253. VY AK TIVIVERA 253

VY AK TIVIVERA 253

and he proposes a better reading as गेयस्य वाक्मयस्याहो अपर्यन्ता विचित्रता॥; 'सहसा विदधीत न क्रिर्या' (किरावा० II. 30) is वाक्यार्थविषयपौ- नरुकस्य, as the second half contains the same proposition as 'भविवेक: परमापदा पदं); 'यदा यदा दि धर्मस्य' (गीता 4.7) also exempli- fies पुनरुकतत्व, as अम्युत्थानमधमंस्य is the same os धर्मस्य ग्लानि: His position on the point of पुनरुकत is 'न च सामर्थ्यसिद्धेर्थें शब्दप्रयोगमाद्रियन्ते सत्कवयः' (p. 77) and 'सा (प्रतीतिः) च यावद्विरुपजायते तावतामेव प्रयोगो युक्तो नातिरिकानाम्' (p. 78), on which the commentary justly observes that poetry is not व्याकरणसुत्र (न हीदं वाक्यं लक्षषशाखं येन मात्रालाघवं चिन्त्यते। तत्रापि वा न नियमेन लाघवामाश्रितं महद्दिः' p. 44). Where there is a special sense intended there is no पौनरुक्त्य as in कुर्यां हरस्यापि पिनाकपागेः' (कुमार० III. 10). The fifth fault वाच्यावचन is treated of in pp. 84-109. An example is 'कमलमनम्भसि कमले कुवलये etc' (here the2nd word कमल should have been ex- pressed by a सर्वनाम 'तस्मिश्व कुशलये'). He says 'यत्रान्यस्यालक्कारस्य विषयेऽलक्वारान्तरनिबन्ध: सोपि वाच्यावचनं दोषः' (p.86) and instances 'मरवाचार्यस्तु दूरादेव दृष्टा राजानं शशिनमिव जलनिधिश्वचाल' (हर्षचरित III. para 20, here राजानं would also mean शशिनं and this is a proper subject for श्लेष and not उपमा as the poet has done). His position about श्लेष is 'तस्मादर्थान्तरव्यक्तिहेतौ कस्मिश्च नासति। यः श्लेषबन्ध- निर्बन्ध: क्लेशायैव कवेरसौ ।।' (p. 89) and that the piling up of श्लेषS for their own saike and for no other purpose is वाच्यावचन. He finds this fault (on p.95) in the verse (सवँकशरणमक्षयमधीशं which is भानन्दवर्धन's own and cited in ध्वo p. 123). He finds this fault in many of the instances of शग्दशक्तिमूलध्वनि cited by the ध्वन्यालोक. He winds up by saying that even great poets did not perceive these faults and instances उमावृषाक्की शरजन्मना यथा (रघु. 3. 23) as vitiated by पौनरुक्त्य, प्रक्रमभेद and अवाच्यवचन and there are faults in काव्यस्यात्मा धनिरिति (the first धवनिकारिका). In the last there is प्रक्रममेद as इति should be placed after भात्मा; there is also पौनरुकत्य, as ुष: and पूर्व need not have been mentioned (as समाम्नात itself expresses past tense). Several more faults are found and then he proposes to read the कारिका diff:rently (p. 112) to avoid most of these faults and then states his position briefly but firmly. व्यच्ति० p. 112 states how the first verse of ध्वन्यालोक should be read: तेन वरमयमत्र पाठः श्रेयानल्पदोषत्वाद्। काव्यस्यात्मे- त्यमलमतिभिर्यों ध्वनिर्नाम गीतस्तस्याभावं जगदुरपरे भक्तिरित्येवमन्ये। केचिद्राचाम- विषय रति प्रस्फुर तश्मन्तस्तेन बूमःसहश्यजनप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपम् 1. इति। ... तस्मातस्थित- मेतथथा शब्दस्याभिधानमन्तरेख न व्यापारान्तरं सम्भवतीति। गमयन्त्यर्थमुखेन दि सुसिक वचनादबोऽपरानर्थान्। तेन ध्वनिलद्षमविधी। शब्दग्रहयं विफलमेव।। इति सम्प्रहार्या।