मः प्रयोजनत्वेनोच्यते। ननु यदि शब्द: स्वार्थमिव स्वार्थगतं धर्ममप्यभिदध्यात्, तर्हि गोशब्दः शौक्ल्यमभिधत्त

1क.ख.घ.च. ध्वननव्यवहारः. 2क.ख.(के) प्रियतमस्यैव. 3(के) लवण्ययोगा०. 4ग.घ.च. अतिव्याप्तम्, (का) अतिव्याप्तिः. 5क.ख.ग. 'च' नास्ति. 6ङ. सामग्रयाभावात्. 7क.ख.ग. 'तावत्' नास्ति. 8क.ख.ग.(का) प्रयोजनुपं०'. *दीपके तैलं नास्ति पलं दम्मं गवेषितम्। लावण्योज्ज्वलाङ्गो गृहे प्रियतमः प्रविष्टः॥ इति छाया।

71 व्यापारो लक्षणा। न च प्रयोजनम दगम्यतः शब्दस्य बाधकयोगः। तथाभावे तत्रापि निमित्तान्तरस्य प्रयोजनानतरस्य चान्वेषणेनावस्थानात्2। तेनायं 3लक्षितलक्षणाया न विषय इति भाव:। दर्शनभिति ण्यन्तो निर्देशः॥ कर्तव्य इति। अवगमयितव्य इत्यर्थः॥ अमुख्यतेति॥ नाधकेन विधुरीकृततेत्यर्थः॥ तस्येति॥ शब्दस्य॥ दुष्टतैवेति॥ प्रयोजनाव- गमस्य सुखसम्पत्तये हि स5 शब्द: प्रयुज्यते तस्मिन्न मुख्येऽर्थे॥ यदि च 'सिंहो वटुः' इति शौर्यातिशयेऽप्यवगमयितव्यं स्खलद्गतित्वं शब्दस्य, त्तर्ह प्रतीति नैव कुर्यादिति किमर्यं तस्य प्रयोग :? उपचारेण करिष्यतीति चेत्, तत्रापि प्रयोजनान्तरमन्वेष्यम्7;

इति। गानानयेत्येव टक्तव्यं क्वचिन्र गां शुक्लामिति। मैवम्। नात्र धर्मोऽभिधीयते। किं तर्हि, प्रत्याव्यते। तच्चाव्यभिचारिण एव न व्याभिवारिणः। व्यभिचरति गां शौक्त्यम्। पावनत्वं पुनः न गङ्गां व्यमिचरति, यथाऽग्निमौषयम्। अतोऽग्निरुष्ण इत्यत्र विशेषणायोगं मन्यन्ते। न चानयोः स्वार्थधर्मयोः पृथक्प्रतिपादनं धथा जातिव्यक्त्योः। अत्र तु व्यक्तौ लक्षणा न युक्ता आक्षेपेणैव सिद्धेः। ननु तटगतं पावनत्वं अन्यदन्यच्च गङ्गागतं, तदा कथं गङ्गाशब्दस्तटगतं पावनत्वं प्रत्याययेत्। सामान्येन प्रत्याययेदित्यास्थेयम्। कि च वाक्यार्थघटनायैव लक्षणा परिगृहयते, स तु पावनत्वेन लक्षिते न स्यात्, गंगातटपावनत्वे घोष इति केयं वाचोयुक्तिः? अथ समुच्चगेनाह-न चेति। प्रयोजनं पावनत्वादिकं, बाधकयोगः बाधितत्वं, तटगतपावन वादिकं लक्षयतश्शब्दस्य न तटे बाधितत्दम्। तथाभावे वाधकयोगे निमित्तान्तरस्य बाधिततटलक्षणीयपावनत्वादिसम्बन्धरूपस्य प्रयोजनान्तरस्यान्यप्रयोज्नस्य चान्वेषणेश्नवस्था। तेनेति। तक्षितलक्षणायां हि नानवस्था। आ हन्त किमिदं तन्वि नेत्रयो: श्रावणस्तव। शरत्कप.ले ग्रीष्मोSगे शिशिरो मुखपङ्कजे।। अत्र श्रावणेन पूर्वावगावेन वर्षर्तुर्लक्ष्यते इति लक्षिततक्षणा भवति। तत्र च प्रयोजनमुत्कण्ठातिशयप्रतीतिः। न च ततः परं किञ्चिदमिलश्यते इति कुतोऽजवस्था? अतः सिंहो वटुरित्यादिकं ततो अश्रुपातोदयो लक्षितलक्षणाया न विषय इत्यर्थः। अथवा नायं लक्षितलक्षणाया विषयः लक्षितलक्षणाया एवाभावादित्यर्यः। तथाहि-लक्षणायामवश्यं प्रयोजनेन भवितव्यम्। अत्र प्रथमलक्षणायां कि प्रयोजनं द्वितीयलक्षणार्थ एवेति चेत्? तत्प्रयोजनमपि लक्ष्यमन्यस्या लक्षणाया इत्यनवस्थैव स्यात्। तस्मात् श्रावणादिशब्देन जलवर्षणादिर्लक्ष्यते। प्रयोजनमुत्कण्ठातिशय एवेति। यदि चेति। सिंहशब्दो यथा वटो: स्खलद्गतिर्भवति तया शौर्येऽपि चेत् तत्प्रतीतिर्न भवेदिति तत्प्रयोगस्य वैयर्थ्यापात इत्यर्थः। ननु सिंहशब्दः शौर्ये स्खलद्गतिर्भवति, शौर्यं च प्रतिपादयति लक्षणयेत्याशङ्कते -- उपचारेणेति। परहरति- तत्रेति। शौर्ये लक्ष्ये प्रयोजनमन्यदन्विष्य ग्राह्यं लक्षणायां प्रयोजनस्ावश्यं- भावात्, पुनस्तस्ग च लक्ष्यता स्यात्, प्रयोजनस्य लक्षणीयत्वाङ्गीकरणात्। तदा तस्यापि प्रयोजनं, तस्यापि तपेति मूलक्षतिकृदन वस्थैवापतेदित्यर्थः।

1ग. अपगमपत .. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) अन्वेषणेनावस्थानात्. 3क.ख.ग.(नि) लक्षणलक्षणाया. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) कर्तव्य इत्येव. 5कं.ख.घ.ङ .. च.'स' नास्ति. 6ग.(नि) तस्मान्न मुख्यार्धे. 7ग.घ.ङ .. च.(नि) अनविप्यते.

72 तत्राप्युपचारेऽनवस्था। अथ न1 तत्र स्खलद्गतित्वम्, तर्हि प्रयोजनेऽवगमयितव्ये न2 लक्षणाख्यो व्यापार: तत्सामग्रयभावात्। न च नास्ति व्यापारः। न चासावभिधा, समयस्य तत्राभावात्।यद्व्या पारान्तरमभिधालक्षणातिरिक्तं स ध्वननव्यापारः॥ न चैवमिति॥ न च प्रयोगे दुष्टता काचित्। प्रयोजनस्याविघ्नेनैव प्रतीतेः। उतेनेयमभिधैव मुख्येऽर्थ बाधकेन 4विधुरीकृता प्रविवृत्सुः निरुध्यमाना सती अचरितार्थत्वादन्यत्र प्रसरति5। अत 6एवामुख्योऽस्यायमर्थ इति व्यवहारः। तथैव चामुख्यतया संकेतग्रहणमपि तत्रा- स्तीत्यभिधापुच्छभूतैव लक्षणा ।तस्मादिति उपसंहरति। यतोऽभिधापुच्छभूतैव7 लक्षणा, ततो हेतो: वाचकत्वम् अभिधाव्यापारम् आश्रिता तद्बाधनेनोत्थानात्तत्पुच्छभूतत्वाच्च गुणवृत्ति:, गौणलाक्षणिकप्रकार इत्यर्थः, सा कथं ध्वनेर्व्यञ्जनात्मनो लक्षणं स्यात्, भिन्नविषयत्वादिति। एतदुपसंहरति-तस्मादिति॥ यतोऽतिव्याप्तिरुक्ता, तत्प्रसङ्गेन च भिन्नविषयत्वम् तस्माद्धेतोरित्यर्थः । एवम् "अतिव्याप्ते थाव्याप्तेर्नचासौ लक्ष्यते तया" इति कारिकागतामतिव्याप्तिं व्याख्यायाव्याप्तिं व्याचष्टे- अव्याप्तिरप्यवस्येति॥ अस्य गुणवृत्तिरूपस्येत्यर्थः। यत्र यत्र ध्वनिस्तत्र तत्र यदि भक्तिर्भवेन्न9 स्यादव्याप्तिः; न चैवम्। अविवक्षितवाच्ये ह्यस्ति भक्तिः "सुवर्णपुष्पाम्" इत्यादौः10। "शिखरिणि" इत्यादौ तु सा कथम्? ननु लक्षणा तावद् गौणमपि व्याप्नोति। केवलं शब्दस्तमर्थं तक्षयित्वा तेनैव सह सामानाधिकरण्यं भजते 'सिंहो वटुः' इति॥ अर्थो वार्थान्तरं लक्षयित्वा स्ववाचकेन तद्वाचकं समानाधिकरणं करोति। शब्दार्थौ वा युगपत्तं लक्षयित्वा 11अन्याभ्यामेव

आशङ्कते- अथ चेति। शौर्यं प्रतिपादयत्येव सिंहशब्दः तत्कथमस्यात्राशक्तत्वमित्यर्थः। परिहरति-तहीति। तर्हि शौर्यं न लक्ष्यत इत्यर्थः। एवं प्रयोजनस्याविघ्नेन प्रतीतिर्यतः, तत इयं लक्षणाप्येवं स्थिति लभत इत्याह-तेनेति। गङ्गाशब्दस्याभिधा प्रथमं स्रोतसि प्रवर्तितुमिच्छतत। यदा बाधकेन घोषाधिकरणत्वरूपेण विधुरीक्रियमाणा अचरितार्थत्वात् तटे प्रसरति, तदा लक्षणेत्युच्यते। तत्र संमयोऽप्यस्ति॥ मुख्यार्थबाधादित्रयरूप इत्यर्थः। अभिधापुच्छभूतैवेति। तदुक्तम्-गुणवृत्तिरमुख्यत्वेन स्थितं वाचकत्वमेवेति। 'शिखरिणी'त्यादाविति। विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य इति शेषः। अथ विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्येऽपि लक्षणाऽस्त्येवेति समर्थयितुं चोदयति- नन्विति। तर्हि कोऽनयोर्भेदव्यवहारहेतुरित्यत्राह- केवलमिति। गुणवृत्तौ त्रयः प्रकाराः। शब्दः प्राधान्येन लक्षकः, अर्थस्तु गुणतयेत्येकः प्रकारः। एतद्वैपरीत्येन द्वितीयः। उभयप्राधान्येन तृतीयः। तदनुसरणेनोपन्यस्यति- शब्द इत्यादि। सिंहो वटुरित्यत्र सिंहशब्दो वटुं लक्षयित्या तेनैव तद्वाचकभूतवटुशब्देन समानाधिकरणो भयतीति यावत्। अर्थ: सिंहार्थ:, अर्थान्तरं वटुं, स्ववाचकेन सिंहशब्देन तद्वाचकं वटुवाचकं, शब्दार्थी

1घ.च. 'न' नास्ति. 2क.ख.घ. 'न' नास्ति. 3क.ख.ङ .. च.(नि)(का) तेनाभिधैव, घ. तेनैवमभिधैव. 4क.ख.च.(नि) 'विधुरीकृता' नास्ति. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) 'इति' अधिकम्. 6क.ख.ग.च.(नि) एव मुख्यो. 7ङच.(के) अभिधाशेषभूतैव. 8 क.ख.ग.(नि) 'अपि' नास्ति. 9क.ख.ग.(नि) 'च' अधिकम्. 10घ.ङ.च. 'आदौ' नास्ति. 11क.ख.ग.ङ.(नि) ताभ्यामेव.

73 शब्दार्थाभ्यां मिश्रीभवतः इत्येव लाक्षणिकाद्गौणस्य भेदः, यदाह- 'गौणे शब्दप्रयोगः, न लक्षणायाम्' इति। तत्रापि तु1 लक्षणास्चंवेति सैव सर्वत्र व्यापिका। सा च पञ्चविधा, तद्यथा-अभिधेयेन संयोगात्। 'द्विरेफ' शब्दस्य हि योऽभिधेयो भ्रमरशब्दः, द्वौ रेफौ यस्यति कृत्वा, तेन प्रमरशब्देन यस्य संयोग: संबन्धः षट्पदलक्षणार्थस्य सोऽर्थो द्विरेफशब्देन लक्ष्यते अभिधेयसंयोगं व्याख्यातरूपं निमितीकृत्य। सामीप्यात्। "गङ्गायां घोषः"। समवायतः2 इति। 3संब-गदित्यर्थः। 'यष्टीः प्रवेशय' इति यथा। वैपरीत्यात्। यथा-शत्रुमुद्िश्य कश्चिद्ब्रवीति-'किमिवोपकृतं न तेन मे4 इति। क्रियायोगादिति। कार्यकारणयोगादित्यर्थः। ग्था- अन्नापहारिणि तयवहारः 'प्राणानयं हरति' इति। एवमनया लक्षणया पञ्चविधया विश्वमेव व्याप्तम्। तथा हि-"शिखरिणि" इत्यत्रा- कस्मिकप्रश्नविशेषादिबाधकानुप्रवेशे सादृश्याल्लक्षणास्त्येव। नन्वत्राङ्गीकृतैव मध्ये लक्षणा, कथं तर्ह्र्युक्तकं विवक्षितान्यपरेति। 6तद्भेदोऽत्र मुख्योऽसंलक्ष्यक्रमात्मा विवक्षितः। तद्भेदशब्देन च रसभांवतदाभासतत्प्रशमभेदास्तदवान्तरभेदाश्च। न च तेषु लक्षणाया उपपत्तिः। तथा हि- विभावानुभावप्रतिपादके काव्ये /मुख्येऽर्थे तावद्बाधानु-

सिंह इत्यात्मकौ तं वट्वर्थम्। गौणे इति। शब्दप्रयोग: -लक्ष्य शब्दप्रयोगः। 'सिंहो वटु'रित्यत्र हि लक्ष्यवाचको घटुशन्द: पयुज्यते' 'गङ्गाय घोत्' इत्यत्र लक्ष्यवाचकस्तटशन्दो न प्रयुज्यत इत्येतावदेव वैलक्षण्यमनयोः। नुख्यार्थबाधादिकमुभयत्रापि सममित्यर्थः। अत एवाह- तत्रापीति। लक्षणा- पञ्वविधत्वमभिधेयेन संयीगादित्यादि इलोकानुवृत्त्या प्रदर्शयति- लद्यथेति। विश्वगेवेति। उक्तहेतु पञ्चकेऽन्यत्मस्य कुत्रचिदप्यपरिहार्यत्वादिति भावः। तदेव प्रस्तुते योजयति-तथाहीति। सादृश्यादिति। ननु लक्षणायाः सादृश्यं न निभित्तत्वंनोवतम, तत्कथं सापृश्याल्लक्षणास्तु? मैवम्, समवायग्रहणात् -- संबन्धसामान्यवचनान्, संबन्धविशेष: सादृश्यात्मकः सेत्स्यति। शिवक्षितान्यपरति। लक्षणायां मुख्यार्थो न विवक्षितो भवतीति भाव:। अत्र समाधिमाह- उद्भेद इति। विवक्षितान्यपरशब्देनासंलक्ष्यक्रमात्मा भेदो विवक्षितः, न संलक्ष्यक्म इते यावत्। तदवान्तरभेदाः हास्यवीरादयः। अत्रापि कि लक्षणा न स्यादित्यत आह-

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'तु' नास्ति. 2क.ख.ग.घ.च.(नि)(का)(के) समनायादिति. 3क.ख.(नि) स्वसंबन्धात्. 4क.खा.ग.(नि) (का) पम 5क.ख.ग.घ.ङ .. (नि)(के) का.णभावादित्यर्थः. 6क.ख.(के) न तद्भेदो हि मुख्यो. 7क.ख.ग.(नि)(के) काव्ये तत्रार्थ मुख्गे तावत् नाधकानु०.

74 प्रवेशोऽ्प्यसंभाव्य इति को लक्षणावकाशः। ननु किं बाधया? इयदेव लक्षणायाः स्वरूपम्- 'अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिर्लक्षणेष्यते1' इति। इह चाभिधेयानां विभावानुभावादीनाम- विनाभूता रसादय इति लक्ष्यन्ते, विभावानुभावयोः कारगकार्यरूपत्वात्2, व्यभिचारिणां च तत्सहकारित्वादिति चेत्, मैवम्। धूमशब्दाद्धूमे प्रतिपन्ने ह्यग्निस्मृतिरपि लक्षणाकृतैव स्यात्। ततोजनेः शीतापनोदस्मृतिः इत्याद्यपर्यवसितः शब्दार्थः स्यात्। धूमशब्दस्य स्वार्थविश्रान्तत्वान्न तावति व्यापार इति चेत्, आयातं तर्हि मुख्यार्थबाधो लक्षणाया जीवितमिति। सति हि3 तस्मिन् स्वार्थविश्रान्त्यभावात्। न च विभावादिप्रतिपादने बाधकं किंचिदस्ति। नन्वेवं धूमाव वमानन्तराग्निस्मरणवद्विभावादिप्रतिपत्त्यनन्तरं रत्यादिचित्तवृत्ति- प्रतिपत्तिरिति शब्दव्यापार एवात्र नास्ति। इदं तावदयं प्रतीतिस्वरूपज्ञो मीमासंक: प्रष्टव्य :- किमत्र परचित्तवृत्तिमात्रे प्रतिपत्तिरेव रसप्रतिपत्तिरभिमता भवतः? न चैवं भ्रमितव्यम्। एवं हि लोकगतचित्तवृत्त्यनुमानमात्रमिति का रसता। यस्त्वलौकिक- चमत्कारात्मा रसास्वाद: काव्यगत विभावादिचर्वणाप्राण:, नासौ स्मरणानुमानादिसाम्येन खिलीकारपात्रीकर्तव्यः। किं तु लौकिकेन कार्यकारणानुमानादिना संस्कृतहृदयो विभावादिकं प्रतिपद्यमान एव न ताटस्थ्येन प्रतिपद्यते; अपि तु हृदयसंवादापर- पर्यायसहृदयत्वपरवशीकृततया सरणिम्नारुह्यैव तन्मयीभवनोचितचर्वणाप्राणतया। न चासौ चर्वणा प्रमाणान्तरतो जाता पूर्वम् येनेदानीं स्मृति: स्यात्। न चाधुना कुतश्चित्प्रमाणान्तरादुत्पन्ना, अलौकिके प्रत्यक्षाद्यव्यापारात् । अत एवालौकिक एव विभावादिव्यवहारः। "यदाह6 विभावो विज्ञानार्थः"। लोके तु कारणमेवाभिधीयते न विभावः। अनुभावोऽप्यलौकिक एव। यदाह-"यदयमनुभावयति वागङ्-गसत्त्वकृतोऽभिनयस्तस्मादनुभावः" इति। तच्चित्तवृत्ति-

बाधानुप्रवेशोज्पीति। कुत एव संबन्धप्रयोजने इति भावः। सति तस्मिन्निति। मुख्यार्थबाधे कथं धूमशब्दः स्वार्थे विश्राम्येदिति यावत्। समुच्त्चयेनाह-न चेति। न ताटस्थ्येनेति। न साधारण्येन अस्वगतत्वेनेत्यर्थः। अलौकिकेति। कथं रसस्यालौकिकत्वमित्यत आह-अत एवेति॥ लोके कारणं कार्यं सहकारि इति व्यवह रस्तदेवालौकिकत्वं संवादपुरस्सरं प्रसाधयति-यदाहेति। 'विभावो विज्ञानार्थ' इति। विभाव्यन्ते विशिष्टतया ज्ञायते स्थायिव्यभिचारिणः सवागङ्गसत्त्वा अनेनेति भाव:। अभिनयानां हयनेकहेतुजत्वम्, तद्यथा- 'हर्षारत्तिभयहासधर्मधूमरोगादिभ्यो बाष्पः'। तद्बाष्पात् किं प्रतीयताम्? विभावात्तु झटित्येव निश्चयः। यदयमिति। अनुभावयति बोधयति वागङ्-गसत्वकृताभिनयरूपस्थायिसञ्चारिणः इत्यनुभावः।

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) लक्षणोच्यते. 2घ.ङ.च. कार्यभूतत्वात्. 3घ.ङ .. च. 'हि' नास्ति. 4क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) गंमनानन्तर. 5क.ख.ग.(नि) नैवम्. 6क.ख.ग.(नि) 'यदाह .... अलौकिक एद' नास्ति.

75 तन्मयीभवनमेव हयनुभवनम। लोके तु कार्यमेवोच्यते नानुभावः। अत एव परकीया न चित्तवृत्तिर्गम्यत इत्यभिप्रायेण "विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः' इति सूत्रे1 स्थ.यिग्रहणं न कृतम्। कृतं2 तत्प्रत्युत शल्यभूतं स्थात्। स्थायिनस्तु रसीभाव औचित्णदुच्यते। तद्विभावानुभावोचित चित्तवृत्तिसंस्कारसुन्दरचर्वणोदयात्। हृदयसंवादोपयोगिलोकचित्त वृत्तिपरिज्ञानावस्थायामुद्यानपुलकादिभिः स्थायिभूतरत्याद्य- वगमाच्च। वयभिचारी तु चित्तवृत्त्यात्मत्वेऽपि मुख्यचितपरवश एव चर्व्यत, इति विभावानुभावमध्ये गणितः। अत एव रस्वम्गनताया एषैव निष्पत्तिः यत् प्रबन्ध- प्रवृत्तबन्धुसमागमादिकारणोदितहर्षादिलौकिकचित्तवृत्ति ्यग्भावनेन चर्वणारूढत्वम्। अतः चर्वणात्राभिव्यञ्जनमेव, न तु ज्ञापनम्, प्रमाणव्यापारवत्। नाप्युत्पादनम् हेतु

ननु :द्येवम नुभावो भावस्य गमक एव स्यादित्यत्राह-'चितवृत्तितन्मयीभवनमेव हयनुभव्नन'- मिति।न परगत'चेजवृत्तिब्रोधकमात्रमिति व्यावर्त्यम्। एतदेव प्रगाणेन दृढयति- अत एवेति। विभावसूत्रे हि "विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिस्थायिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिरिति स्थायिग्रहणं कर्तव्यम्। विभावादिभि: स्थायिन: संयोगाद्रसनि पत्तिरित्यर्थसिद्धये। अन्यथा, कस्ण विभावादिसंयोग इत्यप्रतीति: स्थात्। तत्तु न कृतम्, अनुमावग्रहणेनैव स्थायिसिद्धेः। अनुभावाविनाभूतमनुभवनम्, तञ् चित्तवृत्तितन्मयी भवनम्। चित्तवृतिशच स्थायीति॥ सा पुनः स्वगतैव न परगता। स्वात्मविमुखरसनिष्पत्तिकथनानुपपत्तेः। अतो युक्तगुक्तं 'परकीया न चित्तवृत्तिगम्यत' इति। अतो यदि त्वत्र स्थायिग्रहणं क्रियते, तर्हि तद्वयर्थं विरुद्धं च स्यादित्याह-कृत तदिति! ननु अन्योन्यसंयुक्तेषु विभावादिषु, कुतो विशिष्य स्थायी रस इत्युच्यते। किं विभावो रसो न स्यात्, अनुभावो वा व्यभिचारी वा? अत्राह-स्थायिनस्त्विति। अ.चित्यमेव स्पष्टयति-तद्विभावेति। तस्या विभावानुभावोचितायाश्चित्तवृत्तेर्यः संस्कारो वास्नात्मकतया स्थितिः तेन। सुन्दर्याश्चर्वणाया उदयात्। हेत्वन्त्रमप्याह- हृदयसंवादेतति। लोकवृत्तपरिज्ञाने खलु हृदयसंवादो भवति। लोके चोद्यानादिविभावैः पुलकादिभिरनुभाैश्च स्थायिभूतरत्याद्यवामः इत्यर्थः॥ नैतावता स्थायि- नोऽनुमितिग्नुमता लोकन्यायप्रदर्शनात्। नाट्ये तु चर्व्यत एव। स्थाधिनाट्यायमानश्च काव्यम्। ननु चित्तवृत्तित्वाविशेषात् स्थायीव व्यभिचार्यपि न ग्रहणमहीते इत्यत्राह-व्यभिचारी त्विति। मुख्यचित्तवृत्तिः स्थायी व्यभिचारिणो मुख्यचित्तवृत्तिपारवश्यं द्रढयति- अत एवेति। रस्यभानता लौकिकहर्षादिचित्तवृत्तिन्यग्भावनेन चर्वणारूढत्वमिति यावत्। पराङ्गाच्चर्वण। .- स्वरुपमाह-अतश्चेति। व्यावत्यं दर्शयति-न तु ज्ञापनमिति। समुच्चयेन रसस्यालौकिकत्वं स्फुटयति-

1घ.ङ.च. इत्यत्र. 2क.ख.ग.ड.च.(नि)(का)(के) 'कृतं' नास्ति. 3क.खा.(के) 'चित्त' नास्ति. 4क.ख.ग.ड.च.(नि)(का) न्यग्भाटेन चर्वणारूपत्वम.

76 व्यापारवत्। ननु यदि नेयं ज्ञप्तिः, न वा निष्पत्तिः, तर्हि किनेतत्। नन्वयमसावलौकिको रस:। ननु विभावादयोSत्र किं ज्ञापको हेतुः उत कारकः? न ज्ञापको न कारकः, अपितु चर्वणोपयोगी। ननु क्वैतत् दृष्टमन्यत्र? यत एव न दृष्टम्, तत एवालौकिकमित्युक्तम्। ननु एवं रसोऽप्रमाणं स्यात्? अस्तु, किं ततः? तच्चर्वणात एव प्रीतिव्युत्पनिसिद्धे: किमन्यदर्थनीयम्? नन्वप्रमाणकमेतत्? न, स्वसंवेदनसिद्धत्वात्, ज्ञानविशेषस्यैव चर्वणात्मत्वात् इत्यलं बहुना। अतश्च रसोऽयमलौकिक:, येन ललितपरुषाद्यनुप्रासस्यार्थाभिधा- नानुपयोगिनोऽपि रसं प्रति व्यञ्जकत्वम्। का तत्र लक्षणायाः शङ्कापि? काव्यात्मकशब्दनिष्पीडनेनैव च4 तच्चर्वणा दृश्यते। दृश्यते हि तदेव काव्यं पुनः पुनः पठंश्चर्व्यमाणश्च सहृदयलोकः। न तु काव्यस्य तत्र "उपादायापि ये हेयाः" इति न्यायेन कृत'प्रतीतिकस्यानुपयोग एवेति शब्दस्यापि6 ध्वननव्यापार :! अत एवालक्ष्यक्रमता। यतु वाक्यभेद : स्यादिति केनचिदुक्तम् तदनभिज्ञतया। शास्त्रं हि 7सकृदुच्चरितं समयबलेनार्थं

अतश्चेति। न खलु लोके किञ्चिदनुप्रासव्यङ्ग्यं वस्तु दृष्टम्। अतोऽनुप्रासव्यङ्-गयस्यालौकिकत्वं सिद्धमिति भाव:। एवं लक्षणारूपलक्षणस्य व्याप्तिप्रदर्शनार्थं प्रवृत्तौ प्रसंगागतानुमानपराकरणाय रसस्यालौकिकत्वं प्रसाध्याऽनुप्रासेन व्यज्यमाने रसध्वनौ लक्षणायाः शङ्कैव नास्तीत्याह-का तत्रेति। लक्षणादिक्वैमुख्येनानुप्रासो रसव्यञ्जक इत्यत्र युक्तिं दर्शयति- काव्यात्मकेति। निष्पीडनमाम्रेडनं, तच्चर्वणा रसचर्वणा। दृश्यते हीति। ननु काव्येन रसचर्वणा साध्या। सा सकृत्पठितेनैव सिद्धा। ततः पुनः- पुनस्तस्य पठनं किमर्थम्? न खलु कृतप्रतीतिकस्य पौनःपुन्येनोपादानम्। दीपो दृश्यदर्शने नोपादीयते इत्याशंक्याह- न त्विति। कृतप्रतीतिकस्य काव्यस्यानुपयोग एवेति। नेत्यन्वयः। "उपादायापि ते हेयाः।" इति न्यायस्त्वत्र काव्यमार्गे न क्रमते। पुनः पुनः पाठेनैव रसचर्वणादर्शनादित्यर्थः। अत एव शब्दस्यापीह ध्वननव्यापारपरिग्रह इत्याह-शब्दस्यापीति। शब्दस्य व्याप.रे सति क्रमाप्रतिभासोऽपि युक्त इत्याह- अत एवेति। ननु इह वाच्यव्यङ्-ग्यभेदेनार्थद्वयं प्रतिभासते। तत्प्रतिपादनं कर्तु कथं सकृत्प्रयुक्तमेकं वाक्यं शक्नुयात्? तस्माद्वाक्यभेद: कर्तव्यः। तत्रैकं वाक्यं वाच्यं प्रतिपादयेत्। अन्यत् व्यङ्ग्यमिति कस्यचिन्मतमावृत्य दूषयति-यत्त्यिति। यदत्रार्थद्वयं प्रतिपाद्यते तत् परस्परविरुद्धं वा अविरुद्धं दा इति विकल्पावष्टंभेन प्रथमकल्पं निराकरोति- शास्त्रं हीति। शास्त्रं वाक्यमिति यावत्- द्वितीयपक्षे

1(के) 'पानकरसोऽपि क्वान्यत्र दृष्टो गुडमरीचादावदर्शनादिति सर्वत्र सुवचम्' अधिकम्. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) 'आदि' नास्ति. 3(के) 'का' स्थाने 'न' इति पाठः. 4क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'च' नास्ति. 5(के) प्रीतिकस्य. 6(ने) इह. 7क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) -सकृदुच्चारितम्.

77 प्रतिपादयद्युगपद्विरुद्धानेकसमयस्मृत्ययोगात्कथमर्थद्वयं प्रत्याधयेत्। अविरुद्धत्वे वा तावानेको वावयार्थ: स्यात्। क्रमेणापि विरम्यव्यापारायोगः। पुनरुच्चरितेऽपि वाक्ये स एव समयादिप्रकरणादेस्तादवस्थ्यात्। प्रकरणसभयप्राप्यार्थतिरस्कारेणार्थान्तर- प्रत्यायकत्वे2 नियम,भाव इति। तेन 'अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्स्वर्गकामः' इति श्रुतौ खादेत्3 श्वमांसमित्येत्र नर्थ इत्यत्र का प्रमेति प्रसज्यते। तन्रापि न 'काचिन्नियततेत्यनाश्वास इत्येवं वाक्यभेदो दूषणम्। इह तु विभावाद्येव प्रतिपाद्यमनं चर्वणाविषयतोन्मुखमिति समयाद्युपयोगाभावः। न च 'नियुक्तोऽहमत्र करवाणि कृताथोंऽहम् इति 'शास्त्रीयप्रतीति- सदृशभद:। तत्रोत्तरकर्तव्यौ-मुख्येन लौकिकत्वात्। इह तु विभावादिचर्वणाद्भुतपुष्प- वतत्कालसारैयोदिता न तु पूर्वापरकालानुबन्धिनीति लौकिकादास्वादाद्योगिविष या द्वान्य7 एवायं रसास्वाद:। अत एव 'शिखरिणि' इत्यादावपि मुख्यार्थबाधादिकमनपेक्ष्यैव सहृदया ववत्रभिप्रायं चाटुप्रीत्यात्मकं संवेदयन्ते9 10अत एव ग्रन्थकारः साभान्येन

आह-अविरुद्धत्व इति। वाक्यार्थस्यैकत्वे वाक्यमप्यैकमेवंति कुतो टाक्यभेदप्रसङ्गः इति भावः। किच अर्थद्वयप्रतिपादन यगपद्वा क्रमेण वेति विकल्णभिसन्धिना युगपत्पक्षो वाक्यार्थस्यैकत्वापादक इति क्रमपक्षं दूषयति-कमेणागीति। अपि चास्तु वाक्यभेदः। प्रसङ्ग इति भावः। तत्र पुनः पठिते वाक्यो समयप्रकरण/दि: स एव वा अन्यो वेति विकल्पाभिप्रायेण। प्रधमकल्पे वाक्यभेदो निरर्थक इत्याह -पुनरुच्चरितेSपोति। द्वितीयकल्पं दूषयति प्करणसभयेत्यादिना प्रसज्यत इत्यन्तेन। नाग्नां धातूनां चानेकार्थत्वात् प्रकरणादीनामप्यनियमात् अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयादित्यस्य श्वमांसं खादेदित्यर्थ: किं न स्यादिति कश्चिन्नास्तिकः। एवमर्थान्तरप्रत्यायनेऽनि न काचिक्व्यवरथेति दर्शयति-तत्रापीति। नगु वाच्यस्तावत् समयप्रकरणादिना प्रतीयतां व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतौ किं तत्समयादिकमित्यत्राह-का त्यिति। समयाद्यनवेक्षणप्रसङ्-गात् काव्यप्रतीतिः शास्त्रप्रतीतिविलक्षणेत्याह- न चेति। विधिवाक्यश्रतणे नियुक्तोऽहभिति बुद्धिः तदर्थानुछठाने कृतार्थोऽहमिति। शाञ्त्रप्रतीतेलकिकत्वानुवादेन साधयति- तत्रेति। तत्र शास्त्रपतीतौ। उत्तरकाले यत् कर्तव्यं तत्रौन्मुख्यमेव शास्त्रश्रवणेन तु तावन्मात्रे- णान्वयनिरपेक्षतया आनन्दैकघनता। अतो लौकिकत्वनेव शास्त्रप्रतीतेरित्यर्थः। काव्यप्रतीतिस्वरूपमाह- इह त्वित्यादिना रसास्वाद इत्यन्तेन। अद्भुतपुष्पं इन्द्रजालादिदर्शितपुष्पम्। अत्र तत्कालसारत्वमात्रेण पुष्मुपमानीकृतं न तु भ्रान्तत्वेनापि, रसास्वादस्य निरपेक्षत्वेनाभ्रान्तत्वात्। लौकिकास्वादादन्य इत्युक्ते योगिज्ञानेऽतिप्रसङ्गः। तद्व्यावृत्त्यर्थ योगिविषयाद्वेति। अत इति। यतो रसास्वादस्य पूर्वापरकालानुबन्धवन्ध्यत्वमलौकिकत्वं व तत इत्यर्थ:।। शिखरिणीत यादावपीति: अपिशब्देन लक्षणाप्रकारसङ्करं संवेदयन्ते संविदन्ते विदन्तीत्यर्थः। व्याचक्षत इति वा। अत्रोपपत्तिं प्रदर्शयति-अत एवेति। सामान्येन साधारण्येन भक्तेरभाव लक्षणाया अभावम्। स

1घ.ङ.च. समगादि: प्रक०. 2क.ख.ग.(नि) 'हि' अधिकम्. 3(को) खादेच्च न (देत् श्व) मांसमित्येष. 4क.ख.ग.(नि)(क.) काचिदियत्तेत्यना. 5क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) शास्त्रप्र०. 6सर्वमातृकासु तुशब्दरहित एव पाड।. 7क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) विषयाच्चान्य. 8क.ख.ग.(नि) प्रतीत्या०. 9(के) संवेदयति. 10क.ख.ङ .. च.छ. तत.

78 विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ भक्तेरभावमभ्यधात्। अस्माभिस्तु दुर्दुरूटं1 प्रत्याययितुमुक्तम् :- भवत्वत्र लक्षणा, अलक्ष्यक्रमे तु कुपितोऽपि किं करिष्यसीति। यदि तु न कुप्यते 'सुवर्णपुष्पाम्' इत्यादावविवक्षितवाच्येऽपि मुख्यार्थबाधादि2्लक्षणासामग्रीमनपेक्ष्यैव I.18 व्यङ्ग्यार्थ विश्रान्तिरित्यलं बहुना। उपसंहरति- तस्माद्भक्तिरिति॥ ननु मा भूद्भक्तिरिति3 ध्वनिरिति चैकं रूपम्। मा च भूद्भक्तिर्ध्वनेर्लक्षणम्। उपलक्षणं तु भविष्यति। यत्र ध्वनिर्भवति तत्र भक्तिरप्यस्तीति भक्त्युपलक्षितो ध्वनिः। न तावदेतत्सर्वत्रास्ति। इयत्ता च किं परस्य सिद्धम्, किं वा नः4 त्रुटितम्5। तदाह- I.19 कस्यचिदिति।। ननु अत्र7 भक्तिस्तावच्चिरन्तनैरुक्ता। तदुपलक्षणामुखेन च ध्वनिमपि समग्रभेदं लक्षयिष्यन्ति ज्ञास्यन्ति8 च। किं तल्लक्षणेनेत्याशङ्क्याह-यदि चेति॥ अभिधानाभिधेयभावो हयलंकाराणां व्यापकः। ततश्चाभिधावृत्ते वैयाकरणमीमांसकै- र्निरूपिते कुत्रेदानीमलंकारकाराणां9 व्यापारः। 10तथा हेतुबलात्कार्यं जायत इति तार्किकैरुक्ते किमिदानीमीश्वरप्रभृतीनां कर्तृणां ज्ञार्तणां वा कृत्यमपूर्वं स्यादिति सर्वो निरालम्ब: 11 स्यात्॥ तदाह-लक्षणकरण12वैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्ग इति॥ मा भूद्वाऽपूर्वोन्मीलनम्; पूर्वोन्मीलितमेवास्माभि: सम्यङ्निरूपितम्, तथापि को दोष इत्यभिप्रायेणाह-किं च13

चाविवक्षितवाच्यो विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यश्चेति द्विविध: सामान्येनेत्यत्र विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यशब्देन लक्षणा- भाव उक्तः। लक्षणासद्भावे वाच्यस्याविवक्षितत्वप्रसङ्गात्। ननु यद्येवं किमिति भवता शिखरिणीत्यत्र यदि वा आकस्मिकावेशिष्टप्रश्नानुपपत्तेः मुख्यबाधायां सादृश्याल्लिक्षणा भवतु मध्ये, इत्यादि वर्णितमित्याशंक्याह-अस्माभिस्त्विति। दुर्दुरूटं दुर्ग्ाहकग्रन्थग्रस्तमङ्-गीकृत्य बूते- भवत्विति। अत्र लक्ष्यक्रमे। अलक्ष्येति। रसादिध्वनौ लक्षणाप्रसङ्ग एव नास्ति। तत्र कथं तव लक्षणाग्रह इत्यर्थः। अपि चाभिमतविषयेऽपि लक्षणाया न प्रभविष्णुतेत्याह-यदि त्विति। एवं भक्तिलक्षणस्याव्याप्तिं प्रसाध्य, तद्विषयं वाग्विस्तरोद्यमं निवर्तयति- अलं बहुनेति। प्रकृतमनुसन्धत्ते- उपसंहरतीति। अथोपलक्षणपक्षं निरूपयितुमुपक्रमते- ननु मा भूदिति। भक्त्युपलक्षितो ध्वनिरित्येतावती उपलक्षणपक्षाशङ्का। न तावदित्यादि परिहारः। एतत्-उपलक्षणं सिद्धं-लब्धम्।। त्रुटितं-छिन्नं। चिरन्तनैः-पुरातनैः। अभिधावृत्ती-अभिधाव्यापारे। न त्वनाख्येयत्वपक्षो यः पञ्चमःस

1क.ख.ग.(नि)(के) दन्द्वरूढम्. 2घ.ङ.च.छ. लक्षणां. 3क.ख.(के) भक्तिर्ध्वनिरिति, घ. 'ध्वनिरिति' नास्ति. 4क.ख.ग.(नि) नु. 'क.ख.ग.(नि) 'इति' अधिकम्. 6क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) कस्यचिदित्यादि. 7क.ख.ग.घ.(नि)(का) 'अत्र' नास्ति. 8क.ख.(नि) 'ज्ञास्यन्ति' नास्ति. 9(के) 'काराणां' नास्ति, तत्स्थाने 'कारकाराणां' इत्येव साधु. 1क.ख.ग.(नि) यथा. 11 (का)(के) निरारम्भ :. 12क.ख.घ.ड.च.(नि) करणे. 13क.ख.ग.(का) किञ्वेति.

79 लक्षणे यैरिति। प्रागेयेति॥ अस्मत्प्रयत्नादिति शेषः। एवं त्रिप्रकारमभाववादय्, भाक्तानतर्भूतत्वं च निराकुंर्वताऽलक्षणीयत्वमेतन्मध्ये निराकृतमेव। अत एव मूलकारिका याक्षात्ततिराकरणार्था न श्रूयते। वृत्तिकृतु निराकृतमपि प्रमेयशय्यापरिपूरणाय स्व4कण्ठेन तत्पक्षमनूद्य निसकरोति- येऽपीत्यादिना॥ रक्तया नीत्या 'चत्रार्थः शब्दो वा-' इति सामान्यलक्षणं प्रतिपादितम्। वक्ष्यमाणया तु नीत्या विशेषलक्षणं भविष्यि 'अर्थान्तरे संक्रमितम्' इत्यादिना। तत्र प्रथमोद्द्योते ध्वनेः सामान्यलक्षणमेव कारिकाकारेण कृतम्।द्वितीयोद्द्योते तु कारिकाकारोऽवान्तरविभागं विशेषलक्षणं च विदधदनुवादमुखेन मूलविभागं द्विविधं सूचितवान्। तदाशयानुसारेण तु वृतिकृदत्रैवोद्द्योते मूलविभागमवोचत् 'स च द्विविधः' इति ॥ सर्वेषामेवेति॥ लौकिकाणां शास्त्रीयाणां चेत्यर्थः॥ अतिशयोक्त्येति। यथा 'तान्यक्षराणि हृदये किमपि ध्वनन्ति'* इति। अतिशयोक्त्या अनाख्येयतोक्त्या,

किमिति न निराकृत इत्यव्ाह- एवं त्रिप्रकारमिति अभाववादिपक्षपराकरणे प्रतिपदमेवंभूतमिदमेवं- भूतमिदमिति ध्नेर्लक्षणीय चप्रकाशनात्। अलक्षणीयत्वप राकरणमाम्रवणसेकपितृतर्पणवत् अपृथग्यत्न- सिद्धमित्यर्थः। तत्रोपपत्तिं दर्शयति-एतदिति। वृत्तिकृस्विति। प्रमेयशय्या- प्रमेयोद्देशः। प्रथमं त्रिप्रकारोSभाववाद:, पुनर्भक्तिवाद:, पश्चादनाख्येयत्वपक्ष इति पञ्वप्रमेयवस्तूनि पूर्वपक्षत्यात् पराकरणीगत्वेन निवेशितानि। तत्र चत्वारि प्रतिक्षिप्य पञ्चभाप्रतिक्षेपे खण्डनीयप्रमेयापरिपूरणं स्यादिति कृत्वा वृत्तिकृदनाष्येयत्वपक्षं निराकरोतीत्यर्थः। कुत्र कथं ध्वनेः सामान्यलक्षणमुक्तं कुत्र वा विशेषलक्षणमिति आशङ्क्याह-यत्रार्ण इति। अवाभारविष ागमिति। अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यभत्यन्त- तिररकृतवाच्यं चोत्यशन्तरविभाग:। अविवक्षितवाच्यो विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यश्चेति पूलविभागः। अन्रैव्रोद्योतं-प्रथमोद्द्योते। न न्विदमनाख्येयत्वं नासत्त्वात्, नाप्यसायुत्वात्, किं तु आतिशयितत्वादिति चेदयुक्तमित्याह दृत्तिकार:। यदि पुनरिति। काव्यान्तरं गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यं चित्रं च। अत्रातिशयोक्स्येति पदं व्यावष्टे- अतिशयोक्त्येति। रनाळ्येयत्वोवत्या इति। अतेशयस्य व्याख्यानं अनाख्येयताया उक्तिः

क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) शकत्यन्तपूततां. 2घ. 'साक्षात्' नास्ति. 3क.ख.(नि) संख्यापूरणाय. क.ख.(नि)(का) 'स्व' नास्ति. 'घ.४.प.(के) मितीने तुध्योते. 6क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) 'एव' नास्ति. * निदार्धमीलितदृशो मदमन्धराणि नाप्यर्थवन्ति न व नाम निरर्यकानि। अधापि कें मृगदृशो मथुराणि तस्या-स्तान्यक्षराणि दृदये किमपि 'वनन्ति॥ (इसि पूर्णश्लोक: विल्हणस्येति शाहूर्गधरपद्धती लभ्यते। श्लोकसंख्य-३४६८; परन्तु कलशकस्येति सुभा/चेतार्वालो: -श्लोकसंख्या-१२८०).

80 साररूपतां प्रतिपादयितुं 1दर्शितम्। इति शिवम्॥। किं लोचनं विनालोको भाति चन्द्रिकयैव2 हि। तेनाभिनवगुप्तोऽत्र लोचनोन्मीलनं व्यधात्।। यदुन्मीलन3शक्त्यैव विश्वमुन्मीलितं4 क्षणात्। स्वात्मायतनविश्रान्तां तां वन्दे प्रतिभां शिवाम्।।

।।इति श्रीमहामाहेश्वराभिनवगुप्तोन्मीलिते सहृदयालोकलोचने ध्वनिसङ्केते प्रथमोद्द्योतः।

अनाख्येयतोक्तिः सारूपतां प्रतिपादयितुमिति प्रवृत्तयेति शेषः। अतिशयोक्त्या अनाख्येयतोक्त्या साररूपतां प्रतिपादयितुं प्रवृत्तयानया काव्यान्तरातिशयितं रूपं यत् व्याख्यायत इत्यर्थ:। युक्ताभिधायिन इति। ध्वने: साररूपत्वाभिधानं अस्माकमभिमतं, यतो वयं काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बूम इति भाव:। किं लोचनमिति। लोचनं नेत्रम् अयं व्याख्यानग्रन्थश्च। लोको भवनमालोकश्चायं ध्वनिग्रन्थः। चन्त्रिका-ज्योत्स्ना ध्वनिव्याख्यानग्रन्थश्चान्यः। लोचनोन्मीलनं- उन्मीलितं लोचनमिति यावत्। आलोकस्य शोभाग्रहणं वा। उन्मीलितेन लोचनेन नान्येनेत्यर्थः। यदुन्मीलनेति। उन्मीलनशक्त्या स्पन्दशक्त्या। उन्मीलति-स्फुरति। स्वात्मायतनविश्रान्तां स्वस्वरूपावस्थिताम्।

।। इति प्रथमोद्द्योतः।।

1क.ख. ग.(नि)(का) दर्शितमिति. 2क.ख.ग.(नि)(का) चन्द्रिकयापि हि. 3क. युक्त्यैव. (का) लति.

ENGLISH

TRANSLATION

Triumphant is the uniqueness of the Goddess of Speech, designated by the twin names, Poet.and Critic. Even without a shred of causality, it brings forth subjects never known before; by the exuberance of its own rasa (experience of ecstasy), it vivifies the entire universe, hard as flint; it illumines everything in a double process of intuition and verbal objectification. Serving attendence on the lotus-feet of the Great Teacher Bhatta Induraja, I have acquired the philosophy of beauty; I am known by the title Abhinavagupta (lit. 'ever more protected'). I shall herein expound the work Kavyaloka as far as possible, following the text closely, so that the people are proffered my own vision (also my own commentary) designated Locana or Insight. Svecchā .... Although the author of the gloss, in himself, is blessed by the grace acquired through unimpeded salutations to the Godhead, he once again invokes His grace through an apt benedictory verse in order that the commentators and readers (lit.listeners) might obtain the full fruit of their labours, viz., commenting and reading, as desired by them. May the nails of Nara-simha, the destroyer of the demon Madhu, protect you, i.e., the commentators and readers; for they alone deserve to be addressed to. The second personal pronoun expresses essentially a vocative. Protection is no other than offering assistance in the attainment of the desired goal. That becomes possible only by removing the obstacles pitted against it. Such is the protection intended here. The Godhead is indeed ever-active as well as endowed with a steadfastness of purpose without even a trace of illusion. As this heroism is understood, the heroic sentiment is suggested here. The nails do duty as weapons; through weapons, protection is effected. As the nails serve as exclusive or extraordinary instruments, they are put in the active voice to emphasize their superior powers. It is also suggested that the Godhead stands in no need of other instruments. The allusion to Him as the destroyer of Madhu indicates that He is always busy removing the fears of the world. One might ask what His qualifications are. The answer is that He is a lion by choice, and not born so as a result of past action, nor become so by another's form suited to His purpose most, viz., killing the particular demon. Now what about the nails? They are capable of

83 cutting down the woes of devotees. It is quite reasonable that nails should have a cutting capacity. Though woe itself (being abstract) cannot be actuaily cut by nails, His nails can be reasonably imagined to have that capacity, since they have been created by His choice to accomplish His object. Such is the main import. Another alternate explanation is this: Hiranyakasipu, a thorn to all the three worlds, is che cause of misery in the entire universe. Therefore he is himself the exclusive embodiment of woe-as he torments people who are singularly devoted to the Lord. Hence were he to be destroyed, al! woe' would be automatically destroyed. Thus the Lord shows His infinite mercy even ir such a contingency. The nails are further qualified by epithets. They possess purity or stainlessness. Words like 'pure', 'soft', erc., primarily refer to abstract states only. Besides that, by their brightness too, that is to say, by their form characterised by both archness and attractiveness, they outshine the moon and causc hirn worry. That the crescent moon is intended here is suggested by the dhvani based on the power of sense. The Expression 'causing him worry' suggests that in the presence of the nails, the moon becomes pale (by comparison) and unattractive. That the nails can cause worry or injury is well known. More so would be the said capacity in the case of the nails of 'Nara-simha' because they are extraordinary. Furthermore, seeing their purity and archness, the crescent moon suffers worry within himself. 'A.lthough the qualities of purity and archness are common to both of us, only these (nails) are able to remove the woes of the devoted, but not I'. This idea consritutes a suggested figure of speech, viz., Vyatireka or contrast. 'Furthermore, so long I alone happened to be the object of regard and appreciation by the people, on account of my exclusive possession of purity and delightful shape; now they will start looking up to these extraordinary ten nails only, appearing like so many crescent moons wich the added ability of destroying the sorrows of the devoted, and will not look"up-to-me any longer. So thinking, the crescent moon suffers, as it were, incessant worry. This is the suggested mixed figure, viz. Utpreksa-apahnuti (poetic fancy and poetic denial). Such is the three-fold dhvani of idea (vastu), figure of speech (alankara) and sentiment (rasa), as explained by my worthy preceptor.

I.1 Kavyasyacma ... In order to state primarily the nature of the subject on hand, and secondarily, conveying, by implication, the virtual benefit of its direct benefit, along with the relation between the subject and the benefit, and

84 the overall benefit of such exposition, the author comes out with this first statement. When the author of the gloss explains the word learned by the phrase 'those who know the truth about poetry', his idea is that the word 'learned' here has in view the knowledge of the soul of poetry, since it is connected with the expression 'the soul of poetry' occurring earlier. The word 'soul' (atman) is explained by the word 'truth' (tattva); this indicates not only that it is essential but also distinct from other verbal usages. The word iti refers to the sound-form dhvani or.ly, because its meaning, being a matter of controversy, cannot be properly taken as anything certain. Now this is explained further: Sam̧jñitaḥ As a matter of fact, it is not just a designation, bat it has also justification for being regarded as the meaning of the term dhvani, in so far as it is the very quintessence of everything. Otherwise, the learned would not have propagated such a concept. To bring out this idea it is said: tasya sahṛdaya .... An even better interpretation would be :- the word iti coming in a dislocated order has a reference to the entire sentence as such, viz., "the meaning called dhvani, has been advocated as the soul of poetry". If it were to refer only to the designation, where would be its coherence with the statement: 'the meaning called dhvani'? Virtually, "the word dhvani is the soul of poetry" would be its sense, as in the sentence: "this man says "cow"!" Nor is it possible that the very matter of controversy is non-existent. A controversy about qualities can arise only when a qulificand is existent. We need not elaborate on this irrelevant point and tire the patience of men of taste. Possibly, a single learned man might say a wrong thing inadvertently; but such a mistake cannot arise in the case of many learned men. That is the reason why the plural has been used, viz., budhaib. This is further explained: Paramparaya ... The purport is that the learned have said this in an unbroken tradition of teacher and pupil, even though it has not been recorded in particular books. Many learned men would not have taught so respectfully a disrespectable theory. Hence the author says: Samyagamnataprvah .... The author goes on to indicate by the expression '-purva' that it is not enunciated for the first time here, that is why he further interprets it as: Samyak=āsamantāt, mnātah =prakatitah.

85

tasya ..... How can there by any possibility of the non-existence of the very subject fo: whose acquisition one should attempt? But what can we do? Such is the colossal ignorance of the critics who deny dhvani. Of course, we have not personally heard the various arguments of the critics who deny dhvani. They are only imagined and refuted by us; hence the use of the perfect tense which relates tc what is not directly perceived. A future subject cannot be refuted, for the simple reason that it is not born. One might say: "We will imagine that also in our mind and refute it"; such a mental construction itself will contradict its futurity. Thus, only the past tense is left; it is both mediate and without any specific reievance to the present. Therefore, the verb is put in the perfect tense, viz., jagaduḥ With this idea in view, the author interprets the original text as laying bare only hypothetical objections. Even framing an impossible hypothesis is improper, since it is proper to suppose what is only possible. Otherwise the assumed hypotheses as well as objections would become endless. Therefore, in order to justify the hypothetical objections to be presently set out, he states as a preamble the verb -- Sambhavanti. Were he tc say: 'hypothetical positions will be assumed' (i.e. with the verb acaksiran in the future tense), it would only be a repetition. There is no future assuming involved in what is actally present in the mind at the time of witing. The present tense of the verb is indicative of this. One might argue: 'a hypothesis which is itself based on another hypothesis involving an impossible entity cannot possibly admit of any refutation'. So it is said :- vikalpaḥ There is positively no such (impossible) entity at the back of this hypothesis. What we have are only imaginary ideas. Being void of the proper understanding of it (=poetry), such ideas are indeed likely to arise; that is why the verbs here like acaksiran are put in the optative mood, referring to imagined hypotheses, thereby suggesting that they relate to actual ideas in the past, as in the following example: ïf what within the body stays, Were to be turned outside; Men would carry sticks always To drive the dogs and crows aside. Here, 'supposing the body were to be seen like this (i.e. inside out), it would be also noticed in the said manner (i.e. men carrying sticks)'; the

86 supposition relates to a possibility in times past only. The negative alternative to it, viz., if it were to be otherwise (i.e. not so seen), what would be the result? It would remain equally despicable and would equally relate to the past itself. In either case, the (body's) existence itself is not an assumed hypothesis. There is no need to labour this point any more. There are only three forms of the anti-dhvani viewpoint :- 1) since words become meaningful only by virtue of conventional usage, there can be no suggested meaning over and above the stated; 2) even if it were to be there, it can be suggested only by the denotative function of the word, and it deserves to be regarded as an implied meaning understood in the context of the stated meaning; and 3) any meaning not so implied would be indescribable, even like the sexual pleasure on the part of maidens who are ignorant of it. Again, there are three sub-divisions of the no-dhvani standpoint :- 1) "only literary qualities (gunas) can contribute beauty to sound and sense; that is why poetry consists of beautified sound and sense, not to be found either in the empirical or scientific use of language; and there is no other source of beauty not noted by us;" 2) "what is left unnoted cannot be beautiful at all;" 3) "should it be beautiful, it will surely come under either guna or alankara already defined by us;" what special erudition is there in merely coining a new name? Even supposing (for argument's sake) that it cannot be subsumed either among gunas or among alankaras which have been set forth (by the theorists), the endeavour of the opponent would be tantamount to no more than giving a new name to it by reason of some slight speciality; for the sub-divisions of its beauty even under simile are numberless. Yet the fact remains that it is nothing distinct from guna or alankara. Even so, what use does it serve? Other forms of beauty, equally striking, can always be discovered. Ancients like Sage Bharata enunciated only two figures of speech, viz., chime (yamaka) and simile (wpama) as respective figures of sound and sense. Other literary theorists have shown the way how these can be further sub-divided and explained. For example, understanding the application of the grammati- cal rule. viz., the suffix an is added in the sense of a maker of something (karmanyan), as in the word kumbha-kara, one can coin other words like nagara-kāra on his own. Is that enough reason for any one to feel proud about himself? This is true of the present claim also. Such are the three major anti-dhvani alternatives of what is really one standpoint. Taken along with the other two standpoints (already mentioned), the total alternatives come to be five in all. Such is the

purport of the entire passage. These are now taken up in this very order :- Šabdār:ha-sarram tāvat ... "The expression tävat ('sutely') indicates that there is no agreement on this point on the part of anyone. First of all, sound and sense cannot, surely be dhvani; for there is no point in merely giving a new name (to an old thing). If one were to say that only the beauty of sound and sense constitutes dhvani, there also one shou.d clearly distinguish between two kinds of beauty :- (1) beauty inherent in its very nature; (2) beauty based on arrangement (samghatana). Now, the beauty inherent in the very rature of sounds is brought about by figures of sound (sabda- alankāra); the beauty based on arrangement springs from qualities of sound. In the same way, beauty inherent in the very nature of sense results from figures of speech like the simile (upamā). Beauty based on arrangement comes from qualities of sense. T'hus there can be nothing like dhvani over and above qualities and figures. Sanghatanā-dharmāh ... The words to be understood here to complete the sense are :- 'belonging to sound and sense'."Whatever is different from guna and alankāra, that cannot be a source of beauty; e.g. permanent and temporary flaws, viz., solecism (asadhu) and cacaphony (duhśrava) respectively, to give two examples. But dhvani is held to be a source of beauty. Hence it cannot be different fror the former." This is a negative probans in support of the argument. Another objector might urge :- 'But there are others, e.g. vrtti (mode) and rîti (style) which are not only different from guna and alankara but also sources of beauty; like them even dhvani can remain at once distinct from them and a source of beaut/. The negative probans will thus be quashed.' This idea is elaborated in che following text: tadånatirikta-vrttayah ...... The very postulave that vrtti and riti are different from them (guna and alankara) is unsubstantiated. This may be illustrated here. The vrttis defined by theorists are just three types of alliteration (anuprā sa). The purpose of this three-fold classification is to set forth the nature of the qualities, viz., harshness (parusatva), tenderness (lalitatva) and their absence (madhyamatva); since they serve to bring out how alliteration can be effected to suit subjects which may be powerful, or soft or medium. So it is said: "poets always deem as separate varieties of alliteration each of these three modes of using similar consonants". The word 'separate' implies that the harsh alliteration is called nāgarikā (city-damsel), the soft alliteration is called upanāgarikā, (lit. one resem-

88

bling the nāgarikā) or lalita (charming damsel). The word upanagarikā means here a damsel comparable to the fashionable city- damsel. An alliteration which is midway, neither harsh nor sweet, is called madhyama (lit. medium). That is the reason why this mode is also called by the name 'rustic' (grāmy); as it bears resemblance to a country maiden who is unsophisticated in her manners and yet delicate by nature without harshness. The third among the modes is also called by the name komalānuprāsa (lit. soft alliterative diction). Thus all the three are only alliterative types. Here the word 'mode' (vrtti) does not carry the Vaisesika sense of the 'inherently related', in which case the alliteration which is particular would have to be contained inherently in the universal of vrtti. What is meant here is only that some assistance is extended by the universal of vrtti. An illustration of this is had in the following citation :- In majesty without parallel Kings always do dwell! Hence modes are not at all different frorn alliterative effects etc .; they have no additional function. Hence the word vrtti which denotes 'function' (vyapāra) cannot be considered as anything inferred either, since no extra function is involved. It is because of this non-difference between them, they have not been given a designation like vrtti by ancient theorists like Bhämaha. Though this designation is given by theorists like Udbhata, no extra sense has come within the range of our understanding. Such is the purport of the author when he says-

gatāh śravaņagocaram and ritayaśca Though Ritis or styles are really non-different from Vrttis, they too have come within our hearing. Qualities (gunas) like 'sweetness' (mādhurya) are to be understood by the pronoun 'that' (tat). When they are couched in an appropriate verbal mode or diction (vrtti), they tend to mingle with one another just as the juices of sugarcandy, pepper and so forth blend together to form a single sweet drink; the blended three-fold ritis are called by regional names like Gaudiya, Vaidarbha and Pancāla, as they are largely come across in those regions (though in fact they relate only to hard, soft and medium styles employed). The vniversal is not different from its particulars; the whole is not different from its parts. In the same way, modes and styles cannot be different from qualities and figures of speech. Hence the strength of the negative evidence remains unaffected (in proving that there can be no new element of charm like dhvani different from guņas and alankāras). Hence the author states:

89

Ko'yam dhvanirnama? It cannot be an element of charm as it is not of the nature of a 'sound' or 'sense'. Nor can it be a source of charm as it is something different from guna and alankara. Poetry is that which is enjoyed only when it is conceived as a whole by the mind; yet, for purposes or analysis, if it be divided into parts artificially, even then, we do not find anything new meriting the designation of 'dhvani'. The particle nama signifies this idea. An objection might be raised as follows, at this juncture: "Let it not be of the nature of 'sound' or 'sense'; let it not be a source of their charm too. But it can welt remain something quite distinct from guna and alankarz all right." Anricipating such an objection, the author now sets out the second form of the anti-dhvani contention: anye ... "Let it be so (= let us grant for argument's sake that something exists over and above gunas and alankāras). Even then, dhvani cannot be such as is intended by you in your attempt at definitior. Surely, you have to define it as something existing in poetry. But actually, it has no place therein. It is extraneous to it even like vocal music, dance and orchestra. Poetry is something composed; the genus of poetry presupposes the operation of the creative art on the poet's part. Certainly, no one regards dance, music and so forth as 'poetically composed'. prasiddha-prasthāna ... The well established poetic categories are 'sound', 'sense' and their gunas and alankāras. The word 'prasthana' etymologically denotes a way by which people move about happily, following their forerunners. kāvya-prakārasya "Indeed, that pathway is regarded by you too as a kind of poetry, as you have said that "it is the atman or life-essence of poetry!" The reason why it cannot be poetry is now adduced: sährdaya .... mārgasya i.e. A pathway comparable to dance, music and eye-gesture. tat i.e. the definition of poetry cited here in the words 'sahrdaya-' etc. Possibly, it might be argued that connoisseurs are only those who understand such a unique thing as poetry. A definition of poetry which wins their appreciation should perforce be quite different from the ones in the trodden pathway. Hence the author says: na ca ... We might give an illustration here :-- Suppose a person starts offering a definition of a good sword and says:

90 "A good sword is that which has length and breadth, which is used as dress to cover the entire body, very smooth to feel, made up of threads, folding up or spreading out as the occasion demands, and without torn patches, though it admits of easy tearing." Others who listen to him might challenge him thus: "Only a cloth will be like this, and not at all a sword!" But the speake: might continue to assert dogmatically as follows: "Only that described by me is a sword according to me." The assertion about dhvani is on par with the above (absurd) assertion. The thing defined has got to be real and not imaginary. That is why the author adds :- sakala-vidvanmanogrāhitām The epithet 'entire' (sakala) removes the possible objection that even scholars might be described only as those well versed in the special tradition of dhvani. Even if the connotation of the word 'scholar' be taken in such a restricted form, nothing would be gained by the objectors; only their madness would stand revealed. Such is the purport of the passage.

A commentator has given a different explanation of the purport of this passage as follows: The dhvani which you want to explain is indeed some 'life-essence'. That 'life-essence' has to be something over and above the traditional categories, since it has not been defined by (earlier) writers on poetics. But that is not recognised as poetry by anyone in the world. All this is riddled with self-contradiction. For, if the objector should accept that there is some 'life-essence' left unexplained by ancient theorists of poetry, then it would provide a valid reason for an adequate definition of it now, since it has escaped notice so long. Hence our earlier explanation alone is right. Now the author introduces the third anticipated form which the anti-dhvani contention might assume :- "For argument's sake let us say that dhvani is a source of charm. Let us also admit that it is subsumed under the old categories of guna and alankāra. (Even if we give up our earlier stance under these two counts ) the fact remains that no theorist has, in so many words, declared that dhvani is the 'life-essence' of poetry :- punarapare The word 'kamaniyakam' etymologically signifies that which is affected as an object by the operation of the agent, viz., the beautiful.

91 And in this context, it is to be understood in the sense of the conceptual idea of beauty occasioned by the beautiful object. One possible contention here is: Since shades of beauty are countless, indeed we have come across such a kind of poetic beauty which is at once different from the beauty we find in figures of speech like alliteration and also from che beauty we find in qualities like 'sweetness' as defined by the theorists. This anticipated contention is admitted for argument's sake and then rejected :- vāgvikalpānām vak etymologically means 'word' when the root vac is taken in an active sense (viz., vakti)-'that which states', when it is taken in a passive sense (viz., ucyate)-'that which is stated', it signifies 'sense' or 'meaning': when it is taken in the sense of the linguistic function (vyabāra) by which something is stated (viz., ucyate anaya), it stands for the denotative function of words. Endless are the varieties of beauty in relation to words and senses; equally countiess are the possibilities in respect of the denotative function itself. prakāralesaḥ ... The source of beauty in question should be either of quality (guna) or figure of speech (alankara). Now both of these are already included under the gereral definition itself of poetry. As it is said -- "The productive agents or poetic beauty are qualities, while figures of speech are only sources that add to the beauty already produced". Also a deviant turn of content as well as expression is designated as beauty (alankära) in our discussion". The iteration of the word dhvami is indicative of the critic's inordinate enthusiasm. It deserves ncthing but contempt. Nrtyata ... The reference is to those who theorise about it; to those who compose poems containing it and those critics who respond to it with great enthusiasra on listening to it. In other words, where is the point in all this undue enthusiasm regarding the mere term (dhvani)? Esi dasā ... This is indicative of pride on the part of the speaker and undue admiration on the part of the listeners. Vāgvikalpā ... The possibilities of speech may also be taken as the varieties of creative imagination at the back of poetic expression. "Thus Dhvani is no more than a mere talk"-such is the common conclusion of anti- dhvani theorists, one and all. For if it be a source of beauty, it cannot be

92

different from either a quality (guna) or a figure of speech. On the other hand, if it should be different; it would cease ipso facto to be a source of beauty. Further, even if it be a remote source of beauty, it would not be worth any respect. Nor is this supposition of ours, viz., the non- existence of dhvani, baseless: Tathā ca The opponent alluded to is a poet by name Manoratha who was a contemporary of this author. "Because it is devoid of figures of speech, therefore, it is not pleasing to the heart". This phrase suggests the absence of figures of sense. "Not even composed of embellished words" suggests the absence of figures of sound. "Oblique expression" (vakrokti) is a very stylized arrangement. "Bereft of it" means absence of qualities of sound and sense. Thus the phrase "bereft of oblique expression" suggests the absence of figures of speech, in so far as their general definition itself is inapplicable. Those critics, of course, have not been able to avoid the flaw of repetition. So we may close this discussion now. Prityā ... The implication is that it is nothing but a craze for following the beaten track. Sumatinā ... On the other hand, if a dunce were to ask the said question, the dhvani-theorist might jolly well describe its nature by way of a reply through (wordless) gestures like twitching eyebrows and befuddled looks. These anti-dhvani suppositions have all been proffered in a chain; they are not exactly exclusive of one another. To illustrate: The initial word punab ('again') while setting out the third anti-dhvani stance carries this very significance. Similarly, the common summing up at the end is also in conformity with it. The anti-dhvani view is given the past tense since its very essence lies in being an imagined hypothesis. On the other hand, the bhakta-vada or the view that dhrani is identical with metaphorical usage has come down in an unbroken tradition, being embodied in books on the subject. The verb ahuh carries the sense of an ever-continuous present. The word bhakti means a property as it is derived from bhaj-'to be related to', i.e., fancied as identical with another well-known relatum; examples are nearness etc., to what is directly stated; derived from bhakti is the sense called bhākta (secon- dary sense) or metaphorical meaning. So it is said :- Metaphorical meaning is five-fold: 1) closely connected with the direct (primary) meaning, 2) similar to it, 3) intimately associated with it, 4) opposed to

93 it and 5) partaking in the same action (as it). A word is usually used metaphorically to connote the group of several properties possessed by it. Such implied common properties like irresistible daring constituting the connotation of a word in an instance like 'the boy is a lion' is termed bhakti. The secondary meaning derived from it comes to be designated 'bhakta'. Bhakti can also be interpreted as high regard in the properties like closeness and sharpness in the place (e.g. gangāvām ghoşab) or person (e.g. agnirmāņavakaķ) des- cribed. Such high regard comes to be deemed as the end-purpose for justifying the secondary usage of words, which is thus two-fold :-- 1) gauna, i.e. based on (similarity of) properties and 2) lākşanika, based on secondary usage of words (in respect of relations other than common property). Also bhakti may be taken to involve the condition of incompatibility of the direct sense. Thus three cenditions govern all metaphorical sage: 1) inccmpatibility of the direct sense, 2) a reason in justification, and 3) an end-purpose. Kāvyatmanam guņavrttim ... · The use of the same case-ending tor poth these words carries the following significance :- Although in the Dhvani-variety called avivak- sita-vācya ('poetry wherein the stated meaning is not exclusively intended'), e.g. "like the mirror blinded by breath", there is meta- phorical superimposition, yet Dhvani is not exactly identical with it. For, it can exist even in instances other than it, as in the Dhvani-variety viz., vivakşita-anyapara-vācya (poetry whereia the stated meaning is incenced, but the sigaificance goes beyond it'). Even in the former variety, metaphoricai superimposition itself is not dhvani as we shall hereafter demonstrate. The original author also is going to state further on: 'bhaktya bibkarti ... " (1.17) and "kasyacit ... " (I.22). Secondary relations or properties are proximity and the like; while similar characteristics are sharpness and the like. Guna-vrtti etymologi- cally mrans that which conveys a new significance implied by these (properties and characteristics) serving as instrumental media. This derivation makes it refer to the word secondarily used. Another derivation is the new significance or sense so conveyed mediately. This second etymology refers to the word conveying such sense or sense itself so conveyed. The word can be derived in a third way also as the state (vartana) of secondary signification through the mediate characte .. ristics. So understood, it will mean the process of secondary or indirect signification (as distinguished from abhidha i.e. primary or direct signification). The purport is: All the three alternate derivations of the term dhvar. possible, become exactly identical with the three alternate

94 etymological interpretations of the term bhakti as word, sense, and function or process. Thus Dhvani can not be anything different from bhakti. Meaning or sense can only be two-fold-direct and indirect. The primary verbal function covers the former, while by a process of simple elimination dhvani can come under the latter only, since there is no third category at all in the picture. The objector might retort :- "Whoever said that dhvani is gunavrtti (i.e. bhakti)"? Anticipating such an objection, the author remarks: "yadyapi .... " and "anyo vā .... " in the text. The reference here is to an aspect of poetic beauty like quality (guna) and figure of speech (alamkāra). Darsayata ... Theorists like Bhatta Udbhata and Vamana etc. are meant. Bhamaha had stated- "sabdaķ chando 'bhidhānārthab .... " (Kāvyā- lamkāra 1.9). While commenting on the term sabda in this passage, Bhatta Udbhata distinguishes between abhidhana and fabda as follows (in his Bhamaha-vivarana) :- Abhidhāna is the significatory usage of words which is called the function of primary connotation (abhidha) when the sense is primary, and which is called the function of secondary implication (guna-vrtti) when it is secondary. Vamana also has observed :- sādrsyāl-laksaņā vakroktiķ (Kāvyālamkārasūtra IV.3.8), which means that the secondary usage of words based on similarity comes to be termed 'deviant expression' (vakrokti). Manāk sprsța ... Only the direction of Dhvani has been hinted by them. Yet, mediocre readers confined to the literal meaning of the words, and unable to catch its inner nature have failed to explain its nature. Not only thac; they even indulge in decrying it; their procedure is comparable to tasting an unbroken coconut in so far as they parrot out the texts most literally. Hence the author says- Parikalpya evam uktam ... If this construction is not followed, then it would go against the statement of the prima facie view, viz., "The wav of Dhvani has been touched (slightly)". Śālina-buddhayaḥ ... It means those that are dull-witted. Of these three anti-Dhvani theorists, each following one is more advanced in thought than the preceding one. The first are completely mistaken. The seccnd allow their general awareness of it to be obscured by doubt. The last do not obscure it; yet they are unable to define it precisely. In this way, these three classes of Dhvani-opponents are beset respectively by misconcep-

95 tion, doubr and ignorance. Tena ... Each one of these anti-Dhvani views provide a reason for the setting out of the real nature of Dhvani by the author; that is why the singular is used. Evamn-vidhāsu vimatișu The iocative here is in the sense of selecting individually each one out of a group. Among the different alternatives mentioned (of the anti-Dhvani school), each one of them provides sufficient reason for the self-chosen task of explaining the real nature of Dhrani. This is stated in so many words :- Tat svarüpam brumah :-- Here the subject is the nature of Dhvani. The relation between Dhvani and its text -- book is that of the communicator-communicated; the relation between the author and the reader is that of educator -- educated. The end is the knowledge of its (Dhvani's) nature through the removal of all contrary views. Finally, the relation between the text-book and the end is one of cause and effect. Hereafter the author proceeds to comment upon the expression "For the delight of men of taste", which is expressive of incidental benefits deriving from this basic end, so far as the readers are concerned :- Tasya hi ... That is to say 'or that which has become a subject of controversy'. The different. words in the sentence have to be construed in the following way to bring out their full implication :-- May ananda or infinite repose, also known as camatkara or striking effect fill the hearts of those who discern the true nature of dhvani in such a firm manner that it cannot be shaken in the least by the onslaughts of rivals flinging difficulties in their way. This end-result is to be achieved; hence the nature of dhvani is being expounded at the outset. The end-result indeed is a direct outcome of the efficiency in the means productive of it. With this idea in mind the author has stated: "We shall expound its nature for the sake of delight in readers". In this explanation the consistency of thought is best brought out. Next the author takes up for explanation the term-'its nature'; and in doing so he suggests how all the five anti-Dhvani views mentioned earlier get a proper answer. Sakala ... The two words sakala (entire) and satkavi (good poet) refute the charge that Dhvani is something confined to a very negligible part of poetry. The word ati-ramantya (exceedingly beautiful) brings out how it is quite different from what is bhakta or metaphorically indicated.

96 Surely, there is no beauty of any kind in metaphorical statements like "The boy is a lion" and "There is a hamlet in the Ganges". The adjective Upanisad-bhuta (quintessential) refutes the charge that it is no more than a novel nomenclature, a mere coinage of a new term for what is already known before. The expression aniyasibhib (even a jot), etc. indicate that it (Dhvani) is not subsumed under either guna or alamkāra. The words atha ca etc. serve to take away the ground under the feet of the criticism that Dhvani is a doctrine held by a coterie as suggested in the phrase tatsamayāntabpātinab. The words Rāmāyana-Mahābhārata- reveal that, beginning from the first poet Valmtki, it has been held in high regard by the learned poets, one and all. By the expression laksayatam ("who discern precisely") he confutes the charge that it is something beyond the pale of words. The etymology of the verb laksy'ate takes us to the root laks which in its turn brings us to the derivative laksa which means laksana. Those may be supposed to be discerning who are able to explain it by means of a definition. Thus the reference here is to critics who are having such a proficiency to note and explain Dhvani by way of definition. Sahrdayānām ... Sahrdayas (men of taste) are those who are able to achieve a heartfelt response to poetry, possessing as they do the capacity to attain identification with what is described in poetry; this, in its turn, pointing to a complete spotless-ness of their mind-mirror as a result of continuous study and cogitation of poetry. So it is said :- "When a poetic theme is conducive to an experience of heart-felt identity or com- munion, its presence is productive of Rasa; it pervades the whole body even as fire which catches up dry wood." (Bharata's Natyasastra, VII.7). Anandaḥ ... The author's purport is to indicate the supreme importance of Rasa whose essence lies in the abiding appreciation by men of taste; as preparatory to it, the author is here setting forth that Rasa-dhvani is exclusively predominant in all instances of poetry. Therefore the following objection (of Bhattanayaka) is disproved :- Even if it be accepted for argument's sake that the so-called function of Dhvani or suggestion exists over and above the function of plain statement, at the most, it can only be a minor aspect of poetry and not its whole nature. To explain :- 'You also do not contest the fact that in poetry consisting of three aspects, namely, primary statement, evocation (hhavana) and enjoyment (carvana ) of Rasa, the last alone is most

97 vital. For, as you yourself have said :- In poetry, every one is an enioyer; neither a knower nor a person

So to say that vastudhvani and alamkāra-disvani are mere minc: enjoined

aspects of poetry is only stating the obvious (siddha-sadhana). On the other hand, if it should signify Rasa-dhvani, it goes against an alreudy admitted fact (that Rasa is exclusively predominant).' From the standpoint of the poet, the end viz., fame also becomes a means to the attainment of popularity (priti). So it is said :- Fame is said to yield the fruit, namely, heaven etc. (Vamana, end of I.i.). As far as the readers are concerned, though both instruction (ryutpatti) and delight (priti) are afforded (by poetry) as stated in the following :- Appreciation of a good poem brings about proficiency in the four values of life (Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksa) as well as the manifold arts; it also helps one attain fame and delight. (Bhimaha, I.2) Yet delight alone is the greater end between the two. Otherwise, what would be the speciality in poetry which is said to afford instruction after the manner of a beloved wife distinct from the instruction obtained through scriptures etc., afver the manner of a master and from historical chronicles etc., after the manner of a friend? It is for this reason that delight alone is mentioned as the supreme end. Even for instruction in the four-fold values of life, the ultimate and supreme enc is nothing but delight. Ananda also happens to be the name of the author. So the passge also suggests this :-- May the teacher Anandavardhana find a firm place in the hearts of men of taste, even like a deity enshrined in a temple by virtue of this work. As it is said :- Though writers of good poetic works might depart to heaven, their imperishable body in the form of their poetry will remain for ever. (Bhamaha, I.6) Also the words, Manasi pratisthām ..... carry the present sense hinting that such a firm place is indeed already secured by him in the minds of readers. In other words, the purport is that the present author is a sovereign among sahrdayas or men of taste. This interpretation is supported by usages like the following :- "The greatness of Arjuna is highest in battle." The author's own name imbedded here is calculated to win the

interest of readers by producing in them a sense of confidence in the competence of the author, as we shall show in detail at the end of the work. Thus the chief purpose served by the work for the author, the poet and the reader is indicated. Tatra .... 'In view of the content as well as the end stated' is the sense of tatra. An objector might say :- After starting with the declaration- "We shall set forth the nature of Dhvani", where is the congruity in proceeding to state in the karika that the 'stated' and the 'suggested' are two varieties of content or meaning? To remove such an objection, the author gives his introduction (to the kārikāl :- Dhvanereva ... The word bhumika carries the sense of the 'first principle'though it really means groundwork. Just as the groundwork is first completed when a new structure is sought to be built, so also when the nature of Dhvani or suggested meaning is to be set forth, the ground work consists in mentioning the stated meaning first of all, since it is uncontested. The suggested meaning is to be established only over and above this. It is also counted alongside of the stated meaning on a par, in order to bring home the fact that the suggested also is equally undeniable. The word 'smrtau' strengthens what is already declared as 'the meaning traditionally handed down'. When the objector says that 'poetry is that whose body is constituted by word and meaning, he should see that this very idea of body involves the admission of something as its soul which endows life to it. Now word can constitute only the body part, as it is possessing properties like fatness and leanness, noticeable by one and all. On the other hand, meaning is not so noticeable by one and all. Yet the presence of meaning by itself can not lead to the designation of poetry; since poetry is absent in statements, empirical as well as scriptural. Therefore the author qualifies it with the epithet- I. 2 Sahrdaya-slāghyaḥ Though that totality of meaning is really indivisible, it is deliberately divided as two-fold to help analysis. To explain :- When the meaning aspect is identical in both the cases, why is it that men of taste admire only a particular one between the two? There must be then some speciality about it. In fact, that speciality itself constitutes the suggested meaning-aspect. And discerning critics decide that it should be the very soul of poetry, in so far as it is the only differentiating speciality of poetry. But those whose minds are confused by its intimate association with the stated meaning-aspect, start doubting its separate existence,

99 even as materialists who doubt the separate existence of an entiry like the soul apart from the body. That is the reason why, in the kārika, the sentence begins with meaning as an undivided entity; subsequently the epithet sahrdaya-slaghya ('admired by men of taste') is added as expressive of its differentiating mark; and then only towards the end,its two aspects are mentioned. It has never been stated that these constitute two souls of poetry. The author proceeds to explain the word ka vya in the karika :-- The word lalita ('charming') expresses the beauty contributed by the elements of guna and alankara. The word ucita ('appropriate') points to the appropriateness of the constituents in relation to Rasa and Rasa alone; this in its vurn suggests that Rasadhvani or suggested Rasa alone constitutes the soul of poecry. The idea is that, in its absence, there would be nothing like a norr in relation to which appropriateness is proclaimed time and again. The relative pronoun governing artha or meaning hints at the fact that even the opponent has to concede it at the outset. The correlative phrase, tasya etc., states that even such a concessional acceptance becomes possible only on the hypothesis that meaning does have the two aspects mentioned. Thus the objection earlier advanced, viz., 'Being a source of beauty, Dhvani can in no way be different from Guna and Alamkara' is tainted by the syllogistic fallacy of 'unproved probans' (asiddha-hetu), because Dhvani indeed is its soul (and not a characteristic of the body like Guna and Alamkāra). This is implicit in the wording of the text. Surely, it cannot be said that the soul is a source of charm for the body. Even if it could be said, then the reason adduced would be flewed by the fallacy of discrepancy. For the adorned itself is never an adornment; nor is the qualified ever the qualification. For this reason also the stated meaning-aspect is affirmed here. That is also the reason why it is again alluded to in the very beginning of the next kārikā.

I.3 T'atra ... This word signifies: 'Though both these aspects of meaning (the stated and rhe suggested) do exist in poetry'. Prasiddhaḥ .... Poetic theines such as a beloved's face, pleasure-garden, moon-rise etc. which are commonly found in nature are designated here as 'well- known'. That well-known stated meaning-aspecr has been explained ar length (by the ancients) in several kinds of figures of speech such as the simile. So interpreted, the continuity of thought will be evident. The word anyarh ('by others") in the latter part of the kārika is explained in the gloss (vrtti). The last quarter of the kārika is indicative

100

of general consent excepting minor details which are unacceptable. This is hinted in the gloss thereon (3). I.4 Punaḥ ... The word punah in the karika is indicative of the suggested meaning- aspect being quite distinct from that of the stated. Anyad eva vastu ... i.e. A theme quite distinct from it and at the same time most essential. The plural in the word mahā-kavinam suggests the infinite scope of (its) applicability. The title 'great poet' comes to be justified only in the case of such writers who possess a genius for creating such poetry as is animated by the suggested meaning-aspect to be fully explained hereafter. It is because such a meaning exists, that it is apprehended. Apprehension of what is totally non-existent is logically impossible. Even silver etc. (in the shell-silver illusion) is apprehended only because it is not totally non-existent. Thus apprehension is conditioned by existence. Therefore from apprehension we can logically infer existence. Hence what is apprehended must exist. Such is the purport. Now this may be applied to the point at issue in a syllogistic form. The well-known meaning-aspect is the one qualified; it is possessing the quality of the suggested meaning-aspect which is quite different from it. The reason is that it is so apprehended. A well-known example cited in support of the reason is the body of a maiden radiant with overall youthful charm. The word pra-siddha has two meanings :- 1) universally known; and 2) embellished. The phrasing beginning with the correlative pronouns yat, tat has a special significance. Firstly, it shows that both in the example and in the point on hand exemplified, there is an indescribable overall beauty whose essence is of strikingness; secondly, the confusion of the one with the other is a result of their merging into each other in a very intimate way. This is brought out in the explanation of the indefinite pronoun kimapi. Overall charm is a feature definitely distinct from the different parts that constitute the body; it is something only suggested by means of the shapely limbs. Mere flawless-ness or embellishments of the body can not be regarded as the overall charm of a whole person. That is why one can say of a maiden- 'she is lacking in overall charm', though her body might be free from every conceivable flaw like blindness in an eye in respect of her limbs when separately considered, and even if she be richly adorned with ornaments. Conversely, even if she be neither flaw-less nor adorned, yet a maiden can be described by discerning men as 'a veritable moonlight brimming with the necar of beauty'.

101

An objection might be raised like this :- 'Overall charm is something which everyone nctices distinctly; but this suggested meaning-aspect is what we cannot understand at all; so much so that the question of its separate existence is too remote to arise. Thus the reason put forward by the author, viz. its being so experienced, becomes unproven.' The text beginning with 'sa hi arthab' answers the said objection. The term sarvesu (in all instances) establishes the experience of its separateness (from the stated rneaning-aspect). The suggested mean- ing aspect is indeed of two types :- 1) empirical, and 2) noticeable only in the language of poetry. Between these two, the empirical may at times even partake of cornmunicabilty by words in a direct way. It may be of several kinds like affirmation and negation; and it gets the technical name vastu in this system. That again is of two types :- The first is that wnich has partaken of the scatus of a figure of speech such as the simile, sometime in the past, in one usage of poetry or another; bur now it is no longer having that status and therefore is as good as unadorned. We say this because it is now tendered subsidiary to something else (which is primary). Yet because of our impression of its past associations, it is termed (rather loosely) as alamkara-dhvami on the analogy of a brahmin mendicant. Whatever is not so cognised as alamh.kura.dhvani will come to be termed as merely a vastu or idea. The adjunct merely rules out the applicability of any other form to it. But Rasa is something which can not be denoted by any of its proper names even in a dream. It can not be comprised in any kind of emnpirical discourse. It is exclusively something tasted, by virtue of a unique function of delectation of the bliss of consciousness within oneself; it is very delicate being coloured by multiple impressions rooted in the very personality of the conncisseur. These impressions get in tune with the stimulants (vibhava) and ensuants (anubhava) depicted in literature and which appear beautiful owing to a heart-felt response (akin to the poet's) as soon as the words are heard. Anc. since such Rasa is perceived only hy virtue of a singular poetic function, it gets the designation of Rasa-dhrani. And it is Dhvani and Dhvani alone. Therefore it is regarded as the soul of literature because of its exclusive importance. Now Bhatta nayaka's contention that 'Dhvani can be at the most a minor aspect of poetry, but never its whole nature' may be taken up for discussion. If this censute is limited to Vastu-dhvani and Alamkāra- dhvami, then there is nothing much to be answered. He too concedes that Rasa-dhvan is the soul, since his third poetic function, namely, delectation of Rasa is concluded by him also to be over and above the first two aspects, viz, referential and evocative. The first two types of

102

Dhvani namely, of Vastu and Alamkara also really culminate ulti- mately in Rasa-dhvani as we shall show at length in the sequel. This need not detain us any longer. The word vacya-samarthya-aksipta is indicative of these three types of Dhvani and is a general definition equally applicable to all of them. Though, as a matter of fact, suggestion is mainly a function of the word alone, yet it invariably presupposes the co-presence of the power inherent in its meaningfulness. Therefore the power of suggestion may be loosely applied to meaning also. Even in the sub-variety of Dhvani called śabda-śakti-mūla-anuraņana-rūpa-vyangya ('the suggested idea or figurative idea which flashes in the mind of the critic like resonance, say of a musical note, as a result of the equivocal power of the word itself), the suggested meaning is understood only on account of the inherent power in meaning; the power of the word is not more than an in-between accessory as will be shown later. Düram vibhedavān ... No one doubts that affirmation and negation are mutually opposed. That is why these alone are illustrated at the outset. Bhama dhammia. This statement comes from a lady who wishes to protect her place of assignation valued by her as her fondest object of love in her life from the evil of the pious man's intrusion as well as from the peril of destruction of beauty, due to the manhandling of the tender shoots and flowers in the lovely garden. This movement as he pleases is self- assured. Yet here its substantiation by mention of the removal of his fear for dog should be understood not as a positive injunction or direction as in a (Vedic) sacrifice. It is only a negation of a negation, one leading to the other. The imperative mood here has the force of a free permission as well as something to be accomplished as it is timely. Now, existence, and non-existence of a thing are diametrically opposed; both of these cannot by any chance be denoted simultaneously. Nor can they be denoted sequentially since the universally admitted postulate is that there is nothing like a function acting discontinuously. The Mimamsaka dictum is clear on this point-"When the function of denotation has exhausted itself by denoting the attribute, the same function can by no means extend to the denotation of the qualified object." The objector might argue thus: "There is also a function called tatparya (purport) which does not get itself exhausted, since it continues as long as the speaker's intention is prevalent. Further there is inapplicability of the primary sense, in so far as the self-respecting

103

pious man can not be construed promptly with the other ideas like rambling in the midst of fear etc." This becomes the basis for understanding its opposite as the implied secondary sense. This implication in its turn yields the final meaning of negation, when viewed from the perspective of Abhihitanvaya-vada (held by the Mimamsakas). Thus the uitimate source for the final negative purport would he the referential function of the wor d itself. Common parlance takes the form --- 'at is said this way by him' when alluding to the purport of the speaker instead of his actual words. Therefore it is established that there is no meaning over and above the stated. Ths objection is wrong. In all, there are only three functions known :- The fiist is the referential function or denotation in respect of things in general. The very definition of sbhidha (denotation) is that it is a function which conveys meaning depending on convention prevalent in a language. This convention can have reference only to generality; and not to any specific aspect. For, if the latter were to be true, it would lead to the fallacies of both infinite regress and discrepancy. Therefore,in order to explain adequately the final meaning of a sentence which is specific, after the individual words are all taken in relation with each other, we have to assume a sentence-function like purport (tatparya). The dictum of the experts is that 'the generalities dc indicate specific particulars because of their invariable concomitance'. In the (Prakrit) example under discussion, at the second level of understanding (after the function of abhidha is exhausted), one does not understand anything more than the positive injunction 'you may move about', since only the relation of the constituents of the sentence is understood at this stage. But in this example the different units of mean.ing do nor get stultified even as they arise --- as in the examples, namely, 'the hamlet on the Ganges' and 'the boy is a lion' - which lack compatibility. In this example, there is no kind of obstacle to the mutual construing of the units of primary meaning, viz., "The dog which stood in the way ot your free movement has been killed by the lion. Now that the reason standing in the way of your free movement has been removed, you may move about as you please." Such an anvaya or construing of the units in relation to one another is not hindered in any way. Since there is no conceivable hindrance to the primary stated meaning there is no scope here at all for 'implication of the contrary' (viparita-laksaņā). Even if we were to admit it for argument's sake, still it would be at chis second level of sentence-import. To explain :- The scope for Laksana is provided only when there is contravention of the primary

104

meaning. Contravention again is nothing but a cognition of the oppo- site. In the example under discussion, there is no question of opposition between the various items of meaning conveyed by the individual words in a sentence. If it is alleged that there is opposition mutually between the words, then this opposition would have to be cognised during the act of construing. There will not be any cognition of oppositicn unless and until the words are cognised in mutual relation. The cognition of mutual relation of the words is surely not by the function of abhidha or primary denotation. As already said, the function would have got itself spent up by the time it conveyed the meanings of the separate words. And no function can operate discontinuously. Therefore it should be accepted that the knowledge of mutual relation of word-meanings is a result only of the function of purport. The objector might argue :- "If that be true, it should be possible for one to say that he cognises syntactic relation even in such a nonsensical statement as- "There are a hundred big elephants at the tip of my finger." Why should not a cognition of syntactic relation emerge from such a statement, since examples like 'ten pomegranates' etc. have been given by authorities? However, what actually happens is that the said cogni- tion of relation is contravened by other Pramanas or criteria of valid knowledge like perception. Hence even though cognised, its status is no better than the cognition of silver in a shell. This is why the sentence conveying it becomes invalid. In the sentence 'the boy is a lion', the second stage of understanding the meaning is represented by the rise of relation through the function of purport as also its contravention. Then in the next stage a third function over and above both denotation and purport called by the term Laksana or implication starts operating. It is indeed competent to nullify the said difficulty due to contravention.

Again the objector might urge :- "In that case even a sentence like 'the boy is a lion' could well be calledan example of poetry; for even here there is the presence of the soul termed Dhvani in the way it is explained hereafter." The rejoinder is: "In the same way one might well posit the existence of a soul even in a pot, because a soul, being all-pervasive, does exist in the pot also." The objector's argument might proceed thus :- "It is only a specifi- cally endowed body with special characteristics that justifies the posit- ing of a soul, when it embodies the soul; not any and every kind of body."

The reply vo the objection is this :- "The body of word and meaning is termed poetry only when it is embellished by apt excellences and figures of sperch, provided it also possesses the soul called Dhvanana or suggestion. The soul wil! never be lowered in estimation wherever it be; this is a point common to both the contestants. This does not mean thac bhakti or secondary verbal usage is itself Dhvani or suggestion. For, secondary usage is none other than Lak. anawhich comes at the third levei of understanding r: sentence-meaning, as already pointed out. The funcdion of suggestion arises only at the subsequent fourth level. To explain further: You yourself are declaring that secondary usage starts only when its three conditions are present. Of these three conditions, the first, namely, inappropriateness of the primary sense is based on a criterion of valdity other than perception. The second, namely, the reason whicn is adduced (in support of the secondary sense) such as proximity (between the stream and the hamlet in the example gangayah ghojak) -- is also cognisable only by means of a criterion of validity other than perception. But in respect of che end sigr.ified such as the extreme sanctity and delightful cool effect, and inviting nature etc., it is neither denoted by any other word, nor got at by any other pramaca or instrument of knowledge. The same is true also of the extra-ordinary valour (suggested in the example 'the boy is fire'). In regard to these there is no function at all other than that of fabda or word. To explain :-- A.ny inference like possessing these qualities based on the probans of proximity would be indeterminate. So also the body being denoted by the word 'lion' involves the fallacy of 'the unestablished' (asiddha). Further if the interence were tc take the form- 'whenever such and such a word is used, such and such a quality comes to be associated with it' the onus of establishing the invariable concomitance between the two at the first instance by offering a more basic pramana devolves on the part of the objector. But such a basic pramana (other than anumana) does not exist. Nor is it an instance of remembrance (smrti), since nothing which is not already known can become an object of remem- brance; and further,since there is no decisive norm as such, we cannot escape the undesirable contingency (prasanga) that we would never be able to decide that such and such a meaning is intended by the speaker. Thus one has to conclude that the function involved here can only be that of sahda or word. And that function is not su.rely denotation, as there is no convention to support it. Noi can it be purport (tatparya), since the function of purport spends itselt out by the time it presents rhe an vaya or mu:ual relation (of the several words in a sentence). It can

106

not be indication either, for the reason already mentioned, namely, absence of coherence in the primary sense. If absence of coherence in the secondary meaning too is admitted, it would lead to an infinite regress involving admission of further absence of primary meaning, reason or utility for understanding another secondary sense, and so on. Therefore, the designation coined by a writer, namely 'laksita-laksana' or indicated secondary sense is no more than a prejudice (against dhvani). Thus it is established that one has to accept a fourth function like suggestion which is quite different from the well-known three functions of denotation, purport and indication. Its synonyms are dhvanana (suggestion), dyotana (illumining), vyañjana (revealing), pratyayana (indirectly communicating) avagamana (implying) and so forth. This is borne out by the author's statement later in the twentieth karikā. The position of the different functions may be summed up as fol- lows :- the function of denotation is that which signifies the direct meaning of words on the basis of established usage or convention. The function of purport is that power of signification which connotes sentence-meaning, necessitated by the impossibility of meaning with- out resorting to it. The function of indication is the power of signifying a meaning governed by conditions such as incoherence of primary sense etc. And the function of suggestion(dhvanana) is that power of signify- ing meaning which presupposes first of all the knowledge of all the meanings conveyed by the above three functions at the first instance, and which leads to an inner flash due to the awareness of all these meanings; and which further expands, freely sustained by the insight or imaginative power on the part of the person. That function indeed transcends all the three functions mentioned earlier and shines out as the most prominent one in poetry and gets the designation of 'poetic soul' (kavyatman). All this hidden significance is contained in the author's statement that the prohibition is the suggested meaning (in the literary example) though, as a matter of fact, the prohibition is only a means for the ultimate end such as undisturbed dalliance contemplated by the speaker. Even this summing up of the position is only by way of a concession, admitting for argument's sake the indirect role of Laksana at an earlier stage of understanding the poem. As a matter of fact, there is no indication (laksana) at all here; since its two conditions, namely, inco- herence of primary sense and transference of another sense, are both absent. In instances of suggestion based on the power of sense (but not on that of word), there is no scope indeed for any kind of indication. It is

107

clear that whenever there is variation in the associate causal factors, there is also variation in the function of signification. To give an example :- one and the same word comes to acquire a new function like the inferential when the speaker's intention is understood after remembering the invariable concomitance etc. between the two (i.e. word and intent). If the same word derives assistance from sense- perception, the resulting function will be attributive of name and generality anu called vikalpakatva or conceptualism. Thus the Mimā- msā philosphers, who hold the theory of abhihitanvaya (first denota- tion -- next construing) for explaining senvence-import cannot deny any part of this argument. The cther school of Mimamsa philosophers propound anvitabhi- dhanavada (first construing-next denotation). A foilower of that school believes in the principle "whatever the word is intended to convey is all contained in the purview of its meaning". And so he holds tha't the very function of denotation is unimpeded and continuous even like the movement of an arrow (when shot by an able archer). He can be confuted thus :- If the function should be continuous over a long time, where is the proof to regard it as a single function? It cannot be single, since the meanings conveyed are many. If the philosopher would regard the functions themselves to be many, then they have to be of different types only, since their objects and associates are all so different. When the effect is of the same type, it is a well-known dictum of the logicians that there can be nothing like an intermittant function in respect of word, action and cognition. On the other hand, if the effect be of a different type, then our own reasoning gets confirmed. The opponent might explain his stand in another way :- 'The so-called fourth-stage-meaning is itself denoted instantaneously by the sentence as a whole. It is this kind of prolongation in function which is meant by us.' Then our counter-question would besince that ultimate meaning is not sanctioned by any conventional usage, how can it even be directly understood'? To this ne might retort :- 'Convention is only in respect of the means (viz., the word-meanings) but not in respect of the end (whole sentence-meaning)'. 'O, what a skill in debate the ritualist is exhibiting!' The position- that the ultimate-stage meaning which is first understood, towards which the understanding of individual word-meanings at a later stage act as cause-is so ridiculous as stating that the ritualist Mimarsaka is the effect of his grandson. Again the objector might argue as follows :- 'We say that word-

108 meanings act as causes only to underscore the fact that the final meaning is understood only by a person whose mind is equipped with the semantic convention of the words.' But this is no answer to the question at issue because the final meaning is not caused in any way by the knowledge of semantic convention of words. Nor can one hold that any convention is possible in respect of words at a stage earlier than their coming together in a sentence. For, words are never used in isolation, but only in combination (as we see in a sentence). Even if it be urged that convention in respect of individual words is by the reasoning process of agreement and difference, the position remains that such a convention becomes applicable only to word-meanings, and without affecting the fact that the understanding of the sentence-meaning is posterior to that of word-meanings. The objector may insist :- 'It is perceived by one and all that the understanding of sentence-meaning or purport is instantaneous. If facts are such, what can we do?' Well, if that be so, we too are not averse to accepting it. That is why it is said further on (in karika I. 12) that its revelation is in a flash.' 'But there is a difference also. Though a sort of sequence is plausible between word-meaning and sentence-meaning in poetry, che sequence is not felt like the sequence between the cognition of a familiar object, and recollection of the relation of invariable concomitance between the object as probans and the probandum. Nor is it like the sequence between the object perceived and the convention remembered. It is not felt because of repeated understanding which is extraordinary to poetry. The relation of cause and effect (nimitta and naimittika) has to be accepted perforce. Otherwise there would be contradictions in the theory of the Mimärhsa school, such as the following :- 1) The sequential difference between the primary meaning on the one hand and the metaphorical or secondary meanings of the same word on the other would get reversed. 2) The dictum that there is sequentially a greater degree of weakness in respect of the six semantic factors like directly stated expression (fruti), and indirectly indicative expression (linga) etc., gets disrupted. For, the said dictum is supported only by the hypothesis that there is a variety among causal factors. Once the variety of casual factors is accepred, where is the point in frowning against us? There are other philosophers (grammarians) who subscribe to the theory that the sentence and its meaning are both undivided wholes (sphota). Even they cannot but follow the reasoning detailed above, when they have come down to the level of nescience or woridly usage. If

109

on the other hand they should stick to the transcendental state, we need only add here that it is not unknown to our author who has written a regular text-book on metaphysics called Tattvaloka and who has proved therein that "All is Brahmin' or a non-duality of the Godhead. We might close the topic with this. Now Bhatta Nayaka's adverse criticism regarding this illustrative passage may be reviewed :-- "Some words used in the verse such as 'impetuous lion' and 'pious man' are not in themselves responsible for the rneaning of prohibition of movement, but only the afflatus of the emotion of fear is responsible for it. For, unless and until one knows the timid nature of the pious man and the impetuous nature of the lion, the prohibition in question cannot be wholly explained. Hence the function of suggestion based on implicatory power of sense cannot be taken as the whole and sole reason for conveying the sense of prohibition addressed to the pious man." This deserves examination at length. We should ask back the objecting Bhatta Nayaka: "Who ever told you that the sense of prohibition is conveyed without any understanding of the special nature of the speaker as well as the listener on the one hand, and in che total absence cf suggestive function in respect of word (as distinguished from that of sense)?" In fact, we have been repeatedly pointing out that the very life-essence of suggestion consists in the association of imaginative in.sight on the part of the listener. We are not denying ac all that there is scope in the example for the influx of the sentiment of fear. In fact we do admit that the critic is subject only to fear as a felt emotion. On the other hand, the real influx of even this Bhayanaka-rasa is only to be located in the literary critic and that can be explained only by way of the function of suggestion. Thus Rasa is that which is invariab'y suggested. Even Bhatta Nayaka does not subscribe to the view that Rasd can be denoted by words. Hence in his aesthetics also Rasa is bound to be tantamount to suggestion itself. Nor can one say that this cuitic invariably ex periences the influx of Rasa of fear from such an example. Surely, there is no rule that a critic should always be akin in temperarnent to the timid, pious man. If, to avoid this, Bhatta Nayaka should go to the length of qualifying the critic in such a way as to apply only to specific persons akin to the listening pious man, then we would ask the question :- What harm is there in accepting the literary function of suggestion which is vitally inspired, as shown already, by the imaginative insight of both the speaker and the listener or critic? What is more ridiculous, this critic is supporting Rasa-dhvani unwittingly even while denouncing vastu-

110

dhvani. In fact Rasa-dhvani only substantiates vastu-dkvani. Such a demolition of Dhvani is absurdly self-contradictory. It illustrates the adage :- Even the angry curse of the Master is tantamount to a boon. If, on the other hand, all the endeavour is only to vindicate the prominence of Rasa, then who would differ from him? If it should be urged that this example does not deserve to be given to illustrate vastu-dhvani exclusively, then we would say- 'After all, it is an exampie of poetry (and not of an empirical statement); let there be both kinds of Dhvani (both of Vastu and of Rasa). Where is the harm?' May be he will not be satisfied unless and until the touch of Rasa is fully spelt out. In that case, we must say that no touch of Bhayānaka- Rasa is factually reflected in the mirror-like rinds of true connoisseurs. But as a matter of fact, the Rasa felt is that of Srngara(the erotic). The erotic arises because there is the description of its vibhāva (supporting basis), namely, the place of assignation, which is a natural stimulant for the passionate romance. It is also duly furthered by the tinge of erotic responses through tell-tale modulations of voice (kāku) appropriate to the occasion. Yet this is not cited here as a straight example of Śrngāra. Rasa because Rasa by nature is non-empirical, and cannot be understood easily at the outset by one and all. The author has given this only as an e:rample of Vastu-dhvani or suggested idea, since his main intent is to highlight the actual affirmation vis-a-vis negation which is established, allowing no scope for controversy. Another interpreter of this text has taken Dhvanana or suggestion as equivalent to the sentence-function of purport (tātparya) or an indication of intent itself. Since this commentator has given up the very thesis of Dhvani which he is supposed to put on firm ground, he does not appeal to our mind as being worth any attention. This has been well expressed in the adage- "No two tastes need agree!" This will be more and more illuminated as we proceed. We might put a stop to this discussion here. Bhrama ... You have my 'free permission'; time is goodly for your unhindered movement. Dharmika ... Your movement is quite proper for the purpose of collecting materials of worship like flowers. Visrabdhaḥ ... This epithet is added to show that the cause for his fear is removed. Saḥ ... That very dog which brought shivers of agitation in your frail body.

111

Adya ... The impor: is- "Indeed, it is your extreme good luck today." Maritah ... Has been kilied' shows that the dog can never rise again (to obstruct him). Tena ... The demonstrative pronoun 'chat' is meant to remind the pious man that he too would surely have heard about the rumour that a lion is residing in the thick shrubs on the banks of the river Godavari. He must have been told already by her to be on his guard from falling into its clutches. But suddenly it has become now violent and started moving out of the limits of its own thicket. Thus even the question of moving about the outskists of the bank of the Godavari is ruled out, once and for all; then what is one to say of his venturing into the creeper-bower in the very heart of that region? Such is the poet's import. Attā ... (See text above for Sanskrit rendering of the Prakrit verse). Maha ... The indeclinable maha in Prakrit is a raultivocal word. It carries here the sense, 'ot us two'. It does not mean 'my'. If it were to mean 'my', it would be tantamount to a specific invitation to him to get into her bed, and it might have roused the suspicion (in the mother-in-law); and would not have been a surreptitious indication of readiness (for dalliance with him). We might construe tbe context thus :- A traveller happens to see a young woman whose husband is away on tour, and falls in love with her at first sight. By this seeming form of negation, the young woman is conveying her compliance to him. The very absence of negation which is suggested here is affirmation. It should not be taken as a positive invitation since it smacks of dragging him by force to the act even while he is disinclined. That would be contrary to the ferainine nature. Women are indeed proud of their own superior charms (and would never demean themselves). That is why the vocative ratryandha suggests that the mar is blinded by rising passion, most plausible in the circumstances. Since presence and absence (of any action) are palpably opposed, the distinction between the stated and the suggested meaning becomes most obvious. Bhatta Nayaka, however, observes :- "All this too is communicated by word-power itself; for her passionate condition is conveyed by way of particular gestures while uttering the word 'I'." But then the word 'T certainly does not give this meaning directly. If it should convey it with the assistance of modulated voice (kaku) etc., then it is exactly what we

112

are calling the function of suggestion. Thus it would only set off to advantage our thesis of Dhvani itself. The express mention of the mother-in-law by the term atta shows the need for avoiding that hindrance with all effort, towards realising the desired goal of secret dalliance. 'Though of course your heart is rent by the volley of Cupid's arrows, and you do not deserve to be ignored, I am helpless. What shall I do? It is wretched day-time (not suited for dalliance)!' Though the Prakrit word for divasakam seems to be a masculine accusative, it is taken as a neuter nominative because there is no distinction between masculine and neuter in Prakrit. 'I am not quite ignoring you, since I am all the time here (near you). Please have a good look at me. I am not moving out elsewhere. Let us, then, pass this day-time in the delight of seeing each other's face. And with the advent of the night, do not blindly tumble into my bed, but watchfully, you should approach after ensuring that the obstacle in our way, namely the mother-in-law, is deep asleep. Such is the suggested sense here. (For Sanskrit version of Vacca ... see text ). Here 'get going' is a permissive affirmation. Your union with the other lady is not unwitting but is due to deep love on your part. This is evident by your flushing face and taking her name in place of mine etc. You are present here, only on account of your abiding sense of apparent decency of which you are quite proud. But actually you are a cheat. Such is the meaning suggested here expressive of deep resentinent on the part of the lady speaking, technically classed as a khanditā (lit. 'crossed'). This can not be regarded as a negation of tne form 'Do not go'. Nor is the intent of the form of any other positive proposal negating aught else. (For Sanskrit version of de a ... see text). The indeclinable de conveys the sense of a request. The indeclinable a has the meaning of 'however'. The straight meaning conveyed is - 'stop your proposed journey'. Hence the stated meaning is a negation. The woman in love has reached the place of assignation to meet her lover. But she finds him committing a slip of tongue in taking another beloved's name instead of hers. So she flies into a fury and starts moving away from him. At this point, the lover tries to dissuade her from returning by gently flattering her :- "You are causing obstacles not only to yourself and me by this act of your return, but also to many other ladies (hurrying to the arms of their lovers) on the road. By such a hasty act you cannot get even an iota of joy. Hence indeed you are

113

pitiable" - Such is the ir.tent of the lover which has taken the form of this sweet compliment (catu). And it is only suggested. The context may be construed in another way also. It might be imagined that, though prevented by her confidante from the venture of moving out on her own, to preserve self-respect, she might have ignor- ed it and started moving.At that moment, the confidante might have made this statement :- "You are causing trouble not only to yourself by lowering yourself -this loss of self-respect leading to disregard from others (tl.at is why she is addressed as a pitiable one) - but also you cause obstacles in the way of other women in love hurrying to their lovers; because the highway itself has been illuminated by the light of your moon-like face." In this interpretation the subtle compliment to her beauty paid by the confidente would be what is suggested .. Following any two of these interpretations, the final resting place for the import would be :- "please desist from your proposed return in a huff out of the bower or from going towards the place of assignation of the lover." That would make it only an example not of Dhvani (primarily suggested idea) but of only a variety of gunîbhūta-vyangya or the stated meaning with subordinated suggestion. For in the view of the classical theurists, a subordinated emotien (Bhava).or a subordinated sentiment (Rasa) only adds to the beauty of the primarily stated idea, and is therefore designated as the alamkāra (figure of speech) of preyas or Rasavat ambiently. Therefore the real purport is to be interpreted in a different way altogether. A woman in love is hurrying along the road to meet her lover, while her lover is coming from the opposite direction to meet her in her residence. But they cross each other mid-way. That lover pays this compliment to her, feigning that he does recognise her identity. The vocative "O pitiable one!" is just an endearment serving the purpose of making himself known to her. It has no other purpose. "You will put obstacies in the path of others; and where is the certainty that you wi'l autain your object either?" Since the lover's words do not take the express ferm of either "come down to my residence or let us go to yours', the sweet compliment paid by him should be taken only as suggested. Some other interpreters have said that this is a statement made to the woman in love by sympathetic onlookers, who are unaffected by love. In this interpretation, whether the use of the vocative viz., "O pitiable one" will be justified or not, is something which men of taste have to decide for themselves. So far it has been shown that the stared and suggested ideas have

114

vitally different natures, despite the fact that they relate to a common referent viz. the pious man, the traveller, the lover and the woman in love out to meet her lover, respectively. Now a still another illustration is provided to show how the two are different even when there is difference in the referents :- Kvacid vācyāt ...; vyavasthāpita Connoisseurs can decide that even difference in referents may have various forms-such is the gist. (For Sanskrit version see text). Kassa veti ... , Even an unprejudiced one is bound to get angry. 'By seeing' suggests 'as he has not caused the hurt'. In other words, we should understand :- 'by seeing the beloved's lip wounded due to some other reason'. Sa-bhramara-padmāghrāņa-sile ... One's innate nature can not be changed in any way. Vārita-vāme ... You, who remained perverse in spite of being warned; i.e. 'you who did not accept the warning. Sahasvedānim ... "Now suffer the series of accusations following from your own obstinacy!" The context is to be understood thus :- An unrestrained lady has got her lip hurt by a paramour. Her confidante gets a definite clue to the presence of the lady's husband in the vicinity. Being a clever woman, she speaks thus to prevent her friend from censure at his hands, pretending as if she has never seen him. The stated idea, viz., 'suffer now' has the unrestrained lady as the referent. But to the referent, namely the husband, what is conveyed is the suggested idea that the lady is guiltless. The word sahasva can also have the nusband as referent with its suggested idea that he should bear with her. Altetnatively, the suggested idea might be taken as addressed to the referent, viz., the neighbours suspicious of her chastity on seeing her so much abused by her husband. The neighbours are made to believe that she is guiltless, by this clever concealment of her lapse. Perhaps it can be imagined also that the referent is a co-wife and she is suggestively derided on her excessive delight at this discovery (of her rival's adultery). It is asserted by the suggestive use of the word priyayah (sweet-heart's) that she remains secure in her influence over the husband. A still another possibility is that the errant lady herself is referent. It is suggested to her- "There is no reason to think that you have been lowered in the eyes of your rivals by all this indignity. On the other

115

hand, it is virtually a compliment. Hence you may take it as a credit." Thus the suggested idea only adds to her preponderant hold over her husband by virtue of her beauty. If we take the referent to be the paramour, then the suggested idea concerning him would be :- "This secret beloved of yours, so dear to you, has been somehow saved out of a tight corner with great difficulty. Bewate! Do not commic the mistake again of leaving your print on her lip openly." Fina'ly, the unconcer ned onlookers also may be raken as a referent; and then the suggested meaning, would be an exhibition of her own cleverness on the part of the confidante, viz. "See, how well I have camouflaged it all!" All this is the hidden import of the expression vyavasthapitab in the text. Agre ... i.c. in the second chapter Kārika II.4, wherein the two divisions of Dhvani, namely, 'that with unnoticeable sequence' and 'that with noticeable sequence', are described by the author. Ccmparatively, it is easy to enumerate succinctly the various types of Vastu-dhvani in so far as it admits only of three possibilities viz., positive affirmation. negation and neither of them. But Alamkdra- dhvani does not admit of such an easy division, since the number of figures of speech is very large. That is why the author says -- sa-pra- parcam. Trtfyastu ... The indeclinable tw is used here in the sense of contrast. Both vastu and alamkara do partake of denotability of words. However, Rasa, Bhava, their abnāra (semblance) and Prasama (cooling off) are never amenable to denotation by words. W/hat is more, they are felt as the very life-breath of poetic delectability. In order to explain them adequately, there is no other course left (to the theorists) except suggestive power. In the abseace of incompatibility, not even the primary conditions of Laksana or metaphorical usage, like incongruity of che primary sense in the context, can be imagined. When an abiding state of mind proceeds n a decent way, it is called Rasa. If a transitory state of mind should so proceed, it is called Bhava. If these proceed aleng an indecent course, they get the name of Abhasa or semblance (of Rasa and Bhāva). Ravana's one-sided passion for Sita is a gocd exam.pie of Rasābhasa. Of course, one might admit that it is as good as a formn of Hasya-rasa or the comic sentiment, especially so because of Bharata's authority, who lays down that 'the comic is born of

116

the erotic'. Yet the fact is that this is only a later impression in the minds of the connoisseurs. Actually, when they are in the state of empathy, the erotic mental state itself is the object of delectation. Hence the erotic sentiment alone is manifest which upsets their sense of sequence in the incidents described as in the following example :-- As soon as her name reaches my ear, even like a seducing charm, my mind cannot retain its composure without her, even for a fraction of a moment. But I do not know clearly how the joy of her union can be brought about by these love-sick limbs of mine, since I am so much agonised, and my love is unfulfilled because of these. (For full text of the verse see. Abhinava-bhārati, G.O.S. edn., vol. I, 1956, p. 259). Thus this is an instance of a semblance of the erotic sentiment only. What serves to promote it as an auxiliary will be regarded as the semblance of a transitory mood. The cooling off of a state of mind even when it has started to suggest a Rasa on hand, delights the heart of connoisseurs. That is why it is enumerated as a separate head, though, really speaking, it is connoted by the word Bhava itself. The foilowing is an example for Bhāvābhāsa :- The new-weds, though sleeping in the same bed, have turned their faces away from each other and are suffering great vexation. Although the spirit of supplication is latent in the hearts of both, they are out to guard their self-respect. By and by, as their eyes chance to meet during their pranks of side-long glances, their feigned anger ceases and leads to a close embrace of their necks, now turned face to face and accompanied by laughter. In this example we see the cooling off of self-regard raised by envy and anger. This Rasa is not something comparable to one's joy on hearing a good news like 'you have become the father of a son', nor is it comparable to the secondary verbal function. On the other hand it is a unique experience arising in the connoisseur. It is quite distinct from empirical joy etc. whose nature is pre-established. It is eujoyed by the connoisseur by the process of empathy, as soon as his heart responds readily to the poetic descriptions in the form of vibhāvas (antecedents) and anubhāvas (consequents). Its whole and sole nature is one of instantaneous manifestation vitally characterised by delectability. So it is that the author says- prakāsate ... (shines). By this it comes out that the function of the word accompanied by its meaning is only suggestion (so far as Rasa is concerned). Even the subject described,

117

such as vibhavs cr stimulants of Rasa, will not produce that state of mind (nanely delight) on the analogy of that produced by the birth of a son. Therefore even the function of subject or content is over and above that of empirical causation, and a meta-empirical function namely suggestion. Svaśabda ... Svasabda refers to proper narnes of the Rasas such as śrngara. If the proper names like Srngara could evoke the emotion so named, then the function or word could be deemed as primary statement (abhidhā). Vibhāvādi ... 'The treatment by way of vibhava etc.' implies that the function involved migh: be so-called purport (tātparya). Regarding these two alternatives, the author adduces positive and negative instances to disprove the nameubility of Rasas by their proper names, as their essence lies in delectability exclusively. At the same time, he also shows that both by the methods of agreement and difference, Rasas can admit only of the function of suggestion :-. Na ca sarvatra ... That Rasas are not everywhere stated by their proper name may be illustrated with the following example which is a verse composed by my own teacher - (Bhatta Induraja):

Since by looking at him intermittently even quite long, their eyes lose their steadiness; since, day after day, their linbs farnish even 'ike the withering lotus-stalk severed from its root; since the extreme pallor of their cheeks surpasses that of grass-stalks; one must say tha" this natural state of all the youthful damsels is itself an embellishment (to them) when Krsna, the youth, is in their midst.

In this example, a full understanding of the anubhāvas (consequent signs) and vibhāvas (stimulants) of Rasa is a necessary prelude to the final manifestation of Rasa or vital content perceived as delectable self-delight itseif of the connoisseur, coloured by his own mental impressions harmonious to the said vibhāvas and anubhāvas, by way of empathy, as stated earlier. This manifestation does arise even in the absence of words expressly denoting earnest longing, worry, eager expectation, sleep, steadiness, anguish, langour, fatigue, recollection, doubt and so forth. Having thus shown the absence of negative insrances, the author proceed: to show the absence of positive instances in the sentence beginning with Yatrāpi ....

118

Tat ... The pronoun refers to a direct statement by giving the proper name of a Rasa in question. Pratipādana-mukhena ... In other words, by way of understanding the significance of vibhāvas etc., conveyed by verbal expression. Så kevalam ... The experience of Rasa can only be indirectly reported by such proper names. For example :- When Krsna (the destroyer of the demon Madhu) had proceeded to Dvärakā, the love-lorn Radha began embracing the very shrub of water-rushes on the banks of the river Yamuna, as it was pressed down by her darling Krsna during one of his jumping bouts. She sang a song in such a piteous pitch in a choked voice, tears gushing down her eyes, that even the aquatic creatures moving in the stream started screaming longingly in sympathy. Here both vibhāvas and anubhāvas are understood in all their freshness. The emotion of love-sickness is also rendered delectable. The word 'love-lorn' used in the verse only restates what is already communicated (more forcefully). The word 'longingly' used as an epithet of the sympathetic water-fowls recapitulates all the vibhavas and anubhāvas associated earlier with Radha's love-sickness, though none of them are directly stated. Hence the naming of Radha's emotion is not without significance, since it is of help in this process .of suggestive recapitulation. Had the anubhava been openly recapitulated, it would have resulted only in tautology, or become an obstacle to the process of empathy. These defects have been avoided by the poet's resort to suggestion. A further reason is given in the clause -- Visayāntare ... The examples alluded to are 'yad viframya' etc. The idea is :- What exists even in the absence of something cannot indeed be its effect. The author explains hereafter the significance of the word kevala. Vibhāvādi ... kāvye The purport to be understood is :- 'In what is to be taken as poetry in pursuance of your opinion'. Manāgapi ... This is illustrated in Bharata's verse enumerating Rasas- In dramaturgy eight are known as Rasas :- 1) the erotic, 2) the comic, 3) the pathetic, 4) the terrific, 5) the heroic, 6) the frightful, 7) the repulsive and 8) the wonderful. Having thus established logically that there is no relation between

119

proper nares of Rasas etc. and actual mental states, both positively and negatively, because of the non-availability of both positive and negarive examples, the author now concludes his argument with the words beginning with vatah and ending with kathancit. The function of botn word as well as content can be only suggested, for, when Rasa is to be suggested by means of word, the denoted content (abhidheya), namely, vibhāvas etc. is accompanied by its suggestive power as a contributory cause. On the other hand, when Rasa etc. is to be suggested by means of content in a manner distinct from production, as in the case of delight at a son's birth, and also different from that of inference, since this is different from a case like Devadatta's being fat in spite cf fasting by day, which leads to the inference that he should be eating it night, we find that the entire verbal usage acts as a contriurory cause. This is because it has an inherent capacity to denote what is unique to Rasa (namely, the beauty in the entire technique of literary qualities and figures of speech) and also what is harmonious with Rara (striking one :is most appropriate for suggesting the Rasa on hand). The author thus has set out two alternatives (advanced to explain Rasa) and concluded now his refutation of the first. The second, however, is partly refuted and partly accepted. It has been refuted to the extent that the view held by the objector is one of production or inference. But it has been accepted in so far as it might involve the function of suggestion. But the commentator who has interpreted the function of suggestion here as identical with the function of purport is unaware of the truth of the matter. When there is a sentence connoting vibhāvas and anubhāvas, the function of purport therein would lead to either difference or conjointness of the sentence-meaning. But it would never lead to Rasa whose essense lies in delectability. Further prolixity is needless. 'The word iti in the original carries the sense of 'by reason of'. By reason of the aforesaid argument, even the third type of suggested sense is quite distinct from the directly denoted sense. This much has to be understood to give a connected idea in the argument. Saheva ... The word iva ('as if') here is used by the author to demonstrate that even if any sequence should exist between the two (namely the directly stated and :he suggested senses), it would escape notice. Agre ... i.e. in Uddyota second. So far, by means of the Kārikā, viz. pratīyamānam ... the nature of

120

dhvani has been explained. Now (ın the Kārikā, viz. kāvyasyātma .... the author indicates anagogically what the soul or essence of poetry is, by alluding to an incident in poetic tradition. I.5 Sa eva ... Although the entire body of dhvani is contextually relevant here, what is descrbed is only its third type namely rasa-dhvani. This is to be understood because both the incident enshrined in tradition and the import of the contextual prose commentary go to support it. Hence, virtually, rasa alone is the soul; the other two types of dhvani, namely vastu and alamkāra are invariably such as end up in rasa. So much so that they too are of a higher order than the stated meaning. With this implication in mind, the author has stated in general terms that 'dhvani' is the soul of poetry. Śokaḥ ... The sorrow is that of the male (kraunca) bird bereaved from its mate caused by the slaughter of the mate, or, in other words, generated by the destruction of their intimate union. This sorrow is indeed an abiding emotion, an emotion quite different from that of rati or erotic attachment appropriate to the sentiment of love-in-separation, since the very idea of reciprocation is ruled out. That very sorrow becomes the basis for the rumination on the part of the onlooker of the excitant aspect of the situation and the attendant aspects of it, such as excruciating lamentation proceeding from the bird. Now that rumina- tion transcends itself into delectation at the third stage, the preceding two stages being heart-felt response and empathy. That stage of delectation is termed rasa of karuna or pathos, which is quite different from wordly sorrow. It is a state whose entire essence lies in the delectable upsurge of one's own mental state. It is a state of afflatus like the overflow from a pot filled with wine. It is also like a spontaneous speech at the rise of thought. It does not stand in need of any convention of discourse, when the object is only an expression of an inner state of mind. It is thus least artificial and entirely of the nature of a flooding ecstasy, and its natural outlet is a verse strictly in accordance with the rules of prosody and metre etc. The verse in question is the following :- mā nişāda pratistham tvamagamab sāsvatiķ samāb / yat kraunca - mithunādekamavadhih kamamohitam // -Rāmāyana, I.i. It should be understood that the sorrow is not of the sage himself. Were it so, he too would be afflicted by the actual sorrow of the bird; and the very dictum that rasa is the soul of poetry would become baseless. Surely, no one afflicted with sorrow will have such a creative afflatus.

121 Thus it is clear that the rasa of pathos partaking in the nature of the abiding emnotion of only such sorrow as is congenia! to delectation, can possibly overflood; that alone constitutes, therefore, the soul of poetry or the essence which differentiates the poetic from all other forms of discourse This is accepted in the Hrdaya-darpana also :- So long as one is not overfull with it, one carnot pour it out. The verb-form agamah in the verse retains the affix 'a' as per Vedic usage. Sa eva ... The emphatic expression eva is added by the author to indicate that naught else is the soul. That is why the following assertion of Bhatta Nayaka is controverted :- When the form of expression is predorninant, linguistic discourse is regarde by the learned as sastra or technical discipline. When the content predominates, they regard it as narrative (ākhyāna). But when both are subsidiary, and the very creative process itself is dominant, we get what is termed poetry ( kävya). If the word 'creative process' should relate to the suggestive function itself, entwined with delectability, that would be no new doctrine. On the other hand, if it were to denote only the referential process of denotation, the denotative process can never have primacy in poetry, as we have shown all along. Vividha ... The commentary on the said verse is contained in this passage. The word viviwha or 'diverse' carries the sense of beauty contributed by the luxuriance (prapanca) of the three elements in question viz. the sense, the expression and the artistic arrangement in their multiple manifesta- tions in tune with the rasa intended to be suggested; in short, it means 'endowed with the figures of speech and poetic qualities associated with sound or expression and sense'. Therefore, though the process of suggestion may be present in many poetic instances, all of them are not regarded as 'dhvani' par excellence. As pointed out by us earlier, only a few instances come to be regarded as jiva (sentient self) and not one and all that possess a soul (atman). Therefore the following objection raised in the Hrdaya- larpana does not hold water :- 'In that event, cne would have to speak of poetry everywhere'. The word nihata-sahacari expresses the vibhava (excitant) of the said rasa. The word ākrandita indicates anubhāva (attendant gesture) of the same. Janitab ... The words "in a form delectable" should be supplied before the word

122

janita ('produced') to complete the sense. One might ask here :- "If by the delection of sorrow a verse could emerge, how does it go to prove that suggested content is the soul of poetry?" The author answers the question in the next sentence. Śoko hi ... Karuna is that rasa or state of delectation whose object happens to be the primary emotion of sorrow (in the form of latent instinct in the mind of the spectator). When sorrow happens to be the primary emotion involved, the stimulants and the consequents of it will indeed demand a concordant responsive mind oriented towards delectation, to be entitled to the status of rasa. It is by this logic of the situation that a primary emotion can be said to get transformed into rasa. In this process of delectation the whole gamut of one's experience - either immediately had from life or mediately inferred by the sight of others - plays a part. It subsists in the form of a latent impression in the mind. By degrees it purifies the heart (removing the obstacles in the way of delectation of the emotion in question), rendering it responsive and culminates in the delectation of the rasa by way of empathy. The objector might raise a question at this point. "The soul of poetry has been declared to be its suggested content. Its three varieties have also been set out, and thus it is not certainly rasa exclusive (even according to you). This traditional account of the Krauñca bird, only goes to support rasa exclusively as the soul of poetry. How is it correct?" The author accepts for argument's sake the truth of this allegation in his following reply :- Pratīyamānasya ca ... Other varieties of the suggested content referred to are :- vastu (unadorned content) and alamkāra (adorned content). The word bhāva (emotion) in the text carries the implication that even a transitory emotion can become delectable on its own; that is to say, though they may not attain the ultimate state of poise, possible only in the case of the delectation of primary emotions culminating in rasa, none-the-less the two can be regarded as equally vital to poetry. The following is an example :-- Striking the nail with the tip of another, And revolving her joggling bracelet, With her foot, the anklet jingling, She was scrawling softly on the ground. In this example, the transitory emotion of bashfulness comes to be relished. The terms rasa and bhava also include their semblance as well as

123

their cessation. Though the shades of beauty or relish are different, chey all come under one general category. Prādhānyāt ... The primacy here is due to the relish of rasa being the ultimate effect of one and all constituents in question. Sometimes even when the other two types of dhvani (vastu and alamkāra) do not so culminate in rasa, they may be loosely regarded as the soul of poetry, in so far as they add a unique distinction to linguistic usage, not otherwise discernible in it. Having thus shown that the suggested part constitutes the soul of poetry by way of the traditional account of the origin of poetry, now the author proceeds to point out that it is also proved by his own personal experience: I.6 Sarasvatî ... The goddess of Speech is described here. The word artha in the karika is explained as vastu in the vrtti and the word vastu in the Krika by the wora tattva in the vrtti. (The reference is to the suggested rasa aspect obviously). nişyandamāna ... The idea is :-- 'Oozing out the heavenly rapture of rasa of her own accord. As Bhatta Nayaka rightly observes :- That rasa which the (Celestial) Cow of Speech yields lovingly to her young calves (viz., poets) is not comparable at all to that which is forcefully squeezed out of her (udders) by yogins. That is to say -- Even without the spontaneous relish of rasa's ecstasy, the yogins just come to acquire it by dint of their hard spiritual exercise only. (What is so acquired by ther in the hard way is surely infericr to wha: is spontaneously attained by the poets effortlessiy). Hence, in the following verse, only Himavan is said to have won the best of all valuables from the Earth, when compared with others :- With Meru as the expert milk-man, all the mountains made Himavan the calf and, as directed by King Prthu, milked the Cow, namely the Earth, and gained precious gems and herbs. abhivyanakti parisphurantam ... However, so far as the percipients are concerned, the creative inspiration of the poet is not something remove to be inferred by them but something felt within themselves most affectively. That is why my mentor, Bhatta Tauta observes :- Alike is the experience of the hero in a literary work, The poet as well as the critic. Creativity (pratibha) is the intelligence capable of bringing into existence for the first time things unknown before. Its visesa or

124

uniqueness lies in the capacity to create poetry which is beautiful by the poet's ecstatic upsurge of rasa. This is in line with the thought of Sage Bharata who says :- Bhäva or feeling in drama is so termed only because it renders explicit and affective the inner feeling of the poet. Yena ... In other words, it is only because of this unique creativity which is affectively and dynamically felt by the critic that one comes to be ranked as a really great poet. idam ca ... Besides the two differences between the expressed and suggested meanings already noted in the Kārikā I.4, namely, i) difference in nature and ii) difference in referents, it is now being shown that there is also a third pointer substantiating the distinction of the suggested sense from the expressed. It is the difference of capability involved in the apprehension of the two senses. 1.7 vedyate .... Not that it is not apprehended; only in such a contingency, it could be taken as non-existent. (Kāvya-tattvārtha-bhāvanā-vimukhānām): Those who are averse to a lasting appreciation of the suggested sense over and above the expressed; since the suggested alone constitutes the poetic sense per se. The musical notes are seven, sadja etc. and musical rode (fruti) is nothing but a variant form of note which brings distinction to the sounds sung in music. It is of 22 kinds based on the different time-scales between the singing of the different notes and their variations (in a given performance). The word adi or etcetera is suggestive of the technical varieties of Indian music termed jāti, amsaka, grāma-rāga, bhāsā, vibhāsā, antara-bhāsā, desi and mārga. (Apragitanam): Those who are expert in music or those who have started learning music are both called pragita-s. The suffix is passive in sense according to Panini's rule(III. iv. 71). The starting of musical studies here conveys indirectly their completion of study also. evam ... This refers to the difference in nature and difference in apprehension depending on different capabilities already stated. I.8 Pratyabhijñeyau The word has taken the (potential participle) suffix according to the rule II. iii. 71 of Panini in the sense 'worthy of'. By the fact that every one endeavours to apprehend it (suggested sense), its primacy is shown to rest on the authority of accepted critical practice. The suffix can also

125

have the sense of 'must', when it would refer to the process of educating one to become a poet. The purport of the expression pratyabhijneya may be summed up as follows: Although it is true that this will spontaneously occur to a creative mind by virtue of his poetic vision (pratibha) as stated in the well-known maxim .- "Poetry is born but rarely from one gifted with (innate) poetic vision", yet when one starts analysing the special nature of every particular, it becomes indeed thousand-fold. Thus it has been well observed by our grand preceptor (Srimad) Utpala :- A lover might have been brought ro the vicinity of the beloved through tie usual overtures of confidantes etc .; yet he would be as neutral towards her as any other individual, and he would be unable to enjoy her company, when he remains unrecognised by her. Even so the supreme Lord, though constituting one's own soul, will not be manifest in all His glory when His greatness goes unrecognised (by individuals). On this analogy is established the usage of the term pratyabhijna in philosophy to signify specific realisation. Pratyabhijña here is not just ordinary recognition of the form- 'this is that'; but it is a realisation or contemplation involving a deeper apprehension of even that which is known in a general sort of way. mahākaveḥ ... The referer.ce is ic one who is fired by the ambition to become a great poet. By thus stating expressly the primacy of the suggested sense and the suggestive word, the author has implicitly included the primacy of the function of suggestivity also existing in them. These three senses are supported respectively by the three etymologies, namely, i) that which suggests, ii) that which is suggested, and iii) the process of suggestion. At this point an objector might say :- "Primacy should really belong to the directly denoted meaning, denotative word and the process of denotation, since these are first resorted to." The author's implied answer is as follows :- "The means are aiways resorted to at the first instance. When primacy is the intention to be inferred, the alleged probans is indeed unhelpful, as it proves the oppesite" This is made clear in the passage below. 1.9 idānim ... The word aloka here means 'seeing' of objects like the lotus-like face of a beloved. The means thereto is the flame of a lamp: I.10 pratipat ... The word pratipat is used with the suffix kvip carrying the sense of an absuract noun, i.e. apprehension.

126

tasya vastunaḥ ... i.e. of the essence in the form of the suggested content. This kārikā has the following purport :- 'The sequence between the two is indeed quite evident to one who is not absolutely sensitive; just as the sequence of the word-meaning and the sentence-meaning is quite noticeable to one who is not absolutely learned in the science of grammar. But on the other hand, to one who possesses supreme sensitivity, the sequence in question becomes almost unnoticeable, just as to one who is learned in semantics, the steps of an oft-reasoned inference with remembrance of invariable concomitance (between the probans and the probandum etc.) remain unnoticed. na vyalupyate ... It is because of its primacy that percipients impelled by their burry to reach up to it as quickly as possible do not notice any mediate sequence. That sequence escapes attention, even though present, is the cause for its primacy. I.11 svasāmarthya ... This term denotes practicability and proximity. vibhāvyate ... The prefix vi signifies distinctiveness. The idea is that it is not felt distinctively. It is said here that the sequence, though existing, is not felt as such. Hence the commentator, who explains this passage, as 'sequence non-existing from the perspective of (indivisible) sphota' is surely opposed to the context. I.12 vācyārtha-vimukhātmanām ... This adjective expands the idea already contained in the word sacetasam; it describes them as those whose heart is not experiencing ultimate joy by the apprehension of the surface meaning alone. Some one might argue :- "Let this be taken as the result of the speciality in the percipients themselves. It need not be described as a speciality of poetry." This position is countered in the following, viz., avabhāsate The sense is that the referential meaning does not appear distinc- tively; not that there is no apprehension at all of it. That is why this passage does not contradict the statement made in the thirc chapter on the analogy of the pot and the lamp, that the apprchension of the referential meaning does not cease even at the time of apprehending the suggested sense. sadbhāvam It means existence as well as goodness or primacy in this context. Both are meanings equally intended by the author.

127

Prakṛte In the subject on hand namely definition (of Dhvani). upayojayan ... i.e. turning it into use. The use served is clear in the expression tam artham which relates only to Dhvani (suggested sense). The first member sva- in the compound svarthau refers to expression itself. The expression and its referential member together constitute the com- pound word svarthau. These are rendered subordinate by the referen- tial meaning (artha) and the expression (fabaa) respectively. In other words, the referential meaning subordinates itself, while the expres- sion subordinates its referential meaning. I.13 tarh artham ... The artha here is what is already described in Kārikā no. 6. vyanktah ... i.e. when the two reveal. The dual number in this expression carries the following s.gnificance :- Although in the variety of Dhvani called 'avivaksita-vācya', the primary suggester is only expression, it does not in any way minimise the associate help rendered by its referential meaning also. Otherwise, an expression whose referential meaning is unknown, also would have to be deemed as a suggester (even like a meaningful expression). In the other variety of Dhvani also, namely, vivaksita-anyapara-vācya, the associate help on the part of the expression is bound to be there, since a referential meaning cannot, by itself, be a suggester of any thing unless and until it is first denoted by a specific expression. Thus, in all instances, both expression and referential meaning will partake of the operation of suggestion. Therefore the critique of the dual number here by Bhatta Nayaka is pointless even like an elephant's march with closed eyes. The indeclinable va expressing an alternation between meaning and expression is to be construed in the sense that both of them subordinate themselves to set off the primacy of the suggested sense. The compound kāvya-visesa can be analysed in two ways :- 1) poerry as well as its particular specimen (dvandva) and (2) a particular specimen of poetry (sasthi-tatpurusa). The very mention of the word kāvya here is expressive of the purport that its essence (ätman) is nothing but Dhvani, following in the wake of expressions and meanings empellished by poetic qualities or excellences and figures of speech. This fact rules out the objection, viz., 'one might designate even śrutarthpatti or a hypothetical presumption to explain facts otherwise incompatible'.

128

As regards the objection- 'Then the idea of beauty itself might serve as the essence of poetry', we accept it all right. The controversy is only over names. As regards the further objection, viz., 'In case the idea of beauty itself be the soul of poetry, then the same idea of beauty from natural things perceived etc. also would serve as the essence of poetry;" indeed this is an impossible contingency when the subject under discussion is only the soul of poetry which is constituted only of expressions and meanings, (and not anything else). Saḥ ... This may refer equally to meanings, word or significatory function (i.e. all the three come to be termed dhvani). Meaning, again, may be the referential one which is designated dhvani by the active etymologi- cal sense of the root dhvan. Dhvani may also be the significatory function itself ingrained in words as well as meanings. In the Kārikā, however, the cumulative whole or assemblage of all these elements, namely, kāvya or poetry is itself designated primarily as dhvani. Vibhaktaḥ While the vital principle underlying gunas and alankaras is the referential significatory function, the principle underlying this (i.e. dhvani) is the suggestive function; and hence this cannot be subsumed under them on any account. The word 'visaya' here carries the sense of 'exclusive scope'. Thus the objection, viz., "What is this dhvani other than them (i.e. gunas and alankāras)?" stands refuted. lakşaņa-krtāmeva The reason adduced against the theory of dhvani is that it is unknown among literary theorists of the past. But it is a reason which proves the opposite of what it intends to prove. The fact that it is unknown among other theorists necessitates all the more its definition now with all effort. If it be held that it is unknown in actual poetical works (which illustrate literary theory), then the reason deserves to be dismissed as non-existent. And surely whatever is non-poetry-like dance, song and music -, it cannot have any bearing on a theory which is only about poetry citram ... i.e. causing amazement only by virtue of alliterative effect, etc., and not imbued with the flow of rasa whose essence is aesthetic joy and which is so much sought by men of taste. Or it may be called citra in so far as it is only an imitation of poetry; or in so far as it is pictorial in effect or in so far as it involves a skill.

129

agre ... i .. e. in III. 41 infra. parikaraślokaḥ A. "rerse calculated to add to the meaning of the main import of a karika (and written by a glossator) is parikara -śloka. y'atra here relates to instances of alankāra. vaiśadvena that is, with striking beauty and clarity. ał hihitam the past tense is used here, since the expression "vyanktab" has already been expiained at length. guņikrtātnā the second member of the compound word here, viz., atma has a reflexive sense. It just explains by a synonym what is stated in the karika by the word 'sva-' (in 'upasarjanikrta-svarthau'). na caitat i.e. pre eminence of the suggested sense. Though it is true that this fact of its pre-eminence is not felt at the level of intellectual understanding- since all aesthetic enjoyment is a composite whole as per the dictum stated in I.12b-still, when literary critics start analysing the sense (so grasped as one indivisible whole), the suggested sense might be seen at times turning back as it were and adding beauty seminally to the referential sense itself. In such cases only, when the suggested sense has just the functional capacity of a means (instead of being the end itseif), it comes to be classed as an alankara. The beauty then is a result primarily of the referential meaning, embellished for the time being by the suggested. Althougn there will be rasa-dhvani in the long run in all instances (including the one under reference), the suggested sense occurring at this mid-level cannot, by itself, result in the delineation of any rasa, since it has no independent functioning. Ic proceeds only to embellish the beauty of the referential meaning. Hence, such a suggestion (whose role is but secondary) is said to be subordinated (to the referential meaning). "When, in a statement, a second meaning too comes to be suggested through the applicability of common adjectives, it is regarded as a figure of speech called samāsokti, since it is truly a 'condensed expression' " (Bhīmaha, Kāvyālankāra, II.79). The four quarters of the original verse offer in a sequence i) the definition of samāsokti, ii) its nature, iii) its justification and iv) its etymological significance.

130

upodha-ragaḥ It is a possessive compound meaning- he by whom the evening twilight or redness as well as love have been welcomed. Vilola-tarakam means one whose stars are twinkling as well as one whose black pupils of eye are tremulous. tathā means 'suddenly' or 'vigorously due to the force of love'. 'Grhitam' means both 'illumined' and 'started kissing'. Nisamukha is at once 'the beginning of darkness' and the dark lily, namely, the face (of the beloved). yathā =by a sudden grasp as well as by a violent passion. 'Timirāmśuka' signifies darkness coupled with faint lights, that is to say, it means 'a shroud of darkness illumined faintly by star-light. 'Timiramsuka' is also a dark 'sari' worn by new-wed girls when they are young. 'Rāgāt' = by the red hue caused by evening 'twilight' as well as 'by reason of passionate love'. 'Puro'pi' ='in the eastern quarter' as well as 'in front'. 'Galitam' = 'dispersed' as well as 'slipped off'. 'Taya' = by Night, the agent. 'Samastam' =blended (with starlight) either directly or indica- tively. 'Na laksitam' = That it was the onset of night was not known; the advent of night is noticed clearly by the world only when they see darkness mingled with twilight; not when the light is conspicuous. These very epithets mean otherwise when they are taken as qualifying the heroine :- tayā (= 'by her') will be the agent word or subject of the action. When construing the words in relation to 'night', the particle 'api' ( = 'even') should be understood along with 'noticed' (laksitam). That is to say, 'na laksitamapi' ( = 'the slipping of the garment was not even noticed'). Here the idea is that the lover approaches the beloved from behind and starts kissing her, with the result that her dark garment slips off in her front. Or else, one might construe the words in such a way that the lover is embracing the beloved's face from the front (since the context is that of kissing). Thus, though a suggested sense is grasped here, it has no pre-eminence. To explain: the described behaviour of the beloved and the lover here adds beauty only to the main themes in the context, viz., the night and the moon, serving as determinants (vibhāvas) of the rasa of śrngåra (or the Erotic); and thus gets the status only of an alankara (or figure of speech»; it is only from that stated description of the said determinants, that the flow of rasa originates. A previous commentator gives the following explanation :- "The agent-word or subject of the action is, the night described. No such

131

agency is possible in the case of an insentient one. Hence the behaviour of a sentient couple in love is understood by us; and this understocd meaning is only referential and not at all suggested". That is the reason. why this becomes an instance of the figure of samasokti ('condensed expression'). That commentator has giver away the main point itself in the passage, viz. 'vyangyena anugatam' ( = sapported by the suggested meaning'). Such an explanation might make the verse an illustration of restricted metaphor' as in :- The lake-kings were fanned by Autumn herself through the

but would not make it a samāsokti or 'condensed expression'; for one pretty swans.

thing, tne requirement of common epitnes is absent; and secondly, the expressly stated word 'gamyate' ( = 'is suggested') rules out the interplay of the referential function (abhidha-vyapāra). This incidental digression need not be prolonged any further. The grammatical difficulty in respect of the absence of the ekasesa compound form (i.e. nāyakayob stating one of the two members involved, to mear. nāyakasva + nāyikāyāśca vyavahārab) in the expression 'nayikā-nāyaka-vyavahāra' can be got over by under- standing the compound word as follows :-- The behaviour of the beloved in respect of her lever as superimposed on Night and the behaviour of the lover in respect of his beloved as superimposed upon the Moon. Ākșepe ... "When what is intended to be conveyed is negated as it were, with a. view to communicate some other specific idea, it is āksep.z or paraleipsis. It is two-told: i) that which concerns what is yet to be said and ii) that which concerns what has been already spoken out" (Bha- mahu, Kāvyālankāra, II.68). The first of these is illustrated in the following example :- "If I do't see you even for a moment, I will be a victim of such pangs!' It is enough indeed! What is the use of telling you what is unpleasant?" (Bhamaha, Kāvyālankāra, II.69). Here what is negated is the mention of death, which is about to be said. In the example, the statement "It is enough indeed!" itself suggests indirectly the idea, viz .. , "I shall die!" and adds to the beauty of the passage. What is beautified is the suggester, or suggestive sentence; which is the reascn for its prominence also; what beautifies it is the suggested idea of death (which is comparatively less in beauty). The second type is illustrated in the following example authored by me :-

132

'Oh, my dear traveller, Why is it you have fallen down in a most unexpected place? 'There was no way left for me to avoid it. So thirsty I am; but this villain hides all water from me! 'No, No, my dear, you should rather blame your own thirst. Which has seized you at a wrong place and time. For the desert-road's might is widely known In all the triple worlds! In this verse we have a description of the heart-rending plight of a servant whose hopes of getting help from the patron he approached have been shattered; he is being counselled by a person in this indirect way. The negation here relates to the stated idea of this man's service rendered to a bad man, its futility and his consequential distress-an idea which is so appropriate in depicting the determinants and consequents of the abiding emotion of dispassion (nirveda) which is at the root of santarasa or sentiment or tranquillity. Vamana's definition of Āksepa, however, is a censure of the upamāna or object compared to; or in other words, a censure of the moon and so on (when the object described or upameya happens to be the heroine's face). It takes the form such as :- 'When this is present, there is no use for you!' The example cited (by him) is :- When her face is there, pleasant and gay, The full moon, surely, has no use. When those two eyes are beaming in beauty, The dark lilies can't have any use. When that lip is had, there is no need for tender shoots with delicate sheen. Oh, how perverse is the Creator's fad In fashioning objects so duplicate? Although the idea of similarity is suggested in this verse, it is made to embellish the referential meaning itself. The idea of censure or condemnation taking the form "What use is there in having it?" is the plain primary meaning; and this is the direct cause of poetic beauty. Alternatively, (according to Vamana himself), aksepa may have the sense of 'suggestion of an upamana' or its implication by way of contextual necessity. For example :- With the rainbow borne on the white cloud like a raw nail-print on her white bosom; The autumn-damsel woos the sullied Moon Only to intensify the heat (also, heart-burn) of the Sun! The upamana suggested here is a rival lover agitated by jealousy.

133 Though suggested, it ernbellishes only the stated meaning. In fact, this (type cf) aksepa is virtually samasokti itself. That is what the anthor himself observes in the next sertence beginning with cārutvotkarsa .... A well known illustration for it is offered in the verse, viz., anurāgavatī ... It should be understood from this that discussion on aksepa is not yet over. But the illustration cited is a samāsokti verse. In the third quarter of the verse, viz., aho daivagatih kådrk, the purport is that their eternal parting is due to a cause (beyond their control) like their submission to elders. tasyaiva The reference here is to the referential meaning only. This is an āksepa according to Vāmana, but a samāsokti according to Bhāmaha. With this idea in mind, the author has skilfully provided this single example to illustrate both the figures, riz. āksepa and samāsokti (fo: the sake of brevity). My mentor's opinion on this text is: "The figure of speech in the verse mav well be samasokti or aksepa. Why should we bother? All that we want to establish is that in all instances of alankāras etc., the suggested sense becomes invariably subordinate to the plainly stated. Having thus illustrated the primacy intended by poets between the rwo meanings (in question), now the author gives a further example wherein both the disputants (i.e. the dhvani-theorist and the alankāra- theorist) hold a common opinion in regarding that figures of speech are named or designated only in view of the primacy of the stated meaning .- yathā ca ... upamāyāb. Here upama (simile) means only the relation bet ween upamana and upameya. tayā that is to say, by upamā (simile). The figure dipaka (lit. 'illuminer') is defined as follows :- "Dipaka is recognised as three-fold in so far as it relates to iteration at the beginning, the middle and the end of a sentence" (Bhāmaha, Kāvyā- lankāra, II.25). "A gem polished on a grindstone, A winr ing soldier with his body injured, The moon with a single digit left, A maiden tight-pressed in love-play, An elephant with its rut all sapped, A river in autumn with sands shining, And mer. with their wealth spent on the needy, -- the thinner they are, more splendour they gain."

134

In the above verse, the beauty is exclusively due to the figure dipaka. Apahnuti ('poetic denial') is defined as follows :- "denial of what is intended to be conveyed by way of a hidden simile" (Bhāmaha, Kāvyā- lankāra, III.21). The beauty therein (also) is due to the poetic denial itself as in the following example :- No, this is not a row of bees singing in their drunkenness! Indeed, this is the twanging sound of Cupid's bow-string stretched to shoot! Having thus dealt with aksepa, the author now takes up for discussion the other figures, in the order of their first enumeration :- anukta-nimittāyāmapi ... Its definition is :-- "Even when a part is impaired, effectiveness of a person or thing by virtue of the other merits comes to be admired, thereby suggesting that the person or thing is extraordinarily unique. Such a description is termed visesokti or 'praise of unique feature'. (Bhāmaha, Kāvyālankāra, III.23). The following is its example :- Though single, Cupid conquers indeed the three worlds, one and all! Though his body was destroyed by Siva, His might could not be destroyed! (Ibid., III.24). Since the cause of this unique phenomenon is inconceivable, there is no scope for any suggested sense in this particular example. When the cause is expressly stated too, it virtually becomes a statement of a natural fact; and it leaves no scope for the presence of any suggested sense. For example, Though burnt up like camphor completely, He is still powerful over men, one and all! To that flower-arrowed Cupid of inseparable might, Our salutations are addressed! Hence, the author of our text ignores these two types of viśesokti and takes up for discussion only its third type, viz. that wherein the cause of the unique phenomenon described is left unmentioned. Vyarıgyasya The (unmentioned) cause in this example is the anguish occasioned by cold, according to Udbhata. It is by adopting his standpoint that the author states :- na tvatra kāciccārutvanișpattiḥ 'There is no trace of poetic beauty in this instance.' Other men of taste have proposed an altogether different cause: 'the lover who feels

135

that a dream is a speedier means of union with his beloved than even a direct approach, becomes tardy in leaving his couch, since he is eagerly wishing for sleep.' But alankara theorists do not think that such a cause could have any beauty about it, in itself. In theit considered opinion, what is really beautiful is the suppressed cause itself expressed in the form-"does not slacken his lethargy," and allowed only to be suggested. This would not have been an example of visesokti at all, were the suggested meaning not embellishing the referentially stated one. 'hus the author has taken duly into account both these possible interpreta- tions; it need not be concluded hastily that he is tied down only to Udbhața's. Paryayokte'pi ... It is defined as follows :-- "Paryāyokta or euphemism consists in expressing something in an indirect way, avoiding the usual way of plain communication and using the mode of suggested implication." (Udbhata, Kāvyālankārasangraha, IV. 6). An example of it is had in the following verse :- .This bow of mine has taught the lesson of good conduct even to the Sage Parasurama who had strayed from the path of virtue in his eagerness to uproot the enemies, one and all. Although it is suggested here that Bhisma's prowess surpasses that of Bhärgava Parasurāma, it is not primary; on the other hand it embellishes the openly stated idea that 'the lesson of good conduct has been taught by my bow!' The poetic beauty lies in the stated sense itself. That is why 'paryayokta' has been defined as that which primarily states something, though it is also stressed and beautified by way of an indirect suggestive implication of the same idea. In the definition cited above, the differentia is 'the sense which is openly stated'; the figure of speech defined is 'paryayokta' (lit. 'com.municated in an alternative way too'); the general characteristic (samanya-lakana) of this and all the rest of them (i.e. arthalankaras) is that they are figures of speech which beautify the aspect of sense. So understood, the whole passage will become cogent. On the other hand, if we should resort to a forced inte:pretation of 'abhidhiyate', take it to mean 'what is suggested primarily', and cite as example verses like 'bhama dhammia .. ' then the figurative character itself of paryayokta would have been thrown to the winds; for such an interpretation would only establish its status as dhvani, witt. the suggested meaning assuming for itself the predomi- nant position of the soul or essence! If that were to be the case, for one thing, it could no longer be counted under alankaras or figures of speech, and secondly, its sub-divisions would have to be recounted.

136

Hence the author observes- "yadi prādhānyena .. " etc. dhvanau ... Once it comes under the category of 'soul' (atman), it follows as a corollary that it cannot share the character of an alnkara or figure of speech (since ātman or alankārya and alankāra are mutually opposed concepts). tatra i.e. in such instances as are admittedly figures of speech, dhvani can in no way be included under them. For the dhvani we have defined is such that it is exclusive of all shades of express figures of speech. Dhvani is a more comprehensive concept since it can exist in a vast variety of instances (lacking in alankara); and it is also a most vital concept (fixing the relative roles of all other aesthetic concepts like gunas and so forth); thereby it is clear that it is pre-emifent (angin) in itself. But an alankāra is not all-comprehensive in scope, for the very reason that it is an alankāra. Nor can it be pre-eminent, since it is always subordinate to what is alankarya or embellished, In case, however, this truth is reversed and an alankara itself is deelared to be both comprehensive and pre-eminent, it would be tantamount to giving up its very claim to be an alankāra and ultimately adopting our philosophy of dhvani itself surreptitiously, by using the term paryayokta instead of dhvani, since malice does not allow them to acknowledge openly their indebtedness to our thought! But the truth is that the ancient theorists were not aware of even this suggestive primacy of content in respect of parydyoktu; in fact we are the first to envisage such an explanation thereof. This is made clear in the sentence :- na punaḥ ... The kind of idea which Bhamaha had in his mind is very much brought to light in the illustration cited by him. Therein, the suggested sense is not at all pre-eminent, because it is not productive of any poetic beauty. Thus, if one were to imagine other illustrations of it, similar to the one actually cited by Bhamaha, therein too, there would be no prospect of the suggested meaning's pre-eminence. This is how the phrases in the original text are to be construed. If on the other hand, one throws overboard the illustration actually cited by Bhämaha, and starts giving such examples as "bhama dhammia", it means only that one is accepting a studentship in our theory of dhvani. Instead of coming straight to us as students, they are overhearing our lessons, entering from the back-door; and it is not the conduct of gentlemen! That is why writers on history say :-

137

"If one should learn surreptitiously from overhearing a teacher, not approaching him openly because of disregard, it means he would go to hell!" The illustration of paryayokta actually recorded by Bhamaha is this :- "Whether in homes or in way-side inns, We do not eat food, not partaken earlier by holy brahmins, learned in the Vedic lore!" .. This speech by Lord Vasudeva indeed negates the administraticn of poison in an indirect way. For, he himself adds -- "And that is to ensure the prevention of poisoning." The suggested idea here is only the prevention of poisoning; and surely, it has no poetic beauty whatsoever. If there were to be any such extraordinary poetic beauty, then only, one would be justified in imagining that meaning to be pre-eminent. On the other hand, the stated meaning that he would not eat what is not already partaken of by learned brahinins, is more beautified by the suggested shade mentioned above, and comes to be called paryayokta or circumlocutious staternent. The contextual stated theme of dining is in fact embellished by the suggested idea. Certainly, one cannot hold that Lord Krsna mainly intended to convey the idea, viz. "Let my food be free from poison!" Hence the purport is clear that the ancient theorists held the circumdocutory proposition itseif to constitute an alankara (and not the suggested element therein). apahnuti-dīpakayoh It ( = the relative roie of the stated and suggested meanings) has already been discussed and decided upon. That is why the author states- 'pras.ddbam' or well known and well established. Formerly, it was argued that dipaka etc. would cease to deserve their very titles and would become so many instances of upama only (if their suggested idea were to be given primacy over the stated). In order to prevent such a contingency, the case of dipak was cited as a corroborative instance (and it was established by the positive argument that dipaka was entitled to be an independent alankāra only because the suggested upama therein was subsidiary to the stated sense). Now it is again mentioned here in order to fultil the textual expecrancy raised by the order of the first enumeration of alankaras, with a new (negative) shade of argument. The new shade adopted here is: "It cannot be dhvani because there is no pre-eminence attaching to the suggested sense." The idea however, remains the same. For, upama itself happens to be the idea suggested in dipaka; and it might lead one to urge that it might as well be dhvani. The writer of an earlier commentary on this text has dwelt at length

138

on the hypothesis that "a dipaka need not always be associated wth an upama". His entire discussion is useless, pointless and easily refutable. To take just one example- Tipsiness generates attachment, And attachment love that ends pride! Love, too a yearning for the beloved's union, And yearning, anguish unbearable in mind! Though in this verse each successive result is generated by the immediately preceding agent, it is quite easy to imagine that the two are bound by the relation of similitude. There is no rule that successive things should not be comparable to one another. Thus, an example as- Like Rāma was Daśaratha, Like Daśaratha was Raghu, Again like Raghu was Aja, And like Aja, the dynasty of Dilipa! How amazing is the glory of Rama! is not at all impossible. Therefore, why all this furore that succession in occurrence of commonness of contextual reference comes in the way of a simile proper? We would fain close this discussion which is as futile as milking a jenny-ass repeatedly. Sańkarālankāre'pi The first variety of 'commixture of figures' (Sankara) is defined (by Udbhata) as follows :- When two figures of speech, mutually opposite, are noticed in a single instance, though such co-existence of opposites is really impossible, and when.one finds no clear ground either for the retention of any one of them or rejection of the other, it should be deemed a 'commixture'. It is illustrated in the following (Kavyalankarasangraha, V.20) verse of my own authorship :- This moon-faced one, blue-lotus-eyed, and white-jasmine-teethed, has been by Destiny made lovely like a lotus in the heavely lake! In this example, one might take the first compound to mean either a metaphor, namely, 'moon who has become her face', or a simile, namely 'her face is like the moon'; but it is impossible to construe both the figures at one and the same time (as they are mutually exclusive). Nor do we have any logical ground to adopt any one of them or to discard any one of them. As a result, we get the 'commixture' of the two figures; and in this instance there is only uncertainty even in regard to what the

139

suggested element is and what the stated element is. In such a predicament, how can there be any scope for even conjecturing dhvani? T'he definition of the second variety of 'commixture' of figures reads- "co-presence of both 'figures of sound' and 'figures of sense'. Here too, where is any room for conjecturing any dhvani or predominantly suggested meaning? Let us take an example :-- smara smaramiva priyam ... (Tr. Take your lover to be Cupid hirnself !... ) The first two syllables are twinned to constitute simultaneously both a chime (yamaka) and a simile (rūpaka). The third variety (of 'commixture') is that wherein many figures of sense are found in a single part of the whole sentence as in :-- When the sun is seen about to ser, the day, sharing his rise as well as fall, seems distressed and enters as it wete the cave of darkness, for his stay! (Bhamaha, III.48) Here we see the unextended metaphor of a gentlemanly subordinate officer eager to subject himself co a hard ritualistic discipline appro- priate to a sad occasion like the demise of his chief. This figure of 'poetic fancy' is clearly communicated by the use of the word iva ('as it were"). The last two varieties are according to the classification of ancient. authotities (i.e. Udbhata). Thus it has been said- "Figures relating to sound or sense might co-exist with one another either in a single sentence or a part of a single sentence". (Kavyalankarasangraha, V.ii) The fourtt. variety of 'commixture' is instanced when the figures of speech are seen related to one another by the relation of 'the endowed and the endower'. E.g :- The long-eyed lady's tremulous looks Are almost like blue lotuses waving in the wind! Did she borrow them from the she-antelopes? Or did the latter borrow them from her? (Kālidāsa, Kumarasambhava, I.46) Though there is a suggested simile here between her (Parvati's) sweet looks and those of she-antelopes, the simile is there only to assist the rise of another figure of speech, viz. 'poetic doubt' (sasandeha); since simile is thus a figure in the role of an endower (anugrāhaka), it is subsidiary to the other figure. The ultimate significance of rhe verse is nothing but 'poetic doubt' since the figure is endowed or supported (by sirnile). This point has been well established by theorists :-

140

When figures of speech are found mutually assisting one another and cannot lay claims to any independent existence of their own, that too is an instance of 'commixture' itself. (Udbhata, loc. cit.V.13) Hence our author says in the text :- yada alankaro ... Thus the existence of dhvant has been disproved even in the fourth variety of sankara-alankara. It has been said that in the two varieties in-between (the first and the last), there is no scope for even imagining the possibility of any dhvani. In the first variety, however, (illustrated in the example fafivadana ... ) there is such a possibility to some extent. Hence he anticipates this point and refutes it in the passage beginning with the words, alankaradvaya ... etc. samam (Pre-eminence) is equal because both the figures (viz., the stated and the suggested) are equally poised as in a weighing balance. 'Well, in places where the suggested sense alone strikes us as predominant, what are we to do?' For instance, Fools are but blind servants of tradition. Never will love of virtue in them arise! The moon-stone oozes only at moonrise, Surely not on seeing any beloved's face! "Indeed, the figure of speech, viz., arthantaranyasa or 'corroborative statement' is noticed here by the referential function of the words; but the figures vyatireka ('surpassing contrast') and apahnuti ('conceal- ment') happen to be suggested figures, and hence they should be deemed predominant." With such a line of thought, the objector puts forward his opinion in the sentence beginning with atha. Here is the reply to the objection :-- tadā so'pi ... This is not at all an instance of the figure sankara (commixture). On the other hand, this is only the second variety of dhvani known by the name alankara-dhvani. Whatever was observed in regard tc the figure paryayokta ealier, applies to this context also mutatis mutandis. Next the author states in general how the supposition of suggested sense in all varieties of sankara is to be countered in the sentence beginning with- Api ca ... The initial word 'api' should be construed with the word 'kvacit' (= 'elsewhere') a little later in this sentence. So construed, the meaning becomes clear that the reference is to figures of speech other than

141

sankara as also to sankara in all its varieties. The kind of mixture indicated by the word sankara is an inseparable fusion or mingling, even like that of milk and water. How can there by any quesrion of predomiance in either of such constituents? (The following is the classical definition of Aprastuta-prasamsa or 'Description of the Irrelevant') :-- Praise or description of something without any relevance to the inatter on hand is termed 'Description of the Irrelevant'. And it is of three kinds. (Bhamaha, Kavyalankara, III.29). The gist is that the description of the irrelevant should be such that it is suggestive of what is relevant. Such a suggestion will be of three types :- 1) based on the relation of the general and particular, 2) based on the relation of a reason and 'a consequence, and 3) based on similitude. The author declares that, among these, so far as the first two types are concerned, both the relevant and the irrelevant will have equal prominence. This is stared in the sentence beginning with 'iprastuta- and ending with 'pradhanyam' in the text (of the vrtti). Again, in the first type, viz. 'suggestion based on the relation of the general and the particular,' there are two sub-varieties possible :- We have one sub. variety when the general irrelevant is stated in so tnany words, as in the following example :- Oh, how callous is this worldly life! And how wicked these impending ills! Oh, fie upon the tragic ways of destiny, Whose course, by nature, is crooked! The irrelevant subject described here is a general one, viz., the unharpered freedom of destiny; it ends up in suggesting the state of a particular person in dire deprivation. Furthermore, since the particular is always comprehended under the general, the suggested particular has the same prominence as that of the stated universal. Such a simultaneous prominence of both the general and the particular need not at all be self-contradictory. We get the second sub-variety of it when the irrelevant particular suggests the relevant generai. For example :-- It is not strange at all that the fool Took the water-drop on the lotus-leaf for a pearl! Listen to an act of his now, much stranger ! As he picked it up, it vanished at his finger's tip, And he cannot sleep since that day, Anguished by the thought- 'where did it fly away?' Here the relevant subject described is a general one, viz., the illusory

142

supposition of greatness in a wrong object. The irrelevant, however, is a particular, viz., the mistaken notion that the tiny water-drop is a precious pearl. And in such an example wherein both tne general and the particular are equally having prominence, it has been said already that there is no opposition. Thus both the sub-varieties of the first type of this figure of speech have been examined in the text beginning with the words'yada tavat'. The author extends the application of this very principle to the other type of this figure, viz. suggestion based on the relation of the cause and the effect; and thus hints that it is also of two kinds. Sometimes, the irrelevant cause is openly stated in words and it suggests the relevant effect. For example, see the following verse :- Those who delight in the prosperity of others, And do not forsake them even in their distress, They alone are kinsmen and they alone friends; All the rest are but self-seekers. Here the irrelevant reason, viz., the true nature of kinsmen and friends has been described in the form of a generous praise of the virtuous only to suggest the credibility of the speaker's own words which is the consequence relevant in the context. Thus in the comprehension of the consequence too, the comprehension of the reason becomes prominent as its life-endowing principle. Hence both the suggested and the suggester have indeed equal prominence. Sometimes, however, the irrelevant consequence described ends up in suggesting the relevant reason. This is illustrated in the following citation from the (Prakrit poem) Setubandha :- I now recall heaven deprived of the Pārijāta tree, Hari's chest bereft of the beauty of the Kaustubha gem, And Siva's matted mass of hair without the crescent moon Before the churning of the Milky ocean! Here Jāmbavān is (apparently) describing irrelevant consequences like his remembrance of Lord Hari's chest bereft of the Kaustubha gem's beauty and so forth. His object is, however, only to suggest the relevant reasons or endowments that go to make for an ideal counsellor, such as tutelage under elderly statesmen, longevity, and practical experience in statecraft. Even in the comprehension of this relevant reason, the stated consequence itself serves as means. Hence, far from being unimportant, the consequence which is revitalized by the reason stated, lays claims (lit. 'raises its neck') to be reckoned important. Thus both the stated and the suggested senses possess an equal prominence. After thus discussing the two-fold forms of the tirst type of commixture' of figures, the author proceeds to take up for discussion

143

the third type, viz., 'that based on similitude'. There too, one can distinguish two sub-varieties :- The first is that wherein poetic beauty arises from the irrelevant which is stated and the suggested sense is but subordinate to it. The following verse authored by my revered preceptor, Bhattenduraja, is an example of this (sub-variety) :- The man whose life was laid waste by your might, and who raised you up in turn, he on whose shoulders you have lain for: long, and who even gave offerings to you of yore; By your act of snatching his life away, With but a smile on your face, indeed, You are playing the game of a ghoul, and stationed at the head of persons grateful! Though, in this example, one totally different in nature and utterly ungrateful is suggested because of similitude (with the ghoul), yet the stated ides of the ghoul itself constitutes the source of poetic beauty. This idca is not as impossible as the censure of an insentient object; nor is it without beauty. Hence it is clear that the stated idea itself is prominent here. If, on the other hand, the relevant subject-matter is suggested by means of a description of totally incoceivable characteris- tics associated with objects and the like, and becomes a source of poetic beauty, then it is nothing but vaitu-dhvani. The following verse of mine will serve as an example :- O host of worldly objects! You forcibly take possession Of the heart of man, and make it dance to your tune, You hide your own heart in diverse ways and play with it as you pleasr. But man, mistakenly proud of his supposed sensibility great, Calls you a dullard; But I think his dullness is indeed worthy of praise, Since it gets the honour of comparison with you! The context to be imagined in respect of this verse is as follows: There is a really great man who hides his greatness according to the dictum- "a dispassionate saint too should behave outwardly like a worldly man": though the entire array of ignorance has been dispelled by him with the light of his deep spiritual wisdom, he hides from the world his own enlightened soul and talks to worldly men all the time, making it appear that he is only an ignoramus. But the worldly men really take him for a fool and treat him with contempt. In such a contingency, the enlightened one's extraordinary behaviour cores into bold relief by

144

way of suggestion in this verse; and hence it should be deemed as the prominent meaning intended by the poet here. Objects like a pleasure- garden and moon-rise are looked down by the world with contempt as insentient and feelingless. But the assemblage of such objects can make the heart of a parted lover break with eager expectation and anguish; the same can overwhelm another's heart with the ecstasy of joy. Thus it makes the worldly men dance, as it pleases, to the tune of allurements it proffers. , But no one does ever know how it really is! Contrariwise, it is very deep-natured, excessively ingenious, entirely free from insolence and extremely sportive. If such an all toc quick-witted one is regarded by a person as stupid, unable to understand its mentioned abilities pointing to the contrary, it does in a way suggest that the person rates himself wrongly as one endowed with a judicious sensibility; and even this stupidity on his part, I think, is a compliment to him because it presupposes in its turn his similitude with you (in the matter of sagacity before his making this wrong supposition). The drift is this :- The worldly man has every reason for being supposed as a stupid being; but actually he is supposing himself to be a person with judicious sensibility for the very same reason. Hence when (foolishly) the worldly man calls the assemblage of woridly allurements as stupid, it also involves at the same time a valid reason for the supposition of stupidity on the part of the worldly speaker himself. But fallaciously, the opposite conclusion of sagacity is arrived at on what is really a ground for concluding stupidity. Since the sagacity of worldly allurements (personified) is well-known, (others) calling a worldly person stupid is tantamount to his praise, since it indirectly denotes his similariry with allurements; actually, the latter are well-known to be very clever and (though mistakenly, worldly man is said to be as stupid as allurements), it is supposed that before be yielded to allurements at least, man too was sagacious. The suggested idea is that worldly man is much worse than even stupid and insentient nature (which allures man)! Hence the author observes :- yada ... etc. itarathā tu It is never the prominence of the suggested sense but something else which governs the determination of a poetic element as a specific alańkara .. The word adi (='etc') in the verse presently summing up the discussion in the (dvandva) compound form "samasoktyadi" is to include under this head of figures of speech which possibly admit a sugestive element, a number of other figures too like vyajastuti (= veiled praise'). Now he starts giving an answer commonly applicable

145

to all such instances in the words- tadayam atra ... The idea is-'How much is to be written needlessly under each and every word!' The followirg is an example of 'veiled praise' :- Of what avail is gossip about other's homes? Yet I am unabie to remain silent; Since gossiping is in the nature of southerners! In every house and every shop, In every city square and every drinking club, Like a mad woman Your beloved is roving- I mean your fame! By the praise suggested here, the literally stated meaning itself is ernbellished. However, the follcwing verse is cited as an example of 'veiled praise' by another commentator :- O Lord! way back this earth was your grand-mother; Later your mother she came to be! Now she has become your wife to mother your sons With the cceans as her golden girdle! When you turn a hundred years full She will be vour daughter-in-law too! Is this all proper in a royal house like yours, Supposed to be expert in ethical lore? Indeed, this appears valgar to us, as it arouses extremely indecent associations. And after all, what is the 'praise' offered here? It is nothing more than this- "You have been king in a hereditary line of descent". And it is indeed inconspicuous. Such simplistic 'veiled praise' is condemned ir circles of aesthetes. Hence it should be ignored altogether. Let us now take the figure of speech called bhava defined (by Rudrața) as follows :- When an emotion's reaction produced by a contingent circurns- tance goes to suggest, by some clue, the character's specific mental state as well as the connection between the mental state and the circumstance, then the figure of speech is termed 'bhava (lit. 'emotional intent') -(Rudrața, VII.38) Here too the emotional intent becomes a figure of speech only when the directly stated meaning is relatively more important. For, the conditions governing the occurrence of the figure are that the reactions due to an emnotion such as speech and the like should be

146

variable in nature; yet the particular emotional intent involved should be inferable on the basis of a given clue. That over-all intent in the illustration given (by Rudrata) is- "I am ready for amorous dalliance with you," and it is this which constitutes the essence of the figure bhava. The illustration under reference is (Rudrata, VII.41) :- Here I am, a woman youthful though weak, All alone in this dwelling! › The master of the house has gone abroad. Whom, then, can you request for stay? My poor mother-in-law is both blind and deaf. Indeed, you are stupid, O traveller! In this illustration, the suggested intent adds beauty to each and every aspect of the directly stated facts; and hence is regarded as an alankāra. On the other hand, if it were to be relatively pre-eminent, then there would be no scope at all for any alankara, (since it would be a variety of dhvani only) as already observed. There is no need for,harping upon it any more. Yatra That is to say-'in poetry'. alaṅkţtayaḥ For the very reason that they are alankaras, it follows that they are subordinate to the directly stated meaning. pratibhā-mātre In similes etc., the apprehension of that (suggested) sense may be indistinct or hazy (mlista). vācyārthānugame That is when the suggested sense and directly stated senses have equal prominence, as in the figure, 'praise of the irrelevant' (aprastuta- praśamsa). na pratīyate When the prominence does not occur strikingly, i.e. when promi- nence has to be argued with effort, and yet it fails to carry conviction to the heart of the critic. An example of this is had in the comments made by another commentator on the verse-"de a pasia nivattasu" (supra, under Dhvanyaāloka-Kārikā, I.4). Thus it is established that in four circumstances, there will be no designation of dhvani, even though a suggested sense may be present :- 1) when it is unimportant, 2) when its comprehension is indistinct, 3) when it has a prominence equal to that of the directly stated sense and 4) when its prominence is not quite distinct. It might be asked- 'Where, then, will it be positively dhvani?' The

İ47

author gives his answer thus :-- tatparāveva This means- "free from the possibility of confusing it with any other alankara's occurrence". The word 'sankara' in the original text has this general sense only; and it would be wrong to take it in the sense of the alankara of that name, viz. 'commixture of figures'. Even the expla- nation that the figure 'sankara' is implicative of other figures too would be a laboured one. itasca Net only because the two are cependent u.pon two mutually opposed relationships, viz. that of the denoted-denoter and suggested-suggester, but also because the two are themselves opposed to each other like an independent master and a dependent slave of his, there can never be any i lentity between the alankaras and dhvani. avayava i.e. a part taken a way from the whole and considered separately. That is why it is explained as prthagbhuta or 'a unit separated'. One might urge that such a separated unit may not be a whole, but a unit comprised within the totality migh: serve as a whole. Such an objection is refuted in the sentence -- aprthagbhave tu Even in that case, it will not be one homogeneous aggregate (samudaya), since other components too which are heterogeneous will be present therein. Among the components going to form the aggregate, there is also the suggested sense. It is not of the nature of alankara for the very reason that it is the dominant sense. And that which might be an alaiskara cannot be dhvani because of its subordinate status itself. Therefore it is declared :- "na tu tattvameva". ("can by no means be identity itself"). Another possible objection is :- "You have conferred the sovereign status of dhvani on what really is only a kind of alankara, and ther declared it as the sole essence (of poetry)." This is answered in the next sentence :- yatrāpi vā "Not at all; we have not arbitrarily conferred any such high status to any of the alankaras coming under the group, samasokti and so on. For, even in their total absence, it can exist. It has been already shown in detail how it may be present even when the characteristics of alankaras like samasokti are completely non-existent through illustrations such as "atta ettha". and "kassa va na" (vide-suprı, under Dhvanikārikā, I.4). Hence the author concludes :- 'na tannişthatiameva' (dhvani is not.

148 grounded on them exclusively). vidvadupajfa This is a possessive compound qualifying 'speech'. It means 'that whose first enunciation has been made by the learned (grammarians). That is why the word does not take the neuter gender enjoined on a tatpurusa compound formed with the word upajña (lit. 'first pro- pounded') according to Panini's grammatical rule, 'upajñopakramam ... ' (II. iv. 11). Šrūyamāņeșu According to the theory that the last of the sounds coming in a series .o the ear are heard, it has been said that the sounds heard are products of (previous) sounds. Indeed, they do possess a quality of resonance as that of a ringing bell; and they have been called here by the term dhvani. As observed by the revered Bhartrhari :- What is produced by the contact and separation of the organs of speech-production with the relevant places (within the mouth) is sphota or (oral) 'sound'. Other sounds produced (echo-like) from these are termed dhvani by others (who hold that such sounds too are produced, as against those who hold that such succeeding sounds are suggested by the preceding ones). (Vakyapadiya, II.102). By the same token, even suggested sense which is resonant and comparable to the resonant vibration of a ringing bell comes to be designated by the term dhvani. Furthermore, even audible syllables, termed nada, which are fully grasped only after the last of the syllables is heard and which suggest in their turn the sphota (sound-gestalt) as a whole are called dhvani (by some grammarians). This, again, is supported by the text of the same revered author (i.e. Bhartrhari) ·-- By means of impressions ineffable, as well as continuity of appre- hensions, the sound-gestalt is revealed by dhvani. It is this sound- gestalt in which we grasp a word (as a totality) in its true form.

Thus it is clear that the term dhvani connotes both suggestive (Ibid., 1.83)

expression as well as suggestive sense. Furthermore, even though the duration of uttered syllables is restricted, as noted by authorities in the field- . "However slight be the effort in the utterance of word, the listener's mind will either not catch any of the syllables thereof, or will catch all the syllables at once." (Kumārila, Ślokavārttika, section on sphota, 10) even in the case of the restricted nature of syllables heard, it is seen that

149

on the speaker's part there is some further effort, over and above the effort required for their mere utterance, which results in differences of intensity in the sounds, viz., 'fast', 'slow' and so forth. As Bhartrhari himself says :- After the word-sound is revealed, differences in its intensity are brought about by vaikrta-dhvanis or transformed evolutes of the initial or bi imary dhvani (i.e. prakrta-dhvani). But the tota' unit of sphota apprehended is never partitioned by them. (Vakyapadi ya, 1.77) Taking their (i.e. grammarian's) lead, it is stated by us that the linguistic function over and above those of denotation, intended purport and secondary implication deserves the designation of dhvani. Thus all these four are termed dhvani. And the whole poem too, with which the above four are associated, comes to be termed dhvani. Therefore references to dhvani - sometimes as distinct from a poem, and at other times as identical with a poem - are both not without justification. vāc /a-vācakz .- sammisraḥ .. This is a compound word with the intermediary word sahita elided. Hence the sense is that of the compound whole (sammiśra) constituted by the fusion of the denoted and the denotative elements. Though immediatel; after this compound word, there is no co-ordinating conjunction ca, its sense is intended by implication as in the well known usage 'gamasvam purusam'etc. (lit. the cow and the horse and the man). Hence it emerges that the meaning denoted is dhvani, and the word that demotes is dhvani; both possess the power of suggestion as they communicate dhvani. Further, the suggested sense is also dhvani, since we have the fusion therein of the ingredients of rasa such as determinants (vibhavas), consequents (anubhāvas) etc. by the etymo- logy that the compound of these (viz. rasa) is suggested. Again, the term Sabda itself can connote the linguistic function by the sense of the root fabd ('to produce linguistic sound') from which it is derived. And i: is not of the nature of abhidha or mere denotation, but a function which touches the very essence. Hence this verbal function is also termed dhvani. Finally, the referent of vrhat is called kavya or poetry is also dhrani, in so far as it is a collocation or summation of all the four types of dhvani already explained. So it is that the raison d'etre common to all these is furnished in the phrase :-. Vyañjakatva-rāmyād Vyanjakc tva is the relation between the suggester and the suggested;

150

and this relation is found to govern uniformly or commonly all these different alternatives coming under the category of dhvani. Now the objection raised by some objectors in the beginning of the book that since the possible turns of speech are endless, dhvani cannot be anything more than a negligible detail among them, is taken up for refutation in the words- na caivamvidhasya This shows how vast the purview of dhvani is, with its chief varieties and sub-varieties to be set forth in the sequel. The chief varieties to be mentioned are two; viz., 1) avivaksitavācya and 2) vivaksitānyaparavā- cya. The sub-varieties of the first are:(i) arthantara-sankramitavacya and (ii) atyantatiraskrta-vacya; the sub-varieties of the second are :- (i) asamlaksya-krama-vyangya and (ii) samlaksya-krama-vyangya; again, each of these sub-varieties also have their further sub-divisions. mahāvişayasya Thus the purview of dhvani comes to be very vast as it has to cover so many forms of illustrative units in poetry. Its treatment then is in no way comparable to a treatment of just particular figures of speech. The word particular brings out how very limited is the scope of individual figures; the word just emphasizes the absence of primacy in such a treatment of individual figures. It is because of this positive aesthetic appeal (camatkara) of dhvani that the minds of men of taste are scented by it as it were; hence they have a worthy reason for exhibiting even physical reactions like 'closing of the eyes' and so on. abhāvavādinaḥ All those who deny dhvani, even if they do not come under the three heads already noticed, should be construed as coming under this general description. The result of refuting all their objections is declared now by the author: asti dhvaniḥ Dhvani exists (beyond doubt). The asseveration of (the identity of dhvani with) bhaktatva or secondary sense can be easily raised and refuted only against the background of literary examples; with this idea in mind, the author of the vrtti sets himself to the task of recapitulating even here the matter constituting the next chapter, before answering the two pertinent charges against dhvani, viz., (i) its equivalence with secondary sense and (ii) its indefinability, though these deserved the first claim on his attention in the natural order of treatment expected :- sa ca ... All the five senses of the term dhvani become severally applicable in

151

understanding these (Bahuvrthi or compound) narnes given to the sub-varieties of dhvani, depending on the sense intended in each case. The relative pronouns, viz., 'by which', 'in which', 'from which', 'for which', and 'of which' may be easily understood respectively in the five senses under reference. Thus in the term avivaksitavacya-dhvani the second member -vacya means 'primary meaning rendered subordinate', to make it applicable to 'dhvani' which means 'suggestive sense' here. In che same way, the member -vacya will have to be interpreted to suit the other type of ihvani in question, viz. vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani, also. Alternativesy, these compounds may be understood as adjectival compounds (karmadharaya) also. The formal analysis of the term avivaksita-vacya would be that vacya which is unintended (literally) and at the same timne expressive; and of the term vivaksitanyapara-vā- cya would be- that which is intended literally and implying another sense too, as well as expressive. The primnary sense may sometimes become unintended for reasons like incompatibility; but at other times, it might be compat ble and hence also inter ded. Yet, it leads up to che ultimate suggested sense by virtue of its own beautiful efficacy. Thus, in this second variety, sense alone becomes primarily suggestive, whereas in the former, the word is primarily suggestive. A.t this stage, one might raise an objection that it is a glaring self-contradiction to regard one and the same meaning to be both intended and unintended. We should answer back with a query :- 'Where is any contradiction in our regarding as intended the very extension of the first meaning to imply the second alone?'

sāmānyena. The purport is that even the triple subdivision of dhvani into vastu, alankara and rasn is subsumed under these two heads of dhvani. It might be asked :- "What purpose is served by adding these two technical names at the back of the first technical name, dhvani (which is itself under dispute)?" Here is our reply: These two technical names serve to highlight the fact that both the impression of the listener brougnt about by the earlier noted three types of word-import, due to the functioning of convention, purport and implication (or Indication) and the speaker's intention act as contributories to each other during the operation of the suggestive function. In this way, the nature of dhvani itself has been vivified even by these very names (of its two types).

152

Suvarņa-pușpām ... Suvarna-puspa is that which blossoms gold manifold. Taken literally, the sentence as a whole becomes incongruent since the literal meaning is just impossible; so it comes to be called avivaksiva-vacya or that whose primary meaning is unintended. As a consequence, the sentence first denotes the conventional meaning, indicates by its power of purport (tatparya) the word-order to be construed (anvaya), sets it aside as being incongruent, and by virtue of similarity, signifies the secondary sense, viz. one's attainment of all-round prosperity. The significance of this secondary word-function lies in the (suggested) admiration of the hero, the learned man and the dutiful servant. It is not openly stated, but concealed, even like the buxom breasts of a noble heroine, thereby attaining a high degree of preciousness, and comes to be suggested. Hence the word here is primarily suggestive, while the sense is but contributory to it; thus all in all, four verbal functions are involved in this type of dhvani-kavya (viz. denotation, indication of purport, secondary implication and suggestion). Šikhariņi kva nu nāma ... The idea is that even holy mountains like Sri-parvata famous as rtreats for the unhindered attainment of the highest siddhis (or magical super-human powers) would not be productive of such a goodliness as this. Even thousands of celestial aeons would be no more than a limited period of time. One has not heard that any austerity like Pancagni (penance practiced rigorously between five burning fires) can ever bestow such a good fortune. The word tava is an independent word and not compounded with adhara-patala. Were it to be a part of the compound, the personal reference to the lady, viz. 'your', would not be conveyed to the reader independently or emphatically; 'what the parrot bites is a fruit red like your lower lip' is the emphasis intended by the poet. Therefore, the objection raised by some to the effect that "the poet has not written 'tvadadhara-patalam', only because of the exigencies of metre" becomes pointless. daśati i.e. relishes the savour unstintedly all the time, and does not gulp it up like a glutton; hence the young parrot is acting as a relisher of good taste. Both these, i.e. the attainment of such a precious fruit, and the capacity for its unstinted relish are due to the benign influence of some holy asceticism. Even the acquisition of it in youth, which is the proper time for all enjoyment, is a further benignity conferred by the same asceticism forsooth. The suggested element herein is the disclosure of the stimulant conducive to the rasa of love, viz., the expertise of the

153

lover in compusing his love-song ro his beloved in a very covert fashion. Only three functions are involved here :- i) denotation, ii) purport and iii) suggestion. As there is no incongruity in understanding the referentirl meaning, there is no occasion for the intervention of indication as the third function in this example. Alternatively, if one were to admit chat there is incongruity in understanding the referential meaning, since the imagined questions are all fortuitous and therefore incongruent, one might also allow Indication based on similarity to intervene as a function in the middle stage. Even then, its set purpose must be taken only as suggested, and that purposive part will constitute the fourth stage in the general understanding of the verse. The difference berween the two illustrations in the text is only this :- In the former, exclusively Indication is the primary contribntor in the sugges- tive process; while in the latter the primary contributors are Denotation uid Purport; it is so because the suggested sense is grasped only through the agency of the sentence-meaning's beauty as a whole; hence it has been started that Indication might have a negligible part to play therein too. But in the variety of dhrani called asamlaksya-krama- vyanzya (lit. that dhvani wherein the temporal sequence between the stated and suggested senses is not noticeable), there is not even a glimmer of Indication; the sequential order being unnoticeable by its very na ture. This v ill be further explained in the sequel. Thus in the second variety o dhvani too, there are just four linguistic functions. Hence the author restates 'bhaktamahuh', immediately in the wake of the two examples cited and refutes the view of the bhaktavadins. The following is the gist of the mnatter :- Those who allege that bhakti itself is dhvani should be asked which one of the three following possibilities of identity (tadrupya) they are espousing :- (1) identity between two synonyms; (2) identity between an object and its differentia (in a definition); e.g. that between earth and its differentia, viz., earthness; and (3) identity imagined on account of a chance concomicance berween two things, as for exarple that berween a crow and the residence of a person named Devadatta. Arnong these the first one is refuted in the text, viz., I.14 bhaktyā bibharti ukta-prakara, the epithet of dhvani, means that dhvani should be taken in all its five senses already noted, viz., (1) word, (2) meaning, (3) linguistic function, (4) the suggested sense and (5) the whole poem, which is a whole comprising all the first four aspects. In order to draw out the basic distinction in the very nature of the two (viz., bhakti and dhvani), the author describes the true nature of dhvani

154

in the sentence :- vācya-vyatiriktasya arthasya ... Here, tatparyena means 'That intended as the final resting point'; it might also mean 'that intended as the final purport'; prakasanam means 'suggestion'. upacāra-mnătram upacara is a synonym of terms like gunavrtti or secondary verbal usage, laksana or Indication and upacaranam or figuratively eulogistic expres- sion. The term matram carries the following significance :- Even in usages wherein a fourth verbal function concerned with suggesting the hidden purpose exists, it is virtually as good as non-existent, sir.ce it comes to be ignored though possibly present, as a matter of fact over and above the third verbal function, viz., laksana or Indication. Indeed, the very definition of a purpose is :- "that contemplating the attainment. of which one proceeds to act." Even in such places, Indication is surely existing. How then can the functions of 'suggestion' and 'indication' become identical? Now the author refutes the second possibility (outlined above) of bhakti :- ativyapteh ... 'asau' or 'this' refers to dhvani. taya='by that' means 'by bhakti'. One could urge at this stage as follows :- When 'suggestion' is necessarily involved in 'Indication', how can there be any scope for it in places outside the purview of 'suggestion'? The reply to the charge is given below :- mahat sausthavam ... Logically, some kind of suggestion regarding purport might be present therein, but it is of no consequence since the purpose suggested is so meagre as to deserve indifference. The adjective mahat ('exces- sive') shows that the little charm that might be there as an effect of 'suggestion' is to be taken just as a guna or literary excellence (and not as literary essence); that is why it has been said (by Dandin) :- "The attribution of the property of one thing upon another thing is taken as a literary excellence by name 'samadhi' or 'Imposition'."(Kavyadarsa, II. 261). If, then, there should be no significant purpose served, what is the justification for such a parlance? An answer to this question is furnished in the following :- prasiddhyanurodha ... The parlance of poets is mostly governed by the traditional or conventional use of words by other poets preceding them. We would offer here another interpretation too :- Besides conven-

155

tional currency, prasiddhs might also signify the unconcealed nature of the parpose in view. The purpose might be revealed on the surface itself (as in bhakti); but what is required in dhvami is its profound hiddenness, even as in the case of a precious treasure. By the secondary usage in the word vadati, the purpose conveyed is 'clear manifestation'. What loss to poetic charm would be there if one were to say it out openly in so maay words? Conversely, what extra poetic charm can be felt even when it is indicated thus in a hidden fashion? It is with this intention that the author himself states in the sequel (I.15) that the term dhvani is applicable only to such instances which convey such charm as cannot be conveyed through any other words. avarundbijjai means 'is embraced'.

means 'absence of usefulness', since 'reiteration' is literally impossible. punaruktam

kupitah prasanna avaruditavadanā vihasantyah yathā grhitastatha hrdayam haranti svairiņyo nahilab,

Here 'holding' (grahana) indicates acceptance; and 'capture' (harana) indicates the possibility of one's succumbing to the wiles (of wanton women). 'ajjāe', etc. Even a soft stroke with a fresh creeper given by the man on his last wife's bosom became an unbearable blow on the heart to the co-wives who did not share with her that husband's love-making, for the very reasor that it was soft (indicating love). That a soft stroke given to one person should Lecome unbearable to another, though soft, is indeed amazing. The word 'given' indicates the fruition of love (so far as the last wife is concerned). 'r ararthe', etc. Although the word 'suffers' is quite compatible in its primary sense with the noble person indirectly praised, yet when construed with the sugercane, the immediate referent, the very impossibility of its suffering any actual feeling becomes the cause, for (our understanding) its secondary sense of 'an object undergoing pain' which is tantamount to its 'becoming subjected to pressure'. The auther anticipates the following objection :- 'There is in fact a purpose served in this exarnple alse, Why then should that purpose be not reckoned as suggested?' The author's answer to this is :- "na caivamvidha ... " ('such instanees are never reckoned as coming under the purview of dhvant'-vrtti):

156

I.15 uktyantareņa ... That is to say, 'by any function of word or meaning other than dhvani'. The word sabda (in the karika) should be understood in all its five senses). dhvanyuktervişayîbhavet In other words, 'will be denoted by the term 'dhvani'. udāhṛte i.e. in the usages cited above, such as 'vadati'. So far, the author has demonstrated that the function of dhvani is not involved even in instances of Indication implying a purpose, when the said purpose is not worthy of regard. Now it is added that in instances where a purpose is basically absent, though a secondary usage is present, the question of dhvani does not even arise :- I.16 kim ca Words like lavanya (iit. 'saltiness') which have gained currency in senses like 'attractiveness', quite remote from the literal sense, namely, 'saltiness', and, for that very reason of currency (rudhi), which do not stand in need of the fulfilment of the three conditions of laksana (viz., incompatibility of primary sense, proximity with primary sense and an intended purpose for resorting to secondary usage) - this is according to the well-known dictum that "secondary usages current in specific senses are mostly as good as primary referential statements" - do not become worthy of the designation, "dhvani", even if they be used in senses other than their own. In other words, they will not be referred to as 'dhvani'. The secondary usage of words is two-fold-i) based on qualitative similarity between two objects and ii) involving relation other than similarity between two objects. By the word adi (in the karika) we should understand words like anulomya (congruousness), pratikūlya (opposition) and sabrahmacarin (associate). Literally, a massage down the regular hair-line is anuloma; and a stream flowing off the bank is pratikula; one having the same teacher as another is sabrahmacarin; these are the primary senses of these three words. The other meanings of these current in usage are secondary and derivative only. No special purpose is involved in the secondary usages of these words; hence the nomenclature of dhvani does not befit them. It might be urged that in examples like- "Shining in all youthful charm, my beloved paramour has come into my house", there is apprehension of suggested meaning from expressions like lavanya; yes, it is true. But the suggested meaning apprehended therein is not due to the word lavanya, but due to the suggestive power of the sentence understood as a whole. In the particular instance cited above, it is

157 siggested that the beloved's face itself is illumining a'l the directions. This discussion need not fur:her detain us. Hence the author concludes- prak.ārāntareņa That is to say, by way of suggestion alone, and not by the use of indicatory words like lavanya. Thus there is no invariable concomitance between bhakti and dhvani. In case bhakti were to be the differentia of dhvani, then wherever bhakti is present, dhvani too would have to be present, a position which is indeed tainted by the fallacy of Too Wide. Even if we should accept this position for the sake of argument, still their difference cannot be altered :- 'Let us, for argument's sake, admit that dhvan. is present wherever bhakti is found. Even then, the object towards which Indication directs itself is not the same as the one towards which nuggestion comes to be directed .. There can be no relation like that of an attribute and substantive between two entities whose scope or object of functioning is radically different. And a differentia is no more than a (distinctive) attribute. To explain further, Indication is a function concerned with a non-primary meaning, while suggestion is concerned only with the purpose or end in view. And it is not proper to hold that even that purpose or end can be conveyed by a second Indicatory power, since that situation does not have the conditions required for the functioning of Indication. This reasoning is implied in the author's concluding words, viz .- api ca :- 17 ınukhyam vittim ... The 'primary function' referred to is abhidha or the denotative power of words. 'Leaving aside' hns the sense of 'giving up, i.e. terminating'. 'By the secondary function' means 'by the function of Indication'. 'The apprehension of sense' here has reference to the apprehension of only the secondary sense. In regard to the purposive end for the sake of which it is resorted to, another verbal power indeed must be admitted as responsible. Surely, it cannot, again, be Indication. For, the very definition of Indication is that it is a verbal power which functions only when the primary meaning of a word is stultified or hampered by the force of obstacles. There is no such obstacie present when a word is bringing abou+ the apprehension of a speaker's purpose or end. If an obstacle should be present there too, to remedy which a secondary function is posited, then the second apprehension of the purpose too can have an obstacle to be remedied by a still another secondary function, and this leads to infinite regress. Hence it is impossible that this apprehension of purpose conld be the result of an indicated

158

Indication. The word darsana in the original text has a causal significance. Thus- kartavye means 'is made or intended to be conveyed'. amukhyatā i.e. being hampered by the presence of an obstacle or conflicting circumstance. dustataiva A word is used in a secondary sense only with a view to ensuring that the apprehension of the intended purpose is rendered easy. When the purpose meant to be conveyed (by the speaker) is the boy's extra- ordinary bravery in the example, 'the boy is a lion', in case that function too should become impeded, it is tantamount to saying that the intended purpose remains uncommunicated; what is the point then in resorting to such a secondary usage of the word? If one were to say that there too another purpose has to be envisaged, then all secondary usage would end up in envisaging purposes ad infinitum. Alternatively, if the secondary function operates unimpeded, then the function involved in conveying the purpose would not be Indication at all, because its governing conditions are not present there. Nor can one assume that there is no verbal power operating in the said example. Certainly, the power operating therein cannot be denotation, since there is no conventional meaning with which it is linked. The power therein which is other than denotation is itself suggestion. na caivam Nor is there any defect involved in such (suggestive) usage, since the intended purpose is conveyed quite unimpededly. Therefore, the fact of the matter is as follows :- Denotation itself, when forced by an impediment to lose the word's primary sense, i.e. when its fruitful operation is hindered, turns in another direction since its purpose is yet unfulfilled. That is why popular usage regards the understood sense as a non-primary sense. That is also why in the secondary function too, there is a specific association with a conventional sense in a non- primary fashion. Hence Indication is just a tail of Denotation. tasmāt indicates that the author is now concluding his argument. Since Indication is just an appendage of Denotation, how can it, depending as it does on the verbal function of primary denotation and meriting the designation of 'a secondary function' only,- both because it arises by abrogating denotation and because it is but a tail as it were of deno- tation- ever be a differentia of dhvani or suggestive function of a

159

word, in its two-fold aspect, viz. metaphorical and secondary usage? Indeed, the purview of the two are quite different and the alleged identity is impossible. This conclusion is stated with the preamble -- tasmāt i.e. Not only because of the fallacy of Too Wide aire ady pointed out, but also because of the different purviews of the two incidentally set forth. Having thus explained first the fallacy of Too Wide mentioned in the kārikā, viz., "ativyapteratha .. " (I 17), now the author starts explaining the other fallacy cf Too Narrow :- avyāptirapyasya ... "asya' refers to the general statement equating dhvani with gunavrtti or secondarv usage. In case bhakti were said to be found in every instance where dhvani is present, there would be no fallacy of Too Narrow. Buc that is not what the objector has said. Thus in the variety of dhvani known as avivaksita-vācya, bhakti is indeed present in examples such as -- suvarņapuşpāmı prthivīm (supra.) But in other examples like- sikhariņi ... (supra.) where is bhakti? The objector might attempt a defence of his stand in the following marner :- 'Indeed, the purview of laksana embraces gauns also. A word might indicate a sense and then be put in apposition with it (assuming the same case-ending) as in simho vatuh ('the boy is alion!'). Or,, the sense too might indicate another sense, in which case the indicatory word is caused to be put in apposition with the word denoting the sense (so that the two come to have the same case-ending); or else, one might also say that both the word and sense together simultaneously indicate the second sense and come to be mixed up with another word and another sense. Thus whatever be our explanation (of secondary usage), the conclusion remains that the metaphorical (gauna) usage is quite distinct from laksanika or secondary usage in general. For, it has been rightly observed :- "A distinctive word is used only in gawna usage; but not in laksana." Thus (though the distinctive word may be absent), the presence of the secondary verbal function is indeed there too; hence laksana must be regarded as all-embracing, covering examples of gauna as well. And lakşumņā, again, is five-fold. To explain; the first variety is seen when there is some association (of the secondary sense) with the primary sense. The word 'dvirepha' is an example of this. Here the primary sense of it is that which has a narne with two 'ra' syllables in it. It denotes

160

the bee as its secondary sense because of its association with the word 'bhramara' That sense of the bee is indicated secondarily by the word dvirepha only because of its association with the word bhramara as already explained. The second variety is based on proximity. The usage 'gangāyam ghoşab' ('There is a hamlet in the Ganges!') illustrates this. The third variety is based on invariable concomitance, which is also a close relation. This is illustrated in the usage: yastih pravesaya ('Allow the lances to enter!'). The fourth variety is based on a relation of contrariness, as in the example of a person who talks of his enemy in the following way :- "Indeed, is there any way in which he has not favoured me?" The last variety is based on kriyayoga or the relation of cause and effect, e.g., a person who is depriving one of his food, is spoken of as follows- "this man is taking away my life!" Indeed, by this five-fold lakşana, the entire secondary usage of the' word is fully explained. Thus, even in such examples as 'fikharini ... ' when one concedes the presence of an incongruous element taking the form of a fortuitous query etc., laksana based on similarity will be operative. The dbvani theorist might retort that he too has admitted the presence of laksanā there as occurring in between other functions. If so, why is it designated then as vivaksitanyapara ('intended but denoting another')? The answer is given to this question by clubbing the vivaksitanyapara variety of dhvani with its other divisions (tadbheda). The chief division of dhvani postulated here is asamlaksya-krama (that wherein sequence remains uncognizable). Hence all its sub-divisions, viz., rasa, bhava, rasabhāsa, bhavabhasa, rasa-prasama and bhava-prafama come to be understood under the broad head tadbheda. In none of these can laksana have any operative part. This may be illustrated in detail :- kavya or poetry (by definition,) is descriptive of determinants (vibhava) and consequents (anubhava) (of rasa etc.); and this primary sense of rasadi does not even contain the possibility of any incongruity. How, then, can there be any scope for Indication there? The objector might urge :- "Where is the need for incongruity? The essential nature of Indication is just this much as per the famous definition- viz., "Indication is the apprehension of a sense invariably associated with the primary meaning." Since in the present case, the primary senses of determinants, consequents etc. are invariably associated with rasas etc., the latter should be held as indicated; the determinants and consequents are nothing but causes and effects; the passing moods are nothing but their associates." We refute this stand. If the above argument is valid, when a person understands smoke from hearing the word 'smoke' and then remem-

161 bers 'fire' (associated with smoke), this act, i.e., his remembering 'fire also, would have to be taken as brought about by Indication. Further, his remembrance of 'overcoming cold' from 'fire' and so forth would all come unc.er the scope of Indication. The meaning of the word 'smoke' wculc become endless at this rate. Should the objector say- ' as the scope of the word 'smoke' is limited to its primary sense, all that endless meaning cannot be embraced by Indication," then we come back to the first premise, viz. the vital essence of indication is incongruity in the prirnary sense of a word. Once it is there, there cannot be anything like a limited primary meaning. Certainly, there is no incongruity of any kind in the delineatio of determinants and consequents (of rasadis) in poetry. "Should that be so," the objector might yet argue- "as in the case of the remembrance of fire after understanding smoke, so also the apprehension of emotional states such as love follows the appre- hensicn of the determinants, etc. So there would be no operation at all here of any verbal function". This Mimamsaka philosopher deserves to be put to a questioning. "Is it held by you that the apprehension of rasa is nothing but the apprehension of mental srates as present in other individuals?" No sir, you should never commit this mistake. If this were all, it would be no more than an inference of rental states in persons belonging to our empirical world; how could there be any relish in it? Actually, the relish of rusa is what we regard as a supra-mundane experience of joy. Its vital essence lies in relishing the determinants etc. described in poetry. It should not be subjected to the sacrilege of being equated with remembrance, inference and so on. On the other hand, the truth is that a man with a cultivated sensibility, thanks to his conversance with empirical thought-processes like inferring the cause from the effect, appreh.ends determinants etc., in a way not at all detached; his way is one of complete self-surrender to his sahrdayatva or responsiveness, also called by the alternate name hrdaya-samvada or 'consent of the heart'; as a result of this, his apprehension is seminally charactetised by relish, in keeping with his einfuhlung (tanmayi bhavana); and does not tread the insipid path of remembrance, inference and so forth, since the seedling of the would-be fullness of rasa-relish has already taken root in his heart. Nor is this relish a result of any other instrument of knowledge in the past; in which case only it could be remembered now. Nor is it now produced from any other instrument of knowledge known anywhere else, because in explaining supra mundane experiences, perception erc. cannot have any relevance.

162

That is the reason why supra-mundane terms like 'determinant' are used in the context of rasa instead of current wordly terms like 'cause'. Our authority for this stand is Bharata himself who states- The term vibhava has the sense of that which is extraordinarily apprehended. (Natyasastra, Ch. VI) In the world of empirical usage, however, one talks of it only as a 'cause'; one never designates it as vibhava or aesthetic determinant. In the same way, anubhava (consequent) too is supra-mundane only. That is why it is stated (by Bharata) :-- Since re-presentation by way of speech, limbs and skill makes the onlookers feel the emotions themselves after the manner of the actors, anubhava is so designated. (Ibid) anubhavana or 'co-feeling', is nothing but the rapport or einfuhlung of the onlooker with that of the spectator. In our empirical usage, it is only called by the common name 'effect' and is not termed any time as an aesthetic consequent (anubhava). It is indeed to emphasize the truth that 'another's state of mind is not intellectually cognized' that Bharata has not included the term sthayibhava in his aphorism about rasa; viz. - vibhavanubhāva-vyabhicari-samyogad-rasa-nişpattiķ (Ibid). 'By the mingling of aesthetic antecedents, consequents and passing moods does rasa result.' Were he to include it (sthayibhava) also, it would have been a destructional missile. The transformation of a sthayin (abiding mental state) into rasa stated by Bharata elsewhere can be explained in terms of propriety. For, relish arises only as beautified by the chastening influence of that (abiding) mental state whose appropriate manifestations are determinants and consequents. And also, abiding mental states like love are apprehended by way of observing determinants like the pleasure-grove and consequents like' horripilation, at the stage of acquiring knowledge of the worldly emotions of persons as helpful instruments in attaining the goal of rapport (with characters depicted in literature). Though passing moods also are mental states, they are mentioned separately along with determinants and consequents in the aphorism, because they too come to be relished only as ancillaries of abiding mental states. Hence the arousal of the state of relish is nothing but the intensity of aesthetic experience which is attained by rendering inferior all empirical states of mind like joy produced by worldly causes such as union with kinsfolk described in a literary work. Thus this arousal of aesthetic relish is the same as suggestion; it cannot be any intellectual communication as in the case of the process involved when means of kr.owledge are

163

operating; nor can it be any kind of production as in the case of the activity or causal agents. If then it is neither intellectual communication, nor causal production, what else is it? Indeed, it is rasa which is supra-mundane. But, the objector might again ask back -. "A.re the factors responsible for the arousal of aesthetic relish, viz. determinants, consequents, etc. communicative agents or productive canses?" We say that they are neither communicative agents nor prodnctive causes; but they are only contributory factors for the arousal of aesthetic relish. "Is such a thing seen at all anywhere else in the world?" - the objector might ask. Our answer is that since it is not seen anywhere else, because of that reason precisely, rasa has been described as supra-mundane by us. One can also hit back with the counter-question- Where is even the relish of sweet juice seen elsewhere? for, surely, it is not there in jaggery, pepper, etc. which are its ingredients. Such pcsers are quite easy. But, then, the objector might exclair that rasa becomes devoid of validity attested by accepted instruments of knowledge. We would say-"All right, may it be so. What further cifficulty is there?" Since both the goals (of literature), viz., delight and instruction are achieved through aesthetic relish itself, what else is there to be attained? Then, "is it conceded", the objector might argue, "that rasa is without any valid proof?" We reply- "No, not at all! Its proof lies in its being actnally e xperienced by the relisher; and relishing is also a kind of valid knowledge. Further discussion on this is ur necessary." There is also another reason why rasa happens to be supra- mundane :-- Alliteration of delicate and harsh syllables is not useful in conveying any explicit meaning; but it is suggestive of rasa all the same. There is no room there for supposing the operation of Indication. The aesthetic relish therein is a resultant entirely of the relisher's tasting of the sound-aspect of the alliterative poem. Sensitive critics are/seen, by and large, reading and relishing the same poem again and again. The maxim that "what is but a means to the end in view, comes to be rejected when its purpose is served, though it is first utilized" does not apply to literature whose end is delight. Hence literature which produces delight once is not rejected, (because its production of a second delight and so forth is also equally cherished by men of taste); thus it is true that even sound (in literature) has a suggestive power. That is why the time sequence between grasp of sound and meaning is unnoticeable. A critic has observed that this position of ours would involve the defect of 'vakya-bheda' or "one sentence virtually being taken as two." The crisicism stems from a misunderstanding of our position. (Even

164

leaving aside literature), if we take only non-literary works into consideration, we find that a sentence uttered but once yields a meaning, because of conventional denotation; how could it be held as conveying two meanings simultaneously, since no remembrance is possible (on the hearer's part) of two opposite conventional imports at one and the same time? Conversely, if it be held that the two conventional imports are not mutually opposed, it would result only in a single sentence-meaning. If it should be posited that the two are conveyed sequentially, i.e., one after another, such a position would conflict with the accepted dictum that words and sentences cannot have powers that admit of any halt before the completion of meaning. In case it is thought that such a double meaning can be properly explained only by postulating that the sentence is repeated twice, (the first repetition explaining the rise of the first meaning and the second repetition of the same giving rise to the second meaning), even then, the defect already pointed out (viz., conflict with the dictum that words and sentences cannot have powers that admit of any halt before completion of meaning) would remain as forceful as before. To avoid it, if the objector should say that the second meaning conveyed is other than the one conveyed by the sentence with the aid of conributories like context, conventional denotation, etc., then it would upset the very basic principle underlying verbal usage in conventional senses. (Any state- ment could mean any thing one wants). Thus the contingency would arise that the Vedic injunction- "One desirous or heaven should celebrate the sacrifice called Agnistoma" could be interpreted as meaning "one should eat dog's flesh" according to the whim of the interpreter. There would be no rule preventing such a whimsical interpretation. In such an instance too, there is no possibility of any uniform consistency, and the defect of 'Want of proof' would remain. Thus the defect of sentence, viz., 'two-in-one' would taint that statement also. On the other hand, the actually described determinants etc. direct themselves towards the arousal of relish in the case of rasa; and hence there is no need for them to take the aid of means like conventional denotation, etc. This awareness is not like that of the one arising from one's hearing a scriptural injunction which involves impressions such as - "I am the person enjoined; I shall perform this ritual here and I have accomplished this ritualistic act enjoined." The whole procedure is future-oriented therein; and hence is mundane in its nature. On the other hand, in poetry, the awareness of relish aroused is completely present-oriented like a magic flower sprung forth from rhe relish of

165

determinants, etc .; it is not related to anything past or future. Therefore, aesthetic relish of rasa is at once distinct from mundane relish as well as bliss experienced by yogins. Hence it is that even in examples like 'fikharini'(supra.), men of taste will grasp the speak:er's intent, viz., sweet flattery of his beloved, without cosidering things like incongruity in the primary sen.se, etc. That is the reason why our author has said in a general way that Indication will be absent in dhvani classed as vivaksitanyapara-vācya. But, in order to educate even the hard-headed critics, we have said -- "Let there be Indication all right; but what will you do, even if you are offended, in respect of dhvani classed as alaksya-krama? If you are not offended really, we would make bold to say that the final resting-place is suggesed sense even in dhvani of the avivaksita-vacya type -- e.g. suvarnapuspam ... which does not have to utilize the causal factors of Indication like incongruity of primary sense, etc." This discussion need not be prolonged any further. The auchor concludes (his argument) now :- I.18 tasmād bhaktiḥ Another likely objection is this :- "Let not Indication and suggestion be identical in essence. L.et not Indication be even the differentia of suggestion. But it can surely serve as an indicatory mark (upalaksana) at least. of dhvani taking the form: 'Wherever dhvani exists, bhakti also exists". Tnis would substantiate our position that dhvani is indicated by the operation of bhakti. Even this is not true in all instances. Even if it be true, for argument's sake, whar is it that the objector has gained by such an argument? And what is it that we have lost? So the author adds- I.19 kasyacit The objector might argue like this :- In fact, bhakti or Indication has been expressly stated by ancient theorists. Intelligent readers will be able to understand by themselves dhvani in its several forms also by their knowledge of the operation of bhakti. Why should it be thus separately defined? Anticipating such an argument, the author states :- yadi ca The comprehensive principle underlying all alankras is indeed the relation of the denoter and the denoted. Once the nature of that denotation comes to be explained fully by grammarians and Mima- msakas, where will be any scope left for the work of literary theorists to explain alankaras? Similarly, once the logicans have proved that an effect is producen from a cause, what new aspect would be left for a

166

further explanation regarding causal agents like God or the knowers? Thus every philosophical activity. (of definition) would become a sheer waste. So the text adds- lakşaņa-karaņa-vaiyarthya-prasaṅgaḥ There may not be any new discovery made by us for the first time;what was already disclosed by earlier theorists is fully explained by us. Even if this were to be the truth, what harm is there? With this idea in mind the author observes- kim ca-lakşaņe'nyaiḥ ...; prāgeva ... the word 'even before' in the text should be taken in conjunction with 'our present effort' implied in the context. By thus refuting the three-fold theory of non-existence of dhvani, and also the theory of subsumption of dhvani under bhakti, it might be' taken that the theory of indefinability is as good as refuted in passing. That is why no original karika is seen which expressly refutes this view. Though it is indirectly refuted already, the author in his vrtti, however, directly sets forth that prima facie view and refutes it in order to complete the structural unity in argument of the work with the sentence, viz .-

In the way already explained, the karika, viz. "yatrārthah sabdo va ... " ye'pi ...

(I.13) provides a general definition of dhvani. In the way to be explained in the sequel, a specific consideration of it in a classified manner will be accomplished in karikas beginning with- "arthantare sankramitam" (II. 1). The author in his karikas of the first chapter has offered only a general definition of dhvani. In the second chapter he intends to offer the divisions as well as a specific definition of dhvani- types. But he alludes therein (II. 1) to the first two dhvani-types as if they were already mentioned earlier. Adhering to this (unsaid) intent of the karika-author, the vrtti-author has expressly spoken of the two dhvani- types in this (first) chapter itself- 'sa ca dvividbah ... ' sarveșāmeva all entities, whether empirical or philosophical. atisayoktyā by the hyperbole, as in the example- "those syllables sweet arouse in my heart something beyond my descriptive art!" That is to say, by the description of dhvani as "indefinable", they might have implied the quintessential nature itself of dhvani in poetry by this hyperbole.

167

Amen. There may indeed be light (aloka), Entiched also by 'moonlight' (candrika); Yet will it shine without sight? (Locana) So has Abhinavagupta aright Provided his open eye-sight!

By whose revealing power afar, The whole universe stands ajar; To that Goddess of Intuition self-enshrined, I bow down in devotion consigned!

उदाहरणपद्य सूची (लोचनग्रन्थे) .... पुटसंख्या आकर: अधिकारादपेतस्य 57 भानहः III.29 अपह्नुतिरभीष्टस्य 51 भामह : III.21 अभिधेयेन सामीप्यात् 13 भर्तृमित्रस्येति मुकुलभट्टेनोस्लिखितम् अभिधेयाविनाभूत- 74 कुमारिल:, तन्त्रवार्तिकम्, p. 318 (Chow. edn.) अल्पीयसापि यत्नेन 63 कुमारिलः, श्लोकवार्तिकम् अवज्ञयाप्यवच्छाद्य 53 ऐतिहासिका: अहो संसारनैर्घृण्यम् 57 अहं त्वा यदि नेक्षेय 49 भामह :. II.69 आदिमध्यान्तविषयम् 50 भामह : I1.25 आसीन्नाथ पितामही 60 मातङ्गदिवाकरस्येति पुभाषितावलौ उपादायापि ये हेया: 76 भर्तृहरि:, वाक्यपदीयम् II.38 उपेयुषामपि दिवं 17 भामह : I.6 एकदेशस्य विगमे 51 भामह : III.23 एकस्मिन् शयने 36 अमरुशतकम् 23 एकाकिनी यदबला 61 रुद्रट: VII.41 एतत्तस्य मुखात् 57 भल्लटशतकम् 91 ऐन्द्रं धनु: 50 पाणिनेरिति सुभाषितावलौ कर्पूर इव दग्धोऽणि 51 राजशेखरः, बालरामायणम् III.11 कवेरन्तर्गतं भावं 42 भरतः, नाट्यशास्त्रम् VII.3 कस्य वा न भवति 34 काव्यं तु जातु जायेत 43 भामह : I.5 काव्ये रसयिता सर्व: 16 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् किं वृत्तान्तैः 60 भातङ्गदिवाकरस्येति सुभाषितावलौ कीर्तिं स्वर्गफलामाहु: 17 वामन: I.1 कुपिता: प्रसन्ना: 68 क्रोधोऽपि देवस्य 30 पाण्डवगीता 23 गृहेष्वध्वसु 53 भामह: III.9 गामश्वं पुरुषं पशुम 64 अथर्ववेद:, VIII.vii.11 तस्यास्त-मुखमस्ति 49

171

तान्यक्षराणि हृदये 79 बिल्हणस्येति शार्ङगधरपद्धती; कलशक्स्थेति सुभाषितावलौ, कुन्तकः, वक्रोक्तिजीवितम्, 1.62, II.62 (Dharwad edn.) 43 उत्पलदेव:, ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञा IV.ii.2 तुल्योदयावसानत्वात् 55 भामहः III.48 दीवडि तेल्लु णाहि 70 दूराकर्षण मोहमन्त्र: 35 अभिनवभारती, GOS I, p.296 दे आ पसिअ णिवनसु 61 धर्मार्थकापमोक्षेषु 80 भामह: 1.2 ध्वनिर्नामापरो योऽसौ 41 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् नखं नखाग्रेण 41 नायकस्य कवे: श्रतुः 42 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् निरूढा लक्षणा: काश्चित् 69 कुमारिल:, तन्त्रवार्तिकम्, p.700 (Chowkhamba edn.) निःश्वासान्ध इवादर्श: 13 वार्ल्मकिराभायणम् III.xvi.13 नेय विरौति भृद्गार्ल। 51 भागह: III.22 परसरोपकारण 56 उद्भट: V.13 पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन 52 रद्भटः IV.6 प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य 48 भामह: II.68 प्रत्ययैरनुपाख्यंयैः 63 भर्तृहरि:, वाक्यादीयम 1.83 प्रवातनीलोत्पल 56 कालिदासः, कुमारसम्भवम् 1.45 प्राणा येन समर्पिता: 59 भट्टेन्दुराज: प्रार्थये प्रसीद 61 भवव्रात हठात् 59 अभिनवगुप्तः, तन्त्रालोक: I.332 भो भो: किं किमकाण्ड एवं 49 भिन्नरुचिर्हि लोक: 30 कालिदास:, रघुवंशम्, VI.30 भम धार्मिक विस्रब्धं 21 हाल:, गाथासप्तशती II.75 मणि: शाणोल्लीढ : 50 भर्तृहरि:, नीतिशतकम् 35 मदो जनयति प्रीतिं 54 भामह, II.27 मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वं 39 वाल्मीकिरामायणम् I.ii. 15 यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेःन्योऽर्थ: 47 भामह : II.79 यदि नामास्य कायस्य 7 यद्विश्रम्य विलोकितेषु 36 भट्टेन्दुराज: यस्य विकार: प्रभवन् 61 रुद्रटः VII.380

172

याते द्वारवती 37 यावत्पूर्णो न चैतेन 39 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् युद्धे प्रतिष्ठा परमा 17 ये यान्त्यभ्युदये प्रीतिं 58 योऽर्थो हृदयसंवादी 16 भरतः, नाट्यशास्त्रम् VII.7 यं सर्वशैला: 41 कालिदास:, कुमारसम्भवम् I.2 यः संयोगवियोगाभ्यां 62 भर्तृहरि:, वाक्यपदीयम् II.102 राजहंसैरवीज्यन्त 48 उद्भटः 1.12 राम इव दशरथोऽभूत् 54 लोकोत्तरे हि गाम्भीये 9 वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्ति: 12 भामह: 1.36 दाग्धेनुर्दुग्ध एवं हि 41 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् विभावानुभाव- 75 भरतः, नाट्यशास्त्रम् VI विभावो विज्ञानार्थ: 74 भरतः, नाट्यशास्त्रम् VII विरुद्धालंक्रियोल्लेखे 54 उद्भट: V.20 विशेष्यं नाभिधा गच्छेत् 21 मीमांसका: वीतरागोऽपि सरागवत् 59 व्रज ममैव 32 शत्रुच्छेददृढेच्छस्य 52 शब्दप्राधान्यमाश्रित्य 40 भट्टनायक:, हृदयदर्पणम् शब्दश्छन्दोऽभिधानार्थाः 14 भामह: 1.9 शब्दस्योर्ध्वमभिव्यक्ते: 63 भर्तृहरि:, वाक्यपदीयम् 1.77 शब्दानामभिधानम् 14 उद्भट:, भामहविवरणम् शब्दार्थवर्त्यलड्-काराः 55 उद्भट: V.11 शशिवदना 55 अभिनवगुप्तः शृङ्गारहास्यकरुण- 37 भरतः, नाव्यशास्त्रम् V1.16 शृङ्गाराद्वि भवेद्धास्य: 35 भरतः, नाट्यशास्त्रम् VI.44 श्वंश्रूरत्र 31 हाल:, गाथासप्तशती VII.76 स एकस्त्रीणि जयति 51 भामहः III.24 सग्गमपारिजाअं 58 प्रवरसेन:, सेतुबन्धे IV.20 समाधिरन्यधर्मस्य 68 सरूपव्यञ्जनन्यास 9 उद्भट: 1.7 सादृश्याल्लक्षणा 14 वामन: IV.iii.8 सामान्यान्यन्यथासिद्धे: 22 कुमारिलः, श्लोकवार्तिकम् स्मर स्मरमिव प्रियं 55 होइ ण गुणाणुराओ 56

173

लोचनस्मृतग्रन्थकृतां सूी

भट्टेन्दुराज: 3, 36, 50, 59 अभिनवगुप्तस्य गुरु: उत्पल 43 अभिनवगुप्तस्य परमगुरु: उद्भट : 10, 14, 51, 52 कृतिः- (1)कान्यालङ्कारसारसंग्रह : (2) भामहविवरणम् चन्द्रिकाकार· 80 अभिनवगुप्तात् प्राचीन: ध्वन्यालोकटीकाकार: आनन्दवर्धनः 29 तत्त्वालोको नाम तस्य वेदान्तग्रन्थ: (महेश्वरानन्देन महार्थमञजरीपरिमले स्मृतः TSS 66, P.149) प्रवरसेन: 58 कृतिः - सेतुबन्श. भट्ट तीतः 42 अभिनवगुप्तस्य नाट्यशास्त्रे गुरु: भट्टनायक: 16, 20, 39, 40, 41 कृतिः- हृदयदर्पणम् 62,63 वाक्यपदीयकार: भानह: 14, 50, 53 कृतिः - काव्यालङ्कार: मनोरथ: 12 आनन्दवर्धनसमकालीनः कविः मुनिः (भरतः) 42 कृतिः - नाट्यशास्त्रम् मुनिः (वाल्मीकि:) 39 कृतिः - राभायणम् वामनः 14,50 कृतिः-कावालङ्कारसृत्रवृत्तिः (लोचनम्याख्याग्रन्थे)

अयः कुशीभि: 4 आ हन्त किगिदं 71 नादश्रुतिरवरग्राम 42 पवनाघट्टनात् 42 मन्दमध्यमतारा- 42 विरोधिव वसां 2 माघ: II.25 वीर: प्रताप- 4 धनञ्जय:, दशरूपकम् IV. 73 व्यवहारेषु नुद्धानां 28 सूचीमुखेनाष्ट- 4.2 स्वभावश्चायुमर्थानां 3 महिमभट्टः, व्यक्तिविवेक: I. 44